How do we get from that to physical stuff?
Interesting because life sciences firms seem to be starting up in Austin at a fair clip.
In our view, Hawking’s problem isn’t that he tried to do without God but that he tried to do without God AND philosophy at the same time. And ended up with hocus pocus.
” Cooking provided early humans with more energy, allowing for such energetically-costly evolutionary changes.”
One creature to be tested is the animal, tardigrade (water bear), which can survive temperatures approaching absolute zero …
If one can’t find a convincing useful adaptation that explains human evolution, there is always a wide array of harmful ones to try out.
It’s nonsense in itself, but what it tells us is worth considering.
This theory hasn’t changed the status of any known exoplanets, but it’s ingenious.
We’re not sure whether any battle really is raging.
O’Leary didn’t have hundred people over him in a dark-matter bureaucratic hierarchy, where even getting his solution considered would be 90% of the battle.
Which is interesting in the context of books like Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution, which explore the limits of purely Darwinian change …
Actually, the claims seem ridiculous now, but we would not be unnecessarily discourteous.
Large Hadron Collider produced no exotic new stuff, so …
“It falls short of the promise to tell us how we know what is really true.”
Chopra has expressed an interest in design theory (though we are not clear what he knows about it), whereas Mlodinow and Hawking plump for materialist atheism.