Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357405 > unrolled thread

Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-16 09:32 -0700
    Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-16 22:20 +0200
      Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 13:40 -0700
      Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-18 08:05 +0200
        Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-18 13:47 -0700
          Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-19 05:00 +0200
        Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-19 04:45 +0200
          Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Heraklesr Stathakis <hsp@amphiaraus.org> - 2015-07-22 11:43 +0000

#357405 — Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 10:03:38 PM UTC+8, underante wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 9:11:46 AM UTC+1, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:57:20 PM UTC+8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:17:32 PM UTC+8, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > This was a  poll related to The International Year of Physics 2005.
> > > > 
> > > > About the overall appraisal to the theory of relativity, the website of Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation once has carried on the voting to the following five
> > > > viewpoints, from 12 o'clock, September 23, 2003 to 10 o'clock, May 2, 2005, altogether 1,425 people
> > > > participated in the voting, its result as follows: 
> > > > (1) The relativity is absolutely wrong, 736 people, account for 51.65%; 
> > > > (2) It is entirely accurate, 188 people, account for 13.19%; 
> > > > (3) It needs to revise, 406 people, account for 28.49%; 
> > > > (4) It has not mattered, 40 people, account for 2.81%; 
> > > > (5) It is not unnecessary, 55 people, account for 3.86%. 
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Chan Rasjid.
> > > 
> > > Chan, thanks for the post. While many scientists understand that the theory is wrong they cannot admit this. To do so as Pentcho pointed out would have dire consequences.
> > > 
> > > Peter Riedt
> > 
> > I am Chinese. I know the Chinese mentality. If there is anything from the West that is considered high and sacred but wrong, the Chinese would not miss the opportunity to criticize it. But of course, normal people are still fair and rational. I have never heard of any Chinese talking bad about Isaac Newton. I think the Chinese too has a great respect for the name of Isaac Newton despite the English being called "foreign devils" when they first appeared in China.     
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Chan Rasjid.
> 
> did they take a similar poll on the theory of evolution as well?

I have no knowledge. I actually do not read Chinese myself. The relativity poll is from an article by one of their scientist.

I doubt there is much dispute in evolution theory with the Chinese. Again it is only an issue in the West - whether man was created in the image of God or moulded originally as monkeys.

The Chinese, being practical, probably could not see how else very high life forms could be created - but through slow changes according to the workings of the Great Mystery. 

Was not the Chinese the originator of evolution theory - in the I Ching, Book of Changes; everthing under the Heavens develop through slow changes over time.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.    

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#357463

Am 16.07.2015 18:32, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
..
>> did they take a similar poll on the theory of evolution as well?
>
> I have no knowledge. I actually do not read Chinese myself. The relativity poll is from an article by one of their scientist.
>
> I doubt there is much dispute in evolution theory with the Chinese. Again it is only an issue in the West - whether man was created in the image of God or moulded originally as monkeys.
>
> The Chinese, being practical, probably could not see how else very high life forms could be created - but through slow changes according to the workings of the Great Mystery.
>
> Was not the Chinese the originator of evolution theory - in the I Ching, Book of Changes; everthing under the Heavens develop through slow changes over time.

The problem is not evolution, but the person Darwin.

I had - for example - the idea, that certain structures in the Atacama 
desert are actually remains of people, that have lived there, while the 
desert was still a sea.

This area dried out about 15 million years ago. So there should have 
been beings, that have been able to build cities that long ago.

But Darwin assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, hence is 
off by four orders of magnitude.

This is an extreme discrepancy, so his theories should be treated with care.

Other believe systems assume the creation of men exactly 6000 years ago 
(plus a few days), because they found this number in the bible.

Possibly people are way older than this and lived on this planet for 
several hundred million years (says e.g. a guy named Ed Conrad).

Now: who's right?



