Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on July 31, 2009, 11:07:49 am
-
I think its best we redirect debates about human origins in this thread.
What's your leading analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief at this time?
-
What's your leading analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief at this time?
I use the scientific method, which requires observation of evidence. Evidence is what anyone can see , and agree that it is real
I know of only one such thing, this is the Sumerican creation epic known as "Enuma Elish" , or in English translation "When in the Heights".
There is no other evidence AFAIK, and the difficulty of translation is enough that analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief is not worth discussion. IMO
-
I use the scientific method, which requires observation of evidence. Evidence is what anyone can see , and agree that it is real
I know of only one such thing, this is the Sumerican creation epic known as "Enuma Elish" , or in English translation "When in the Heights".
There is no other evidence AFAIK, and the difficulty of translation is enough that analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief is not worth discussion. IMO
Your evidence is a text that you cannot translate? That to me seems the opposite of "what anyone can see, and agree that is real."
I can see that living things either A) pass on their genes; or B) don't; by watching that some animals reproduce and some die before reaching reproductive age or don't successfully reproduce. In light of that observation, of which I need no translation for, I can only agree that evolution makes the most sense. Every religion has a creation story, why pick one when they're all so similar and obviously based on the environment the people were surrounded by? To me it seems like if you raised someone in an experiment, like that movie "The Truman Show," you could get them to believe a creation story based on their surroundings. That's why most creation stories involve the sun, water if the people lived close to it, the local animals etc...
-
My current leanings as to human origins is:
Evolution yes - but not in the slow millions of years description, I believe it runs much faster.
Quantavolution - the successor and more probable path of evolution... quantavolutionary JUMPS, not slow "evolution", the conditions of the earth and the solar system have been changing in drastic ways... we are pushed to the limit to "evolve"... quantavolution jumps... gene expressions... just like the viruses and bacteria and yeast which "transform" according to the environmental conditions, we humans have done something of the sort.
Why people forgot -- the great forgetting -- of what it truly means to be human, paleolithic knowledge -- because as described in the Quantavolution theory, drastic worldly changes happened, great catastrophes lead people to start again from square one.
Gods? Aliens? Tweaking humans to "evolve", why not? Always open to such things. But I'm sure these "higher beings" didn't design humans for cooked food.
Agriculture -- was not a mistake, it was necessary for survival. Conditions on earth changed. Either resort to agriculture or die. Notice how drastically more EXPENSIVE our paleo diet is compared to the cheap SAD diet.
Our genes, are still of stone age / paleolithic make. We haven't changed in so little a time.
Paleolithic times is a wide swath of time, probably lots longer than neolithic times.
All theories of human origins is tested with WHAT WORKS.
Currently high fat / low carb organic animal + organic fruit works for me. There is no turning back for me to SAD. My life may have expired if I stayed on SAD.
We are all trying to remember who we are... it seems we are all on the right track.
-
I think its best we redirect debates about human origins in this thread.
What's your leading analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief at this time?
I'm part alien. The cool thing is I can say that out loud and noone comes to take me away for expiriments cuz they don't believe me :-)
-
While I don't think that adopting a Paleo diet requires recognizing the validity of the evolutionary model, it did help me to recognize instantly the brilliance of Boyd Eaton's paper on Paleolithic nutrition and biological discordance. Most Paleo dieters acknowledge the importance of biological evolution, but some are creationists. Given that Paleo dieters are in such a tiny minority, I think we should learn to get along for the common good. That being said, I'll tell my story.
I am a reformed creationist. I wrote two college papers on creationism vs. evolution. In the first one I took a pro-creationist position. Further research for the second paper led me to an undecided position. This book is what tilted me to indecision and then eventually over to evolution with its brilliant refutations of creationist points:
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
I dare any creationist to read it without calling into question some of your assumptions and beliefs. Also influential but not mind-changing were the writings of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Louis Leakey and others (I can't remember them all now). Creationism is now called "Intelligent Design," but the arguments haven't changed much, so don't be fooled by the slick repackaging.
"[The theory of evolution by natural selection is] the most fundamental and pervasive idea of all biology" --Loren Cordain, PhD
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky
"[Evolution] has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth" --The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. 2006. http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf.
"Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"evolution is the foundation of every branch of biology; in fact, it is so fundamental and pervasive that we often take its importance for granted. ..."
--The Triple HelixToday, www.thetriplehelix.org/features/521
Quantavolution "jumps" sound similar to Gould and Eldredge's "punctuated equilibria."
-
In principle I agree with the idea that Homo sapiens evolved via the process of natural selection over millions of years, although I'm not so sure paleontologists, archeologists and anthropologists have as good a handle on the details as they claim. I also believe that human evolution was not necessarily always occurred slowly and at a near-static rate. I suspect that throughout the expanse of time that led to modern man there were periods where changes in our environment forced us, biologically and behaviorally, to change much faster than at other times. Punctuated near-equilibrium, in other words.
And as a trained scientist (I do research in energetics, specifically in the areas of fossil fuel depletion, renewable fuels and building and transportation energy sectors) I am saddened by how hard it is for many scientists to admit that we don't really no much about the history--Big History--of our species. Because of the paucity of the fossil record and the very limited amount of information we can reliably get from fossils there will always be important questions we can never hope to answer. I'm in favor of saying "I don't know" far more often...
-
I also believe that human evolution was not necessarily always occurred slowly and at a near-static rate. I suspect that throughout the expanse of time that led to modern man there were periods where changes in our environment forced us, biologically and behaviorally, to change much faster than at other times. Punctuated near-equilibrium, in other words.
I recently watched a show about evolution on nova where they said that hominid brain size stayed stagnant and small for 4 million years from 6 to 2 million years ago. It was hypothesized that around 2 million years ago significant climate and ecological changes happened rapidly that forced hominids to adapt at a much faster pace. The ones with the larger brains were able to quickly figure out how to adapt to the changing environment and suvive.
