Conscious Driven Evolution

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by c'est moi, Dec 9, 2001.

  1. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    I do not have the time nor the desire to go through a whole presentation of everything just for you
    i'll give you my website when it's finished

    you have to understand, the only thing that the evidence is telling us is that we don't know everything as evolutionists think and that we have to search the explanations else where
    evolutionists still think within the paradigma of Newton, but that's completely wrong
    the universe is not like a clock
    people who still stick with darwinism are
    1) just too old and have spend a lifetime working in it
    2) have never been attempted to think differently, they are "asleep"
    3) practice dogma, are emotionally attached to it (big group here)
    4) they don't know maths, they don't know a knew paradigma has started last century, they don't know what 'logic' is => circular reasoning all the time etc.

    the discussion on neo-darwinism is quite closed
    the next discussion is: what's the best alternative or do we just keep searching for more facts to be able to constitute a new theory in the future
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Ok if the discussion is closed I'll stop discussing it with you. In my experience generally the people saying it is closed are the ones who aren't open minded.

    I would be curious to know why some people think it's wrong. If you can give me a link/description/etc. that would be great. If your site does the trick let me know address (is it the same as the one you posted earlier) and I'll keep checking til it's done.

    Whether it's right or wrong I generally think I would be a good person to discuss it or alternatives with and find it quite unfortunate you have reacted so defensively and aggressively to much of what I've had to say.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Quite simply the Conscious mind can have repercussions upon the universe. I through experiment, have seen how a universe can be shaped just through thoughts, if you don't believe me, just continue to exist and you'll see what I mean.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I don't doubt that - it has repercussions on the type of evolution I believe exists as well as any conscious driven evolution. Choices a species makes certainly affects it's evolution - choice of mate etc. Conscious driven evolution may exist, but is of even more dubious standing than neo-darwinism which was evidently disproven. (In all fairness c'est moi did not say it was what he believed he just wanted to discuss it - just as I was hoping to keep discussing general evolution)

    Then again the conscious mind is likely to be affected by evolution and genetics, which we are discussing. Further there are considerations of which came first that are important in the context of this discussion which included the idea of conscious energy driving evolution.

    I would need to re-read the original article to comment on what the relation is between conscious energy and human consciousness if it is even covered. From my recollection there was not a concrete tie mentioned.

    I hope you along with c'est moi are not suggesting I am flawed mentally and require a simple explanation for being at all recalcitrant. He already seemed to suggest I either don't know math, practice circular reasoning, am dogmatic, am asleep mentally and can't think outside the box, or am too old. That wouldn't be very nice and in our prior encounters I generally enjoyed interacting with you on threads and hope that our future interactions don't suffer from you talking down to me. I hope I'm not being touchy, but generally intelligent people react negatively when others take the "ad hominem" approach to an argument and I think I was just subject to such an attack ... though at least it was aimed at a whole group and not just me.
     
  8. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    I was not referring to you with these points but to evolutionists.

    did you read this link:
    http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/evolu.html

    again, the evidence against neodarwinism is devastating, any rational alternative is better
    punk-eek is even worse
    wishful thinking is not science
    many say that conscious driven evolution is really just a hypothese and not science, but that's not really true
    it
    1) makes predictions, for the past and the future
    2) has it's roots in quantum physics which itself doesn't give a reason why consciousness is so important and how it can affect the environment, but theories like the holographic universe do explain this till some extent

    nobody has up till now put forward *any* serious objection, including many academics and professors who visit the page
    nobody, except one person, has attempted to answer the questions on the other page I just gave you
    well, people like that bellong to one of those four groups I gave you and that's reality
     
  9. Weitzel Simon Fraser University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    51
    This guy's website is hosted on Geocities? Now that's a reputable source if I ever saw one...

