beecee

What is even more obvious is your obvious intent. It won,t work. Now are you going to comment on your own thread/links, and my own opinions of the extracts I have taken from those links, and other relevant links of my own that I have contributed?

Tried being of course the operative word....failure in that endeavour is obvious. Science's goal is certainly not any truth or reality as you seem to want to force down others throats....If in the process, we discover that....all well and good. And again we play the victim card, and the whole forum is against him, instead of recognising his own monumental errors here and elsewhere, concentrating on eliminating them, and being man enough to admit he is wrong. Again reg, without your useless rhetorical ramble, please show empirically how perfection is relevant in the manner you prescribe and how it ties in with natural selection and evolution, as per the title of this thread. Or alternatively you can show conclusively how science's goal is reality and truth....Oh, and as a bonus, what is this reality and truth you speak of? As a wise man recently said, "I find it remarkable that someone who claims to have studied philosophy shows such a poor grasp of logic".

Now that is humorous! from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#PriTheTheDis we have.......... 7. Conclusion: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Physicist "Einstein's influence on twentieth-century philosophy of science is comparable to his influence on twentieth-century physics. What made that possible? One explanation looks to the institutional and disciplinary history of theoretical physics and the philosophy of science. Each was, in its own domain, a new mode of thought in the latter nineteenth century, and each finally began to secure for itself a solid institutional basis in the early twentieth century. In a curious way, the two movements helped one another. Philosophers of science helped to legitimate theoretical physics by locating the significant cognitive content of science in its theories. Theoretical physicists helped to legitimate the philosophy of science by providing for analysis a subject matter that was radically reshaping our understanding of nature and the place of humankind within it". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I find nothing really curious about the fact that in the early days, the philosophy of science, helped legitimate theoretical physics, although I find the use of the word "legitimate" rather pretentious in that case, and that physics in turn has helped legitimate philosophy and creating new opportunity for philosophers to ply their trade as I mentioned previously. This in my opinion is what Laurence Krauss is alluding to in his criticism of philosophy and its usefulness...while being the foundation of physics, it is in many ways limited in any new application. As a wise man once said, Physics/science is what we know, philosophy is what we don't know, generally speaking of course. Again from the link..... "An obvious question is whether or not the early cultivation of a philosophical habit of mind made a difference in the way Einstein and his contemporaries approached physics. As indicated by his November 1944 letter to Robert Thorton quoted at the beginning of this article, Einstein thought that it did". Well probably yes I agree, but I'm sure if the great man was alive today, he may revise what he actually said, and probably correct other interpretations of what he said.

I believe this thread suffices...of course if you disagree, then you can refer to the mods..I'll certainly stand by their rulings as you also will. The title of your thread says it all, and while your article is excellent, it is also opinionated and the views therein, in my opinion, can be discussed. I'm not arguing et pet, and if you prefer to back away from any relevant content that's your business, I'm simply offering my interpretations and discussing the enjoyment I did receive from your excellent article. As per usual, and as others have inferred elsewhere with your apparent exclusion/s of relevant matter, you are reading too much into what others are trying to convey to you. Perhaps as mentioned in your article, you are unable to see the woods for the trees. Again, the title of this thread, is "Science, Truth and Reality"

In line with the title of this thread, and in line with Einstein's philosophy as per your article, I again ask that same question. If you are unable to answer that's OK. Yep actually word for word as I listed previously. You have no comment? So again, what are your thoughts on your article? I see the aspect of scientific truth as relevant to the thread and article. But hey! again, you have no thoughts on your own thread title and/or link? I repeat....... Hi again et pet......From your own quote in the OP, Einstein speaks of being independent from prejudices. Einstein being the man he was, humble and able to admit to, as well as making errors, also may have been wrong in the following statement, again from your OP link...."and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality"...particularly since it has been shown conclusively, that scientific theories don't necessarily seek truth or reality as its goal.

