The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)

  Just one?

Let us not forget the less fortunate........

Ohh !....I just tried to post something on 3-words but after almost 14K posts my gerbils got tired and fell asleep at the wheel !

speculation that the KNOWN universe is saddle shaped,

nobody knows what lies beyond 

Maybe you ae right.  Does that mean that articles like this http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/19/is-the-universe-saddle-shaped , which I do read often mean known universe as opposed to the whole universe? 

I understand you can't "see" the whole universe, but I guess I just assumed it was the whole universe calculated based on mathematical models from the WMAP.

Same could be said for Pi & if it patterns....or is it infinitely nonrepetitive ? 

See ?....even arithmetic can go outta bounds 'cuz it can have that monkey & typewriter & Shakespeare thingy going on.

....and I'm totally comfortable with that. But I know how infinity makes alotta ppl squirm. Ppl have trouble w/ it 'cuz infinity is really philosophical & something that triggers an emotional response. I suggest some of you revisit your old skool view foils from your postgrad calc courses 'cuz things start to get interesting as you keep adding more zeros to something you can't really understand past about 10MM anywayz. And that's why noone needs any more $ than that. Oh well, I'll buy a few Powerball Tix 2morrow anyway.

Helpful hint from the yellow book for Dummies: Once you embrace infinity & stop fighting the fact that you'll never comprehend it anyway ?....then your fidgeting will subside.

I wish I could help more, but I've been my own futile project for quite awhile now & that doesn't leave alotta time left for the ppl who think they're too smart to take advice & the ppl who are too stupid to apply it.

....and you know which one you are.

Ghost - infinity is very handy in math.  There just isn't an infinity of anything in our universe.

I totally agree....that's why too much math is kind of a bad thing.

we don't even know if our universe is multi-dimensional or not.  we also don't know what dark matter is.  we also don't know what's beyond the reach of our instruments.

if the universe is truly infinite, we will never be able to describe it.  only expand our knowledge  

Firstly the article is indeed about a local anisotropy, secondly it is highly speculative, suggesting a possibility which involves an entirely hypothetical new force, and thirdly it is way off topic here!

I am sure Lola and others will be relieved to hear that the mathematics that makes evolution work involves no infinities.

They're the ones that brought it up !

So. If it isn't dark ?....it doesn't matter, right ? 'Cuz it's probably just a fabricated fable that has no story moral anyway.

Think of it this way. It's a free parameter that aids the arithmetician in their quest for book sales ($) thru abuncha "what-if's".

I mean, if the Atomist claims dark matter is out there, then prove it. It's that simple. Verlinde's model throws DM out & says gravity is not a fundamental force & is emerging as entropy goes up. Who's gonna argue that entropy isn't increasing ?

And btw, the scientist is gonna hafta comprehend infinity before they can explain it to me....which they're not gonna be able to do.  

Ppl try to make physics a function of #'s and that's the SM's No. 1 biggest mistake. The physical world was here a long time before arithmetic ever was.

I mean think about it. A monkey doesn't know how many ants are on his hi-tech stick - but his tummy is filled. A Planet of the Apes doesn't know how far it is from their sun - but they're taking over. The U doesn't know how old it is - but it's here just the same. Ppl just made arithmetic up to try to make sense outta count, time, & length.

#'s are scalar, right ? Add your units & that's when everything starts going sidewayz.

A good scientist should know down deep that everything is relative & that there are no physical constants out there. Neither light nor gravity nor some electric constant....nothing. And if they're banking on that in their equations ?....then they're gonna go broke 'cuz the only thing constant is 2 + 2 w/out dimensions.

Really now. The only thing we can trust is the direction of the Arrow of Time & the Arrow of Entropy. And even those two authorities should be questioned.

So stop depending physics on arithmetic. You're making me sick (tho' I probably didn't need you for that). They're nowhere near as related as you might hope & dream.

And checking my emotional pulse ?....it's about as far from constant as 2 + 2. But I've already exercised & had my oatmeal....so I feel good - for at least a hour........

If intelligent life develops after all galaxies are too far away to be seen, the known universe to them will be the size of their galaxy (surrounded by lots of empty space).

That's true Telestu, but that brings up a good thought experiment.  Is it possible for intelligent life to develop if all the other galaxies are so far away?  What is the gravitational or radiation impact?  The best question might be how old the galaxy must be for that to take place (I doubt a galaxy could form without neighbors) and whether life could possibly evolve on a planet that old  (There would be too much metals for life to form around a fourth generation star).  My suspicion is it could not, even if the evolutionists are correct.  Nevertheless, it is a good question and I probably will give it some thought.

Most people are fairly certain that the universe has at least 3 dimensions,so we can be fairly certain that it is multi-dimensional.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

I use the word evolutionist because there are PhD level biologists who do not believe in macroevolution.  Why does this word bother you so?

Posts 18, 19, 20 were very interesting. As many other have been.

Yes, the whole forum started as it has gone on, by rarely discussing the science of evolution.