-
In principle I agree with the idea that Homo sapiens evolved via the process of natural selection over millions of years, although I'm not so sure paleontologists, archeologists and anthropologists have as good a handle on the details as they claim.
I agree. They can be real asses about it. I think that the creationists and ID folks have been useful in giving them some competition and forcing them to explain some things.
I also believe that human evolution was not necessarily always occurred slowly and at a near-static rate. I suspect that throughout the expanse of time that led to modern man there were periods where changes in our environment forced us, biologically and behaviorally, to change much faster than at other times. Punctuated near-equilibrium, in other words.
You're in good company with Mayr, Eldredge and Gould then, but be forewarned that Gould is anathema to Tyler (and Gould is not my favorite either--I'm not fond of scientists who seem to put politics ahead of science, though he was a good writer).
And as a trained scientist ... I'm in favor of saying "I don't know" far more often...
Excellent. A true scientist. We should get along dandy. Are you a fan of Socrates and Nassim Taleb too?
-
In principle I agree with the idea that Homo sapiens evolved via the process of natural selection over millions of years, although I'm not so sure paleontologists, archeologists and anthropologists have as good a handle on the details as they claim. I also believe that human evolution was not necessarily always occurred slowly and at a near-static rate. I suspect that throughout the expanse of time that led to modern man there were periods where changes in our environment forced us, biologically and behaviorally, to change much faster than at other times. Punctuated near-equilibrium, in other words.
And as a trained scientist (I do research in energetics, specifically in the areas of fossil fuel depletion, renewable fuels and building and transportation energy sectors) I am saddened by how hard it is for many scientists to admit that we don't really no much about the history--Big History--of our species. Because of the paucity of the fossil record and the very limited amount of information we can reliably get from fossils there will always be important questions we can never hope to answer. I'm in favor of saying "I don't know" far more often...
As a trained scientist too (physicist) I agree that we so often don't really know the ansver (as in climate change and "global warming" for instance in spite of the IPCC claims). Yet, as to evolution in biology I'm quite convinced and pretty sure of it's clear cut reality . Physics has evolved rapidly in the past 30 years and a new science of complex systems, complexity and emergence has been developed (please google a little bit with these words). Unfortunately the relevant ideas are not yet popular for many reasons, mainly because they are still too recent and entirely new.
This means that we now know much more about the mechanisms of evolution than just natural selection and Darwin. Darwinian selection turn out to be only a small part of the story. The main phenomenon that drives evolution is something called self-organization in a complex system, namely here in the biosphere. Within this framework evolution no more needs to be just gradual as in darwinian natural selection. Theory of complexity precisely implies that evolution must include very rapid steps and jumps that punctuate the more gradual changes. In other word we now understand quite well from a theoretical point of view why there is something like "punctuated near equilibrium".
Food for thought in this respect here for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman
As to the absence in paleontology of evidence (fossils) of intermediate steps and links in evolution of man or other species, often invoked by ID or creationists against evolution, that's indeed true but quite understandable because good conservation of remains is necessarily a rare event for many reasons. Absence of this kind of evidence is certainly not convincing evidence of absence. Its just the most likely expected situation, unfortunately. There is actually ample evidence and IMO one of the most convincing one in favor of evolution is in fact the very conspicuous and quite striking similarity in biochemistry (and genes) of all animals or plants. This definitely implies the existence of a common ancestor and thus evolution. No way to escape from this reality.
-
I see PP anticipated my reaction. Gould was notorious, just like Meade , in creating nonsense theories such as punctuated equilibrium(since dismissed by the scientific community) and then either manufacturing or carefully selecting only those few facts which fit in with his theories and rejecting all others. His punctuated equilibrium theory is itself widely derided because its concept of revolution was directly inspired by Gould's Marxist beliefs rather than having any scientific basis. But the clincher was that he constantly attacked the field of evolutionary psychology(to the point where people understandably viewed him as a Creationist sympathiser), but was eventually proven dead wrong as evidence in favour of that field steadily increased.
Here's a rather irreverent article on Gould and his misjudgements:-
http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2016
The obituaries on Gould are, of course, all very nice but even they reluctantly acknowledge that he was a "glorious failure" in science, that he was an entertaining writer but a poor scientist.
I believe Richard Dawkins and a number of scientists have already written several books/articles demolishing Gould's ideas, so there's not much else for me to add, other than to say that Gould is not an appropriate poster-boy for human evolution or any related subject.
-
I see PP anticipated my reaction. Gould was notorious, just like Meade , in creating nonsense theories such as punctuated equilibrium(since dismissed by the scientific community) and then either manufacturing or carefully selecting only those few facts which fit in with his theories and rejecting all others. His punctuated equilibrium theory is itself widely derided because its concept of revolution was directly inspired by Gould's Marxist beliefs rather than having any scientific basis. But the clincher was that he constantly attacked the field of evolutionary psychology(to the point where people understandably viewed him as a Creationist sympathiser), but was eventually proven dead wrong as evidence in favour of that field steadily increased.
Here's a rather irreverent article on Gould and his misjudgements:-
http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2016
The obituaries on Gould are, of course, all very nice but even they reluctantly acknowledge that he was a "glorious failure" in science, that he was an entertaining writer but a poor scientist.
I believe Richard Dawkins and a number of scientists have already written several books/articles demolishing Gould's ideas, so there's not much else for me to add, other than to say that Gould is not an appropriate poster-boy for human evolution or any related subject.
That's just bullshit babble, utterly wrong and pretentious. You don't know what you're talking about. Please update your knowledge.
Occurence of rapid sudden changes during evolution are just a fact that no serious scientist denies.
As to Gould, may I recall once more that one be may wrong in some of ones beliefs and right in others as Dr. Price or Einstein or... you, Dawkins, me etc. A reality that you are apparently definitely unable to grasp.
