It's only 6 inches and look at how well the bones are formed. Different shape also. Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Looking at some videos now ..

Only 1% of human genome is actually unique to humans. Having 91% of genes in common with this... thing... proves absolutely nothing.

I believe that percentage proves that the creature isn't alien, but not necessarily human. I think the DNA in mice is a closer match than that. Could be some kind of rare evolutionary offshoot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_function

Asimov knows that we can't be sure about the fact of our existence, because you can't prove that reality is real. So our knowledge will be only a Limit that approaches the "real" knowledge with faster rate with every fact gain. That's not a belief that's a fact that every one who majors in anything should know.

And there is G?del's incompletness and completness theorems (theorems in mathematics are not the same as theories in science) which were demonstrated to question the notion that Logic is a complete system - can prove everything. It can't. It's a good system, but incomplete.

Combine this with our physiological limits: Like that we are seeing only a little chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum, have 5 fingers on each hand and we can be sure that our way of seeing the world is flawed by being human in general.

Also there is a field in statistics that deals with those problems called the measurement errors models, which deals with aproximations and errors of our calculations.

The two threads on the same subject have now been merged. Hope this doesn't confuse people.

A fool and a coward... A coward and a fool.

Whatever floats your Omerta, dude.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11309749

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250597/Theories-of-bipedalism http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=socanth_honproj http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/early_hominids/bipedalism/kingdon_2003_lowly_origin.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240610 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03226.x/abstract http://www.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=nYMmSk50XAwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA253&dq=bipedalism+squatting+evolution&ots=6KEdegGNuu&sig=jC_oU9jvvwEuDkoxmwfYZ0liNCE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://www.profleeberger.com/files/chimpliketibiab.pdf

Multiverse is a hypothesis that has nothing to do with the widely accepted fact that we live in a single Universe. We don't pretend, we know that our knowledge is limited, that's what scientiffic knowledge is all about. To know more, every day and revaluate our hypothesis to new data and hope it will get closer to the truth.

How it can be an insult or a touchy subject. You said that it's your opinion, from that point your argument is worthless. It has no merit and no data to anolise. You just declared a very good hypothesis to be laughable without any knowledge on the subject. Unless you provide a constructive argument against and provide a data anolysis your opinion is just that = Nothing.

Evolution has been proven to be true over and over and over again, and never has arisen evidence that would contradict it.

Oh sweet lord Jesus this isn't going to end well.

We don't care.

Clearly you don't read enough scientific publications.

Elaborate.

Well....

That was rude.

I''m always confused when jerky that looks like a human/alien hybrid thing or whatever is involved.

Can someone please confirm if it's spicy or mild?

How about the rules?


Though i don't remember seeing that rule enforced, i think.

As You could see we at no point gave a notion of superiority from our own culturar/belief system, we were not interested in discussing subjective opinions in this thread. What we did was laying down facts and describing the scientiffic methodology and terminology for a layman. I even posted about the discussion about the Absolute is in bad taste, few pages back (and is by it's own nature pointless) If someone posted that he "believes" that 2+2=5 , because his uncle said so. Would it be in bad taste to explain how he is inherently wrong?

So if someone wants to challange a scientiffic theory, please go. But I will not hide from facts, because it's uneasy for some poeple, that clearly don't understand jack'poo.

This isn't youtube. I believe that we are mature enough here to discuss those topics in a civilised manner, without ad hominem's. And I am fairly certain that poeple who are religious on these threads are not fanatics but well mannered people with their own belief system (as the laws of men gave them the right to be) who are the majority of their groups.

I'm not a mathematical man but a limit must have it's limits right? I notice that they use the word "approaches" implying that it never reaches.
Also what you say here supports the fact that we'll never know all the facts as we're flawed and so is our understanding. Mans reach exceeds his grasp, it's always good to keep reaching for the stars but we'll never be able to fully grasp them.

Wait what, a human that small that -lived- to 6 - 8 years old?

That's. Interesting.

Yes. 0 is false and 1 is the truth. The Limit approaches 1. I am not implying, that is the definition of a limit function.

Yes. And so Asimov and the whole scientiffic community supports (knows!) that we will never reach the truth.

The Limit function tells us our goal. Which is 1 - the truth.

If I set up a line started by 0 and ending in 1. Then I put points on this line on 0,5 ; 0,7 ; 0,9 ; 0,99; 0,999 and so on. And describe those points as our landmarks 0,5 being the earth is flat, 0,7 it's round and so on. We can see that we are sorting our information better and better. In other words if I gave you an apple that has a tiny bit cutted from it - it's not a full apple, but it's really near a real apple. What if I gave you an apple that has 1 less atom from the "idealised" version of an apple. You won't see the diffrence between a ideal apple and an apple without 1 atom. Or compare an ideal apple and an apple - 1 quark.

The concept of the utlimate truth is something that we never reach. But our truth can get better and better and at one point there will be no visible diffrence between The Ultimate truth and the Truth we have.

Because 0,9999999.....=1

But , if we just get with the notion that "So we can't reach it? What's the point, then?" We can just go back to the caves and stop. And that alternative is worse than what we have here.

Yes, but moderators are known to pre-emptively lock threads on touchy subjects. Though this has been very civil so far.

It would be a great shame to lock up this topic. Where poeple discuss things that matter for once.

you've reminded me of silver coins that are .999 silver because they're not pure...it seems that our math is similar as we're close to 1 yet aren't completely whole.
Even knowing that we can't know the whole truth doesn't mean that we should stop learning, my last sentence supported my feelings on that.
I actually studied some quantum physics a few years back as some theories intrigued me and I wanted to learn more but the more I learned then the less I knew ha if you understand my meaning...It's all madness to me

Yeah. You need calculus to even start to understand it. Been there, cried in front of a text book, passed the exam ,then got an obsession over it. Good times.

Well ok.

I'm sorry,I've spent to much time on reddit.

Hehe... The resemblance is uncanny, yes?

*counts ribs*