    I recommend Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989) for anyone interested in the truth about the theory of evolution.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Weitzel, no need to be rude. The opinions cited in the site on the link do point at some areas in which the standard explanation of evolutionary theory might need some improvement. I have no idea what that consists of and I'm sure there are flaws in any evolutionary theory. Any process that could design something as complex as all the life on the earth certainly has its own complexities. We are only beginning to understand biology. While I imagine the Selfish Gene is a good book and makes many interesting points I very much doubt it is the whole truth of evolution.

    c'est moi, first I'm sorry I assumed you were insulting me, but it certainly sounded that way. I read the argument posted by the link. It is a well written argument. It made me think and had it's interesting points. To put it simply in the terminology used I still believe the mechanisms of microevolution are a much more defendable position for macroevolution than the conscious type, directed evolution, or creationism. That isn't to say I believe in neo-darwinism, I'm sure what I believe doesn't have a name attached to it. If you want to talk about my views on evolution I would be happy to discuss them.

    In regard to the lack of intermediates: This relates to what I said earlier, the way developmental morphological systems work it is unnecessary that there be a gradual morphological change as a result in gradual change in sequence. Actually in the experiments I mentioned there was a rapid change in only grouping of genes. Selection acting on grouping of genes can act quite quickly. There is actually a chaperone protein called HSP90 in yeast which seems to have been involved in Waddington's experiments. Chaperone proteins help other proteins maintain the correct folded state. In this way they can buffer minor changes in genes that are relatively conservative of structure. If you group the right genes together these changes can no longer be buffered as the interactions of multiple bufferable genes alter the characteristic behavior of the pathways and protein complexes involved that results in significantly altered behavior in morphology for example.

    EDIT: I realized I should give a reference "HSP90 as a capacitor of morphological evolution" Suzanne L Rutherforrd and Susan Lindquist. If you want more references for anything I'll dig them up.

    On irreducible complexity: The author of the site even mentions and accepts the reality of gene duplications. They have most obviously occured in plants which have a tendency toward polyploidy or the doubling, tripling, etc of chromosome number (It's interesting that the cell size increases and little else seems to change). If you have multiple copies of genes they can drift and pick up entirely new functionality even depending on sets. As to how exactly this happens, I know of no clear examples. In all fairness in organisms like human, drosophila, and elegans which are the only completed multicellular eukaryotes we have only previously worked on a tiny fraction of the predicted genes. In elegans as of september 2001 we had only worked on 6% of the 19k or so genes (I only uses these numbers as I have them handy) as stated in "A gene expression map for Caenorhabditis elegans" by Stuart Kim a Stanford biologist. There is also reasonable evidence we are missing genes. The count in human using predictions is pretty unreliable because genscan/genomescan the best prediction software around (for human at least), has trouble with splitting and joining genes and uses a length distribution calculated from a number of genes that is small and possibly skewed by cloning techniques and traditional genetic techniques (cloning selects against big genes and genetics selects against small genes). We are just starting and certainly have a lot more to observe.

    In response to a new unrelated function arising from an existing gene: There is a gene that forms the optical matrix of the eye and is essentially a single base pair mutation in the active site away from an enzyme. I will find out what it is and post it. It might take a while for me to track it down as this type of query is hard to do at ncbi etc. and I can't remember a reference. I basically have to ask people until I get someone who remembers. There are other less spectacularr examples as well as a lot of sequence similarity between other genes with significantly different functions. One problem is that function is actually annotated based on sequence similarity. This isn't always the most intelligent thing to do. If I ran a blast of the two proteins mentioned above I would have been convinced.

    In regard to Haldane's Dilemma I'll try and find the mathematical statement some other time so that I know what assumptions he makes. If he original wrote it in 1957 the assumptions essentially have to be wrong. Even today we don't know enough to make reasonable estimates for that type of calculation (also I bet the real equations are tougher than string theory). It sounds like it would be interesting reading though. It also doesn't sound like it allows for duplication., which clearly serves an important role.

