foodchain

I have to agree. Not to know on math but it cant be used as a stand alone for figuring out reality around us. This has been demonstrated more times then I could care to find out about really. Math is super useful, in just about anything I imagine to some extent. This is a blatant misuse of such. You see, nobody probably knows more pain about trying to put reality to math then a physics person, and even they still have to test gigantic amounts of math against reality on regular basis. Why do you think they do this, the testing of the prediction you think?

So your book may have math, which I don’t understand to be honest in its entirety, but do you have any tests, or anything empirical to offer beyond what you did divulge?

I mean I can do a math equation to a lawn showing mowing it would involve infinite work, I don’t however think 10square yards of soil to mow would take infinite energy unless I am missing something.

Foodchain,

I don't want to subtract natural selection; I want evolutionary biologists to have a realistic view of the impact of natural selection on evolution.

Right, but I think natural selection is that. Even if you have a mechanism in biology that supports in some robust manner in defining evolution, say DNA for instance, where can you subtract natural selection from the equation?

I might be getting confused but evolution by natural selection is more or less a giant umbrella term for anything big and small. Simply because in reality its what can survive to reproduce that makes it for instance. Regardless or not if a predator cant hunt to any success it will die out. To deep sea vents. The organisms occupying such are allowed to simply because they evolved via natural selection to be able to, this is found in comparisons within biodiversity and ecology. So this has to then work all the way down to a cellular molecular level. Else I don’t see how variation in genomes comes to mean all that much.

I think another issue is the idea of natural perfection so to speak. IN many cases I don’t know how you rate any trait natural selection could work on from a scale of doing the best it could physically do, to being just enough to satisfy survival. I also do not understand how you can pick apart down to very discrete units with perfect separation from the rest of the organism and thusly ecology. I think such problems are the paramount issues today in regards to study in molecular biology really, at least in medical concerns. Which of course diversity via evolution in an intraspecies domain boggles down medical advance. why are some people allergic to something and not others? Which of course that question to can be environmental more so then intrinsic as gene function naturally without any environment, which of course does not exist in nature.

You could attach pumps to the outside of the dome and then have them drill through to the inside. The pumps can be used to pump air into the dome (possibly from the surface) and pump the water (if any is in there) out.

 

To get in and out, you could attach an "Airlock" to the outside of the dome.

 

First you would need to make a water tight seal to the dome, say a large rubber ring pressed against the side (or welded on) of the dome.

 

Next you need to attach the Airlock to the seal. The airlock contains a set of two doors and a pump that can pump water and air into and out of the Airlock (maybe with connections to the surface to get the air to pump into the airlock).

 

Once this Airlock is attached to the Dome, you can flood the inner chamber (between the double doors) of the Airlock with water and open the outer door. Get into the airlock (with drilling equipment) and close the outer doors. Next, pump air into the Airlock and the water out.

 

You can now open the inner doors to expose the outer surface of the Dome. Using the Drilling equipment you can then drill through the wall of the Dome and form a passage into the interior of the Dome.

 

Entering the dome will require you to (the inner and outer doors doors should both be sealed except when needed for this procedure):

1) Flood the airlock with water

2) Open the outer doors of the Airlock

3) Enter the Airlock through the outer doors

4) Seal the outer doors of the Airlock

5) Pump air into the Airlock and pump the water out

6) Open the inner doors of the Airlock

7) Enter the Dome through the inner Doors

8) Seal the inner doors

 

Exiting the Dome will require you to (the inner and outer doors doors should both be sealed except when needed for this procedure):

1) Pump the water out of the Airlock and Pump air in.

2) Open the inner doors

3) Enter the Airlock

4) Seal the inner doors

5) Pump water into the airlock and the air out

6) Open the outer doors

7) Leave the Airlock through the outer doors

8) Seal the outer doors

Unless you could modify the membrane to operate some form of procedure similar to diffusion or osmosis. Of course it would not work out to be the same but I imagine a fully controllable membrane could have things like entropy tweaked along with of course physical chemistry subjects or physics or what not to allow permeation of the membrane by a recognized object. Maybe a spray on chemical perhaps or even some kind of programmable logic done on a chemical level, I hear people work on that stuff. Something involving the ability to use lasers to make I think a security code in a chemical reaction or something, its been some time since I have read anything on it.

