mooeypoo

Thanks mate, that really helped. Long time 'till I understand the ENTIRE thing but it's a start thanks

No, if that rare gene is not fit to society it would vanish through the evolutionary system. And if the breeding DOES end up with mutations and those mutations DO NOT change, it means that those mutations are "meant to be" by evolution - therefore they're not really mutations but a result of evolution (because otherwise they would not survive natural selection to GET to the point the entire population has those genes). That's the point of evolution. And don't patronize me. I didn't ask for simple I asked for logic. That STARTS looking like one, although your logic system is still flawed, because you're missing some very important variables: 1. Such as what I have mentioned with evolution 2. the fact that if within a period of million years both Crocs and T-Rexes (which both lived less than millions of years but we'll leave that asside) will have the ability to reproduce cross-species, then they will no longer seriously *be* cross-species. 3. Oh. Yeah... you don't get genes by drinking water, dude. It just doesn't work like that. 4. Saying "Mutated T-Rex has smaller arms" is fallable. Listen, mutation that will not fit environments will PERISH. DIE. Will NOT move on. You're treating mutations as if they're entire-species, while they're - by definition - a small precentage of the population. Dude, that's the entire POINT of evolution. That's why we *dont* have shut mouths. Those who are born with serious mutations *do not survive* natural selection and don't PASS their mutations onwards. When we talk about evolution we're not talking about mutations we're talking about SLOW PROCESS OF CHANGE. It's thousands of changes that only some last, else just disappear out of lack of need. It's a start, but it's not logic. I would suggest you read a few books about evolution and genes before you throw such powerful thesis into the air that fits NO SORT OF LOGIC in physics, or biology, or genom, or ... well anything. ~moo

The thread subject might not EXACTLY be what I mean but it was the best way I see to summerize my question. I've noticed that whenever someone finishes a big meal, he emmediately (or within a few minutes usually) needs to "evacuate" himself to the bathroom. It's clear to all that the human body does not digest solid food at such a quick period of time. So I had an argument with some friends of mine about the cause. Is this happening so fast because of a psychological reaction (like the reaction people have to running water and the desire to pee) OR Is this purely physical - to "remove" the 'remains' of whatever has been digested from the last meal. If it is the second one, then why is this also happening to people who are eating lunch? their previous meal was the previous NIGHT, surely the food has been digested long before they started eating the current meal... Also, that "FULL" feeling you have after you eat something - is that also physical? Or is that psychological? If you eat something you really really like - will you also feel full at the same ammount of time it'll take you to feel full while eating something you don't really like eating? Sorry if that sounds.. err.. gross but well, it's still a bodily function so deal. hehe I'd really like a response, my friends are threatening a bet poll and although I'm not the betting type, some of them might lose some big sum of money of it thanks heaps ~moo

I've recently heard the term "Ionizing Cells" which - as far as I understood - stands for an effect caused when a biological cell is being "stripped" from ions - usually due to high radiation - which causes cell mutation and growth and aventually tumors and cancer. First of all, is that true, or have I understood it wrong? Secon, if that's indeed true, then Skin Cancer - caused by ionizing radiation from the sun - and other tumors caused by radiations are "understood" by this cause and effect - but then, why are cigarettes, smoke and other polluted substances also concidered to cause cancer? Thanks heaps, ~moo

It doesn't contain science?... If you call science a bunch of storytelling-non-logic babble, then yah. It's not science. What you're saying is NOT logical because you CANNOT expect what happens to genes. You can have a "dormant" gene for decades, or for 2 generations. You don't KNOW what would happen to it because it's too complex, it contains generations fo generations of knowledge. How 'bout you stop talking about science and start talking about LOGIC. I can't keep answering you because you're not LISTENING. you're not even TRYING to understand, man. And I have tried desperately to understand your logic, your theories, ANYTHING. You're not giving me a chance because you're not listening to me. Ifind myself repeating the same thing over and voer and over again because you plainly don't listen, or don't care. You throw EMPTY non SCIENTIFIC acusations. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Ask any scientific-thinking person. You know what? Ask anyone what LOGIC is. Read books about the meaning of axiom, logic, and listening while debating. This is really frustrating, and quite frankly, I'd spend all my time debating new ideas and new theories - but debating with someone who just don't listen, and whenever he gets a "tough question" he makes up his own reality without even counting on facts - is a waste of my time. Talk logic, I'll listen and debate. Otherwise - good luck. You haven't convinced me. ~moo

Kid

the problem is less the suggestions - it's more the logic. Try using more logic in your theoretical assumptions, pinch. We might even understand wat you want.

