Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Limitations of Science?
Options
Comments
-
-
MagicMarker wrote: »What about a dogmatic scientist stating that life had to come from outer space?
Hoyle argued that life could not have randomly originated on earth given the age of the earth and that far more likely was that life developed elsewhere in much older parts of the universe and was distributed by comets, meteorites and asteroids. Hoyle did the math, check it out and disagree if you like. Its just one of many hypotheses on how life began on earth, nothing dogmatic about it.0 -
-
Eh.... writing?
Yes, certain knowledge is passed on via the written and oral traditions. However, that is not what I am talking about. A few examples:
There is a species of wasp that lays its eggs in mud flats. They build an inverted funnel (with slippery surfaces to keep predators out) to get in and out while making the nest and then when complete they lay their eggs, fill their tunnel with food, break off the funnel and seal the entrance. It is very sophistocated. There are obviously thousands of examples like this in nature but the question is where did the individual wasp building the nest get this detailed knowledge (from a book? a guide to wasp nest building for wasps). There no evidence they learned it from older wasps as wasps bred under a controlled environment do exactly the same thing.
I have chickens in my backyard. They were all procured as day old chicks so have no adults to teach them anything. One night I forget to lock them into their coup and they roosted on braches about 15ft off the ground. How did they know to do this to avoid predators? The obvious response is instinct but what the hell is instinct?0 -
Again, not sure how you could have possible gotten any of that from what i wrote...
Explain why the word 'evolution' is in that sentence you wrote if the sentence has nothing to do with evolution then.But we have experiments not having the ability to produce component of a particular theory. You say that it makes one theory improbable, but not the other...
Because the simplest least implausible element of the cycle described in that model cannot be replicated.
It's not my place to point out how your misrepresenting another poster. I'll leave it to them to take you up on that.Yet can't point out how. Convenient.
Well, since you have failed to demonstrate the mathematical probabilities despite being asked, I don't know you're in a position to assert that.But it does. The only way Hoyle's comparison would be comparable was if someone was claiming that life started by a tornado spontaneously smashing together proteins together to produce a modern single cell. No one is claiming anything even close to that. The theory I presented shows that there are good theories that can explain the origin of life without invoking massive probabilities or magic.You're either fundamentally misunderstanding my point or really desperate to do so.
Go again then. You assert Hoyle is wrong to propose exogenesis. Exogenesis has the exact same amount of evidence for and against it as all other proposed theories relating to the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, if you assert that Hoyle is ignorant for proposing a theory in this area with no evidence, you are required for consistency's basis to think likewise of everyone else who has done likewise.For life to have began on Earth we must hypothesise that life arose on it's own.
For life to have began elsewhere and seeded earth we must first hypothesise that life arose on it's own.
Then the planet it was on was struck by a disaster large enough to hurl rocks and other debris out of it's solar system.
Then that some class of life just happened to be on the right spot on the right rock to hitch a ride.
Then that life has to survive the event, millions of years of the cold vacuum of space, radiation and eventually re-entry and probable explosion in the atmosphere.
But first it has to find Earth in the vast vast vast vast emptiness of space, being on the right trajectory at the right speed at the right time to hit Earth.
And then it has to land in the right environment that would allow it to survive in an alien world...
Don't really need the math for this one.
Let me offer you some guiding math anyway. The galaxy is huge compared to tiny old earth by many factors of magnitude. It is also much, much older. The likelihood of life occuring elsewhere is almost infinitely greater than it occurring here by abiogenesis alone. Add the fact that Earth is impacted DAILY by debris from space, and you have a mathematical model that more than permits an exogenetic model. Note I don't rule out abiogenesis. I remain agnostic on the issue because there is no evidence for ANY of the current theorems. What I'm objecting to is your unscientific attachement to ONE of VERY MANY abiogenetic models and insistence that it must have been that without any evidence.Why? According to who and what evidence?
