- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,727
- 52,531
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Yes, it is.No, it's not.
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.
Yes, it is.
From your own link:
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects.
According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment illustrates the counterintuitiveness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a typical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Oh quote mining, you so crazy.
I was asked to comment on something, and I commented that it is a reductio ad absurdum ... then backed it up with Wikipedia.LOL
Expect AV to bow out of this thread for a while to let us forget his wackiness.
I was asked to comment on something, and I commented that it is a reductio ad absurdum ... then backed it up with Wikipedia.
And I'm the one that's wacky?
I guess so ... why?Isn't asking a question, that when answered would be a violation of the rules, called baiting ?
I was asked to comment on something, and I commented that it is a reductio ad absurdum ... then backed it up with Wikipedia.
And I'm the one that's wacky?
You are so funny.Oh no, Im not calling you liars. Im simply letting you know what Im told by you guys. Im told a scientific theory is never proven to be true. So you can never tell the truth, can you?
Including when you raise people from the dead and feed thousands of people with a few measly fish?But we do repeat what Jesus did. And we obtain results just as He predicted. Every time.
That is called ontogeny, or development for those not speaking Jargonese. Evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population across generations. Notice how a tadpole is not a population and doesn't span generations.Probably nothing, since the evolution of tadpoles into frogs is an observed fact and not an imaginary theory.
What on earth is higher aceldama?Well, I think the default position in higher aceldama is that humans "develop" from fetal tissue, with the fetal tissue turning into a human being literally in a moment's time ... that moment being called "childbirth".
In what sense? I do hope you're not referring to Haeckel's recapitulation thingy. That crap was recognised as nonsense even before he came up with it.According to one high-caliber scientist, human beings share the same linear stages of embryonic growth as: fish, salamanders, turtles, chickens, pigs, cows, and rabbits.
What does the Precambrian rabbit have to do with embryology?Some scientists deny this today, stating that rabbits in the Precambrian will disprove evolution.
Number 2 is the second largest human chromosome out of only 23. There's bound to be a few intelligence-related genes on it.Why indeed. However, our fused chromosome is not the sole genetic difference between us and the great apes. I'm not sure what, if anything this fusion did to human phylogeny, but there is evidence that human intelligence is related to that particular chromosome. Coincidence? Serendipity? Who knows...
That's... kind of... in bad taste.You could go now; Why wait, after all you are going there anyway!
True, but that would mean the corresponding chimp DNA has the same intelligence-related genes - assuming the fusion is what caused intelligence.Number 2 is the second largest human chromosome out of only 23. There's bound to be a few intelligence-related genes on it.
Maybe the fusion is what allows two otherwise unrelated genes to team up? Sort of like how the bacterial flagellum came from their 'hypodermic needle'.Unless there are long-range regulatory interactions between the two arms that wouldn't have worked with the genes on different chromosomes, I'm not sure how this kind of fusion makes any difference to the phenotype.
(Considering that human and chimp chromosomes are extremely syntenic [see here for #2], if human chromosome 2 is enriched in intelligence-related genes, it's a good bet that the two homologous chimp chromosomes also are. So barring evidence for fusion-related regulatory changes, my vote goes to coincidence.)
That would have happened by new protein-protein interactions, which has little to do with where the genes are. (Unless being coexpressed gives them an opportunity to evolve a new interaction.)True, but that would mean the corresponding chimp DNA has the same intelligence-related genes - assuming the fusion is what caused intelligence.
Maybe the fusion is what allows two otherwise unrelated genes to team up? Sort of like how the bacterial flagellum came from their 'hypodermic needle'.
As far as genome browsers go, Ensemble's is definitely my favourite. It's a pity most of the genomes I'm occupationally interested in are not thereOh, and I'm going to have a lot of fun on that website
Yup. Genetics is fascinating, but I'm out of my depth!That would have happened by new protein-protein interactions, which has little to do with where the genes are. (Unless being coexpressed gives them an opportunity to evolve a new interaction.)
The thing is, genomic regions can interact without being physically linked to each other. I don't know much about chromatin domains and stuff, but it certainly seems that they can form between chromosomes.
For interactions that need physical linkage, long-range enhancers come to mind. They can cover pretty big distances (example, also), but I'm not sure they work across telomeres and centromeres
Anyway, unless someone directs us to an actual analysis of the effect of the fusion, this is all a load of speculation...
Which ones are those?As far as genome browsers go, Ensemble's is definitely my favourite. It's a pity most of the genomes I'm occupationally interested in are not there
I think position effects are pretty common in gene expression, so I would expect at least some genes to have altered expression levels simply because of the new location of the centromere and the loss of two telemeres. But that's very general and vague, and I have no clue about what the specific effects would have been.Unless there are long-range regulatory interactions between the two arms that wouldn't have worked with the genes on different chromosomes, I'm not sure how this kind of fusion makes any difference to the phenotype.
Looking at what I put in bold from your quote, are you suggesting that past forensic events cannot be deduced from physical evidence, or the scientific method cannot deduce the past from physical evidence? Would you elaborate please?
Absolutely HOGWASH. It is impossible to see or observe the present. When you look at the sun you are observing it as it was 8 minutes ago.
Not to mention he is talking about scientific evidence as used in a courtroom, not scientific evidence for research.
Nice quote mining effort. Especially cutting off th.... <snip>
How can you tell an intelligent gene from a dumb gene? Do they get more A's? Sorry I could not resist.There's bound to be a few intelligence-related genes on it.
Follow the link for details.
Not at all... you did it.Quote mining is impossible if the source material is provided.
I agree. You should also always lock your car when you leave it. That doesn't mean its OK to steal a CD player from a car if it isn't locked.People should always read the original source material and decide for themselves their conclusions.
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?