    I didn't even realize that punk-eek was punctuated equilibrium at first. The very name it's referred to seems to be an attempt to discredit the theory. Do people who support it call it that? I don't know what that theory states, but as I said it is possible for rapid changes in groupings of genes to drastically change morphology. In the hsp90 work there is actually the inherent suggestion that our collective gene pool has memory that can lay dormant by selecting only on the level of combinations. This could actually allow switching on very rapid time scales between two morphologically distinct organisms (< 10 generations). The European Map Butterfly, Araschnia levana, actually has two heat induced morphs in the spring and summer which were originally classified as two different species. Though there differences are in color only. There are other examples that involve physical morphology such as kairomone induced "helmet" in Daphnia. There's a whole interesting list in Scott Gilbert's paper "Ecological Developmental Biology: Developmental Biology Meets the Real World". So there can even be morphological shifts with no change in genotype so I think rapid change in morphology is pretty acceptable as a theory. I've never read any Gould, but I have read some of Ernst Mayr's stuff. I might read Gould at some point, but my understanding is while he has many interesting ideas he's kind of gone off on an ego trip.

    If you don't want to take the time to put together information to discuss the topic with me that's fine. But if you expect me to believe that current evolutionary theory as it is taught at a more advanced level is wrong, you're going to have to give me something other than that link and any argument certainly requires more information and different points.

    As to the possibility of conscious driven evolution, we choose our mates, so evolution on a certain level is driven by consciousness. It would certainly be interesting if basic matter has a hint of this and our consciousness is a reflection of that. It would be more interesting if it had been in some way driving evolution the whole time.

    As to randomness and how we exist check out my thread "does randomness exist?" on the free thoughts forum. I would change much what I said in many of my posts, but my basic thinking is there. I also was trying to get a discussion going so worded things a bit differently than how I stated them to being with, but was hoping to get a conversation going. It never really materialized. I also have posted a couple things about how evolution is basically a learning process, like on the "nature of thought" thread in human sciences.

    There are also constraints on evolution anyway. The characteristics of the system impose them and actually seem to have been arranged to encourage certain types of change. I hope you choose to discuss rather than discount. There is certainly room for more to the theory of evolution, but it certainly has a pretty believable core.

    I don't think you are:
    1) just too old and have spend a lifetime working in it

    You certainly aren't:
    2) have never been attempted to think differently, they are "asleep"

    I hope you don't:
    3) practice dogma, are emotionally attached to it (big group here)

    And no knowledge of math or understanding of circular logic is required to understand my argument:
    4) they don't know maths, they don't know a knew paradigma has started last century, they don't know what 'logic' is => circular reasoning all the time etc.
    It is also safe for children of all ages (The only negative side effect was boredom and occasional confusion).

    Seriously though, I have studied biology quite a bit and that is a pretty solid argument, but it doesn't disprove essential features of evolution. Most theories are not accurate at a certain level and they need to evolve. We find the mistakes in them and make guesses until we find something better. I still think Darwin had some insight into the core of the best bet ...
     
  11. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Oh yeah, I forgot to comment on how life started.

    Who knows? Mathematically it can be demonstrated that make predictions about the past from limited information is just as hard as predicting the future. They're essentially inverse operations. It is difficult enough to understand the part of evolution we have much more information on.

    Also the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain how life started as far as I know. Darwin only spoke about how later organisms might be generated from earlier organisms. We gotta crawl before we can walk.

    There are some interesting theories involving RNA, which I have limited familiarity with, but I believe they deal with events very early, but not right at the start of life.
     
  12. SISGroup Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    conscious driven evolution. Is it means "conscious is driven by evolution"?

    evolution on a certain level is driven by consciousness.

    I think both claims are right.
    Just different 'point of view'.
    The first claim tries to predict what human consciouesness come from and what it will be.
    The second claim is to describe how instinc (animal's consciousness) drive the evolution.

    BTW, before living creatures were created, is there any evolutions?
     
  13. Imahamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    135
    Scilosopher, thanks for the great post. Been running and chewing on this stuff since your earlier post. Been thinking about how genotype relates to phenotype mediated by external and cellular environment. Trying to understand evolutionary genetics as a mechanism for constrained adaptation.

    “There are also constraints on evolution anyway. The characteristics of the system impose them and ACTUALLY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ARRANGED TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN TYPE OF CHANGE”

    “Selection acting on grouping of genes can act quite quickly.”