Again, this is a numbers game. For most of Earth's history it was hostile to life of any kind. For another long period, it could only accommodate plant life. Only after sufficient time was the planet oxygenated sufficiently to support animal life (I'm ignoring, for the purposes of argument, shadow biosphere models and extreme climate options, since they didn't lead to us). So there is actually a relatively small window in which life either developed here all by itself, or else was accidentally seeded here by some of the space debris that arrives daily.Again, where have I rejected any theorems that are science based and not simply supernatural?
You're dogmatically attached to a single theory without any supporting evidence. That in itself is a profoundly superstitious and anti-scientific mindset. Incidentally, try looking up, among many others, Adams's 'radioactive beach' model of abiogenesis. It's one of the many scientific theorems that you have rejected. Exogenesis itself is perfectly scientific and does not posit anything supernatural either.0 -
Advertisement
-
MagicMarker wrote: »What about a dogmatic scientist stating that life had to come from outer space?
Hoyle wasn't dogmatic about it. His argument was based on his own mathematical probability estimates for both possibilities. He retained the possibility of abiogenesis. I think it is more than reasonable to query the mathematical guesstimates Hoyle used, of course, and doing so reduces the spectacular gap in likelihood he proposed. But of course everyone else's mathematics are also guesstimates too in this context.0 -
-
Pre-programmed behaviour, written into the genetic code of the organism, acquired through natural selection of mutations. DNA carries information, just as writing and binary code do.
I think a more honest answer is "we don't know". What you say sounds good but there is currently no plausible mechanism for genetic inheritance of complex behaviors. The only thing we know for certain about DNA is that it contains the blueprint for expressing proteins.0 -
-
I'm seriously doubting you are actually reading what I've written.
Because it's a common quote (mis)used against evolution, and that's what the Op was using it as.Cavehill Red wrote: »Explain why the word 'evolution' is in that sentence you wrote if the sentence has nothing to do with evolution then.
And a year ago that was true of the Higgs Boson...Cavehill Red wrote: »Because the simplest least implausible element of the cycle described in that model cannot be replicated.
Dodged the point.Cavehill Red wrote: »Well, since you have failed to demonstrate the mathematical probabilities despite being asked, I don't know you're in a position to assert that.
Hoyle uses the analogy to compare it with the idea of abiogenesis. However no one is claiming that a bunch of random proteins were randomly smashed together to produce a modern cell.
His analogy is a strawman.
I never said any such thing.Cavehill Red wrote: »Go again then. You assert Hoyle is wrong to propose exogenesis.
Never said any of that.Cavehill Red wrote: »Therefore, if you assert that Hoyle is ignorant for proposing a theory in this area with no evidence, you are required for consistency's basis to think likewise of everyone else who has done likewise.
I said that he would be ignorant if he didn't realise his statement was a strawman.
It's impacted daily by debris that originated in our solar system.Cavehill Red wrote: »Let me offer you some guiding math anyway. The galaxy is huge compared to tiny old earth by many factors of magnitude. It is also much, much older. The likelihood of life occuring elsewhere is almost infinitely greater than it occurring here by abiogenesis alone. Add the fact that Earth is impacted DAILY by debris from space, and you have a mathematical model that more than permits an exogenetic model.
For the exogenetic model, especially if you are insisting that life did not have time to develop on Earth requires material from outside our solar system.
Then we have to factor in the chances of life from another planet being able to survive an event powerful enough propel it out of it's solar system and to ours, as well as surviving the millions of years of vacuum and radiation as it travels across interstellar space.
Then we have to factor in the chances that it actually hits Earth in a way that the life can survive and in a place it could live.
And this is before we factor in the equal chance of life developing on a different planet as it does on Earth.
For the exogenesis theory you must postulate all of these other really unlikely events on top of the chances of life developing by itself.
But for plain abiogenesis you just have to postulate life developing by itself.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life has been on it for at least 3.6 billion years.Cavehill Red wrote: »Again, this is a numbers game. For most of Earth's history it was hostile to life of any kind.