? OK, let's ask you a question/s in line with the title of this thread...Do you agree that a scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result irrespective of reality? And do you believe that Einstein would disagree with this? And finally isn't it possible that Einstein's philosophy is not necessarily more conducive to scientific knowledge today then it was in his era....I mean that since Einstein was also human, was also wrong at times, and never shirked his scientific responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way, isn't it possible his philosophy was wanting? What are your thoughts? I found this and some interesting extracts..... https://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/305 extract 1: "Einstein generalizes the Galilean relativity principle to include electro-magnetic phenomena; he postulates the velocity of light in vacuum as an upper speed limit on all phenomena. He uses the Lorentz transformations for the calculation of spatial and temporal measurements in the transition from one reference frame to another. There is much to be said for the view that Einstein’s Special theory of relativity completes classical physics, especially the work of James C. Maxwell. [Holton 2000] Einstein himself did not see his theory as a ‘revolutionary act’. But Einstein’s work did introduce a philosophical revolution in our fundamental notions". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I agree with what I believe that is saying...ie, It was actually the incredible scientific discovery by the great man, that led or leads to new philosophy, or as the extract notes, a philosophical revolution. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: extract 2 and 3: "Hans Reichenbach characterized Einstein as a philosopher by implication but also speaks of the ‘philosophical consequences’ of Einstein’s work".... "It may be more appropriate to characterize Einstein’s philosophical innovations as consequences of his scientific work" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: What I read into those two interesting extracts is again, that Einstein was primarily a scientist, but the implications of his ground breaking work led to a philosophical revolution. Einstein then obviously, was more or less obliged to be philosophical in line with his work and the new philosophy that followed the science. In line with et pet's excellent science, truth and reality thread, and its implications with Einstein's philosophy of science, I think this may also be complimentary and again an extract from the above link..... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "I prefer therefore to speak of the philosophical consequences of Einstein’s work. In order to appreciate what is meant by philosophical consequences, we should distinguish them from the deductive consequences of physical theories. A deductive consequence follows from the principles and internal logic of the theory. It is a deductive consequence of the premises of STR that reference frames do not share a universal time axis. A philosophical consequence of a physical theory concerns its conceptual features. Certain conceptual positions are compatible or incompatible with the theory but they are not directly testable and are subject to interpretations. For instance a notion of absolute time is incompatible with the theory of relativity. But physicists and philosophers have argued, alternatively, that the theory of relativity can be made compatible with a static or a dynamic view of time. The philosophical consequences of the theory of relativity extend far beyond the familiar reshaping of the notions of space and time. What made Einstein a great physicist was his ability to question unquestioned assumptions in the tradition of physical theorizing. What made him an even greater physicist was his ability to recognize the limits of his own work. This talent led him from the Special to the General theory of relativity and beyond to attempts to construct a unified field theory. What made him a decent philosopher was his willingness to pursue the philosophical consequences of his physical discoveries, e.g., regarding the physico-philosophical notions" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My conclusion is that Einstein was unquestionably a great scientist and by default a pretty good philosopher. He also had many desired qualities that I have already mentioned, and by all reports, had at least one weird habit.....I have read articles that he would often not wear socks and I recall that was supported with a photo of him when he moved to the USA at Princeton, New Jersey, after the rise of Hitler.

Yep, thanks....your thoughts?

Can we ask Reg if he agrees with that statement? [without too much hullabaloo and rhetoric preferably]...otherwise the following is just so obviously true.

Well then as I clearly, calmly, and patiently asked before, why don't you start the ball rolling and give us your thoughts on the article.

Re read your article et pet, and as I said it seems just one man's opinion/interpretation of Einstein and his philosophical beliefs....some seem contradictory. Nothing there though over throws the fact that science neither positively seeks a reality or truth, [if such a thing really exists] or that it is absolutely necessary....rather as I have said many times, if scientists accidentley are confronted with it, all well and good. The important thing again, is that Einstein was fallible and a product of the very early 20th century, and philosophy in and of itself, while most important as support for the science foundation and scientific methodology, is just engaging in thought between philosophers, and as is apparent of late, we have had some criticism from professional quarters on philosophy being taken too far and presumably has had its day. Looking forward to your thoughts and again interesting article. Here are some answers re questions on science, truth and reality........not saying I agree with all of them...... https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth A scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result. "Scientific “truth” is simply knowledge that is compiled bit by bit, in the form of theories or “models” to give us meaningful explanations of our universe, including our small chunk of living earth. Although there may be setbacks and corrections along the way, science is nonetheless responsible for the enormous material progress we have seen over the last few centuries..." Scientific truth depends on realities. Reasoning, religion, emotions, and preference have nothing to do with science. Just actualities matter. Checked, reproducible actualities are the bedrock of logical truth. The realities are utilized to develop speculations which depict the point by point relations among expansive quantities of certainties and their starting point from basic roots. Every component of a hypothesis relates to some piece of nature and, in this sense, logical speculations portray nature. Scientific truth is a state of minimum discrepancy between theoretical prediction and observed reality. Never absolute, scientific truth improves as theories evolve and/or measurement accuracy increases to improve the correlation between prediction and observation

