fafalone

both archaebacteria and eubacteria have their own kingdom, in other words they're virtually unrelated.

The speed of light is constant for all reference frames, so if the reference frame was moving at c, light would still move at c relative to that frame.

Like all scientists, I've always had an inquisitive mind, but was never satisfied with answers I got. So for some reason I had to motivation to go and find out on my own, which led me into discovering how fascinating things like neuroscience and cosmology are.

If the odds were one on 1 billion... that's still a great chance.

Because of the properties of water itself. High heat capacity, cohesion, hydrogen bonding, solvency, etc.

If we're so concerned about not going against nature then by the laws of nature the weak should and will die. (Note: I have no problem going against nature.)

The reader should assume if those are not their arguments, they are not who the author is talking to. And if you believe the earth is flat, you are indeed a moron

Takes time to get a complex procedure right. Consentual? In vitro isn't consentual on the childs part, and since some people are morally opposed to it... what gives us that right? Just because the majority is for it? It was inferred the conclusion was only towards people using the aforementioned arguments. Making inferences is something you really have a problem with. You are the one misreading posts.

And I thought I made the point clear that if human cloning was approved there would not be a higher risk of deformity, apparently you missed that too.

Not 100% safe with in vitro. There's still a chance of an error that will cause damage to the cell. PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO IT FOR GODS SAKE. Gene therapy, that's acceptable... but that carries a high risk. Humans do plenty of things that are high risk if there's a good chance of a benefit. And your lack of careful reading has made you miss the exact same point Glider did. I was referring to people who use the arguments I gave. What's with people on this forum and reading comprehension skills?

I don't like people who claim their ethics are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees is unethical.

Digress works too.

Exactly, but these are still the arguments of the ignorant. Freezing embryos from accepted reproductive methods will the full knowledge they will more than likely never be used is essentially equivalent. People on this forum have said this. Parents frequently pressure their kid to live up to them anyway. This happens without clones already. This is a social acceptance factor I already debunked. Eugenics is a separate issue; it can be accomplished without cloning, and cloning can be done without eugenics. The chance of damage in the cloning process is still CHANCE. Sufficient development will reduce them. If you can't realize the hypocrisy in typical arguments, then you are a cretin. I highly suggest not calling me an idiot in the future, or you'll fast find yourself in a flame war I promise you will lose. I recognize the difference, most peoples arguments lack the fortitude to elucidate this difference. That's what my post was about, you fool. Consider this a policy violation warning, your misinterpetation of a post led to uncalled for disrespect, and future incidents of this nature will not be tolerated. Your post was a great counter argument until you digressed into a moron.

User Titles: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=127

First of all, let's start by using the proper term for what is being debated: somatic cell nuclear transfer. Here are some arguments against this process and widely morally acceptable processes that work against reasons why somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong: 1) "It's unnatural." -Ok and? Look around you, 99% of what you're looking at isn't natural. Hair coloring isn't natural, vaccines aren't natural, most prescription drugs you take aren't natural, your glasses/contacts aren't natural. Gene therapy isn't natural either. -Identical twins occur naturally, so it shouldn't be unacceptable to reproduce this effect. 2a) "We should not interfere with the sacredness of life." -Bible-thumper nonsense. By this logic, in vitro fertilization shouldn't be allowed either. People said the exact same thing when they came up with this. This leads to 2b) Embryos are destroyed in research. -Embryos are lost in in vitro fertilization too, this is where existing stem cell lines come from. 3) "Clones would be outcasts in society." -Completely off-base. Identical twins are not outcasts, in vitro people are not outcasts. While some ignorant people would initially treat them differently (assuming they even knew, which is unlikely because of the identical twins possibility), acceptance would take about as much time as it did for in vitro. 4) "Clones would have no identity." -Again, off-base. They would have the same measure of identity as anyone else. So many factors in development are impacted by the environment, they would have different likes and hobbies. Once again, cloning produces the same end-result as identical twins. 5a) "Cloned babies would be deformed." -This is why we perfect the process on animals first. By the time any organization got approval to work with humans, the birth defect frequency would be no higher than natural births. 5b) "We couldn't predict long term problems." -Absolutely correct. News flash: WE NEVER CAN. Environment-dependent factors cause far more problems than genetic ones, especially given the aforementioned chromosome damage rate. If you think somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong, but believe identical twins are normal seperate people, or that in vitro fertilization is acceptable, then you are a hypocrite.

Why doesn't matter in a black hole collapse back into energy?

Spam is evil, accusing me of spamming = ban. All my posts are great!

The Earths mass remains essentially constant. When talking about a black hole, its mass changes by the addition of entire planets and stars... a significant change. Earths mass varies only by infinitesimal percentages. Same for the sun.

Poor down quarks, no one voted for them

It's never best to let all the power lie in the hands of one person.

One advantage of VB that I like is that I can devote the bulk of my time to code, not to GUI, since VB makes GUI trivial. If you want an advanced GUI, it's about the same level of difficulty as C++ because it's primarily just use of APIs.

Server problem, not our problem. If it bothers you that much, set your time zone correction to GMT +1 :/

10,000th post on the forums, posts from all users combined.

Well if the curve approaches infinity it could certainly curve right around to another point.

It's a true statement.