For most of Earth's history it's had life.
Again, never indicated any such thing.Cavehill Red wrote: »You're dogmatically attached to a single theory without any supporting evidence.
Never once claimed otherwise.Cavehill Red wrote: »Exogenesis itself is perfectly scientific and does not posit anything supernatural either.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sounds like you're giving up when it gets complicated. Evolution programs behaviours by setting preferences in the brain.I have relatively little experience in biology but I can use biological facts I know to be true to incrementally explain big questions, and maybe there's some truth in the logic. For instance humans are programmed to have preferences for certain orders, colours and textures. Common specific traits can be seen in large unrelated populations so we know there must be some instinctiveness to them. These preferences can be set by certain structures and connections of neutrons in the brain. If you can have your mother's eyes or father's nose then it's not too big a push to say that these structures in the brain can be passed on through DNA from one generation to the next.Pre-programmed behaviour, written into the genetic code of the organism, acquired through natural selection of mutations. DNA carries information, just as writing and binary code do.
I think a more honest answer is "we don't know". What you say sounds good but there is currently no plausible mechanism for genetic inheritance of complex behaviors. The only thing we know for certain about DNA is that it contains the blueprint for expressing proteins.0 -
Hoyle argued that life could not have randomly originated on earth given the age of the earth and that far more likely was that life developed elsewhere in much older parts of the universe and was distributed by comets, meteorites and asteroids. Hoyle did the math, check it out and disagree if you like. Its just one of many hypotheses on how life began on earth, nothing dogmatic about it.
Yes, it's just one of many hypothesis, hypothesis being the key word. Has it been proven? No, it has not, so you may want to be less dogmatic about it.Cavehill Red wrote: »Hoyle wasn't dogmatic about it. His argument was based on his own mathematical probability estimates for both possibilities. He retained the possibility of abiogenesis. I think it is more than reasonable to query the mathematical guesstimates Hoyle used, of course, and doing so reduces the spectacular gap in likelihood he proposed. But of course everyone else's mathematics are also guesstimates too in this context.
I'm referring to nagirrac when I refer to dogmatic scientists (at least he calls himself a scientist), not Hoyle.
BTW I have no issue with the hypothesis itself, just with the outrageous hypocrisy being displayed by nagirra.0 -
DNA codes proteins and cells which build brains which encode neural pathways which determine behavior.[...] there is currently no plausible mechanism for genetic inheritance of complex behaviors. The only thing we know for certain about DNA is that it contains the blueprint for expressing proteins.
It's fairly straightforward.0 -
Because it's a common quote (mis)used against evolution, and that's what the Op was using it as.
Neither the OP nor Nagirrac referred to evolution. You did. You subsequently acknowledged you were wrong to do so and had misunderstood. Why you're rolling back on that now, I don't know.And a year ago that was true of the Higgs Boson...
The HB was neither simplistic, nor necessarily plausible. If you can't see the difference between trying to recreate the conditions microseconds after the Big Bang under 30 km of Switzerland and France, as opposed to generating a protocell from primordial hydrocarbons in a lab, then as I said before, there's no helping you.Dodged the point.
Hoyle uses the analogy to compare it with the idea of abiogenesis. However no one is claiming that a bunch of random proteins were randomly smashed together to produce a modern cell.
His analogy is a strawman.
It's not an analogy. You've misunderstood it entirely. It's an illustration of relative probabilities. Which means we're back waiting for you to offer your own relative probablistic guesstimates.
Really?I never said any such thing.
But it isn't a strawman. It is an illustration of relative probabilities.Never said any of that.
I said that he would be ignorant if he didn't realise his statement was a strawman.It's impacted daily by debris that originated in our solar system.
For the exogenetic model, especially if you are insisting that life did not have time to develop on Earth requires material from outside our solar system.
