Kermit

Me (a strong atheist) and a friend (a strong Christian) were having a small debate over AIM about evolution vs. "intelligent design". He emails me an article later saying that it "proves everything" and that "evolution is wrong". The article goes something like this: I'm going to laugh now. Hahahaha.

Speaking of mutations, from this book i've read, of the 100 or so mutations occuring at fertilization (or somewhere around that): 96 do nothing. 3 are potentially harmful. 1 is beneficial.

Hmm. Well, I dunno. Maybe a few eons later we'll be large, hairless, and with giant brains. That is, if we don't all wipe eachother out. Maybe we'll even prosper and become a Type I, then II, then III civilization like those hypothesized by that, uh, guy whose name I can't remember.

Oh no. (explodes, destroying everything in a 15 mile radius) ... there goes the neighborhood.

Ah, okay, thanks. Now, if I was to drink heavy water and nothing but that, what would happen to me?

I guess you make magnets. And besides, it's black and metallic. Of course it's going to look cool no matter where you use it.

Out of curiosity, what's the density of deuterium oxide (heavy water)? Or even tritium oxide (radioactive heavy water)?

Whatever you do, don't major in Liberal Arts. You'll end up in Starbucks.

You're thinking of mass. That's just part of density.

Or so say the pseudoscientific New Age thinkers.

Actually, I took astronomy last semester as my elective course, that's when I had Mr. Calumpit. Was quite thorough, but that lisp.. that was the scary part. And yes, nerds like us love doing homework.

Thanks!

[Previous message somehow dissapeared] Oh, wait, my bad. I mixed that up. Gravity is only attractive, and antigravity is repulsive. Oops. Anyway, as I was saying, buoyancy is just the tendancy of lighter objects to float atop denser ones, but that's only because the denser ones are pulled downward more by the attractive forces of gravity. The buoyant objects aren't being pulled up.

Ah, I see. Okay. What other elements have been considered as a possible basis for life? Could germanium be, since it's in the same group as carbon and silicon?

Like in the case of silicon. Why do scientists think it could serve as an alternative molecule to carbon for life?

Why not get this all turned into a debate?

Have they even given the planetesimal a name yet? Or at least considering it?

What qualifies an element to serve as a basis for life?

Ah, okay. Thanks.

All the other subatomic particles that aren't protons, neutrons, or electrons -- like hadrons or bosons -- do they have a purpose? As far as I know most are short lived and decay into other more stable particles.