I believe I have given some insight into Einstein and any inferences re him..... And I have read a fair bit of your link......not much to say actually, except again it appears to be one man's thoughts on the great man, remembering as great as he was, he was also able to admit his errors of judgement and was a humble man to boot. His quotes, both in your article, and the ones I gave, do not distract from his qualities, nor from the fact he is a man of the early 20th century. It's a thread you started, so I presume you have thoughts on it? Thanks for the cherries!

Assertions and claims, at least scientific assertions and claims, are in general a product of professional peer review, with the general consensus of opinions, [based on evidence and the interpretation of] by the greater majority. All scientific theories need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak. And as I have told Reg on occasions, every discipline in any field, will not have 100% support and/or agreement....mavericks are a fact of life, and certainly on the odd occasion, a maverick may arise that invalidates the mainstream thinking. But just as certainly, he will also need to abide by the scientific methodology. I can only repeat, Einstein was also human....Einstein was also wrong at times. Einstein never shirked his responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way. Einstein also died in 1955 and was a product of the early 20th century. Albert also once described relativity as analogous to putting your hand on a hot stove for a few seconds will seem like an hour, while sitting with a hot blonde for an hour, will seem like a minute....or at least words to that effect,

Selections of quotes are not evidence that science "must" or "should" be representations of reality, whatever that is........ Your inclination/s in the past on this forum have been shown to be greatly astray and/or misinterpretations and out of context remarks. Your so called "common sense" has already been found wanting in this thread, with your perfection/natural selection errors, and certainly in other threads such as claims re Newtonian gravity and planetary orbits, with no concessions at all on your part in relation to those errors, and now we switch tact to whether science is after realism and/or truth. This changing subject matter without conceding on the topic when shown to be wrong appears to be your "modus operandi" We'll leave the rest of your rambling and supply some material...... http://www.textetc.com/theory/truth-in-science.html extract: Many problems were noted long ago. How much evidence needs to be assembled before a generalization becomes overwhelmingly certain? It is never certain. David Hume (1711-76) pointed out that no scientific law is ever conclusively verified. That the sun has risen every morning so far will not logically entail the sun rising in future. Effect is simply what follows cause: laws of function are only habit. {7} There are further difficulties with induction. Scientists make a large number of observations from which to generalize. But these observations are made with a purpose, not randomly: they are selected according to the theory to be tested, or what the discipline prescribes as relevant. Then the eye (or any other organ) does not record like a camera, but interprets according to experience and expectation. Theory is to some extent threaded into observation. Finally, there is the reporting of observations, which must be assembled, regimented in accordance with the theory being advanced or refuted. Does this worry scientists? Not at all. Whatever the philosophic difficulties, science works, and its successes are augmented every day. Besides, the problem can be circumvented by employing statistical relevance. We assemble the factors that might be relevant and see how probability changes as a result. For example: if the probability of Event E given Cause C is changed by Factor A, then A is relevant — matters which can be set out in probability theory. The first point to be emphasized is the diversity of science. All sciences are objective and empirical, presenting results that can be independently verified by a qualified practitioner. But each discipline in practice, and sometimes each sub-discipline, has its own traditions, ethos and procedures. And these in turn are the product of long training and a communality of views, even to some extent of mentalities: good botanists do not make good astrophysicists. Some Concluding Thoughts Those who attack science for its remote and reductive nature, its cold-blooded efficiency and elitist decision-making should not forget how well science actually works. Scientific observations may be theory-laden, but those theories are tested in a communality of practice. If once depicted as mechanical and predetermined, science appears less so now that quantum and chaotic processes have been more widely recognized. Science does bring great operational efficiency, and its findings cannot be called myths in the sense understood in anthropology or literary criticism. {28} Science attempts not only to understand nature, but to control nature, and there is hardly an aspect of life today that could be conducted without its help. In short, science does seem essentially different from the arts, and its successes would be miraculous if there was not some correspondence between its theories and "reality", whatever that "reality" may be. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/ They say that we have found ourselves in a world lost to emotion, irrationality, and a weakening grasp on reality. That lies don’t faze us, and knowledge doesn’t impress us. That we are post-truth, post-fact. But, is this actually a bad thing? I’m a factual relativist. I abandoned the idea of facts and “the truth” some time last year. I wrote a whole science book, The Memory Illusion, almost never mentioning the terms fact and truth. Why? Because much like Santa Claus and unicorns, facts don’t actually exist. At least not in the way we commonly think of them. We think of a fact as an irrefutable truth. According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science? Well, let me tell you a secret about science; scientists don’t prove anything. What we do is collect evidence that supports or does not support our predictions. Sometimes we do things over and over again, in meaningfully different ways, and we get the same results, and then we call these findings facts. And, when we have lots and lots of replications and variations that all say the same thing, then we talk about theories or laws. Like evolution. Or gravity. But at no point have we proved anything. Don’t get me wrong. The scientific method is totally awesome. It is unparalleled in its ability to get answers that can help us extend life, optimize output, and understand our own brains. Scientists slowly break down the illusions created by our biased human perception, revealing what the universe actually looks like. In an incremental progress, each study adds a tiny bit of insight to our understanding. But while the magic of science should make our eyes twinkle with excitement, we can still argue that the findings from every scientific experiment ever conducted are wrong, almost by necessity. They are just a bit more right (hopefully) than preceding studies. That’s the beauty of science. It’s inherently self-critical and self-correcting. The status quo is never good enough. Scientists want to know more, always. And, lucky for them, there is always more to know. more at link......https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/

