Leaderboard

Actually, light sensing arose way before skin was developed. The earliest organisms with light sensing capabilities and phototaxis were bacteria.

You have evolution back to front, by missing the natural selection part. It's not at all about an organism knowing what would be useful, then developing it. It's (in a nutshell) about random mutation sometimes making something that turns out to be useful, which is kept by providing an advantage. And note that eyes and ears don't spring into the current form in one go. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

This is a science site not a 'beliefs' site. Furthermore, I don't like your attitude. Ignoring people whose ideas distress your sensibilities, suggests you are only interested in preaching your own ideas to the rest of us. That's not what we do here, either. I, and hopefully others, will ignore your posts and questions until you learn basic respect for others' deas and opinions.

While I am repeating myself here, I just want to illustrate again why power differentials are integral to the discussion here. Assume two populations (A and B) with similar composition and access to power, money etc. Also introduce racism (or bigotry or whatever form of discrimination) against each other. Under this scenario, individuals may suffer from local discrimination, for example if an A has a discriminating B as boss and vice versa. However, while the society as a whole may be problematic, on average the population of A would have a similar outcome as B. This is because there would be a similar likelihood of a an A being a boss (having power) over an B as the reverse. This could result in segregated populations, but as long as power, access to resources etc. remains the same, the outcome (wealth, health etc.) between the populations would be similar. But this is not how most forms of segregation are in history. Rather, almost always there is a group with power over the other, enforcing the segregation. In that scenario, the group with more power and resources can create a segregated system that can isolate the other group from access to the same. So in other words, only if we have an imbalance in power between populations do we expect differential outcomes on the population level due to discrimination (again, it is not about the individual as such). In other words the claims that these are only semantics and/or that racism is the issue and not the system basically misses a key element that actually causes injustice and inequality. Conversely, it is not discrimination or racism as such that causes (large scale) inequalities, it is the interphase with power that causes it (i.e. when they create a system of sorts that can create this outcome).

Weather, especially moisture and temperature changes; "Much of the weather-related deterioration of solar panels is due to rapid swings between hot and cold, freezes during periods of high humidity, hot and humid weather and UV radiation. Rapid changes in weather can cause materials to expand and contract, weakening connections like the soldering inside the panels. During freezing temperatures with high humidity, expanding ice can create separation between materials. UV radiation can cause discoloration of surfaces, which can limit the amount of light that reaches the solar cells. Discoloration was one of the most common problems in one study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (though that information [PDF] is over 10 years old at this point)." from; https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/yes-solar-panels-deteriorate-over-time-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ Weather deteriorates solar panels more than any other factor and is usually calculated at .5% efficiency loss/year so that after 20 years panels will still produce at 90% of whatever peak performance was to start. This is "worst case" outlook so actual efficiency loss may be as little as .1% or less annually. Germany seems to have some still producing electricity, even after 40+ years of operation.

You're right, of course, +1 But what kind of trouble... At first, its answer was very impressive: "If Teresa's daughter is your daughter's mother, then Teresa is your daughter's grandmother. Therefore, you are Teresa's son-in-law or daughter-in-law, depending on your gender." Isn't it smart? Doesn't it demonstrate logical thinking abilities? To see if it in fact does, I've substituted Teresa->John, daughter->son, and mother->father, and asked the same question in this form: "If John's son is my son's father, then what is my relationship to John?" And the ChatGPT's answer was: "If John's son is your son's father, then John is your spouse or partner." Why? What happened to the logic? Of course, logic was never there. The "Teresa" form of the puzzle, verbatim, has been very popular on Internet several years ago. The search returns hundreds of thousands of links. So, it has been included in the ChatGPT training data. While for the "John" version all it could find was something about son, father, relationship... and all it could come up with was the stupid answer. Yes, stochastic parrot is a correct definition.

Mother-in-law. I can well imagine a stochastic parrot would have trouble with that.

Tobler formulated two laws, the second one (relevant to this topic) concerns geology and is sometimes referred to as "Tobler two" in the same way that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object such that f=ma . is sometimes referred to as "Newton two". You seem to be thinking about Tobler one. That's older than Tobler two, so it's not relevant to this thread. :-)

How could this 'purposeful evolution' possibly work? Does an animal think, "I need eyes" and then the animal just develops eyes and then somehow also changes it's DNA to pass on it's eyes to it's offspring? Or does the animal think, "I need eyes" so it changes it's DNA so that it's offspring will develop eyes?

It did not need to. The whole point of the theory is to explain how adaptations can arise, purely through more successful reproduction of creatures with a trait that happens to be an advantage. This is basic. You can read about it anywhere. The evolution of the eye can be traced to creatures with light-sensitive patches on their skin. Those that had them could move towards or away from the light and this would have enabled them to find more food or escape more predators, so they reproduced more and handed on the advantage to their offspring. Etc. This is how it works, not by an organism “knowing” anything.

@Moontanman Excellent article and interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKwglRgwDM https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft Critical mass is building...

https://youtu.be/Nwew5gHoh3E

Then, this thread should be not in the Evolution forum, but in the Speculations forum. Which I ignore.

Nature doesn’t care what you believe (nor whom you ignore)

'Evolution is a blind watchmaker' is often used to describe the evolutionary process. Everything new is a complete accident and is the result of a genetic mutation. If it works it stays and if it breaks it's gone. Reproductive fecundity and pure luck in the environment determine what features persist.