Not necessarily. Life may have developed elsewhere within the solar system first, such as Mars, with whom we swap material all the time. Furthermore, there are no end of comets, etc which traverse in and out of our solar system.Then we have to factor in the chances of life from another planet being able to survive an event powerful enough propel it out of it's solar system and to ours, as well as surviving the millions of years of vacuum and radiation as it travels across interstellar space.
One word. Microbes.Then we have to factor in the chances that it actually hits Earth in a way that the life can survive and in a place it could live.
And this is before we factor in the equal chance of life developing on a different planet as it does on Earth.
For the exogenesis theory you must postulate all of these other really unlikely events on top of the chances of life developing by itself.
But for plain abiogenesis you just have to postulate life developing by itself.
And the factors you keep conveniently forgetting - the relative ages of earth versus everywhere else. The time element. The relative size of earth versus everywhere else. The size element.The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life has been on it for at least 3.6 billion years.
For most of Earth's history it's had life.
Not animal life though. When did aquatic life form? The paleozoic. That's about 600 million years ago.Again, never indicated any such thing.
You've never indicated anything else. You're insistent upon a single hypothesis, not even the most plausible abiogenetic hypothesis, I would argue, at the expense of all the others, and all the exogenetic hypotheses, despite there being, and let me say this slowly for you - NO. EVIDENCE. WHATSOEVER. TO. SUPPORT. ANY. HYPOTHESIS. ON. THE. ORIGIN. OF. LIFE. OVER. ANY. OTHER. AT. THIS. TIME.Never once claimed otherwise.
LOL. I'm done with this.0 -
You've misunderstood the point of that. Please do not quote what I write as an excuse to post a silly, nonsensical rant.
Care to explain the point of your statement then? You're very good at dissecting what others write and putting your own spin on it, not so good at explaining your own statements as Cavehill has repeatedly demonstrated.0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »I'm referring to nagirrac when I refer to dogmatic scientists (at least he calls himself a scientist), not Hoyle.
BTW I have no issue with the hypothesis itself, just with the outrageous hypocrisy being displayed by nagirra.
I am expressing an opinion, is every opinion dogmatic?
Hoyle's work has credibility in that he did the math that shows the statistical inprobability of life originating on earth. As King Mob stated, life at least at a basic level originated relatively early in earth's history. Hoyle demonstrated mathematicallly that there simply isn't time for self replicating molecules to develop from random chemical events. I find his work reasonable if unproven. The hypothesis of viruses / microbes from a comet for example as the origin of life on earth is far more reasonable to me given the age of the universe relative to the age of the earth.
By the way no need for the snide remark "at least he calls himself a scientist". Most scientists are very strong in their opinions, regardless of whether they are eventually proven right or wrong. There is a difference however between someone with strong opinions and someone who is dogmatic. Dogmatic means refusing to consider anything outside your world view. I may have an opinion that Hoyle is credible given his work but am alsao completely open to being proven wrong when someone shows how a self replicating molecule can be formed from basic organic molecules in the environment of early earth.0 -
I am expressing an opinion, is every opinion dogmatic?
You have expressed your opinion as fact, so in your case, I find it dogmatic, and hypocritical.Most scientists are very strong in their opinions, regardless of whether they are eventually proven right or wrong. There is a difference however between someone with strong opinions and someone who is dogmatic. Dogmatic means refusing to consider anything outside your world view. I may have an opinion that Hoyle is credible given his work but am alsao completely open to being proven wrong when someone shows how a self replicating molecule can be formed from basic organic molecules in the environment of early earth.
Well then you incorrectly refer to Dawkins as a dogmatic atheist, as he is also completely open to being proven wrong about the existence of a deity.0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »You have expressed your opinion as fact, so in your case, I find it dogmatic, and hypocritical.
Well then you incorrectly refer to Dawkins as a dogmatic atheist, as he is also completely open to being proven wrong about the existence of a deity.
