-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Weird
- Start date
- Status
genedigger
Member
there is no test to check for schizophrenia it is purely subjective and in the eye or mind of the observer.there is as much truth to schizophrenia being real as there is to god being real.its the same thing.
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while it's a serious mental disorder and is very real.
I have several family members affected by it, from rich and functional to not so much.
It is tied with the optical lobes, as there are no recorded instances in people born blind at birth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...02/why-early-blindness-prevents-schizophrenia
Being born blind risks autism but protects against its opposite: psychosis
There has also been breakthroughs with behavioral therapy.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-04-curtailing-worry-reduces-key-schizophrenia-symptom-1
Just six sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can substantially reduce psychiatric patients' levels of worrying, reducing the severity of delusions of persecution.
IMHO at the root are the bodies stress hormones and the inability of the body to break it down due to the biological dysfunction caused by negative byproducts of food processing and modern pharmacology.
Most modern pych meds seriously destroy the enzymes the body uses to naturally break down these hormones, which is why they don't heal the symptoms but only abate them and why in some instances once you stop they can be as bad or worse.
When you say modern psych meds destroy enzymes are you talking about anti-depressant meds , ssris like celexa ?
What do you think about ssris weird ?
I am thinking of maybe getting a subscription (prescription) per recommendation of various people as well as my personal initiative.
What do you think about ssris weird ?
I am thinking of maybe getting a subscription (prescription) per recommendation of various people as well as my personal initiative.
Well all my seeds have cracked soil vegging plants sleeping and males are on there 1 hr period for pollen chucking not much else to do but watch a movie so to all my athiest friends i give you a free movie that i am about to watch cheers and lets discuss it tomorrow lol
movie pyramid you can thank me later
http://movietube.cz/watch.php?v=nO05Mx8vfdQ
movie pyramid you can thank me later
http://movietube.cz/watch.php?v=nO05Mx8vfdQ
Says the biggest fool on the board.
Maybe in the entire universe.
Stuck on stupid.The anti-evolutionist.
I don't see how it's even possible to be that clueless.
Try getting your GED, or reading a real book besides the bible.
NASA Dawn nears encounter with dwarf planet Ceres
NASA Dawn nears encounter with dwarf planet Ceres
MIAMI: A NASA spacecraft called Dawn is about to become the first mission to orbit a dwarf planet when it slips into orbit Friday around Ceres, the most massive body in the asteroid belt.
The mission aims to shed light on the origins of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, from its “rough and tumble environment of the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter,” said mission director Marc Rayman of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
Already scientists are intrigued by the appearance of two bright spots on Ceres.
“What are they? At this point, the clearest answer is that the answer is unknown,” Rayman wrote on his blog.
The dwarf planet, which has an average diameter of 590 miles (950 kilometers), makes a full rotation every nine hours, and NASA is hoping for a wealth of data once the spacecraft’s orbit begins.
“Dawn is about to make history,” said Robert Mase, project manager for the Dawn mission at NASA JPL in Pasadena, California.
“Our team is ready and eager to find out what Ceres has in store for us.”
Experts will be looking for signs of geologic activity, via changes in these bright spots, or other features on Ceres’ surface over time.
The latest images came from Dawn when it was 25,000 miles (40,000 kilometers) away on February 25.
The celestial body was first spotted by Sicilian astronomer Father Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801.
“Ceres was initially classified as a planet and later called an asteroid. In recognition of its planet-like qualities, Ceres was designated a dwarf planet in 2006, along with Pluto and Eris,” NASA said.
Ceres is named after the Roman goddess of agriculture and harvests.
The spacecraft on its way to circle it was launched in September 2007.
First, Dawn explored the giant asteroid Vesta for 14 months in 2011 and 2012, then made its way toward Ceres.
“This two-stop tour of our solar system is made possible by Dawn’s ion propulsion system, its three ion engines being much more efficient than chemical propulsion,” NASA said.
The exploration of Vesta and Ceres helps scientists understand how objects form in space.
“Both Vesta and Ceres were on their way to becoming planets, but their development was interrupted by the gravity of Jupiter,” said Carol Raymond, deputy project scientist at JPL.
“These two bodies are like fossils from the dawn of the solar system, and they shed light on its origins.”
Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, said he hopes Dawn will “contribute significant breakthroughs in our understanding of how the solar system formed.”
