Troll free science

ParallaxMan: Free for all science discussions except trolls who will be removed immediately.

ParallaxMan: There’s no denying that life evolves. There’s so much proof. We were once fishes then elementary mammals, apes and now humans. Our bodies contain the remnants of earlier form, some now obsolete, and eventuality these organs and features that we no longer use will disappear.

Some obsolete features of the human body:

Wisdom Teeth. ...
Coccyx. ...
The External Ear. ...
Male Nipples. ...
Arrector Pili. ...
Plica Semilunaris.
Spleen

If we had been created by God then why is so much of our physiology unused?

It is obvious that, as we evolved through different forms, parts of us were no longer needed and, sooner or later, we will lose them completely.

The race is on. The virus is quickly evolving to become the dominant species. Sure, we use our immense brains to develop vaccines, but each time we introduce a new defence, the virus again evolves an immunity to it.

There are some humans, however, that are naturally immune to these viruses. they are evolving. The others will not survive.

We are still evolving.

ParallaxMan: When mammals first evolved, they were female. It wasn’t until 180 million years ago that men evolved from women when the y chromosome began to differ from the x.

Know your place, gentlemen. Our closest common ancestor was female.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423151035.htm

The study shows that the same sex-determining gene, named SRY, in placentals and marsupials had formed in the common ancestor of both lineages around 180 million years ago. Another gene, AMHY, is responsible for the emergence of Y chromosomes in monotremes and appeared some 175 million years ago. Both genes, which according to Henrik Kaessmann are "involved in testicular development ," have thus emerged " nearly at the same time but in a totally independent way ."

The nature of the sex-determination system present in the common ancestor of all mammals remains unclear, given that mammalian Y chromosomes did not yet exist at that time -- at least not those discovered in this study. So what triggered back then that an individual was born male or female? Was this determination linked to other sex chromosomes, or even environmental factors such as the temperature? The latter is not an unreasonable scenario, given that temperature determines sex in present-day crocodiles. As far as mammals are concerned, "the question remains open ," concludes Diego Cortez.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423151035.htm

ParallaxMan: Smithsonian national museum of natural history

How are humans and monkeys related?

A distant relative

https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/frequently-asked-questions

Apes and Humans

While Apes and humans do not have external tails, they do have internal remnants of them at the While Apes and humans do not have external tails, they do have internal remnants of them at the lower end of their vertebral columns. These consist of the sacrum and the coccyx bones. lower end of their vertebral columns. These consist of the sacrum and the coccyx bones.

The Primates: Apes
palomar.edu

ParallaxMan: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐩𝐞𝐬

In contrast to Great Apes, who have 48 chromosomes, modern humans and likely Neandertals and Denisovans have and had, respectively, 46 chromosomes. The reduction in chromosome number was caused by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 (HSA2) and may have contributed to the reproductive barrier with Great Apes.

Given the high structural complexity of the genomic region flanking the HSA2 fusion site on chromosome 2q13 and the fact that no HSA2 junction polymorphisms have been identified in modern humans, it is very unlikely that HSA2 fusion was a recurrent genomic rearrangement. I propose that HSA2 arose only once likely in one early modern human male and was subsequently transmitted and accumulated as a heterozygous event, converted to the homozygous state due to inbreeding in a small “bottleneck” polygamous clan (Fig. 2), and spread in the succeeding populations

The most comprehensive comparative analyses of the human and chimpanzee transcriptomes of 21,000 protein-coding genes active in brain, heart, liver, kidney, and testis revealed that the patterns of tissue-specific gene expression and gene sequences are markedly similar [21]. I hypothesize that heterozygous and homozygous genomic loss of the putative gene(s) embedded in the repetitive subtelomeric sequences might have played a more important evolutionary role than deregulation of gene expression and/or a change of function of the genes flanking the HSA2 fusion site.


https://molecularcytogenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13039-016-0283-3

ParallaxMan: Creationism and the Evidence for Evolution

Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research. Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains. Undisturbed strata with simple unicellular organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates precede vertebrates; nowhere has this sequence been found inverted. Fossils from adjacent strata are more similar than fossils from temporally distant strata. The most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record is that descent with modification has taken place as stated in evolutionary theory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

ParallaxMan: TheOrigin of the Universe, Earth, and Life


The term "evolution" usually refers to the biological evolution of living things. But the processes by which planets, stars, galaxies, and the universe form and change over time are also types of "evolution." In all of these cases there is change over time, although the processes involved are quite different. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230211/

In the late 1920s the American astronomer Edwin Hubble made a very interesting and important discovery. Hubble made observations that he interpreted as showing that distant stars and galaxies are receding from Earth in every direction. Moreover, the velocities of recession increase in proportion with distance, a discovery that has been confirmed by numerous and repeated measurements since Hubble's time. The implication of these findings is that the universe is expanding.

