cypress

The jugular vein is large and goes directly to the heart. As such, the pressure is very low and can go into slight vacuum pulling air into it if it is damaged.

Your welcome. Good luck.

Right, decisions involve both contingency and purpose. Determinism is fixed and random chance cannot have purpose. It is not enough to claim free will is a product of some combination of these other modes. Claims are cheap. Alternate definitions do not offer solutions, they are cheap debate tricks. It seems so, perhaps because they are having difficulty with a proper argument.

You seemed to have dodged the argument by attempting to argue that events involving choice can have elements of other causal modes including deterministic and perhaps random factors. However the contingent portion does not require deterministic modes. Determinism is not a necessary or sufficient component of choice. They are independent modes that often work together in complex causal situations. In these situations the outcome is influenced by all modes. If the cause of the process we call choice is deterministic, then it follows that choice is illusionary. We can say this because uniform experience and logic both inform us that deterministic causes always have non-contingent outcomes. Perhaps you can provide clear examples where deterministic causes lead to purposed contingent events. Do you have any examples of this? I concur with Cap'n Refsmmat in his response. You are clearly arguing that choice is deterministic and thus contingency is illusionary, as I originally stated. Your follow on argument that choice, as we have framed it, is like accept Cupid's arrow as the cause of love, lacks support and seems as if it is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well by reframing choice as if it were magic. To accept your argument we would also have to accept that anything we have not identified a source for is magic. This is quite obviously wrong. Now this puts us back to the original post which has a fundamental issue in that the premise that religion may be considered a behavior similar to a genetically programmed instinct falls short because it lacks necessary and sufficient causal explanation. this is because religion involves choice, choice requires cognition, and cognition cannot be reduced to material cause.

As I said, I explained it in the text afterward, but now it is clear, that I was too brief for your understanding. If cognition, including the processes that lead to making choices are a product of evolutionary processes then they are determined by our genetic makeup and resultant development. It would follow then that our choices are not free choices at all, rather they are determined and free will is thus illusionary.

In context with the explanation afterwards, it seems to follow. Perhaps I was too brief.

The classical view of neo-Darwinian evolution including gradual change over time is finally giving way to a modern synthesis which in some ways is beginning to acknowledge that significant changes including your example likely involve mechanisms that do not fit the model of natural selection of genetic errors. There are newer models based on evidence of nonrandom genetic changes induced by environmental and perhaps other influences. You are quite justified in wondering how blind random processes might generate novel systems without "forethought". Experimental biologists are increasingly examining the limits of random genetic error to produce the quantity and diversity of genetic changes to feed the number of protein interactions, gene controls and developmental controls require for new cell level biochemical processes. Population genetics when applied to the number of changes is demonstrating that the number of alterations do not happen in the timeframes indicated by the fossil evidence. We actually don't know this, we speculate this is true. Take the Giraffe's neck for example. If neck length is explained by selective advantage how does one account for the fact that female giraffe's are about two feet shorter than males? What part of selective advantage accounts for that? There are a host of other major issues involving the need to coevolve a large number of required subsystems with this concept I don't intend to get into in this reply, but again this model seems seriously deficient in terms of explanatory power. It is an elegant narrative but it does not seem to match the facts. We are in need of a better more coherent process. This is another reason to be suspicious of the classical model. Again, the example of experimental biology and population genetics indicates you are correct to question this. I would not have a problem even if you were a creationist, you are asking questions that don't currently have very good answers. Progress is being made but I suspect the classical ideas are in need of an overhaul.

It's an interesting but old idea. It may get some traction, but likely only after free will and choice are first successfully shown to have an evolutionary/genetic cause and thus is illusionary. The reason is that our experience and observations inform us that religion is a choice. In addition one would have to show that cognitive processes and system are reducible to material. As far as human propensity to make sense of the world in terms of the frameworks they think they understand, I note that in modern times, evolution is atheist creation narrative, so nothing as really changed in this respect. Humans continue to be constrained by their experience. When it comes to explaining common beliefs in terms of selective advantage, I don't see any way to do this without changing the concept of evolution from scientific explanation into that of metaphysics. How could one falsify the proposed explanations? How could one provide confirmation? I suppose that is why this thread is in the religious section.