A good deal of the views of Dawkins are merely at odds with what we have learned now from the most advanced work in theoretical biology.
-
You may not like it, but I'm simply stating the general scientific view of Gould and his theories. As for Dawkins, while he has, like Gould, been criticised for mixing politics with science, he is just nowhere near on the same fraudulent level Gould was. And it isn't only Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and many others have also similiarly criticised Gould, and not just for his bad science:-
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html
. Here's another article which points out the 2 main disagreeable aspects of Gould which are directly against palaeo principles(ie Gould's hatred of natural selection and the degree to which Gould's attacks on darwinist natural selection has indirectly helped Creationist arguments:-
http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm
I always remember a journalist once writing(during those dodgy cold-fusion claims) that it's relatively easy to tell who the really bad or fraudulent scientists are, they're often the ones with excellent PR skills.Gould certainly fits into that category.
Ah well, as Max Planck said:- "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”. Now that Gould's dead we can look forward to more serious evolutionary science being put forward over the next decades.
-
A good deal of the views of Dawkins are merely at odds with what we have learned now from the most advanced work in theoretical biology.
Do you mind going into further details. I've only read 'Selfish Gene' but the only other book where the logic resonated within me so well was Fooled By Randomness.
-
This definitely implies the existence of a common ancestor and thus evolution. No way to escape from this reality.
If you were to write "This implies the existence of a common origin" I could agree.
As for complex systems, I must be missing something, because it looks like the old statement "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
OTOH if I have it right, then we should salute Kauffman for making money from it.
-
You may not like it, but I'm simply stating the general scientific view of Gould and his theories. As for Dawkins, while he has, like Gould, been criticised for mixing politics with science, he is just nowhere near on the same fraudulent level Gould was. And it isn't only Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and many others have also similiarly criticised Gould, and not just for his bad science:-
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html
. Here's another article which points out the 2 main disagreeable aspects of Gould which are directly against palaeo principles(ie Gould's hatred of natural selection and the degree to which Gould's attacks on darwinist natural selection has indirectly helped Creationist arguments:-
http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm
I always remember a journalist once writing(during those dodgy cold-fusion claims) that it's relatively easy to tell who the really bad or fraudulent scientists are, they're often the ones with excellent PR skills.Gould certainly fits into that category.
Ah well, as Max Planck said:- "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”. Now that Gould's dead we can look forward to more serious evolutionary science being put forward over the next decades.
Non-sense completely out of topic.I don't care about Gould. Nothing to do with the present discussion. I not even mentioned Gould in my post. Maybe you didn't notice but the relevant point was a specific scientific fact and not men and/or politics, namely the discussion was about
The occurence of rapid sudden changes that punctuate the much slower gradual change during evolution
Again this is just a plain fact. Period.
-
Do you mind going into further details. I've only read 'Selfish Gene' but the only other book where the logic resonated within me so well was Fooled By Randomness.
Well this is a vast technical topic. I've read most of the books of Dawkins. His reasoning certainly explains interesting aspects of evolution as does darwinian natural selection but evolution is much more than that. The problem with Dawkins views is that he attempts to reduce life to genes and darwinian selection. We now know that this is definitely not possible and many aspects of the order formed during evolution is actually the result of self-organisation of the biosphere. Roughly speaking in a complex system such as the biosphere that is maintained far from thermodynamic equilibrium (here by the permanent arrival of solar radiation on earth) breathtaking order (such as life- chemical order- or simply ocean currents or wind systems such as trade winds- ordered movement of air or water-) merely forms spontaneously from interactions between constituant parts at lower level such as the molecules the system is made of. The clear cut demonstration that such unexpected most astonishing complex order at higher level merely emerges from very simple and now quite well known (from physics) interaction laws at molecular level is one of the greatest achievements of science in the past decades. This indeed means that the whole is much more than the sum of the parts and this is not a triviality. In other words knowledge of the parts (genes for instance) is by no means sufficient to predict or anticipate the properties of whole. Nevertheless the properties of the whole as astonishing as they may be are just a consequence of the much simpler and known interactions of the parts. No need of any plan coded in genes or an organizing entity such as God.
I suggest googling a little bit with "complex systems", "emergence", "self-organization" and/or read for instance the books by Stuart Kaufmann (biology) or Robert Laughlin (physics) to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
The main message here is that we cannot and should not reduce the formation of order in biosphere (or evolution) to darwinian selection or even worse to genes.
-
If you were to write "This implies the existence of a common origin" I could agree.
As for complex systems, I must be missing something, because it looks like the old statement "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
OTOH if I have it right, then we should salute Kauffman for making money from it.
Please read my reply to PaleoDonk's post. Your "old statement" is by no means a triviality, nor is Kaufmann's (or more generally Santa Fe Institute's) work. If it were the competitors would have killed him (scientifically of course). Believe me competition among scientists is very very tough.
As for replacing "ancestor" by "origin", William, I'm not so sure it makes really a substantial difference.
-
William, could you briefly give the forum an overview of what exactly you believe with regards to how we got here and evolution. I still don't understand. If you could pretend you were talking to an 11 year old with above average intelligence that'd be great.
-
While some of Tyler's comments seem to stray into ad hominem (which I admit is something of a judgment call), it is quite a coincidence that the Gould/Eldredge punctuated equilibria theory fits neatly into the official Soviet propaganda of biological history (and social history and pretty much everything else) as a series of revolutions. Granted, I'm now biased by my libertarian leanings and I couldn't read Gould's mind and therefore don't know his true motivations. However, when I read Eldredge/Gould back in the 80s I wanted to believe them, because I was a creationist and some of Gould's views fit fairly nicely with my own. However, I also managed to remain open-minded, so that when I searched some of the works that Eldredge/Gould cited and read other materials, I found that what they presented didn't seem to back punctuated equilibria quite as strongly as they had argued.