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357472

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 9:20:57 PM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.07.2015 18:32, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
> ..
> >> did they take a similar poll on the theory of evolution as well?
> >
> > I have no knowledge. I actually do not read Chinese myself. The relativity poll is from an article by one of their scientist.
> >
> > I doubt there is much dispute in evolution theory with the Chinese. Again it is only an issue in the West - whether man was created in the image of God or moulded originally as monkeys.
> >
> > The Chinese, being practical, probably could not see how else very high life forms could be created - but through slow changes according to the workings of the Great Mystery.
> >
> > Was not the Chinese the originator of evolution theory - in the I Ching, Book of Changes; everthing under the Heavens develop through slow changes over time.
> 
> The problem is not evolution, but the person Darwin.
> 
> I had - for example - the idea, that certain structures in the Atacama 
> desert are actually remains of people, that have lived there, while the 
> desert was still a sea.
> 
> This area dried out about 15 million years ago. So there should have 
> been beings, that have been able to build cities that long ago.
> 
> But Darwin assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, hence is 
> off by four orders of magnitude.
> 
> This is an extreme discrepancy, so his theories should be treated with care.
> 
> Other believe systems assume the creation of men exactly 6000 years ago 
> (plus a few days), because they found this number in the bible.
> 
> Possibly people are way older than this and lived on this planet for 
> several hundred million years (says e.g. a guy named Ed Conrad).
> 
> Now: who's right?
> 

the guys who count tree-rings and like to carbon date? but keep a wary eye on the chaps who collect those coprolites, that is just, well, weird.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357659

Am 17.07.2015 02:22, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:20:57 AM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.07.2015 18:32, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
>> ..
>>>> did they take a similar poll on the theory of evolution as well?
>>>
>>> I have no knowledge. I actually do not read Chinese myself. The relativity poll is from an article by one of their scientist.
>>>
>>> I doubt there is much dispute in evolution theory with the Chinese. Again it is only an issue in the West - whether man was created in the image of God or moulded originally as monkeys.
>>>
>>> The Chinese, being practical, probably could not see how else very high life forms could be created - but through slow changes according to the workings of the Great Mystery.
>>>
>>> Was not the Chinese the originator of evolution theory - in the I Ching, Book of Changes; everthing under the Heavens develop through slow changes over time.
>>
>> The problem is not evolution, but the person Darwin.
>>
>> I had - for example - the idea, that certain structures in the Atacama
>> desert are actually remains of people, that have lived there, while the
>> desert was still a sea.
>>
>> This area dried out about 15 million years ago. So there should have
>> been beings, that have been able to build cities that long ago.
>>
>> But Darwin assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, hence is
>> off by four orders of magnitude.
>>
>> This is an extreme discrepancy, so his theories should be treated with care.
>>
>> Other believe systems assume the creation of men exactly 6000 years ago
>> (plus a few days), because they found this number in the bible.
>>
>> Possibly people are way older than this and lived on this planet for
>> several hundred million years (says e.g. a guy named Ed Conrad).
>>
>> Now: who's right?
>>
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> I know next to nothing about Darwin's theory; vaguely I remember evolution is about how life forms develops
> first from amino acids (what's that) in the ocean and so forth... the cells grew legs and started swimming. Overtime  they became upright - they walked upright as well as live upright and righteously. Darwin only sees the leg bones but not the development of the moral soul of man.
>
> I always marvel at how young (and therefore must be somehow immature) our current civilization is - recorded history is a mere 6000 years old. Jesus Christ was only 2000 years back and he is an "ancient" figure. In China, the direct descendants of Confucius (about the 77 th generation) is well recorded. Compared to the age of the dinosaurs of 500 million years ago, we human history of 6000 years is no more than a wink - here the relativists may be right that everything is "relative" and the size of the δ-wink too is observer dependent!
>
> I doubt there is human civilization of 15 million years; it would mean the fossils should be easily found and it would not be related to our the current human race. I have read of a person who says there have been a few phases of the earth's history with beings even more technologically advanced than us; but they all disappeared because of upheavals of the earth that destroyed all signs of their existence - such were the magnitude of changes to the earth. Who knows how old the earth really is.
>
I tried to prove 'Growing Earth' and stumbled upon these structures in 
the Atacama desert.