I agree with alpha. Engineers design nearly everything in modern society. Encourage your son to examine the things humans make (all of it) and try to determine what he is most interested in designing. Then figure out what specialty of engineering designs those things. Buildings and roads --> Civil Electronics and computers ---> Electrical Chemical manufacturing ----> Chemical Medical equipment ---> Biomedical Etc. etc. Demand for particular fields change from year to year and place to place, it is a fools errand to try to guess demand 4 years out. Pick the field and move to the job. Good luck...

Relatedness at a these levels is proving to be much more tricky than earlier classification might indicate. This is because the process is based on groupings and categories populated by noting various similarities in both modern historical specimens and now gene sequencing as well. The assumtion is that closely related species will share more developmental and genetic similarities than distantly related species. With modern genetic techniques available, we see that the tree of life is not so much a tree as it is a tangled bush or even an brier patch. It is proving much more difficult to establish actual relatedness than once presumed. To answer your question, there are numerous examples of what are thought to be very distant species with genetic similarities that are astonishing. It makes it difficult to know if these species are related in the sense you mean or if the assumptions about relatedness are not correct. It gets back to the point that based on current data, the tree of life looks more like a tangle of bramble. It is likely going to take a long while to untangle it, it it seems certain that many of the assumptions that went into the original model of a tree of life were incorrect.

You could if you knew that 100% of the ammonia mass flow evaporated but was not super heated so that only latent heat is considered. Total heat may be easier to measure from the oil side using heat capacity mass flow and temperature drop. If you can measure accurately, either way works, your formula or the oil side. That formula looks correct except you are missing mass flow of the oil. It is because Q_dot is the actual energy transferred and C_min*(T_h - T_c) [* m_oil] (don't forget the mass flow rate) is the theoretical maximum energy transfer possible. Efficiency being the ratio of actual to maximum possible.

Some research has indicated that platelets switch on expression of TF when stimulated. There is clear evidence of TF in Apoptotic platelet cell fragments. When I read about this a couple years ago, it was not clear when or how the stimulation occurs, but it is likely that this may be the source of TF and the cause of coagulation you describe in test tubes. As far as I understand, in capillaries, minor trauma to the endothelium generally exposes blood to cells that contain TF in the membrane surfaces as opposed to exposure to collagen proteins. If the trauma is severe it is likely that both mechanisms are involved.

It's not an established fact that alternate models are proved to be false, and furthermore, while wiki is generally good for basic explanations of ideas, it is hardly a good arbiter of alternative concepts. Forgive me for requiring a better evidence. A traditional three dimensional outward expansion of space/time includes a blast front which is the remnants of the initial explosion of energy and matter and the source of background radiation. This background radiation may cool over time as the front advances outward and its energy is depleted and dissipated by boundary interactions. Thus this model not inconsistent with background radiation that cools over time. While "cooling" over time of background radiation is also consistent with the Cosmological Copernican Principle, it does not confirm or prove it and it is false to claim that it is the only model that explains observations of background radiation and behavior over time. Wiki is not always a good source of objective truth. I am particularly suspicious when wiki text includes exclusive terms like "prove" and "only" to describe speculative theories that are difficult or impossible to confirm through direct observation. Apparent cooling of background radiation is an indirect indicator at best.

I don't know. It seems that it is more than the inefficiency of redundancy. It must impact development somehow, perhaps due to overexpression of developmental control genes. Evidence for this is that polyploidy animals begin to develop but most often don't reach maturity. Animals seem to have more complex developmental controls that may be more sensitive to imbalances caused by excess chromosomes, whereas plant cells generally have relatively more genes and fewer non-protein encoding controls which may be a factor. I am making guesses here, so if anybody has better information,please bail me out. In the mean time I will see if I can find something more about this.

Hmm, It seemed quite relevant given Alpha's comments. Incidentally I do not see the inconsistencies you refer to. Ones view is often informed by ones presumptions, perhaps this explains the difference.