The door lock and related sound to hard structurally speaking for the membrane I envision really. I am thinking more along the lines of a bigger version of a living cell, or somewhat modified to the extent of how living cells work perhaps? The doorway idea sounds suitable as maybe just certain aspects of the cell maintain a permeable port so to speak, maybe with some apparatus. I don’t know the extent of nano tech or nanotubes for that instant but if such could be used to some extent by a computer system it would I think enhance functional capability along with other technologies. I don’t think such would have to be in the nano end directly to modern standards. A pulse of information can come into a Varity of forms, all a receiver piece would have to supply for is connection of such information into a comp.

No, I consider "true" and "demonstrably true" to be very separate things.

 

Also, I believe it is impossible to have a system where any statement has a zero probability of being true. For example, I would expect one of the phrases "things fall down" and "it is not the case that things fall down" to be true, even if it were impossible to prove which one is actually true.

 

I hold that while it is possible to say true things about the universe, it is impossible to prove that they are true beyond any shadow of doubt. So every theory must forever be considered potentially false. I also believe that it is possible to estimate the probability of a theory being true, and its accuracy.

Yes but that whole statement is vastly complex and open to error in interpretation. As nature stands now for that to be true at some point on the earth someone throwing an object up into the air should have that object go against the laws of physics, such as escape the earths gravity for instance. I don’t know of anything like that to be honest and I think such an example speaks clearly on the issue.

I guess it comes down to when someone can say about something that 100% empirical understanding has been reached. Personally I don’t think humanity is in any position to claim when this will be but I do think it exists again going from reality. A simple example is the evolution of germs in human thought. Germs in western culture existed but of course not in thought at one point, countering such ignorance with the concept of germs was actually a hard battle to win which could be viewed as both good or bad I guess or neutral depending on the observer. The reality as it stands now though is we do know about germs. This empirical proves we can learn and understand the physical world around us. Unless you are saying information is infinite not in form but sheer volume to be learned then I think its possible to know everything. What I mean is of course is the universe is not frozen or static, giving the reality of string theory, QM, and of course evolution who knows what forms or possible realities nature can have, but its still just nature at work, which unless again is infinite outside of form alone, I think it could be understood to 100% type levels.

I think that’s also a bit of a math like argument as to why infinity is a hard concept.

Yes but having three dimensions on its own could entail the change or maybe even bring about another dimension

"Unfortunately, the advantages of discrete models, which are receiving increasingly serious consideration from the scientific and philosophical communities, are outweighed by certain basic deficiencies. Not only do they exhibit scaling and nonlocality problems associated with their “display hardware”, but they are inadequate by themselves to generate the conceptual infrastructure required to explain the medium, device or array in which they evolve, or their initial states and state-transition programming. Moreover, they remain anchored in materialism, objectivism and Cartesian dualism, each of which has proven obstructive to the development of a comprehensive explanation of reality. Materialism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful nonmaterial aspect, objectivism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful subjective aspect, and although Cartesian dualism technically excludes neither, it arbitrarily denies that the mental and material, or subjective and objective, sides of reality share common substance.5"

This is from your link fred56. This whole paragraph needs to be destroyed to be honest, its pure junk science if even that, it might just be junk. Subjective views are not the same as objective views. Everyone has a subjective view of a multitude of things in life, even Hitler had a real bad one. Objective views are different in that regard, for the connect to the empirical or what is real outside of human thought. Its empirical that gravity exists, current hypothesis on such is subjective until otherwise proven empirically as objective. This field or what you call it is a massive hybrid that does have some good points such as the various separations of natural sciences that I see as a problem for lack of communication in regards to the idea that they all study nature. This problem though will not be solved by this theory.

