evolution unravled

who posted the theory of evolution?

seems darwin described what he saw, provided more evidence than most, as well described a process, you can see in a conch shell (golden ratio)

common sense is what helps

the best ones, try to find the truth and just describe for the good of understanding

all of mankind is just made of atoms and energy, why not start there?

seems without the comprehension of what they are you could not even have this conversation. meaning to deny they exist and are a part of your body and what makes you alive is more a lie, than folks trying to understand how it works as shared in nature.

seems the fool is the one wasting everyones time to discredit a theory rather than doing the homework to find what is true.

for example; the inquisitions murdered and destroyed a vast amount of intellectual property owned by us, 'we the people'..... to the extent we could all be vacationing on the moon by now, if it wasn't for the oppressive nature of 'creationists'

from the cell structures to the color of the blood; all the life on this earth came from the evolution from atoms and energy, rather than a few million species going in to an arc or a beginning that requires a magic being that is said to be a part of us but separate.

if one atom exists and energy upon it, it is related to you; just like god is, if you want the reality behind it

fossils themselves are practically luck to find but if you want proof and have the ability to do alllllllll the homework, i believe someone mentions the sands of the sahara..... you go put them together, so we all can have proof

otherwise; what is the debate

evolution is a logical reality

knowledge evolved beyond theology regarding how life exists

learn to love theology for the lessons and stories but be responsible to existence (God himself) and do good

the genesis idea could use more understanding of the metaphorical nature of torah

perhaps you would like to tie in the metaphors to current application?

In the beginning, there was light

then atoms and energy

then a cell called adam, was actually a sheila, divided and made a second cell called eve.......

then a 'choice' was made... man became an idiot, thinking it was separate from nature (the garden) and ...........

the pinnacle of evolution is when mass comprehends how it exists and then aware of its capability to create life, by choice thereby living in what it does

is that a story that you could write?

don't forget the 'happily ever after' part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should really let the others do the debating - this is just embarrassing

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please share with us what the "vast volume of data and fossils" are instead of resorting to name calling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.
[scienceagainstevolution.com]

 

The American public school system is notoriously bad. Science itself does not inherently exclude the supernatural, it's just that nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist. All reasonable naturalistic explanations, therefore, must be excluded before a supernatural one can even be considered.

1. That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
2. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Aspects of life have been created in the lab. Life is thought to have taken a long time to evolve, something that cannot be easily reproduced by scientists who live only 100 years or so at best. It is the most reasonable naturalistic explanation.

False. In fact, Darwin's book was entitled, "On the Origin of Species", not the origin of life.

Not being able to produce it in a lab does not mean it's false. When was the last time anyone made a black hole?

False, that is covered by evolution and natural selection.

Not satisfactory to you, perhaps, because you are lacking in crucial knowledge. Evolution has been observed in the lab, and is the precise explanation for the origin of complexity. You then go on with the same theme, citing various other complex things which have already been explained in detail by evolutionary biologists.

 

what paper is this from? I propably have access to the full article rather than just the abstract so I can have a look at it and see what is says overall.
There could be a number of reasons.
First of all Poplar dock isn't particularly deep - and compared to the open sea is very sheltered (i know the area well as I used to live not far from there) - so its quite possible that even in relatively rough conditions for this area there isn't sufficient mixing to prevent growth.
It could be something that's species specific - for example certain diatioms are able to fix inorganic nitrogen beyond the photic zone as they contain symbiotic bacteria thaty can do this for them. This isn't the case with coccoliths.

Needless to say, I'm impressed that you've taken to attmepting to understand this subject - it's very complex - took me months to get confident with the basics.

just a quick edit for some clarification - I'm not saying that plankton cannot grow in turbulent well mixed water conditions - but they do not bloom i.e. grow prolofically in those conditions - which is something that would be neccessary for a large biogenic rock formation like chalk cliffs to form in such a short period of time.
Furthermore a quick back of a beer mat calculation puts the rate and size of that bloom somewhere in the region of 6 orders of magnitude faster and greater then we currently see today (that's around 1 million times faster).
To put that in perspective imagine a baby being born, and within 20 seconds of birth, that baby grows to maturity, gets pregnant, gestates the foetus, and gives birth, and the same happens to the next baby and so on and so on.