No, I don't believe it can be interpreted that way. Einstein also said "Imagination is more important then knowledge" I'm sure though he did not actually mean it that way...rather he was saying that Imagination is an important contribution to science and is up there with knowledge. Einstein was also human....Einstein was also wrong at times. Einstein never shirked his responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way. Einstein also died in 1955 and was a product of the early 20th century. Albert also once described relativity as analogous to putting your hand on a hot stove for a few seconds will seem like an hour, while sitting with a hot blonde for an hour, will seem like a minute....or at least words to that effect, just in case anyone wants to hold me to exactly what he said. And Reg, as someone who fills his threads with name dropping and misinterpreted quotes, let me name drop at least three physicists that were all to various degrees critical of philosophy...Feynman, Krauss and Susskind. I look to the following..... https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/05/01/151752815/blackboard-rumble-why-are-physicists-hating-on-philosophy-and- What is learning for if it doesn't lead to wisdom? That's a question worth asking in light of an ongoing cosmological street fight being waged (remarkably) in broad media daylight. The rumble tumbled into the public eye with Lawrence Krauss' new book A Universe From Nothing. But before the scathing New York Times review and an acerbic rebuttal in The Atlantic, this physics vs. philosophy smack-down was brewing in academic back alleys for decades. At stake is a critical question living deep inside the heart of modern foundational physics: What are the limits of science? The battle began when David Albert — a well-known philosopher of science with an expertise in quantum mechanics — savaged Krauss' book in the Times (I touched on Albert's response in relation to science and religion when it first appeared). With Richard Dawkins providing an overheated afterward comparing the book to The Origin of The Species, there was no doubt an atheist/theist slugfest was in the offing. But the bulk of Albert's review had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic philosophy. It was the very title of Krauss' book that Albert picked apart. Can physics explain how a Universe emerges from nothing? Not surprisingly, everything depends on which "nothing" you are talking about. That is where the knives came out. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: In my opinion of course, after reading the above and the many debates that are taking place re science and philosophy, it appears that the Iders, YECs and other forms of supernatural supporters, are simply trying to ward of the death knell for religion and the why, why, why, why philosophy that seems to support it. Let me again link to one of my favourite short videos by one of the greatest...... That actually says it all. The same of course applies to Krauss' definition of the quantum foam as the "nothing" from whence the universe arose. That at least as far as I am concerned, is far more believable and logical then some mythical magical spaghetti monster that has simply existed for eternity and creates everything at his whim. Philosophy is the foundation of physics and some philosophical questions have lead to many great moments in science. It seems to me that it is the individual philosopher that should be questioned at times...reminds me of a great quote.... "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