I can appreciate the concept of reality theory, one that seeks to explain in detail what everything really is to the best of our abilities. I don’t see however how this can possibly work. First of all anything theological is outside of the scope of science period, it always will be as far as I know. You reference something super natural and in point the only way to make any verifications of something is using god of the gaps or god did it with no actual way to prove such, if you can counter this argument truly I would probably explode.

Maybe just maybe one of the problems with science currently is not a problem at all also. Zero in many operations is undefined, zero in reality means it does not exist in many cases. Case point, caveman had zero understanding of the microwave oven. Maybe science just does not know everything yet but is a gradual process. I want to know everything, i honestly do, I don’t see this as a viable route to such from its stated structure and function.

My friend MOO if I may, I just seen a photo of our planet earth from one of our space ships beyond Saturn. The Earth looked like a pinhead so small that it would not even be missed in space.

 

Then when you think of you and I on its surface, and our own short life cycle, why would you believe that your argument about my statement The Universe's Intelligent Design of this earth and its species is not valid. Who do you think really did it? I do not want to get into the samanics of our creation. -but it was not an Earthman's created god I assure you.

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

 

Please do not take this debate back to religion as it is not in my area of science either. As a Physist believe you me my book The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution does prove the many questions that you and others have raised.

 

 

 

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

How do you prove the existence of the universe via evolution by intelligent design. The whole sentence makes no sense to me to be honest.

I am very interested in the idea of evolution as applied outside of the scope of life from the reality of natural selection holding an environmental property. I don’t however know how to go about actually trying to apply such to anything outside of life, which is of course part of the universe and related physical phenomena. You see, part of the problem with organic evolution as it relates to being applied by principle of natural selection to cosmic function is in difference. Many people support in large a degree of determinism from the bang to now. Trying to apply such strict determinism to life simply falls apart to keep things short. Life though has sustained itself for billions of years though, but that does not have to have the exact same physical basis as for the origin or reality of things like galaxies I would say even while issues like quantum mechanics would also apply to life. Maybe determinism is just not fully understood, or the reality the word or math describes is not fully understood like the definition or concept really of time.

What I never understood about time seems to me as some duality of its understanding. For instance I have heard so many times that time is a dimension that you cant poke with a stick, or in short it has physical properties that are real and not real:confused: I can accept time as a dimension in which physics professionals can use the argument powers of math to make solid predictions of the universe thus understanding, but this does not tell me what time is or if its real or not. Relativity gives a definition to time, but relativity cannot be fully integrated with other physical models of the universe, so obviously its either something missing, or something in some model is wrong. Though I don’t know the definition of time from a quantum perspective, it does seem to differ from that of a relativity perspective? Maybe its just the scale of things involved, and the interaction of matter and energy from the subatomic to the galactic at work, but such is only a sentence and hardly an answer.

I think this is why physics wont use anything but math for models. When a mathematical argument works and predicts phenomena, there is no need to go any farther I guess, or really to me this means how do you go farther, how do you describe what mass is outside of math that reflects the true reality of mass throughout all physical reality. I can look at this as a shallow means of understanding, but in reality it may be all humans can do currently in regards to understanding. Such would seem not true giving the idea of what advances other scientific fields have made without relying purely on math, but observation and experiment, which I think validates empirical means works too. Which in reality is the final test of predictions in physics. All of this I think still escapes the question though is when can you say with absolute precision what something is outside of a mathematical description in regards to what physics studies. Mass has certain properties other stuff does not:D

That’s the best I can do for mass I think.

Hmm. You might need to explain what you mean by 'physical thought' -thought "emerges" from biology, we surely aren't the only lifeforms who can think or have a conscious notion of "self". Studies have indicated that some other animals (orang-utans, chimps, dolphins?) have a "theory of mind", because they react to their reflection in a mirror, for instance. A blue-green alga would not have anything like this (no neurons, in fact only chemical "communication"), but must have some sort of 'map', or it would not be able to respond (as it does) to external stimuli...

The concept of a model of the universe without life is interesting if you consider that a model needs to be 'remembered' in some consciousness.