On the other hand, while I'm a bit out of it now, because I haven't done a lot of reading on the debates within the scientific community on biological evolution since the 80s, I don't get the sense from what I've read that punctuated equilibrium and Gould in general have been quite as thoroughly discarded as Tyler suggests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Criticism; Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest, http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/nettle.html). Yes, Dawkins, Dennett and others criticize PE and Gould, but others still write positively about both and at least one source even says that Dawkins agreed with Gould on some things outside of this theory.
-
William, could you briefly give the forum an overview of what exactly you believe with regards to how we got here and evolution. I still don't understand. If you could pretend you were talking to an 11 year old with above average intelligence that'd be great.
Garbage in, Garbage out is what I believe. What I hear is fantasies, fairy tales and wishful thinking.
And I read of people who insist on believing, as if the the world will end if I don't believe the latest fashion.
FTW
I'm still working on Ginnungugap; if I ever understand that, the next on the list will be "complex systems", "emergence", "self-organization" -- that last has a smell of Glooskap, the self-created man.
These are all stories - no matter how entertaining, if you start believing them, you are owned. :(
-
Well I love my new DVD:
One simple truth will change the future of science and our understanding of human history:
The ancient sky bore no resemblance to the sky we see today.
(http://www.thunderbolts.info/images/cover_sas_sh_240x320.jpg)
Symbols of an Alien Sky will introduce you to celestial spectacles and earth-shaking events once remembered around the world. Archaic symbols of these events still surround us, some as icons of the world's great religions, though the origins of the symbols appear to be lost in obscurity.
Cultural history seems fragmented and contradictory. But as demonstrated in this introductory episode, there are also levels of deep agreement between the cultures. According to David Talbott, these "archetypes" allow for a radical reinterpretation of both human and planetary history. Competing regional symbols are aspects of "one story told around the world," a story both awe inspiring and terrifying.
Symbols is a groundbreaking documentary of epic proportions. Never before has so much new information been offered up in one production.
(Approximately 78 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzxVhLcCH8w
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4ZT-IOf0gM
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoThe9EzcaE
-
The occurence of rapid sudden changes that punctuate the much slower gradual change during evolution
Again this is just a plain fact. Period.
A meaningless statement. I've heard similiar bald statements of absolute conviction made by Creationists/Flat Earthers about their own theories and I wasn't convinced then, either. It is not a fact and is heavily disputed in the scientific community.
-
A meaningless statement. I've heard similiar bald statements of absolute conviction made by Creationists/Flat Earthers about their own theories and I wasn't convinced then, either. It is not a fact and is heavily disputed in the scientific community.
Have you seen the short clips on YouTube about Symbols of An Ancient Sky?
I can gift you with a DVD if you'd like.
PM me your mailing address.
-
Have you seen the short clips on YouTube about Symbols of An Ancient Sky?
I can gift you with a DVD if you'd like.
PM me your mailing address.
I had a quick look at all 3 especially at the first one. I'm really not a fan of this sort of thing. It's very much the same sort of stuff that Von Daniken wrote about. You'd probably like Velikovsky's works too, they're of a similiar type.
-
It's very much the same sort of stuff that Von Daniken wrote about.
I had the great good fortune to see a live TV confrontation between von Däniken and a group of eminent scientists.
The scientists spent the whole time attacking von Däniken personally, which gave me the impression that they considered his theory to be irrefutable.
So I bought the book. It was a good read.
It was probably the same kind of "scientists", led IIRC by the troll Carl Sagan who tried to prevent publication of Velikovsky's first book. This also gave him credibility. I bought all of his books.
The data from space probes supports Velikovsky.
So much for peer review.
-
It is not a fact and is heavily disputed in the scientific community.
No further comment. Useless. Hopeless
-
No further comment. Useless. Hopeless.
I just love it when you dismiss my comments with Williamesque flat-earth-style dismissals. If you were even remotely competent as a scientist, you would at least, albeit very reluctantly, acknowledge that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is very heavily disputed within the scientific community. At any rate, I'm very glad you've been siding with William in recent times re various theories, as it makes your position lose credibility big-time.
-
I had the great good fortune to see a live TV confrontation between von Däniken and a group of eminent scientists.
The scientists spent the whole time attacking von Däniken personally, which gave me the impression that they considered his theory to be irrefutable.
So I bought the book. It was a good read.
It was probably the same kind of "scientists", led IIRC by the troll Carl Sagan who tried to prevent publication of Velikovsky's first book. This also gave him credibility. I bought all of his books.
The data from space probes supports Velikovsky.
So much for peer review.
I find myself siding with you here more and more. When people get defensive and angry when debating a position I tend to want to believe the people that made them upset in the first place even more such as velikovsky.
I've asked some very basic questions very politely on other forums without attacking any firmly held scientific ideas and have gotten personally attacked immediately. All I wanted to know was what experts thought of alternative theories and how a person like me with virtually no knowledge of physics would be able to decifer the information available.
-
I just love it when you dismiss my comments with Williamesque flat-earth-style dismissals. If you were even remotely competent as a scientist, you would at least, albeit very reluctantly, acknowledge that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is very heavily disputed within the scientific community. At any rate, I'm very glad you've been siding with William in recent times re various theories, as it makes your position lose credibility big-time.
Personally I find myself impressed again and again with Alphagruis' intelligent debating over the past couple months. If anything, and this is not meant as an inflammatory or personal attack on you, I find the more debating the two of you do the less I agree with your point of view.
I don't know if I'm an anomaly in this thinking or others feel this way as well but I felt it important to point this out.
-
The answer is here in the 3 preview youtube videos:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/human-creation-evolution-quantavolution-alien-origins-etc/msg24189/#msg24189 with this preview #3 giving an overview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoThe9EzcaE
See the whole DVD symbols of an alien sky.
See the Electric Universe / Thunderbolts of the gods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V026kSw4XCs
Which shows that Quantavolution is a more highly likely course of "evolution."
