swansont

You’d think the violation of his security clearance protocols would raise eyebrows. You have to report all contact with foreign nationals, and he neglected to do that.

No, it in fact is not. ”scientific work of others” can be a proposal, or a summary. The evidence is the actual data - the details of the observation or the measurements from an experiment. Seems to me we’ve been through this before, and you still haven’t learned what evidence is. I asked you to define what “control” meant, what the context was, and for you to pick one example and discuss it. You didn’t do that. Your discussion has often been by quoting others. Quotes have their place, because sometime it’s the best way to say something, but in my experience, if you can’t present an argument in your own words, you don’t really understand it. The problem here is that you saw “control” and assumed it meant one thing, but it’s not clear that the author means the same thing. The first instance of the word refers to controlling the evolutionary fate ( and later “control over our evolutionary future“) but your posts imply it’s control of the process, which is a very different concept.

Naturalized, after illegally residing here, and which conceivably could have been revoked if he falsified immigration documents. But I doubt that will happen now unless he really angers Trump.

If you want to claim bias, you need to provide evidence of bias. Otherwise this just sidesteps your culpability in the shortcomings of your posts. e.g. expecting you to provide evidence isn’t bias, it’s a basic requirement of science

If “President Musk and Vice-President Trump” catches on, Elon will be shown the door pretty soon. Nobody upstages the toddler-in-chief and gets away with it.

Concepts can be qualitative or at least not sufficiently quantitative to solve problems. e.g. we know Newtonian gravity is an attraction owing to the mass of the objects, but that concept won’t let you solve quantitative problems. You need a specific expression of the law of gravity to do that.

Models are the rules that define actions. Models have been used to predict behavior that had not yet been observed. It’s a very powerful way to show the validity of the model.

In addition to this absurdity, there is likely a lot of diplomacy that happens that never makes the news, because it’s secret, and a lot of that is probably because certain public posturing is required to placate the citizenry, and any private agreements that are contrary to that won’t be received well. We see that in the US when public vs secret votes happen in congress with different outcomes. e.g. the Gaetz ethics report, which is just the latest example

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not your blog

Assertion without evidence, though it would not surprise me to find some spectrum of thought on the importance of various elements of evolution; we don’t know everything. Further, the responses you might get will depend greatly on the language you use, especially when you use ill-defined terms like control. A far as the general population and belief are concerned: who cares? This is about science, not belief, and not what ill-informed people say.

Sure. We warm the planet and that can affect evolution. So do beaver dams, since they also affect the environment. You seem to be the only one here that sees this as being contrary to the theory.

No you may not dare to bring up consciousness.

Is intelligence inherited genetically? Does thinking cause a specific, chosen, adaptation? (e.g. if I want humans to evolve wings, what must we do?)

Your claim came first, which did not quote anyone, and you are free to ask for evidence. And this is still not evidence - you haven’t pointed to any “known observation” - just deflection. Interesting. (well, rather mundane, really)

https://www.twz.com/air/drone-incursions-closed-wright-patterson-air-force-bases-airspace-friday-night “there has been a flood of mostly unconfirmed and erroneous reported sightings throughout New Jersey. Of more than 5,000 tips called into a national hotline set up to deal with these sightings, fewer than 100 generated leads “deemed worthy of further investigation,” an FBI spokesman told reporters, including from The War Zone, on Saturday. The overwhelming majority of these sightings, as we have previously reported, are crewed aircraft, the official reiterated on Saturday.”

! Moderator Note I didn’t. I’m not the only one here enforcing the rules. You’ve repeatedly violated them, and you don’t get to dictate terms. There’s no “even” here - if anything, you owe the mods for wasting our time. Sockpuppets accounts to avoid a ban are an automatic ban.

But you presented multiple examples of cultural evolution - passing information from one generation to the next. You also presented no evidence that the indicated behavior is learned and not innate. (it might very well be, but you have not shown that this is the case) I said nothing about avoiding predators, but I guess that would be one reason to do so. Because you have not accurately described evolution. You have presented an incorrect description in order to discredit it.

