Argent

You were making a point in a petulant manner. This was despite the fact that I had politely informed you that your OP was ambiguous. You know, the bit where I said "There may be as many answers to this as there are couples. Perhaps you also believe this and are seeking some examples." I was acknowledging that maybe you wanted to receive specific ideas, so making your point was quite unnecessary. If you genuinely believe that your OP was clear and unambiguous, and are unwilling to acknowledge I pointed this out to in my response, then . . . . . . Edit: I see from your profile you are 14. Ignore everything I said.

The most important thing he has to do right now is sleep. Edit: so you plan to go into an exam in a sleep deprived state. Welcome to world of resits.

There is no need to apologise. I simple acknowledgement of your error would have been sufficient, but thank you. However, you still don't have it. DNA is not composed of amino acids. The four nucleobases, thymine, adenine, guanine and cytosine (plus uracil in RNA) all have ring structures. While this is true of a handful of amino acids, none of the nucleobases have the amine and carboxyl groupings found in those. I repeat my concern. Given this very weak grasp of some basic biochemical ideas it is presumptuous to question basics in the critical manner you seem to have adopted so far.

Don't get your knickers in a twist because your OP was somewhat ambiguous, an ambiguity I recognised in my reply. I took the time to consider your question and the time to make a response. The least I would ask for in return is some courtesy, not a hissy fit.

I've gone forty hours plus without sleep a number of times. In my experience paranoia sets in around the 36 - 42 hour mark. Alcohol appears to delay the onset slightly. Contrary to what the OP hopes for, but in line with what others have expressed, all mental functions, physical reactions and attitudes are below par.

There may be as many answers to this as there are couples. Perhaps you also believe this and are seeking some examples. The trite answer is "one in which both parties are mutually satisfied". The details, as noted, depend on the couple.

Since when have DNA molecules been proteins? That's a rhetorical question. DNA molecules are assuredly not proteins. That leaves me with a non-rhetorical question. If your knowledge level in regard to basic biochemistry is so low you are unaware that DNA is not a protein, should you be implicitly pontificating about biochemical matters? It seems a bit presumptuous.

It is probable that we have already introduced microbes to Mars and by using a careful selection process. i.e. those that could survive the less than perfect sterilisation process for the Mars landers.

Exactly. And why cannot the mastodon hunters not be homo sapiens? 130,000 years is comfortably within the 180k-200k appearance of the species.

I am confused, Derps, by your description of your friend's condition. You say that she sees yellow as green and green as yellow. That means that she can distinguish between yellow and green. She sees them as different colours. That is not colour blindness. For example, red-green colour blindness is a common form. People with this are unable to distinguish a red object from a green object. They appear to them as the same colour. Your friend just seems to be confused as to what to call certain colours, but is able to distinguish one form the other. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, so please correct me if possible.

This is misleading. I am presently sitting in front of a fire. The result is pleasant and comforting, nor am I experiencing any injury. At the same time the TV set is sending out a series of shockwaves. The only injury they are creating is a sense of outrage at the antics of politicians as reported on the news. @gene098, the point made by several other posters needs to be emphasised, as you seem to be missing it. The primary thing about fire is that it is a chemical reaction that, in terrestrial conditions, is generally an exothermic oxidation reaction. i.e. one or more chemicals combine with oxygen, giving off heat in the process. The secondary thing about fire is that, since heat is involved, the particles move faster in a vibration mode. The shock waves that occur in an explosion involve particles moving faster. momentarily, in a linear fashion.

Evolution often makes alternative use of features. These are intended to be used for speaking sensibly, but as we can see they can also be put to an alternative use.

You might wish to consider these points - Several people have misinterpreted your argument. Each of these people has, at least, a sound reputation on the forum for an understanding of science. No one has chosen to defend your position. It is therefore possible (and I think, probable) that you just presented your idea rather badly. Conclusion - blaming others for your own poor writing is funny when the topic is about "monkeys" writing Shakespeare.

That is not the the experiment or process you proposed. Language involves the use of symbols to represent various types of concept. The concepts precede the symbols. When our ancestors first agreed on a word for rain, they knew what rain was and understood the relationship of the word "rain" to the phenomenon. The process you have proposed for evolving language in monkeys eliminates their understanding of the meaning of the words they type accidentally. I'm simply astonished to find someone on a science forum proposing such a distorted experiment that reveals a misconception of the nature of language and of sound experiment. Have the public schools gotten this bad?