No more ad hoc then your poor attempt to try and somehow worm perfection in with natural selection. Quite ironic you speaking of anyone moving the goal posts, considering you have actually performed that little trick in a few threads now, rather then admit you were and are wrong. But while scientific models certainly do not have any reality or truth at their goal, if they should stumble upon it, all well and good. Actually just your interpretations of what you believe, and in line with what agenda you are harboring. And the irony meters are going off again!!! Pretty close to the mark, and an example of stumbling onto the reality and aligning with the scientific methodology, So? I mean once again, it does nothing to support your own totally blanket claims, here and elsewhere? The rest as usual, much ado about nothing.

Cosmological redshift is caused by light traversing expanding space. Gravity can cause both red and blue shift: As EMR falls into a gravity well, it is blue shifted from our perspective, and as it climbs out of a gravity well it is red shifted...theoretically they cancel each other out.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567 Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer: Abstract: Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin's discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer. The Copernican and the Darwinian Revolutions may be seen as the two stages of the one Scientific Revolution. They jointly ushered in the beginning of science in the modern sense of the word: explanation through natural laws. Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection. Which characteristics will be selected depends on which variations happen to be present at a given time in a given place. This in turn depends on the random process of mutation as well as on the previous history of the organisms. Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life. This was Darwin's fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious. extract: The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life; randomness and determinism interlocked in a natural process that has spurted the most complex, diverse, and beautiful entities that we know of in the universe: the organisms that populate the Earth, including humans who think and love, endowed with free will and creative powers, and able to analyze the process of evolution itself that brought them into existence. This is Darwin's fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative although not conscious. And this is the conceptual revolution that Darwin completed: the idea that the design of living organisms can be accounted for as the result of natural processes governed by natural laws. This is nothing if not a fundamental vision that has forever changed how mankind perceives itself and its place in the universe

