Ophiolite

So go ahead and present it, otherwise there is nothing for us to discuss. Before you do present it here are two pieces of advice: 1. Most serious members here reject the concept of astrology for very good reason - there is no evidence for its value. Consequently someone who chooses that as there forum name is suspected from the start to have an unscientific approach to things. That means you will have to work extra hard to demonstrate that is not the case. 2. Saying that you have "a very interesting invention" also raises warning flags. It doesn't matter what you think about the invention, but you seem to think it does. You are making your life difficult. It would have been better to say "I have an invention that I would like to here people views on. I think it is interesting, but what do you think?"

Thanks to uncool for saying almost every thing I was going to say, only saying it better: that saved me a bunch of time. I'll add this: I mention this A-wal in the hope it may cause you to reconsider your position. In the real world, talking the way I do here - indeed, because I talk the way I do here, the real world rewards me with a six figure income. In the real world, based on your performance here, I wouldn't even bring you in for an interview.

Anilkumar, you keep going on about the "Truth". (I have to continually fight down images of Jack Nicholson when anyone mentions a capitalised truth, but that's my cross.) You believe, passionately it would seem, that you have the Truth, or at least a small part of it as it concerns certain current mainstream theories. That's wonderful and you may be right. You think this Truth should be obvious to anyone who takes the time and trouble to consider the facts. The interesting thing is that hundreds, probably thousands of people have done exactly that and they have not seen what you have seen. This does not make you wrong and them right, but it increases the probability that you do not have the Truth. Further, every years scores, even hundreds of persons come onto internet forums claiming that they have some special version of the Truth. What would be the effect of allowing all of them to post that Truth in any thread just so they could make people aware of an alternative view? You seem to think your Truth is so much more compelling that all the other Truth's people wish to promote. A skeptical audience says so far it does not seem that way - and the skeptical audience is employing the same scientific method you seem to applaud. So you nee to take your Truth and argue for it in the appropriate sub-forum. If it is the Truth it will eventually win out - good luck with that. But please stop gumming up the discussions of mainstream science and misleading lurkers and neophytes as to the current understanding of truth, Truth and the scientific method.

Please answer the question I asked. Your response makes zero sense. If you "didn't say that they are problems", then you imply that they are not problems. Why then would you need "to resolve them"? However, my question was do you think the existence of these problems is itself a problem, and apparently you do, and if so why do you think it is a problem. Will you now please answer this. Further, you say that we need some re-thinking. What is wrong with the current approach, which continues to produce new insights, more data and additional questions? What form are you suggesting this new thinking should take and what would make it superior to the present approach? The reason, I suspect, people keep giving you negative rep is that you have not, apparently, thought through any of these questions.

Thank you for the clarification. However, this was your original statement: That is the opposite of what you have just said. I recommend more careful writing in future.

Irrelevant. too-openminded and ntoevs both speak about ancestral blood. Therefore they are clearly referring to genetic inheritance not cultural inheritance. Everything you have said is true it just doesn't apply to the topic being discussed. badcompany - what makes you believe you are not gullible?

@ A-wal: 28 posts and you act like you are God, or Satan's, gift to the forum. You complain about members being reluctant to engage in meaningful debate, then whine and become abusive when Bignose seeks to engage in exactly that. He not only shows your idea respect, but offers specific suggestions on how it could be tested. He gives you sound advice on the weaknesses in your proposal as it stands. His approach is thoughtful and relevant. And your response? Chill the smeg out dude! Rude, ungrateful and - as ACG52 pointed out - behaving contrary to forum rules. And all so unecessary. You asked interesting questions - aren't you mature enought to handle the answers? Apparently not, and that is your loss. Edited to make clear the post was directed at A-wal , as Bignose posted in between A-wal and my reply.

I think I've heard this explanation before.

I don't mind whether I'm going to be served a frozen margarita, or a Cuba Libre. I'd just like to know which.

No it isn't. It is built off of two things: 1. Our genetic ineheritance from our parents (which is not determined in anyway by what they have perceived with their brains - unless you wish to get pedantically convoluted.) 2. The environment in which that genetic inheritance is expressed. We've had this discussion before: evolution is not Lamarkian.

Do you think the existence of problems in physics is a problem? If so, why?

I don't see a meaningful way to answer this. Hundreds of text books and thousands of research papers have been written on just single aspects of the mind. That said, the mind is an emergent property of complicated biochemical processes arising between neurons and their associated architecture, interlinked in a complex network that allows, among other things, control, communication and conscious thought. You seem especially interested in memory. The functioning of memory is quite well understood and their is no evidence for 'memories' carried from parents. Nor is there any plausible mechanism by which such transfer could occur. As EquisDexD says, we may inherit certain skills from our parents, though how well these are expressed will depend upon our environment during development. Those skills, however, were inherited by your parents, from their parents and so on. (Instincts are a quite different matter from memory - they are a tendency to certain behavioural patterns.)