NASA has partnered with the German Aerospace Center, Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Italian Space Agency and Italian National Astrophysical Institute on the mission.
Next year, the US space agency plans to launch its Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) spacecraft, to “study a large asteroid in unprecedented detail and return samples to Earth,” NASA said.
http://arynews.tv/en/nasa-dawn-nears-encounter-dwarf-planet-ceres/
Touchdown on Friday.
We keep searching, precisely because we don't have the answers. They come slowly, but they come.
Go back in time and show this to early man, and he thinks "gods". After all, in biblical times, everyone knew the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around us.
NASA Dawn nears encounter with dwarf planet Ceres
MIAMI: A NASA spacecraft called Dawn is about to become the first mission to orbit a dwarf planet when it slips into orbit Friday around Ceres, the most massive body in the asteroid belt.
The mission aims to shed light on the origins of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, from its “rough and tumble environment of the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter,” said mission director Marc Rayman of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
Already scientists are intrigued by the appearance of two bright spots on Ceres.
“What are they? At this point, the clearest answer is that the answer is unknown,” Rayman wrote on his blog.
The dwarf planet, which has an average diameter of 590 miles (950 kilometers), makes a full rotation every nine hours, and NASA is hoping for a wealth of data once the spacecraft’s orbit begins.
“Dawn is about to make history,” said Robert Mase, project manager for the Dawn mission at NASA JPL in Pasadena, California.
“Our team is ready and eager to find out what Ceres has in store for us.”
Experts will be looking for signs of geologic activity, via changes in these bright spots, or other features on Ceres’ surface over time.
The latest images came from Dawn when it was 25,000 miles (40,000 kilometers) away on February 25.
The celestial body was first spotted by Sicilian astronomer Father Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801.
“Ceres was initially classified as a planet and later called an asteroid. In recognition of its planet-like qualities, Ceres was designated a dwarf planet in 2006, along with Pluto and Eris,” NASA said.
Ceres is named after the Roman goddess of agriculture and harvests.
The spacecraft on its way to circle it was launched in September 2007.
First, Dawn explored the giant asteroid Vesta for 14 months in 2011 and 2012, then made its way toward Ceres.
“This two-stop tour of our solar system is made possible by Dawn’s ion propulsion system, its three ion engines being much more efficient than chemical propulsion,” NASA said.
The exploration of Vesta and Ceres helps scientists understand how objects form in space.
“Both Vesta and Ceres were on their way to becoming planets, but their development was interrupted by the gravity of Jupiter,” said Carol Raymond, deputy project scientist at JPL.
“These two bodies are like fossils from the dawn of the solar system, and they shed light on its origins.”
Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, said he hopes Dawn will “contribute significant breakthroughs in our understanding of how the solar system formed.”
NASA has partnered with the German Aerospace Center, Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Italian Space Agency and Italian National Astrophysical Institute on the mission.
Next year, the US space agency plans to launch its Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) spacecraft, to “study a large asteroid in unprecedented detail and return samples to Earth,” NASA said.
http://arynews.tv/en/nasa-dawn-nears-encounter-dwarf-planet-ceres/
Touchdown on Friday.
We keep searching, precisely because we don't have the answers. They come slowly, but they come.
Go back in time and show this to early man, and he thinks "gods". After all, in biblical times, everyone knew the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around us.
Mr.Anderson
Member
I don't think the "universe" is anything like what modern science could even imagine. The establishment has designed a public education system that promotes their manufactured version of what reality is and what the possibilities are. It is a way of thinking that is designed to keep most peoples minds in a box. They run around presenting their fairytale to the population as truth through their magic wand, the television. There is no beginning or end to the universe because its part of something else, something bigger and more complex and that is part of something bigger and more complex. They have people thinking like cavemen about the "universe" as a place with a begging and an end when it's way beyond our comprehension. What does everyone think this all is? I think it's all part of something that some people call "GOD".
You know Gene you sound worse then Mad lab i give him some credit
You mention your strongly against evolution when the Facts are smacking you in the head for instance adaption plants everything evolves Everything here is a great example ....
spidermites have evolved it takes stronger doses to kill them off from 5 years ago and why ?? they evolved adapted changed
Believing in religion is no different then being KKK or white power or Nazi
next thing your going to say is which is proven by science is tectonic plates moving i bet you think your God is moving them right ???
