JillSwift

Nonsense question. Without death there would be no evolution.

Was that gag order in violation of the 1688 bill of rights, after all? Hip hip for the "Streisand Effect"!

I'm not British, but that still bothers the living hell out of me. Please don't stand for this. I don't want our politicians getting any ideas.

== Welcome!

I'm not berating you, hon. I'm sorry if it came out that way.

PV may be the company name, mark, or somesuch. Z87+ is an ANSI standard for face protection. The following link is to a manufacturer who explains some recent changes in the standard, which is the best thing I could find that explains what it is. http://www.bullard.com/Industrial/ansiZ87.shtml

Am I wrong to think this conversation has become a matter of "if we mess with the definition enough, we can get 'telepathy' to mean something that exists"?

This does not explain the acceleration of the lesser mass toward the heavier mass when the lighter mass already has velocity tangential to the greater mass. The interior of Earth is significantly denser than the material on its surface. If denser material expands faster, why has the crust not been broadly split? What are the differences in rate of expansion, by mass? Given the rate of expansion you claim through via "objects are smaller in the distance" idea, if there is a difference in rate of expansion by density, shouldn't we have already run out of atmosphere, and the vastly denser Earth has out-expanded it?

So, how does this "model" explain orbits? Everything expanding at one another wouldn't accelerate mass already in motion away from more mass. EDIT: Also, why do helium balloons float rather than expand 'till they touch the earth?

I think this is the "argument from snottiness' fallacy.

Pardon me, Sir, do youhave any Grey Poupeon?

You offer no evidence in that post. You don't address the question of where the energy is coming from to keep all this rapidly expanding matter bound to itself. That is: Why aren't electrons peeling away from their protons? If the smaller particles are expanding too, what's keeping them bound? If everything from the quantum to the cosmological is all expanding, how could we detect it? More importantly, you've not answered the question: "Is there any evidence we could produce for you that would convince you that it's all just geometry?"

Psst, Jill has a bad habit of using "troupe" when she means "troop".

Unfortunate for you, then, that this is a science forum. Can you offer the slightest evidence that matter is expanding? Especially at the rate necessary to produce the effects you are claiming. How is the matter remaining bound as it expands? That requires energy - where's the new energy coming from?

So, is there any evidence we can show you that would convince you of the geometry involved?

Behavior - especially social behavior - and intelligence aren't all that intertwined. If this genius chimp happens to have an intelligence that allows him or her to be a better manipulator of social structures, then said chimp will be very successful. If the intelligence is more focused on tool building, then his or her social instincts are going to be the decider in success within the troupe. If the chimp's social instincts are significantly divergent, then he or she is going to fail within the troupe - unless the intelligence gives him or her the ability to grasp the social structure and imitate or manipulate it. SImilarly, if the chimp is of lesser intellect, his social skills will still be the primary measure of success unless he or she is incapable of learning "cultural" behavior. In short, the particular skills of the new intelligence have some effect on the chimp's success in the troupe, but his or her social skills will be paramount.

Well, that's easy enough to clear up. Fetch some independent, peer-reviewed articles studying the phenomena that backs up your interpretation. Also, here's a robot's "impressionable bar": ==================================== Here it is with a dark object in the distance: ==================================== (No differentiating of the light, because there's no lens to focus it.) Here it is with the dark object closer: ************************************ (Less light, but still no differentiation.) With he object practically touching (assuming the object is roughly cylindrical): =----*****8888888MMMM888888*****----= (Finally, some differentiation, as the light is partially blocked by the object and partly let by.) Now, that's with "ambient light" - light reflecting off many surfaces. However, if we back-light the object with a single bright point of light (like a bright light-bulb); Here's the object at a distance, as seen by the "impressionable bar": 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888 As it gets closer: ===8888888888888MMMMM88888888888888=== Very close: ================8MMM8=============== Do the experiment - In a dark room with a single desk lamp on, cast your hand's shadow on the wall. See how the shadow gets "larger" when it's closer to the bulb, and "smaller" as it approaches the wall. With the wall representing the "impressionable bar". Similarly, do the experiment outside in sunlight. There will be no shadow until you are very close to the wall, and it will appear "larger" than your hand until it's almost in contact.

No! Never run! That just makes you look like prey. Stay calm, don't look the admin in the eyes - avert your eyes. Keep your head low, and slowly back away from the administrator. I'm a take a guess at the answer (Full disclosure: I'm quite ignorant of physics and cosmology.). The universe appears to be expanding only because light naturally redshifts (a frequency shift due to a reduction in energy) over vast distances. This is caused by light bumping into "dark matter" that absorbs a small portion of the photon's energy and converts it to gravity. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Let me draw you a second picture. It's all about the lens in the eye and how it refracts light.

Neveos: Your field of view is conical. Let me draw you a picture...

The best example of this phenomenon is actually Mythbusters. Good science makes sucky TV, but explodey science makes great TV. Same thing for sci-fi. (Or SyFy... whatever.)

Well, I do consider determinism to be at the heart of the emergent phenomenon called "mind". However, intelligence does require forethought - and in turn experience/memory, and the ability to make connections between those memories internally or simply without other influence. There is zilch evidence for the above, and no need for it in order to explain speciation. So, the best conclusion at this point: Evolution isn't intelligent.

Why "goal" and not "effect", Mr. Skeptic?

Anyone in the right place with the right 'scope going to watch this? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091008-nasa-moon-bombing-lcross-water-crash.html

Sisyphus already answered this one well. There is no fallacy to name. My analogy is simple (as analogies tend to be): The mesh is the environment, and the grain size is a phenotype. The mesh makes no decisions, doesn't think about what size of grain might fit through it, and otherwise does nothing that is associated with intelligence. It's simply a condition of environment. You keep trying to include value judgments in the natural selection process - this is an entity that is not necessary to explain speciation, nor is there evidence to support such an entity. As such, it should be discarded.