swansont

It was mostly nothing because people put in the time and effort to update code. Extra scrutiny on the rollover effects was insurance. Pretty cheap insurance, I think.

The hybrid is significantly heavier. (curb weight 4,145 to 4,715 lbs vs 5,030 to 5,410 lbs) I’m guessing batteries.

If that’s your summary then I think your reading comprehension needs improvement. Cognition plays a small role in evolution and it has not been ignored. It does not play a role as large as you seem to imply. Since biologists are aware of cognition and that it plays a role in evolution, evidence of that isn’t the issue. (I mean, you think altruism hasn’t been noticed?) You claimed intent was part of evolution, and the implication was that it was on equal footing with random mutations. That what you haven’t provided evidence for.

! Moderator Note Speculations requires a model that’s testable, and this isn’t close to that.

! Moderator Note I don’t see how the topic of a soul is biology, I don’t see any actual science here, and we don’t have a WAG forum.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone

Can it be figured out from the clues?

Why is this in Brain Teasers? Seems like a math question.

But there wasn’t a 3σ fit when the idea was put forward. That’s why it was speculative. And a 3σ fit is still short of a discovery. CERN has had intriguing bumps in data at 3σ which disappeared when more data was gathered. Carroll notes that supernovae, CMB, lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, and more, are all effects that must fit with the theory. You also want a different research group to confirm the model’s predictions.

You’re redefining cognition to the point where it’s meaningless, as has been pointed out before. You don’t get to define terms to mean what you want. If you want to discuss science you use science’s definitions. Stimulus-response is not cognition.

You should have caught on by now that simply stating something is insufficient. You need to back it up. If you continue to refuse to do so, there’s no point in discussion. As someone pointed out earlier, the vast majority of species are single-celled. So the claim is massive overreach and/or abuse of what cognitive means Trillions is a very small number in this context, and science isn’t ignoring it just because you’re unaware of it.

The model has been around for a while - it did not arise from current data. As Markus pointed out, it’s only a three-sigma fit, and there may be other phenomena that it needs to match. This could be like MOND, where it matches one anomaly but fails to line up with other data. I don’t know. We get pop-sci summaries (or press releases) much faster and widely distributed than we used to, but the actual science takes a while. It’s easy to get out over your skis.

Then stop acting like one. New information, or new-to-you information? If it’s from some other author it’s not new, as such. The author of this article is promoting a book, so the information here is likely several years old. That’s not actually a defense of what you’ve posted. If you would engage in robust scientific inquiry, there would be nothing to critique.

I saw a comment from Sean Carroll that basically says to remember there’s a difference from some speculative idea being floated, and actual discovery. This is the former. To be considered the latter requires evidence.

As the quoted question says, it’s post counts. Posts in certain areas (e.g. The Lounge) do not count toward post totals.

In case iNow’s point is unclear, consider that chromosomes often contain thousands of genes and there are millions of extant species, and a much larger number of extinct ones. You’ve pointed to a handful of examples where cognition plays a role. Which do you think is going to get more emphasis in studying the subject?

Which is a common attitude we get from crackpots. Maybe you shouldn’t act like that. Replace the physics bit with this evolution discussion in the last panel https://xkcd.com/675/

It directly impacts your lack of awareness. Also apparently your ability to Google and find many links about cognition and its impact on evolution. There’s also the hubris of thinking that you came up with something not already addressed by professionals in the field.

You can also compare the masses of free neutrons and protons vs that of H-3 and He-3, where the only difference is the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, and see if your equations work.

Which we already know is “yes” And you say this from the perspective of your vast knowledge of the topic? You provided an article which pointed to a few unusual cases; if this were common and a large piece of the puzzle, people would have noticed. But it’s still all under the umbrella of evolution; the issue of dependence on biology is extremely relevant. You seem to have a narrow view of evolution, but that’s an issue of your understanding, rather than the theory. Partly because of your history on the subject. We are not going to be discussing those details.

Some of these things might be vestigial features from previous iterations of the forum software

So what? Unless you can show that cognition is arrived at independent of genetics/biology, then there’s nothing about it that contradicts evolution.

! Moderator Note This is supposed to be a physics discussion, and there are rules for speculations. So morality and out-of-body are off-topic, and “in my opinion” is not an acceptable substitute for a model and evidence

There’s plenty of evidence of the former, but not the latter.

Really? People verify their information all the time in our threads. Did anyone say that it has to be personally verified? The point is that AI is known to fabricate information, rather than using reliable third-party references. A short time ago I wanted to know what the orbital velocity would be at the surface of the sun (to point out an absurdity of some claim). I figured someone had done the calculation, so I Googled it. The AI summary said it couldn’t be calculated. We don’t need such nonsense introduced into scientific discussions.