Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not exactly; spacetime is itself an explanatory model. Science is trying to understand the observations from which models such as spacetime are derived. Promising lines of enquiry include those in which spacetime is emergent from a more fundamental context.Science is attempting to understand space time, even though space time may not lend itself to theoretical definition.
This paradox was presented first (Cantor was aware of it) and Cantor did not think that it invalidated his system. (Alternative Axiomatic Set Theories).Like I said, they're taken to be true for the system in which they're used. They may not be true in other systems. See Alternative Axiomatic Set Theories.
The concept of infinity creates paradoxes in mathematics, Cantor was not being honest.Infinity is used in mathematics all the time. There are even different degrees of infinity. These ideas were pioneered by a man named Georg Cantor, who was a devout Christian, and believed that his theories were given to him directly by God.
We don't need a contemporary record of Jesus, because we have the historical record.Yes, that's correct, there are no contemporary records of Jesus or his death.
The point remains that axioms define the truths of particular system(s), they're not universal.This paradox was presented first (Cantor was aware of it) and Cantor did not think that it invalidated his system. (Alternative Axiomatic Set Theories).
Of course his system was invalid, he could not accept that the paradox was self evident.
Axioms don't define truths, axioms are accepted as truth statements.The point remains that axioms define the truths of particular system(s), they're not universal.
Theory or hypothesis?Then show how his theories are invalid.
Not unless you admit the obvious.Do you agree there are no contemporary sources of Jesus?
Hi David. The predictions emanating the BB/singularity that have been measured are background microwaves (those discovering it were awarded Nobel prizes) and the measurement of gravitational waves. In my discussion about what constitutes evidence, my definition is focused on that which can be measured and particularly where it has the capacity to be replicated.To make the claim that there existed a singularity, is not a claim that is subject to a scientific test or even to falsification. The claim of the existence of a singularity, is a claim that an entity existed before the natural laws of science even existed. This claim should be rejected by the scientific community. Science is defined as observation, measurement, repeatable experiments, hard evidence supporting a valid theory through objective agreement.
Science cannot progress unless an idea can be tested and is subject to being falsified.
Any claim, theory, hypothesis, that cannot be tested is not in the domain of science.
The Big Bang as a scientific explanation is mere science fiction.
The Big Bang at the initial phase (singularity) is undefined, unbounded, not finite, thus cannot be measured or tested!
Likewise.I'll take this as a "yes."
Try transfinite cardinality just for starters.
Is this not science? This research applies Evidence of natural selection and yields practical results.....
Statistical power to detect disease variants can be increased by weighting candidates by their evidence of natural selection. To demonstrate that this theoretical idea works in practice, we performed an association study of 10 putative resistance variants in 471 severe malaria cases and 474 controls from the Luo in Kenya. We replicated associations at HBB (P=.0008) and CD36 (P=.03) but also showed that the same variants are unusually differentiated in frequency between the Luo and Yoruba (who historically have been exposed to malaria) and the Masai and Kikuyu (who have not been exposed). This empirically demonstrates that combining association analysis with evidence of natural selection can increase power to detect risk variants by orders of magnitude—up to P=.000018 for HBB and P=.00043 for CD36.
Combining Evidence of Natural Selection with Association Analysis Increases Power to Detect Malaria-Resistance Variants - ScienceDirect
.........................................................
How about this? Science?
Genes evolving under strong purifying selection are predicted to include those involved in essential mechanisms of host defense, variation in which should lead to severe disorders.16 This prediction is supported by genome-wide data, because Mendelian disease genes are enriched in signals of purifying selection.8,9,17 Conversely, genes evolving adaptively—through positive or balancing selection (e.g., HBB [MIM: 141900], DARC [MIM: 613665], FUT2 [MIM: 182100], the HLA locus genes, ABO blood group genes, and TRIM5 [MIM: 608487])—are usually more permissive to functional variation, which can exert a protective effect against infections.2,4,7,18 These signals of adaptive evolution in immune-related genes, tending to be recent and population specific, further emphasize the important role of pathogens in local adaptation.
Besides the occurrence of novel mutations, functional variants transmitted through admixture represent another potential source of adaptive variation. Recent data provided evidence that 1%–6% of modern Eurasian genomes were inherited from ancient hominins, such as Neandertals or Denisovans,19–21with specific genomic regions presenting up to 64% of Neandertal ancestry.22In the context of immunity, there is increasing evidence to suggest that modern humans have acquired advantageous variation through admixture with ancient hominins, as documented by candidate gene approaches for HLA class I genes, STAT2 (MIM: 600556), or the OAS gene cluster (MIM: 164350, 603350).23–25
Genomic Signatures of Selective Pressures and Introgression from Archaic Hominins at Human Innate Immunity Genes - ScienceDirect
..........................................
Or this, still not science?
As modern humans dispersed from Africa throughout the world, they encountered and interbred with archaic hominins, including Neanderthals and Denisovans [1, 2]. Although genome-scale maps of introgressed sequences have been constructed [3–6], considerable gaps in knowledge remain about the functional, phenotypic, and evolutionary significance of archaic hominin DNA that persists in present-day individuals. Here, we describe a comprehensive set of analyses that identified 126 high-frequency archaic haplotypes as putative targets of adaptive introgression in geographically diverse populations. These loci are enriched for immune-related genes (such as OAS1/2/3, TLR1/6/10, and TNFAIP3) and also encompass genes (including OCA2 and BNC2) that influence skin pigmentation phenotypes. Furthermore, we leveraged existing and novel large-scale gene expression datasets to show many positively selected archaic haplotypes act as expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), suggesting that modulation of transcript abundance was a common mechanism facilitating adaptive introgression. Our results demonstrate that hybridization between modern and archaic hominins provided an important reservoir of advantageous alleles that enabled adaptation to out-of-Africa environments.
Archaic Hominin Admixture Facilitated Adaptation to Out-of-Africa Environments - ScienceDirect
............................................
Or this.....
Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence - ScienceDirect
maybe this one?....
Phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes from DNA sequences in the psi-eta-globin region
I could go on and paste tens of thousands of links to scientific research, please not that the first link I posted actually yields practical results that could be used to improve the lives of many people. If you still think that the Theory of Evolution is not based on science then I can only suggest that you are (a) confused about what science actually is or (b) so entrenched in your world view that your ability to think objectively is crippled by cognitive dissonance.
"Or this, still not science?
As modern humans dispersed from Africa throughout the world, they encountered and interbred with archaic hominins, including Neanderthals and Denisovans [1, 2]. Although genome-scale maps of introgressed sequences have been constructed [3–6], considerable gaps in knowledge remain about the functional, phenotypic, and evolutionary significance of archaic hominin DNA that persists in present-day individuals. Here, we describe a comprehensive set of analyses that identified 126 high-frequency archaic haplotypes as putative targets of adaptive introgression in geographically diverse populations.
Standard mathematics based on the standard axioms of mathematics is universal in science.Axioms don't define truths, axioms are accepted as truth statements.
Mathematics is universal in science.
So you are saying that you can mathematically demonstrate your model of a universe with out gravity?
Please do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?