pantheory

This is a matter of the forces pushing up would be less than the forces pushing down. So within maybe a hundred miles up down to the surface, you are looking at about the same force differential aether pressure (less dense surrounding matter). The aether accordingly accelerates into the Earth but not very vast since its velocity is only about 30 feet per second. Apply a continuous downward vector differential force to an object and it will accelerate downward. You are correct of course, 30 ft. per second is a speed and not a force. The force is F = (G) M/r2 ,where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance from the center of the Earth. This force continuously applied by the downward vector differential pressure of the aether accordingly causes the acceleration of gravity. Any further questions on this subject I will transfer to my "alternative to the Big Bang" thread so that I can more fully elaborate. This is a logic thread whereby I led the thread astray based upon my comment that I thought the speed of light was not constant on Earth in a vacuum. This stray comment led from the "logical" concept/ proposal that "everything is relative."

I could say the speed of the aether pushing downward is moving at the Earth's surface at a speed of 32 ft. per second. However since I cannot prove the correlation of speed of the aether to the acceleration of gravity, according to my theory, I can only estimate the speed of the inflowing aether field to one significant figure which would be simply 30 ft. per second. The estimated tolerance would be 16 ft. per second, so the expected range for this speed would be between 14 ft. per second to 46 ft. per second. According to the correlation with the acceleration velocity, there accordingly is a vector force pushing down which accedes the vector force pushing up by a difference of 32 ft. per second. Apply a continuous force of 32 ft. per second to a moving body, it will accelerated at a rate of 32 ft. per second per second. /

I also do not believe in spontaneous creation. I believe that a beginning entity could not logically or possibly have had a cause for its existence -- and also no possibility of spontaneous creation for anything. We are exactly on the same page but I think you may be missing the logical concept that neither a finite nor an infinite universe could possibly have had a cause based upon the definition of the words themselves: finite, infinite, and universe (meaning everything in existence). Neither one of us believes in the possibility of spontaneous creation. Nor do I believe that if the ZPF pre-existed our universe, or that if it did that it could create anything of permanence. Now I'm rambling It is called gravitational lensing when it results in some kind of focus resulting in amplification of the image. When not it also appears as a gravitational redshift, or simply the bending of light via gravity. This was an inappropriate comment of mine since it is an aside from the logic theme of the thread, so I will be brief in my reply. My own gravity model proposes that gravity is caused by an inflowing aether -- a pushing force. The estimated velocity of this inward pushing of this aether was about 30 feet per second, a 60 feet per second differential speed up vs. down. This was the direction that Michelson Morley never looked. Such a small difference in the speed of light (60 feet per second) also was not possible to detect with their equipment, concerning the motion of an aether. I pretty much know how to conduct such an experiment today. It might take a few hundred thousand dollars for me to conduct this experiment, but maybe less if I could rent or borrow some of the equipment. So for further detail of the experiment you could ask me on the "alternative to the Big Bang theory" thread or PM me Your comments concerning logic do not fail, in my opinion

Marqq, concerning logical concepts I agree that the logic does not fail in this assertion but there is one logical facet concerning your statement C. that you may not have considered. A universe that has always existed can still be finite concerning past time. Some might consider this idea a play on words but I consider it a matter of logic and conceivably the most important concept to understand the beginning of the universe if it was finite concerning times past: "Always" in this context means "for all times past" but it does not necessarily mean infinite times past. A beginning entity could not possibly have been created concerning logic. One must first grasp the understanding of the word "finite" concerning time. It means that there was no such thing as time before the beginning of the universe. The definition being used for universe is: everything that exists. So the first entity could not logically have had a cause, nor could it have come from nothing. The first change in this entity was the beginning of time. To consider a time before this is a contradiction of logic. Similar logic applies to an infinite universe, whereby the universe could have had no creation or cause. This is not an assertion, it is simply logic. One of the keys to understanding both concepts relates to the embolden definition of the word "universe" above. If you have problems with either concept ask questions or make comments Concerning the speed of light being relative to the motion of a background field and the related concept presented, I must concede this is alternative theory and for this thread the concept should have been explained differently. "Everything is relative" would still seem to be acceptable since the speed of light is relative to the background gravitational field that contains it such as a distant galaxy with a redshift greater than 1. Such a statement would seem to be consistent with General Relativity. As to entropy and the universe, it would seem that both gravity and the chemistry of life seem to operate contrary to the principles of entropy.