Hubble's hypothesis of an expanding universe leads to certain deductions. One is that the universe was more condensed at a previous time. From this deduction came the suggestion that all the currently observed matter and energy in the universe were initially condensed in a very small and infinitely hot mass. A huge explosion, known as the Big Bang, then sent matter and energy expanding in all directions.

The origins of life cannot be dated as precisely, but there is evidence that bacteria-like organisms lived on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, and they may have existed even earlier, when the first solid crust formed, almost 4 billion years ago. These early organisms must have been simpler than the organisms living today. Furthermore, before the earliest organisms there must have been structures that one would not call "alive" but that are now components of living things. Today, all living organisms store and transmit hereditary information using two kinds of molecules: DNA and RNA. Each of these molecules is in turn composed of four kinds of subunits known as nucleotides. The sequences of nucleotides in particular lengths of DNA or RNA, known as genes, direct the construction of molecules known as proteins, which in turn catalyze biochemical reactions, provide structural components for organisms, and perform many of the other functions on which life depends. Proteins consist of chains of subunits known as amino acids. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA therefore determines the sequence of amino acids in proteins; this is a central mechanism in all of biology.

Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radio-telescopes. Scientists have concluded that the "building blocks of life" could have been available early in Earth's history.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230211/

Jannik X: Is the Big Bang Going Boom?

JX: The James Webb Telescope thingy is presenting some “technical dif-fick-ulties” for conventional Big Bang theory. This vid is fairly informative – and brief. Feel free to take a look-see.



Some key lines:
3:29 There shouldn't be such well-formed galaxies only 500 million years after the big bang as seen by Webb, so what exactly is happening? Panic has already begun as scientists are now trying to fit these galaxies into the existing model of cosmological inflation.

4:36: The new findings build on previous
research were scientists reported that
despite coming from the very beginnings
of the universe the galaxies were as
mature as our own Milky Way;
and a new paper has appeared to confirm
those findings by stress testing the
galaxies to better understand how they formed.
It suggests that if scientists have not
made a mistake we may be missing some
fundamental information about the
Universe.

5:03 (Michio Kaku speaking) “Now it takes many billions of
years to create a Galaxy like the Milky
Way galaxy with 100 billion stars many
billions of years old. But the James Webb
Telescope has identified six galaxies
that exist half a billion years after
the big bang that are up to 10 times
bigger than the Milky Way galaxy. There
should not be primordial galaxies that
are bigger than the Milky Way galaxy
that are only half a billion years old.
Something is wrong.”

7:22 In other words, what we thought about the Big Bang is not quite adding up, is it? More Webb data will reveal a plethora of
evidences that can make or break the Big
Bang. Or, who knows, maybe the Big Bang did
happen, but what triggered it is a
different story altogether,
like Newton's laws of gravity were not
wrong, they were just a subset of
Einstein's general relativity.

JX: Well??? Is the Big Bang theory gonna go ka-BOOM, or will it boomerang into some new astro-funky theory of cosmogenesis? Or iz sumtin’ else a-goin’ on here??

ParallaxMan: Firstly, I’m not criticising, but links to peer reviewed papers on this subject would be hugely convincing. I’ve never supported the big bang theory myself, despite the research in favour, and there is much criticism of the idea. Fred Hoyle suggested a steady state universe. Roger Penrose purported that a big bang wasn’t the beginning but that something else existed previously rather than nothing at all. My own difficulty with the big bang is remote galaxies thatare accelerating. There must be some force motivating them, but what… dark matter?

Incidentally, simply because nobody yet understands the nature of dark matter doesn’t imply that God dtun it.

Jannik X:
PM: …links to peer reviewed papers on this subject would be hugely convincing.