And you have been shown to be wrong on that and just about all you have claimed. As anyone with any intelligence should realise, is that scientific theories while not referring to any reality or truth as you like to put it, models what we observe and the predictions of that model....Obviously then as that model/theory continues to make successful predictions and align with observations, it becomes more and more certain...eg: the theory of the evolution of life, the BB, SR and GR just to name some notable models. That may offend your personal beliefs and philosophy but so be it. Just another example of your blanket inferences based on one obvious misinterpretation...again. Einstein like all reputable scientists constructed models that aligned with observation and the behavior of the universe around him. Most reputable scientists most certainly believe that science is not necessarily a quest for reality, but if any supposed reality should be revealed in the continued scientific quest, then so be it. Another example of a myriad of examples of you avoiding admitting you were and are wrong, and as illustrated in the following opinion...... An article on evolution and so called "perfection" that continues to be erroneously pushed in this thread........ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/misconcep_03 The limitations of natural selection There are many reasons why natural selection may not produce a "perfectly-engineered" trait. For example, you might imagine that cheetahs could catch more prey and produce more offspring if they could run just a little faster. Here are a few reasons why natural selection might not produce perfection or faster cheetahs: Lack of necessary genetic variation Selection can only operate on the available genetic variation. A cheetah might run faster if it had "faster" alleles — but if faster alleles are not in the population from mutation or gene flow, evolution in this direction will not happen Constraints due to history Perhaps a different arrangement of leg muscles and bones would produce cheetahs that run faster — however, the basic body form of mammals is already laid out in their genes and development in such a mutually constrained way, that it is unlikely to be altered. There really may be "no way to get there from here." Trade-offs Changing one feature for the better might change another for the worse. Perhaps faster alleles exist in the cheetah population — but there is a trade-off associated with them: the alleles produce cheetahs with longer legs (and hence more speed), but these long legs are hazardously delicate. Although longer limb bones increase stride, their chances of failing due to bending loads increases as well. In this case, perhaps no net increase in fitness would result from the faster alleles. So natural selection may not produce perfection, but you'd at least expect it to get rid of obviously deleterious genes, wouldn't you? Maybe not.... The “bad” gene Natural selection works by weeding less fit variants out of a population. We would expect natural selection to remove alleles with negative effects from a population�and yet many populations include individuals carrying such alleles. Human populations, for example, generally carry some disease-causing alleles that affect reproduction. So why are these deleterious alleles still around anyway? What keeps natural selection from getting rid of them? There are several possible explanations: Normal red blood cells (top) and sickle cells (bottom) They may be maintained by heterozygote advantage When carrying two copies of an allele is disadvantageous, but carrying only one copy is advantageous, natural selection will not remove the allele from the population — the advantage conferred in its heterozygous state keeps the allele around. For example, the allele that causes sickle cell anemia is deleterious if you carry two copies of it. But if you only carry one copy of it and live in a place where malaria is common, the allele is advantageous because it confers resistance to malaria. They may be maintained by mutation The mutation producing the deleterious allele may keep arising in the population, even as selection weeds it out. For example, neurofibromatosis is a genetic disease causing tumors of the nervous system. Natural selection cannot completely eliminate the gene that causes this disease because new mutations arise relatively frequently — in perhaps 1 in 4000 gametes. They may be maintained by gene flow The allele may be common, and not deleterious, in a nearby habitat. If gene flow from the nearby population is common, we may observe the deleterious allele in the population of interest. For example, in places like the U.S., where malaria is not a problem, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia is strictly disadvantageous. However, in many parts of the world, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia is more common because a single copy of it confers resistance to malaria. Human migration causes this gene to be found in populations all over the world. Natural selection may not have had time to remove them yet The direction of selection changes as the environment changes � what was advantageous or neutral ten generations ago may be deleterious today. It is possible that some of the deleterious alleles that we observe in natural populations are on their way out, but selection has not yet completely removed them. For example, although there is debate about the issue, some researchers have proposed that the relatively high frequency in European populations of the allele causing cystic fibrosis is a historical holdover from a time when cholera was more rampant in these populations. It is proposed that carrying the cystic fibrosis allele provided some resistance to cholera and so increased in frequency in earlier European populations. Now that these developed nations are no longer threatened by cholera and the selective environment has changed, natural selection may be slowly weeding the cystic fibrosis allele out of those populations. They may not really reduce fitness Some genetic disorders only exert their effects late in life, after reproduction has taken place. For example, the allele that causes Huntington's disease typically does not exert its devastating effects until after a person's prime reproductive years. So although Huntington's disease is certainly deleterious in terms of quality of life, it is not deleterious in terms of reproductive ability and is not selected against. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_05 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_06 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_07 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_08 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_09 The straight story We've seen that misconceptions regarding natural selection and adaptation are common. Natural selection is often incorrectly viewed as the only mechanism of evolution and is commonly misinterpreted as "trying" to perfect organisms. Similarly, people tend to over-apply the concept of adaptation, looking for adaptive advantages in traits that may have evolved for some other function or through means other than natural selection. Although natural selection and adaptation are key concepts in evolutionary theory, the mechanisms of evolution are diverse and include mutation, migration, and genetic drift, and the results of evolution are contingent upon the vagaries of history.

