Ringer

No to all the above. There is no latent telepathy present from our primordial prehistory anymore than there are latent gills just waiting to be used.

He is obliged to do so. Even requires that there are unbiased observers, as much as media and such can be unbiased, are there so he cannot shirk after the fact. He also is required to have the money he is offering in a bank account at all times while offering the prize or else he couldn't write it off for his foundation. So what reason does he have to not give it sense it's just sitting in a bank and he is contractually required to do so? We dealt with Vinko and found him, to be nice, much less than convincing of any of his claims.

If telepathy was real it probably would have been shown in the age of parapsychology and someone would have claimed the money from the Amazing Randi

I think we all have broken internet rule 14

Virtually your entire argument seems to be an argument from personal incredulity. Please instead of taking insult to peoples thoughts, including this, produce all this evidence you have. Even enough of it to disprove our currently held concepts of naturally occurring diversity, one of the most supported theories in existence. If this little forum's response to your hypothesis bothers you this much prepare yourself for the real scientific establishment. Even if you are right, which I personally doubt but am ready to look at your evidence and be swayed, your hypothesis will be put through a real trial that I don't know if you're ready for. Consider this a time to review your ideas and truly prepare yourself. But before anyone can help you you will have to produce your evidence. [edit] Spelling [/edit]

No single person decides anything in a language. People either use words or they don't. If they use the words sometimes archaic spelling stay around even though the word has morphed to sound different. Sometimes spelling changes and the word stays the same. There is no one person to blame.

Any particular reason why transplanting a brain would be impossible?

There could be any number of reasons that some salt residue may be in the pyramids, many of them much more probable than alien intervention. ajb, I think the last of the cybermen were sucked into the void right before Rose was lost to another dimension. We should be safe. . . for now.

Are you trying to say it's only wrong if you get caught/punished?

Thought doesn't travel faster than light, it's electrical and chemical signals. Neither of these travel faster than light. To the OP, if there were a virus like this it would be unbelievably difficult for it to maintain the kind of activity forced upon the host. The enhanced metabolism would cause the host to die very quickly. It's possible a virus like that to exist, but it wouldn't be very productive.

Well that anthropologist apparently doesn't realize that neither evolved from each other. Rather they evolved from a single common ancestor. Like I said in my first post, read up on evolutionary theory before trying to challenge it. [edit] If you don't have a subscription to Science Here's a link to the study, which does not say that apes evolved from humans. Rather our common ancestor may have had more bipedal and hominid like than previously thought [/edit]

So you disbelieve scientific theories because they are willing to change when new evidence comes to light that disputes current thinking? That makes sense. You say you have researched evolutionary theory for a long time, if that's true then your post shouldn't contain any misconceptions about evolution. So let's take a look at your post. (I'll just bold things that are blatant misconception about how science and evolution work) That is something that happens to all scientific theories. So with this premise all scientific theories are rubbish. It is also preposterous to think that endothermic animals could have evolved twice by chance. It is also insane to think a 4 chambered heart could evolve more than once. So birds and mammals must be more closely related than birds and alligators. Never mind the vast anatomical, historical, and molecular data; I choose to use an argument from incredulity. That is the long winded version of saying you are using a logical fallacy. The first sentence I agree with, but the rest is plainly wrong. Do you truly believe your brain takes a long time to change? Have you read a book about brain plasticity? How about dendrites forming and being pruned in minutes. But the main thing is that it doesn't matter, for the most part, what happens to change in our lifetime. What matters is what changed in the progeny of a species. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you saying we evolved from the same ancestors of amphibians and reptiles? That just blew my mind. . . . and what in evolutionary theory says that species change overnight? Again I need more than your personal opinion on this. Why don't you think changes in the brain occur often and fairly speedily? No it doesn't. What about hooves? Does that disprove the evidence for common ancestry of dogs and horses? Or is it believable because you can personally believe it and your logical fallacy doesn't extend that far? Do you really believe that cortical folding is so uncommon in mammals? Convergent evolution? How about that some things may be discarded in an evolutionary time scale? What is your evidence that neither of these can happen and only whatever explanation you are trying to push fits all the evidence we have? Yes, it's only anatomical differences that evolutionary biologists look at. We don't have a ridiculous amount of molecular evidence supporting the theory. On a side note why do you only capitalize the D in DNA, not trying to be a grammar Nazi but it bothers me for some reason. Again, according to your proposition, neither could a four chambered heard, being endothermic, eyes, wings, etc. This is an empirical question not a logical one, so you need to provide some evidence on why evolution is wrong and how cortical folding couldn't have evolved multiple times. So you start with saying that the theories always change so they can't be right, then end with scientists refuse to see when they are wrong and will not challenge the theories that are now held. . . doesn't that strike you as a little contradictory? Really? Conspiracy theories now? So what are you proposing as an alternative, although I can probably guess.

