Summations Only

But, but, but, you have no evidence that that actually happens!This is not very removed form the idea that there is unconsious transmission of information from mother to feotus.Again, a pretty idead but there is no evidence to support it so it has to be rejected based on there being no evidence.How is uncounsious transmission different from your idea of information exchange between neurones and sperm and ova?

Falsifiability is such an interesting concept: for a hypothesis to get off the ground it needs to be falsifiable. This means we need a null hypothesis.What is your null hypothesis? If you don't know how a null hypothesis relates to a hypothesis you have no business using the word falsify.I don't think you know what it means: prove me wrong.

I can cut n paste stuff off the net with no idea what it means, too.Please restate what H0 is in your own words.

The fact that yours cannot tells you what, exactly?

You've already stated that you are only speculating in the other thread.Time to end things, I think.Edited by Larni, : Spellink

That is great example of a 'research question': it is not a theory.What is the definition of theory, you are using?

A theory needs evidence. It must have evidence: do you not agree?

Bullshit.No evidence, no theory.All else is wishful thinking. [/thread]

I have already agreed that the environment affects evolution: by natural selection and anything that increases mutation rates.

I think the problem you are having is that you are talking to people who are or have been working scientist who have had specific (and often tedious) training in research methods.You seem to be coming from the position of an arm chair philosopher.The scientists who you believe will find that your idea has merit have had exactly the same training the science types on this site have had.They will tell you what we have: you have an unsupported idea that does not have a convincing rational.If I saw this as a research proposal for and MSc (for example) I would reject it and so would an accademic supervisor.One of the fundemental points of conducting any research is having a decent rational.You have admitted that you don't: why are we still having this conversation?As an aside (and feel free to ignore this question) do you have any higher accademic qualifications?

[sigh]This is just going around and around, now. Zi has been told about evidence and is not talking it on board and I don't think she ever will.[/sigh]

Untill that time comes you will be known as somebody without the slightest scientific acumen.

I would also suggest that the word speculative is appropriate at this stage. You are essentially speculating about one aspect of evolution.With all due respect this is a world away from a comprehensive theory, as you described it as, up thread.

As far as I can see there is no rational, either.

As in not supported.