Strange

Sexual selection is where members of a species choose who to mate with (and therefore have to compete with other members of the species). This can lead to exaggeration of the signals that are used for selection (eg. if large tail feathers are seen as a proxy for health, then larger and larger feathers may be selected over generations leading to things like peacock's displays). Not sure what the connection with introverts would be.

First you would have to establish that there is such a thing as a "soul". Then find evidence that it was imparted by a god. After that, you could go on to asking when that happened. (In other words, you don't need to worry about that question.)

What is wrong with asking questions? (He asked.) Isn't that one of the main purposes of a forum?

Well, modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond the original Darwin-Wallace model. So it isn't "Darwin or nothing". But as the alternative promoted by Behe is, as the article points out, not testable then there's no real reason to consider it.

Evolution doesn't disprove the "god hypothesis" or "intelligent design" (although the designer is pretty stupid, if you look at the evidence) but it renders them unnecessary. And then one can apply Occam's Razor and say that entities which are unnecessary (have no detectable effect) should be discarded.

I would say that distorts the meaning of “knowledge” so much as to make the word meaningless. It is probably because he realised that a science forum is not going to be receptive to his type of drivel. Anthropomorphism is not always bad thing. We use it all the time in a metaphorical sense. For example, "the weather has been kind to us" or "water wants to flow downhill." It is only bad when it is taken literally. If you think that the weather was kind because you asked it to be, or gravity os caused by the inner desires of water molecules. (That appears to be where RBS was coming from.)

I come into daily contact with nitrogen and oxygen. I think most people do.

You provided two references to the creation of electrons and positrons (S. Devons, G. R. Lindsey, Electron pair creation by a spherically symmetrical field. Nature. 164, 539-540(1949).E. J. Williams, Production of electron-positron pairs. Nature. 135, 66-66(1935)). One of these produces electrons and positrons from the transition of an excited oxygen nucleus to the ground state. Therefore nothing to do with dark matter. The other refers to pair production from two photons. Therefore nothing to do with dark matter. Therefore you have no evidence of dark matter producing electron-positron pairs. (You don't even have evidence of something we can't see producing electron-positron pairs.) But not in the same way. Normal matter condenses to form stars, planets, rocks, liquids, etc. Dark matter does not. That is because it does not interact electromagnetically. In other words, "I don't understand GR so it must be wrong." Given your impressive ignorance of most areas of science, this is not a very convincing argument. And yet you can see into a glass vacuum vessel. So anyone can see that you are wrong. Coming from you, that is quite funny. (Reported. Again.)

There are several mechanisms that can form pairs of particles and antiparticles. This thread is for you to present the evidence for your idea, not to give you an introduction to basic science. Either go and learn some science or start a thread with questions to fill the gaps in your knowledge. Sigh. It doesn't form into "clumps"; it stays in diffuse clouds around galaxies and other structures. Of course, you won't understand why this is evidence for it not interacting electromagnetically because you are ignorant of basic physics. But there is not much I can do about that. Which demonstrates that it is not distributed like normal matter. It does not exert a force. Gravity is not a force in GR. You really should know this stuff. Are you not embarrassed to display your ignorance like this? You should be.

It makes sense. But I'm not sure how it is relevant. If there is an unstable nucleus that will decay after some (unknown but statistically predictable) time, why does it matter how it got there? Its (average) lifetime will be the same however it was created.

Interesting article on how it is possible to indirectly detect the effects of the Cosmic Neutrino Background and (of course) how it is consistent with the Big Bang model. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/28/earliest-signal-ever-scientists-find-relic-neutrinos-from-1-second-after-the-big-bang/

There are differences. For example, we know how much dark matter there is and how it is distributed, and we know that it would not be distributed like that if it interacted electromagnetically. We also know that there is enough that it would be detectable if it were visible. So we know it is not baryonic matter.

What positron-electron pair? And what does "disassociate" mean? And if anything "disassociates" them, it can't be dark matter because it doesn't interact electromagnetically. We know this. From evidence. If it were electron-positron pairs, we would know because they would annihilate and produce gamma rays. You should know this. As you "know all the science". But the problem is you don't know any science, do you. Dark matter is not distributed like normal matter. That is because it doesn't interact electromagnetically. The problem is simply the you don't know what you are talking about.

Why don't you study some physics and find out, instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance. Are you proud of not knowing these things? Intermolecular attraction is completely different from gravity. This is why dark matter does not "clump". Yet another example of your ignorance. And you should learn the difference between proper speed and coordinate speed.