Unfortunately in israel it's different. You get marriage ONLY if the religious institute "allows" you to get married. That's why many go to get married OUT of the country.. but anyways, how can bush stop gay marriages by law?? isn't that against the constitution?? I really don't get it :| ~moo

They CAN"T breed naturally without help from mankind. Besides, do you even see what you're saying here? Lions and Tigers (Fairly similar [physically at least]) against T=REX and CROCS. Sheesh, man. Other than that -- your logical system is FLAWED. THIS: IS NOT LOGIC. Why? take a look at this Logic system: Asteroid travelling in high speed in Space near Earth ........................... :nabla: Asteroid being "pulled" (or twisted or however you call it) towards earth by its gravitational force (or wave, or glitch in time-space) ........................... :nabla: Asteroid is big enough not to be fried and disapear in the Earth's atmosphere while shooting down towards the surface ........................... :nabla: Asteroid - much smaller than before impact, and yet still substantially big - hits earth's surface ........................... :nabla: Emmediate Cause: Crater ........................... :nabla: Effective Cause: Huge dust cloud from the impact now covering the atmosphere for months (or years, depending on the impact and the asteroid's size) ........................... :nabla: Earth's surface is not recieving enough heat, and an Ice Age is created ........................... :nabla: Creatures that so far lived in a thrivingly HOT earth, are now freazing, and cannot fit themselves quickly enough to the new environment. Granted, some *can* but those who cannot, simply DIE from the massive change. ........................... :nabla: Hence, the extinction of the dinosaurs. NOW. THIS is logic. Every effect comes with a direct result, a result thatis LOGICAL result, not made up "what if" result. You can't tell me "No! Asteroids falling from the skies don't create craters!" because they USUALLY do. Actually, unless its completely burnt, I don't believe there has been cases of impact WITHOUT a crater. Those are SAFE ASSUMPTIONS. LOGICAL assumptions. And while this theory may have flaws - as long as it is built on logic (as I've shown), it is accepted. YOUR theory, however, has no connection WHATSOEVER between cause and effect. You just decided what your reality is. That's not logic, that's storytelling. ~moo

Yeah I've seen it... pittiful attempt of an explanation. I don't even think aliens we wuold meet in space have LEGS and ARMS and EYES for that matter, they should be COMPLETELY different from anything we see on earth - not just "makeup different" but then again - if they'd do that on every episode, we'd go nuts rying to figure out whats alive and whats... err.. not And about langs - I know, but still, they're even similar to us by their ability to SPEAK. I know there are aliens that don't speak but I am saying i find it more probable that MOST aliens we will find (if there are so many of them out there) would look and appear SO DIFFERENT than us we might not even understand they're living. But anyways - what do you think of the technology itself, sayo? As another Startrek Fan? ~moo

Egh. I give up.

They're not similar. T-Rex is a land creature, Crocs are "both water and land" (dont remember the english word, sorry), they have HUGE physiological and physical and biological and GENETICAL differences, not to mention the sheer fact that PHYSICALLY the act of MATING would not only be virtually impossible, but plainly PAINFUL physically. And it's not something you can do with "oops, a t-rex sperm accidently entered the croc's egg" --- it doesn't WORK like that. Unless there was some devine (or extra terrestrial???) intervention here, which I must say both options sound rediculous - that is just not possible. ~moo

Also, Pinch, you don't seem to get the point of valid theories. The "giant meteor" is an accepted theory (although it has many many holes) because it has SUBSTANTIAL evidence, even if they're mostly circumstantial. There's the crater, there's the logic behind "ICE AGE" -- a huge impact on earth would have created a layer of dust in the atmosphere which could have caused such an Ice Age, the depth and size of the crater near Mexico fits the estimations of an impact and so on. The theory doesn't need to be flawless to be accepted (HELL, It's a THEORY) - it needs to be LOGICAL. Support your theory on logic, we might accept it. ~moo

Also, with our "cracking of the genom" knowledge and our advanced technology we are DESPERATELY (whether its ethical or not is for another interresting debate) trying to CREATE those breedings, and constantly failing. Those things are not working through "breeding" of two species. Even when we tried to crossbreed QUITE similar animals (like mammals from the cats family - lions and tigers, for instance) it didn't really work. Crossbreeding with DIFFERENT SPECIES doesnt work in nature. For this to be a valid theory it needs more than just empty speculations. And yu're right, Cap'n. This is one of my favourite movies, I am ashamed for the mistake. Mogs, and (what was it? DAAAAAMN I need to see that movie again!!!!!!I'm senile!!! aaaa!!) Pizzaman? Mr. Pizza? err.. well you know what I mean. I just embarassed myself even more. I go dwell in my self pity and rent that movie again. ~moo