We are not saying that "evolution" is wrong, we are just saying evolution happens in JUMPS rather than the slow very slow guessing game. Uniformitarian Evolution I think is wrong.
These catastrophic happenings and other possible catastrophic sudden change events have been influencing life on earth. Which makes it possible that the so called evolution be much faster than those millions of years guesses the uniformitarian evolutionists keep spouting.
It's all entertaining and I don't think people should get to worked up about these things.
-
I'm a fan of the Socratic approach of looking at science as a series of questions, rather than a set of answers of absolute certainty. When people get absolutely certain about anything, that tends to make me suspicious, because absolute certainty has more to do with superstition and tyrannical forms of religion than with open scientific inquiry.
-
I just love it when you dismiss my comments with Williamesque flat-earth-style dismissals. If you were even remotely competent as a scientist, you would at least, albeit very reluctantly, acknowledge that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is very heavily disputed within the scientific community. At any rate, I'm very glad you've been siding with William in recent times re various theories, as it makes your position lose credibility big-time.
Very funny as usual.
Please show us at least one scientific paper (year, authors, title, page) in peer reviewed journal that denies or disputes whatever I've stated up to now, for instance here:
Non-sense completely out of topic.I don't care about Gould. Nothing to do with the present discussion. I not even mentioned Gould in my post. Maybe you didn't notice but the relevant point was a specific scientific fact and not men and/or politics, namely the discussion was about
The occurence of rapid sudden changes that punctuate the much slower gradual change during evolution
Again this is just a plain fact. Period.
Please do it ;D
-
What concerns me most re these new-age discussions isn't the content so much - after all Velikovsky and Creationist claims are easily debunked . It's just that New-Age beliefs are so widely held among rawists that it makes us look bad to non-rawists browsing the forum.As for Gould, his name is mud in scientific circles because of his unethical, unscientific(and disproven) attacks on evolutionary psychology over the decades, so is really an appalling scientific example. What next? Posts in favour of Derrida, Chomsky etc.?
-
Very funny as usual.
Please show us at least one scientific paper (year, authors, title, page) in peer reviewed journal that denies or disputes whatever I've stated up to now, for instance here:
Please do it ;D
Punctuated equilibrium is merely a gimmick-explanationary theory designed to explain missing fossils, rather than missing fossils outright proving that theory as fact. Dawkins has already suggested a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation which fits the evidence too, namely that apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migrational events rather than evolutionary events. Daniel Dennett also appears to have also done a respectable demolition-job on Gould attacking his philosphical approach to the theory, devoting an entire 10th chapter to debunking Gould's claims:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea
Of course, I'm far more concerned re Gould's attacks on evolutionary psychology given that his views on such have been throughly demolished over the decades by the scientific community. and of course evolutionary psychology is more related to discussion of raw palaeolithic diets.
-
What concerns me most re these new-age discussions isn't the content so much - after all Velikovsky and Creationist claims are easily debunked . It's just that New-Age beliefs are so widely held among rawists that it makes us look bad to non-rawists browsing the forum.As for Gould, his name is mud in scientific circles because of his unethical, unscientific(and disproven) attacks on evolutionary psychology over the decades, so is really an appalling scientific example. What next? Posts in favour of Derrida, Chomsky etc.?
I'm a free thinker. As such all of these "theories" are at best logical guesses. Some are more predictive. Like the Electric Universe people. It just so happens there were catastrophic events proved in books such as the Saturn Myth and the video I posted above, clips from the DVD Symbols of an Ancient Sky jive with the Electric Universe guys.
The establishment (einstein relativists, slow evolution, static solar system) days are numbered. Electric Universe and un-dis-provable catastrophic evidence will rule the 21st century.
All in fun TD.
The definitive website, videos and forum is www.thunderbolts.info
-
I'm not a fan of new-age stuff as I've come across numerous better explanations for von daniken's theories etc. That said, I would love einstein to be wrong as that would mean FTL travel would be possible, albeit not in my lifetime.
-
I'm not a fan of new-age stuff as I've come across numerous better explanations for von dakine's theories etc. That said, I would love einstein to be wrong as that would mean FTL travel would be possible, albeit not in my lifetime.
It's not about being a fan of any-brand-what-you-will. It is about sheer interest to find out "truth" in the sheer interest of science. In the case of astronomical events, it is PREDICTING events, and being able to simulate the same astronomical events in a laboratory.
Comets are not dirty snowballs. The sun is not a nuclear furnace. Gravity is not the strongest force. Black holes do not exist, pulsars do not exist, dark matter is a total farce.
It is electricity, electricity, electricity.
Einstein had his day... let's thank him and MOVE ON. http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
And let's not forget the best spokesman for the electric universe and recent HISTORICAL catastrophism reported around the world is http://www.thunderbolts.info
It's no use holding on to old dogma. Astronomy is an old old hobby of mine since I was 7 years old. The 21st century electric astronomy will prove to be exciting and predictive.
-
What concerns me most re these new-age discussions isn't the content so much - after all Velikovsky and Creationist claims are easily debunked . It's just that New-Age beliefs are so widely held among rawists that it makes us look bad to non-rawists browsing the forum.
I really agree with this sentiment in that if we as group start dismissing all of science it will not look good from an outsider's perspective, even if we are more right than wrong. I do question the rational of modern science all the time now but I'm certainly not going to claim one way or the other, just remain skeptical.
I've looked through youstupidrelavist.com thoroughly and it looks very quacky though its extremely detailed. I wouldn't recommend anyone claiming einstein is debunked by that site alone. I've even communicated with Bill Gaede, the creator of that site. He was very nice and wrote a couple detailed letters explaining the quackiness of his site. He does bring up some excellent questions in his videos.
