Sisyphus

That's an interesting take. Natural selection, by it's nature, is only "concerned" with the present. We're thinking beings, so we can, right or wrong, be concerned about the future as well, which means we might value different traits than natural selection, even while being concerned about the same thing: survival. That's not all there is to it, of course. For example, I would value intelligence whether or not I thought it would aid in long term survival of the species. And actually, it might just be harmful. As is, we seem to be just smart enough to kill ourselves off in some spectacular fashion. Dumbed down a bit, we'd just be a staggeringly successful generalist species occupying almost every ecosystem on Earth.

What do you mean, "in reality, no?" That is how it works. Mutations persist unless actively "weeded out" by harming reproductive success rates, and even that is not a simple yes/no. They can be weeded out at different rates, or only under certain conditions (thus encouraging different behavior, which in turn changes the whole "environment," etc.)

If the universe is infinite, there is almost certainly also an infinite amount of stuff in it. We think molecules need to change in specific ways to support life. But the definition of life is slippery. For example, a robot could be "alive" without employing traditional biochem, which would be a "proof of concept" that it could exist in other ways (though not that it could arise independently, although if the universe is infinite...). I do think you could make an educated guess that life which is superficially at all like us would very very likely also resemble us in fundamental chemistry, or at least be one of a very few types of variations.

I see a lot of laughing from atheists, but the only actually outraged chatter I've seen has been from Christians, for obvious reasons. And not only liberal Christians, either. And yes, many conservatives seem to think it's pretty hilarious, too. The term "conservative" as used by Conservapedia is extremely narrow and thankfully unrepresentative, despite what they might claim.

Man always makes his gods in his own image. In the case of the Conservapedia crowd, that just means their god is extremely small, petty, specifically American, kind of cartoonish, and above all, obsessed with homosexuality. It also means fiercely dependent on unquestionable rules and appeals to authority. However, for that to work, they need an authority, which for them is the Bible. However, the Bible doesn't suit their purposes well enough, so ironically they have to change it while pretending to reinforce it. Hooray, cognitive dissonance!

I wish we could throttle our rep power. Us godlike beings can only hand out ambrosia or thunderbolts, when most of the time I only intend pats on the head or wags of the finger.

The singularity would be where all the "stuff" is, all of the mass in an infinitely dense mathematical point. I'm also out of my depth, but I just don't see how individual particles could have any independent existence. However, the properties that make antimatter different from matter surely would be conserved. Or charge would, at least. I would also ask what "energy being released" would actually mean in this context. Converted to photons? The singularity can't emit photons. What's the difference between matter and energy, when speaking about a black hole?

Pretty sure black holes aren't "matter" or "antimatter" in that sense. That would require them to still be made up of all the individual particles that went into them, right? But black holes just have mass, charge, and spin, monolithically.

If you have a self-replicating process with minor variations that affect the probability of successful replication, then evolution becomes a logical necessity. The specific mechanics of how this process first began is basically the same question as how life began, as the definition of life isn't really separable from this process. Any living thing pretty much has to be part of evolution.

Well of course "just having the chemicals there" is not enough. Do you really think that evolution says that if you put the right amounts of carbon, oxygen, etc. in a vat, you'd end up with a human? Because that is very, very different from what evolution says.

The world is very different from what is was when life began. The hypothesized early life forms wouldn't be able to survive today. However, as has been said to you several times already in this thread, abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics. This is not true. Cells, most relevantly the brain, need a constant supply of oxygen to function and survive. Cut that off, and soon enough those cellular processes will break down and stop, and the cells will be irreparably damaged. This is a physical change.

Reading what creationists say about evolution (or what they think "evolution" is) is not the same thing as reading about evolution.

dunsapy, you appear to have several basic misunderstandings about what the theory of evolution actually describes. I suggest you check this out, it's pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Newtons are a measure of force, not kinetic energy. The ball doesn't "have" 10N. You apply 10N to it for a certain amount of time, and that accelerates it a certain amount to give it a certain velocity and hence a certain amount of kinetic energy. Anyway, no. The forces that a particle of air and the ball exert on one another are indeed equal, but there's no reason they would be equal to the force you exerted on the ball earlier. It depends on a lot of factors (their relative velocity, their masses, their respective elasticities), but what forces were exerted on them in the past is not one of of those factors.

The force exerted by the Earth on the stone is equal to the force exerted by the stone on the Earth: 10N. However, 10N can accelerate the stone a lot (9.8m/s^2, in fact), but 10N isn't anywhere near enough to noticeably accelerate the whole Earth. Does that clear it up?

That definition of "nerd" doesn't really encompass all the behaviors I think are generally considered "nerdy," but it's hard to define so I'll go ahead and use that one. Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of genetic aspects to it. Aspergers certainly comes to mind given that definition, although, unless I'm mistaken, we don't yet know what the physiological basis is for that. And further, there is a lot more to being an aspie than just singlemindedness, social awkwardness, and technical inclinations. (Right, Jill?) All of those things are probably influenced by genetics, independent of whatever aspergers is.

You also have to look at all the forces on the stone. Gravity is exerted downwards, water resistance (and buoyancy) is exerted upwards. Gravity is greater, so it sinks. However, each of these forces has an equal and opposite reaction on something else. In the case of gravity, the rock exerts the same force on the Earth as the Earth exerts on the rock, and so the whole Earth moves very very very very slightly towards it as it falls.

50%?!?! That's still five times the mass of the Moon. If, somehow, we could throw that much mass around, it would make it unlivable for a billion years, if not obliterate it completely. Again, if you can do something on that scale, you have may as well just make your own worlds from scratch.

So you're measuring it against subsequent self-assessments, by people who already have a specific answer put in their heads? Sorry, but I don't buy it. That "it's all subjective" is true, but I thought you were trying to show otherwise?

Then we would be godlike beings, and wouldn't have any use for childish things like planets anyway.

So wait, you think your assesments are more accurate than other tests? So... what are you measuring that against, if not other tests? If nothing, then that's just circular reasoning.

Since time travel isn't real*, none of the ways it's portrayed are "right." However, I greatly prefer the "whatever happens, happens" version, as it's less ridiculous and allows for more interesting (IMO) plots. *Yes, I know we subjectively experience "moving forward in time." I mean you can't take a piece of the universe (like a person) in 2009 and mash it into the universe in 1909.

I just looked it up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color). Apparently there are three types of color receptors in the eye, with peak sensitivities at different wavelengths. Color is perceived based on the proportion at which each type is stimulated. However, apparently some people have four kinds:

The core didn't lose anything except energy. It cooled off, and the dynamo effect generating the magnetic field broke down. Atmospheres can come from many different sources, not just volcanoes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

"Equilibrium," by definition, is just the point where various influences balance each other out. So, "why do things tend towards equilibrium" is a circular question, because "what it tends towards" is equilibrium by definition.