Marqq, Lots of good comments. One of the motivators for this thread was that I think logic is used very little concerning modern theories, Quantum Theory has been my prime example but the BB model I think also fails with logic. Maybe if the system of logic were better developed and understood it might be more respected by theorists. I do not think that logic should stifle theory development, only that explanations of the mathematics should use all effort trying to logically explain it. Such explanations such as the double slit experiment concerning a single photon or electron, going through two slits at the same time and then interfering with itself -- I think is a prime example of theoretical folly devoid of logic. Instead there are very simple logical explanations that I think are much more logical and probable. I will expand my answer tomorrow

(bold added) Good comments Rolando. I believe other conceivable explanations for the observed redshifts are no longer considered at all since they would be inconsistent with the Big Bang model. I think this is an observational problem with the BB model. I agree and consider these fudge factors as being comparable to Ptolemy's epicycles and based upon both wrong underlying assumptions of the model and wrong formulations of the model.

I agree, but even though I disagree with the overall standard particle theory since I have a different one, I cannot deny the possibility that they might have found evidence for anti-particle asymmetry. Of course it might be just a coincidence that this model has predicted anti-particle asymmetry and that the standard model asserts that they may have found evidence which might support it. My problem with most standard models is that although I think there is a lot of great science going on, I believe many of the interpretations of what has been observed and the resultant theory, are based upon false assumptions. If this is true then some of the assertions and conclusions of practitioners using these models may also be invalid but probably not all of them /

Although everything accordingly would have been relatively larger in the past compared to today, everything would still have the same relative scale and would have appeared and measured the same in those times. At a redshift of 1 the wavelength constituents of galactic light would be twice as long, z + 1 = 2. Accordingly we are observing two facets of galactic light concerning the observed redshift. The first would be that matter was larger in diameter in the past (atomic/ molecular), and the second factor is that space (distances) would appear to have been larger in the past also since we are now using smaller yardsticks (units of measure) to measure/ compare distances. Both of these two factors have an equal influence in determining the observed redshift. To determine the changes in distances (distance scale) between then and now, one would take the square root of z + 1, which would be the square root of 2, or ~1.414 (two equal factors). So the diameter of atoms etc. then would have been 1.414 times larger then than they are now. Distances would also measure/ appear to have been larger then than they measured in their own time. Velocities in general including the speed of light, would also appear to have been faster by this same factor. Since everything was relatively the same then, mass would not change but comparing it to today's units of measure you could say that mass like size in general, was comparatively larger then. Since mass is proportional to volume, as the radius (or diameter) increases in size by 1.414, the volume and mass would increase by the cube of this amount, or 2.828. So matter then (atoms and stars), compared to today, would have been 2.828 times more massive and greater in volume by this same amount. The comparative changes of time can be calculated also by using the wavelength and related frequency. A wavelength of twice as long, such as a redshift of 1, would have a frequency of half the time as today's same wave length. So accordingly comparing time, one could say that time is twice as fast today as it used to be at a redshift of one. This can be verified by supernova at a redshift of 1, which will last (be observable) twice as long as local versions of the same type 1a supernovae. This is presently called a type of time dilation. Quasars have consistent patterns of brightness variation. This variation is thought to be a function of their spin velocity. Since velocity is distance traveled per unit of time, we would see distanced to have been greater then, but time to have been slower. Therefore the velocity of spin would appear the same in any time frame. This is what we see when we look at quasars brightness variations; their brightness variations are the same regardless of the redshift and distance. This is contrary to expectations of the Big Bang model and the expanding space hypotheses, but is predicted by this model. http://creation.com/...2/j24_2_8-9.pdf Since accordingly the fundamental scale of matter changes over time one could say that relatively speaking, everything in every time frame was the same as in every other time frame when comparing elements to their same time frame. It accordingly would not be valid to compare aspects of different time frames except for necessary calculation purposes concerning observations. In this model there are reasons and explanations why the foundation scale of reality changes over time. And of course in this model the universe is not expanding and there is no dark energy for the above reasons. .

