When I was a boy I recall reading an article about something called Morphogenic feild theory. I sort of implied a collective consciousness or an information feild accessible to all concsiousness. If I recall correctly there have been experiments done whereby a rat of a certain bread and other specifications was placed in a maze and time getting to the cheese. The Rat had to figure out the maze. Then later in another location same species of Rat placed identical maze solves the maze quicker and then in successive identical experiments the Rats performance in the maze improves. Personally I don't buy it. reason would dictate that eventually a Rat would just know the way to the cheese and just go straight there. 🤣

5 minutes ago, n4gix said:

"Extra *******!" There ain't no such thing. We don't need any durn "extra *******" young man, one is enough!

Whahahahahahaaaa!

I am an attention deprived show off so I cant help myself.😒

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

I meant to post this one earlier when the Hubble Deep field image was posted which is indeed monumental But this Deep field from the James Webb is Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaugh

The only reason I prefer the Hubble image is the stars are less obtrusive and there is no gravitational lensing. I keep hoping the James Webb will do another deep field image without these distractions. That would become my favourite.

19 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Reminds me of an episode of "Land of the Lost", where the lost valley was shown to be an artificially created closed pocket universe by the trapped family looking through a telescope... and seeing the backs of their own heads far in the distance.....

 

I see a disturbing problem with that. If they could see the backs of their heads it would be revealed to them that they have bald patches. And I can tell you, that's a very disturbing revelation. 

Martin, I still have a full head of hair.  I wish I were bald so I wouldn't have to bother with it.  As it is I tell the barber to go all the way around with w #2 blade.  I get my hair cut about once a month...when it gets over a half inch long.

Noel

Edited November 21, 20223 yr by birdguy

On 11/20/2022 at 10:59 AM, dmwalker said:

I'm probably misunderstanding your point but, if we exist here through evolution, other lifeforms can exist elsewhere through evolution and, if we exist here to serve some purpose, then the universe exists to serve some purpose and so other lifeforms could exist elsewhere to serve some purpose.

It would be like a zoo. The zoo exists to serve a purpose, namely, preservation and education. Each species of animal exists, independently from and largely unaware of the other species, to serve the same purpose.

If the universe exists to serve some purpose the theory of evolution is wrong because natural selection strictly excludes any teleological principle. If you ask a Darwinist if there is any room in the theory for blueprint they will vehemently reject it. Natural Selection lives and breaths on that. If an experiment or observation could demonstrate a teleological principle in the origin of the species. It would be to Darwin what the Michelson Morley experiment was to Newton.😋

Such an observation might be say, a claw on another planet.

Edited November 21, 20223 yr by FBW737

One more kick in the gut for ET. Contrary to the idea that life began easily from inanimate matter, current interpretations of the evidence supported broadly by Darwinists and geneticist is that all life of earth shares a single cell as its ancestor. Not a single cell organism like the primordial soup cooked a batch of a few million cells. Literally A SINGLE CELL. i.e. one occasion in the entire history of earth when matter randomly founds itself organized in such a way as to be able to replicate itself from the elements around itself and bestow upon its replicas the capacity to mutate while maintaining the capacity to replicate. Apparently, a monumentally rare event that doesn't even happen on the same planet more than one.

There was a quote from a mathematician in the paper I posted earlier and I'll try to paraphrase it. He said that things that have a probability of Zero can still happen.🤪

Edited November 22, 20223 yr by FBW737

10 hours ago, birdguy said:

Martin, I still have a full head of hair.  I wish I were bald so I wouldn't have to bother with it.  As it is I tell the barber to go all the way around with w #2 blade.  I get my hair cut about once a month...when it gets over a half inch long.

Noel

You may want to try it at least once with a zero blade. I used either a 1 or a 2 for years but I like the zero much better.

1 hour ago, W2DR said:

You may want to try it at least once with a zero blade. I used either a 1 or a 2 for years but I like the zero much better.

I alternate between 1 and 2 on an irregular basis depending on the way I feel.  Never tried zero.  I might give it a try sometime.

Noel

I'm a #1 guy myself. It's really depressing that I have more hair on my back and ears than on my head!

I'm glad to see that you guys are back in your wheel house grumbling about your lack of hair and whatnot now that I've put to rest stupid notions about Aliens and whether or not they have hair or claws.

5 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I'm glad to see that you guys are back in your wheel house grumbling about your lack of hair and whatnot now that I've put to rest stupid notions about Aliens and whether or not they have hair or claws.