There are -among other artefacts- large drawings, called 'geoglpyhs'. 
They are extremely large and extremely old.

And nobody has the faintest clue, who has build them, how and why.

My guess is this:

The current desert was formerly a sea, while sea levels had been much 
higher (about 1100 m higher than today). The now desert was then very 
green and fruitful and was populated by intelligent beings (not 
necessarily homo sapiens).

These entertained themselves by 'land art' and carved large pictures 
into then muddy grounds. The mud later hardened and then petrified.

They also build large cities, like e.g. Machu Pichu or Cusco. Their 
remains are actually found, but falsely ascribed to the WAY younger 
culture of the Mayas.

Other strange artefacts of similar antiquity are certain walls and 
pyramids, like that one in Bosnia, that could actually be millions of 
years old.

This does not really fit to Darwinism, what is blunder anyhow.

E.g. have a look at the human foot and try to figure out, how many 
generations of try and error such a development would require.

I would say, the line of our ancestors could be MUCH longer than a few 
million years. (A few thousand years is simply a joke.)

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357753

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:05:41 PM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.07.2015 02:22, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
> > On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:20:57 AM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 16.07.2015 18:32, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
> >> ..
> >>>> did they take a similar poll on the theory of evolution as well?
> >>>
> >>> I have no knowledge. I actually do not read Chinese myself. The relativity poll is from an article by one of their scientist.
> >>>
> >>> I doubt there is much dispute in evolution theory with the Chinese. Again it is only an issue in the West - whether man was created in the image of God or moulded originally as monkeys.
> >>>
> >>> The Chinese, being practical, probably could not see how else very high life forms could be created - but through slow changes according to the workings of the Great Mystery.
> >>>
> >>> Was not the Chinese the originator of evolution theory - in the I Ching, Book of Changes; everthing under the Heavens develop through slow changes over time.
> >>
> >> The problem is not evolution, but the person Darwin.
> >>
> >> I had - for example - the idea, that certain structures in the Atacama
> >> desert are actually remains of people, that have lived there, while the
> >> desert was still a sea.
> >>
> >> This area dried out about 15 million years ago. So there should have
> >> been beings, that have been able to build cities that long ago.
> >>
> >> But Darwin assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, hence is
> >> off by four orders of magnitude.
> >>
> >> This is an extreme discrepancy, so his theories should be treated with care.
> >>
> >> Other believe systems assume the creation of men exactly 6000 years ago
> >> (plus a few days), because they found this number in the bible.
> >>
> >> Possibly people are way older than this and lived on this planet for
> >> several hundred million years (says e.g. a guy named Ed Conrad).
> >>
> >> Now: who's right?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > Hello Thomas,
> >
> > I know next to nothing about Darwin's theory; vaguely I remember evolution is about how life forms develops
> > first from amino acids (what's that) in the ocean and so forth... the cells grew legs and started swimming. Overtime  they became upright - they walked upright as well as live upright and righteously. Darwin only sees the leg bones but not the development of the moral soul of man.
> >
> > I always marvel at how young (and therefore must be somehow immature) our current civilization is - recorded history is a mere 6000 years old. Jesus Christ was only 2000 years back and he is an "ancient" figure. In China, the direct descendants of Confucius (about the 77 th generation) is well recorded. Compared to the age of the dinosaurs of 500 million years ago, we human history of 6000 years is no more than a wink - here the relativists may be right that everything is "relative" and the size of the δ-wink too is observer dependent!
> >
> > I doubt there is human civilization of 15 million years; it would mean the fossils should be easily found and it would not be related to our the current human race. I have read of a person who says there have been a few phases of the earth's history with beings even more technologically advanced than us; but they all disappeared because of upheavals of the earth that destroyed all signs of their existence - such were the magnitude of changes to the earth. Who knows how old the earth really is.
> >
> I tried to prove 'Growing Earth' and stumbled upon these structures in 
> the Atacama desert.
> 
> There are -among other artefacts- large drawings, called 'geoglpyhs'. 
> They are extremely large and extremely old.
> 
> And nobody has the faintest clue, who has build them, how and why.
> 
> My guess is this:
> 
> The current desert was formerly a sea, while sea levels had been much 
> higher (about 1100 m higher than today). The now desert was then very 
> green and fruitful and was populated by intelligent beings (not 
> necessarily homo sapiens).
> 
> These entertained themselves by 'land art' and carved large pictures 
> into then muddy grounds. The mud later hardened and then petrified.
> 
> They also build large cities, like e.g. Machu Pichu or Cusco. Their 
> remains are actually found, but falsely ascribed to the WAY younger 
> culture of the Mayas.
> 
> Other strange artefacts of similar antiquity are certain walls and 
> pyramids, like that one in Bosnia, that could actually be millions of 
> years old.
> 
> This does not really fit to Darwinism, what is blunder anyhow.
> 
> E.g. have a look at the human foot and try to figure out, how many 
> generations of try and error such a development would require.
> 
> I would say, the line of our ancestors could be MUCH longer than a few 
> million years. (A few thousand years is simply a joke.)
> 
> TH

