Leaderboard

Ancestors are your parents, grandparents and so on. There's nothing you can do to change it. Your genetics are the inherited instructions for making "you". They are stored in DNA. It may be possible to edit the DNA, but what would be the point?

Actually your attitude to your speculative scenarios and the ensuring criticism have been like a breath of fresh air, in that it seems you are recognising some of the short comings in your many hypotheticals, and accept them as speculative, rather then blasting your way onto the forum, demanding with utmost certainty that you have invalidated many decades of cosmology as so many do. While apparently still stubbornly holding onto the basis of your idea, you also do appear to be listening and learning particularly from the many good points put in the last few hours. While many aspects of cosmology appears counter-intuitive on face value, the foundation fact is that the universe is not obliged to align with what we see or don't see as intuitive or otherwise.

A) Classifications on the species levels are already tricky, below even more so. Nonetheless they are used for certain contexts in order to formulate hypotheses. B) It follows that these types of classifications are not universal, but follow the context of traits/conditions under consideration. I.e. there are parameters with which we can construct group populations, but these are only meaningful in special contexts. C) These classifications are in use in human studies, though there is increasing recognition that superficial groupings may not be appropriate to draw conclusions, resulting low reproducibility. There is somewhat more emphasis in trying to utilize genetic data instead.

While I am not for BUI I think grading limited trials like the in Finland is difficult. Your link points out that success is determined by the metric one is using. If the goal was for individuals to find jobs it was a failure. If the goal was to improve peoples quality of life it was a success. This is a point Andrew Yang hit on a bit both on Sam Harris's and Joe Rogan's podcasts. That our current economic metric is GDP. However by that metric everyone is inferior to automatic/AI.

This is contradicted by the definitions of "race" given in the Wikipedia article. I am not a biologist so I am more persuaded by the Wikipedia article than your opinions which based on you (admitted) ignorance. As you appear to have problems reading and/or understanding, here it is again more loudly: in 1972, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin showed that the concept of race starts to dissolve under genetic scrutiny. He found that the vast majority of human genetic variation, which he measured in 16 genes, is found within, not between, what he called the 'classical racial groupings'6. Since then, studies examining hundreds or even thousands of genetic markers have confirmed Lewontin's findings7, 8. I don't think saying "this old way of viewing the world appears to be objectively meaningless" is political correctness. But what does it say about someone who wants to hang on to those old definitions because it suits their worldview? Because that is not what it means. Those results are based on the genetics of populations now, not ancestry or race. There have been many examples of mass migration in human history, from ancient times to the last few decades. That is, to a large extent, what is represented by those results.

I prefer to learn from discussions. Or rather, learn more. If we all only shared our opinion about things we know for certain, a place like this would be very silent.

! Moderator Note My opinion is that you should not be hijacking a discussion to talk about your personal “theory”

! Moderator Note If you want discuss your idea, do it here ! Moderator Note You need to provide evidence for your beliefs/delusions. There is no requirement for others to explain reality to you.

! Moderator Note As the OP is not interested in discussing this, the thread is closed.

! Moderator Note As the OP is not interested in discussion and apparently only posted to promote some Creationist lies, this thread is closed.

! Moderator Note This is (a) nonsense and (b) off topic. Thread closed. If you want to make claims like this, do it in the Speculations forum and be prepared to provide evidence.

That kinda depends upon what you mean by a wave. Mathematically a wave is a solution to the wave equation. But which wave equation? In this case you mean the Schrodinger wave equation. The classical linear wave equation only has periodic (repetitive) solutions. These are responsible for the well known repetitive patterns we call 'waves'. The Schrodinger equation can have non repetitive solutions which would occur with a single isolated particle. More advanced, non linear 'wave equations' can lead to non repetitive solutions called solitary waves or solitons. It is possible to model the actions of a single particle upon these. This is done particularly in optics with photons.

I don't think we can at least not without deriving the S-eq matter radiation equality value. I can however see if I can ask Jorrie and Cobert if they are working on the 2018 results for programming the calculator. The primary programmer being Cobert myself and Marcus helped in so far as writing the manuals and adding suggestions and methodologies to make it easier for others to understand. Primary example using Gyrs instead of Mpc. Marcus found people better understood distances in light-years as opposed to parsecs. Found his latest version for the 2015 Planck results I will adjust my signature to reflect the newer version, sent an email to see if Jorrie is working on the 2018 http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7-2017-1/LightCone_Ho7.html lol newer version will take me a bit to get used to lmao

! Moderator Note The OP asked four questions. This addresses none of them. The default position here is that mainstream science is valid. This is not the place to argue the merits of the theory of evolution. This hijack has been put in the appropriate section of the forum (the trash can) Please stay on-topic with further responses.