Bill Nye Guy

Hey everyone i was just reviewing chemistry for a class i am going to take next semester and i came upon some questions i am trying to solve which i think might be right but i am not sure. 1.) The rate constant for the decomposition of N205 at 70 celisus is 6.82x10-3s-1 N2O5(g)-->2NO2(g) + O2(g) a.) what is the rate law of this reaction? be sure to include the value of the rate constant in this expression. *my answer* rate=k[NO2]2[O2] since NO2 is 2 and O2 is 1 overall the rate law is 3. I said the rate constant is 6.82x10-3s-1 since that is what it was for N2O5. b.) what is the half life of this reaction if the initial concentration of N2O5 is 0.0125M? *my answer* I believe t1/2 is equal to 0.693/k so its 0.693/0.0125. c.) what concentration of N2O5 will remain after 2.5 MINUTES if the initial concentration is 0.0125M? *my answer* 150(1/2)=0.693/k I just want to know if i am doing this right and if not what am i doing wrong and what are the right answers. If i do well on this or if i understand it, then i think i will take the class, which apparently deals a lot with this kinda stuff. Thanks again for your help everyone. Peace.

hey everyone i had a question about fungi. When dealing with warm vs cool environments, illumainated vs shadded environments and dry vs wet environments which one for each three gives the fungi a more cummulative richness. To say for each three, which gives a more rich community or environment.

Hey i am reviewing for a chemistry test and for some reason i can't get the answer the guide says. Here is the question: An Aqueous solution of 10.0g of catalase, an enzyme found in the liver, has a volume of 1.00L. The solution’s osmotic pressure at 27 C is found to be 0.74 torr. Calculate the molar mass of catalase. Any help on this problem would be helpful Thanks again everyone.

Hey all, my chem. teacher decided to give us some advanced questions for us to think about for next class period. We havent talked about them yet and i have had trouble with getting the answers. Any help on the following questions would be great. A.) Assign oxidation numbers to all atoms in the following compounds. a.) (NH4)HPO4 b.) CO c.) XeOF4 B.) Specify which of the following are oxidation-reduction reactions and identify the reducing agent, the substance that is oxidized, the oxidizing agent and the substance being reduced. a.) O3 (g) + NO(g) --> O2(g) + NO2(g) b.) Cr2O72-(aq) + 2OH-(ag) --> 2CrO42-(aq) + H2O(l) c.) 2CuCl(aq)--> CuCl2(aq) + Cu(s)

Well i am making a huge project that concerns the testing of water quality in a rural and city environment. It is obvious to assume that a city location will have more acidic concentration, more nitrate, iron, and chloride concentration then a rural environment. My question is that i need to make a null hypothesis on this topic (null means that it can be disputed or refuted) can anyone help me in making a null hypothesis on this topic. Thanks alot everyone

I was just woundering what is the effects of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers running into a body of water, I heard it negatively effects life. Could someone explain why to me. I read a topic about this but was not explained the reasons why. thanks alot everyone.

"No, anyone who uses the term "de-evolution" in a scientific context has blatantly declared that they do not posess anything past a lay understanding of evolution; this is a very low hurdle if you are trying to have a scientific discussion. (and how worthwhile is a lay discussion of scientific matters?) Which might explain (some of) your self-confessed problem. Similarly, anyone who uses "deceleration" in a scientific context has declared they do not understand anything past the first day or so of physics 101" lol, its interesting you say that because my ap bio teacher (i am a high schooler) spent awhile teaching us about de-evolution. "2) We didn't evolve from great apes. We and the great apes had a relatively recent common ancestor. To take human DNA and alter it to the point of being like one of the great apes, that would be moving sideways, not backwards" I know we didnt evolve from apes, what i am trying to say is reverse the time table of evolution so we hit a common ancestor (for both apes and humans). Something like homo erectus.

