ronians1

a) The mutation that begot higher intelligence b) The sudden increase in brain size some 1.5 - 3 million years ago

Surely apes have not developed tools to the extent that humans have done because they have not experienced the mutation that enabled humans to posess the higher intelligence required for this feat. The posture adopted by apes does not release the hands to manipulate things such as tools etc to the extent that the upright posture of humans does. Thus this increased use of the hands resulted in greater experimentation with tools in humans which in turn resulted in more sophisticated implements.

Considering the fact that the Universe is principally made up of Dark Matter, how is it that the spacecraft Voyager that started its journey about forty years ago and has travelled a billion or so miles in space has not hit/encountered Dark Matter?

OK that goes for the laws but how about the forces? Could say, gravity be subject to eventual entropy/disorder/decay? But isn't the generally understood wider sense of entropy disorder? Could the forces of the Universe be in the process of losing their potency over time in the smallest, undetectible scale or degree? entropy genera

Sorry for the typo - yes, entropy

Are the forces of the Universe and the Laws of Physics subject to entrophy? If not why not?

I don't understand why there should be an overload problem. As far as I gather the epigenetic switchboard is not unlike any other switchboard which only deals with whats already available in the (gene)pool. Even if there is a succession of many environmental changes why should this pose anything but a temporary hiccup in the epigenetic process? The process cannot deal with every element of change anyway can it? How can the control system transfer the job of enviromental adaptation to the gene sequence itself if the required mutation has not yet already happened? Humans and apes may still be able to interbreed to some extent in spite of some hybrid breakdown. 5 million years or so may be enough time for their respective chromosomes to have mutated enough for reproduction to be virtually impossible.

I agree with your point. So what has happened to Aids? I suspect that under the veneer of containement, there is a latent beast awaiting its time. Just recently the BBC announced the findings that there are thousands of people walking aroung the UK unbeknowingly infected with HIV, Why aren't these people sick? Firstly there is the incubation period and secondly it appears that Aids does not develop unless one's immune system is compromised by malnuitrition, poor healthcare or a growing ineffectiveness of one's biochemical remedy in terms of drugs. However, the epidemic is young. The "HIV" generation has yet to grow old and with old age will come the gradual breakdown of the efficacy of one's immune system........Will this be when we find out that indeed, "nothing has happened to Aids"?

As far as I am aware the rudimentary porn films of the 70's scarcely featured anal sex at all whereas these days, if one listens to the youth of today it is most certainly mainstream and it appears that if females insist on desisting they can come under some pressure from partners to comply. Yes I was and I did not say that that anal sex was more prevalent then than now, quite the reverse. I said that anal sex was a taboo subject prior to the 70's.

Unfortunately this headonism has gone a little too far these days with the proliferation of the proclivity for anal sex amonst the young - no doubt fuelled by the prolific depiction of such by the pornographic industry. Such practice was virtually taboo prior to the seventies, a practice which, by nature of the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract, makes the transmission of HIV much easier to achieve as is born out by Wikipedia statics.

We have indeed changed our behaviour. The prophylactic in terms of the condom has been very effective against the HIV virus and since the virus is is not that hardy, a significant dose/inoculant is apparently needed before infection is incurred.(according to a urologist friend). The condom, although nowhere near 100% effective appears to be effective enough because what percentage of the virus that may get through by contamination and/or misuse is generally not sufficient for infection. Perhaps both changed behaviour and drug therapy explain the hedonistic attitude to sex by the youth of today?

I believe the biochemistry for detecting an HIV infection requires about 3 months to elapse after the inoculant is absorbed for it to be able to detect the virus. Isn't this rather late for individuals who live a promiscous lifestyle with multiple partners? And yet, and yet there seems to be a certain confidence amongst youngsters these days that thay are somehow immune from the virus.

In the eighties we were inundated by government advertisements predicting biological armageddon if society did not change its sexual behaviour. Today we are inundated by pornography from every source depicting sex with not a condom in sight. What has happened to Aids?

Before the Big Bang and After Are you sure? Why is that? How does one arrive at an explosion without energy? I presumed that since e=mc2 nothing could exist or happen without energy Surely we must presume thus as we can only go by what scientific evidence we have. The word is used metaphorically for something that " is and always has been".

Does the existence of Energy both within and without the Universe violate causality? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred hence it represents an "effect" without a cause does it not?