 

I think I've got time to deal with the sillest ones here.

replicating a process that took half a billion years in only 50 would be pretty ambitious - yet we have made progress - proof of the building blocks of life forming abiotically - naturally self replicating and evolving chemical systems - seems like we are doing pretty well.

Common misconception about evolution - well common for idiots who don't actually know what evolution is thats is.
Evolution describes how life comes from other life and diversifies - it makes no comment on how life began -the Theory of Evolution would be perfectly comfortable with the first life being "poofed" into existence by a magical pink gnome.

Yes there is - its called mutation.

Yes there is - its called mutation.

sure there is - its called evolution - and its confirmed by the many different levels of complexity we see in the light sensing organs within the animal kingdom.
From simple patches of light sensitive cells, to light sensitive cups, to membrane covered cups, To pin hole camera type eyes, to non controlled lenses, to fully focussing lenses. Every evolutionary step we expect to see in the development of fully functional eyes as we define them can be seen in extant animals.

so all we need is one example of a new function resulting from a mutatiion Antibiotic resistance in bacteria and you will accept mutation as being a viable vehicle.
Heres 6:
Bacteria that eat nylon
Sickle cell resistance to malaria
Lactose tolerance
Resistance to atherosclerosis
Immunity to HIV

So you accept evolution now right?

not by istelf no - although it does provideus with strong evidence - its clinched when we combine it with DNA evidence.

No - one of the reaons is that the fossil record detailing the evolution of man contains so many fossils - the transitions are so small that it is difficult to acertain the exact point at which we have a chimp-like ape -or a hominid ape.
Another reason is that we lack genetic data to construct an exact family tree to order these fossils precisely
Finally we are finding new fossils in this lineage all the time - as we do we gain a better picture of the evolutionary story - so we need to revise previous hypotheses

No-one says that it does - except you perhaps

No-one says that it does - except you and the tiny number of people who support Lamarkian evolution

No-one says that it does - except you and the tiny number of people who support Lamarkian evolution

No-one says that it does - except you and the tiny number of people who support Lamarkian evolution

No not commonly

No its based on some of the most fundamental laws of physics

Yes ity is because its based on some of the most fundamental laws of physics

Perhaps - but this has NOTHING to do with evolution

Correct this is because scientists aren't cowards - in contrast what happens when the Bible gets things wrong?

Correct - thankfully we can observe and induce evolution so we have a very satisfactory explanation.

I quite agree - lets hope no more Intelligent Design bullshit rears is retarded head again and we get on with teaching real science like evolution

 

I pointed out those statements that are made to misinform, obfuscate or are simply outright lies.

 

that is what i say about seeing children claim that creation from genesis is real................

are you suggesting because of someones 'religious belief' that now christianity can claim integrity?

you mean the religious order, controlled the material written over history call 'knowledge'............. i agree........ the religious powers at be, had controlled the writtings held within the west to maintain the power of the population..... for hundreds of years, they controlled most all knowledge

that is the difference between now and then.....

it wasn't until these last few centuries that people were even capable of reading material not sanctioned by the clergy

galileo was almost put to death for being honest and how long did it take for the unevolved monkeys to figure out, he was right?

and don't even bring up newton........... he practically rewrote the bible

He was one of the few, that new the 'last word' to understanding existence (God) would be found in the sciences. (that man was a real contributer)

http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Isaac_Newton.html

knowledge evolves................... so either evolve with truth, or be extinct

or try this........... if you have a child and maintain the position you are in now, i ask.......... is it better to be honest and learn what is correct over a belief or to impose the belief and they find out it is wrong?

what is your duty to your children; to evolve or to be ignorant?

what you fools do not comprehend is that nothing is EVER taken from God

it is the power of the complacent regime of beliefs that is being removed!

'we the people' are all children of existence and equality, understanding and universal Peace is the promise from existence (God) that WILL occur.

i trust existence (nature/the garden/God) over the isolating secularizations of religious interpretations............

again, none can take from God, but the fool can isolate himself from existence

and why the fool never returns to the garden!