 

I think its clear you are one of those people. They call it "winding people up" or trolling..

You've put to bed zero notions about anything. 

. "So either Evolution is wrong or there is no life as we know it elsewhere in the universe."

That makes zero sense. Evolution is called a theory, but in the most important respects its fact. Definitive evidence tells us that. "Some" aspects are still debated. Evolution, if anything, makes life in outer space more likely, not less likely. 

As for life in outer space, it would be bizare and illogical to claim it wasnt possible. It doesnt require a genius to understand that and twisted logic doesnt negate it.

My daughters working on my PC. I'll reply to your weird and illogical and biologically incorrect notions later.

Edited November 22, 20223 yr by martin-w

On 11/21/2022 at 12:48 AM, W2DR said:

Great thread. But none of this explains how we can know if the cat is dead or alive without opening the box.

 

That was  Heisenberg's Schrodinger's attempt to point out how our understanding is incomplete. It was a macroscopic analogy for a quantum phenomenon.

In reality, the cat is either alive or dead, not both. In our macroscopic existence the wavefunction collapses well before the experiment commences.

Although I believe most physicists would regard the wavefunction as a mathematical tool rather than a real entity.  

 

Edited November 22, 20223 yr by martin-w

And all these years I thought the cat belonged to Edwin Schrodinger. Maybe Walter Hartwell White Sr. could provide additional clarification.

13 hours ago, FBW737 said:

Not a single cell organism like the primordial soup cooked a batch of a few million cells. Literally A SINGLE CELL

 

No, wrong! Not one single individual cell. Single celled organisms. Its not like one individual cell suddenly exploded and became a multicellular organism. Rather, its multiple cells that come into contact as a result of certain external factors and a beneficial scenario results. 

And it's not like the formation of cells is the beginning. Some biologists regard viruses as "alive" and viruses are smaller than cells, are not composed of cells, and almost certainly existed prior to cells. We can go back further still, to just molecules, tiny molecular clumps, molecular machines. So as you see, it undoubtedly happened in stages, small steps, and where that process began is dependent on what we humans define as life.

 

Quote

Billions of years ago, life crossed a threshold. Single cells started to band together, and a world of formless, unicellular life was on course to evolve into the riot of shapes and functions of multicellular life today, from ants to pear trees to people. It's a transition as momentous as any in the history of life, and until recently we had no idea how it happened.

 

Now, Nagy and other researchers are learning it may not have been so difficult after all. The evidence comes from multiple directions. The evolutionary histories of some groups of organisms record repeated transitions from single-celled to multicellular forms, suggesting the hurdles could not have been so high. Genetic comparisons between simple multicellular organisms and their single-celled relatives have revealed that much of the molecular equipment needed for cells to band together and coordinate their activities may have been in place well before multicellularity evolved. And clever experiments have shown that in the test tube, single-celled life can evolve the beginnings of multicellularity in just a few hundred generations—an evolutionary instant.

The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all | Science | AAAS

 

13 hours ago, FBW737 said:

Apparently, a monumentally rare event that doesn't even happen on the same planet more than one.

 

Wrong! Life may well have evolved many times.

There's a good chance it evolved more than once. In fact recent research suggests that the formation of life may not have been as hard as biologists used to think. See link above. 

Worth remembering that asteroids contain all of the building blocks for life. Even amino acids. And those asteroids are visitors from outer space. 

You can use as much twisted logic and pseudo philosophical ramblings as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that life exists here and can indeed possibly exist elsewhere. To state definitively otherwise is nuts. 

 

Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth

Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth | New Scientist

Quote

 

IN 4.5 billion years of Earthly history, life as we know it arose just once. Every living thing on our planet shares the same chemistry, and can be traced back to “LUCA”, the last universal common ancestor. So we assume that life must have been really hard to get going, only arising when a nigh-on-impossible set of circumstances combine.

Or was it? Simple experiments by biologists aiming to recreate life’s earliest moments are challenging that assumption. Life, it seems, is a matter of basic chemistry – no magic required, no rare ingredients, no bolt from the blue.

And that suggests an even more intriguing possibility. Rather than springing into existence just once in some chemically blessed primordial pond, life may have had many origins. It could have got going over and over again in many different forms for hundreds of thousands of years, only becoming what we see today when everything else was wiped out it in Earth’s first ever mass extinction. In its earliest days on the planet, life as we know it might not have been alone.