mooeypoo

Don't sweet stuff increase cravings? Is it really that the American population gained apetite for sweeter food, or that the fast food industry started adding that sugary stuff to increase the American public's cravings for more food..?

Well, you either did not understand what you read, or you ignored it. Your representation of natural selection is not what the theory states. I would understand if you disagree with a theory. We can argue about its validity and share evidence for it and (if there are any) against it. But we can't do that if you represent the theory wrong. Did you read my example about the car mechanic? You are, right now, asking us to participate in a debate about the reason for the carburetor's need for raw sushi. It's a moot argument. The question itself makes no sense, because it's misrepresenting what a carburetor really *is*. The same happens here. You're misrepresenting the theories. The argument is moot. ~moo

And yet, people posted articles here that summarize Natural Selection and Evolution pretty well, and you chose to ignore them and go for your own set of resources. We already established that the set of resources you use until now is flawed, because your understanding of both Evolution and Natural Selection is extremely lacking (and your latest post, as the replies show, prove it further). Why not, for the sake of argument alone, entertain us and read the resources we put for you? You cannot seriously expect people to conduct a one-sided argument, MustKnow. We're not children, and we are not here for a preaching session. We've had people here before that did not "believe" in evolution, and yet the discussions were fair and civil, because they went both ways. If you're here to misrepresent a 120 year old theory just so you could boast your victory, then perhaps you should reconsider posting here at all. If, however, you feel brave enough to actually participate in a cooperative debate, then please try to stop nitpicking through the resources to read a partial idea about a huge theory and then conclude you know what the theory means. What you posted is not representing Natural Selection at all. You either want to know and learn, or you don't. Choose. ~moo

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ? yes it would , my point , AGAIN If you didn't measure or consider anything, it wouldn't happen. If it happened, it happened in relation to time. Your point is void.

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term. Right, the human has longer legs, and therefore faster velocity, and will get there faster. Velocity is movement. And check this out: [math]V = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math] Velocity is defined as the change of location (dx) in relation to time (dt)! so there *IS* a consideration of time there, isn't there? I - and others - did. We just refuted you. Perhaps you should try one refutation at a time.

north, you make no sense. You are using arbitrary meanings to well defined definitions and then expect everyone to agree with your logic. Movement is well defined. English language is well defined, too. No offense, north, but maybe the problem is with your (nonexistent) sentence structures. I don't understand what you mean, and I don't get your points. You made points based on flawed definitions and now you seem to insist they're still valid.. I don't understand any of your subsequent points. Since you're the one making the claim, it should be your concern to make sure people get what you mean. In other words: You're the one responsible in making yourself clear if you want anyone to accept what you're saying, not the other way around, since you're the one CLAIMING these things. I'm sorry, but I don't even know how to start answering your points, since I don't get what you're trying to say. ~moo

Everything, apparently. MustKnow, why are you so afraid of learning the subject? Multiple people here posted quite a large amount of VERY good resources for you to read and learn from, and you seem to ignore them all.. Evolution is a very big subject that cannot be explained in a single post. It's unfair of you to claim you want to argue this but then ignore every evidence we put forth because you don't want to deal with reading it (or whatever other reason it may be). Read the sites that people posted. They're not very complicated, and most of them are not very long. After you read, we can start talking in the same level and answer any of your questions. As it stands at the moment, your questions make absolutely no sense. It is as if I will go to a car mechanic and start an argument about how silly it is that the carburetor speaks latin when it has enough supply of sushi. And then, after the mechanic will give me a few books to read about what car engines and carburetors actually *do* (as opposed to what I thought they do) I will ask "so. what am I missing?" without reading the books. Seriously, now. Be serious and respectful, as we try to give you the same respect. If you're not READY to deal with this subject fairly, don't participate in the debate. ~moo

I don't. You do, that's why no one gets what you mean. ... .. I.. what.. okay, how does that have anything to do with ANYTHING!?? "Flat items" don't go rolling down the hill because flat items don't roll. What does that have to do with time being real or not?? north, seriously, you're mishmashing subjects here just to make a point true? I don't understand how this point have anything to do with your argument about time. ~moo

Quantum physics has nothing to do with evolution, MustKnow, and your questions SHOW you have no clue what evolution truly is. I suspect you learned what preachers claim evolution is, rather than what evolution ACTUALLY claims, seeing that your questions are all either logical fallacies or misrepresenting the theory.