Dr. Fever
Your behavior here is no different than it was in the organic forum, negative, inflammatory, without fact or merit. What is your agenda?
here is a rationalist statement from a quantum physicist and atheist Brian Greene
Let us dig a little below the tip of the iceberg in regards to you agenda.
Remove the hyperbole religion Christianity resonates with a billion people because of Christ. Regardless of the existence of God, the reason he remains in the hearts and minds of so many is because of what he represents.
Compassionate and selfless love for one another. That is what people find so attractive, a think that religion nurishes.
This is the root of most world religions, and this common desire among so many people is the mechanism that is exploited by the few nefarious people that work in the guise of public service (government, religion, science, medicine)
You don't have to look to Christ if you find that information tainted. Look at someone like Ghandi.
Even atheism was reformed to new atheism to include humanism to the mix, because science that excludes us from the equation is only theoretical and without a basis in humanity, impracticable to it.
See, like the smarmy thread you created in the organic forums to ask why people grow organic when you were already dead against is like your behavior here
You are promoting an religious smear campaign for selfish purpose, there is no humanitarianism at the root of it.
You are defending your own narcissistic view of humanity and promoting it at the same time.
No one will benefit from your arguments but you
Have you ever had something you love that wasn't material,sexual or yourself?
Your behavior here is no different than it was in the organic forum, negative, inflammatory, without fact or merit. What is your agenda?
here is a rationalist statement from a quantum physicist and atheist Brian Greene
Let us dig a little below the tip of the iceberg in regards to you agenda.
Remove the hyperbole religion Christianity resonates with a billion people because of Christ. Regardless of the existence of God, the reason he remains in the hearts and minds of so many is because of what he represents.
Compassionate and selfless love for one another. That is what people find so attractive, a think that religion nurishes.
This is the root of most world religions, and this common desire among so many people is the mechanism that is exploited by the few nefarious people that work in the guise of public service (government, religion, science, medicine)
You don't have to look to Christ if you find that information tainted. Look at someone like Ghandi.
Even atheism was reformed to new atheism to include humanism to the mix, because science that excludes us from the equation is only theoretical and without a basis in humanity, impracticable to it.
See, like the smarmy thread you created in the organic forums to ask why people grow organic when you were already dead against is like your behavior here
You are promoting an religious smear campaign for selfish purpose, there is no humanitarianism at the root of it.
You are defending your own narcissistic view of humanity and promoting it at the same time.
No one will benefit from your arguments but you
Have you ever had something you love that wasn't material,sexual or yourself?
genedigger
Member
i said creatures not plants and adaption and evolution are not the same thing.
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
When renowned scientists now talk seriously about millions of multiverses, the old question "are we alone?" gets a whole new meaning.
Our ever-expanding universe is incomprehensibly large – and its rate of growth is apparently accelerating – but if so it's actually in a very delicate balance.
It's then incredible that the universe exists at all. Let us explain.
In a 2004 review in Science of Searle's Mind a Brief Introduction, neuroscientist Christof Koch wrote:
Whether we scientists are inspired, bored, or infuriated by philosophy, all our theorising and experimentation depends on particular philosophical background assumptions. This hidden influence is an acute embarrassment to many researchers, and it is therefore not often acknowledged. Such fundamental notions as reality, space, time and causality – notions found at the core of the scientific enterprise – all rely on particular metaphysical assumptions about the world.
This may seem self-evident, and was regarded as important by Einstein, Bohr and the founders of quantum theory a century ago, but it runs against the grain of the views of working scientists in the post-war period.
Indeed, 21st-century mathematicians and scientists seem to have little need of philosophy.
The glory days of Karl Popper, who argued that falsifiability was a hallmark of good science, and Thomas Kuhn, who noted the phenomenon of paradigm shifts, are long gone—in science, if not in the humanities.
For many years, scientific philosophy as practised by scientists has languished, punctuated only by lapses such as the Sokal hoax, when NYU physicist Alan Sokal wrote a tongue-in-cheek article with a lot of scientific nonsense that was accepted by a leading journal in the postmodern science studies field (and launched a cottage industry of similar hoaxes).
But maybe the tide is finally turning. Perhaps modern science really needs philosophy after all.
Cosmic coincidences
The main drivers here are some truly perplexing developments in physics and cosmology. In recent years physicists and cosmologists have uncovered numerous eye-popping "cosmic coincidences," remarkable instances of apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe.