You can un-ignore.

I thought this happened over a week ago and the police had closed the case. Later note: I'm wrong it was over a month ago. And nothing was found:https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-06-09/las-vegas-police-investigate-reports-of-alien-sightings Can you provide a reference to the claim of a large round depression?

Not all the DNA, but only a DNA in a gamete. Perhaps a DNA in some ovum or a spermatozoon thinks, "My host needs eyes", modifies itself, and prays to be the chosen one.

Now you have added yourself to my Ignore list. Bye-bye.

No, not philosophy. Speculations.

That is also a theory ......but im not a fan of that im not a believer of the ( accidental evolution theory ) i believe in ( purposal evolution )

When I was informed that I would be banned from this forum unless i restricted my argument to Mathematics alone, I was unable to explain texturally, in plain English where Einstein's logical and rational error was to be found. I warned everyone that this was not the professional approach, and that even if I show the Math error,, (which I have just done) you all could simply loop back on the argument are reapply the original concept error, which in your minds negated my math. Its circular logic fallacy. In fact, classical Physics DOES say that Light has constant motion. But Classical Physics was not developed by stupid men. So while light speed is indeed "constant" of motion, its measurement can only ever be related to the origin of the measurement. Like ANY measurement, the Origin is PART of the Measurement. In Einstein's paper he acknowledges this when he wrote, Quote: "The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ....... It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.” Clearly for Einstein's thought experiments to make any sense, he HAD TO HAVE A ORIGIN for the experiments, which he identifies as "the Stationary System, the clock in the stationary system". This provides the ESSENTIAL ORIGIN for both LOCATION and for TIME which MUST be defined or else no time period or length measure can have any meaning. I can not say, the object everyone and anyone is looking for is located at 345 meters north. and if any person and every person walks north for 3 minutes at speed of 4 mph, anyone and everyone will find it." Its gibberish, because no reference origin is specified to which the measurement are related. Same with Einstein's paper. He initially specifies the origin for distance and time, being the stationary frame, but later deletes all reference to that origin replacing that required origin with the claim that ANY and ALL origins are going to give the same result. This is nonsense.

Just as I suspected. You surely have no qualifications as a Mathematician, probably failed high school math by the look of your attempt at the logic of algebra. The GLARING ERROR in your really silly algebra attempt, is here: d = ct, so r + vt = ct Its so bizarre that a grown up, in a healthy state of mind, would make the error that is obvious here. equating ct with r + vt is the error. ct is a variable, not a constant, because the elapsed time t, is a different value in the two instances that you mention in the one breath. So the correct reference to ct must show that in this set of equations that there has to be another time period, a t' for example. so if you insist on using ct rather than the more convenient v, c, d, and l, then you must have a ct and also a different distance ct'. Because first you said that ct was the distance covered by light in time t which was equal to the rod length. But then you also say they its the distance of the rod length as well as the distance the rod moved. The TIME required for light to span the Rod is t, so if now the light has to span that rod PLUS some extra distance, then it will take longer, therefore we need a t'. So there are TWO time variables in you method not one. But you only try to use one, thus there is the reason your algebra is nonsense. The only way to PROVE that you are wrong is to assign REAL NUMBERS to replace those algebraic symbols and do the math. Let t = 1 let rod length = 10 let rod velocity = 5 let light velocity = 10 Distance = to be calculated Using your equation: d = ct, so r + vt = ct and using your statement that d=ct we get Distance , (you claim is d = ct ) substituting we get: 10 = 10, so 10 + 5 = 10 so you really think that 15 = 10? These claims are contestable, but lets do it in a new thread. Its getting to complex here to debate a number of things at once. The task is to prove or disprove that Einstein's claim that classical Physics gives a wrong result. He claimed to have proved mathematically the error with the Rod experiment. Lets stay with that in this thread until the issue is resolved.

I have blocked my family on the phone because they are too much on my nerves.........dont think anybody would be prior to my family ........ My nervous system is in the first priority...................i need it to sense this world.......and to be able to survive.......

When you want some thing you feel that you want it dont you ..For example if you were a creature who was in early stage of evolving a mouth you would feel that if you had some hard and sharp things in your mouth grabbing & holding on the food or prey would be easier If i was a creature who dwelled on the trees i would feel if i had longer arms it would be better when hanging on trees perhaps............. And how about devolution of eyes ? like in moles and in cave fish ? they loose their eyes by accident ? I think the motivation for evolution is Need and when the need is gone like the need to see in moles & in cave fish they devolve and loose their eyes ..........or like marine mammals who replaced arms & legs with flippers Although i dont disagree with this either..........i think these two traits work together but i strongly believe that even one electron has awareness and is capable of thinking..............let alone.............animals.......... not the type of thinking that we do.............but @ its own level of existence........... i believe that all the elements of this world know what they are doing in the subconscious level.........if you dont laugh @ me .............An Electron thats orbiting it nuclea ........in a little dust particle in the intergalactic.........space.......knows what its purpose is...................a light sensoring cell in a plankton that lived 200 million years ago.............knew what its purpose was..................

Up to this point the best answer in my POV was the one from the member whom i had ignored......* i used another browser to see his post....im afraid of unblocking people whom i have blocked in my life......due to bad memories about purposal evolution you know i dont think evolution is a dice rolling gambler.........a rather think its a hard working & enthusiastic engineer .......who also makes mistakes ........