Okay, look. oobapalloobabamba may be independent of time, if you want it to be, because it is undefined - and therefore can be redefined by you (yay!). Same with googalaratatatala and boobobaablalalabla. Feel free to fill in their definitions and then relate to them as independent of time. Motion, however, is DEFINED already. It already HAS a definition. It is dependent on time. You can't just claim it's independent and get it done with. It makes no sense. Motion is defined. "The act or process of changing position or place." (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion). This change is dependent on time (otherwise you have no change, you have a static situation == no motion!). I don't understand what you wrote here.. And what do you mean "the nature of the objects themselves"?? That requires some further explanation.

Did you post in the wrong thread? I don't quite see the connection to anything in here...? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again with the strawman, my friend. Look. If you're really interested in debating evolution and its processes, you need to start having a more open mind about this. For one, you need to start reading about evolution and the replies people put forth. Your last sentence shows how little you know about this subject. It's a recurring statement-sentence from all those anti-evolution preachers like Kent Hovind, meant to ridicule evolution in front of the laymen. It has NOTHING to do with what evolution *ACTUALLY* claims. Either start listening, or stop debating. Really. Read the rules, and give us the same respect we give you by not wasting either our time or yours.

What resolution/magnification does your microscope have?

Are you? If you're still coming into this discussion with a closed mind, then you are not besides anything. Huge strawman, MustKnow, along with a false dichotomy. First off, science does not talk about luck at all. You're misrepresenting the other side just so you could argue against it easily. Second, these aren't the only options. There are many -- MANY -- many more. Even if evolution is untrue (which would require a vast explanation about all the evidence found for it) that does not automatically mean "god did it". Please avoid logical fallacies, as they don't contribute to the argument at all, let alone your points.

For the billionth time, north, movement is defined by time. Seeing as this thread has derailed from proper physics into the realm of repetitive philosophical speculations, it is hereby moved to its new (and proper) home, the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum. north, physics uses definitions, please go over them and remain consistent. Otherwise, debates are impossible.

The falcon evolved to do these relative-velocity measurements in his head, that's how he's ABLE to catch the pigeon, north. The Falcon sees the pigeon. His brain measures its relative speed to his own. He calculates which angle to approach the moving pigeon, and acts. I don't see what the problem is, north. Either you're not explaining yourself properly, or you're insisting to just not read or consider what Klaynos and the others are explaining. In short: You're going in circles. Your proposed "problem" was solved, and you insist it wasn't, and then it is solved again, and you insist it isn't, and so on and so on. Read what people answer. Consider it. Then see if you still have a problem with observations vs. measurements.

That depends which microbes, MustKnow.. not all would strive on the same environments. You need to be a bit more specific..

There are quite a lot of levels and things you can do with microbiology, not just microscope. I have an experiment on my site (video, so it's a pretty decent walk-through) about how to take your own "DNA" (not precisely dna, that stuff's too small but it will create a string of amino acids inside a bottle. Very cool to watch). It's a nice experiment you can do at home without anything too complicated. http://www.smarterthanthat.com/experiments/dna-madness/ Other than that, I recommend you check a university close to you and try to take a basic course - it might cost money, but you will get muchmuch muuuuch more than you would have every gotten at home, and you will have access to very complicated equipment you would otherwise have no access to. Good luck, ~moo