Here are just three out of many that could be listed:
Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.
The proton-to-electron mass ratio. A neutron's mass is slightly more than the combined mass of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If the neutron were very slightly less massive, then it could not decay without energy input. If its mass were lower by 1%, then isolated protons would decay instead of neutrons, and very few atoms heavier than lithium could form.
The cosmological constant. Perhaps the most startling instance of fine-tuning is the cosmological constant paradox. This derives from the fact that when one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory.
Physicists, who have fretted over the cosmological constant paradox for years, have noted that calculations such as the above involve only the electromagnetic force, and so perhaps when the contributions of the other known forces are included, all terms will cancel out to exactly zero, as a consequence of some unknown fundamental principle of physics.
It was a Nobel prize-winning discovery too.
But these hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implied that the cosmological constant must be slightly positive.
This meant that physicists were left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121st digit.
Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago.
The Anthropic Principle
In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation other than the Anthropic Principle—the universe is in this exceedingly improbable state, because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to discuss the fact.
They further note that the prevailing "eternal inflation" big bang scenario suggests that our universe is just one pocket in a continuously bifurcating multiverse.
Inflation cosmology, by the way, got a significant experimental boost with the March 17, 2014 announcement that astronomers had discovered gravitational waves, signatures of the big bang inflation, in data collected from telescopes based at the South Pole.
In a similar vein, string theory, the current best candidate for a "theory of everything," predicts an enormous ensemble, numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly fine-tuned universe.
But to many scientists, such reasoning is anathema to traditional empirical science. Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.
And even the proponents of such views have some explaining to do. For example, if there are truly infinitely many pocket universes like ours, as physicists argue is the case, how can one possibly define a "probability measure" on such an ensemble? In other words, what does it mean to talk of the "probability" of our universe existing in its observed state?
But others see no alternative to some form of the multiverse and the Anthropic Principle. Physicist Max Tegmark, in his recent book Our Mathematical Universe, argues that not only is the multiverse real, but in fact that the multiverse is mathematics—all mathematical laws and structures actually exist, and are the ultimate stuff of the universe.
Modern science needs philosophy
With this backdrop, a growing number of scientists are calling for head-to-head interactions with philosophers. In a recent New Scientist article, cosmologist Joseph Silk reviews these and other issues now faced by the field, and then notes that such problems, probing the meaning of our very existence, are closely akin to those that have been debated by philosophers through the ages.
Thus perhaps a new dialogue between science and philosophy can bring some badly needed insights into physics and other leading-edge fields such as neurobiology. (Indeed, there is a burgeoning sub discipline of neurophilosophy.)
As Silk explains, "Drawing the line between philosophy and physics has never been easy. Perhaps it is time to stop trying. The interface is ripe for exploration."
When renowned scientists now talk seriously about millions of multiverses, the old question "are we alone?" gets a whole new meaning.
Our ever-expanding universe is incomprehensibly large – and its rate of growth is apparently accelerating – but if so it's actually in a very delicate balance.
It's then incredible that the universe exists at all. Let us explain.
In a 2004 review in Science of Searle's Mind a Brief Introduction, neuroscientist Christof Koch wrote:
Whether we scientists are inspired, bored, or infuriated by philosophy, all our theorising and experimentation depends on particular philosophical background assumptions. This hidden influence is an acute embarrassment to many researchers, and it is therefore not often acknowledged. Such fundamental notions as reality, space, time and causality – notions found at the core of the scientific enterprise – all rely on particular metaphysical assumptions about the world.
This may seem self-evident, and was regarded as important by Einstein, Bohr and the founders of quantum theory a century ago, but it runs against the grain of the views of working scientists in the post-war period.
Indeed, 21st-century mathematicians and scientists seem to have little need of philosophy.
The glory days of Karl Popper, who argued that falsifiability was a hallmark of good science, and Thomas Kuhn, who noted the phenomenon of paradigm shifts, are long gone—in science, if not in the humanities.
For many years, scientific philosophy as practised by scientists has languished, punctuated only by lapses such as the Sokal hoax, when NYU physicist Alan Sokal wrote a tongue-in-cheek article with a lot of scientific nonsense that was accepted by a leading journal in the postmodern science studies field (and launched a cottage industry of similar hoaxes).
But maybe the tide is finally turning. Perhaps modern science really needs philosophy after all.