Well what I mean by physical thought is that thought is physical, it has a physical basis typically being the brain for humans and I would imagine other animals also. I covered the point about other animals in regards to the idea of evolution being what lead to the CNS and brain, I thought you would understand that sorry on my part.

In reality of physics or the universe I have no idea what it means. Going from the idea that natural selection has basically aided to the greatest extent the extinction of huge numbers of species on up I cant really go along with any idea of something intelligent behind it. Its not only this but reality of life currently does not seem to support such a notion either. The physical reality as I understand it is life was a possibility that occurred. Now what this means I have no real ability to speak on, what it will mean for the future I don’t have any means to speak on either. I just know that thought as in human thought or related such as puma thought for whatever that is exactly is biological in origin thusly relating to organic evolution heavily via natural selection. So for a physical description one would have to understand this reality evolutionarily speaking from a cellular/molecular level all the way up to an ecological level. To transfer all of such into equations I am sure is possible but I don’t think such is possible at this point. So for a physics related answer that’s the best I can give. It is easy to study the evolution of the CNS to a certain extent without heavy prior understanding of biology really.

For example, without the extinction of the dinosaurs, I seriously doubt mammals would be where they are at right now, a huge and complex brain relativity speaking also did not seem to be prevalent in current understandings of dinosaur physiology, though the extent of dino intelligence is a disputed issue still, and how could you say it would be beneficial and spread through dinosaur population at any giving time from any specie? You run into ecology which when studied under biodiversity reflects just that in connection with natural selection.

Overall to induce intelligent anything I think falls outside the scope of what can be studied currently. Evolution and life on its own is an intense enough of an application to warrant its own field of many aggregate fields. Reality is truly complex and as such development of understanding is really slow for the most part. Natural selection and evolution and human thought is a perfect example of this, but the reality of natural selection as it impacts life is not something understood very quickly, you have to actually study life to see it, not an equation really at this point. Genetics has some equations that are decent for such a purpose but noting definite yet as the final answer to life I would say.

You appear to be asking about duality. I.e that there is no 'singular' thing that exists, because to exist, its non-existence must be possible. There is no 'thing', or notion of a thing, that can be considered "by itself'.

You can't be in a group unless there are "others" who are not in the group. I don't think there's anything we can consider that doesn't have an inverse notion...Of course I could be wrong. This 'principle' does seem to be unavoidable though. What sort of question do you think it poses about observation, for instance?

The problem with this question is then you have a true linking of biological and physical thought having to occur, or a synthesis. Physics currently lacks any real investigation into the reality of organic evolution as it focuses more on less on universal constants and cosmic issues for example.

The base reality then of the question you ask has to combine evolution into physical theory as an explanation for human thought or that really of any particular organism and the development evolutionarily speaking of such biological function, such as the nervous system.

To make a hypothetical guess about the question you ask is because of such. Nothing in biology exists that does not communicate so to speak with natural selection to some extent. IF the evolution of the CNS was combated or eliminated by natural selection early on one has no guarantee that such would ever occur again. To induce this ray if you will into the gravity such has, eukaryotic life spawned fourth from prokaryotes. From basic genealogy such can be demonstrated on the concept of a genetic shift, which probably draws from the reality at hand such as plasmid behavior for instance, as a probability. So eukaryotic cellular life or differentiation has occurred for lack of better words only once from prokaryotes, in billions of years...

Prokaryotes also do not evolve past single cell, are they alive?

So in turn as natural selection in short means ecology, life is engaged with such. In all possibility being in bad health and feeling such is what really. This is beside the point but in the foundation of thought in an evolutionary sense such is intimately also tied to the environment, and as such so is our understanding. Thusly is a simple equation to why it exists, if offered a higher fitness value for such.

How this works physical then is tied to evolution on a scale from the molecular/cellular all the way up to ecology. Now trying to put this into physics equations is far from possible right now in my opinion. Thusly like chemistry such fields of study branched off from simply being physics due to complexity.