Hey guys, I've recently started a more massive phase of gym and nutrition, to lose weight (MASS!) but more to just make sure I'm back in shape. I signed up to a newsletter by Jillian Michaels (the trainer in "The Biggest Loser") mainly for training advice and such. Today, the nutrition part of the mailing list included this part: Dump the Most Evil Sweetener of All In the late seventies, less than 15 percent of Americans were obese. Thirty years later, 32 percent of us are obese. What happened between then and now? First, the idea became popular that fat was evil and "low fat" diets were best. Whenever possible, fat was removed from processed foods and replaced with sugars and other carbs. At the same time, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) got really cheap and became food manufacturers' go-to sweetener. Since the days of the low-fat diet craze, we've learned not only that fat doesn't make you fat but that refined carbohydrates like sugar and HFCS do. Oops! A lot of damage has been done, but we can work with our hormones to teach our bodies to react to food the way they did before we overwhelmed our insulin response systems. A good place to start is to get rid of HFCS. This evil sweetener is incredibly damaging to your metabolism, and it's everywhere. Researchers at Tufts University report that Americans consume more calories from soda and other sweet drinks (which invariably contain tons of HFCS) than from any other source. You may have seen a commercial run by the Corn Refiners Association that tries to convince you that people who think HFCS is bad for you are paranoid; it suggests that most people can't even say why HFCS is bad for you. Well, here's your answer (tell your friends!): HFCS boosts your fat-storing hormones and makes you fat. Glucose (what table sugar is turned into in your body) is metabolized by all your cells, but fructose (the "F" in HFCS) must be metabolized in the liver. Because of this, HFCS somehow tricks the body into not releasing insulin and leptin, two essential hormones that are usually released after you eat. Without insulin, your body can't use those HFCS calories for energy, and without leptin, your body doesn't know it's full. Plus, unlike table sugar, HFCS doesn't stop levels of ghrelin, your hunger hormone, from rising. If you eat or drink HFCS, you'll actually continue to consume more calories, even 24 hours later, than you would had you just eaten plain table sugar. HFCS also increases triglycerides (a type of blood lipid), which prevent leptin from signaling the brain to stop eating. I have zero tolerance for HFCS. For me, it's a code word for poison, so toss it! Now, usually, I try to take these things in proper proportion - these mails are promotional, so I don't just 'eat it up' without checking. Most of the time, though, it has some fairly decent advice. This time, I have to wonder -- It sounds reasonable, but the way this article is written, it has a bit of "conspiracy" scent to it, so I'm not sure how far to take it. How bad corn syrup really is? Is HFCS that damaging, and is it really that much "everywhere"? Thanks ~moo

MustKnow, there's a huge difference between facts and a theory. For example, let's consider this list of facts: All items were thrown off the roof of my building, at the same height, and at free fall (no initial velocity): A square brick of 1kg hit the ground in X seconds. A brown feather of 3mg hit the ground in X+400 seconds. A yellow feather of 2mg hit the ground in X+600 seconds. A square brick of 2kg hit the ground in X seconds. Now, we do the experiment again, and gather facts again: The square brick of 1kg hit the ground in X seconds. The brown feather of 3mg hit the ground in X+1200 seconds. The yellow feather of 2mg hit the ground in X+800 seconds. The square brick of 2kg hit the ground in X seconds. Those were facts, they were recorded accurately and impartially, and, for the sake of argument, accurately according to the scientific method. Now come the observers. They look at the facts and offer theories of their own. Observer A claims: "Gravity is unpredictable only when it applies to feathers." Observer B claims: "Gravity is only predictable when it applies to bricks." Observer C claims: "Bricks of the same mass and shape will hit the ground at the same time." All observers have a theory that is falsifiable and measurable. It can be calculated and it can be either proven consistent (and valid) or falsified (and, well, false). Now come the stage of looking for more evidence. The group splits up and starts throwing random items from various heights, calculating the time it took these items to hit the ground. A random test group discovers that a piece of paper thrown from a rooftop falls slower than a feather thrown from the same roof top. Their square bricks all hit the ground at the same time. Observer A's theory is hereby falsified. Obviously, according to his logic, gravity is "unpredictable" with paper, as well, and not just with feathers. Another random test group tries throwing large bottles of water off the roof. All bottles are the same shape and have the same amount (and type) of liquid in them. All bottles hit the ground at the same time. Observer B's theory is hereby falsified. Gravity is not just predictable with bricks, it's also predictable with bottles of water. Meanwhile, all these random observers just added more credibility to Observer C's theory. Now comes the point where the observers and other groups need to consider why these facts produce different results. They need to find the common denominator amongst all of the fact and sift away the "noise". They have the task of revising the theories in a way that will include the exceptions and explain them. And that theory that they will come up with must be falsifiable. If it is not, it's not a theory. If it is, then it's only valid until something comes along to falsify it. Theories include facts in them, but they are not the same as facts. A Theory is an explanation of a group of facts. The theory of gravity (which is, indeed, a falsifiable theory) gathers the facts about falling bricks, feathers, humans, and other various items, and explains their behaviour. It is absolutely falsifiable: find an object that disobeys gravity (without using an upward force, that is also explained withint the theory). In fact, when the Apollo mission landed on the moon, they conducted this experiment in the vaccum of space: The astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather from the same height and watched (adn filmed) them fall at the same time - proving that the cause of "unpredictability' of the feathers falling was not due to gravity, but due to the friction with the air. Of course, we already proved that on Earth before, but the gesture in space was quite cool nontheless. So. There are facts, and there are theories, and they are not the same. Facts can be analyzed and interpreted differently by different people. The scientific method defines a way to make this analysis as unbiased and logical as possible, and the theory holds until a better one shows to explain facts better. When a theory stands for more than 120 years of rigorous investigation, and not only was it never falsified, more evidence are gathered to support it, it will require a much much bigger counter-theory to oppose it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not just a catch phrase, it means that the stronger the theory is that a certain claim pretends to "crush", the more the evidence for such claim needs to be supported. Science is *ABOUT* open mindedness. We just require rigor in our theories. We replace old theories all the time (Einstein vs. Newton / Einstein vs. Lorentz / and more), but we don't just do that because the alternative theory "sounds good", or is "comfortable", or is preferable. We do that after a VERY rigorous process that ensures only the most valid theories to replace current scientific thoughts. ~moo

