The Problem with Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Why? That's a perfectly valid scientific practice, so long as you cite your sources.

Dogbrain, just because we may be the most advanced lifeform in the universe, doesn't mean culture and technology isn't primitive - I measure that standard by future possibilities, which currently are not lived up to. Human ego often prevents people from being the harsh critics of themselves the ought to be to progress. I know, it's a "not good enough" attitude, but I'm a bastard. I was really speaking in recalled anger about religious fascism; technically correct, but in light of other events -Iran a it pales; doesn't mean I'll ignore it.
As for why I hate using other peoples theories; it's a professional thing. I state them if needed, or I, as I've already done in this thread, mention them if I find them interesting, but when it comes to deeper perspectives, more imortant things, I only state my own. It seems almost, dishonest, somehow to use another. Knowledge I take from others serve only as guides; never rules.

So, where did you get your degree in genetics?

Why? Guess

It's a chance to learn a little bit about my corner of the world!

I have a friend who is a physical chemist in Queensland who got their degree from the University of Wellington. But I don't think you've been to New Zealand, have you?

I've had a thread before about Australia and have researched it a bit, but I was more interested in the cultural atmosphere rather than the educational options there.

Ah... Well then, time to learn that secret, eh?
I am... Different, even to other aspires - unique in my approach to many things. My communication skills are a facade, my personality largely emulated.
As a result, many have assumed I am of lesser intelligence because of the limitations of this projection - it can only emulate what it has experienced.
These people are often surprised at the complexity of my detailed examples(?) and designs, theories - despite my difficulty articulating them. Perhaps unusual, then, that I am writing a book, but I do like a challenge.
In short; my mind is so very alien to anybody elses I've met - even this I am writing now is an example of the constantly updated expected response/probability/outcome approach to forming my projection - the snails-paced group education process is detrimental to me.
I have little idea of campus culture, I've had to seek my education elsewhere, in a more isolated fashion than I might have preferred, but that could not be helped.
However my father did attend the more public of education facilities - Adelaide University.
World class, with the characteristic laid-back and professionalism found in Australian culture, going by his accounts - though you wouldn't hear an easterner admit that about the west.

A hypersphere is a higher dimensional analog of a sphere. Space could have a shape which is like a 3-sphere. The geometry of a 3-sphere can be derived by taking 4-D spherical coordinates and setting the radius constant. A unique point can then be expressed in this space by the 3 angles in 4-D spherical coordinates, so it is a 3 dimensional space (hence the 4 dimensional sphere it is a "surface" of is, I think, just a convenient tool and nothing more).

A hyperspherical universe would be finite but edgeless, because geodesics are closed: in analogy to a 2-sphere (e.g., roughly, the surface of the earth) going "straight" long enough will return you to where you started.

This is my impression of them; I have only just started to teach myself the relevant math.

Ah! Thanks for clarifying. An interesting theory, and certainly plausible like most of it's kind, but hardly optimistic! A finite universe is a rather depressing concept - what futility all existence would be if just a several trillion year blip! Oh, well - I'm a realist and a scientist, I'll take what comes...
But, no, the hypercube was not what I was getting at... I'll see if I can't mathematically express my theory - translating it from mind to text is difficult for me.

I agree. I'm pro evolution but their are flaws with it as well. Even though the human and chimp evolved from the same ancestor, why are we humans so drastically different than apes?? We are practically hairless, we are dimensionally smarter, our body shape is different.

Perhaps this is because evolution is the truth but not the whole truth. It is truth but it is not Truth.

I agree that evolution is not the WHOLE truth, but it is still mainly true IMO. But how can it be truth but not truth?

I think what they mean to say is that there are gaps in our understanding of exactly what path evolution took in specific cases. The fact that we evolved from earlier forms is irrefutable.

Rather, it is politically unquestionable.

What do you mean you don't understand how humans and chimps are different? Not to be rude, but that is basic!
Think of evolution as families; you have twin brothers in this family, one opts for a career in engineering, the other fails education courses and lives only on part-time work as a panel beater and government supplements. Their descendents would have access to better or worse resources as a result of their predecessors actions.
Evolution is irrenfutably the only "reason" and "cause", but remember there us no goal in evolution - it's a constant process. Sentience is what we call an "inevitable accident".
A contradictory term, but apt. There's no guarantee of when or where sentience can occur; but it is mathematically impossible that it wouldn't exist.
But, tell me, what gaps do you see in evolution? There are several contributing factors to a process of change over time. I cannot find any gaps, save for in other peoples ignorance (not trying to be offensive, but if you don't know something, that's technically correct) of factors or histories.

lol

Why?