Vexer

I'm sorry if this has been gone-over recently. I have read a few web-pages that have undermined my simple understanding of this. Here’s what I thought I knew about quantum entanglement: If two (or more) ‘particles’ (‘photons’ in the experiments) are created at the same time/place, they are Entangled. Alain Aspect, etc. Is this wrong? I have read about experiments that try to Entangle macro objects…. But… (I don’t understand them). I’m wondering why Everything isn’t Entangled via the alleged Big Bang? (Again, if you reply, keep in mind that I (obviously) know Nothing, so err on the side of crayon drawings). But I want to know.

So Mag, 'yes' only humans do suicide in the sense that you mean. Isn't that interesting.

Is it?

Er, nothing.

I’m interested in experiments that allege to show that ‘decisions’ are made before people are ‘consciously’ aware they’ve made them. I vaguely recall Californian experiments in the 70’s that showed this, and more recently in London. If anyone has links? (Specific to the above). But also, any criticisms of these results or methods. Because the implications are profound. Should I believe that ‘consciousness’ plays no role in our day to day lives? That it’s a back-seat driver to ‘intelligence’. Our consciousness retro-justifies our actions, after they’ve been made? What do these experiments really show? Data first.

His theories have been supplanted by better ones Which is why I carefully said: “Darwin-type”. Of course. To think that evolution as conceived by Darwin is the be-all… I didn’t suggest that. Now, address my OP.

Good thoughts in your OP, ‘Slinkey’, and succinctly put. I’ve had similar. Gravity ‘slows’ time. That experimentally ‘proven’ fact alone is thought-provoking in the extreme. Consider ‘Black Holes’ – Singular Gravity, zero time. I’m prepared to think about that relationship. If this had been discussed on these boards, I’d like to know where.

You suppose correctly. But seeing that you're curious: Which "(scientific) theoretical opponents" do you refer too? I thought it was obvious I didn't mean opponents to the theory(s), but - opponent theories. Name one? I'm guessing you're defensively knee-jerking. Read what I wrote, again. Mr Skeptic: Thanks for that. Now have a go at replying to my OP. (I knew this was going to be like this...).

I think 'Mr Skeptic's' understanding is correct - there is no apparent trigger for an individual decay. It is 'causeless' in the usual human sense. 'Lance wrote: Since the basic reason for the decay is quantum uncertainty, then effectively there is no specific cause. Am I wrong? Only if our theories are wrong (which they almost certainly are). I agree with Foofighter - it's apparent causelessness. Pretty interesting and disturbing. His question was: are there any other examples?

Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had. That makes it pretty unusual, if not unique. (I can only think of our concept of ‘time’ as an equally large and mostly unchallenged set of ideas - though, I have read ‘the End of Time’ (Balfour). (And one day, I’ll understand it)). Which makes me suspicious. It seems to me that the most scientifically interesting thing that could happen, would be if ‘Evolution’ was challenged. Be brave: 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? It’d really be something, if there aren’t any. Unique, even. Wouldn’t that be… odd? (I only wish I didn’t feel I have to say this, but: I’m not a crypto-Creationist looking for ammo. I’m an atheist who thinks that Evolution is the single Biggest idea, ever. I’m not interested in creationist replies of any kind. Especially those dressed up as Science. I would like people who know what they’re talking about to tell me things I haven’t heard before). (I can only hope for the best, even though I suspect the politics of this are impossible). I’m a big-picture guy, and Evolution is the biggest (human) picture there is. Let’s challenge it. Be brave.

All I know is that cellular mitochondria has it’s own DNA. Which confuses my simple understanding of a few things. This rather blurs my idea of what a species is. I thought, ‘one species, one DNA’ Does this mean humans are colony animals? Presumably all creatures have the same duality? The Eve study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only by mothers to their offspring. How can DNA ‘pass’ a different (mito) DNA? Or, how does the mtDNA get into a new human then? (You’ll be ignorant about how ignorant I am, so err on the side of simplistic concision).

High quality responses. I didn't really expect that. My take-home message is that: Claims that malaria resurgence is due to climate change ignore these realities and disregard history.

How does the alleged 'Global Warming' effect the increase of the range of malaria-carrying mossies? I have always heard it was temperature-related. But now I've heard there have been malaria epidemics in cold-areas, such as Archangel (tundra-Russia). What's the story here? Are malaria-carrying mossies temperature controlled? Or?