If I did then I assure you on the origin of life issue it was unintentional misuse of words. There is no current explanation for the origin of life on earth that has any compelling evidence to support it. I happen to agree with Hoyle's calculations on the improbability of life emerging in the timeframe available on earth and believe it is far more likely that life in the form of a rudimentary virus or microbe made its way to earth from space. Its a big place out there and lots of time involved.
As for Dawkins, he has the Burden of Proof to show there is no creator given his incessant attacks on those that believe in such a hypothesis. He has a completely closed mind when it comes to anything remotely smelling of "paranormal" and on occasions when presented data that suggests paranornal activity he has refused to even look at it. If you refuse to even look at data then how else could you describe that person other than dogmatic?0 -
As for Dawkins, he has the Burden of Proof to show there is no creator given his incessant attacks on those that believe in such a hypothesis. He has a completely closed mind when it comes to anything remotely smelling of "paranormal" and on occasions when presented data that suggests paranornal activity he has refused to even look at it. If you refuse to even look at data then how else could you describe that person other than dogmatic?
What data would you like Dawkins to look at? What data is there?0 -
No, I said that I did not realise that the quote was originally about abiogenesis by an actual scientist.Cavehill Red wrote: »Neither the OP nor Nagirrac referred to evolution. You did. You subsequently acknowledged you were wrong to do so and had misunderstood. Why you're rolling back on that now, I don't know.
However it is still misused by creationists and by the op and in addition I think that the scientist was wrong.
Primordial hydrocarbons that had millions of year and billions of iterations to develop....Cavehill Red wrote: »The HB was neither simplistic, nor necessarily plausible. If you can't see the difference between trying to recreate the conditions microseconds after the Big Bang under 30 km of Switzerland and France, as opposed to generating a protocell from primordial hydrocarbons in a lab, then as I said before, there's no helping you.
But the "relative probabilities" rely on the assumption of 1) the process producing a modern cell and 2) being entirely random, neither of which are seriously claimed by anyone and is directly refuted by the model I presented which shows a process that does not end up with a modern cell and is not random.Cavehill Red wrote: »It's not an analogy. You've misunderstood it entirely. It's an illustration of relative probabilities. Which means we're back waiting for you to offer your own relative probablistic guesstimates.
So again, he is either misrepresenting the actual theories or didn't understand them.
But Mars isn't older than Earth and is smaller, which your own claims make it less likely to have life.Cavehill Red wrote: »Not necessarily. Life may have developed elsewhere within the solar system first, such as Mars, with whom we swap material all the time. Furthermore, there are no end of comets, etc which traverse in and out of our solar system.
Same with comets which are smaller still, only with the addition of the complication of being more hostile to the development of life than a stable planet with an atmosphere.
Which are susceptible to heat and radiation, which they'd experience a lot of being launched at interstellar speeds and travelling between solar systems.Cavehill Red wrote: »One word. Microbes.
But you've yet to explain how either of those are actually a factor at all.Cavehill Red wrote: »And the factors you keep conveniently forgetting - the relative ages of earth versus everywhere else. The time element. The relative size of earth versus everywhere else. The size element.
Though your theory runs into issues with them as well, the earth being a tiny target with only a tiny window of history for the seeding to take place.
But you didn't specify "animal life" and such a distinction is ridiculous especially for your theory. You claim that only microbes would be able to survive the trip. And since we know that microbes existed on earth for 3.6ish billion years, your theory requires that is what was seeded from space.Cavehill Red wrote: »Not animal life though. When did aquatic life form? The paleozoic. That's about 600 million years ago.
So for the majority of it's history the Earth was able to and did support life, exactly contrary to your claim.
Again, you are ascribing a lot of stuff to me I never said or indicated. Please stop doing that. Please show exactly where I said this theory was the only theory? Please show me where exactly I said that other theories, even exogenesis are impossible?Cavehill Red wrote: »You've never indicated anything else. You're insistent upon a single hypothesis, not even the most plausible abiogenetic hypothesis, I would argue, at the expense of all the others, and all the exogenetic hypotheses, despite there being, and let me say this slowly for you - NO. EVIDENCE. WHATSOEVER. TO. SUPPORT. ANY. HYPOTHESIS. ON. THE. ORIGIN. OF. LIFE. OVER. ANY. OTHER. AT. THIS. TIME.