I don't think there are that many intelligent aliens, also its about the "fact" that they all look alike and talk english I won't even BEGIN to say how taht's illogical However, I think that many of what we see in startrek may well be invented - pehaps not the exact same, but certainly ideas and concepts. By the way - I seriously have troubles with the "aliens" part of startrek, other than that I think it shows a FAIR (not complete and entirely scientific, but certainly FAIR) view of what the future may be like. They also try to base everything on real physics, so it gives it a realistic aspect.. and means we might be able to actully build similar things in the future. ~moo

(What's O/T) ? and... errr... yes they do ... O.O That guy was changing his wheel for 30 minutes and the ilght was constantly green for his side of the road.. well its not THAT important but... err.. yah ~moo

Genes and mutations and cross breading doesn't work like that, pinch. If it did, you could have had Dogmen and Birdcows. They could be very useful. ~moo

Not that I surely understand the maths of it, by the way (I HATE the mathematical aspect of physics, but i admit it's necessary) at laest it would have given SOME sort of basics ... That's why i suggest a "how to conduct a civil scientific debate" FAQ/Tutor thing. Seriously, I wasn't kidding - people might learn how to debate better, or - if this place is even for them or not. ~moo

NavajoEverclear: I can't tell you the entire process, most of it because I don't quite know the ENTIRE down-to-the-last-molecule-evolving process, but I can tell you it's a lot about random occurances. Say, 100 things happen at once (we're talking about "mulecules combining" and "organizms developing" as the 'things'). Only about 30 survive the environment. The rest - sicne they were more or less accidental - just don't survive, and die. Now you have 30 different "species" of organisms, that change and change and create more variations. Most of them just DIE because they don't fit their environment, while others continue to keep changing and adapt. Why are they changing? because the environment is also changing, and they're transforming to such organisms that require more and more changes and so on. It's like if you take a cell, it requires only a few basic things to survive - but if that cell aventually becomes an ameba, that organism requires much much more to survive, so it changes it's environment and so it needs to change more and so on and so on. It's *really* simplified, and please don't take me on the small details here, but its just trying to show that the entire evolutionary process is infact quite a case of trial and error. Evolution doesn't "KNOW" what to produce. The organisms are trying to fit themselves to the changing environment, and if they "failed" - or if the environment is changing too rapidly, then they wil just not continue onwards - they will DIE. So aventually what you have is creatures that are perfectly fitted to their environment. And some other mutations that might die and not "continue" the evolutionary process of those animals... I hope that helped a bit, although it was really simplified.. By the way, I seriously suggest you look up a bit of more extended info on the net about evolution - it would be much more extensive than anyone on the forum answering you, and would give you the basis that you might need to ask more precise questions. These are two REALLY good ones I found (both in the same site but they're REALLY good): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/triumphoflife/ hope I helped. ~moo

Are you going to solve any of those?! (at least tell me if i was right or wrong ...) eek I'm curious. Luckily, curiousity killed the CAT not the COW. Phew ~moo

YT But there are those annoying "gravity" street lights, that only switch to green when they "feel" the gravity of a car. And those damn things WORK alright, I once waited almost 30 minutes in red light because some bozo decided to replace his wheel EXACTLY on that annoying weight thing. It was a non-central route, but still. Those things WORK. Some of them are psychological, but some of them are the CAUSE of psychological tension ~moo

I seriously think we should have a "How to conduct a scientific debate" tutor. That way people know in advance how they're expected to explain things. btw, I can't say anything about pinch's theory since i seriously still don't get it. So I can't really say it's wrong Only that I'm stupid. Or.. yah. ~moo

Err I still don't get it.. you have any resources I can go to maybe? to read about this? I don't see how gravity is a wave.. or how it exchanges particles.. unless you mean gravitons (which i am still having troubles understanding as it is) ...?

Does it matter how dense the atoms on one group vs. the other are? (by what you're saying i guess not but I want to be certain)

Gotcha. Good point about the kids electrecuting themselves btw... remember that for the Organization blike's talking about teehee. Thanks though, I learned something new today always good. ~moo