Cosmic coincidences
The main drivers here are some truly perplexing developments in physics and cosmology. In recent years physicists and cosmologists have uncovered numerous eye-popping "cosmic coincidences," remarkable instances of apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe.
Here are just three out of many that could be listed:
Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.
The proton-to-electron mass ratio. A neutron's mass is slightly more than the combined mass of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If the neutron were very slightly less massive, then it could not decay without energy input. If its mass were lower by 1%, then isolated protons would decay instead of neutrons, and very few atoms heavier than lithium could form.
The cosmological constant. Perhaps the most startling instance of fine-tuning is the cosmological constant paradox. This derives from the fact that when one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory.
Physicists, who have fretted over the cosmological constant paradox for years, have noted that calculations such as the above involve only the electromagnetic force, and so perhaps when the contributions of the other known forces are included, all terms will cancel out to exactly zero, as a consequence of some unknown fundamental principle of physics.
It was a Nobel prize-winning discovery too.
But these hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implied that the cosmological constant must be slightly positive.
This meant that physicists were left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121st digit.
Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago.
The Anthropic Principle
In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation other than the Anthropic Principle—the universe is in this exceedingly improbable state, because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to discuss the fact.
They further note that the prevailing "eternal inflation" big bang scenario suggests that our universe is just one pocket in a continuously bifurcating multiverse.
Inflation cosmology, by the way, got a significant experimental boost with the March 17, 2014 announcement that astronomers had discovered gravitational waves, signatures of the big bang inflation, in data collected from telescopes based at the South Pole.
In a similar vein, string theory, the current best candidate for a "theory of everything," predicts an enormous ensemble, numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly fine-tuned universe.
But to many scientists, such reasoning is anathema to traditional empirical science. Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.
And even the proponents of such views have some explaining to do. For example, if there are truly infinitely many pocket universes like ours, as physicists argue is the case, how can one possibly define a "probability measure" on such an ensemble? In other words, what does it mean to talk of the "probability" of our universe existing in its observed state?
But others see no alternative to some form of the multiverse and the Anthropic Principle. Physicist Max Tegmark, in his recent book Our Mathematical Universe, argues that not only is the multiverse real, but in fact that the multiverse is mathematics—all mathematical laws and structures actually exist, and are the ultimate stuff of the universe.
Modern science needs philosophy
With this backdrop, a growing number of scientists are calling for head-to-head interactions with philosophers. In a recent New Scientist article, cosmologist Joseph Silk reviews these and other issues now faced by the field, and then notes that such problems, probing the meaning of our very existence, are closely akin to those that have been debated by philosophers through the ages.
Thus perhaps a new dialogue between science and philosophy can bring some badly needed insights into physics and other leading-edge fields such as neurobiology. (Indeed, there is a burgeoning sub discipline of neurophilosophy.)
As Silk explains, "Drawing the line between philosophy and physics has never been easy. Perhaps it is time to stop trying. The interface is ripe for exploration."
65 pages of this thread.. who cares how the universe was made, thank god we're doing this with it...
hows about we tally the top three post contributors and shoot them to CERES, as a reward, like, for the rest of us
"nasty, inflammatory," writes back to you haha
in the single digit pages, we had a nice discussion about epistemology, perception and knowledge, then someone dragged up their favourite quasi-historical zombie and turned a theoretical, worthwhile discussion, into an intangible war of "references", eg. useless discussion.
good discussion, useless discussion. people and their references (dick measurers).
blows to the yarbles mate. until you can form statements without reference you gets to wriggle in the dog plops.
hows about we tally the top three post contributors and shoot them to CERES, as a reward, like, for the rest of us
"nasty, inflammatory," writes back to you haha
in the single digit pages, we had a nice discussion about epistemology, perception and knowledge, then someone dragged up their favourite quasi-historical zombie and turned a theoretical, worthwhile discussion, into an intangible war of "references", eg. useless discussion.
good discussion, useless discussion. people and their references (dick measurers).
blows to the yarbles mate. until you can form statements without reference you gets to wriggle in the dog plops.
Hmm
ok all organisms meaning everything this is really what its all about
The biologist, now at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, hoped to resolve a major debate that had rocked biology in different incarnations for more than 100 years. Were organisms capable of altering themselves to meet the needs of their environment, as Jean Baptiste Lamarck had proposed in the early 1800s? Or did mutations occur randomly, creating a mixture of harmful, harmless or beneficial outcomes, which in turn fueled the trial-and-error process of natural selection, as Charles Darwin proposed in “On the Origin of Species”?
