Bufofrog

I'm pretty sure that is what we have.

Agreed.

We don't see any change because our lives are very short compared to the time frame of evolution. Evolution is happening all around us it is just any change in a species over the course of 100 years is miniscule. But I suspect you know that, at least I hope you know enough about evolution to know it.

It seems like he is making it up as he goes along.

Lets try one last time then. Could you define free will as you see it?

I am done, which I guess is what you want.

Glad we cleared that up.

Asking for clarification is strange?

Sounds like a wise decision on your part.

That is correct. Animals with eyes, like I said in the above sentence. Who cares if they have a 'concept', they can still see colors.

Huh? Huh? Why do you think there is no blue color? Have you ever been outside on a clear day and looked up? You seem mighty confused at this point. Of course they do. You can easily run experiments that show that animals perceive different colors. What's that supposed to mean? I recommend you reread the thread since those answers have been given.

This why I am wondering what the OPs definition of free will is. I think I have free will to hit my hand with a hammer. I can choose to do it or not, it is completely my choice. Am I going to do that, hell no. Maybe the OP is saying since I won't choose to smash my hand then I don't have free will to smash my hand. Dunno... I agree. Here in the US we have for profit prisons. This is a horrible idea IMO. The business model is to keep as many prisoners incarcerated as long as possible. I mean WTF are our politicians thinking?

Sure, it's just not science, that type of question is philosophy. It is absolutely not a coincidence. The sun puts out a lot of EM radiation and the highest intensity is around the 400 to 700 range so it makes perfect sense that evolution would favor eyes that detect light in that range. I agree that animals see different things, not so much different beings though. Many insects and some lizards that I am aware of see in the ultraviolet light frequency. So they probably see some things differently than we do. Many mammals do not see colors, so you could put a dog and a person in a room lit by a red light and the person could easily see and the dog could not. OK. Yes, the sky would be blue, you just wouldn't have a word for it. If I give my dog a treat, he likes the smell and the taste of the treat, even though he doesn't have a word for smell or taste.

Douglas Adams would agree.

Because EM radiation can have different energies. Why does EM radiation have different energies? That is the way the universe is.

There are wavelengths of light that our brains interpret as green. It is an evolutionary benefit to interpret different wavelengths of light as different colors. That doesn't really make any sense to me.

The earth and the solar system were created about 4.5 billion years ago when a molecular cloud collapsed due to gravity. Man evolved to his current form (homo sapiens sapiens) about 150,000 years ago. We sense the universe based on how our brain interprets various inputs (color, sound, touch)... Hard to define how the universe 'really' is.

The explanation was in the articles that had the click bait title 'spooky alignment'.

While I can't argue with that, the OP said this: If philosophy can determine just how much free will we actually have (I think it may not be as much as I think (50%ish), and I'm bloody sure it's not as much as you think (90%+)) and can persuade our populous, IOW politicians, of that knowledge; then prison's could become obsolete. So a definition is in order because how could you have 50% free will? I don't know what that means relative to a typical definition of free will. He then goes on to say philosophy can determine if it is a free will issue so we stop prosecuting people who commit crimes that are not their fault because they did not have free will. I can just imagine a judge explaining to some parents that he is sorry that their daughter was raped and killed by the defendant, but a group of philosophers have determined it is not the defendants fault because he did not have free will to stop it.

I agree a clear definition of free will by the OP is vital for the discussion.

No force or energy is required.

No kidding, the universe is incredibly hostile to life. The only place possible for life as we know it is a thin shell around a single planet.

Not in my opinion. Not really. Evolution is about life on earth so the time scale is about 3.7 billion years. Then it should come as no surprise that you do not seem to understand what evolution is about. You think humans have DNA from from beings not of this planet?

Of course not, the point is how can you know if you are on the right track if you don't test the theory! If your theory accurately predicts the orbital period of the moon then you may be on to something, if it doesn't then you know your theory needs work. I'm sure you meant m/s^2 due to a typo. If the mass in the universe is more or less evenly distributed as observation shows, there should be no force or acceleration in any particular direction on a universal scale. Observation indicates that indeed there is no acceleration or even a velocity of the milky way in any direction at the universal level.

I don't think plasma cosmology and the pilot wave theory are considered Newtonian, however I could be wrong on that.