| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Archimedes Plutonium
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:00 pm Post subject: Stonethrowing arm of Neanderthal versus modern human; Oreopi |
 |
|
I cannot remember the exact date in which I requested that Neanderthal
fossils be checked for throwing arm bones to see whether they are more
primitive than modern humans. Whether Neanderthal had the bone anatomy
to even be in a contest with modern humans. Was it year 2002 that I
requested a comparison test or was it in 2003? The time clock is
ticking away.
These 3 bone areas to check Neanderthal (1) RotatorCuffHumerus (2)
phalanges (3) wristbone area.
Trouble with Orrorin and Oreopithecus fossils is that they are scant
and too much missing. We have only few fossils of either.
But we have loads of Neanderthal fossils.
So, is the Rotator Cuff of Neanderthal to such an extent that he would
lose in most throwing contests. Is the Humerus or phalanges or
wristbones of such an extent that he would be hampered and handicapped
(hate the pun there) against modern human bone anatomy.
There is the possibility that the divergence of DNA or RNA that the
Max Planck
Institute found in Neanderthal where a divergence of genetics in *6
spots* of the code indicate a different species. There is the
possibility, however slim, that those 6 divergent spots are due to a
different bone anatomy of the throwing arms
of Neanderthal versus Homosapiens. Mind you, slim chance, but not
zero.
So, why is the Anthropology community not looking into the throwing
arm ability of lack of ability of Neanderthal? What is delaying them?
What is holding them back? Are they lazy? Or are they like squirrels,
squirrelling away their Neanderthal bones and not allowing the
necessary analysis and checking.
What is the Anthropology community excuse as to comparing the throwing
arm of Neanderthal versus modern humans?
Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
tedstrukWA
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:32 am Post subject: Re: Stonethrowing arm of Neanderthal versus modern human; Or |
|
|
It has never been completely proven that homonids and modern humans are
evolved at all....
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<618e71c0.0312090000.7e422892@posting.google.com>...
[quote]I cannot remember the exact date in which I requested that Neanderthal
fossils be checked for throwing arm bones to see whether they are more
primitive than modern humans.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Archimedes Plutonium
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:06 am Post subject: theory of Evolution in AtomTotality Re: Stonethrowing arm of |
|
|
"tedstrukWA" <cusp@ghostown-usa.org> wrote in message news:<01c3beb4$f41fc7a0$01000094@freightstation>...
[quote]It has never been completely proven that homonids and modern humans are
evolved at all....
Archimedes Plutonium <a plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in article
618e71c0.0312090000.7e422892@posting.google.com>...
I cannot remember the exact date in which I requested that Neanderthal
fossils be checked for throwing arm bones to see whether they are more
primitive than modern humans.
--
[/quote]
Well a few comments. The theory of Evolution makes sense in a
happenstance world, in a world where the cosmos itself is not a
"structure". In a world where chaos and probability have a huge slice
of the cosmos.
But in a world where the cosmos itself is a structure then the theory
of Evolution at best is a mere algorithm much as the Ohm>s Law in
physics is an algorithm. An algorithm in this sense is a "rule of
thumb" where it yields good accurate enough answers for many questions
but is not a Physics Law nor a Physics theory. Newtonian Classical
Mechanics is an algorithm to Quantum Mechanics.
John Bell and Alain Aspect proved that Superdeterminism answers
Quantum Mechanics in the question of the Bell Inequality. This implies
the Universe and Cosmos is itself a structure. The AtomTotality theory
says the structure is one big atom where galaxies are dots of the
electron-dot-cloud and thus Earth is a tiny speck of a electron of the
last 6 electrons of 231Pu.
So, in an AtomTotality, the theory of Evolution is no longer true. It
is a Rule of Thumb at best. A algorithm at best. What is true then is
Superdeterminism.
But we can still mention and use Theory of Evolution in our talk and
speak and communications and sentences and written words. We can still
use it because we know it is just a rule of thumb just as we continue
to use Ohm>s Law or Newtonian Mechanics even though they are also a
rule of thumb. In engineering a slideruler is an algorithm for the
correct answer in mathematics. The answer that a slideruler yields is
crude and an approximation whereas the true mathematical calculation
is the exact answer, but it does not mean we cannot continue to use a
sliderule even though it is an algorithm to the true answer.
There are many, many question in biology that the Theory of Evolution
is deaf dumb and silent and where Superdeterminism steps in and gives
the proper exact and correct answer.
Evolution is never able to predict but only postdict. Superdeterminism
is able to go into the future and predict. To give one example. In the
AtomTotality theory the purpose of life is to nucleosynthesize heavy
elements to create newer heavier elements. That means we or some alien
civilization must create element 190. Given the amount of energy at
the disposal of human society confined to our Solar System and
constrained by the Fusion Barrier Principle. If that amount of energy
in our solar system is "insufficient" then by logic would prove that
some alien civilization exists whose solarsystem has the sufficient
amount of energy to create element 190. That is just one example of
prediction that Superdeterminism in the AtomTotality theory makes. The
theory of Evolution has never given or is capable of ever giving a
single prediction and the reason is that it is flawed and a mere
algorithm. But very much useful as in daily common speak. Back in the
decade of the 1990s I tried to never use the words Theory of Evolution
because I knew it was a false theory but have found myself unable to
escape using it, much as I would be incapable of never using the
Newtonian Mechanics concept even though it is also an algorithm at
best.
Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tony Thomas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:26 am Post subject: Re: theory of Evolution in AtomTotality Re: Stonethrowing ar |
|
|
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0312111106.6563e8d9@posting.google.com...
[quote]"tedstrukWA" <cusp@ghostown-usa.org> wrote in message
news:<01c3beb4$f41fc7a0$01000094@freightstation>...[/quote]
The AtomTotality theory
[quote]says the structure is one big atom where galaxies are dots of the
electron-dot-cloud and thus Earth is a tiny speck of a electron of the
last 6 electrons of 231Pu.
[/quote]
One obvious defect of this theory is that there are millions of galaxies
but rather fewer electrons in a plutonium atom. Perhaps you would like to
explain this discrepancy.
Furthermore, plutonium atoms are radioactive. Are we to understand that the
cosmos is similarly radioactive?
Heavy atoms, including plutonium, were forged in stellar explosions. Are we
to understand the cosmos was similarly formed?
I await your answers with interest.
Tony Thomas |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Moroney
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: theory of Evolution in AtomTotality Re: Stonethrowing ar |
|
|
"Tony Thomas" <verdigris@iprimus.com.au> writes:
[quote]"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0312111106.6563e8d9@posting.google.com...
The AtomTotality theory
says the structure is one big atom where galaxies are dots of the
electron-dot-cloud and thus Earth is a tiny speck of a electron of the
last 6 electrons of 231Pu.
One obvious defect of this theory is that there are millions of galaxies
but rather fewer electrons in a plutonium atom. Perhaps you would like to
explain this discrepancy.
[/quote]
Archie apparently got his "dots" idea from the primitive printing methods
used in older chemistry textbooks. They wanted to show the electron
density in orbitals in a diagram but the printing techniques didn>t have
'shades of gray' ability, it was binary (ink or no ink) at a given point.
So they showed the density as dots, more/bigger dots means higher density,
fewer/smaller shows lower density. This is exactly like black and white
newspaper photos, which if examined closely are made of small black dots
of varying size. Unfortunately for him, Archie took the dots literally.
Kind of like thinking the President>s face is comprised of small black
dots, I guess, because his newspaper photo shows him that way. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