Hello Thomas,

With the internet, we now can know about spectacular as well as mysteries things in our world. So we really have to decide what are real and what fake.   

Let's say we identify our ancestors beginning to be the time when speech was first developed. I would be surprised if it started one million years ago! Just too long ago. Putting speech to script was just about 5000 years old. So a wild guess definitely rule out our ancestors being a million years old. I would think say 100,000 years.

There are many things floated about in the internet:
1) UFO - I just can't get to believe it. Once, "a picture is worth a thousand words"; but now "a picture worth nothing". Why can't we have some UFO land at Times Square, just for a little while, for all to see ?
2) ECAT of Andrea Rossi - grand silliness yet many dummies attend their conferences. So they say they have cold fusion as a working machine sold etc... and because the technology is so earth shattering (may cause the end of oil industry or world wars) that they need to keep the greatest secrecy! Anyone have a fraudsters handbook to lend.

For a time not too long ago, I fell for two reports:
1) sugar is poison! from the rense site - because the writer claimed to be an MD, and they seem to be quoting "reliable" sources - I was a little surprised that sugar could be a poison! For some reason or other, I did not reject it outright. I seem to have some believe in the findings of the article - I did reacted by reducing sugar for my tea and coffee. After some time, somehow, I awoke from the spell - the article could be just a prank. I didn't care to find out if the report was just a prank. So, as you can see, all of us can sometimes be fooled by fraudsters.
2) the harm of microwaves from the microwave oven - again the writer seems genuine. I have some believe in the article and tried not to be too close when using the microwave oven; but we can't live without one. Later, I remember I could google for "harm from microwaves debunk". True enough, I think the article about the harm was only from hearsay; there is no other article reporting on the findings.  

So we cannot always easily tell truth from falsehood.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357777

