[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and Adaptation

[SyntaxVorlon]

:o
Do you know what would happen to lorentz transformations if you changed c? Time, space and matter are all contingent on the constant c. Change c, make it bigger and the universe is FUNDAMENTALLY different. Moving clocks aren't ticking as slowly, moving rods aren't as short, and moving reactions are closer to simultaneous.
"[Bekenstein] postulates a Lorentz invariant based on [electric charge changing over time], which does not conserve electric charge"(Magueijo and Albrecht, "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles." pg 2)
Fundamentally different laws of electrodynamics.

I'm afraid I couldn't really go any further in the article as my knowledge of calculus is held back at mechanics, I only learned special relativity two weeks ago, and gen rel last week. Freaky stuff. You don't want c to be arbitrarily variant if you want life to exist.
[edit]Almost forgot, here's his article it's a PDF so you need acrobat:
VSL[/edit]

 

[Barbarian]

There is a fellow from Australia named Setterfield, who claims that the change in the speed of light somehow didn't affect the other constants.

What his evidence is, I don't know.

 

[Barbarian]

And I think the above statement shows a danger that requires some caution on our part. While I understand the criticality of the DNA differences in congruence with human/chimp differences and in relation to the differences of human/neandertal, I wonder how the DNA was different in neandertals. Unfortunately, it is not answered in this reference.

We can best put it in perspective by asking what folks would have thought if we had a curious-looking human today with DNA like that. It would turn everything upside down.

BTW, do you know if other DNA tests have ever been done on neandertal remains?

I don't think so. Even mitochondrial DNA would be rare at best. However the stringent controls listed rule out most sorts of error. This seems to be unassailable evidence that Neandertals are not the same species as our own.

Barbarian observes:
It's why I said "no H. sapiens found below the level". I agree with you on that one.

Oh, sorry about that! I thought you were making an unequivocal statement that H. sapiens are not found beyond that point. My bad

Well, so far, they haven't. If a wholly modern human turns up in earlier deposits, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in physical anthropology departments. Entire theories will have to be rewritten or replaced.

Quote:
I wasn't aware of that. I know of two times when it was tested;

The theory of variant speed of light by Joäo Magueijo has basically rebutted the well-known theory. It has been furthered by John Webb, an astronomer at the University of New South Wales and has appeared in Physical Review D.

Since the General theory accurately predicted to a high degree of precision both the affect of mass on space, and of velocity on time, Maqueijo has a lot of evidence to gather. I think that for the time being, Einstein's theory remains the accepted one. Still, if he can clear up some problems (and show some observational consequences) that could change.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Talk origins has a bit about how he's incorrect.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

What no rebuttals? Show me the LOVE!

 

[Blue-Lightning]

We can best put it in perspective by asking what folks would have thought if we had a curious-looking human today with DNA like that.

Well, I dunno... we have to take into account the small chance of an extreme series of mutations within an individual - completely possible given some strange circumstances. That's why I raise the bar to having a few more specimens for testing. Still, I acknowledge that the chances of this are quite small.

This seems to be unassailable evidence that Neandertals are not the same species as our own.

The question for me is whether or not h. sapiens and neandertals could have reproduced together - theoretically of course.

Since the General theory accurately predicted to a high degree of precision both the affect of mass on space, and of velocity on time, Maqueijo has a lot of evidence to gather. I think that for the time being, Einstein's theory remains the accepted one. Still, if he can clear up some problems (and show some observational consequences) that could change.

Very true, but last I heard, Mr. Maqueijo had brought up quite a few valid errors existent within the big G. Unfortunately, my major article that I am quoting from is under a large stack of texts at my office at work - and since I'm on holiday right now I don't have access to it.

Still, I think it reminds us that to cease to challenge even the most mundane of elementary science or to simply accept the basics at face value is a dangerous thing - for what truly is simple in this world? I think I now a pencil and how it works very well until we stop asking the normal questions about it. Ask me who made the pencil, how many atoms it has in it, or where the lead was taken from and I realize just how little I truly know about my fairly basic pencil.

BL[/quote]

 

[Barbarian]

It's possible that one person in a group of otherwise ordinary humans would have a large number of mutations, none of them lethal. But it's so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

I know a way out, for those who think Neandertals are really our species. Suppose humans were all that different back then, and they all evolved to what we are today.

But there's more than genetics. We have the odd situation of Neandertals being extremely conservative culturally, with little innovation over tens of thousands of years, while anatomically modern humans show considerable change over time in that regard.

And Neandertals seem to have left little or no art. And they don't seem to have made any projectile weapons at all. These are rather remarkable differences, precisely in some things that make us human.

As far as the physics is concerned, I'm not good enough at relativity to really evaluate the challenge, but the new theory seems not to have swayed many people so far.

Which doesn't mean it's wrong. But it does mean that non-specialists shouild be cautious.