How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour, no where in what I posted does it show I am unclear what the rh factor is. Its just a proteins. Nothing alien.
You have in no place demonstrated that it is alien. Cite where scientits have shown it is alien. Peer reviewed. Off you go.

Hitchen's Razor and all that.

Stop trying to get personal info out of me. I've stated before where I went to University. I've stated my degrees, and I have even stated what my PhD thesis, and MBA business case were about. I am not going to repeat this. Go looking.

a reply to: Noinden

You seem rather limited in understanding what people say because you introduce a little of what was said then almost always add a twist to suit your needs which is most often to save face... It is your limited understanding of what has been said by myself and others by actual scientists that you also seem to have trouble understandanding that’s why I asked when you went to school... Perhaps you are also unaware of the advancements in science because you hold your own opinions in too high of reguard oblivious to the obsolete views of the past...
I’m not about to try and determine who you are then track down your scholastic merits, I can glean from your statements the worthlessness of them, that is much more valid in judgement of such matters...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I think you should read up on the quantum eraser experiment and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment to get a handle on what's happening here. The photon doesn't "know" anything. The observer isn't affecting anything. This is about the measurement problem.

you guys will argue with anything I say. But it is not me saying it. It is the double slit experiment. The only variable that determines if the photon behaves like a particle or a wave is the measurement device set-up by the experimenter. When the measurement device is recording the slit, it behaves like a particle. Otherwise it behaves like a wave. Therefore the photons behavior changes depending if the slit is being recorded or not. The delayed choice experiment actually measures the photon after the incident with the slit, and it still causes it to behave like a particle. It is absolutely fascinating. This is the core evidence establishing the Copenhagen interpretation.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You have yet to prove I am not a scientist neighbour. Like I've said, talking with the scientists here, they seem to be satisfied. Its just you who seems to be having a conniption Your opinion is meaningless to me. So keep on trying.

Again, post where the rh factor has been shown to be "alien". You have yet to do that, It may thus be shown, you can not. Peer reviewed papers only.

So go on, show how "actual scientists" have proven this. Or perhaps its from one of your little religious, or new agey sites? Those do not count, unless they are willing to show all their data, for analysis. Be willing to accept if it does not stand up. Oh and the bit you can't cope with, admit they are wrong.

Again, where I went to University, has been posted here, repeatedly. What degrees they were, and as I said, my thesis title, and business case title. All would be searchable, if you had access to say Scifinder or Reaxsys.

a reply to: Noinden

Funny I was thinking it was you who have yet to prove you were a scientist other then mentioning you are without need in probably over 80% of your posts...
You must have real scientists working with you that tell you what to do then re explain everything to you many times in order for you to accomplish what they require from you...
You miss the mark all too often and extend confusion as you mis quote or either misunderstood altogether even going so far as to repeat the same faulty questioning...
Figure it out...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I'm not identifying who I am online. Especially here. Like I said, I've been stalked in the past (late 90s, when it was harder to do that). I also had a poster on here, threaten me, so, as I said, I do not care if you believe me or not. I'm not going to stop posting. Just because someone like you does not believe me. We have to believed (according to you) that your deity is supreme after all.

Again, you have not proven anything about the rh factor, despite trying to imply you know that is proof of god or aliens or holy pasta.

I am waiting neighbour. I will not expect anything, as you have shown you are illiterate with regards to science.

a reply to: Noinden

Your unqualified opinion is not able to dismiss myself or anyone as to the validity of statements made by us...

The inability you exhibit in the portrayal of what you have read is enough...

Your comical responses have served their purpose for us...

We require nothing further on this matter from you...

a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you read the articles I posted? Yes, it's fascinating, but no, the photon doesn't "know" anything. When the same experiment is done with electrons, does the electron "know something"? Are the particles tricksters of nature??

I argue with you because you misinterpreted the nature of the experiment and what it means. Observation changes the quantum state. Prior to observation, it's a probability distribution. The photon is in a superposition of two states. Once the observation is made either by detector, human or something else, it becomes reality. Our reality. But the detector or detectors didn't do anything physically to the photon. The particle may be anywhere - we can't know exactly where it is - that's why it's called the measurement problem and it's intractable. We cannot know anything about the system unless it's measured. And if we measure it, we change the system. No one knows exactly why this occurs but we know it does happen. It's a property of the quantum world that our classical intuition cannot explain.

And that's why you should read those papers. There's a lot of thinking material in them.

a reply to: Phantom423

Not just those papers either however. If someone wants to talk science, they should read around the subject. Its pretty easy to find a couple of papers to support (to he layperson) a pet theory, but its a lot harder to find an ongoing stream of them, when the theory is... "out there".

a reply to: Phantom423

Come on. A film from Ramtha is the ultimate authority. Everybody knows that.

a reply to: Noinden

Yes that's very true. And when it comes to the quantum world, anyone who says they understand it is either lying, drunk or on drugs.

We're studying t'Hooft's "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" in our group now. Here's a man who won the Nobel Prize and questions his own work! Here's a free pdf download. It's worth the read. He asks a lot of questions that will keep you up at night!

arxiv.org...

a reply to: Phage

Never heard of her but she's a great actress!

a reply to: Phantom423

Her group made that stupid movie.
www.beliefnet.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

But quantum is such a buzz word to throw around .... every time I see it, and its not in a context where it makes sense, I automatically say "nah bollocks to that".

But in the case of what you were talking about here, I don't like seeing what is in essence pantheism and anthropomorphism sneaking into science. I recently saw some new age woo else where, where an academic had been teaching a communication paper, and insisted the students reference the "purpose" of the universe being Ascension and transcendence. As if the Universe has a purpose? I really do not like it when Theosophical new age stuff sneaks into the realm of business (it was a coms paper after all) let alone science.

a reply to: Noinden

The purpose of their universe is to make money! How many hucksters like Ken Ham make a fortune by giving some people exactly what they want: they want EASY. Don't throw a lot of books and research papers at me - remember what Turbonium said, and it's classic:

What you have is a link, to multiple articles,which I'm supposed to read, and then explain how any claims of evolution, of every species, which 'evolve' into another species, has no evidence, no proof, within those articles.....is that what you're saying here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What, me read???? Me do any work???? Me do anything but blabber a lot of nonsense?????



Some of these folks must have been fun to have in a classroom - pity the poor science teacher.

a reply to: Phage

Great quote in the article about the movie - reminds me of some people:

Let's put to rest a few superlatives being bandied about. This movie is not "mind-blowing." If it blew your mind, your neurons were in shaky shape to begin with. This movie is not a "wild ride," except in the same way an enforced road trip with your drooling, cat-obsessed aunt is.

a reply to: Phage

Im convinced anyone that can channel Yoda must be true.

originally posted by: Phantom423


I argue with you because you misinterpreted the nature of the experiment and what it means

The photon behaves like a particle when the slit is observed with a measuring device, and it behaves like a wave when the slit is not analyzed. This is a reproducible experiment that has been replicated many times. It means exactly what it means. No interpretation necessary.

a reply to: cooperton

it behaves like a wave when the slit is not analyzed.

How do you know this without "analyzing" it?

You really should review the experiment. You don't seem to have the slightest idea what it's about.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you check what you type? IF we are not observing it, we do not know how it behaves. This is basic logic. As Phage did, and no doubt Phantom will tell you. Review the experiment. Look at the repetitions. Oh and look what you typed, it does not make sense.