Didn't you say you will never consider the idea of evolution? Why debating this subject in two different threads, then? Either you are holding an agenda of converting us away from science, or you are being a bit inconsistent. We are a science forum, requiring scientific rigor, and as such we enter debates with an open mind. There's not much use arguing with a closed-mindedness approach, because it leads to no benefit and no knowledge. You stated you won't even consider the idea of evolution. Why would we waste our time answering these questions (and there *ARE* a lot of answers, as you could start seeing in this and the other thread) if, by your own claim, you are not even willing to consider any of them?

Then what are you doing here? One important thing about being open minded is never saying "i'll never accept". You might say that you didn't see any good evidence as of yet - and then there's a reason for a debate. You might say that the evidence given so far are bunk - and there's a reason for a debate. But if you say you will never accept a concept, then you're wasting your time asking (because you are not truly interested in answers no matter how compelling they are) and our time answering. It's also a bit pretentious of you. What you are saying, really, is that no matter how compelling an evidence might be, you will always insist on stomping your feet in the ground and refuse to accept it. You state this before knowing what the potential answers might be - which shows nothing other than closed mindedness to a concept. I do not believe in the general concept of ghosts. You will never hear me say, however, that i will never accept their existence. I might. If the right evidence are put forth. My standards are high, indeed, but I am not as pretentious as to think I know everything. This is a science forum, following the scientific method. We debate for the sake of learning from one another, not for the sake of "debunking" and not for the sake of hearing lectures. If you already decided that no matter what comes up in this debate, you will never consider the evidence, then I suggest you reconsider your time in this forum. ~moo

A google search will produce all the information you need. An important thing to note, to all the forum members and occasional newcomers, is that these substances are used for pyrotechnics and are not safe to handle for non experienced individuals. In general, if it's meant to blow up, it can blow up in your face. This thread, therefore, is closed.