My formula for distance to redshift is a little different than the Hubble formula since the formula instead is based upon this cosmological model. At a redshift of 1 the conventional distance is about 25,000 Mpc (roughly 8 billion light years in distance and time) and with this formula the distance is about 5% closer. For redshifts less than z=.6 distances calculate greater (farther away) than the Hubble formula by up to ~10%. I am not saying the standard model conclusions are correct or not concerning their experiments or analysis, but they also seem to have some indications that anti-protons are not symmetrical to protons. This does not necessarily mean accordingly that they are less stable or shorter lived but this might be the implication according to the standard model. In this alternative model there are logical reasons why anti-protons are less stable based upon their configuration which is much different than the standard quark configuration. /

re: Occam's Razor. I agree and consider it as a tool of logic rather than as an absolute principle, as are some of the other "principles" listed. Such "tools" would need to be categorized using some fancy names for each group re: something from nothing I think this is a solid principle. For something to come from nothing or for something to turn into nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the universe were finite concerning past time, the beginning of the universe must have had no external cause otherwise such a cause would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe would mean everything in existence) re: Everything is relative I agree. At the present time we believe the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute/ constant. I believe our present ideas and theory are wrong in that the speed of light is relative to the background field ( the ZPF). For this principle of logic to be correct I would have to prove what I am saying. I have proposed a somewhat expensive experiment to prove what I believe to be true. I must both fund and conduct the experiment. In my model the speed of light accordingly varies by about 60 feet per second at the surface of the Earth, up vs. down. Until proven this principle of logic would not be considered valid, but it could be tested. re: the universe had no external cause if finite I do not understand your criticism. There is only one definition and meaning for the word universe being used, which is stated in parenthesis. That's OK. Maybe my explanations will add some clarification .

michel123456, I agree with your logic. In my model the beginning single entity only had the single characteristic of substance, with a single internal unwinding force that perpetuates time and ultimately is the source of particle spin. Accordingly nothing else exists in the entire universe but one fundamental particle with one internal force. To discuss further details of this might be better accomplished in the "alternative to BB thread." To continue discussing the logic or lack thereof concerning theories in general is the purpose of this thread. We seem to have a lot of parallel thinking .

There are two ways that we presently can store anti-protons. One way is by putting it into an accelerator. In this model this velocity artificially extends the anti-protons life by re-enforcing its spin whereby it would otherwise "spin-out." "Spinning out" in this model is when a field string becomes self-engaged into a looped "entity" which causes it to spin in the field, which we call in a fermion. When it spins out it returns to the background field becoming a string-like entity once again without spin. Another storage method is via a particle trap involving radio waves and cryogenics. This process may also re-enforce the anti-protons spin and keep them from interacting with each other. The longest storage time for a single anti-proton today is no longer than a couple of weeks according to my readings. Only by theoretical assumptions can one say that the half-life has been "measured" to be not less than 700,000 years. If the theory being used is wrong, then the methods used may be wrong, and the half-life could instead be quite different. I believe if anti-protons are short-lived as this model proposes, this would seemingly be the simplest explanation why we see little anti-matter in the universe. Positrons on the other hand, according to this model, are long-lived particles. This month, and for the first time, they may have hints that the anti-proton is asymmetrical to a proton. Here's a link concerning the present studies and preliminary conclusions/ evaluations. http://www.symmetrym...estions-theory/ Theories involving cosmic rays I also believe are incorrect since I believe nearly all anti-protons that we observe on Earth are created in our own atmosphere by incoming gamma rays interacting with atmospheric particulates. This prediction of antiprotons being relatively short-lived particles has been a long-time prediction of this model since 1983 if not before. . If matter is becoming smaller, as I propose, and if this explains the observed redshifts, which I propose that it does, then this rate of diminution must happen at a very slow rate something like the cosmological constant in the BB model. I have calculated this rate of diminution to be about a 1/000 part every 500 million years. This rate of diminusion is equivalent to a cosmological constant (recession velocity) of about 72 km/sec./Mpc. In this model time is finite. In a model of finite time there was a beginning but no such thing as before the beginning, therefore it would accordingly be impossible for the first entity to appear from nothing. This entity accordingly would have had existence from the very beginning and the first changes in it had to be relative to itself, which accordingly could be described as time. I follow the same logic and agree with your above paragraph. Your last question/ sentence is discussed in my above explanation. In an finite or infinite universe the beginning entity could not possibly (logically) have originated from anything or anywhere else. To do so would contradict the meanings of the words "finite" and/ or "infinite." I use a similar mitosis process for the increase in numbers of the first entity. I believe this is a process whereby both the diminution of matter as well as the increase in quantity/ count of field particles occurs. Stemming from this matter also accordingly increases in numbers which was first proposed by Paul Dirac and later by Fred Hoyle. In this model both the foundation particles of all matter get smaller as time passes with no limit, but the entire universe expands up to a limit it cannot exceed. The observable universe, however, would not generally be expanding.

