human teleportation

you'd have to put something else in suddenly having a tumour sized vacuum inside you would be pretty damaging I'd imagine.

That would depend on the tumour, but I doubt any long term damage would occur, the body would simply fill the gap.

The problem with having a sudden vacuum in your body shouldn't create any problems either, but I'm not a doctor.

I would suspect that for the purposes of this hypothesis we can assume that the void left by any tumour removal would be taken care of with the teleportation procedure in some way.
 
What do they put in there when the cut tumours out now? Just air usually isn't it? Just bung some pure N2 in.

Well when we op on tumours atm you're cut open. if you did it with a teleporter you'd have a nice big air tight vacuum appear inside you instantly, as your flesh tries to fill the void it would be torn etc don't think having a big pocket of air inside you would be all that healthy either.
 
Well when we op on tumours atm you're cut open. if you did it with a teleporter you'd have a nice big air tight vacuum appear inside you instantly, as your flesh tries to fill the void it would be torn etc don't think having a big pocket of air inside you would be all that healthy either.
But you're missing the point, the tumour has been deleted via data manipulation, you can put literally anything in it's place by editing the data, want all your teeth gold? done, claws like Wolverine? done (might be an idea to get the super regeneration upgrade at the same time!)
 
But you're missing the point, the tumour has been deleted via data manipulation, you can put literally anything in it's place by editing the data, want all your teeth gold? done, claws like Wolverine? done (might be an idea to get the super regeneration upgrade at the same time!)

It's just not viable. Think how hard it would be to move about with all that metal grafted to your skeleton - weight aside, you'd have zero flexibility. Plus, I don't care if it regenerates instantly - poking those claws through the skin of your knuckles every time a hobo gets a bit uppity about your lack of change is gonna hurt. You'd think you'd get numbed to the pain, but your nerves would regenerate too - which begs another question, what about those of us who are circumcised? We rely on the nerves getting deadened so we can walk straight.

Edit: No! It'd all grow back, and I'll be stuck with a problem I thought I was rid of! And what about your nose hair? How you gonna keep that trimmed, eh? Screw that. Give me the lightning fingers.
 
^^^ Bhavv come on son you gotta do better then that.

Evolution is not a real Scientific Theory.

There has never been a testable hypothesis created, nor any evidence ever found that one species can differentiate into two through many favorable mutations over a long period of time by natural selection.

So how is Evolution a Scientific Theory?
 
Bhavv, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are just trolling now. Next you'll be telling us the creationists have it right and intelligent design is just as valid as Darwinism.:rolleyes:
 
Bhavv, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are just trolling now. Next you'll be telling us the creationists have it right and intelligent design is just as valid as Darwinism.:rolleyes:

But if everything that you told me in this thread is true, then Evolution cant be a scientific theory as it isnt based off a hypothesis.
 
But if everything that you told me in this thread is true, then Evolution cant be a scientific theory as it isnt based off a hypothesis.
One of the hypothesis' of evolution is that natural selection will favour organisms that are more suited to their environment than those that aren't. This is observable with bacterial cultures exposed to antibiotics etc.
 
One of the hypothesis' of evolution is that natural selection will favour organisms that are more suited to their environment than those that aren't. This is observable with bacterial cultures exposed to antibiotics etc.

Natural selection is provable, I've seen that with the peppered moths.

But what about one species eventually differentiating to the point that it becomes two seperate ones? Where did that idea come from and how did it become a part of a scientific theory when it cant be, and hasnt been proven through any scientific hypothesis?

Its never been an observable phenomenon, no one has ever seen it actually happen, and it cant form a valid testable hypothesis.
 
Natural selection in theory could result in devolution could it not? considering the lazy world we're in where so much is automated. although i suppose it would still just be evolution resulting in us losing function rather than gaining
 
Last edited:
Natural selection is provable, I've seen that with the peppered moths.

But what about one species eventually differentiating to the point that it becomes two seperate ones? Where did that idea come from and how did it become a part of a scientific theory when it cant be, and hasnt been proven through any scientific hypothesis?

Its never been an observable phenomenon, no one has ever seen it actually happen, and it cant form a valid testable hypothesis.

Predictive power

A central tenet in science is that a scientific theory is supposed to have predictive power, and verification of predictions are seen as an important and necessary support for the theory. The theory of evolution has provided such predictions. Four examples are:

* Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism.[26]
* Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be low for some sequences, namely those that code for critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA, which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains that are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly non-conserved.[26]
* Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In 2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old discovered fossils of Tiktaalik.[27]
* Evolutionary theory predicts that novel inventions can arise, while creationists predict that new "information" cannot arise, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only allows for "information" to be lost.[28] In an ongoing experiment, Richard Lenski observed that E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, which constitutes a novel invention, and an increase in the information of the DNA of the E. coli.
Stolen from Wiki, but covers some of the testable predictions that you seem to believe didn't exist.
 
I've got to admit, I remain massively skeptical about the mere possibility.
The sheer precision required to arrange even a tiny number of atoms into a particular structure is incredible. And the energy required to overcome all those sub/atomic forces!

Dismantling an entire biological entity, transmitting the amount of information neccesary to recreate it at some other end accurately and within a reasonable amount of time does seem slightly ambitious at best.

The manufacturing process that would be neccesary for making a quantum computer a commercial enterprise may offer a glimmer of hope perhaps?

At least with flight there's an obvious example in nature to emulate, same with electricity.
 
Back
Top Bottom