The intro section of Gaede's site is worth looking at to give you an idea of his philosophy
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03Intro.html
-
It's not about being a fan of any-brand-what-you-will. It is about sheer interest to find out "truth" in the sheer interest of science.
From my amateur perspective, science seems to be less about finding "truth" than it is about "exploring," to quote Richard Feynman (see "Richard Feynman on doubt,uncertainty and religion," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0 ) ...about asking questions. The final "Truth" is never reached in science. Instead, answering one question just leads to more questions. This is unsatisfactory to many people, so they turn to mysticism for final answers...for absolute truths. This is an understandable aspect of human nature. We want things to be simple and we want to have final answers so we can move on to other things. Science is not about that, from what I can see. That's not to say that mysticism has no value. It seems to fill a human need, so perhaps it does have value.
In the case of astronomical events, it is PREDICTING events, and being able to simulate the same astronomical events in a laboratory.
....
Yes, producing theoretical models that have predictive value is one of the aims of science. If the astronomical model you tout has predictive value then it should win out in the long run, because it will be useful.
-
It's not about being a fan of any-brand-what-you-will. It is about sheer interest to find out "truth" in the sheer interest of science. In the case of astronomical events, it is PREDICTING events, and being able to simulate the same astronomical events in a laboratory.
Comets are not dirty snowballs. The sun is not a nuclear furnace. Gravity is not the strongest force. Black holes do not exist, pulsars do not exist, dark matter is a total farce.
It is electricity, electricity, electricity.
Einstein had his day... let's thank him and MOVE ON. http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
And let's not forget the best spokesman for the electric universe and recent HISTORICAL catastrophism reported around the world is http://www.thunderbolts.info
It's no use holding on to old dogma. Astronomy is an old old hobby of mine since I was 7 years old. The 21st century electric astronomy will prove to be exciting and predictive.
Excellent post, the only people who dont want to change are the armchair scientists, armchair critics, advances in quantum physics, quantum mechanics, are all pretty much validating, what science considers none science, such as plasma theory, electrical & then theres stuff like regenerative medicine
ALL pushing the boundaries of science, a large part of mainstream science has been disproven & outdated for years
I really cant be bothered to argue with dogmatics & mainstream science fundamentalists, stuck in the 18th century with newton, & the 20th century einsteinian, trying to unify them like jackasses ...
Science & modern medicine are very similar & both have one thing in common, out of date by about a few centuries & dont work & never have
They are however great for creating an exploitive system of wage slavery & illiteracy
-
Those trying to understand TD's inscrutable posts on "cooked fat" might find an explanation here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
"Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains"
London, England has experienced the use of electromagnetic crowd control devices, the one I remember was to move the unwanted out of some neighbourhoods. url not recorded.
For believers in evolution, here is a support for devolution:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17161
"The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.
The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.
-
Those trying to understand TD's inscrutable posts on "cooked fat" might find an explanation here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
"Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains"
London, England has experienced the use of electromagnetic crowd control devices, the one I remember was to move the unwanted out of some neighbourhoods. url not recorded.
For believers in evolution, here is a support for devolution:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17161
"The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.
The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.
Lost officially in 1960 when England voluntarily made the ECHR - European Court of Human Rights, have superiority over its supreme courts
England like most european countries, created a global one world european state, or a european world order, a long time before they revealed the European Union
-
From my amateur perspective, science seems to be less about finding "truth" than it is about "exploring," to quote Richard Feynman (see "Richard Feynman on doubt,uncertainty and religion," ) ...about asking questions. The final "Truth" is never reached in science. Instead, answering one question just leads to more questions. This is unsatisfactory to many people, so they turn to mysticism for final answers...for absolute truths. This is an understandable aspect of human nature. We want things to be simple and we want to have final answers so we can move on to other things. Science is not about that, from what I can see. That's not to say that mysticism has no value. It seems to fill a human need, so perhaps it does have value.
While I completely agree that most sciences fit in this category that we will never be able to find absolute truths and continue to have doubt and uncertainty, not all do. Nutrition and economics are two areas where it is extraordinarily hard to get exact answers and experiments are very hard to design that yield good results.
Mathematics, I suppose not really a science, is absolute for the most part and will come up with the same answers every time. The laws of the physical world I believe are not too much of a stretch outside mathematics in that it would make sense to me that we could ultimately have a simple set of rules that define our universe. Comparing the absolutes of physics and nutrition is not a good comparison in my opinion.
-
lol maths is most definitely not absolute
Find ONE example of absolute maths in nature ... all math is analogue, not absolute
-
lol = the absolute value of 0 which is absolutely 0 of course and coincidently equal to the value of your last post.
-
Still waiting for proof ...
Analogue as in randomly variable ... so wheres this absolute proof of maths in nature ....
-
While I completely agree that most sciences fit in this category that we will never be able to find absolute truths and continue to have doubt and uncertainty, not all do. Nutrition and economics are two areas where it is extraordinarily hard to get exact answers and experiments are very hard to design that yield good results.
Mathematics, I suppose not really a science, is absolute for the most part and will come up with the same answers every time. The laws of the physical world I believe are not too much of a stretch outside mathematics in that it would make sense to me that we could ultimately have a simple set of rules that define our universe. Comparing the absolutes of physics and nutrition is not a good comparison in my opinion.
My view is that it is hard to find absolute truths because they do not exist; and the purpose of scientists is to create (new) Truth, using Chaos as a raw material, while using History as an anchor/reference point.
I never liked mathematics, felt it was a scam and a really crude way of describing the world. When I learned that 1+1=10 and people actually believe it, and it works I knew that I had got it right in childhood. Years later I thought up the mathematics of Life, where 1+1=3 - you might think that this is obvious, but that's what research is supposed to do - notice the obvious and put it into language which might be understood.
-
meh i can prove 1+1=3, maths is just institutionalised symantics
Nature doesnt use numbers, it uses algorithms in the form of recursive patterns, ie fractals, golden mean, shells, hurricanes etc.
