Strange

There is no experimental support for your claim. But nothing shows that those are relevant. Good job I didn't say that then. I have no idea if you understand how evolution works or not. Perhaps you choose to deliberately misrepresent it and invent strawman arguments. It is clearly possible for a series of incremental changes to produce new or variant proteins, or change the expression of existing genes, and these changes can then be selected by the environment. Trying to argue that is is impossible because the space is too large seems a bit like saying I can't take the next step down the path because there are so many roads in the world to choose from.

Huh? It is if someone wants to use the idea (and they are in the country that you filed the patent).

Of course not. You are saying that something we see cannot be happening. You argument seems to be based on the idea that evolution must be able to jump magically to some arbitrarily distant point in the available space. As that isn't how it works - either in terms of genetic changes or evolution - your argument is just irrelevant (as has been explained repeatedly).

So we can add History of Science to the long list of subjects you know nothing about.

Homework?

I have made exactly the same points before. But, as always, you ignore or forge things that you disagree with and/or don't understand. There are two things here: there is no clear definition of what "the total energy of the Universe" means. So asking if it stays constant is not very meaningful. On the other hand, it is possible that dark energy (for one possible explanation) increases as the universe expands. If so, there is also a chance it will decrease. Whether it increases or decreases might depend on what definition of "the total energy of the Universe" you use. Or maybe it is impossible to say, because there is no suitable definition to say such a thing. What!? Obviously you are totally incapable of understanding a very simple sentence. Here it is again: "the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics." In other words, it is not possible to definitively say if energy is conserved or not. But, of course, the only bit you saw was "The author felt mass is created". That is just an opinion. I don't think you have ever said anything I agree with. (Apart from your occasional admissions that you don't understand anything.) Because it is a consequence of our current best model of how the universe works. There is no reason why we have to be able to say if energy is conserved or not. The "correct" answer might be (and appears to be): "it depends".

If you create a situation where there is no possibility of survival then (obviously) evolution won't be able to function. However, you said "where sources of food are drying up" which implies there is some period where the organisms can still survive. As such, there is a chance that some new mutation will be able to exploit a new food source. If there are sufficient number of individuals and enough time, then this may happen. At which point, those individuals will be more successful and will thrive in the new environment.

By eliminating the combinations that don't work. (But it looks like you are "cleverly" trying to contrive an artificial example where you can suddenly go, "irreducible complexity, I win!". Not all problems can be solved by evolution.)

Neither of those must be true. And number 2 is only true for certain definitions and assumptions. In general it is not true. No, it means there is no clear definition of "total energy" in GR. Which is why it is not possible to say that it "must be constant". Their work is interesting but it is also (as they say) quite speculative. They take an approach to unifying quantum theory and general relativity that is not known to be correct. Their results might be confirmed by further work, in particular a theory of quantum gravity, or they may not. All you can say at the moment is that it is interesting. How can you assume that their work is correct when it is based on the standard cosmological model, but at the same time you reject that model? That doesn't make much sense.

Fairly sure. But I can't immediately find anything to confirm it...

I bet they are glad they include their disclaimer:

No, space-time is not energy. However, it is possible to interpret some part of the curvature of space time (aka gravity) as having energy. And that, in part, accounts for the non-linear nature of gravity in GR (because the energy of the gravitational field also contributes to space-time curvature).

Although I did well at school and college (and even went on to do a Masters) I still have no qualifications beyond those I got at school. This has never been a problem with regard to employment (or even going back to university) and getting some very interesting (and well paid) jobs.

So does natural selection. You have an odd definition of "intelligent". Anyway, you seem to agree that your claim that "evolution is impossible" is a lie.

Did I? I have to say that the mathematics of GR is totally over my head, although I understand some of the simpler solutions derived from the Einstein Field Equations. I have a general understanding of [most of] the concepts involved (and I try not to extrapolate beyond what I have been told by sources I trust).

No it doesn't. It shows that selection is necessary. In that example, it is "intelligent" in the sense that the final goal is known (and rapidly achieved through random changes). There are plenty of other simulations where that is not the case and which therefore model "natural selection". But there isn't really much difference, after all in natural selection the "known" goal is simply survival in the environment. Genetic algorithms are widely used in research and industry for solving problems (because it works). They often come up with solutions that an "intelligent designer" would not have thought of (and therefore there cannot be "intelligent" selection of the sort you claim is required). Either way, it shows that your claim that "evolution is impossible" is just not true. It is an odd sort of "empirical fact" that has no experimental support and is contradicted by evidence.

No it doesn't. What it does demonstrate is that people are constantly looking for better models. Which seems to be what you are demanding that science should do. No one thinks our current understanding is perfect. They understand the problems. Your total lack of understanding does not help clarify the situation.

They really wouldn't. Other waves are not made up of two components. And if you insist on saying there must be two components (for no good reason) then how about space and time. We have far more than a hint. We have a complete (within limits) and very accurate theory. You just need to get some sort of handle on it instead of making things up.

It has struck me or a long time that there a lot of THREEs There is This, that and the other; positive, neagtive and neutral; electrons, muons and tau; three flavours of neutrino; three types of quark colour charge; etc. On the other hand, you missed Space and Time from your list. No. No. No. Things to do with fields and forces (electromagnetism and gravity, for example) are mediated by bosons. NOT fermions. (Although we don't have any complete model of gravitons yet.)

Which demonstrates why your argument is bogus: we do create new words and sentences (and evolution does happen). Which shows that randomness plus selection works. So you have just provided two pieces of evidence against your own argument. Well done. Simply repeating a baseless (and false) assertion is not "establishing" it.

The thing is, if you are talking about waves, then you are really talking about the classical view of electromagnetic radiation (and gravitational waves). In which case, bosons and fermions are irrelevant. On the other hand, if you want to talk about the quantum nature (which we don't yet know how to do for gravity) then bosons are the force carriers for electromagnetism as well as gravity. In either case, electromagnetic waves and/or forces propagate through the medium of the electromagnetic field (and the corresponding boson, the photon). And gravitational waves and/or forces propagate through the medium of the space-time field (and the corresponding boson, the graviton). Fermions don't come into it.

The comments (so far) on that article page are refreshingly sensible. But I'm sure that won't last ...

When I was young, we were taking turns bouncing one of those powerballs off a wall on the other side of the street and then catching it. One of us accidentally (I think) bounced it off a huge window: it bounced back, someone caught it. And then the window collapsed (and we ran like crazy!)

This is known as a hypnic jerk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnic_jerk The next result in my search for that was false awakening (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_awakening) which I experienced quite a lot as a child. I have always assumed it was because I hated school so much, so my subconscious was trying to avoid actually getting up and going to school.

Sound can go through glass (I can hear the traffic outside). But tennis balls can't. Therefore sound (and light) must be a wave.