dudels

I too am quite broad. I'll listen to anything that I like. I like and dislike music from all genres, so I can't really easily decide on a favourite. Jazz and Blues tend to irritate me though.

You seem to have lead an extremely interesting life! I can only hope that mine will have at least some of the excitement that yours has, just preferably without as much persnoal risk.

I shall try and dig it out for you. I have had no experiance with Perl so I'm afraid I won't be able to help you with it.

The term 'convergent evolution' is used in a way which implies that there are other forms of evolution too. What others are there that I could look up information on?

That's sort of the point I was tryitg to put across, and now reading what I wrote I know I did it badly. If the universe has a limited amount of energy, then it can be said that parallel universes either can not exist; or can exist but do not require infinite amounts f energy to do so.

Excellant stuff I'll go look into some convergent evolution theory so I know what my thoery is similar to.

Sounds like fun I think I'll have crack at it after finishing eductation.

I've learnt quite a lot already, which is very nice and surprising. I'll be around for quite a while longer

I've lost track of things here. Who is using what argument against who for backing of which theory? I'm lost :s

If a two parallel universe exist, and infinite energy exists between the two; doesn't that imply that that each universe has half-an-infinite amount of energy each?

Sounds interesting; although it is far beyond my current scope of things.

What about when all energy is used (been converted to non-useful energy)? The universe is a closed system, so does this mean that we will just suddenly stop evolving?

I think I will look into this, thank you for pointing it out.

I've just started A-Level physics, this contains a fair amount of calculus, as Ragnarak has just stated. How is it taught at a pre-Uni level over there? I am most curious.

Polymorphism in a sense. Whilst I agree that my theory is far from perfect, what theory is? Whilst sharks and dolphins do look somewhat alike, they both do draw charecteristics from their parent class; ie, dolphins can not 'breathe' the water, whereas sharks can.

Sounds quite interesting, could you give more information on it please?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50 What I posted on the Origins Poll. I would quite like to discuss some of these ideas, so I created this thread as I think it was better off in here. Any comments or questions on the above theory? Please don't flame me for being uncultured and undereducated

Nice analogy you've got there, aman. The only thing with chocolates is that you know that you are going to get something nice and chocolatey. (Nice to mee you too)

Sounds familiar, but I can't remember the meaning. I may have to consult the textbook later on.

What terms and things are there that I could familiarise mysolf with before I properly start studying it? All I know about it so far is that it can be used to measure change.

To be honest, I have very little idea. Anybody care to explain to me?

As a politician I think Hitler was one of the best. As a human, however, I agree with you.

I believe that we were programmed, in some way or another. I find it all to explain as the 'evidence' I have convinced myself with is just randow snippets flying around in my head. I'll say a couple of notes though. Inheritance. Not the genetic type, but the Object-Orientated types. All life seems to be based in a hierachy of types. Can't really explain what I mean all that well so I'll just give a couple of examples: Photosynthesis: Everything that does this has that green chlorophyll (I know that is seplt wrong) stuff. This is true for all these things; leaves on a tree; grass in the ground; etc. Surely if we evolved in the sense that science tells us there will be some sort of differences in these? Respiraton: Sentient life on the planet all breathes in oxygen (I'm obviously not including plants and bacteria in this). We breathe the same gas and also do it in the same way. Evidence that we were based on some higher class. The same could be said for other things too, such as the way that blood is pumped around the body. There are also a couple of minute things too, which although mean absolutely nothing on their own, they can push the point a little further. An example of this is that for the most part science is measurable, values that make science work (such as the value for the acceleration due to gravity) aren't randomly changing every few minutes. The thing I like about this thoery is that it unites others that otherwise have on link. Example: the two theories of Evolution and Creation. With this thoery both of those are possible. In any good program you start with the basics, then build upon this with constant improvements. You start with a rock, add a bit of basic life (bacteria etc.) then from then you can build upwards. We were initially 'created', but since then we have been constantly improving - our evolution. I've tried to explain my theory as best as I can, but I know that incoherency reigns supreme in my posts. Please be nice to me

Anything cloned will not be the same. The body may be identical, but where is the soul?

The thought of immortality defies the point of nature in my opinion. Death is a part of life, the transition from physical sentience to who knows what. Death must be worth living for.