sorry for delay http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4782492.stm That is the link for the family i mentioned. It doesn't have all the information some sites had but it should help describe what talked about. Would there be anyway to cause a devolution effect to those 600 or so genes. If not, would there be some way to cause a rapid evolution to the 2% genes in the great apes so that they show some human qualities? Thanks again for the information.

alright i was reading and watching alot about genetic engineering and about how scientists can manipulate certain genes, find what function it creates and change the gene to what they want to. Now this question might sound stupid, but is it possible that if scientists manipulated the key genetic difference (2% or so) that seperates us from Great Apes, they could infact cause a form of devolution , so the individual who is inserted with this changed DNA will have many qualties, characteristics, and similarties to some of our recent ancestors. I do know that there is a difference in the amount of chromosomes between humans and great apes. However i also read recentally that scientists found a family in Turkey that has for a long time, had kids who walked on all fours and in fact had trouble speaking human language (if they can speak the human language at all). If anyone can give me any information or personal thoughts about this matter, i would greatly appreciate it....thanks again all!!!!!

alright this may have a obvious answer, but i was woundering why is it that Adenine and Guanine or Cytosine and Thymine can not pair up. I know it deals with the molecular structure of the base pairs, but can someone explain indepth why their can't be a pair like Adenine and Guanine on a spot on the DNA. Thanks alot everyone

The Selfish Gene Theory Origin of Species The Complete World of Human Evolution Problem is most books on evolution have similar content. The only real difference from the books is what the author thinks is the future of evolution

I just got the book a couple of days ago. I will get a review and summary when i finish it, which shouldn't be in very long. It is a great book though, it rivals Darwin and Dawkins in my mind.

I just found some interesting sites that i think you guys might want to look at. http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051102_natural_selection.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_sc/mice_human_brains;_ylt=Ao0RzCbpaMFEIpm9NL7I0sgPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-- http://livescience.com/animalworld/051215_fish_color.html http://livescience.com/humanbiology/051214_brain_evo.html I personally think these sites give more insight and proof towards Evolution, and might help favor Evolution in the continued debate between ID and Evolution. Anyway tell me what you think about them.

I don't really think that theory is going to get a strong foothold in the scientific community. Most scientists are smart enough to understand that ID and creationism are both pathetic. They know that many branches and fields within science support evolution. I also think that this court case between evolution and id well probably not effect much. If id wins then it will only be "mentioned" at the begining of 9th grade biology for that school. At the most the decision of the judge may just motivate one side to win a eventual case at the supreme court level. I just hope the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the case a couple of months from now....with that soon to be conservative edge they would probably extend id's presense in a classroom Well in the case of universities i don't think that will happen. In private colleges where gov. can't influence the decision i don't think id well ever be taught. Or if it will, maybe in a non-science class. Colleges and universities won't follow id seeing as how most of them have classes that are called evolutionary biology or have a huge evolution presnse in the class.

What way do you think the Judge will rule on the case? I heard so far that the decision will be made around Nov. 8. From what i also heard, the judge seems to be well informed on evolution and the definition of theory. I would be delighted to hear your guys views on how this and maybe future cases may turn out. BTW: here is a really interesting link that i found concerning evolution and science. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/sc_nm/science_usa_dc;_ylt=ApyC3CW2LMYi..IPj_.7FwxxieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NmhocGZ1BHNlYwMxNzAw

http://uanews.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=6522 http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050831_phoenix_tech.html I just wanna know what you guys think. Do you guys think phoenix will find any signs of life under the surface of Mars?? Do you think there will be any significant contributations made after it studies the ice caps?? Thanks for your opinions!!!!

Wow that is one of my favorite books. I have recommended it to most of my friends. I would acutally put this book higher compared to Orgin of Species.

sounds like some good ideas. However can you explain "I have also proposed a science-based Theory of Intelligent Design" From what i heard, the debate in the scientific community is that ID is not yet a theory. I would greatly appricate it if you can specify on these details.