Whatever it may be, the company can't really expect anyone to jump up and down with joy about the validity of their invention without sharing the scientific data and theories (and SUPPORT for those theories) that's behind it. It just doesn't work this way. Let me give an example: We all know that magic is trickery; the good magicians admit it, though refuse to share the method. Do I know how these tricks work? No. Can scientists say for *SURE* they know? Not always. They can, however, state that it *seems* they disobey the laws of physics. Let's say David Copperfield would state he created a machine that defies the laws of physics by making an elephant vanish. He will demonstrate - successfuly (as he has before made things vanish), and scientists would, most likely, have a hard time figuring out the TRICK. Magicians may figure it out quickly, but scientists? Not sure, they're not trained to do that. Would anyone really claim that David Copperfield amazing vanishing-objects machine is contradicting the laws of physics? NO. Does it appear to? yes.. and yet, there should be a whole lot more than just "Appears to" in order for scientists to change the common (*WORKING*) valid theories. Whether or not the company has a patent or wants to share their data is their problem; if they insist on claiming their machine works despite the fact it seems to violate the laws of physics, they need to explain themselves. Otherwise, the logical conclusion is that something's missing or hidden in the machine - either accidentally (as Sisyphus stated) or intentionally. That's what peer review is for. If there's a theory behind that machine, and it passes the rigor of peer review, well.. then we can start talking about changing the laws of physics as we know them. No one can really expect scientists to abandon the current theory in favor of theory that isn't formulated publicly, because of a phenomenon some engineers found hard to explain. ~moo

It would be EXTREMELY interesting, and quite exciting, since it would mean we will have to rewrite the laws of physics. BTW, I didn't mean to sound rude or anything, I was just very confused - I didn't see the video in there, so I didn't understand where the question is; it seemed to me to be a non issue - a company admits their equipment is violating the laws of physics and can't give forth evidence to the contrary. Sounds clear cut to me. I am not sure where I missed this video but I'll go over those links you put up.. That said, I must say that I will be *extremely* surprised if this machine is working while violating the laws of physics. The fact Engineers did not find the trick does not mean much: (1) it seems weird to me that a company would ask people to find the trick without publishing at least a REASON (hence, physical theory) why and how this would violate the laws of physics while working -- obviously, they have a patent, so there's no danger of theft - and the validation of the theory (regardless of the machine) would likely earn their staff some number of prizes. Why would they not want that unless they have something they don't want people to see? (2) Engineers are very good in designing systems and analyzing systems, but they're not as good in finding hoaxes. This was proven again and again with hoaxes less extreme than this - Scientists and engineers supported a piece of technology that seemed to them and the rest of the world to work properly despite common opinion, and yet were found to be either a hoax or a human error later on by professionals who know how to recognize such things. It's like asking a scientist to figure out a magic trick. That's not what the scientist is trained to do; they can guess, they can claim the magic cannot be logically done, but they can't actually figure out *HOW* a trick is done, if the magic trick is good enough. Magicians might. (3) The idea that this might be invalid does not necessarily mean the company did it on purpose (hence, the company is trying to hoax). There are many people and companies that are simply deluded, or not rigorous enough to find their own flaws, and usually when that's mixed with wishful thinking (which is understandable), the results might be the company thinking they got it, when they don't. And the mistake can be very small. The bottom line, however, is this: The machinery violates the laws of physics. When we (scientists) find a phenomena that appears to violates the laws of physics, the first thought is to state that we're missing something. The method from then on is to look WHAT we're missing that makes us think this phenomena violates the laws of physics, and reach one of two conclusions: Either we expand our knowledge of this phenomenon and see how it's actually not violating anything, OR we change the laws we know and expand out understanding of the universe. HOWEVER, these claims need to be backed up by science. If the company just claims that its machinery is violating the laws of physics and gives no scientific corroboration or explanation of why, then even if the machinery is found to be without flaw, it will NOT be accepted to any scientific publication for the simple reason that there's no SCIENCE to publish. If they built this machine and it truly violates laws of physics, they must have the science behind it. If they want publications, they should publish it. It was Arthur C Clarke that claimed this, very smart, phrase: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The fact something seems to work only means that it's advanced enough for us not to immediately recognize how it works. It doesn't mean nature is now upside down. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws) Is there a chance this changes the laws of physics? Sure, there's always a chance. Are we given enough tools to analyze and make a decision? No. ~moo

Alan, I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here but, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn) .. if they're claiming their own technology is violating the laws of physics and they have no evidence to confirm the existence of this technology, where, exactly, is the question about it's validity?