Wow! Really Reggy, I'm not being nasty, [I have absolutely no reason to be] but you really say soooo much with so little conclusive results, instead of simply admitting you were wrong on your absolute definition of perfection and how it ties in or otherwise with natural selection. Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. ps: No, I have not watched your video as I don't believe it has anything to do with the subject at hand.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-05/15/c_137180976.htm China Focus: China sets record for longest stay in self-contained moon lab Source: Xinhua| 2018-05-15 19:37:23|Editor: ZX Volunteers prepare to leave the Yuegong-1, or Lunar Palace 1, at Beihang University in Beijing, capital of China, May 15, 2018. Chinese volunteers have completed a one-year test living in a simulated space lab in Beijing, setting a new record for the longest stay in a self-contained cabin. The total length of the test, which started on May 10th last year, reached 370 days, with the third stage accounting for 110 days. Liu Hong, chief designer of Yuegong-1, said the test marks the longest stay in a bioregenerative life support system (BLSS), in which humans, animals, plants and microorganisms co-exist in a closed environment, simulating a lunar base. (Xinhua/Ju Huanzong) BEIJING, May 15 (Xinhua) -- Chinese volunteers have completed a one-year test living in a simulated space lab in Beijing, setting a new record for the longest stay in a self-contained cabin. Four students, two males and two females, emerged from the Yuegong-1, or Lunar Palace 1, at Beihang University to the applause of academicians, researchers and fellow students Tuesday. The total length of the test, which started on May 10 last year, was 370 days, with the third stage accounting for 110 days. Liu Hong, chief designer of Yuegong-1, said the test marked the longest stay in a bioregenerative life support system (BLSS), in which humans, animals, plants and microorganisms co-exist in a closed environment, simulating a lunar base. Oxygen, water and food are recycled within the BLSS, creating an Earth-like environment. "The system is 98 percent self-sufficient. It has been stable and effective in providing life support for its passengers," she said. A total of eight volunteers, students at Beihang University, took turns living in the cabin, which measures around 150 square meters. The BLSS is a critical piece of technology required for long-term human stays on the moon or other extraterrestrial bodies, Liu said. Researchers will evaluate the physical and mental conditions of volunteers, study test results, and explore smaller BLSS equipment which could be loaded onto space labs, and moon and Mars probes in the future. "The test has important implications for human endeavors to achieve long-term stays outside Earth. The experience, technology and findings will be conducive for future space exploration efforts," said Wang Jun, an academician from the Chinese Academy of Engineering. The BLSS can also be applied in areas where water is scarce and oxygen levels are low, he said. The previous record was set in the Soviet Union, where three people stayed for 180 days in a similar closed ecosystem in the early 1970s. FULL RECYCLING The cabin consists of two plant cabins and a comprehensive cabin. The volunteers grow wheat, strawberries and other plants. There is small amount of pre-stored pork and chicken. The main vitamin source for the volunteers are yellow meal worms raised in the cabin. They are roasted, ground and mixed with flour to make buns and pancakes. "The system worked well. There were a lot of variety of vegetables to eat," said volunteer Gao Han, a student in his third year pursuing a Master's degree in biomedicine. "If there is any improvement needed, I would want to eat eggs, which were not available in the lab. It would be better if there were more sources of animal fat," he said. Volunteers drank water from a purifying machine. "Water is limited but sufficient for us to use for washing, cleaning vegetables and drinking every day," he said. "It was quite a challenge. I miss sunshine so much," he said. Chief designer Liu said keeping the students busy with gardening could be good therapy to cope with isolation. The volunteers had access to the Internet. They could also play chess, do yoga and ride exercise bikes. They also studied English and listened to the radio. Volunteers had to take pyschological and health checks every week, said Liu Dianlei, another volunteer. "Isolation kept us focused on our papers and experiments. We also sought fun. I performed little bit of magic to entertain the group," he said. FUTURE GOALS Professor Liu said the BLSS system had proven to function well over a long period of time. Researchers have also explored the mechanism in which light affects human's biological rhythms and emotions. They also improved technology for vertical planting. "This is not the end, but a new starting point to continue to explore space," Liu said. China has made great progress in space exploration in recent years. A manned docking in space was carried out in 2012, followed by a rover landing on the moon a year later. China plans to launch the Chang'e-5 lunar probe in 2019, which is expected to bring lunar samples back to the Earth, according to Pei Zhaoyu, deputy director of the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration. https://gbtimes.com/lunar-palace-1-a-look-inside-chinas-self-contained-moon-training-habitat?cat=business The above contains a short video re the efforts by the Chinese in this proposed Lunar habitat.

You are always in your present...even with my example above, when you land 223 years ahead of your ship's clocks, it becomes your present. You will never be able to return to the day you left Earth.