The simple answer is that the extra chromosomes seems more often to not harm plant cell function and often improves plant development whereas in animals it is more commonly dysfunctional and most occurrences in animals (most often due to polyspermy) result in premature death.

The expanding space/time model Sisyphus mentions is just one of several speculations. It happens to be one of the more popular models and includes assumptions that lead to the tentative conclusions that there is no center or edge to this universe. Other models do allow for a center and event horizon(s)/edge and are based on different assumptions. One key assumption of one alternative is that our observation point is near the center and therefore the universe appears to be expanding (generally) uniformly in every direction. It is not known which model, if any is correct.

The dilution factor is the final volume divided by the original volume. The diluent is the amount of solvent added. Final Volume = Original Volume + Diluent. So DF = 1 + D/O

There are two pathways for blood clotting cascade. One has, as an initial step, surface contact with collagen as you have indicated, which occurs for example with an open wound. The second does not involve contact with collagen rather it begins with tissue/cell trauma which exposes blood to cells that express thrombokinase, or coagulation factor III. Also known as Tissue Factor (TF), cells that express TF, a surface glycoprotein, are not normally exposed to blood except when tissue trauma occurs. TF binds with VIIa and X and the cascade proceeds. There are a number of good articles on this process on the web I am sure, have a look at them and let us know if you have further questions.

I cannot be both false and unproven. Since false is out of play while unproven remains in play. The observations you summarized are also consistent with uniform expansion of a classical 3 dimensional space of generally uniform density from a observation point near the center.

The observations described in the thread and other observations of which I am aware do not contradict alternatives models of the changes occurring in this universe over time. The contradictions mostly occur with the assumptions that go into the various models. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes it is an easy statement to make but exceedingly difficult to demonstrate that it is correct unless the assumptions are also "taken together" with the observations. Therefore the assumptions are driving the model, so what. Drop the assumptions and other models are coherent as well. My task here is support my claim that Bear's Key assertion that the expansion rate of the universe exceeds the speed of light is uncertain. With your help I have shown that the assertion depends on assumptions that may or may not be correct. I don't see how I have any other obligation. I have no interest in defending alternatives other than to properly note that there indeed are alternatives that don't rely on the same assumptions. I don't have any interest in launching off on critiques of these other models so I don't care to elaborate on them. I was interested in factual support for Bear's Key assertion. What I learned generally was that it is based on assumptions unique to a particular model and evidence that fits more than one model. Thank you for that.

Explained in the rest of my response. The part you excluded. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged By any common definition, religion involves belief and/or faith and thus choice and these require cognition. Wouldn't a model based on instinct contradict the basic tenet of belief, faith and choice?

Popular speculations are interesting. Even used with some amount of authority, speculations are not sufficient to demonstrate claims that alternatives are incorrect. So what we have is by a popular speculation, making assumptions about expansion mechanisms not understood, we have the distance of far away objects growing faster than the speed of light. But when these assumptions are dropped and instead we us mechanisms known and observed based on our uniform experience today we have those same distances growing at rates well under the speed of light. Since the popular speculation is based on assumption rather than facts, we currently have no way to validate one over the other. Popular opinion is often a poor judge of what is correct. Ah, but my point was to show that we don't know if the expansion rate exceeds the speed of light, and I did so by reminding you and others that the popular model is based on assumptions that may or may not be correct and lacks sufficient evidence on these key assumptions. The alternative model is based directly on observation and uniform experience, and so far as I know is not contradicted by any evidence.

No, I don't think so. If that was Inow's point, I rather think he would have stated it as you have, however your statement is simply a restatement of mine and since the OP's question was unambiguous, the meaning of religion in his sentence was also unambiguous. Inow was more likely being contrarian, taking exception to my description, despite his claim otherwise. Even in your description, having restated my original point that the possibility cannot be assessed, differs from Inow where he stated that it indeed was possible depending on alternate definitions, thus contradicting my post and by extension yours.

So if something is not possible, make it possible by redefining the term.... In other words move the goal post, nice. Is this acceptable science?