swansont

Then stop acting like one. New information, or new-to-you information? If it’s from some other author it’s not new, as such. The author of this article is promoting a book, so the information here is likely several years old. That’s not actually a defense of what you’ve posted. If you would engage in robust scientific inquiry, there would be nothing to critique.

I saw a comment from Sean Carroll that basically says to remember there’s a difference from some speculative idea being floated, and actual discovery. This is the former. To be considered the latter requires evidence.

As the quoted question says, it’s post counts. Posts in certain areas (e.g. The Lounge) do not count toward post totals.

In case iNow’s point is unclear, consider that chromosomes often contain thousands of genes and there are millions of extant species, and a much larger number of extinct ones. You’ve pointed to a handful of examples where cognition plays a role. Which do you think is going to get more emphasis in studying the subject?

Which is a common attitude we get from crackpots. Maybe you shouldn’t act like that. Replace the physics bit with this evolution discussion in the last panel https://xkcd.com/675/

It directly impacts your lack of awareness. Also apparently your ability to Google and find many links about cognition and its impact on evolution. There’s also the hubris of thinking that you came up with something not already addressed by professionals in the field.

You can also compare the masses of free neutrons and protons vs that of H-3 and He-3, where the only difference is the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, and see if your equations work.

Which we already know is “yes” And you say this from the perspective of your vast knowledge of the topic? You provided an article which pointed to a few unusual cases; if this were common and a large piece of the puzzle, people would have noticed. But it’s still all under the umbrella of evolution; the issue of dependence on biology is extremely relevant. You seem to have a narrow view of evolution, but that’s an issue of your understanding, rather than the theory. Partly because of your history on the subject. We are not going to be discussing those details.

Some of these things might be vestigial features from previous iterations of the forum software

So what? Unless you can show that cognition is arrived at independent of genetics/biology, then there’s nothing about it that contradicts evolution.

! Moderator Note This is supposed to be a physics discussion, and there are rules for speculations. So morality and out-of-body are off-topic, and “in my opinion” is not an acceptable substitute for a model and evidence

There’s plenty of evidence of the former, but not the latter.

Really? People verify their information all the time in our threads. Did anyone say that it has to be personally verified? The point is that AI is known to fabricate information, rather than using reliable third-party references. A short time ago I wanted to know what the orbital velocity would be at the surface of the sun (to point out an absurdity of some claim). I figured someone had done the calculation, so I Googled it. The AI summary said it couldn’t be calculated. We don’t need such nonsense introduced into scientific discussions.

Or, to paraphrase Pierre-Simon Laplace We have no need of that hypothesis

FYSA, the AI policy has been added to the rules

That sounds like waffling. You were sure before but now you aren’t? No examples to give? What if only one mutation is needed? Using “primed” to answer what you mean by primed doesn’t answer the question..

But contending that the genetic framework was prepared with “intentionality” is the problem. It lacks evidence, and all you’ve offered is argument from incredulity. Further, you’re ignoring the large number of neutral mutations that remain neutral, and only looking at the small number that are or become beneficial. That’s confirmation bias (and I thought you didn’t like biases). What’s the “intentionality” of neutral mutations? (xpost with TheVat)

Which is it? Do you contend they happen together, or do they happen in sequence? What “coordination” is required? What do you mean by “primed”?

You haven’t specified what you mean by randomness, but certain phenomena follow statistical patterns that rely on probability. Radioactive decay, for example.

! Moderator Note Proselytizing not permitted here.

This is just sealioning. A seemingly innocuous question, but one that sidesteps the responsibility you have to learn the material. Any suggestion that it’s untrue is also argument from incredulity. And you own the burden of proof for showing this to be true. It’s not the default, even if evolution weren’t true. And you’re not getting there by cherry-picking studies and presenting narratives out of context.

It’s expected that easily-found data should be looked by the person starting the inquiry. Expecting others to dig it up is lazy. AFAICT Argentina has had pretty high inflation for several years. Go find the numbers.

Easily found with a search engine (sort of. the wcrf promises the data by country but it’s not on the page they served me) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cancer_rate US is ninth highest for cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (303 per 100k people). Japan 30th at 265, China 62nd at 200. (I suspect how long you’ve had heavy industrialization pouring carcinogens into the environment has an impact.)

These critics of evolution typically have an agenda and also have a poor understanding of evolution (partly because what they “learned” came from people with a poor understanding) Argument from incredulity isn’t really a counterargument.

No. There’s nothing that says a gene has to appear only after it would be an advantage. Neutral mutations exist. Eye color is a common example. If, somehow, blue eyes conferred an advantage, we wouldn’t have to wait for a mutation. How so?