JX: Are you saying the lovable Michio Kaku isn’t gold standard? Jeesh. He’s one of my faves.

As per peer review: all that glitters isn’t gold. 37 medical journals were duped into publishing a paper entitled, “Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.” LOL

Unfortunately, the standards in peer review these days just aren’t like in those good old days, assuming those good old days existed. Do you know the way to San Jose, by any chance? Just kidding. (But if you know how to find El Dorado feel free to FYI me. I’m lookin’.)

For some damn funny s##t pranking on the peer review machine, look here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholarly_publishing_stings

PM: Fred Hoyle suggested a steady state universe.
JX: That he did, but he then backflipped to accept the Big Banger – if I recall correctly. Too bad. If you live long enough just about anything can happen – like me winning the lottery. Steady state may be back in the game. And it seems to me like we got ourselves a real fluid situation going on here, kind of like when you’re at the club and all the foam bubbles start to hit amid the psychedelic laser lights. Ahh, let the good times roll.

PM: Roger Penrose purported that a big bang wasn’t the beginning but that something else existed previously rather than nothing at all.
JX: If I understand him, I think Roger the elderly Dodger thought the universe expands and collapses, expands and collapses, expands and collapses… like some kind of freaking cosmological accordion in a late ‘60’s Appalachian jugband jam. But maybe I’m jus’ confizzled.

PM: Incidentally, simply because nobody yet understands the nature of dark matter doesn’t imply that God dtun it.
JX: Who brought up God? According to doom brother Nietzsche, God is dead. Haven’t you heard the news?
jannik x's Picture

ParallaxMan: Lol snappy come back and indeed. I mentioned God before one of the forum’s creationist leapt into the fray. Given time, everyone changes their view.

axocanth: One thing that is made clear from the above is that commonly heard pronouncements about scientific theories (unlike religious claims, say) being "falsifiable" are to be taken with a healthy, skeptical pinch of salt.

Some would have us believe that when the facts/evidence "contradict" a theory, or when observation is "at odds" with the predictions of a theory, the theory has been 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒆, thus must be abandoned.

Well, here we have a situation where the observational evidence is 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒂 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒆 (note the language) at odds with the predictions of the theory: galaxies are not behaving in a manner predicted by the Big Bang theory or Inflation theory.

Does it 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 follow that the theory is false -- that the theory has been 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅?

Nope.


All that follows logically is that 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒔 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆.


It may be that the theory itself is false.

It may also be that the theory is true, and that the problem lies somewhere else, in what's known as the "auxiliary hypotheses".


One can consistently argue that the theory is just fine; the problem is that we are "missing some fundamental information about the Universe" or that "there must be some force motivating [these galaxies], but what… dark matter?".

Indeed, that is precisely what was argued above.

In short, logic cannot tell us where the problem lies.



So, what observation, what evidence, what data 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 definitively falsify the theories in question.

Ans: Nothing.



Conclusion: The idea of a definitive-logical falsification in empirical science is just another myth, I'm afraid. A theory that might 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒓 to be in trouble can always be defended.

ParallaxMan: I agree. To err is human, and the problems lie not with remote and exotic galaxies but our methods and principles of observation. The 2df red shift galaxy survey has already mapped positions, velocities and dimensions of cosmic objects and that’s sufficient for regions of the universe within an observable distance, but now with the aid of hubble, Kepler and james webb telescopes we see further and deeper into the cosmos, and that’s where the math and precision fails. The inaccuracies are ours, not the fault of the universe.

Jannik X: Does Anyone Really Understand Relativity?

One axiom of the Logical Positivists was that a good philosopher should need no interpreter. If you have read Hegel – among many others – you will probably appreciate the comment. But Science is different, right? It’s just the facts, ma’am. And some hypotheses to explain the facts, ma’am. And the hypotheses are rigorously tested, the wheels are kicked and all sorts of obstacle courses have to be successfully run before being raised to the prestigious level of a “scientific theory,” right? Sure, sure, sure. But sometimes it’s tough. Quantum is so baffling that it has many interpretations – Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Pilot Wave etc. But is Relativity like that? Is there simply “a” theory of relativity, or is there something more like “interpretations” of Relativity? That, the latter idea, is the essential thesis of this interesting video by Dialect; and I thought rolling stones tripping through the Multiverse might find it interesting.