Thanks mississippichem, I think "invariance" will fly in this thread . It might be too small of a subject to put it in its own category, but that's just my opinion. Also in what forum would the thread go and who would be the author of such a thread; Does there have to be an author for such a thread? I'm new and do not know all the possibilities yet As to my opinion, spit it off if you deem such a move appropriate

It can be stated as a principle of logic: that for all past times, substance (whether in the form of matter, field entities, energy of some kind) has always existed and changes have always occurred, and there never was a time before the first entity(s). This would be true whether the universe was finite or infinite concerning past times. michel123456, I like your ideas of logical tools of organization such as the two you mentioned, classification and unification Reality sits there begging intelligence to explain and define it. Classifications and unifications are two of the major organizational tools of science and accordingly should be of logic too. Another related principle of both logic and philosophy might be called "Perspectivism". Both logic, philosophy, and science require at least one perspective (a particular point of view or way of looking at something) to be able to organize divergent entities into relationships according to that perspective -- change the perspective and the relationships might change.

Since "invariant" has a somewhat different meaning as an adjective than as a noun, I thought I'd see if this could add clarification. Noun: A function, quantity, or property that remains unchanged when a specified transformation is applied. Adjective: Never changing. As a noun "invariant," is a characteristic of something whereby a mathematical description of it, by quantity, set, or function, does not change during mathematical transformation, such as a set inverse or Lorenz transformation for instance. Some simple examples would be the speed of light according to Special Relativity; an electron as a point particle, according to the standard model; the original Big Bang entity, according to the BB model; quarks, according to some quark models, etc. http://en.wikipedia....t_%28physics%29 As an adjective, invariant means in common language "not changing."

The standard cosmological model, called the Big Bang Theory, proposes the universe is expanding based upon the observed redshift of galaxies. Most other cosmological models also believe the universe is expanding based upon the same cosmological redshifts we observe. Only those cosmological models/ theories that propose another explanations for these galactic redshifts believe the universe is not expanding. Standard model theorists believe the universe is expanding based upon several possibilities, the original bang, the Inflation hypothesis, the dark energy hypothesis, a cosmological constant of some kind (anti-gravity), and several other ideas related to the expansion of space.

Of course you should believe in what has been observed and what technology uses such as quantum tunneling. I just suggested that you should not necessarily believe in any explanations of it that does not seem logical to you. I do not think I can explain my point as well as giving examples: Quantum tunneling: As EM radiation of certain frequencies are focused at what would seem to be a solid barrier some photons from time to time can get through. This is a know fact called quantum tunneling. We know that ordinary solids block light and most other EM radiation below X-ray frequencies. In lower frequencies it is still know that for "thin" material, some photons can get through. How? In quantum theory they just say they tunnel through, end of story This is not so bad as giving some kind of bogus explanation for tunneling like explanations concerning the double slit experiment. A logical explanation would be that the background field is made up of elementary particles such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, quantum strings/ springs, etc. etc. to name a few of the possibilities. So when EM radiation is produced it consists of both particles and waves. The particles "surf" the waves. An atom is almost entirely space. Some of these waves of EM radiation pass through the atom in wave form even though the photons are stopped by the vortex the atom creates by its spin. As these waves pass through they pick up a few pieces/ strands of field material on the other side of the matter "barrier" which show up as photons using a scintillation counter. This leads scientists to think that the photons have somehow tunneled when in fact they have not. The simplest example is the double slit experiment. The classical Quantum Theory interpretation is that a single photon passes through both slits at the same time and then interferes with itself. The same explanation is given for electrons. Does this make logical sense? A very simple, logical explanation is that photons "surfing" a physical wave are produced. The wave goes through both slits while a single photon goes through just one slit. The waves travel through both slits and interfere with the path of the photon creating the interference wave patterns we observe. This is a very simple explanation, the one preferred by De Broglie and Shroedinger to name just a few. The bottom line is this hypothesis: there is always a relatively simple, valid explanation consistent with common logic, for everything observed even if such explanations have not been recognized or discovered by mainstream theorists. If valid, this principle would be considered another simplicity principle like Ocamm's. A logical implication of this principle would be that everything in reality is relatively simple and totally logical. / uncool, Or better, that matter (instead of mass) intrinsically has energy. This has been known for maybe 70 years that atoms and atomic particles have spin. It is now called angular momentum because they mistakenly, in my opinion, choose not to recognize it as real spin since real spin might violate present assertions of Quantum Theory. This spin, I believe, is the expression of the internal energy that matter must overtly express and is one of the primary causes of changes in the universe that we describe as time.