I am not saying that its bad that he is a devout christian...that doesn't bug me at all. However the fact that he is devout in his beliefs and is talking about genetics and evolution in specific, its hard to see that his statements arent biased. This is to say that if he accepted it, wouldnt it go against most of his beliefs? yeah for the most part i agree with you, but i would not say that is the case for all of europe. I have been on some creationtists websites that were started by those in europe. Most of them are well informed of the debate and evidence. -peace all-

I must agree that i didn't think that guys ideas were to good. I was looking on alot of sites about the chimp genome ( spelled it right this time ) and most of the scientists were saying that there was between a 94-99% similarity between chimps and humans. They also said that the few differences they had, accounted between the key differences between chimps and humans. I dont know what that guy was smoking when he said the actually percentage goes down to 85...he didn't take part in anything and yet he "claims" it would be that much. I frankly think its BS, because the other scientists, who said it was 94-99%, actually took part in the genome and actually knew what they were doing. That guy was a christian, thats all thats needed to explain why he tried to dispove the chimp genome project.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050831/sc_space/firsteverchimpfossilsfound I just want to have your view on this new discovery. I personally think it doesn't change anything, and probably makes evolution more viable. What do you guys think... BTW: sorry i spelled chimp wrong

wow thanks for all that information, it differently helped.

alright i have been reading alot about how the first living organism ( aka single celle) was created. I have been looking at alot of sites but i still have a few questions which i would be happy if you guys could solve. Link Number 1- http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html This talks about how RNA needed to be present before Amino acids and protein in order for there to be the creation of the first cell. It also talks about how they tried to create the amino acids, protein and RNA in the lab. The one problem they had is they couldn't create RNA without the help of protein synthesis yet they said that they thought RNA had to come before protein in order for the cell to be created. Link Number 2- http://www.lawrenceroberge.com/RNAWORLD.htm This is also some more insight into the idea that RNA should be created first, yet i am still confused about some of the ideas duscessed from both sites..... -My main question concerns RNA. Both sites said that they thought RNA HAD to come BEFORE everything else ( DNA,Protein, AMino acids, etc), yet they had a hard time coming up with how RNA was created besides the idea that RNA was formed from a lower system or version. -I was woundering if RNA could have been created after the proteins and still have helped in the birth of the first cell? If so how would the RNA been created and what would be its involvement in the creation of the first cell? -I was also woundering if it was possible that something else besides RNA with the help of Proteins and Amino acids could help create the first cell? If so what would this thing be, how would it be created and what role would RNA play in it? - My last question deals with the improtance of protein synthesis with the creation of DNA and thus the first cell. I amazed at the importance that protein played into the creation of both DNA and the first cell. From what i was taught in my classes, i was unaware that protein played as huge a role as both sites claim it did. Can someone possible explain how protein is that important to the birth of both the first cell and DNA? I have been reading this material for awile know and have been poundering these questions for awile know. I would greatly appricate it, if someone can clairify and properly answer these questions. Thanks for the time all. Also any comments, information,or updates on the topics suggested in the two sites would also be greatly appricated.

well no i didnt mean to say that it would enhance my case at all, all i was saying is that it is probably one of the most accepted parts of evolution, or at least the part of evolution that people less argue about. And sorry about saying "100% proven" guys, that phrase was alittle to strong for what i really ment.

do you know how BS that is. I have been on many ID sites and i have read some articles about ID and most of the time ID is mentioned, the context proves that ID is mainly christian. You dont see OTHER COUNTRIES supporting ID. You also don't see other countries with people who have such a problem with evolution. No that problem is ONLY in america. Also with the rest of the arugment did you notice that ID people believe in MICROEVOLUTION. It is a pure fact. More proof. Microevolution is hard to disprove. If you look it up and learn about it i think you will find that it has been 100% proven. It would be interesting to see from the people you talk about so much, how much of evolution they believe happened. If they don't believe evolution happened at all then they are seriously stupid. If they only believe in microevolution and not macro then they need to read more about macroevolution. If they believe in both and yet for some reason are IDers, then they should be shoot for sheer stupidity. I hope i didn't offend anyone here ...........