Henry J
Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
About this notion that organisms somehow generate beneficial changes when needed, it occurs to me that under that model changes to functional DNA should be a lot faster than it is. In times of rapid evolution, it could be expected to outpace genetic drift. That sounds to me like a testable prediction.
Also it seems like in that model evolution should have been a lot faster than it was, and should still be faster than is expected from current theory.
Btw, how the heck is that proposed model supported by pointing out that some fish make use of a mechanism that is already present in the species? That has nothing to do with the notion of a species generating a heritable change in its traits.
============
| Quote | | Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared. |
| Quote | It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).
It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated. |
As I recall, E=mc^2 derives from the equations of relativity, so there is that connection.
============
| Quote | In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. |
First, check your math. 303/299 is only a little over 1 percent.
Second, why would it be surprising that people three centuries ago could get a result that's off by a few percent?
Henry
|