-
meh i can prove 1+1=3
I'd very much like to see that proof.
-
I'd very much like to see that proof.
Sure, meet my NDA lol
It's actually easier prove 1+1=0, as two objects cant occupy the same space at the same time
You could use super position or super liquids to prove 1+1=3
Math's is basically stupid symantics about our reality, which never coincide's with nature
-
Sure, meet my NDA lol
It's actually easier prove 1+1=0, as two objects cant occupy the same space at the same time
You could use super position or super liquids to prove 1+1=3
Math's is basically stupid symantics about our reality, which never coincide's with nature
You're using a lot of words. It's not convincing me of anything though. Super liquids? Math doesn't coincide with nature? How can anything NOT coincide with nature? One time I saw two animals procreate and have offspring. If there was just one of them, that wouldn't have been possible. Seems pretty simple to me.
-
You're using a lot of words. It's not convincing me of anything though. Super liquids? Math doesn't coincide with nature? How can anything NOT coincide with nature? One time I saw two animals procreate and have offspring. If there was just one of them, that wouldn't have been possible. Seems pretty simple to me.
And the winner is....... Raw Kyle!
You got it. :)
-
While I completely agree that most sciences fit in this category that we will never be able to find absolute truths and continue to have doubt and uncertainty, not all do. ....
Mathematics, I suppose not really a science, is absolute for the most part and will come up with the same answers every time. ....
I am not convinced that mathematics provides "absolute truths," and apparently much smarter people than me, like Einstein and Popper, were not convinced of this either. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) I found:
> Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." [Einstein, Albert (1923). Sidelights on Relativity (Geometry and Experience). P. Dutton., Co., p. 28]
> in the 1930s important work in mathematical logic showed that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic, and Karl Popper concluded that "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."[Popper, Karl R. (1995). "On knowledge". In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-13548-6. p. 56]
[Edit: please note, in case there's any confusion with some other posts here, that I'm not saying that mathematics is a scam or anything of the sort--just that I'm not convinced that it produces absolute truths.]
-
Comets are not dirty snowballs. The sun is not a nuclear furnace. Gravity is not the strongest force. Black holes do not exist, pulsars do not exist, dark matter is a total farce.
It is electricity, electricity, electricity.
Einstein had his day... let's thank him and MOVE ON. http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
Show me how electricity can travel through the hard vacuum of outer space. I want to see it, with my own eyes, either in a lab, or in the natural world. I don't want craters, I don't want conjecture, I want to see it.
Electricity, though a vacuum. Show it.
-
The so-called hard vacuum is supposed to be a plasma - this is the solar wind.
A plasma is a very good conductor of electricity.
I've never seen an electron.
-
Show me how electricity can travel through the hard vacuum of outer space. I want to see it, with my own eyes, either in a lab, or in the natural world. I don't want craters, I don't want conjecture, I want to see it.
Electricity, though a vacuum. Show it.
Show and tell time...
Yes! Piqued some interest.
Space is not a vacuum.
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V026kSw4XCs
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Bh-GemFRo
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxGT9CQVkDk
part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uf8-CZAWsI
Everything else is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info
Any questions, they have a forum.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderbolts_forum.htm
-
I can't believe I'm going to have to defend mathematics as not being a scam but here goes. I ran across a thread on another forum that asked the question of whether math is a discovery or an invention?
Here are a couple relevant posts
I believe it is a little bit of both.
There is no doubt that a lot of math is invention. We create various definitions and prove theorems based off of those definitions. I don't think there is any a priori discovery in something like flag manifolds. It is a mathematical concept that we have arbitrarily created in order to model certain physical phenomena and have created general definitions and proved a whole bunch of theorems within this framework. That we are discovering some fundamental truth of the universe seems farfetched.
On the flip side, there are things that are fundamental to mathematics that DO seem to be fundamental truths of the universe. Counting for instance. The concept of unity. Pythagoras. Just as one can create a list of things mathematicians have just defined that are merely abstractions or generalizations of things from nature, one can create and equally long list of things that seem like fundamental truths of the universe.
An interesting thought experiment is this "what mathematics would an intelligent alien being who existed in our universe but did not necessarily share a single other trait with humanity develop?" Would they develop the concept of unity? Would they develop a system of counting?
Pi is ubiquitous in nature, and it doesn't just apply to perfect circles. It is found in ellipses, parabolas, cones, spirals, DNA helix, and waves. It has been argued that no perfect circles can physically exist because at high enough resolution you will always find discreteness, but that doesn't change the existence of the pi ratio. I don't think you'll find much support for the argument that pi is not an intrinsic property of the universe, rather than an invented way to describe observations.
It's kind of beside the point since constants are not mathematics, they are simply properties. But conceptually I can't see how a "constant" can be invented, it just is. Humans can observe it and name it, they can't change it.
And yes, "red" is the name humans gave to a particular wavelength of light, and it is absolutely a property of that light. Humans just named it based on their observation of it, so that they could describe that perception to each other
taken from http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/mathematics-discovery-invention-569760/
In my opinion humans do make up some of the rules of mathematics just like they make up the rules of language or poker or any other game. Languages aren't any more of a scam than mathematics. Though what is dangerous is using mathematics as a means of propegating scams. It seems there are some that think this to be the case of string theory in that it is simply misused mathematics.
Mathematics does provide absolute truths for simple things as seen above in the posts but clearly not all. That said, when you make up the rules to your own game there is going to be absoluteness just like there is in any language. By definition there are absolutes to be found in math. These rules are applied only to the game you made up and are not necessarily meant to be used to describe outside workings of the universe.
I never said anything about using mathematics as a tool to describe the natural world. I was simply stating it as it is as numbers and symbols on paper.