So it’s cultural evolution, rather than culture controlling evolution. Cultural evolution is a distinct phenomenon from biological evolution. If an individual were raised in isolation, how would cultural effects be passed along to the individual? Culture can potentially affect evolution; you could, for example, have a population decide to live someplace (e.g. at a high elevation) and over time that could exert selection pressure. But that’s not control. Your argument is a strawman.

The Geminids meteors peaked a few days ago. I wonder if that had any impact on these sightings.

It’s in the spirit of science to present models and evidence that supports your ideas, which you repeatedly fail to do, and what our rules require. Your threads get shut down because you don’t comply with our rules. Not having the math is a fatal flaw, especially in physics, since you can’t quantify anything. If your idea is so vague it can’t be falsified, it’s not science. Listening to and reading about physics is not the same thing as doing physics. If you want to propose an idea, you have to do physics.

That’s not very illuminating. What is it about any one of these that implied control over evolution? So what? You appear to be trying to sensationalize this as if it’s not business-as-usual for all of science. You’re unlikely to drum up concern from people familiar with the process and progress of science. Yup. Science discovers new things. Not really news. Sun rises in east kind of stuff. And you need to provide a lot more detail about this so it can be discussed. Again, you need to provide details. Since you still haven’t learned how to comply with the rules, here’s the link and a relevant passage https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26435201-500-the-extraordinary-ways-species-control-their-own-evolutionary-fate/ “Living in the desert is a challenge. But the Mojave desert woodrat has an ace to play: it can eat poison. This allows the cute little rodent to survive and thrive by feeding on toxic creosote bushes. Remarkably, it hasn’t evolved the genes required to do so. Instead, it eats the faeces of other woodrats and thereby inherits detoxifying bacteria that take up residence in its gut.” I don’t see how this is control over its evolution. It’s not like the woodrats decided to start eating poison to build up a resistance to it, and “inherits” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here — there’s nothing here that says this is passed along to its offspring - is that what’s happening? If not, this is a fallacy of equivocation. It’s not what others mean by inherited. A possibly inherited trait is eating the feces. Another thing you’ve continued to fail to learn is that one scientist saying something doesn’t make it true. Lots of stuff gets proposed. A fair fraction eventually gets shot down.

Yes. It’s inaccessible if you aren’t a subscriber, but some people might be. If all you can do is provide quotes, it suggests you don’t understand the article well enough to discuss it. How, then, can you draw any conclusions? And yet you do, rather than ask what the author meant. A lot of discoveries are surprises. What implications are you referring to? That we descended from earlier forms of life? No, that seems unchanged. That species change over time, affected by the environment? That seems fine. That some individuals will be better suited to the prevailing conditions, and have a better chance to survive and reproduce? No, that still seems to hold. What this looks like is looking for instances of certain phrasing, trying to twist a discussion to make it sound like support for an agenda

! Moderator Note Then it was presumably copyrighted, so reproducing it in full is a violation of the rules and copyright law. Which means post a summary and provide a link. What is this "control"? I see multiple mentions of "influence" but then there's nuance in what that means. Control implies making a choice. Influence means involvement. I influence the level of water in a pool when I get in - it changes - but if I'm just floating there I do not control it. Pick an example and discuss it. Further, Darwin spoke of inherited traits; he did not know about genetics. So finding that there are other channels for inherited traits has no effect on Darwinian thought. And the suggestion that epigenetics are somehow a new surprise to biologists is an interesting notion. I'm not a biologist and have been aware of epigenetics for a while. I presume biologists are more aware of their field than I am. The theory of evolution has evolved over time as we learn more, but that's true of any theory. So casting this in a sensationalist light doesn't reflect reality.

! Moderator Note And I’m pointing out that that’s not following our rules ”members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links” ”Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.” (from rule 2.7)

! Moderator Note Just to clarify (not that will penetrate a certain cranium) but the reason for banning and removal of these posts has nothing to do with the merit of the post, but because you’re a sockpuppet and your previous behavior has resulted in you not being welcome here. You will continue to be banned on sight.