SkepticLance

You are neither right nor wrong, since it is all a matter of how you look at it. From one viewpoint, you can quite correctly say that the hydrogen proton is the basis for life, since its special properties permit water, with its special properties. Water, of course, is a very unusual molecule, and that special nature is due to the weak hydrogen bonding between molecules. I would prefer, myself, to say that water is the basis for life, taking the statement one step higher to molecular level. However, as I said, it depends how you look at it.

MattC. It is nice to debate with someone like you, who keeps it polite and friendly. I have had a number of 'discussions', which do not always stay unheated, with certain extreme environmentalists who regard any synthetic chemical as evil incarnate. Surprising how they regard 'natural' chemicals that are far more toxic as being OK. One example of the 'evil synthetic' is dioxins. Now, dioxins are nasty. No doubt about that. 2,3,7.8 TCDD is the worst, and is the most toxic man made chemical ever. However, there is a low level, even for that product, where it becomes harmless. The USEPA in at least one reference suggests the lowest level likely to harm a human is 20 parts per billion. Here in New Zealand, there has recently been a bit of a furore over dioxin residues left at a plant that once made the phenolic herbicide, 2,4,5 T. Locals had their blood tested. Dioxin levels ranged from 1 to 35 parts per trillion. (every reading, except one person, was below 20 ppt). Immediately they were rushing out to sue the company for millions! We are talking amounts 1000 times lower than the minimum considered to be potentially harmful! Naturally, Greenpeace was in there, swinging. Other pressure groups formed to push for compensation. Human greed and sheer stupidity are among the things that makes me so skeptical! As a result of this, and numerous other situations, I tend to look hard at claims of toxicity from synthetic chemicals. My own observations would indicate that most claims of harm are not correct. DDT is a good example. It is frequently claimed that it is highly carcinogenic. However, epidemiological evidence among humans is pretty much absent. Yet lots of people have been exposed to it. In the case of returning WWII veterans, they were literally covered with DDT dust to delouse them. I have read of one interesting case of DDT poisoning, however. It is a long time ago, and I cannot guarantee that the details are accurate. Apparently, this guy was very fat, and had been a spray contractor, spraying DDT. The DDT ended up in his fat tissue, and he lived a pretty healthy life, in spite of lots of DDT in his fat cells. The proverbial hit the fan when he became ill with an infection. High fever, and sudden loss of weight. He died of DDT poisoning, due to the release of chemical from fat cells when the fat disappeared. DDT in blood is far worse than DDT in fat. This case does suggest that high levels of DDT in fat cells do not necessarily mean ill health. While we should, of course, be aware of the harmful effects of pollution, we should not be sucked in by alarmist groups such as Greenpeace. Good, scientific data is needed before jumping to conclusions.

Prime Evil. The information in the first paragraph of your last posting is excellent. The second paragraph, however, is speculation and should be identified as such. I am skeptical of the current global warming paradigm. Not because I am saying it is definitely wrong. But because I am very aware of the enormous amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding global climate change. As Dr. Augie Auer (meteorologist) recently said at a public meeting; "If we cannot predict next Wednesday's weather, how can we predict next Century's climate?" I think there is a lot of arrogance surrounding the paradigm. We know that the computer models that predictions are based on are imperfect. Yet they are constantly used to predict all kinds of disasters.

I am a wee bit confused. In sunspot's original posting, the question was : "Why are human females more colourful than the male?" One short answer is that they are not. Both male and female are made up, mostly, of drab colours. Or do you mean : "Why do human females dress more colourfully than the male?" The answer to that one appears to be mainly culture. On the other hand, we could ask : "Why are human females more visually attractive to the opposite gender than the male is?" In other words; males are primarily attracted to females by the way they look. Females are attracted to a particular male by a range of different features, of which appearance is just one. We could ask : "Why the difference?" That particular question might bring some more interesting discussion.

It is all about energy. Oxygen reacts chemically with certain food molecules, like sugar to release energy, which we need. Carbon dioxide cannot react in a way to provide energy.

