swansont

But contending that the genetic framework was prepared with “intentionality” is the problem. It lacks evidence, and all you’ve offered is argument from incredulity. Further, you’re ignoring the large number of neutral mutations that remain neutral, and only looking at the small number that are or become beneficial. That’s confirmation bias (and I thought you didn’t like biases). What’s the “intentionality” of neutral mutations? (xpost with TheVat)

Which is it? Do you contend they happen together, or do they happen in sequence? What “coordination” is required? What do you mean by “primed”?

You haven’t specified what you mean by randomness, but certain phenomena follow statistical patterns that rely on probability. Radioactive decay, for example.

! Moderator Note Proselytizing not permitted here.

This is just sealioning. A seemingly innocuous question, but one that sidesteps the responsibility you have to learn the material. Any suggestion that it’s untrue is also argument from incredulity. And you own the burden of proof for showing this to be true. It’s not the default, even if evolution weren’t true. And you’re not getting there by cherry-picking studies and presenting narratives out of context.

It’s expected that easily-found data should be looked by the person starting the inquiry. Expecting others to dig it up is lazy. AFAICT Argentina has had pretty high inflation for several years. Go find the numbers.

Easily found with a search engine (sort of. the wcrf promises the data by country but it’s not on the page they served me) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cancer_rate US is ninth highest for cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (303 per 100k people). Japan 30th at 265, China 62nd at 200. (I suspect how long you’ve had heavy industrialization pouring carcinogens into the environment has an impact.)

These critics of evolution typically have an agenda and also have a poor understanding of evolution (partly because what they “learned” came from people with a poor understanding) Argument from incredulity isn’t really a counterargument.

No. There’s nothing that says a gene has to appear only after it would be an advantage. Neutral mutations exist. Eye color is a common example. If, somehow, blue eyes conferred an advantage, we wouldn’t have to wait for a mutation. How so?

I will note that nothing has been removed. Your posts have all been gathered into one thread, since there’s no reason to start multiple threads on the same topic, and it was placed in speculations, which is where it belongs, according to our protocols. Fe was used an actual experiment that matched a mass increase with an excitation energy, though I misremembered which isotope. It was Fe-65. The mass difference was measured in a Penning trap. I was not referring to Fe https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.132501 Shouldn’t the mass decrease if it’s higher in a nuclear potential, according to your hypothesis? Potentially yes, see above. The existence of an equation does not mean that it was derived from valid physics principles. The fact that you and I are posting means this is “published” so I don’t know what your complaint is Now that you’ve posted a more extensive work, let’s look at e-e+ annihilation. Your description very confusing, but you get two 511 keV photons out of it, and this is purely an electromagnetic interaction. No strong interaction, and it follows E=mc^2, which is in disagreement with your hypothesis.

We’ve locked the door behind Frank Martin DiMeglio

Using the word in its definition doesn’t really clarify much. What about intent to survive would circumvent natural selection?

What specifically do you mean by intention?

The amount spent on research also has to be placed in the context of a nation’s economy, as CharonY pointed out some time ago, and the available infrastructure. The US GDP is 10x that of the UK, so spending a lot more shouldn’t be surprising. And if the company doing the research is in the US, then the money gets spent in the US. Other countries still send people to the US to get educated, so one might think the infrastructure for academic research might be better. Spending money is moot if there’s nobody/no facilities to do the research.

Put another way: The theory of evolution is more subtle and complicated than any Cliff’s-notes-five-paragraph summary you might read, and, like any science topic, is more subtle and complicated than what you learn in high-school.

Any science to post? Or is this just wand-wavy shouting?

How is it that the mass defects of nuclei match with E=mc^2. That an isomer of Fe (I think it’s Fe-57) has the expected mass increase in the excited state, with respect to the photon energy? Any actual experimental evidence to back this up? Any theoretical basis for it? (i.e. can you derive these equations?)

No, it must be posted here. Not links, not attachments, and not word documents. See rule 2.7 https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

! Moderator Note Merged with previous thread covering same subject As we had previously discussed, it’s probably strongly influenced by that and the rest of for-profit healthcare

Right, because it’s physics, not philosophy of physics. Not me. I’m a physicist, not a philosopher

! Moderator Note We expect information for discussion to be posted here, not via links. What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? Is there any theoretical basis for this?

You previously presented mimicking as a behavior. How does one know if this is genetic? The question was about direction. Influencing survival is just natural selection. Direction implies you are developing a trait that is anticipating that the trait will be useful under different, not current, conditions.

The statistical argument is a shell game. It’s an argument used to justify a position that had already been reached. When it’s refuted, the proponent Gish-gallops to the next argument. Lack of/poor information isn’t the barrier. It’s fine to put better information out there, but it’s unlikely to change minds.

No equations and no problem solving means you aren’t doing physics. You can’t make any specific (i.e. quantitative) predictions. You’re making an outline of it.

! Moderator Note There’s no science here, so this doesn't rise to the level required for speculations