>>*That is, it's best for society in an upward-striving sense that the strongest should dominate their fields of endeavour.*

Rob, I don't know if its always best for society, but it certainly
seems to be the case.<<

Yabby,

I should have qualified my comment by saying that there is a threshold to which the elites can go, beyond which ordinary people either feel stretched or abandoned. But there's no doubt in my mind that without the elites pushing upwards, society overall would just fall into the morass.

The elites are of the most use to society when they are putting forth ideas which are just ahead of where the ordinary citizenry currently are - a bit like a trellis just above a grape vine.

*The elites are of the most use to society when they are putting forth ideas which are just ahead of where the ordinary citizenry currently are - a bit like a trellis just above a grape vine.*

Rob, yup I agree, but then the question remains as to where
we as a society should be heading.

What interested me about the Economist article, was their reasoning
as to why some people always want more, no matter what or how much
they have. It gave me a different perspective.

IMHO, at some point humanity has to address the sustainability issue.
Otherwise, the species with the larger brain was smart enough to
invent new things, but not smart enough to use them wisely.
We'll wipe ourselves out in the process.

Arjay, I tend to avoid U-tube as where I live there is only
really a mobile broadband connection, which gives me 1 gig a
month. Anything to do with videos etc, chews it up in no time.

OUG, here is a link for you, so that you can understand where
your thinking is flawed, right from the beginning, in terms
of language used in science.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

.

from your link quote>>Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis:All swans must be white.
Test:A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.

Publication:"My global research has indicated that swans are always white,wherever they are observed."
Verification:Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.

Theory:All swans are white.

Prediction:The next swan I see will be white.[lol]

Note,however,that although the prediction is useful,the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white.[LOL}

Thus it is said to be falsifiable.If anyone ever saw a black swan,the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.LOL

(And yes,there are really black swans.This example was just to illustrate the point.)LOL

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable.>>EGSACTLY

faulsifiable isnt defined in evolution,!

if it is name them!

>>So-called "theories" based on religion,such as creationism or intelligent design are,therefore,not scientific theories.

They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.>>

you aRE UNABLE TO NAME THE science FAULSIFYABLES [thus same for evoplution[lol]
where is the faulsifiable science?

EVOLUTION HAS NO FAULSIFYABLES [get it]
experience reveals BLACK SWANS breed black swans
white breed white
swans breed swans
apples make apples

genus breeds only with in its OWN genus

if you have proof swans breed ducks please present it!
if you have recorded A SINGLE GENUS CHANGE record it here [now]

you cant because science has NEVER recorded a single genus change
EVER [get it?]
the gaps in evolution are all at the genus level

the evidence is for for INtra_genous change[micro evolution]
[within] the genus
[ie within bacteria mutating into bacteria[seagulls into seagulls;moth into moth[lol]

but not macro INTO A NEW GENUS
[like not a cat into a dog[not a swan into a cow[get it?]

present your faulsifiables for change of genus, we are as we are because of what we believe[evolution is a religion held by those decieved by science]but its followers follow blindly having blind faith in the science LO

from your link quote>>Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
here is my new theory

Hypothesis:All swans breed swans.[all cats breed cats] all salamanders breed salamanders , all dogs breed dogs , allbacteria breed bacteria[tress breed trees , grass breeds grass


Test:A random sampling of life from each continent where life is indigenous produces only life [like its parents].

Publication:"My global research has indicated that 'breeds are always bred from a breed like it ,wherever they are observed."

Verification:Every life form any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been of the same life form as its parents.

my Theory:All any life form will breed ONLY that life form like its parental genus.

Prediction:The next swan will have swans as their parents
the next duck will have ducks for its parents

Ok UOG, your first lesson should have taught you why your confusion
was about the word "theory", which in this case, science considers
as a fact, based on the mountains of evidence regularly published
in thousands of scientific journals, which you can access through
your library.

There are thousands of people spending their whole lives, researching
one little segment of all that evidence, they document exactly
what and why their results are as they are, in scientific papers,
which are published in those scientific journals.

Your next confusion with language, is the word "species". Species
is a human classification. If two creatures can mate and have
fertile offspring, they are classified as a species. But we
have subspecies, which means they look different, they evolved
in say different areas, so are genetically a bit different, but
still close enough to mate and have fertile offspring. Over time
of separation those genetic differences grow, eventually they
can no longer mate and have fertile offspring. Thus they are
no longer the same species but can be reclassifed as a new species.

We can indeed mate creatures from different species, but their
offspring won't be fertile in most cases. As their dna changes
over time, eventually they won't even have offspring.

How closely they are related, we can show today by examining their
dna.

So your confusion is about the word "species", which is a human
invention to record what we observe in nature.

But hey, if you are interested, its all out there for you to learn.
It seems to me that you have never spent a day in a biology class

oh dear circular wisdom yabby
we all know what a theory is[if anyone needs to redefine a theory to mean a fact ,i got a theory on that, they lie]

yes there is mountains of evidence for speciation
but none for genus evolving into genus

yes we can say this speciation proves speciation occurs[but speciation isnt evolution isnt proving that genus evolved into a different genus

you are a specialist
i am, a generalist
i see the big picture because my income dont come from a lie

a clever lie hidden amoung mountains of fact [but none of it proves evolution into a new genus]i have read mountains of the stuff with an open mind[regarding each fact in the light of it proving specuiation not evolution]

if you have proof of just one evolution[nor speciation]not salamanders breeding salamanders [lol]
not bacteria breeding bacteria
not fruit fly breeding fruitfly[lol]

but say salamander genus beeeding into a rabbit genus [then please present it]as the links between genus ARE ALL MISSING , how can you still have faith in a theory

evolution needs prove evolution
it cant
if you claim it can
give me the proof

we are so specialised so we cant see the'big picture' is a mountain of pretty pictures

BUT IT isnt a science
if science evolve a new genus FIRST