    This hamster is very interested in your statements. Wanted to break it down into components and then impose a structure. This hamster’s knowledge in this area is fuzzy and this hamster would appreciate corrections and clarifications as well as help filling out missing pieces. (This is an Imahamster post that is full of errors. /777 coulda done a much better job.)

    Shuffling chromosomes through sexual reproduction generates new “solutions” and the environment selects for chromosomes that on average produce better solutions. (There is also genetic drift.)

    There is gene mixing on the chromosomes. This hamster has heard of “jumping genes”. Also heard of entire groups of genes jumping together. (Is this only across the paired chromosome?) This “mistake” in sexual reproduction introduces chromosomes with different collections of genes.

    There are the duplicate chromosomes and chromosome fragments.

    Then there are gene changes. A single polymorphism could cause a minor change to a protein or could affect major changes if the changed nucleotide happens to affect a “start” or “stop” sequence. (Might even turn on some previously “junk” DNA.) (Seem to recall that certain polymorphisms are more likely.) (There is also the complication of DNA repair.)

    Then there are the proteins...structural proteins, signaling proteins, developmental proteins, regulatory proteins. A minor change to a gene for a regulatory protein could have major consequence while a structural protein might still function.

    (For now leave out environmental effects on gene expression. Fish changing sex is too much for this poor hamster. Sheesh go to an all girls school and change into a guy. Hang out too long at the gym and turn into a woman.)

    What has Imahamster missed? (The big stuff anyway. One could fill libraries.)

    Now the role of chromosomal reshuffling seems simple enough. How are the other engines of adaptation to be organized? If the complete tree of the animal kingdom were examined what type of changes led to major branches? Minor branches? (Not sure if this even makes sense.)

    “If you have multiple copies of genes they can drift and pick up entirely new functionality even depending on sets.”

    There are theories that developmental errors led to “extra” brain regions, e.g., two copies of a visual processing portion of the brain. The “extra” region was then “recruited” and “specialized” for a new function.

    PS Thanks for pointing out your “does randomness exist” thread.
     
  14. [f] Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    48
    LMAO....oh man..thanx for that laugh LOL

    shit lol
     
  15. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    there used to be a review on that website from this book
    it was quite funny actually
    anyway, you will have to do better than presenting this piece of junk because that's what it is
    Dawkins is not even in the position to discuss neo-darwinism, he is not a bio-chemist
    he should shut up and stick with animal behaviour because that's what he's studied for
    but hey, he's making loads of money there
    would that influence his convictions?
     
  16. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "Weitzel, no need to be rude. The opinions cited in the site on the link do point at some areas in which the standard explanation of evolutionary theory might need some improvement."

    you're being very prudent here
    *might*

    "To put it simply in the terminology used I still believe the mechanisms of microevolution are a much more defendable position for macroevolution than the conscious type, directed evolution, or creationism."

    if you still believe so firmly that macro is the cumulative effect of micro then I don't know what kind of evidence you need
    I think you need a time machine

    "In regard to the lack of intermediates: This relates to what I said earlier, the way developmental morphological systems work it is unnecessary that there be a gradual morphological change as a result in gradual change in sequence. Actually in the experiments I mentioned there was a rapid change in only grouping of genes. Selection acting on grouping of genes can act quite quickly."

    the lack of intermediates is a great objection against neo-darwinism
    I hope you understood this
    I kow you don't really care about "theories" but more about "beliefs" but for evolutionists who care about their theory this *unacceptable*
    they'll keep on telling people that there are plenty of intermediates

    "On irreducible complexity: The author of the site even mentions and accepts the reality of gene duplications. "

    Of course, why not? This is not some kind of biblical idiotical creationist website. the stuff written here is from an academic.
    The rest you say is interesting though it does not tell me more on irreducible complexity. If you have read Mike Behe's book on this and then still feel that the micro = macro then I will have to say again, no evidence is enough 4 u, you need a time machine


    "In regard to Haldane's Dilemma I'll try and find the mathematical statement some other time so that I know what assumptions he makes. If he original wrote it in 1957 the assumptions essentially have to be wrong. Even today we ..........................."

