Itoero

This is what Strange said: "refraction is due to the interaction of the photons with electrons but they continue to move at c. " The Compton and Rayleigh scattering is about the interacting of photons with electrons (or atoms or molecules) which cause refraction. I don't get how that's irrelevant. It's also a direct reply on my own question in the OP.

It's all about the energy of a photon. We observe different colors due to a change in photon energy. The amount of energy is directly related to the photon's electromagnetic wavelength and frequency.

No. Macro evolution can be divided in micro evolutionary processes. for example: House sparrows were introduced to North America in around 1852. Since that time, the sparrows have evolved different characteristics in different locations...this is micro evolution. A sparrow is a bird and evolved from reptiles/dinosaurs. The evolution dinosaur-sparrow is macro evolution. So the evolution to those sparrows with different characteristics is micro evolution if you take the introduced house sparrow as starting point but it's macro evolution when you take the dinosaurs as starting point. Macro and micro are prefixes used to define certain amounts of evidence. No. Those are terms to define set evidence and since scientists use the terms it's obviously useful and a proper scientific term. It's of course not defined which process is micro and which is macro...it depends on the context.

citation?

I think your have a wrong (or different) idea of macro evolution. Macro-evolution deals with the same evidence as micro evolution or evolution. I Take the evolution of cetaceans (fully aquatic marine mammals) as example. They think they evolved from ungulates 50 million years ago. Many transitional forms have been found and studied. The evolution ungulates=>whales is macroevolution and implies a huge amount of evidence. The evolutionary processes between the transitional forms are microevolution. Evolution is a continuous process, macroevolution and microevolution are not continuous, they imply a process with a set start and end-point.

That's correct but on YouTube I noted many people don't understand/know there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. On Wikipedia for example all the articles about evolution start with something like this: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution They call the geologic evolution of the earth, the geological history of the earth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Why is that process not evolution? The process that created dinosaurs is evolution...Abiogenesis might still be going on but in a different way then when it formed first life. Abiogenesis is often called chemical evolution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution 'Evolution' is just a term that points to how matter changes trough time. There is for example geologic evolution. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17819825

Why do many people make a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution? The process that led to the forming of life is subject to survival of the fittest trough natural selection just like the Darwinian evolution of life. For example: -The energy of photons (light) can work as catalyst to form organic matter but the formed matter must be fit enough not to break apart due to the photon energy. You might call this survival of the fittest molecules. -In the Miller Urey, the applied energy forms amino acids but also limits the size since the formed amino acids have to be resistent (or be fit enough)not to break apart because of the applied energy.

Don't you think scientists that study evolution are better suited to judge things like that? You are clearly filled with misconceptions due to creationists.

Playing 'Shadow of war'. The scenery/graphics are super! You can even mount a drake. This is a huge game.

In error? Scientists use it because it's a convenient word.

All evolution is not micro evolution. All evolution is evolution. 'micro' and 'macro' are prefixes used to note the time of an evolutionary process. There basically ends an infinite amount of micro and macro evolutionary processes every second.

I completely agree. Those terms are used to 'categorize' evolutionary processes according to their time scale. In a sense, a macro evolutionary process exists out of micro evolutionary processes. It's all about the context they are in. The process that formed a Tamaskan dog out of several dog breeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamaskan_Dog you can call micro evolution and the process that formed a Tamaskan dog from a wolf is macro evolution. Here you find info concerning the origin...it has nothing to do with creationists.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Origin_of_the_term

I think the great apes Capuchin monkeys are imo too small and too adapted to live in trees...this decreases their chance to spread while increasing in population because they need to evolve a lot to become the apex predator. The great apes ( esp bonobo-chimpanzees ) already have a good size, need to evolve less to live on the ground and are better adapted for using tools.

It's of course not proven to be possible but it seems like DNA developed from single stranded RNA. DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, since the “normal” ribose sugar in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the “simple” base uracil is methylated into thymidine. The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome, possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds. This paper concerns the origin and evolution of DNA, I found it very interesting! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ DNA developed probably from RNA so first they imo need to theoretically know how RNA developed. I don't think it will ever be possible to form DNA in an experiment like the miller-urey. If there is ever a model that explains abiogenesis then they can hopefully experimentally proof certain processes in that model.

The inelastic scattering of photons (x or gamma) by electrons (or other charged particles) is called: Compton scattering. It results in a decrease in energy which increases its wavelength. This can happen because the energy of the photon is much larger then the binding energy of the atomic electron then the atomic electron acts like a free electron. You have also the inverse Compton effect where photons gain energy. Rayleigh scattering is the (mostly) elastic scattering of electromagnetic radiation by atoms or molecules which have to be much smaller then the wavelength of the radiation. Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere causes diffuse sky radiation, which is the reason for the blue color of the sky and the yellow tone of the sun itself. The red colour in the sky at sunset is due to the fact that when you receive photons from the sun, the photons have to travel through more of the atmosphere which is nearer to earths surface which makes it more dense. This removes a significant proportion of the shorter wavelength (blue) and medium wavelength (green) light from the direct path to the observer. The remaining light is therefore mostly of longer wavelengths(lower energy) and appears redder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

You are correct.

And? No smoking anymore?

So a photon 'interacts' with particles in whatever medium it is and it always travels at c. Only the observable light can slow down and bend according to the medium . Correct?

If a photon travels through glass , does it move at c?

I read the kinetic energy of a photon goes to infinity when a photon reaches c. Is that possible?( E=hf ) Does the wavelength/frequency of a photon changes depending on the medium?

Why do you people never react on things that matter? " It is impossible to "weigh" a stationary electron, and so all practical measurements must be carried out on moving electrons. The same is true with any other sub-atomic particle. For particles like photons or gluons the situation is even more problematic since the very concept of a stationary or "at rest" massless particle lacks meaning...you can't detect massless particles. " =>Do you deny this? " A wave has relativistic mass, if you measure it the you get invariant mass." =>Do you deny this?

You are kidding right? So basically, E=mc² is not correct? You deny scientific 'facts' and invent your own science.

I don't think 'purpose'' is the correct word. 'Purpose' is too open for interpretation. I think it's better to talk about 'reason'. There is a reason why my friend gave me a cake and for the characteristics of the universe...