 

OK, points all taken but I think I have not made myself clear, or I misunderstood Leo to begin with. You see, you are making clear (at least I believe you are) that mutations, which is the process I attribute as being most responsible for Evolution, are in fact not controlled by the environment, but rather mutations are subject to the environment. In this sense it would seem logical that evolution and mutation are still guided by an internal force within the organisms that are changing because it's the internal mechanisms that are regulating to the environment, not being guided by it. As you stated above "it (environment) is acting upon mutations" thus mutations are occurring apart and prior in response to the environment, rather than being changed by the forces that the environment exhibits.

It seems to me that placing the environment in a "guide" or "controlling" stance, may in fact be placing the cart before the horse.

Now I admit that the "weeding out" is attributable to the environmental template, but even that depends on the initial mutation.

eh, no & no. But that's OK as I WILL NOT belittle a man who in my discussions and discourse has managed to get a thing or two through my thick skull. Not like some bozo little scientist wannabes on this forum of which you are the furthest thing from.

18,000 in the United Snakes as we "speak". Albinism is not that rare. Obviously it's not common but it's not "extremely rare"

I also don't agree with your basic reasoning (surprise, surprise) that Albinism only exists because it's a recessive genetic quality. I believe it exists because, well, it exists and has little to do with the environment if anything.

You lost me. All I am stating is that all we have come to understand about genetic coding leads me to summarize an "exactness" rather than a predictable response to the environment. I see the evolution/mutations as an unlocking of genetic possibilities rather than an external cause and effect. In order for the unlock mechanism to be in place, a previous program would be required logically speaking. Something from nothing doesn't work for me.

I AM asking specifically why the animal has evolved to it's present state based on it's indigenous environment. That's what environment means to me because that's what environment is. It's a specific geographic habitate where the animal resides natively. I do not believe that specific environment "designs" evolution and that is why I would like someone to demonstrate the how and why of the Platypus "environmentally guided" evolution.

What is evolutionary specialization?

Sorry, I don't buy it. The reason why humans have back pain is no different than any other animal. Quadruped or Biped. It's because of defect (heredity/mutation), deterioration (age) or injury. (environmental)

Certain types of quadrupeds are extremely susceptible to back pain. It's a case by case thing. Not specific to animal type or design alone.

 

awe.... at least someone is willing to point out the foolishness of uneducated opinions.....

 

No - mutation occurs because it is a basic biochemical property of DNA to mutate - basically when DNA replicates it doesn't copy itself 100% perfectly 100% of the time - the environment or the organism doesn't select what mutations occur, they are completely random - the environment selects which mutation prevail

indeed it does that's why biologists refer to three types of mutation:
neutral mutations - those that have no impact on natural selection
deleterious mutations - those that have a negative impact on natural selection
and positive mutations - those that have a positive effect.

Its worth reitterating at this point that it is the environment that "decides" which is which - a neutral mutation in one environment may be deleterious in another etc etc.

possibly in humans you might be right that it is selectively neutral - I've never studied it so I don't honestly know - however overall it will be protected from selection as an individual needs 2 copies of the gene in order for it to be expressed - so loads of individuals can carry and pass on that gene without it ever showing up in their family tree.

as I stated before DNA replication is anything but exact - it can randomly add / subtract or modify whole strings of "code" - or just individual "bits"
This may seem like an unsatisfying or haphazard way of acheiving a solution - but that's an emotional response to the process not a critical one - whatever your feelings on it it definitely works - the principles have been applied to computer programming with some spectacular results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