*Sorry I made a mistake in the above post. Instead of genetic shift, which is actually gene shift or really antigenic shift a term dealing with viral behavior I meant to use gene transfer. Just needed to clarify such for discussion.

Part of me strongly disagrees with abortion on the basis it just does not sit right with me ending life like that. Then of course I think of reality and all the stuff in that which goes against such a notion, so I have or really am forced to think that I don’t know everything and should look outside of myself for answers. In which I find how could I force a women who got pregnant from rape to have such a child? Where is the objective answer to such a question simply because I know I don’t have it, thusly why should I enforce myself on someone over an ignorant internal notion.

I could only think we as people collectively somehow will figure it out over time.

So where does that leave the laws. Then to me I would think science can at least attempt to validate when an unborn child would lack anything related to consciousness. I would agree if the child in such a stage of development was to be born severely handicapped, I think such because the family could know, and they then might to want to exercise liberty on such an option. Simply from the basis they might have no way as a family to support such. I could also agree from the rape basis for abortion at such stages. I cant however find it in my to agree with a female having sex and having abortions because she can, regardless of stage in development. I do not think such a strategy would yield a positive anything to how people would appreciate the world over time for one, and for another it is still human life after all we are talking about. Take away reproduction and we happen to all die out, such should be treated with more respect then simply a whim. In light of something objective appearing from the issue, my choice would to be go with that as law.

I read a figure somewhere in which a total ban on abortion would cost the lives of a great many women from how things stand medically. Thusly I don’t see how one could have a total ban on abortion from just that alone.

I don’t like the term time signals, something just does not click about it. As far as I know of course do any time signals exist non dependent on physical reality? Of course being time not fully defined physically does not help either I would suggest.

I mean the time evolution operator because it can describe some facet of nature then should mean this is a facet of such nature, but is that so? So the concept of quantum foam. See gravity and time seem to have something in common from what I understand, or at least they can interact. So how does any of the understanding equate of the concept of quantum foam if such is a real aspect of nature.

See as a biology student the one thing I have surely noticed about nature is its interaction with itself and of course what appears to be a continuity or continuum to it also. Nature seems to be some meshed entity of itself, or moreover I don’t understand how you say one part of nature is totally a separate entity to its own reality, it is after all nature.

So basically in physics you have so many grand ideas, I don’t think any single one is small. They are all vastly complex giving the reality of which the field studies. Also the field is fully dependent on the use of mathematics to describe and or explain this reality, which then couples even more complexity into the equation. Lastly its also a human endeavor, so just add one more error bar to everything:D

So basically what I am saying is for any thought experiment, you do you validate the reality of knowledge which you work with even is correct or in line with how nature actually operates?

Depends on what you count as "something" and "previous knowledge". From my knowledge of psychology, what is called priming demonstrates that people form all sorts of random associations with everything they know. Whenever you think of a word, you automatically think of multiple words that sound similar, are spelled similar, are used in sentences together, share some logical connection, etc.

 

If you had a thought but could not associate any previous knowledge with it, you would be unable to remember it or communicate it. Just another bunch of neurons firing and forgotten.

I did not know about that, thanks. My question is basically how I got my mind around the concept of cultural determinism, of which of late I basically equate with animal learning, what can further reduce of course. I don’t know of such a view is the correct of factual one but that’s why science exists, so people can test crackpot ideas:D

So the question is basically that. I will try to redefine for sake of clarity. Consciously thinking, in which you understand your thought such as a thought of needing to use the bathroom. Attempt to think of anything that you cannot associate with anything that you already know, such that the sky is blue or a fire engine is red.

I personally think its impossible.

I imagined something similar, but for space habitat that can also be used here on earth.

Melt a patch of basaltic rock, let say on the moon. Insert a high temperature resistant tube in it an blow in slowly hot air in it to create a bubble in the molten rock and let it cool down. All you need to do is to install some air thight door to get in that space. No material to bring except for the door and the life support system.

Wow, that’s an interesting idea. I could see the rock even somewhat though I don’t know the physical properties of basalt all to well giving such conditions.