Bringing the future here? We are all progressing through time at one second per second in our own frame of reference....even anyone who was/could be moving at a speed close to "c". It is only when we observe the other frame of reference that we will notice their time progressing at a different rate to ours. This time dilation/length contraction effect has been observed. A real theoretical practical example would go like this......If you and I were exactly the same age, and I being the more intrepid, left on a relativistic space ship travelling at 99.999% "c" and turned around after 6 months and returned to Earth another 6 months later, all my on board mechanical and biological clocks would tell me that 12 months have passed for me on board. I open the ships door upon landing and I will have found my self around 223 years in the future ahead of my ship's clock and my own biological time, with you long dead and buried. On the extra dimensions, we have absolutely no indication of any. That's good, and a view you should hold all the time. As Strange just said here..... is what Einstein's SR is all about......that is, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant "c" and that therefor it is space and time that are actually personal and variable components dependent on our speed and position in a gravity well.

Perhaps more to the point, you just don't like the answers you are getting. Time is certainly a dimension...We calculate a position in space with length, breadth and height co-ordinates, but due to the finite speed of light, we also need a time co-ordinate...hence the defined spacetime. Or are you asking a more in depth question re is time real? That question is more philosophical at this time [no pun intended] and is debatable. Perhaps the question that should be asked is, is time fundamental? Here is an interesting discussion re time by Sean Carroll...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk Or are you asking or suggesting is time travel possible? If so, the answer is yes, at least into the future. The astronauts on the ISS for example when returning to Earth, will have aged slower then us mortals they have left behind, although the effect and amount is insignificant. One would need to travel at some relativistic velocity to have a real measurable effect of time travel. Time travel into the past is another kettle of fish and mostly deemed as impossible as one would need to exceed the speed of light. In essence, time travel is allowed by GR but the limitations of our technology at this time, makes it still just science fiction. https://www.space.com/27970-whats-new-black-holes-kip-thorne.html

bullshit and avoiding the bone of contention. https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-the-tail-of-a-comet-when-it-moves-far-away-from-the-Sun There are usually two tails to a comet. More on that in a moment. As the comet moves farther away from the sun, the heat from sunlight falling on the surface of the comet diminishes. The conversion of ice and other frozen liquids to gasses due to the sun’s heating slows down and eventually stops altogether until the comet swings around to approach the sun again. It’s this outgassing that pushes dust, rocks, other small pieces of ice etc. out behind the comet forming a tail that extends in the opposite direction of the comet’s path. If you can see a comet with the naked eye, this is the tail that you see. The second tail is made up of some of the ionized gasses that pushed the solid debris out to form the first tail. This tail of ionized gasses interacts with the sun’s magnetic field and always points away from the sun, regardless of the comet’s path. This tail is harder to see without a telescope, but some have reported seeing it with the naked eye in ideal viewing locales with an energetic comet. And of course the tail of a comet at aphelion can be non existent. The tail/s of a comet is always pointing away from the Sun for the reasons as described in the links I have given you...even when the comet is moving directly away from the Sun, which absolutely invalidates your mythical claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tail A comet tail—and coma—are features visible in comets when they are illuminated by the Sun and may become visible from Earth when a comet passes through the inner Solar System. As a comet approaches the inner Solar System, solar radiation causes the volatile materials within the comet to vaporize and stream out of the nucleus, carrying dust away with them. Separate tails are formed of dust and gases, becoming visible through different phenomena; the dust reflects sunlight directly and the gases glow from ionisation. Most comets are too faint to be visible without the aid of a telescope, but a few each decade become bright enough to be visible to . A comet's orbit showing the different directions of the gas and dust tails as the comet passes the Sun. NB: Please note [in first photo] the direction of the tail in relation to the direction of the orbit and the fact that it has nothing to do with any draft. Gravity is the geometry of spacetime. Motion is not ignored. The spacetime curvature associated with any mass, obviously and logically, travels along with the mass and its motion. I already have. A suggestion though...instead of pretending you are Einstein or Newton, and are competent enough to undergo any research, please make yourself familiar with the model or theory/s you are trying to invalidate. It's been 300 years since Newton proposed his gravitational and motion laws and theories, and a 100 years since Einstein gave us a more accurate description of gravity...You have a lot to learn. NO...The tail/s can be in any position as governed by its relative position in relation to the Sun!