With regards to environment in general - looking at in as a specific geographical local is insufficient - even for a geographer - think about it - environment is shaped by both physical and biological factors - so to gain any understanding we need to look at both of these factors.
Consider for example a forest full of fruit trees - that forest will contain animals that pollenate the trees - animals that eat those animals - animals that eat the fruit, and animals that eat those animals - so there will alwats be a struggle by those animals both against the physical environment - and their competitors and predators within the biological environment - changes within any aspect of this can dratically alter that environment.
make sense.
Getting on to the platypus, I don't know is the short answer - I'd guess without a close to complete fossil record - good proxy data on past environmental conditions and genetic material from its ancestors - that a precise answer will be elusive - but as I pointed out in the previous post we have some good clues that are pretty much common knowledge - perhaps someone who studies them might be able to give you a better answer.
Perhaps these might help you as a starting point.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3121012017144532/
http://biologia.ucr.ac.cr/profesores/Federico Albertazzi/CariotipoOrnito.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482448
http://nimravid.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/evolution-mammalian-sex-chromosomes/

The answer is in the question - basically what I was trying to get across is that evolution has no goal - other than perhaps survival and reproduction - so your question about evolution moving sideways doesn't really have any meaning.

That's the current theory - based on comparative anatomy - if you find the answer emotionally unsatisfying I can't help that.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/35/06/09.HTM

http://www.livescience.com/health/060403_dino_med.html

 

I find it much sadder and much more worrying when I consider that these people have actually had an education.

 

now you can see why integrity (honesty) far outweighs the education

now you can see why i hammer so many...... my integrity to science is beyond the majority of the professors alive on this earth

facts should stand before accepted benchmarks

the reason evolution is even an argument is not because of missing bones

it is because the scientific community does not have the math to perform the progression. That math is what the whole of the community should be focused on.

for example; the phospholipid bilayers associate, without peptide bonds, based on the resonance of the energy upon the mass

that is why the structure is so strong

and the energy conveys across the membranes based on resonant exchanged between mass on either side.

the reason this type of comprehension is so strange is that the math taught in schools to represent biological processes does not reflect reality.

the gap between physics and evolution is huge all because of the bohring regime of walking the planck..........

pirates could not support life walking the planck either~

and a paradigm shift makes a bunch of 'wall paper' turn into toilet paper

unless, they wish to evolve!

 

Here are two problems that I have affixed myself upon that I can't get by. Could math actually be brought to bear upon these quandaries?

First off: How can math explain something from nothing?
SP states that:

To me, in my present ignorance, this seems like an "ends", but how can we mathematically represent the "means"?

Is there a descriptive analogy that methodically represents the "means"?

I tried getting "into" some of the links that SP supplied. I even tried researching for a while on my own and it just gets to the point where I am reading word after word that to me is completely unknown. It makes no sense because it's like I am reading another language.

In this thread I actually learned numerous things I did not previously understand. Some of it "jumped" out at me and some of took real effort to grasp. I do not believe these are emotional grades of determination or affirmation as some have suggested. I also do not believe my logic is failing me in some of the discrepancies I have observed. This again I do not attribute to "emotion"

secondly: how can math prove life force, or whatever you want to call the initiative? Is this also biochemical or is the energy of life separate?

how would you represent this curiosity in a mathematical proof/answer.

If the question is false, what is the correct question?

 

Evolution doesn't ever describe something from nothing - its always describing life diversifying from other life.
Given that DNA can sometimes make sometimes spectacular mistakes and add large chunks of redundant "code" which are then available for further mutations to act upon to create new traits, we have a means for the end product - diversity of life - to come about.
In terms of expressing it mathematically I beleive it is possible to some degree - the rate at which copying errors take place is largely predictable over long periods of time - which is for example one of the reasons we know how long ago the hominid line diversified from chimps - don't ask me exactly how its calculated tho - its not really my field - wiki or google would be your friend here.

In terms of the origins of life - it seems again that we don't have a something from nothing scenario - many structures similar to cellular structures are naturally occuring abiotic macromolecules - like self replicating and self catalysing RNA, and liposomes (balls of dual layered phospholipids - essentially identical to a cell membrane) - so its quite feasable (but still admittedly hypothetical) that the chemical evolution of early life came about in a series of small steps of gradually increasing complexity which were perhaps similar to classical biological evolution (note well that I make the distinction between hypothetical chemical evolution and theoretical biological evolution here).
We may never know for sure of course but we do at least have some clues that allow us to hypothesise.