Am 18.07.2015 22:47, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:05:41 PM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.07.2015 02:22, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
>>> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:20:57 AM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 16.07.2015 18:32, schrieb chanrasjid@gmail.com:
>>>> ..
>>>>>> did they take a similar poll on the theory of evolution as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no knowledge. I actually do not read Chinese myself. The relativity poll is from an article by one of their scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt there is much dispute in evolution theory with the Chinese. Again it is only an issue in the West - whether man was created in the image of God or moulded originally as monkeys.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chinese, being practical, probably could not see how else very high life forms could be created - but through slow changes according to the workings of the Great Mystery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was not the Chinese the originator of evolution theory - in the I Ching, Book of Changes; everthing under the Heavens develop through slow changes over time.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not evolution, but the person Darwin.
>>>>
>>>> I had - for example - the idea, that certain structures in the Atacama
>>>> desert are actually remains of people, that have lived there, while the
>>>> desert was still a sea.
>>>>
>>>> This area dried out about 15 million years ago. So there should have
>>>> been beings, that have been able to build cities that long ago.
>>>>
>>>> But Darwin assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, hence is
>>>> off by four orders of magnitude.
>>>>
>>>> This is an extreme discrepancy, so his theories should be treated with care.
>>>>
>>>> Other believe systems assume the creation of men exactly 6000 years ago
>>>> (plus a few days), because they found this number in the bible.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly people are way older than this and lived on this planet for
>>>> several hundred million years (says e.g. a guy named Ed Conrad).
>>>>
>>>> Now: who's right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Hello Thomas,
>>>
>>> I know next to nothing about Darwin's theory; vaguely I remember evolution is about how life forms develops
>>> first from amino acids (what's that) in the ocean and so forth... the cells grew legs and started swimming. Overtime  they became upright - they walked upright as well as live upright and righteously. Darwin only sees the leg bones but not the development of the moral soul of man.
>>>
>>> I always marvel at how young (and therefore must be somehow immature) our current civilization is - recorded history is a mere 6000 years old. Jesus Christ was only 2000 years back and he is an "ancient" figure. In China, the direct descendants of Confucius (about the 77 th generation) is well recorded. Compared to the age of the dinosaurs of 500 million years ago, we human history of 6000 years is no more than a wink - here the relativists may be right that everything is "relative" and the size of the δ-wink too is observer dependent!
>>>
>>> I doubt there is human civilization of 15 million years; it would mean the fossils should be easily found and it would not be related to our the current human race. I have read of a person who says there have been a few phases of the earth's history with beings even more technologically advanced than us; but they all disappeared because of upheavals of the earth that destroyed all signs of their existence - such were the magnitude of changes to the earth. Who knows how old the earth really is.
>>>
>> I tried to prove 'Growing Earth' and stumbled upon these structures in
>> the Atacama desert.
>>
>> There are -among other artefacts- large drawings, called 'geoglpyhs'.
>> They are extremely large and extremely old.
>>
>> And nobody has the faintest clue, who has build them, how and why.
>>
>> My guess is this:
>>
>> The current desert was formerly a sea, while sea levels had been much
>> higher (about 1100 m higher than today). The now desert was then very
>> green and fruitful and was populated by intelligent beings (not
>> necessarily homo sapiens).
>>
>> These entertained themselves by 'land art' and carved large pictures
>> into then muddy grounds. The mud later hardened and then petrified.
>>
>> They also build large cities, like e.g. Machu Pichu or Cusco. Their
>> remains are actually found, but falsely ascribed to the WAY younger
>> culture of the Mayas.
>>
>> Other strange artefacts of similar antiquity are certain walls and
>> pyramids, like that one in Bosnia, that could actually be millions of
>> years old.
>>
>> This does not really fit to Darwinism, what is blunder anyhow.
>>
>> E.g. have a look at the human foot and try to figure out, how many
>> generations of try and error such a development would require.
>>
>> I would say, the line of our ancestors could be MUCH longer than a few
>> million years. (A few thousand years is simply a joke.)
>>
>> TH
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> With the internet, we now can know about spectacular as well as mysteries things in our world. So we really have to decide what are real and what fake.
>
> Let's say we identify our ancestors beginning to be the time when speech was first developed. I would be surprised if it started one million years ago! Just too long ago. Putting speech to script was just about 5000 years old. So a wild guess definitely rule out our ancestors being a million years old. I would think say 100,000 years.
>
> There are many things floated about in the internet:
> 1) UFO - I just can't get to believe it. Once, "a picture is worth a thousand words"; but now "a picture worth nothing". Why can't we have some UFO land at Times Square, just for a little while, for all to see ?
> 2) ECAT of Andrea Rossi - grand silliness yet many dummies attend their conferences. So they say they have cold fusion as a working machine sold etc... and because the technology is so earth shattering (may cause the end of oil industry or world wars) that they need to keep the greatest secrecy! Anyone have a fraudsters handbook to lend.
>
> For a time not too long ago, I fell for two reports:
> 1) sugar is poison! from the rense site - because the writer claimed to be an MD, and they seem to be quoting "reliable" sources - I was a little surprised that sugar could be a poison! For some reason or other, I did not reject it outright. I seem to have some believe in the findings of the article - I did reacted by reducing sugar for my tea and coffee. After some time, somehow, I awoke from the spell - the article could be just a prank. I didn't care to find out if the report was just a prank. So, as you can see, all of us can sometimes be fooled by fraudsters.
> 2) the harm of microwaves from the microwave oven - again the writer seems genuine. I have some believe in the article and tried not to be too close when using the microwave oven; but we can't live without one. Later, I remember I could google for "harm from microwaves debunk". True enough, I think the article about the harm was only from hearsay; there is no other article reporting on the findings.
>
> So we cannot always easily tell truth from falsehood.