Although Darwin’s ideas have clearly triumphed in modern biology, hints of a more Lamarckian style of inheritance have continued to surface. Rosenberg’s experiments were inspired by a controversial study, published in the late 1980s, that suggested that bacteria could somehow direct their evolution, “choosing which mutations will occur,” the authors wrote — a modern molecular biologist’s version of Lamarckian theory.
Rosenberg’s results, published in 1997, disputed those findings, as other’s hadbefore, but with a twist. Rather than targeting specific traits, as Lamarck’s theory would have predicted, the mutations struck random genes, with some good outcomes and some bad. However, the process wasn’t completely random. Rosenberg’s findings suggested that bacteria were capable of increasing their mutation rates, which might in turn produce strains capable of surviving new conditions. everyone here is thinking how beyond the scope of making it difficult just my Math teacher said to me long ago just because the equation looks difficult doesn't mean it is same goes for the same goes for everything in life including you me animals and plants they evolve change, to better or kill its self simple really
I sit here an ponder when i really look at that not only christians all religions are Hypocrites they pick n choose what they think is right really not follow there actual word of god Hell God forbid ,,, most of them would be probably dead for screwing there neighbor..
if the bible was to be held to the truth ,,,, Religion is really evil. When you look at it a CULT no different then a gang of thugs , KKK, A priest.
No different then a school bully trying to get you to give him your lunch money every
day
They refuse science and evolution cause really Why IT MAKES SENSE rather they believe in no sense at all So they carry on there really meaningless lives with out real direction
when someone really digs into the bible it says somewhere to look within ?? meaning look into your self , there are answers all over the bible more or less telling the average child that there is no GOD the truth is within you this is where you will find your answers to life YOU decide your destiny from living under a bridge to living in a mansion only you
And on closing note i wonder how many christians really that do not believe in science actually PRAY to god to rid them of there head ache???? which i bet that prayer never gets answered but i bet they look behind there back when they pop science made aspirin, or Tylenol in there hidden medicine cabinet
i got one word for you YOUR A HYPOCRITE
if the bible was to be held to the truth ,,,, Religion is really evil. When you look at it a CULT no different then a gang of thugs , KKK, A priest.
No different then a school bully trying to get you to give him your lunch money every
day
They refuse science and evolution cause really Why IT MAKES SENSE rather they believe in no sense at all So they carry on there really meaningless lives with out real direction
when someone really digs into the bible it says somewhere to look within ?? meaning look into your self , there are answers all over the bible more or less telling the average child that there is no GOD the truth is within you this is where you will find your answers to life YOU decide your destiny from living under a bridge to living in a mansion only you
And on closing note i wonder how many christians really that do not believe in science actually PRAY to god to rid them of there head ache???? which i bet that prayer never gets answered but i bet they look behind there back when they pop science made aspirin, or Tylenol in there hidden medicine cabinet
i got one word for you YOUR A HYPOCRITE
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-grand-tree-life-clock-like-trend.html
Temple University researchers have assembled the largest and most accurate tree of life calibrated to time, and surprisingly, it reveals that life has been expanding at a constant rate.
"The constant rate of diversification that we have found indicates that the ecological niches of life are not being filled up and saturated," said Temple professor S. Blair Hedges, a member of the research team's study, published in the early online edition of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. "This is contrary to the popular alternative model which predicts a slowing down of diversification as niches fill up with species."
The tree of life compiled by the Temple team is depicted in a new way —- a cosmologically-inspired galaxy of life view —- and contains more than 50,000 species in a tapestry spiraling out from the origin of life.
For the massive meta-study effort, researchers painstakingly assembled data from 2,274 molecular studies, with 96 percent published in the last decade. They built new computer algorithms and tools to synthesize this largest collection of evolutionary peer-reviewed species diversity timelines published to date to produce this Time Tree of Life.
The study also challenges the conventional view of adaptation being the principal force driving species diversification, but rather, underscores the importance of random genetic events and geographic isolation in speciation, taking about 2 million years on average for a new species to emerge onto the scene.