This is not true. Yet another thing you are ignorant of. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with gravity. Speed of light doesn't change. What does that mean? Particles don't"fluctuate". Of course not. Why would you expect it to? I have already explained that the first of these contradicts your claims and the others are irrelevant. Then your model is wrong because we know it doesn't. Yet another thing you are ignorant of. So why should anyone take any notice of the stuff you make up (that is contradicted by evidence).

GR was vital to at least three engineering projects I worked on. (And indirectly involved in several others.) It is almost like you don't know what you are talking about. Assertions are not evidence. No matter how many times you repeat them. I thought you understood "all basic physics"? Nonsense. Dark matter doesn't interact electromagnetically.

You can't see the contradiction here? If you understood "all basic physics" you wouldn't need to ask the question.

You need to stop just repeating these assertions and provide some evidence. Logical is no use without EVIDENCE. I will request that this thread is closed.

We know that electrons and positrons annihilate to create photons. We can observe this. This is known as "evidence", a concept you seem to be unfamiliar with. We have not observed dark matter being created from a electrons and positrons. Given the level of ignorance you have demonstrated, what you "think" is hardly relevant. Because they don't interact with the Higgs field. Read a book on basic physics. No. It doesn't. That's a bit rich coming from someone who has provide no evidence at all. But here, read these, it might shut you up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity https://www.ligo.org/detections.php https://www.space.com/41020-putting-relativity-to-the-test.html https://www.space.com/40958-einstein-general-relativity-test-distant-galaxy.html http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf http://www.skhlkmss.edu.hk/physics/Gravitation/Eins_evidence_of_general_relativity.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Experimental_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens And so on and so on ... In most cases but not always. That is why we need GR. Because it doesn't interact electromagnetically. (Unlike electrons and positrons.) This is what is known as an "assertion"; in other words a statement made with no support. You have provided no evidence. There is evidence you are wrong (experimental tests of Bells' Theorem). Therefore, you are wrong.

That doesn't really explain anything. You need to explain in mathematical detail why this does not violate Bell's Inequality. And this doesn't explain anything either.

Photons. You really do need to learn some basic (schoolboy) science. Many possible sources. None appear to be dark matter. This is not the place to teach you basic physics. Go read a book. Because they are massless The geometry of spacetime No it isn’t. Newtonian gravity is a force. But gravity is not a force in GR. No. The energy is converted to photons. This is a logical fallacy (assuming the consequent?)

Yes, photons can be treated as point particles. But that is not the reason they do not interact with one another. Velocity of photons does not change at the interface of different materials. Photons are delayed when they travel through a medium because of their interactions with the electrons in the medium. You mean that no surface is perfectly smooth so light will always be scattered slightly? Obviously. But this has nothing to do with photons. It is true of classical waves as well (it has to be because classical waves have to behave the same as photons). What? This makes no sense. Yes. The only explanation is that you are totally ignorant of physics. Time doesn't exert a force. As you are just spouting ignorant nonsense, there is little point in this thread staying open. You need to learn some basic physics. Go back to school.

As they observed the production of an electron positron pair, I don't know what you mean by "see nothing". Also note that this pair is an electron and a separate positron, not a bound pair that you claim to be dark matter. So it is irrelevant. (And please learn to use the Quote function.)

As those all have mountains of evidence for them, your idea is disproved. So what? We know electrons and positrons exist. We know many mechanisms that can create them (including pair production from photons). We also know they can form unstable pairs. But the CDMS paper concludes that dark matter was not the source of the detected events. If you can't be bothered to provide links, I am not going to waste my term searching for papers that I know do not say what you claim.

It would help if you provided links. But this paper is testing for WIMPs (not electron-positron pairs). And they don't find any. They conclude: "These expectations indicate that the results of this analysis cannot be interpreted as significant evidence for WIMP interactions, but we cannot reject either event as signal." http://inspirehep.net/record/840579?ln=en https://www.nature.com/articles/164539a0 This has nothing to do with dark matter. Not does it show that electrons and positrons can exist in stable bound pairs. https://www.nature.com/articles/135066a0 This has nothing to do with dark matter. Not does it show that electrons and positrons can exist in stable bound pairs. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/762 Well done. This does refer to electron-positron pairs. But it demonstrates that these interact with normal atoms and therefore cannot be dark matter. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500340.2017.1374482 Hard to see how this is relevant. Perhaps you could explain. More unsubstantiated and apparently irrelevant claims. I am genuinely curious about this. What are you referring to? Please provide a reference. Then you need to provide some evidence for this. In particular, why doesn't it collapse to form structures as normal matter does? These are circled numbers. Presumably they don't exist in your default font. You should probably stick one theory per thread. Start another thread to embarrass yourself with your daft ideas about photons. 1. What would disprove your idea? 2. What predictions does your idea make that would allow it to be distinguished from current theory?