    You can search the original calculations but they are flawed. You need to get those from The biotic message. The argument still stands. No evolutionists has solved it. It's devastating. The calculations favour darwinism as much as possible, even, too much, and the idiots will keep on repeating that "it doesn't favour evolution enough".

    "I didn't even realize that punk-eek was punctuated equilibrium at first. The very name it's referred to seems to be an attempt to discredit the theory. Do people who support it call it that?"

    Yes.

    "If you don't want to take the time to put together information to discuss the topic with me that's fine."

    I'm having exams right now. so ...

    "But if you expect me to believe that current evolutionary theory as it is taught at a more advanced level is wrong, you're going to have to give me something other than that link and any argument certainly requires more information and different points."

    excuse me, but do I have to convince you? hey, you belief whatever you want no, it's not my job to try to convince you
    you don't think the site offers enough? well did you read the book given there? you cannot have discussion on this if you haven't read a few of them

    sorry being short here (actually all the time) but i cannnot spend more time on this
    these exams are quite important
     
  17. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    C'est moi,
    Wow. You totally discard everything I have to say. Did you even think about it? I thought about what you had to say. Arguing that I need to read more, sorry I don't have the time either. I'm to busy doing actual biological research and now I have to go to a class being taught by Mark Ptashne who is a bit more reputable in terms of evolutionary theory than anyone you mentioned. Unless what they right in their book is FUNDAMENTALLY different, more won't make a difference. I'm still glad you pointed me towards potential problems with evolutionary theory it made me think about it and was interesting, I have a feeling though we will never come to an understanding on this topic.

    Imahamster,Gotta run I'll think about the best way to answer your questions ... Ptashne might get me going on some cool stuff too. Maybe I'll start a new evolution thread though, I don't want to subvert a thread on a different topic.
     
  18. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "I have to go to a class being taught by Mark Ptashne who is a bit more reputable in terms of evolutionary theory than anyone you mentioned."

    I had some discussion with a doctor in Biology from the Netherlands some time ago. He's a real expert and he was so honest to tell me that he does not no the answer for Mike Behe's irreducible complexity, but he still endorses neo-darwinism.
    I myself consider irreducible complexity as *the* most powerful objections against neo-d.
    if anyone out there has an answer and can provide the mechanisms and the steps of evolution of the systems Behe mentions and many others, the this theory is saved for 90%

    You say you don't have the time to read those books but you want me to give you more evidence etc. but you know, these books do a fine job
    it's needless to repeat them
    if you avoid these books, that's okay for me but then you're avoiding your own "internal" discussion with this whole issue
    do you know how technical Behe's book is? people without biological training of some sort can't follow it very well
    if you read at least one book, then read this one
    if Mark Ptashne has an answer on what Behe has to say, then where are the papers? you can maybe ask him it in class
     
  19. Imahamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    135
    Scilosopher, beginning another thread seems appropriate. Imahamster naively thought this one was “closed”. Didn’t want to let you escape without satisfying hamster curiosity. Hehe. Take your time responding. Imahamster is patient and appreciates your insight. Well worth waiting for.
     
  20. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    c'est moi,
    I wouldn't hide from reading the books. I just have other ones I want to read first.

    It's also interesting that you seem to still consider the disagreement a failing in me to see the truth. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but with all I know I'm making a very informed decision that I'm at least on the right track.

    Scientific theories are usually only abandoned when there is a better one. You haven't even come close to presenting or making any argument for an improved theory.

    Furthermore my replies had content, yours had petty comments about time machines. And asking if I understand lack of intermediates when I gave a reply that clearly showed I understand, makes me wonder if you do. I also gave a reasonable answer about irreducible complexity and you want me to spend my time reading a book and answering detailed questions to satisfy who exaclty? I'm satisfied. You are clearly not.

    Hamster, don't worry I hope to start one ... give me a day or two. I don't know whether I should ressurect one or start from scratch ...
     