"This finding shows that speciation is more clock-like than people have thought," said Hedges. "Taken together, this indicates that speciation and diversification are separate processes from adaptation, responding more to isolation and time. Adaptation is definitely occurring, so this does not disagree with Darwinism. But it goes against the popular idea that adaptation drives speciation, and against the related concept of punctuated equilibrium which associates adaptive change with speciation."
Besides the new evolutionary insights gained in this study, their Timetree of Life will provide opportunities for researchers to make other discoveries across disciplines, wherever an evolutionary perspective is needed, including, for example, studies of disease and medicine, and the effect of climate change on future species diversity.
Researchers around the world utilize molecular clocks to estimate species divergence times, calculating DNA mutational rates with species divergence times from gene and genomic sequences, that together with the fossil record and geological history, provide a constantly improving view of Darwin's "grandeur of life."
These new results add to the decade-long efforts of the Timetree of Life initiative (TTOL), which includes internet tools and a book, led by team members Hedges and Sudhir Kumar. "The ultimate goal of the TTOL is to chart the timescale of life—to discover when each species and all their ancestors originated, all the way back to the origin of life some four billion years ago," said Hedges.
As an ongoing service to the scientific community, Hedges and Kumar plan to continue adding new data to TTOL from future peer-reviewed studies. They also will improve their current tools, such as web and smartphone apps, and develop new tools, that will make it easier to access the information and to explore the TTOL, and for scientists to update the growing tree with their new data.
Temple University researchers have assembled the largest and most accurate tree of life calibrated to time, and surprisingly, it reveals that life has been expanding at a constant rate.
"The constant rate of diversification that we have found indicates that the ecological niches of life are not being filled up and saturated," said Temple professor S. Blair Hedges, a member of the research team's study, published in the early online edition of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. "This is contrary to the popular alternative model which predicts a slowing down of diversification as niches fill up with species."
The tree of life compiled by the Temple team is depicted in a new way —- a cosmologically-inspired galaxy of life view —- and contains more than 50,000 species in a tapestry spiraling out from the origin of life.
For the massive meta-study effort, researchers painstakingly assembled data from 2,274 molecular studies, with 96 percent published in the last decade. They built new computer algorithms and tools to synthesize this largest collection of evolutionary peer-reviewed species diversity timelines published to date to produce this Time Tree of Life.
The study also challenges the conventional view of adaptation being the principal force driving species diversification, but rather, underscores the importance of random genetic events and geographic isolation in speciation, taking about 2 million years on average for a new species to emerge onto the scene.
"This finding shows that speciation is more clock-like than people have thought," said Hedges. "Taken together, this indicates that speciation and diversification are separate processes from adaptation, responding more to isolation and time. Adaptation is definitely occurring, so this does not disagree with Darwinism. But it goes against the popular idea that adaptation drives speciation, and against the related concept of punctuated equilibrium which associates adaptive change with speciation."
Besides the new evolutionary insights gained in this study, their Timetree of Life will provide opportunities for researchers to make other discoveries across disciplines, wherever an evolutionary perspective is needed, including, for example, studies of disease and medicine, and the effect of climate change on future species diversity.
Researchers around the world utilize molecular clocks to estimate species divergence times, calculating DNA mutational rates with species divergence times from gene and genomic sequences, that together with the fossil record and geological history, provide a constantly improving view of Darwin's "grandeur of life."
These new results add to the decade-long efforts of the Timetree of Life initiative (TTOL), which includes internet tools and a book, led by team members Hedges and Sudhir Kumar. "The ultimate goal of the TTOL is to chart the timescale of life—to discover when each species and all their ancestors originated, all the way back to the origin of life some four billion years ago," said Hedges.
As an ongoing service to the scientific community, Hedges and Kumar plan to continue adding new data to TTOL from future peer-reviewed studies. They also will improve their current tools, such as web and smartphone apps, and develop new tools, that will make it easier to access the information and to explore the TTOL, and for scientists to update the growing tree with their new data.
Only the ones that interpret everything in life as literally as you do
Not everyone brings discord where it simply need not be, some people simply are not happy unless they are manifesting it, and the rationalize whatever they need to so they don't have to be culpable.
So adolescent I expect it from a prepubescent
Your a good reward for yourself remember that one cause your gonna have a hard time escaping it.
"You plant ice, your gonna harvest wind."
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
Damn. Sorry dr but he's got a valid point.
- Status