This is one possibility being considered but eternity is a very long time which if it became the mainstream version, then the BB model would become an infinite model like cosmological models of yore.

mississippichem, I think you are making sense in your above statements which means you are logical My opinion is that you should not believe any of the above non-logical aspects of Quantum Theory. One might start by understanding that there are reasons why these assertions have been made. Eventually I think everything related to Quantum Theory will be replaced because they are simply wrong. The only thing that will be left will be the QM which is strictly mathematical and statistical. I think the explanations of it all will be totally replaced once it is realized that there is a physical background field which can explain everything observed with great simplicity. As for me, I have nothing against complexity other than that in many cases, I believe, it is created unnecessarily In my opinion reality is not well understood today at any level. If it were properly revealed, I think, it would have a simplicity that could easily be explained. In my opinion most standard theoretical models today do not look for underlying simplicities but instead prefer to keep rephrasing the wrong explanations in ever increasing epicycles. As an example, I believe there is nothing in Quantum Theory that cannot be simply and correctly explained by alternative possibilities concerning a background field. Quantum Theory I think is a prime example of a complicated theory whereby I said and believe that "the more complicated a theory, the more likely that it is wrong"-- which is the subject of this thread.

I discussed two well-known alternatives to natural selection. There are a number of other hypothesis that you can find by Googling "alternatives to natural selection." Most of these hypothesis that you can find are not considered mainstream, and many seem speculative at best, in my opinion. I agree with your statement starting with the word "Surprises." But otherwise if you cannot understand what I am saying then ask questions. Using sarcasm is simply rude and convinces nobody.

What is more important is the logical approach that we both take. From this, true discussion can really take place. It seems another individual here in the sci forum and logic club is newts, whereby all of us seem to consider verbal logic as essential, if not quintessential

Since I am a theorist, I believe, assert, and have proposed that time is one of the simplest concepts of all to understand, the definition being: Time is an interval that can be measured and understood by the changes that occur within the field and matter between any two instances. Of course this definition is not a standard of any kind. The key word concerning a synonym for time is "change." From this definition alone we might then discuss time as it relates to logic. Again I think that causality of the universe may not be as simple a concept as time is, but it also is not complicated. The universe is either finite or infinite concerning times past. Looking up the definition of both words "finite" or "infinite," it seems easy to realize that it is not logically possible that the universe could have had an external cause, that its cause must have been innate such as potential energy. We also have to deal with the same definition of "universe." The definition that I am using is that the universe is everything that exists. . I believe the universe has both outside and inside limits, at any point in time, concerning the macro and micro scales respectively. This assertion is theory as apposed to logic, however. I do like your ideas since I believe these macro and micro limits change over time, both increasing in their extension.