-
That's the thing, you can use symbols on a piece of paper to represent anything, IF it doesnt occur in nature its blatantly false
No ones ever been able to prove absolute numbers exist in nature, no one's been able to prove even the basics of maths such as, quotients & denominators exist in nature, pure speculation, pure hypothetical
This is the problem with modern science, we're given theories, which is all mathematics is, a theoretical way form of approximating or calculating reality
We've been taught these theories as absolute truths, when in fact, they're purely theoretical
This the major problem with science, most of the fields, like mathematics are still stuck in the 17th & 18th century, & these absurd notions of fixed numbers & fixed rotations etc., newton pulled out of his ass lol
Nature is infinitely variable, as fractals & quantum physics have proved ABSOLUTELY, nature is absolutely infinitely variable
We need to update maths to using infinite variables, or destroy it competely & come up with something which resembles how nature genuinely works
-
In my opinion humans do make up some of the rules of mathematics just like they make up the rules of language or poker or any other game. Languages aren't any more of a scam than mathematics.
Wrong. Language is designed to control how we think; this is obvious if you look at the behaviour of language groups, for instance the Italians who are speechless if their hands are tied behind their backs.
-
Wrong. Language is designed to control how we think; this is obvious if you look at the behaviour of language groups, for instance the Italians who are speechless if their hands are tied behind their backs.
Excellent post,
We only have 27 letters in our alphabet for a reason, surprisingly low for a sentient race, compared to the aztecs, sumerians etc.
Language like food & breathing is a method of sampling reality, a form of sophisticated verbal natural nourishment by idea's & thought
Even more important is the exchange of blood, everytime you meet someone or talk face to face, you exchange blood samples through the skin, in the form of bodily fluids
Then theres the cymatic form of communication of the sound of language on our cells & subconcious & the environment around us
-
Another article on errors by Stephan Jay Gould, possible fraud:
Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim
By NICHOLAS WADE
June 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1)
-
What's your leading analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief at this time?
I've heard all the theory's (alien, creation, and evolution). Do I think there is a possibility for each and everyone of them? Sure, why not. We could be debating this topic for eternity, and still not be convinced 100%. I think our origins are way above our own comprehension, and knowledge. It's in our DNA too question, think, and reason. I don't feel like it's important to question how we got here, or why we're here, or what's our purpose. Life is way too short to find all the answers, to all of our complex questions. If there is a higher power out there, it's way beyond what we can even imagine/comprehend.
-
Try out the law of attraction Chris, that should help you connect with god. Try to manifest something peculiar that you can't rationalize away. If you can take a moment to believe in the concept and do 2 minutes of visualizations each day, soon you'll start to see your manifestions show up in your life and that will help convince you beyond the shadow of a doubt about the existence of a source field/god/Infinite/unity consciousness. Once you have that, then you can start to use that connection to get the answers you're looking for.
It is certainly not essential to know how we got here, but it would be fun to know and know and most would agree that knowledge is power. It's just about making informed decisions and living rightly. Also, if we could nail down our origins with some goodly proof, we could squash limiting modes of thought and institutions like organized religion, duality, and us vs. them mentality. People could wake up and realize we're connected with everyone and everything else, and our similarities are more important and more powerful than our perceived differences.
Right now I think we were probably manipulated by some, more evolved species and it's both creation and evolution. God was probably the source of the big bang, and then stepped back to allow things to unfold naturally, or maybe injected 'life' (mind) in to her creation.
I find it bemusing when people claim we can't know or meaningfully connect with god in the present, and always brings to mind the quote ..
George Bernard Shaw: 'People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.'
You can connect and at least get an inkling of god, if not full comprehension, here in this lifetime, but you have to do it yourself, you cannot allow organized religion to rob you of that connection. The reason there's a connection is because we are the mini-me's of god. Little baby gods. In other words, we are all part of god, but we are not ALL that god is. God is everything that 'is' anywhere in this dimension and all others. This is why we have the ability to make our realities. Why we can influence the world through our thoughts, beliefs and actions. In otherwords that pretty well makes us gods or demi-gods or whatever you want to call someone with the ability to manifest things, circumstances and people.
-
Another article on errors by Stephan Jay Gould, possible fraud:
Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim
By NICHOLAS WADE
June 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1)
Gould has routinely been discredited as a Marxist-type pseudo-philosopher by more genuine scientists. I'm not surprised. The above is obviously not an "error" though, but deliberate bias/fraud.
-
Yes, I was tipped off about Gould's Marxist bias decades ago, so I suspect the same. He's dead anyway, so the reasons for why his data and findings are generally so unreliable is academic (sorry about the pun ;D ) at this point anyway and his kneejerk leftwing supporters will of course say that fraud can't be proven -d , as some already have, though of course they won't acknowledge that it can't be proven that he didn't commit fraud either. Predictable one-sidedness.
I've argued with a leftwing Gould supporter in the past who didn't believe my accusations of his extreme Marxist bias. It would be nice to have something to prove my points, such as a journal or letter being found where he acknowledged his deceipt, but I doubt that he was that stupid. If you come across anything particularly convincing of his fraud, please let me know. Unfortunately, circumstantial evidence is not likely to be sufficient to convince the leftwinger.
I wonder what excuses the politically correct libtards will come up with to explain away the larger average skull/brain sizes of North/Northeast Asians, Northwestern Europeans, and Eskimos now that Gould's arguments and data have been blown out of the water.
-
Try out the law of attraction Chris, that should help you connect with god.
Thanks for your suggestion Thoth. I'm definitely more of a spiritual person than a religious one. I'll check out the "Law of Attraction". Thanks!
-
There is no doubt that Gould was a fraud, given the data:-
http://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/stephen-jay-gould-myth-and-fraud/ (http://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/stephen-jay-gould-myth-and-fraud/)
-
Well, the journal Nature is not convinced of intentional fraud yet (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html)), so I doubt that a radical leftwinger will be, unfortunately. As more scientists study the data and others investigate other of Gould's work, I don't doubt that his work and opinions will be further discredited.