  21. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but with all I know I'm making a very informed decision that I'm at least on the right track."
    it seems to me that you know a lot, but that it's simply not very relevant

    "Scientific theories are usually only abandoned when there is a better one."

    they are usually not abondoned

    "You haven't even come close to presenting or making any argument for an improved theory."

    could you repeat that?
    I think the arguments are fair
    at least, it is in ACCORDANCE with the given data, which is the least a theory can do
    neo-darwinism has been performing acrobitcs of an unparaleled calibre

    "Furthermore my replies had content"

    which was simply half of the time irrelevant, you start quoting kinds of genes etc. but it still does NOT explain how a irreducible complex system as a flagellum could evolve

    "yours had petty comments about time machines"

    because you underestimate the arguments which are well-presented on the site

    "And asking if I understand lack of intermediates when I gave a reply that clearly showed I understand, makes me wonder if you do."

    you said:
    - evolution does not happen gradual so no intermediates in fossil record
    - you gave the example of gene grouping + selection which has a large impact on the morphology

    given what you've said, what makes you thick? some grouping and hey people, we've got a new species
    btw, intermediates are still *vital* for neo-darwinism
    and neo-darwinism is still the most widely accepted theory
    punk-eek has gained acceptance at last because there is a lack of intermediates
    but given what punk-eek has to say, it is even more idiotic than neo-darwinism

    · It amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world.

    Does this need an explanation?? Maybe you (or Gould) can read some stuff about the cheetah: http://www.cheetah.org/genetic.htm.

    · It requires tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times.

    Isn't this very unlikely to happen?

    · It requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted.

    This never happens in real life! Ask the Australians what happened when the rabbit was introduced there ...

    · Maybe the biggest objection against punk-eek is Haldane's dilemma, which shows evolution can in no way happen fast in small isolated groups if mutations occur only by undirected mechanistic processes.

    · Where is the magical mechanism which makes this "punk-eek" possible?

    There is none!

    "I also gave a reasonable answer about irreducible complexity"

    you talked about gene duplication
    is that a reasonable answer?
    do you think you solved it that way?
    your answer shows that you don't seem to understand what an irreducible complex system really is
    further, given that you haven't read the book who presented the idea in the first place, how could you understand it fully?
    I will be very surprised to read what your opinion is on I.C systems *after* you have read that book

    "and you want me to spend my time reading a book and answering detailed questions to satisfy who exaclty?"

    hè?
    not following here
    read books for your own, not for me

    "I'm satisfied. You are clearly not."

    with what?
     
  22. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I don't know what you mean, by they're not abandoned. I also think it's true that a theory that is partially accurate is used and explored until one that is more accurate is found. The fact that microevolution does clearly happen through selection has been pretty well demonstrated and not in dispute so that is at least part of it.

    If you thought it was irrelevant, maybe I wasn't clear and you didn't understand my points. You can always ask questions to make sure you understand what I am saying. I certainly have gone to more lengths to understand your point. I also don't have the time to explain to you everything I know about biology and you haven't even shown any interest in learning it.

    Maybe I do underestimate some arguments, I certainly have been known to be wrong. You do not even seem to be open to the fact you could be, which is interestingly essentially the main problem you have with people who believe in neo-darwinism. It is also a bad trait for those practicing science.

    I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore simply because you just argue and are very rude. I lost sleep writing the long post that addressed the various attacks on neo-darwinism presented in the link. I'm sure I didn't explain everything perfectly and there were some points that were unclear. In some cases I may have been wrong.

    I suggest to you that a) If you are right and see everything perfectly clearly and we can't for some reason, you should be nice or society will never appreciate you. Unless you aren't human this probably sucks. b) If you are wrong and missing certain things other people understand, you should be nice so they help you clear up your misunderstanding. The truth may be somewhere in between.

    Have a nice life.
     
  23. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "I don't know what you mean, by they're not abandoned."

    that's what you said m8, not me

    see: Scientific theories are usually only abandoned when there is a better one.


    I know, I'm not always the best guy to argue with.

    Let us say goodbye in peace
     

Share This Page