I think the video was very informative and with the soundtrack even better with entertainment value. I don’t however see this is a proper way to engage or combat creationists. IF they don’t care to spend the time to learn the subject, a few minute video is going to do little good.

Well OK, you've dug up one muppet from an enormous organization:D. As a whole you will find that NASA do not support the outrageous popular culture claims. For one thing, I challenge you or any wacko to find on NASAs websites(the climate and earth science ones in particular) where they even mention it....I often read their site and have never seen one word of endorsement for your cause. It is also of note that a NASA chief(Griffin) was flamed and discredit was thrown against his name earlier this year because he publicly argued with a green activist that science has been taken over by politics in regard to climatology.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-griffin-regrets-warming-comments_N.htm

Yes and no.

The scientists studying global warming are still just doing science. The succession of such information through the public including politics is a different issue. I think the issue gets worse in that regard for a couple of reasons. One being the public I would say on average does not retain high concentrations of understanding about that topic, I mean I don’t even know one person on this board even attending to become a climatologist nor any professional ones. I also don’t even think basic environmental science or understanding is to widely distributed yet in the public.

Second is that the issue is a rather large one. Evolution or extinction aside environmental changes do hold the ability to register profound impacts on life. The idea of the planet changing in such a fashion would indeed be massive change. So the gravity of the issue draws in vast amounts of attention in a myriad of forms. It only takes a heat wave or a drought for that matter to hold profound impacts on life.

Yes.

The definition of life has not matured into something static yet. Personally I find the definition of life lacking the virus to be problematic. IF the virus is not alive then what is it, and what else in nature could you look at in relation to a virus and not call life?

Protobionts have similar qualities or functions found in modern life, key to me being the idea it can reproduce in a crude manner and maintain an eternal environment. If by going for evidence about the origin of life on earth I don’t think anything else currently exists, naturally occurring, to use it its place.

If by chance that reality dictates a scientist is currently wrong on a concept or line of thinking or hypothesis, should the scientist ignore this to keep the integrity of the currently lacking model intact?

They are so many fact that deny the evolution, evolution itself denies evolution, and we still blindly believe on it. How irrational mankind can be! First of all I just want to clarify an issue! MUTATIONS! I've been reading all those replies and I find it difficult to believe how can "scientists" think and say that the mutations have contributed to evolution! This is insane! To deny this thing all you need is very very basic knowledge about genetics. Mutations are changes that happen during replication (DNA synthesis), transcription (RNA synthesis) and translation (protein synthesis). But one thing we should understand is that MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS NEGATIVE!! There still hasn't been A SINGLE case when mutations have had positive effects in that organism when they happened! From the foundation of the genetics, for more than 50 years scientists have been trying to cause, experiment or observe a positive mutation but they always ended up failing. This is because there are no POSITIVE MUTATIONS. Just think of some mutations like Down's Syndrome, Condiodistrophy, Albinism etc, they're positive right???!!!

One scientist used a really good expression to illustrate this case "The hasn't been a single case when mutations have contributed positively in the development of the organism. This is like an earthquake to have positive effects to a city!" And he's actually right! So how could organisms evolve in a higher scale of development by mutations when the word "positive" is absolutely contrary to mutations!

 

Another impossible maze for evolutionists! How did mammals appear and what happened to reptiles? When it comes to this evolutionists usually have only one thing to lean on, and that is Archeopterics! They say that this creature was the "bridge" between reptiles and mammals! And they failed again here, because Archeopterics was warm-blooded, which means a mammal. And yet evolution cannot explain the pass reptile-mammal! A very interesting quotation about this issue is: "The passing phase between reptiles and mammals is still a mystery! This is just like a play when all the key roles are taken by reptiles and the curtains suddenly go down. And when the play starts again the key roles now are played by mammals!"