Is the reason for this question that you think you don't dream and therefore may be in danger of dying? If so set your mind at ease. You likely do dream, you just don't remember your dreams. That said, there are a small proportion of the population (<1%) who apparently do not dream. They do not have any problems associated with this absence of dreams. For example, this study.

johnny11, your son has a great deal of physical growing up to do before you will be able to tell who he will look like. On the other hand, you appear to have even more mental and emotional growing up to do before you can be a fit father for the boy. Time is short. I suggest you start now. A good first step would be to accept that, while you may not like your brother in law, your wife and inlaws do. You won't change them. You ae the one who needs to change.

Have you done the traditional thing and consulted Wikipedia? If so, what of the information you found there was unclear? Knowing this might help one or more members give a proper response.

New Scientist contains a mix of interesting articles and lots of brief news item on science and technology. See here: http://www.newscientist.com/

Yes.

Arguments from ignorance appear to lack rest mass. Ophiolite

What we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. Our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is still far from complete and, as CharonY points out, not fully integrated. Large steps have been taken over a century and a half. Is it important to mark those steps? Important, but not necessarily essential. Darwin's idea was accepted with suprising alacrity by the scientific community, supporting the claim by some that it was an idea whose time had come. (And Wallace served to offer confirmation to that notion.) Yet by the turn of the century Darwinism was all but dead as people gravitated to mutation and the concepts of Mendel rediscovered by Bateman, de Vries and Corren. When the two were fused in the 1930s and 40s did the resultant concept merit a new name? One could hardly call it Haldane/Huxley/Dhobzhanksy/Fisher/Simpson/Stebbins/Wright/Mayrism, so the Modern Synthesis was born. And now, more than half a century later, we've learnt even more about the mechanisms and processes, so much more that some people think a new name is in order. Is it? I said at the outset that what we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. But is this true? Darwin may have been the right man in the right place at the right time, but he ignited a revolution that is arguably of greater scientific importance than any other. His handful of principles still lie at the heart of evolutionary thought, so my view is simple. Let's just call the current hypothesis and those that will develop in future, Darwinism. Direct, concise, effective. And it has the secondary advantage that it will piss off the creationists.

I think we need the insight of J.B.S.Haldane. (Not the one about god being inordinately fond of beetles, since we've been asked to avoid talking evolution.) My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S.H.

The concept of laws in science are an antiquated hangover from the time when the universe was seen as a clockwork-like mechanism, governed by rigid and clear-cut rules. Heisenberg and chaos and catastrophe theory and the like have changed that view forever. Unless we were to completely change the methodology of science, so that it would be unreasonable to call it science anymore, we shall never have anything more definitive and valuable than theory. Laws are, for the most part, nothing more than quantification of simple relationships established via observation. I would argue they have nothin at all to offer biology except as a crude marketing device.

As Ronald said, evolution is a process. In setting up your algorithms you have confused process and mechanism. You wish to contrast mutation rate with germ line mutation rates. Why make these contrasts? They are simply the way the process is mechanistically imposed on a particular kind of population. At this point in your sequence I would rather see a phrase that said "generation of variety". How that variety is generated is the mechanistic part.

Yes. http://www2.ucar.edu/news/sunspots-3d-multimedia-gallery

I can't really speak for the rest of the EU, at least, not without filling out a bunch of forms, but I'll share my own view. Socialism, which is a rude word in much of the US - certainly the parts I frequent - is generally a valued word in the EU. We think it is good to for those of who have to help support those who don't have quite as much. We value the fact that in one form or other affordable and universal health care is available. A couple of years ago when I experienced on-going chest pains I was able to call a 24 hour service, explain my symptoms and an ambulance with two paramedics was at my door within eight minutes. At no time did I have to worry if my insurance was going to adequately cover what ever procedures might be needed. That is a civilised environment to live in. I know several people in the US who are beyond retirement age who are working purely to maintain their company health insurance. That can't be right. Obama seems to be trying to approach a comparable situation with the EU, in this and other matters. I say approach, but from a European standpoint Obama himself is arguably right wing. It's just that this places Romney far off-stage. Sorry, that was rambling a little. The bottom line is that I fear for the quality of life for many Americans if Romney is elected. Secondly, Obama seems to have the savvy to understand how badly American actions can screw up the rest of the world. Romney seems to lack that ability. So I fear for the global consequences if he is elected.

I had no idea I was claustraphobic till I had an MRI scan. It made me very nervous, but much less nervous than the prospect of Romney winning the election.