mississippichem

Cap'n, got a good estimate on how many spambots we have sign up on an average day?

The speed of light in some medium is given by: [math] v= \frac{c}{n} [/math], where [math] c [/math] is the speed of light in a vacuum (the one that never changes) and [math] n [/math] is the refractive index of the medium. This is by no means new and is taught in freshman physics classes everywhere.

You argue that we haven't observed macro evolution and use this as proof that macro-evolution is false. Your are not accounting for the fact that we have not been observing long enough to observe a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. This doesn't "prove" evolution so to speak, but it makes your point moot. How is it so unbelievable that a lot of microevolution adds up to some macroevolution over huge timescales?

Moved to Earth Science for lack of a better place to put it.

It depends on which sector you are talking about. I know, In China for example, if you had invested in a company called Petro China (NYSE: PTR) in late 2008, you would be very happy right now. However, other sectors in the Asian markets have not fared so well. Many people are investing in the Chinese oil stocks now as they are putting massive capital into exploration. So...the risk is moderately high.

I hope you have enough free time to read the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles that I linked you to. You wanted evidence from the literature, you got it...know what is the problem?

Follow this link: Evolution of Wings, put on your surprise hat. By the way, you are the one making claims contrary to mainstream science, the burden of proof is on you. That's why this pseudoscientific nonsense spreads so fast. It's easy for you to post random rantings about how you don't understand things implying that we are somehow wrong (this is also a logical fallacy). It requires effort to put to rest your senseless line of questioning.

Yeah, I figured as much. Wet NMR tubes are just one of those things that make my blood boil. Even the possibility of such calls for a death atonement.

If you need help understanding the concepts of radiometric dating, then we are glad to help.

What if the creature's food source is located at the tops of very high trees? Then it makes a lot of sense. I think you don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. Evolution is not conscious, it does not follow logic. Most mutations are not favorable, but those organisms tend to not reproduce or tend to not have a reproductive advantage. Every now and then, a mutation occurs that just so happens to be favorable. Those with the favorable mutation tend to reproduce more.

Off topic. Regardless of your feelings about Richard Dawkins, or silly young Earth theories; you've yet to present any evidence of the weaknesses of radiometric dating. I suspect that you don't understand concepts like first order decay kinetics, half-life, or carbon fixation. If you want to convince us you're going to need a really good, air-tight argument. You'll have to convince the physicists here that they are wrong about radioactive decay kinetics, and you'll have to convince us chemists that we don't understand things like leaching or oxidation of organics. People who talk about us not knowing how much 14C is missing from the sample to begin with neglect the fact that we understand all these processes extremely well. By the way, much of our radiometric dating is backed up by dendrochronology and/or various geological methods so you'll need to debunk those as well. Pony up and give us a quantitative argument. We enjoy the challenge, or lack of.

Tell your underlings, if you have any; that next time they hand you a wet NMR tube, you're going to smash it in their face. Thats what I do...seems to work

For those who don't know, cellulose is a polymer of glucose units.

Thanks for that video. Not only did it lighten my rather dreary day, but it made me feel not so bad about some of the religious political nuts we have on my side of the pond. Evidently the global distribution of political religious nuts is homogeneous and spreads as far the other side of the other pond: Mitsuo Matatyoshi

How many atoms does one need to define an index of refraction? Does the cluster of atoms need to be at least a few incoming wavelengths thick? I imagine scattering causes problems here. Its an intetesting questions because it has implications about where we draw the "bulk material" line.

Can we get some NMR data?

So what was the drug? Tell us By the way. You display many symptoms that are typical of paranoid schizophrenia: delusions of grandieur, paranoid ranting, belief in conspiracies directed at you by complete strangers etc. It is my unprofessional opinion (remember, im incompetent) that you seek psychological help post haste.

Sounds like a job for a temp probe. I also think that measuring the rate of cooling would be easier to observe than a temperature difference after some elapsed time.

Google search for "analytical chemistry consultant" yields about 1,200,000 results. Personally, I'm all for you buying John Cuthber an HPLC and UV-Vis though.

That's why we have teaching labs in the undergraduate curriculum. You literally get to try out fundamental concepts for yourself, and observe that the mathematics really do line up with reality. That's also another reason that the math is so important. It truly is the purest, most unambiguous, and objective logic.

No rep-points are visible to me on the mobile version. Not a big deal, but worth mentioning. I'm also seeing profile pictures instead of avatars in the threads.

I would say start with some basic physics once you acquire some algebra/trig skills. Learn a bit of basic differential and integral calculus to really learn the meat of basic physics.

But it is cumbersome even to express something as simple as compound interest in everyday language.

I almost gave a rebuttal but after a short pondering I see your logic and will concede that point. Any information obtained from a torture would session would most probably be unverifiable. I think there are a few cases were it would be verifiable but your logic is quite airtight except for in the most extraneous [unlikely] of circumstances.

I was saying that ether and acetone are not carbohydrates but contain C, H, and O whereas for example ribose does fit the above mentioned formula and is a "carbohydrate" in the biochem sense. Maybe we are answering different questions? I see your point.