Yet another impossible maze for evolution! LAND-WATER

How do evolutionist explain this? They do it but still using a failed example. And the example is coelacanth. Coelacanth is oldest specie of fish living. When it was first discovered, this was a great breakthrough for evolution because coelacanth is thought to have a weak walking mechanism. But after the capture of more coelacanths, the conclusions say that it is a fish that lives in deep water and never goes higher than 180m. What is ridiculous about this land-water pass is the original example used by Darwin! And guess what he said:"I see no barrier for a bear to be converted into a whale by jumping into water" For the love of God how can a thing like this happen! Explain it evolutionists! Then another blockade for evolution is Cambrian Explosion!

 

To not make this more boring I'll just use a very simple, convincing example! Evolutionists say that mankind has evolved from apes, and that the Homo-Sapiens first appeared about 60000 years ago. Then how do the evolutionists explain the discovery of a 1.6 million year old man footstep? Then all those scandals with falsified fossils and skulls (which I would not like to mention).

 

And if mankind evolved from apes, then how come that not a single man has evolved from an ape for all this time that mankind has been present?

 

CONCLUSION : E V O L U T I O N I S F A K E

 

I completely agree with you. Evolution means reaching a higher scale of development, more complicated, more advanced. And according to evolution these advances happen by mutations (well according to neo-darwinists), but mutations only have negative effects, never never never positive. Then how come NEGATIVE mean ADVANCE?

And also that the probability for creating any new biological structure or any new organ to a organism from mutations goes far far beyond the possible mathematical probability (10 followed by 50 zeros).

Darwin itself wasn't sure its own theory and he always used "IF" when he referred to his theory!

Isn't all this convincing???!!!

I would say you know close to nothing about what you are talking about really. I don’t mean to be mean but to say mutation=death for an organism is just patently false in every empirical regard. Scientists do forced evolution studies in the lab on simple bacteria that shows how mutability allows life to adapt to a changing environment. The point being is mutation is not just one type of mutation or the only mechanism of evolution really. As for energy building up and becoming more complex then obviously you don’t believe in nucleosynthesis either, or chemistry, or physics, or science, in fact you might as well come out and say you don’t believe in reality, DNA, phylogeny, the list could go on. I think you should redo your statement but obviously that cant be done because you surely lack any drive to get proper education on the subject obviously from some personal slant or bias.

Its quite pathetic really.

Yes but during wartime you have human beings actively trying to kill each other, and the populations of soldiers for instance during a war is typically far smaller then say the population of an entire nation.

The point is that you are under the control really of a person who has a worldview. Such as if they are truly religious then they see death as passing on to any conceived notions of an afterlife.

I am agnostic, as such my choice is based on the reality that we don’t have an answer to such questions, and then to answer such is a faith regardless.

I mean what is the difference. Animal learning in hand did our culture evolve from whatever culture primates had? I would suspect so giving what we know about reality. Is that the same as faith when all one can really do is decide to believe in something with not facts?

Bottom line is its my life, and I don’t care to through it away on some officer that believes all dogs go to heaven.

foodchain---

 

Quantum mechanics can be made consistent with relativity---it is a subject most undergraduates study, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. QM cannot be made consistent with GENERAL relativity, but this has nothing to do with the problems in this thread. The point that swansont and I made is that there is no conceptual barrier, only a computational one---there aren't enough computers in the world to do even simple problems.

I respect you opinion fully, I am sure you have forgotten more about physics then I have learnt. I just don’t understand something conceptually when I try to put it together I guess. I mean to me, to think that somehow the reality as a quantum level cannot be fully integrated into the why for larger scale phenomena really bugs me. I also don’t fully understand also how relativity works, which I am does not help. I just don’t think really that relativity is the answer, I see such from my understanding as being something that has to be solved for on a quantum scale. Then again unlike most people I think such has a larger impact on why life exists then just the typical chemistry aspect most take.

Well I have to go, and I hope I did not offend.

I think this link should do you just fine.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html

Because it is based chiefly on the assertions built up by so called authority figures. While it has a modicum of actual scientific validity, there are so many variables in planetary climate(thats not to mention peaks in photosphere activity), that only a faith type can jump to any conclusion that we are undoubtedly the cause of the current trend of planetary temperature increase.

