pwagen

No it's not. Chriss Angel is an illusionist. It's annoying how you keep being dishonest by posting videos and lying about their content.

I really hope the whole exercise isn't to come up with a generalized formula, because I don't want to find out I may have done your whole assignment. Also, it's been years since I did any of this, so I'm probably way off. You have height and acceleration (gravity). You could use the formula [latex]d = t_0 + 1/2at^2[/latex], where d would be h and a would be g, and solve for time. Then it's the simple matter of using the value of t in the formula [latex]v = at[/latex].

You are, of course, free to believe anything you want. However, you also need to look at the facts and evidence available and ask yourself "do these facts and evidence fit my world view?". If they don't fit, there's a problem.

String theory does have testable predictions. While we might not be at the technological advancement where we can actually test them, the predictions still exist. Not testable now isn't the same as not testable at all.

Dark matter can be measured by its gravitational effect. Dark energy is still hypothetical. None of them to do with emotions (which, by the way, can be measured neurologically). So whatever medicinal issues there are, it's not to do with either dark matter or dark energy.

Not really, no.

He doesn't, though. Saying "we shouldn't base our world view on X existing since we have no evidence of X" is very different from saying "X doesn't exist".

It's not an insult. It was a factual observation of you wearing the badge of a crackpot like a medal. Okay. What observations led you to believe this was a credible idea?

Then you're willfully ignorant, and any attempt at discussion with you would be pointless.

I am, as I sometimes visit the forum on my phone when I'm at work. However, I have to click the "full version" at the bottom if I want to give away rep points, as they aren't there in the mobile version. Promise!

Absolutely. And if I'm not mistaken, radiation is another mean of change in a live individual's genome. And it's quite possible studiot meant to induce changes in live individual which are then either passed on or not, in which case I was mistaken. I'll await studiot's clarification before jumping to conclusions.

I can't seem to find anything about them being made out of protons. Have you got any more information or links on that?

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. This is a misconception, which might skew your whole question actually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying an individual bacteria evolves a trait over its lifetime, then passes it on to its "kids"? If so, that's not quite right. In larger animals, that would be equal to saying the ancestors of giraffes had to stretch their necks, thus growing longer necks from stretching, which they then pass down. Normally, individuals don't evolve these changes in their lifetime. Instead, it's when they reproduce that their genome quite often have mistakes in them. Most of these are harmless or neutral. Some are fatal to the offspring. And some give the offspring a slightly better chance at surviving. Then there's natural selection, but that's another topic. So basically, you can't "allow change to happen in both groups then stop one group from passing the changes on", as the changes actually happen when they reproduce. Correct me if I'm assuming incorrectly regarding your question.

Here's a short excerpt from Jeff Hawkins' book "On Intelligence", which I can't recommend highly enough. While the book itself is mostly about how a brain works and how that relates to A.I., it has some very interesting thoughts on related issues, like consciousness. Jeff Hawkins, On Intelligence Page 195 His point, in my interpretation, being; there's nothing special about consciousness. It's a side effect of our brains being the way they are. Or, to quote him from the page before the one above, "I think consciousness is simply what it feels like to have a cortex". After all, if you're looking for a biological difference between us and other animals, look no further than the neocortex.

If attacks on someone's spelling is the only thing you've got, I suggest you read post #36. Ad hominem. How do you define "best scientists"? Because if you're defining them as the ones who actually come up with results, I think you'd be surprised if you take the time to look it up.

Most (if not all) definitions I've seen say evolution is something like "change over time" (simplified), which would mean the second dish would not evolve since there is no change. Practically, I think it would be hard to prevent change in other traits than the ones you're killing off, making them change anyway, which would mean they're still evolving. But looked on as a hypothetical question, in which you can actually stop them from changing through generations, this wouldn't be evolution, since there's no change. At least that's my interpretation of this definition. Then again, there are probably countless definitions and interpretations of definitions. I think you'll be hard pressed to get a clear-cut answer.

For us to have evolved such an aversion to homosexuality, then wouldn't we be equally revolted by female homosexuality? I'll confess myself, I prefer not watching two men having sex with each other. But is that down to my immeasurable hatred towards gay people, or something else? And if so, can that "something else" have aided in building the social construct of homophobia? Now, I don't have any numbers, but one claim I seem to hear a lot is that quite a lot of men are grossed out by homosexual male sex, while enjoying watching, for example, lesbian porn (or well, porn involving two or more women, which definitely isn't the same thing. But still!). How would you explain this in evolutionary terms? Sure, one can say that the men are still looking at female bodies, which excites us. But then, wouldn't male homosexuality just make us go "meh, whatever" instead of "kill the gays!"? I've read we have also got sort of an inborn (so in this case evolved) sense of what food should look like. For example, slimy greenish/yellowish goo isn't all that appetizing. Apparently, this is due to the likeness of puss, which signifies infection and generally bad stuff. So assuming this is right, and we do have some idea of how the world works in this regard. Now, translate this to male homosexuality. Is it too far-fetched to think that the strong aversion to male homosexuality is simply down to the "ick factor" of the act? After all, the homosexual male act involves putting the pee pee in the pooper. Perhaps our evolved wirings simply screams at us that "that place is dirty thus can kill you!". Not in the sense that "gay sex is wrong and God will strike you down", but simply down to the same evolved behavior that makes us not want to lick someone else's open wound. Again, I really don't think there's much evidence for anything other than homophobia being a social construct. But if it isn't, I'm boldly throwing this out as some kind of alternative idea, fully expecting people to read it as me thinking homosexuality is unnatural or something (which I don't). But I'll take that risk. Edit: Also, I apologize if this seems like a lengthy bit of a "personal theory". I'm just throwing it out as an attempt of an explanation, and while I'd be happy to have it criticized, I'm fully aware that I might be very wrong.

I have 2: 1 for you: The ultimate key to everything = Reflection. You can nag on this while still treating it as a rant or you can take the effort and translate it's meaning into your most favorite language (might be maths but probably not) Disclaimer: everything=everything-1 Now this is getting boring to me causing a similar feeling than I had before bumping into this website. Are there some psychologists that are willed to serve breakfast? So the answer is 'no'? At least it would have been faster to type down, as well as provided a lot more.

Worth noting, in case you don't see the arrows, is that they don't seem to be available in the mobile version of the site.

You stopped making sense a long time ago. If we could make this back into an at least semi-scientific discussion instead of an exercise in linguistic twisting, that would be super.

Semjase, I continue to be amazed by how some people can be wrong ALL the time. It's like you're making a conscious effort not to include anything based on reality.

Ironically, neither does most religious people.

You're not there yet. Can you explain how there can have been either mass or gravity if neither the strong or weak interaction nor gravity was separated from the electromagnetism? Citation, please.

I think you'll find the blog section more appropriate for such a project. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=blogs

As Ringer said, it depends what you mean by "rapidly". You're not very likely to see a complete transformation in a few generations. However, in the span of a human lifetime, we can sometimes get some pretty impressive results. An interesting experiment where this is shown is the Silver Fox Experiment, where they bred two very distinct breeds of foxes in only 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoB0pdhxfZs