Yup, you've said that before too.Cavehill Red wrote: »LOL. I'm done with this.0 -
Advertisement
-
I made it to Cavehill to illustrate the relative probablities of the theories of abiogenesis and exogenesis.Care to explain the point of your statement then? You're very good at dissecting what others write and putting your own spin on it, not so good at explaining your own statements as Cavehill has repeatedly demonstrated.
That was clear for the context of my post and I explained it clearly.
You were just looking for something to kick off your silly little rant.0 -
As for Dawkins, he has the Burden of Proof to show there is no creator given his incessant attacks on those that believe in such a hypothesis. He has a completely closed mind when it comes to anything remotely smelling of "paranormal" and on occasions when presented data that suggests paranornal activity he has refused to even look at it. If you refuse to even look at data then how else could you describe that person other than dogmatic?
Did you call yourself a scientist? What part of "you cannot prove a negative" do you not understand?
James Randi on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI0 -
Yes, certain knowledge is passed on via the written and oral traditions. However, that is not what I am talking about. A few examples:
There is a species of wasp that lays its eggs in mud flats. They build an inverted funnel (with slippery surfaces to keep predators out) to get in and out while making the nest and then when complete they lay their eggs, fill their tunnel with food, break off the funnel and seal the entrance. It is very sophistocated. There are obviously thousands of examples like this in nature but the question is where did the individual wasp building the nest get this detailed knowledge (from a book? a guide to wasp nest building for wasps). There no evidence they learned it from older wasps as wasps bred under a controlled environment do exactly the same thing.
I have chickens in my backyard. They were all procured as day old chicks so have no adults to teach them anything. One night I forget to lock them into their coup and they roosted on braches about 15ft off the ground. How did they know to do this to avoid predators? The obvious response is instinct but what the hell is instinct?
Instinct is a primordial in built mechanism to increase your chances of propagating your genes.
A two year old human knows to steer clear of a growling dog baring it's teeth. The child wasn't taught this, the properties of the growl and mannerisms of the dog stimulate uncontrolled emotional and hormonal responses in the child. Avoiding the angry dog feels better, it feels better because children who feel better avoiding the dog live more often and propagate their "avoid angry dogs" mechanisms.0 -
Did you call yourself a scientist? What part of "you cannot prove a negative" do you not understand?
James Randi on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI[/QUOTE]
You are obviously not very familiar with Philosophy if you believe you cannot prove a negative. Look up "modus tollens", there isn't a logician alive who believes you cannot prove a negative.
I may be a poor scientist but you are quoting an ex-magician who has built a career exposing other magicians. Randi has done society a favor by exposing fraudsters but also done a disservice by labelling all paranormnal study as "pseudoscience". There are fraudsters in every walk of life, Astra Zeneca were fined $520M in 2010 for "off label" marketing of their drug Seroquel, hyping it for treatment of children with "aggression" problems when their own clinical studies showed serious and dehabilitating side effects.
There are scientists who believe in a creator (theists and deists), scientists who believe there is no need for a creator (atheists) and scientists who admit they do not know and take no position (agnostics). Are only atheist scientists right? If you are convinced as Dawkins is that there is no need for a creator and that all energy and matter came into being at the big bang and self replicating molecules developed by themselves, then prove it. In time, science may prove Dawkins right, or may find evidence for a creator, but for now neither side can prove their position and attempts to argue that only atheists have no need to prove their position is not logical if one understand logic.
Our reality is a very strange place as shown by modern theoretical physics (consider the challenges of non-locality, the problems a mind as great as Einstein had in accepting it, and the implications of Bell's theorem and later proofs). You think telepathy is weird, consider quantum entanglement and its implications. Serious studies of the paranormal postulate that there are energy fields that influence aspects of our reality that we currently do not understand. What should this field of study be constantly derided as "pseudoscience", do you not think this is flat earth type thinking?0 -
Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »Instinct is a primordial in built mechanism to increase your chances of propagating your genes.