Some key points:
0:00 Almost every approach to teaching
Relativity begins the same,
you get a set of pseudo-mystical
sounding statements: time and space are
relative;
the universe has a speed limit;
there is no ether; reality is a
four-dimensional entity exhibiting
curvature, and so on.

0:25 Then you are told certain empirical
experiments prove the math, and the math
in turn proves the philosophy.
But does a mathematical formalism ever
necessarily necessitate a single
interpretation?
Certainly this isn't the case with
quantum mechanics.

0:50 Of course, this might lead you to
question: are there other interpretations
of Relativity out there?
And if so, should we be teaching them?

JX: Good question!

2:20 In Relativity, everyone carries on
just as if they were all teaching one in
the same interpretation, the one they
call Einstein's.
The problem is, few people are acquainted
with Einstein's actual work and don't
know that Einstein never really had a
solid interpretation of Relativity.

JX: What!?!?

2:34 … most people teaching Relativity are unaware…
that he didn't believe in the geometrization of gravity; or most
shockingly, that he did believe in the
ether, or at least that he reversed his
stance on it in 1920 when before an
audience at the University of Leiden he
declared that general relativity
necessitates space be endowed with
certain physical qualities, and since the
special theory of relativity does not
compel us to deny ether that therefore
there exists an ether.”

JX: Ether!?!? Serious WOW.

3:26 Indeed, a number of major shifts in
Einstein's interpretation of Relativity
can be traced throughout his lifetime
and he died never really having made up
his mind about what the Theory actually
meant.

JX: I didn’t know that! Maybe I’m just as dumb as my critics say I am. Quien sabe…

3:40 In his wake, he left an immense
philosophical vacuum which modern
physicists are still trying to fill in
with their own ideas today.
The result is an extraordinary and
inordinate confusion which you can see
clearly on display in the wide number of
personal interpretations that
professionals give to their explanations.
Such differing interpretations can be
found in any number of YouTube videos.”

JX: What follows is a critique of Sabina Hossenfelder – one of my fave YouTubers! But Dialect does seem, as far as I can tell, to establish that Sabina’s views of time dilation are a bit confizzled and improvised, as is the case with other YouTubers trying to explain the mYsTeRiEs of Relativity.

10:30 …this just demonstrates our point
that nobody knows exactly what
interpretation of Relativity they are
teaching; and generally they just fill in
the gaps in their understanding with
their own ideas.”

JX: Dialect then argues that the real source of the problem lies in no one understanding time dilation – damn straight I don’t!

11:00 Indeed physicists being unable to make
up their minds about what the meaning of
time dilation actually is is probably
the biggest source of confusion in
relativity and why you get such
backwards ideas like time dilation
causes gravity.

JX: Finally, we get to the big finish. Too bad Dialect couldn’t afford a big band playing with a couple F-14s doing a fly-over.

14:31 …which of course brings us to the real
reason you don't understand Relativity.
You don't understand it because the
people teaching it to you don't
understand it.
At the end of the day this isn't a huge
deal as quantum mechanics demonstrates
that you can teach a formalism just fine
without the accompanying clarity of
philosophical principles.
However, the first step to overcoming a
problem is admitting that you have one;
and relativity, unlike quantum physics,
suffers from a serious case of denial;
but if you, like us, are after the truth,
then you know no harm can come of asking
critical questions and exploring new
Ideas.”

JX: So, does Dialect have a point? Is Relativity something of an “unfinished” theory? Do “interpretations” of Relativity appear due to confusions and aporias within Einstein’s work? Or is Dialect just stoned out of his mind? Hmmm….

Troublinn: It's all relative!

Jannik X: If it's all relative, then isn't it not relative at all? Or is this another logic paradox I don't want to touch with a 10ft pole? Hmmm, definitely dangerous. I wonder how much a 100ft pole costs?

Troublinn: Time Dilation........the universe is 13.8 billion year old give or take a a couple of billion and yet the light from the earliest galaxies has been traveling 30 billion light years......kinda like it took me 16 hours to fly to London but I left 5 minutes ago

Troublinn: lol depends on the wave length and frequency!

Jannik X: Ya know, I CAN think of a play on "wave length" and "frequency" vis a vis tripping the light fantastic, but for the sake of keeping things PG, I'll just keep it to myself. Classy, no?