Sayonara

22.30

You know that tag is still a prototype? To Fireworks with me -->

Metabolism is a function. The processes involved in our metabolism function are a mechanism. The mechanism is a property of the function, also called a child node (call it child 1). The processes involved in a yeast cell's metabolism function are also a mechanism. They are another property of the function: call it child 2. Child 1 and Child 2 are both properties of the function (the parent node). They are sibling nodes, but they are not identical. We have not changed the number of functions we know about. We have only ended up with different mechanisms that are properties of that function.

That's not prime time you big cheat.

TBS will have paid Fox for the rights to show the episode. Fox are both a studio and a network iirc. They both own and air the shows.

Be careful of articles written by zealots - it's not going to be very helpful for the average user. I would not call what this guy is doing a "tendency" for most Mac users. He's probably had to hack up a lot of his programs to get them to work, or take part in Mac-supported projects through their developer community. If you want to know about Mac the best place to go is probably http://www.mac.com

Fox are still running the FG web site.

http://forums.devshed.com/archive/t-89228 That sums it up.

I am going to lie down in a darkened room and try not to scream. If you are looking for ExtraSense, I have blocked him from posting anywhere other than the pseudoscience forum.

They are all owned by Fox, but Family Guy is made by Seth McFarlane, not Matt Groening.

It's centered.

See post #60. Mechanisms of a function do not count as new functions. Oh, and that's not just for biology. It's for any object-oriented hierarcy.

That's not a proposal, nor is it "introducing a new problem". Once again, it's a baseless statement that you haven't evidenced or reasoned out. I've already been through the whole "different biology != more biology" thing.

Because personally I think it's 24 spam posts.

What exactly is it that you are proposing?

'You' plural.

Can you do us all a favour and make this thread get much much better?

So, to use your algebra analogy from earlier, you are trying to solve 2+x=5 for Y.

I think you'll find that peat forms in waterlogged ground that is buried - there should be evidence aplenty on Mars if there was a biosystem that was lush enough to support superstonefish and large mammals. Soil is generally considered to be the majority of the surface. Not if there was ever a macroscopic biosystem it isn't. We'd have detected evidence from space by now if it was there, never mind from close up on the surface. Not enough, not by a long shot. And I'm more referring to oil and natural gas - the products of organic decomposition and microbial action. Do you even know how fossils form? That's by far the most stupid thing you have ever used as 'reasoning'. I think you mean the data we are getting now. We have been to Mars before you know. Besides, that doesn't even approach dealing with my question - I want to know why you are making this claim based on such scant evidence, not why the evidence is scant. No, I don't think we do.

Gah, stupid leg

Testing without speech bubble images... This will produce a cartoon character with a speech bubble. Character can be changed. I'm thinking Cartman, Zim and Homer. Oh, and maybe Jesus.

You need to use valid syntax. That includes not using invalid syntax, such as trying to write your formula in a sentence. If [math]z = rcos(x) + irsin(x)[/math], then [math]z^n = r^n \cos(n x) + i r^n \sin(n x) \; \forall \; n \in \mathbb{N}[/math]

Where is the soil? Where is the peat? Where are the exposed coal seams? Where are the complex hydrocarbons? How are the fossils able to lay about on the surface when there has been no geological activity on Mars for a long, long time? Why is your only evidence of a society existing on Mars at a point in the past their alleged water pipes and animal carvings?

The future is not observable and does not - insofar as we know - have an impact on the present. Your arguments are void. You have a very simplistic view of biology. Let all the metabolisms we know of on Earth [acr=Metabolism Group 1]MG1[/acr]. Likewise let Earth genetics be [acr=Genetics Group 1]GG1[/acr]. Assume we find another life system with different metabolisms and genetics. Label them [acr=Metabolism Group 2]MG2[/acr] and [acr=Genetics Group 2]GG2[/acr]. Finding out about MG2 and GG2 does not mean we know more biology. We already know about metabolisms and genetics because we have MG1 and GG1. What we have found are simply different manifestations of the M-Group and the G-Group. You ask what we would learn from finding Earth-similar life: Primarily, we'd be able to answer old questions about life on Earth by testing against life off Earth. The more similar the alien life is to us, the fewer the variables that can interfere with the results. We'd be closer to understanding how common our life structure is in the galaxy. We'd have the possibility of establishing whether galactic ecology or panspermia play a role in the population of sterile worlds with life. Completely disimilar life would not afford this opportunity. There are many other possibilities for study but they are all rather contingent on the circumstances in which we find this life form/ecosystem: you haven't specified any such conditions and I'm not listing them all, because I don't have all day. Well actually I do have all day, but I'm not spending it on that.

Sorry, I didn't realise the reality we were discussing was the one in your head. No, I am not forgetting that. It's already provided for by my response. "Not more, but different".