It would seem that the active genes which determine species were originally acquired by mutation. Much of the inactive genes were also acquired by mutation. Of course there are other factors involved, some of which have been discussed. The largest secondary player briefly discussed was epigenetics. There are at least two other known players than mutation that assist in genetic flow and species determination. The first one involves "epi-genetic speciation," also having other names, and the second agent is called "cross genetic flow," also having other names to it. These two are not exactly in competition with natural selection but certainly play some part in genetic flow and speciation in general but ultimately involve natural selection to continue the existence and/or "improvements" of new species. I will briefly explain the details of each: Both of these processes are a type of instant speciation. There are several other known and possible agents for speciation (more speculative) that I won't discuss. First concerning epi-genetic speciation: It involves external agents like radiation, many types of chemicals, whether natural or organic via food, ingested, inhaled, puncture wounds, etc., or internal errant excretion processes. All organisms have two systems concerning there genetic character. One is called its gene structure each of which contains long stands of DNA. And secondly their epi-genetic system, which determines which DNA strands of particular genes are active and which are not (turned on or off). For all organisms most DNA strands concerning potentially active strands, are inactive (turned off). Through epigenetic changes through the mentioned processes, conceivably a new species could be created by a single individual, usually a female (in plants or animals) when sex is involved. Some of the same processes can also create DNA mutations leading to evolutionary changes by random processes which are then tested by natural selection. Some of the known epigenetic changes can be cause by radiation, by eating a foreign food/ material for instance, or random processes. The ovum DNA might be changed by foreign or aberrant internal agents in rare cases. In such cases, if a change in the genes themselves (long stands of DNA where there is a change in turning DNA on or off) occur by chance, some offspring may not be able to breed with the main stock and may only be able to bread with their brothers and sisters which have the same epi-genetic characteristics. This epi-genetic change(s) may also cause an individual to look different so that in one generation speciation has occurred. It is theory in that it has never been observed in nature but it is fact in that such epigenetic changes have occurred in the lab, primarily through radiation. Some epigenetic speciation is also thought to involve Lemarckism which relates to lifetime changes within an individual which can possibly effect its offspring in rare instances. The other agent of speciation is called cross genetic flow, which also concerns a one-step process of speciation. In its most common form it involves viruses or bacteria getting into the DNA of animals (or plants) from their blood stream into their ovaries of testes. Accordingly before an animal is born and during the time of their development. If an genetic invasion happens during this formative time then the ovaries or testes will have genetic variations that can be greatly replicated in the animals reproductive organs. The animals themselves most often will be normal physically to others of their species but offspring may only be fertile concerning mating with some of its brothers or sisters respectively and may not be able to reproduce with the parent stock of animals. Again in one generation a new species might be created in this way with greatly different characteristics. The new species does not have to be better adapted, it only needs to be able to eat and reproduce with its own kind and then it will survive as a new species. All of these occurrences are rare in nature but we are aware of both viral and bacterial stands of DNA in our own genetics concerning all humans. These DNA strands do not have to be active but they change the folding of our DNA which determines which DNA sequences in our genome are turned on and off -- so without at least some of them, we would not be the same. The same processes described above for animals also apply to plants. There are a great many things about evolution that we still do not know or understand but you can believe that natural selection will probably never be replaced as the dominant player concerning gene development, speciation, and evolution in general.

I'm buying your comments 1-5 as being totally valid My comment concerning Point 4. The universe could be finite in times past but a timeless entity of some ilk could be the cause of it according to logic alone, hence my dance with words . As to point #6 I believe describing the characteristics of matter as being intrinsic is valid theory. Ultimately, I believe, there is a structural level of substance/ matter beyond which there are no constituent parts. This however is theory alone and presently might not be considered a principle of logic.

starlarvae, There are lots of well know variations to evolution other than natural selection. But the model of natural selection is so well documented by evidence that you could bet your life, my life, and your family's life against a six pack that the theory is valid and still be certain that you have taken advantage of some misguided young-Earth creationist. In the next 50 years plus or minus, this theory will move into the "proven" category like the Earth is round theory. Most other present mainstream theories will not last that long and will certainly be replaced in total, in my opinion, so I believe you are totally concerned with the wrong theoretical target. The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming and is the primary facet of evolution as a whole which has a number of known variations unrelated to natural selection but still totally consistent with the over-all evolution model. "Seeing things that nobody expected" is not a valid criticism since alternative explanations are almost never available to the public, press, or mainstream theorists at any level since it can only be found in alternative journals which nobody reads. Almost everything that can be imagined can be found there. Addressing your concerns one by one.1. Junk DNA. It has been very well known for at least 30 years that most DNA of all organisms are inactive and seem to serve no purpose. 2. Conservation of DNA. It has also long been know, for at least 30 years, that epigenetics is a major player in evolution and that genes alone are only a part of the game. Epigenetics not only determines which genes are turned on or off but that junk DNA determines how the genome is folded which determines which genes are turned on or off. With epigenetics much less gene variation is required between organisms. 3. Genetic switches. Although regulatory genes are not junk, whether they are turned on or off for a particular gene sequence. is related to DNA folding and consequently junk DNA. 4. Anticipatory genes: Are nothing special. They are genes that control DNA sequences that are more readily influenced by internal environmental factors such as hormonal and other protein produced internal chemistry. This is an active part of research today concerning which genes might be influenced by organic chemistry and drugs. None of this knowledge challenges the present day theory of evolution in any way nor challenges the original natural selection model. Most of these factors have long been known to be different avenues of evolution other than only natural selection.