Well, that's true.

But people have an astonishing feature: they are extremely smart as sum 
of individual errors.

This has been tested several times. E.g. there was a poll, and random 
people were asked to estimate, how many screws are in a large jar.

The individual estimates had been very wrong, of course, but the average 
of the estimates had been extremely close to the real number.

So large groups could eventually be much smarter than individuals. Only 
this would require, that many of randomly selected individuals are very 
wrong with their believes.

So truth does not emerge from all believing the same, but from exchange 
between individuals with different believes.

This would also require, that some believe, that sugar is a poison or 
that UFOs have landed on Times Square (with invisibility cloak).

I, for my side, may believe, that such structures in the Atacama desert 
are of very old antiquity and are remains of people, who have settled 
there more than 15 million years ago.

You don't need to believe me, but instead you could say (for example), 
that Adam and Eve have left paradise on 4th of May 4571 BC.

The truth would emerge, if I try to replicate the calculation of that 
date and if you look at those structures in the Atacama desert.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357775

Am 18.07.2015 18:31, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> E.g. have a look at the human foot and try to figure out, how many
>> generations of try and error such a development would require.
>
> Evolution is not trial and error.
>
No?

This does in fact surprise me. So, please, explain, what mechanism you 
have in mind.

In my eyes, there is a certain species and that produces a lot of 
individuals. If the individuals would not change, the species itself 
would stay as it is.

Now small differences occur and those would give in most cases 
disadvantages, but are beneficial in a few exceptions. Then the benefit 
spreads by interbreeding through this species and is later dominant, 
hence the species has changed.

But whether a certain change is beneficial or harmful, that IS trail and 
error, since how could you know that in advance?

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358166

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>>> It's a lovely theory, you should read up on it. With a book, not a
>>>> newspaper article. Not appropriate to go into it in detail here.
>>>
>>> Bullshit, the evolution is nothing, much less a theory. It takes much
>>> more to become a theory, which is not even that.
>>>
>>> It is because people forget what an organism is, be that whatever. Ie
>>> a human is nothing but a community of about 50 trillions distinct
>>> cells and 50 trillions likewise bacteria, give or take.
>>>
>>> This would be a 1st order. Any of each is nothing but logical
>>> information and complex machinery. Thus, is all about Physics,
>>> Chemistry and  Data Structures.
>>
>> Actually also about the running Algorithms, which appear to be more
>> essential then all the others.
>>
>> Thus, is all about Physics, Chemistry, Algorithms and Data Structures.
> 
> No.
> As far as this is known, nature does not 'think' in algorithms, but uses
> mainly simultaneous and massive parallel acting 'machinery'.

Learn what cells and many other things stands for, cretin.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web