While that could be a possible avenue of corruption the science behind global warming is anything but conserved to a figures of scientific authority, nor is the data really. It also has the backing of numerous prestigious and recognized scientific bodies or organizations. The data is open source really, so I don’t see how its something as a product of a few.

As for your variables remark. I don’t know about that one either. I mean I think every single variable has been accounted for that leads to the temperature of our planet save for the fact maybe the moon is a eight of an inch farther away. I just don’t know how small of detail you want basically. No, I don’t think global warming models account for every possible reality, such as if some kind of giant fungal bloom is taking part in some place of the planet or if some giant change/shift of microbe life has occurred in the earths crust, and on that I give you credit for a solid point. I think what current models based on data can show though is a direct correlation to human behavior and related impact environmentally speaking in regards to greenhouse gas concentrations trapping more energy in the earths environments subsequently increasing its temp. I think this is so cut and dry anymore that science is really past that point and now is on the point of how to adequately combat such.

There is nothing yet found on earth that can account for the sudden and growing CO2 concentration found in naturally occurring "records" such as ice cores. This spike coincides with the industrial revolution and continues on along the progression of such. The subsequent variation in temp also follows along with this. For all the ruckus and the fact that GW study is widespread in science, why cannot all of these people find that hidden variable if it indeed did exist? I guess what I am asking then is what is the cutoff to adequate information in your opinion that supports GW in context or relation to human behavior? I mean if the IPCC is so horribly off, it must really say something about the ability of science more then anything else then.

Again not to say it does not, but why not as to its discovery, and why the clear relationship between human behavior, CO2 growth and temp variation then?

Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

 

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

 

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

How so? I mean you made a claim, I just want to know how you say that. When you say graph, do you mean some people just sat in a room and made a graph from nothing? I mean from what I understand graphs that pertain to global warming happen to come from the collection of physical evidence in many ways, not just someone playing with numbers after all.

Faith is devoid of anything other then that. Some people can have faith and not become irrational to the point of extremes, creationists just don’t happen to be in that boat because well, the earth is a little bit older then say 2000 years to start, nor is it flat and we happen to be decedents of other living things, not just beings here in a “poof“ of magic.

I think the reality of GW in regards to science is pretty darn sound anymore, or not some subjective philosophy waiting to be painted by whatever whims someone currently has. I mean I wont put someone down for thinking thunder is thors work, but in reality we have data to show otherwise to a certain and comfortable extent that thunder is not thors doing to say the least.

I don’t find it shocking though. I mean with all the support evolution has you still have presidents elected by the masses of some advanced country trying to legally ban it to a certain degree, so none of its shocking. See, I like science, you can think whatever the heck you want, but you have to prove it, so that sort of means coming to terms with reality over time for humanity, hopefully.

Lastly though, why is GW a faith as you would have it?

Oh, I see how it is now. Your only willing to cherry pick data that agrees with your premise, rather than considering other factors. Hardly scientific you know, especially since that you should know to avoid that given your title as a physics "expert".

Humanity collectively has basically terraformed the environment in so many ways its hard to consider really in any junction of chat and or individual thought to be honest. I mean how many species have we pushed into extinction to the fact human activity has created radioactive events of global scale to punching holes in the ozone layer. Its not as if the planet is immune to our behavior.

Also for action and reaction is the gross amount of CO2 alone we put off into the environment going to carry a null effect, what effect is it going to have, save over a hundred years of growing release of such a greenhouse gas?

I just don’t understand the emphasis some have on saying global warming is not human. Its as if they accept something is changing, but it cant be at the hands of humans.

Then with just physical evidence alone, what in the world is causing the spike of CO2 and the change brought along by such. If solar sources cant be it, then what is it exactly. I mean its not as if GW is studied by just a few scientists that get to keep all the facts or studies secret is it?

So to you, exactly, what is it then causing GW if not human activity and if such evidence you provide is refuted, what will you say?

Better than I can explain it is probably:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/pbox.html

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/barr.html

It states reduced probability but not reduced energy in one of the sites. Is this reduction in probability a factor of how it breached or passed the barrier?