Any particular reason other than your personal opinion? Cooking food didn't favor bigger skulls, cooking food, probably, allowed us to use the energy that used to be used for metabolizing for other things. One of those things happen to be our brain. Smaller jaws didn't necessarily favor bigger skulls, it was probably the other way around. When our brain and skull grew our jaws happen to become smaller.

Since we're bipedal we would be very off balance if we tried to run on our hands and feet.

Why don't you take into account the different stages of sleep, and how would you get any of these measurements.

If you think that through all the years of evolutionary theory no one noticed species that are not at all closely related have common trait and never gave an explanation you need to actually read evolutionary theories. After you do that and read up on evolutionary developments of brains and brain regions you should see if this question still holds any ground. [edit] Figured I would help you get started. [/edit]

Actually the largest brain to body mass ratio is the shrew IIRC. Rodents and humans also have very similar brain to body ratios, with rodent winning. So although the ratio between body mass and brain mass is alright as a rough estimate of intelligence it is nowhere near the final say.

I asked how this is so and I asked for evidence. This is nothing but mind wandering rants. How about you show why your theory of gravity is better than the current one. Then come up with some evidence of aether, then you can give predictions on how the holes form. Then give evidence about how those holes form into different celestial bodies. How your theory explains the appearance of heavy atoms more so than a pressure of a dying star. So at the moment you have nothing to back the statement that dinosaurs must have experienced anything. So fossilized bones happen to be filled after death with stuff that is virtually identical to bone? Birds are not always light, Ostriches can weigh up to 300 pounds, although they don't have the hollow spots that flying birds have. Even then birds can weigh quite a bit in comparison to their skeletal system. Then you can look at all the animals that are light with hoofs, sheep, goats, etc. Also, fish had fins long before dinosaurs were around so the change in gravity would have nothing to do with that. So could you cite evidence to any of this? I have no idea what your last statement means.

I'm fairly certain snowflakes are hexagonal because of the properties of the hydrogen bonds in the water atom. How is Aether pressure gravity, and what evidence do you have of this. In what way is gravity counter acted by magnetism and how does it affect your theory. Why isn't the bone density of all early animals much lower due to the lower pressure of gravity?

Well you could always look at population density vs external debt or public debt. Either way you look at it you hypothesis doesn't hold up. Say you look at Population Density Public Debt External Debt Australia; ranked 235(2011), 107th (~2010), and 14th (2010). Netherlands; 30th (2011) 27th (2010) 5th (2009) United States 179 (2011) 37 (2010) 1st (2011) UK 53rd (2010) 23 (2010) 2nd (2010) Canada 230 (2010) 14th (2010) 15th (2010) It goes on, but the point I'm trying to make is that it the population density doesn't directly correlate in debt in any way. I use population density because it seems to be a fair comparison because immigration increases population density. [edit] I had the table set up all nicely but it formats it differently when it posts so I apologize for the messiness [/edit]

IIRC the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem was a little over one hundred pages. That's of a mathematical proof. I'm sure there are longer ones for physical theories, so 300 pages isn't unthinkable for a unifying theory. [edit] I got curious and Here's a link to the longest proof

I'm sure you have heard this before, so where's your evidence? Just some things I noticed on your link (I'm not an expert in physics so I could be mistaken). Why would one of the forces work only on iron and nothing else? Why are your forces always attractive? When you say electricity do you mean volts, amps, columbs, etc.? Why is the Veegatron constant at 2 Newton? Tell how it does the things you say it does instead of just saying it does them. How does the energy transfer into the atom? Etc etc

You could always just have people anonymously fill out things they would like people to know about the work environment. Anonymity would give them the courage to actually write what they think. Of course you would have the jack asses that fill it out stupidly but those should be fairly easy to spot.

We have the technology (we an rebuild him ) but we don't have the knowledge. There's quite a few differences in our genes and apes, even apes and apes, so we would have to know all of our genes and all the ape's genes that need to be change. We would also know how they interact, if there will be any effect on other genes after the change and what they will be, and if this would case the rise of the planet of the apes . Personally I don't think this is really unethical, though the experiments leading up to it may be more unethical. Inserting and altering genetic sequences can have various unfortunate consequences. Things like this could easily cause unforseen consequences that could case the animals various amounts of pain and suffering. So I don't think altering genetic sequences in itself is unethical, but the consequences of the early experiments could easily be seen as unethical.

Maybe. Like I said, I'm not very good with botany; most of what I know comes from my academic advisor, who is a botanist, that wants to tell me all about plants in every situation. But I would assume that it is very possible for tomato plants to hybridize with each other fairly easily. How many generation would it take for them to do so I haven't the faintest. But you could always do it yourself. Here's a guide.