Wow. This is an old post. But basically, quantum entanglement allows information to travel instantaneously from one particle to its entangled twin—called quantum teleportation. But this information isn't a one-to-one correspondence; in other words, it's not like changing the state of particle A in a certain way…

Congrats?

Can anyone explain to me the difference between an "electric horseless carriage rides" and a trip in a convertible through the park?

I also wanted to add something unrelated to my previous comments, but related to this article. People who say "if you don't believe in God, you can't be moral" are unwittingly skipping Stage 5 of Kohlberg's stages of morality. Basically, religion has a bit of each stage from 1 through 4, but at stage 5, you shed the…

Thank you. You might be able to tell that this is a topic close to my heart. Many of my friends are gay, and they struggle with bigotry far too often. I'm an atheist AND a scientist, but when I talk to people about science, I get nonsense like, "No no, science is wrong about this, the things I think I know are right…

As do I. I believe it was David Hume who, on the subject of epistemology, once said, "As a philosopher, I know we can know nothing, but as an agent, I must live as though we do." I might be paraphrasing, but that's how I remember the quote.

I said "epistemologically". It's a branch of philosophy dealing with what it's possible to know. According to epistemology, no one can know anything at all. It's essentially the foundation for solipsism and subjectivism.

Calling an entire group of other people condescending in a post that ends with "Neither of you know shit about any of it"...that's either irony or hypocrisy, I'm not sure which. Maybe both.

If you asked me why I don't believe, I'd say that the reasons given (about religions being, in general, pretty greedy and bad moral compasses) are good, but not the clincher. There are two specific things that are the biggest determinants in why I identify, if I must choose a label, as an agnostic atheist.

Thanks. My friends tease me about it, but I do think it's worth the minor inconvenience of my friends having to remember that "Daniel Burnett" is me XD

Oh, and one last thing: mosquitos are an entire taxonomic family of insects. They are not one species. That's two orders of magnitude more varied than species. Evolution within the mosquito family would most likely produce more mosquitos—but they'd be different species, and that's evolution. If over time they're…

I'm sorry, but I can't continue this conversation. You're so ignorant, but worse, you're willfully so. Your assertion that if different pressures push different creatures to evolved differently, then evolution can't be true because it's too "wishy-washy" belies a serious misunderstanding of the concepts behind the…

They're in the same family. They're still in completely different genuses, let alone the many different species of each. Which was my point: speciation doesn't necessarily create forms that are extremely different from each other when looking at the surface morphology.

I wanted to edit this into my other post, but Kinja won't let me -_- . Another important thing to note is that similar morphology is not the same as identical species. Again, species are totally arbitrary definitions we humans made up, not real things that nature knows about. If you saw a fossil of a wolf and a fossil…

Science is open to ANY hypothesis...as long as its predictions have been supported by tests. Name a single prediction that contradicts evolution, then show me the tests for it. If you can get that done, and it stands up to reproduction, you'll win a Nobel prize and change the world—and science will love you. But so…

Again, peer review is flawed. But unless you have a better method of discovering truth, it's the best there is. "I looked online and watched TV shows, and I figured it out myself" is not better than peer review; if a group of experts are imperfect, what would make a single person with a rudimentary understanding of…

I'll admit that peer review isn't perfect. At the same time, I'd much sooner put my trust in a system that at least tries to determine objective truths over subjective ones than one that says, "We don't know, and science isn't perfect, so I'll just believe whatever I want."

I don't know what that first show was, nor the scientist, but our analysis of the platypus genome doesn't lead to any mysteries. It doesn't lead to "we have no idea how this evolved"; on the contrary, it helped us figure out just that. See here for more info: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/0…

That's...not how the evidence comes about. I mean, firstly, your banana example is inherently flawed. That result comes from the base-by-base comparison. Since there are only 4 possible bases, even two completely random samples of DNA would be expected to have about a 25% similarity. But that's not how comparative…

I think you may have read some incorrect information both about evolution and its history. For one thing, Darwin was not an atheist. In fact, he often had discomfort trying to reconcile the things he observed while formulating his theories with his belief in a god, and wasn't going to publish because of this until a…