I just did a quick google on those and pulled out a few pages that looked like they might have some substance to them becuase you seemed interested - on reflection some of it was a little innapropriate as it was peer review stuff which these days can be pretty impenetrable unless you have very specialised knowledge - Biology can be so compartmentalised these days that 1 biologist from 1 field can be as incomprehensible to another from another field as they are to a layperson.
I wasn't trying to hamstring you tho

If you are looking to get up to speed with the broad themes and perspectives of evolutionary theory, wiki is generally pretty good, so are Richard Dawkins books on the subject if you can get past his rather annoying atheist preachyness - or there's a couple of straight up text books that I can recommend as well "Life" by Purves Sadava Orians and Heller, and "Biology" by Raven and Johnson are both very good and can be mostly understood by anyone with a decent high school level of education.

Good question - there's no evidence of any mysterious life force as such - when cells are expressing proteins and transporting electrons they are alive - when they are not they are dead (or very soon will be) - but that's not to say that there aren't areas of human and animal physiology that we really know nothing about - and in fact have little idea of how we even start to find out.
One of those is concsiousness - its difficult enough to pin a precise definition onto what it actually is - let alone figure out how you might test or measure it.
I'm only aware of 1 biologist who has ever had a crack at it (James Watson - 1 of the guys who determined the structure of DNA - no dummy) and as far as I know he got nowhere.
I don't actually have a problem with this - I don't expect science will ever provide all of the answers

 

great post

when first walking into school, every kid has the hope that that is what they are doing within the sciences

that is a question about the process (the mathematical description of)

the process (math) is just a description

It is the same thing newton did for motion; he described it, that's it.

But like your question; many want the math to answer questions that are not for describing as if something we are experiencing, but to give you 'peace of mind'

that question does nothing for life (or describing 'truth')

but to return to 'life' and that comprehension shares the math to answer that question. (open another thread deep in the pseudo; I will post an opinion)

To comprehend we 'exist', then the bias to ONE is innert. WE are here, and know it!

What is the progression (of life) doing? Consciousness; then Mass is comprehending itself!

Then to be able to create life (do good) by choice, 'it' can live forever.

'Life' wants to know how it exists!

Start with defining life!

We have the technology, we have the internet, we are in that time to finish the job............

that should be a movie!?!?!?

just defining the progression of energy upon mass as observed in nature; kind of like darwin, clipping specimens to share what it sees and defining it.

awesome thinking.....

the laws of chemistry are tied to the incorrect paradigm and why 'reduction' is the law (can't define an evolution without 'chaos/uncertainty' as law)

when energy itself is not disipated. The concentration may disipate but that is mass that enables the progression or perceived equilibriation; the energy is still there and entangled to the event (a potential exists)

that list is huge but try this thought

tap the surface of a pond. see the wave moving away from you as the 'height' is getting smaller (standard equilibriation) but the amount of mass it is entangling to the event is increasing.

all that i just mentioned was to change the scope by including the 'entangled' environment cause by the associated energy to the event.

that non-local effect maintains upon mass by the energy between the mass and that property of em (light) is called entanglement........... (that 'missing link' creates a paradigm shift to all the sciences)

entanglement is a real potential between mass

you will be entangled to this conversation and ruined 'for' life

can't change it

well that is what any action is imposed to existence and that potential between mass is not held within the current 'laws' within todays benchmarks

I think, the correct question is, why hasn't the math been perfected?

and i will tell you; integrity! It seems them who want to put the work together are considered quacks and i am king quack (the final evolution of the universal quack association)

welcome to the party

 

if 2 men are capable of picking up 'x' weight as individuals,

together (separated but of same purpose) they can lift a greater weight than the addition of the two separate maximums.

the same answer above applies here

it is common sense, but not in physics!

 

i believe that there could very well be such a thing as "life force", some call it god others call it supernatural, but what else can explain consciousness, intuition, the placebo effect, or a multitude of other currently unexplainable processes associated with life?

 

Bish - I find a lot of your posts a little way out for my tastes - no offence.
But those two sentences cut to the heart of the current phase of the dicussion beautifully - well done! - I may end up borrowing that description one of these days