I'm re-writing the Theory of Evolution
Oort wrote:
I guess there really isnt much of a point to it aside from my curiousity and desire to learn more. And while genetic similarity exsists, I have not yet heard of another animal that lays eggs, feeds its young milk (Without having teats mind you!) and has a bill. If you can tell me about something as peculiar as that, I applaud you.
The echidna does and they don't look remarkable...
The platypuss bill is very functional also and much needed in its natural enviroment, to sift through silt on the bottom of streams.
What's your point?
oceandrop wrote:
Well I'm completely legit. I have 196 e-mails to myself over the last couple of years each one with a new idea / example supporting the basic premise of this Theory. It is a special interest that has occupied my thoughts for a long time.
I accept naturalism to some extent, and certainly I am not invoking anything supernatural. I am however suggesting that there are a set of Laws (much like those in physics) that predict the emergence of life and evolution in our universe, and that these same Laws also predict intra- and inter-species interactions. The Laws don't invoke any kind of supernatural influence to explain natural phenomena, but strongly point to the idea of a Creator. Ultimately it depicts evolution as a religious truth.
I guess I will just have to start writing it to persuade the naysayers.
I accept naturalism to some extent, and certainly I am not invoking anything supernatural. I am however suggesting that there are a set of Laws (much like those in physics) that predict the emergence of life and evolution in our universe, and that these same Laws also predict intra- and inter-species interactions. The Laws don't invoke any kind of supernatural influence to explain natural phenomena, but strongly point to the idea of a Creator. Ultimately it depicts evolution as a religious truth.
I guess I will just have to start writing it to persuade the naysayers.
If you have discovered a new set of laws I'm guessing you must have tested these laws repeatedly against thousands of datasets by now if you are confident enough in them to publish, could you name a couple of the datasets you have used in your proof?
That way you don't need to give us a peek at the laws.
wrt the OP: a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis of nothing.
wrt. platypusses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrematum_sudamericanum
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
My Theory Of Intelligence. |
13 Jan 2024, 6:29 pm |
I communicate best with writing. But thats a problem. |
20 Jan 2024, 10:18 pm |
Aspergers theory, it's a big question mark for me |
11 Feb 2024, 8:42 am |