Vexer

Yes it does. Or, tries to. And best of all, you get to see when their thinking goes wrong. You get to see 'scientific' thinking, 'live'. That's never, ever, been done before. "Well, I figured *this*, but I was wrong. Now, I'll try *this* What if I...". That's Science.

(You haven't given me any arguments. I'm not *asking* for arguments. I'm wondering if anyone has Kepleresque insights to share). And, who is "we"? (There's a "we"?)

What did you reckon about the science in that? Did you see the DVD-extra... where "Io" explains the nature of time? Pretty cool. What was wrong with it?

Again, why couldn’t he just weigh it?

The TV show. Good for Science, or not? (I say yes, in very much deed).

Wait a sec, my simple understanding is: The sperm joins with the ova and their DNA entwines. (Sounds almost romantic…). This creates the first cell of the new person. Which divides and etc. Where is the mDNA in this? I don’t see the transfer? I just see the one DNA. (Yes, I’m dim)

The "current" view is always wrong, eventually, 'Dark

SkepticLance wrote: I think your point has been addressed very thoroughly. I think you must be joking. I have pretty much had almost zero intelligent response. I thank CDarwin for (his/her) offering. But the ideas there don’t really represent modern “alternate theories”. (And BTW, as far as I know “Lamarkism" has been shown to occur, on a cellular level. But not enough to constitute a Big Picture theory. So far). CDarwin, you talk about history. I’ve “boned up” on that. I’m trying to bone-up on the truth. Now. But people (as I knew they would) are too trigger-happy to burn the witch. Kinda amusing to watch, up to a point. psynapse; I understand the argument about “altruism”, but in general, I can accept that as a group-selection thing that fits well with Darwin-type evolution – so I don’t see that as a “chink”. Yet. Others, please direct yourself to the OP.

…a plastic crown of the same mass would not displace the same as a gold crown. If fully submerged, it would, in fact, was my point. Displacement is a measure of volume - not anything else. A plastic crown would displace as much as a gold one. I don’t see how volume has anything to do with it. I’ve read what all you-all have said, but I still don’t get it. Again, why couldn’t he just weigh it?

I think people have two nostrils for the same reason that men have nipples.

iNow... your tone is uncalled-for. IMO. I wanted to know more about the relationship between gravity and time. That, is the thing. This is a thread *I* would have started. It didn't go where it should have.

That was really interesting. Hm.

(I'm googling.... will get back). I was only hoping for the specific info I requested.

So, Mr Skeptic, I now understand that normal sexual reproduction in fact passes two sets of DNA as a matter of course. I never knew that. (Maldi/... said): That is why the egg cell is much bigger, because next to its nuclear dna it contains... also mitochondria, so the dna of the mitochondria is passed through the egg cell, or in other words: by the mother. uhuh. Hm.

Thanks all, but: Wouldn't a plastic crown displace the same as a gold one? My point, really. I still can't see what displacement has to do with it.

Wow. So, nothing is Entangled for long, at all? I wonder why among all the talk of Entanglement, I've never heard the "interaction kills Entanglement" thing? This really puts a damper on my Cosmic Unity via Entanglement thing.... Thanks, all. (I'll probably come back to this one, once I've looked more).

A fractal is defined to be a metric space that has Hausdorff dimension strictly greater than it's topological dimension. It is? Oh. (Is that to do with infinite boundary within finite space?) I accept that a 'line' ain't a fractal, because you (all) say so. But I'm yet to understand why. I guess I could Google this more effectively now. I guess there's an agreed 'definition', much further than I imagined. Thanks all.

(Well, that was interesting).

What theory is better than the current theory of evolution? That's what I'm asking, you. I'll say if for a fifth time: That's what I'm asking, you. That's what I'm asking, you. (sigh)

Obviously? And because I am not agreeing with you in another thread, that's your answer. Thanks.

You dunno. I’d be interested if you could indicate any specific part, of any post, that has addressed my OP. Can you?

No. A line is "self similar" but lacks all other characteristics of a fractal curve. It is easily described in geometric terms (what shape is easier to describe than a line?) and its Hausdorff dimension is the same as its topological dimension; i.e., one. "Hausdorff dimension is the same as its topological dimension; i.e., one." and that disqualifies it? What are you talking about? (I should spend an hour (or two) Googling this, I know)

(I think I've had an original thought)

'Transdecimal', It would appear D H already has. We’ll have to disagree about that. That was completely off-topic. As has every other post been so far. I’d be interested if you could indicate any specific part, of any post, that has addressed my OP. Can you? Perhaps you should make your expected answer a little clearer. I’ve made it as simple and clear as I can. Read, what, I said. (I’ll not respond to off-topic posts for a while) is; repetition really needed? “where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks?” Be brave.

Archimedes “displacement” eureka, I don’t get it. The story I know is this: Archimedes was asked by his king to find out if a ‘gold’ crown he had been gifted was really solid gold. Archimedes’ answer was ‘displacement’. How does the amount of water the crown displaces, indicate density? Couldn’t he just weigh it? I’m prepared to be embarrassed. But I don’t get it.