I sense that you have no interest in learning and probably little capacity for it. Consequently, I'm out.

akgeog woje gklkjlkqq;r0fmanrqo foff qlt;eq; fjf;LKFL Q EFKKk fkeq[eptimvnf qffjfewpa;ls ;fqfrg[jqwirotwjfl3of 8 lfald Note: It's not working yet.

I don't understand what you mean by that. The poles are points on the Earth's surface through which the axis of rotation passes. As points, they have no dimension. The land mass at the south pole is clearly larger than that at the north pole, since the latter is entirely ocean. Could you explain exactly what you mean by the north pole being smaller, please?

That sentence makes no sense. The geomagnetic fields partially shields the Earth from certain forms of radiation. It does not shield it from the electromagnetic spectrum. (i.e. light, UV, IR, X-rays etc.) If you are trying to suggest that there is ice at the poles because the pole is partially shielded from light by the field, then you are mistaken. Also, the field is not at its strongest in this location. That is simply the general area where the field lines penetrate the planet. Another sentence that makes no sense. What is temperature distance? The reason the poles are colder is that a given amount of sunlight is spread out over a wider area because of axial tilt and its orientation with respect to the sun. This is so well established and so straightforward that it is taught to students in primary school. We are losing ice mass. The shield is in a state of flux and may be headed for a significant reduction and reversal in the near future - say sometime in the next fifty thousand years. However these two observations are completely unrelated. A 1 or 2 degree change in average temperature represents a massive increase in total environmental heat. The rate of ice loss is not surprising given these large (not small) increases. Magnetism does not "pull in the sun's radiation" Radiation is not cold. Cold radiation from the sun, pulled in by the magenetic field, is not cooling our planet. It's quite good for you. I'm not sure it's so good for the rest of us sharing these islands with you. I think you have, but it's nothing that bed rest and a proper education won't cure.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of finding a link to refute your claim. Here are two relevant extracts from the one you provided: 1. "It is “well known” that Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in a pejorative sense, to make fun of the idea of an exploding universe, but what is well known is not necessarily correct. " 2. "Was Hoyle's use of “big bang” intended to be pejorative, as stated by Alpher and Herman and numerous other authors? This is possible, of course, but the evidence for the claim is unconvincing. In the British edition of The Nature of the Universe Hoyle twice referred to “big bang”, and in neither of the cases in ways that were clearly derisive. Neither Gamow, Lemaître nor other protagonists of explosion cosmologies felt at the time offended by the term or paid any attention to it. Moreover, in the many reviews of the book and critical comments on the BBC broadcasts, the name for the exploding universe that Hoyle had so casually invented played no role. As a broadcaster Hoyle needed word pictures to get over technical and conceptual points, and “big bang” was just one of them. As to Hoyle himself, he considered the name an apt but innocent phrase for a theory he was opposed to. In an interview of 1989, he insisted that he had not thought of it in a derogatory sense. “I was constantly striving over the radio – where I had no visual aids, nothing except the spoken word – for visual images,” he said. “And that seemed to be one way of distinguishing between the steady-state and the explosive big bang. And so that was the language I used,” (Lightman and Brawer 1990). The non-pejorative interpretation is further strengthened by the uses of “big bang” in the cosmological debate. If Hoyle had coined the name to ridicule or disparage theories with a definite origin of the universe, he would presumably have used it frequently during the heated controversy, which he did not."

Computer pioneer Harry Huskey dies aged 101 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37307825 Did it strike anyone else that five is quite young for a computer pioneer.

Hoyle introduced the phrase, but it is incorrect that he intended it to mock the idea. That is a common misconception. He used it on a BBC radio program as a colourful metaphor to help explain the concept to the audience.

Why is it important to understand any mechanism in nature? It may reveal principles that have practical applications. It will always addresses our inherent desire to understand. We do not require evidence. We know the circumstances in which inward migration can occur. Why not try a google search?

It is a rock. It is definitely a rock. There is no way in which it is anything other than a rock.

That's just wrong. It moves further away because tidal effects transfer angular momentum from the Earth (which slows it rotation) to the moon. That's more or less right.

My understanding of the rules on video links is that you can use them, but they should not represent your entire argument. You should ideally summarise that argument in your own words and use the link to provide more depth, or background. I think your OP went some way towards meeting these requirements, but that just an opinion of someone with fewer posts than you have.