A two year old human knows to steer clear of a growling dog baring it's teeth. The child wasn't taught this, the properties of the growl and mannerisms of the dog stimulate uncontrolled emotional and hormonal responses in the child. Avoiding the angry dog feels better, it feels better because children who feel better avoiding the dog live more often and propagate their "avoid angry dogs" mechanisms.
Genuine thanks, that is very helpful and fits with a lot of what I have read on the subject. It is the mechanism of how this "stimulation" of nerve centers in the brain gets passed from one generation to the next that I am interested in. I understand that DNA is a blueprint for building us physically, including our brains, but have no clue how behavior is inherited. Perhaps it lies in the "junk DNA" that we are finding is more interesting than we thought. Fascinating subject matter.0 -
Serious studies of the paranormal postulate that there are energy fields that influence aspects of our reality that we currently do not understand. What should this field of study be constantly derided as "pseudoscience", do you not think this is flat earth type thinking?
Any serious study of the paranormal concludes that the paranormal is bollocks. Any expert who claims otherwise is selling something. If you want to believe something, by all means go ahead. Just don't try to claim evidence for it when such things do not and never will exist, k?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30406
Our reality is a very strange place as shown by modern theoretical physics (consider the challenges of non-locality, the problems a mind as great as Einstein had in accepting it, and the implications of Bell's theorem and later proofs). You think telepathy is weird, consider quantum entanglement and its implications. Serious studies of the paranormal postulate that there are energy fields that influence aspects of our reality that we currently do not understand. What should this field of study be constantly derided as "pseudoscience", do you not think this is flat earth type thinking?
Nonsense.The best theory we have to describe matter is quantum theory. Now, I understand why quantum theory can seem a bit odd, I mean it makes some odd statements; it says, for example, that things can be in many places at once. In fact, technically, it says that things can be in an infinite number of places at once. It says that the sub-atomic building blocks of our bodies are shifting in response to events that happened at the edge of the known universe, a billion light years somewhere over there.
"Now this is all true but that isn't a licence to talk utter drivel. You see, quantum theory might seem weird and mysterious but it describes the world with higher precision than the laws of physics laid down by Newton and it's one of the foundations of our modern understanding of nature. It doesn't therefore allow mystical healing or ESP or any other manifestation of New-Age woo woo into the pantheon of the possible. Always remember quantum theory is physics and physics is usually done by people without star signs tattooed on their bottom.
There is nothing strange; there is nothing weird; there's no woo woo – it's just beautiful physics.
- Prof. Brian Cox (An actual physicist)0 -
Genuine thanks, that is very helpful and fits with a lot of what I have read on the subject. It is the mechanism of how this "stimulation" of nerve centers in the brain gets passed from one generation to the next that I am interested in. I understand that DNA is a blueprint for building us physically, including our brains, but have no clue how behavior is inherited. Perhaps it lies in the "junk DNA" that we are finding is more interesting than we thought. Fascinating subject matter.
Nope. DNA codes for proteins, which tend to fold into specific shapes, because:
1. That's just how a compound made up of that set of amino acids will align,
2. Sometimes other proteins help nudge them into a specific shape.
In just the same way, bodies and organs tend to grow into specific shapes, simply because that's how the specifics of the environment affect them. Skin grows on the outside because outside factors stimulate the activation of those genes. Brains are little different. Every brain has the same bits and pieces in the same places, with broadly the same kinds of connections between them. Then what that that brain experiences shapes it by increasing connectivity in areas that get used more, in very much the same way lifting weights makes your muscles bigger.
It's all quite magical to observe (and I'm sure there are thousands of Youtube videos ready to show you, if you want), but that doesn't mean there's any actual magic to it. It's just biochemistry and physics.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement