Strange

You have no idea...

What do you mean by "true"? If someone displays paranoid (or delusional or other psychotic) behaviour then they are paranoid (or delusional or psychotic or whatever). Just because we don't know what the physical basis of mental illness is (if there is one) doesn't make it any less real. All medication has side effect. It also has positive effects. It is a matter of getting the balance right. You can't say that all medicine should be abandoned because some people have suffered harm from side effects. That is what a lot of psychiatry does.

If there is no evolutionary basis, then what? It was created by god? Something being favoured (even if your hypothesis/guess were correct) does not make something universal. And something else being less favoured does not disappear. 1. Humans are not mice 2. Even if social pressure could create homosexual behaviour in humans (implausible) that is not the explanation for all homosexuality. That would be like saying that people get violent when drunk, therefore all violence is due to drink.

Let's take a step back and think about logic. Your sentence has the basic structure of a logical proposition: if A then B. This means that if A is true then B must be true. If B is not true then either the logic must be faulty (which in this trivial case, we can be sure it isn't) to the premise (A) must be false. So, in answer to your question, we can decide that the premise ("If God cursed woman that she will forever look up to man") is false. This could be because god never cursed women in this way. Or that this god doesn't exist. Or maybe some other error. Take your pick. To put it another way: where a myth conflicts with reality, we have to conclude that reality is correct and the myth is wrong. That doesn't make it true. Because men and women are just people and are equally capable of running a country. And the bible is just a collection of stories.

Not quite. There are multiple symmetries. Some lead to anti-matter, others to supersymmetric particles, others to mirror matter. (There may be others ...)

Whereas it is OK to believe these crazy things because you read it in the bible?

Are you familiar with Cantor's diagonal proof? I guess you must be, because the only reason we know there are countable and uncountable sets, with different infinite cardinals is because of Cantor. Are you asking how we prove the properties of the reals?

Certainly not parallel universes. But if it provides evidence of mirror matter then it is possible (but not certain) that there could be large scale structures equivalent to stars and galaxies, made up of mirror matter. This would exist in our universe but not be directly detectable. That could be described as a "parallel universe" but it requires a bit of journalistic license. There is a good overview of mirror matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

I can't see why you think that is rude. In my country, tabloids are the largest selling papers and so most people read them. ! Moderator Note We do not delete topics.

It absolutely is, here is another quote from the article: The stuff about parallel universes and "portals" is hyperbole.

That is because it was written and edited by men, so it reflects the ideas of the time. That is an outdated and ridiculous idea now. Of course not. (Despite the fact that a lot of the support for Trump comes from the Christian Right.) There have been plenty of women elected to be the hands of their governments. The UK has their second female prime minister (and a female monarch). Many other countries have or have had female leaders. This is just another way in which the US is behind the times. (And the president of the USA does not "rule the world", much as some of them would like to believe they do.) The Bible is pretty much irrelevant to the modern world.

Look up the word "epigenetic". There is no change to the DNA sequences in the genes. There are (temporary) changes to gene expression caused by markers separate from the gene sequence. These effects do not last over more than one or two generations. I see no evidence of that. Clearly you have not understood the theory (which is a theory that explains how evolution occurs). And the evidence is consistent with this theory. This is not speculation, it is science. (Obviously, evolution occurs; that has been known for millennia.) Darwin's theory was incomplete. It has been massively extended (based on new evidence and an understanding of the underlying mechanisms). And, because it is a scientific theory, it is almost certainly still incomplete.

That was a theory of evolution. It has been falsified. Epigenetic is not a mechanism for evolution. It does not modify genes. (It may have some small effects on behaviour that indirectly affect the success or otherwise of the organism and hence, as a third order effect, have some influence over future evolution.) You are disagreeing with science (apparently on the basis of not really understanding it). We have a good theory, which has been around for well over 100 years and has a mountain of supporting evidence. The fact that you are either ignorant of the theory and the evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Giving you a beginners class in evolutionary theory is off topic for this thread. And not really the role of a science forum. I suggest you get a few good introductory books from the library (throw out a few bibles to make room). And then come back and ask some questions about the things you don't understand.

I honestly can't see any significant difference in meaning added by the extra words. (I would criticise both, equally, for ascribing agency to the genome/cell.) The point is that the genes contain information about the protein, not how the protein folds. But the protein is functional and useful because of the way it folds (among other things) and that is why the genes are there to create it. (Ditto more complex things like reaction-diffusion processes, morphogenesis, etc.) There is nothing novel or insightful about that. It is widely known and understood. Your claim to be the only person who can see this is, well, very silly. There is an interesting (maybe) analogy with god possible here. (As the topic has been brought up already!) There are literalists who think that god explicitly created life, and then humans, and perhaps intervenes in daily life. This is analogous to the people you say think that every detail is dictated by the genes. (I don't think there are any such "gene fundamentalists", certainly not among scientists. Maybe among Daily Mail journalists. But that is another discussion.) On the other hand, there are believers who accept the Big Bang model for the evolution of the universe, accept the roles of biological evolution in creating mankind, etc. They think that a god could have put all the rules of chemistry and physics in place, and created fundamental particles, knowing that it would eventually result in the creation of mankind by natural processes. That is sort of analogous to the role that the genome has: it puts the processes and components in place that eventually lead to the formation of tiger stripes, fingers, the brain, etc.

This is epigenetic. Nothing to do with changes to DNA. It may help speed adaptation to changes in the environment. But that does not mean that the end result was planned. Of course it doesn't. IT IS NOT A MODEL OF EVOLUTION. Sheesh. You really shouldn't be commenting in a thread where you know zero about the subject. But nature doesn't work according to what you, personally, think is logical.

Not in your opening post, which was all full of hyperbole and suggestions that genes don't do anything (or enough). Given where most people with these sorts of claims end up, it was a reasonable assumption. (They also often start off denying that there is anything religious or supernatural.) I would say the problem was more with the content, than the length. Full of errors and bogus claims. (Which you are still repeating, four pages later.)

Could you provide a diagram. I have no idea what you mean by "front wall" and "back wall". Why would photons impact at the "crest of a wave"? Photons are not waves; you seem to be mixing up the quantum description and the classical (wave) description. If the photon has hit a wall, then there will no longer be a wave to continue. The photon will be absorbed. What evidence do you have that a wave passing through the slit produces "secondary waves"? What are "secondary waves"? We can observe this effect in, say, water and there is no evidence of new waves being created. And how can "extra photons" be created? Photons have energy (and momentum) and so can't be created from nothing. I don't see how "extra time dimensions" helps explain this. For example, if you determine which slit the photon went through by observing an entangled photon (the normal way of doing this experiment) then this has no effect on the photon concerned. There is a detailed explanation of how this works available (unfortunately for you, it is a mathematical description). I don't see what your vague handwavy claims about extra time dimensions are supposed to add.

It can't be "nothing more" or biological structures would randomly appear out of nowhere all over the place. And yet, the genome is able to exploit the fact that proteins do in fact fold in predictable ways, that reaction-diffusion systems create spots (in leopards) and stripes (in tigers), and so on. So the outcome is not completely arbitrary. It can be determined. Otherwise morphogenesis and evolution would not work. And what determines the behaviour of the individual termite? Do you need a clue? Which is a straw man argument. I guess you are largely stating the obvious (with a few misunderstandings of how genes function) but you seem to think you are providing some novel insight that has never occurred to anyone before.

To add a third take to Ghideon's two: this does involve shifting energy: from the battery (or other power source) and into the pulse. Energy and mass are equivalent (cf. E=mc2) so moving energy is equivalent to moving mass around.

Simply the claim that genes can't explain everything so there must be "something else". This "something else" is most commonly promoted by proponents of Creationism and ID (the latter like to pretend they are not talking about a god, but that is just further dishonesty on their part). If you don't want to sound like a religious nutter, don't use the same language. (This is just another example of your inability to explain what you mean, coupled with unnecessary hyperbole.)

Maybe your mistake is to think that your "concept" has anything to do with science. If you are talking about concepts you have come up with by meditating on reality, then this is philosophy and not physics. Try a non-science forum. And to break new ground in science, especially physics, means having a mathematical model that produces better results than existing models.

Why would you mix it and then try and separate it again? Why would something spinning separate the different temperatures? More likely it will cause turbulence and cause the layers to mix. Once the cold and hot water is mixed, it can't be separated again (entropy). Also, cold water would sink because it is denser. In an electronic circuit, the heat comes from the circuit and so the hottest air is right next to the circuit. It is much simpler to use a fan to just blow cold air over the circuit and take the heat away. Or, in more extreme cases, use water or some other liquid coolant. Spinning a circuit will not cause it to compress random data. You assume wrongly.

Glass disease is a problem that can occur in ancient glass. The way they appear to people, or the way they are explained, may be partly a social construct. For example, in some times and places people may say the symptoms are signs of angels, demons, aliens, etc. But the hallucinations, delusions, psychotic episodes, etc are real. It is silly to pretend they don’t exist.

That is not true. (Unless you define "improvement" to mean "whatever is produced as a result of evolution".) That is true, although the use of the word "goal" is loaded because it implies there is some sort of advance planning involved. Evolution is a purely reactive process, so I don't think it can be described as having a goal. The place where it is going to end up (the "goal") can only be known in retrospect. Do you have any evidence to support that?

Nope. Nope. Have you actually read any of the responses? Or are you just ignoring them so you can continue with this straw man argument? This has not been ignored at all. You are not, as far as I can tell, hearing that from anyone here. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what is said in order to support your prejudices. That would be a great conclusion, if it weren't for the fact you seem to have wilfully misunderstood all the patient attempts to explain your errors and misrepresentations.