Actually, in more recent years, the koala has had other things to worry about. The main item governing its survival over the past 60,000 years has been predation by humans. The Australian Aboriginee regarded it as food. More recently, with legal protection, it has, in many places, become too bloody successful, and reproduced to the point of overriding its food supply. The koala has come close to destroying the very forest it depends on. And sometimes has actually done it.

MattC. I tried to read your references. Out of four ... Two I was apparently locked out of. One was about dolphins, and 'calculated' an estimated risk from PCBs. Not what I call empirical evidence. The last appears to be a request for research funds by referring to the need to evaluate the toxicity of a number of chemicals. There are always lots of alarmist papers about. Actually nailing down risk is something else. I do not claim that DDT, PCB's etc carry no risk. That would be silly. All I said was that low level intake (sub-acute) led to accumulation within fat cells, where it seems to be rendered metabolically inactive. These chemicals render harm when in non fat tissue. I have lost the reference, but there was a well known study made of WW II veterans who had been 'deloused' with DDT. They had quite high levels of DDT in their fatty tissues, but a cancer rate no higher than a control group of veterans who had not been so treated.

ecoli Your query from dehammer's post. umm... proof please In fact, any basic book on geology will confirm the gist of that post. I don't think dehammer quite got the dates right. Last time I looked, the ice age had lasted a bit less than 1 million years, with interglacial periods about each 100,000 years. Give or take 20,000. However, he is quite correct in saying we are still in an ice age. We just happen to inhabit the latest interglacial.

holly. Your comments about two interesecting masses. I guess this came from my posting about 'branes'. I do not, myself, know what branes are. I am not sure if anyone really does. The nearest thing is to describe them as 4 dimensional 'membranes' in multidimensional space. When two collide, they cause the Big Bang, and everything else originates from that. The branes are not masses, though their collision leads to the 'creation' of mass. Having said that, remember that all this is simply high powered speculation, currently unproven.

island. I am not sure that I like your term 'biocentric'. If the multiverse theory is correct, then there is no reason why there cannot be an enormous number of universes with life, and a very small subset of the entire multiverse. Our universe and our Earth may be only a tiny part of the living portion of the multiverse. It may be more correct of think of life as a chunk of existence way out, clear of the centre.

Swansont. It is not just 'life as we know it', it is any life at all. If the six constants do not fall within a small range of values (in total, a range of almost infinite improbability), then matter itself could not exist 'as we know it'.

Whap. lambda is not the only constant these ideas apply to. If we added up all the constants of physics, and noted their tight adherance to a narrow range of values that permit a universe that can develop life, then we have a universe whose probability is so low, that it might as well be zero. On the face of it, this is very strong evidence for a creator, who made the universe according to tight specifications. For it to happen by chance would be almost inconceivable. The anthropic principle is the way out of this conclusion. However, the idea of the universe having areas with different values of lambda in different parts of this universe makes no sense, since there are a number of other values that would also have to vary. The sum total suggests that to have even one solar system with the right values, requires a probability so low that we can ignore it. ( I have not calculated this. This is more intuitive, but I doubt any respected physicist would disagree. It was originally pointed out to me that there are six vital constants. eg. the ratio between the strength of gravity, and electromagnetic forces. To get all six within the tight range of life permitting values would be of such low probability, that we can forget it.) The only way of getting a sufficiently large number of possible local conditions is to postulate a multitude of universes. If the total number of universes is high enough, then the laws of probability determine that there must be one like ours. And here we are. There is no actual theoretical reason to make this idea wrong. It's main drawback is simply that no-one wants to stick his neck out and say it is so. We also face the scientific conundrum that there is no actual empirical evidence for a multiverse. The idea is purely speculative. However, the way I see this, is that we are left with a choice between believing in a creator, or believing in the multiverse. Take your pick!

In fact, there are an infinite number of intelligences, depending on your system of classifying them. The set given in the original post is a reasonable classification, but is subjective rather than being the result of some objective measurement. My favourite is, to my knowledge, my own invention, though it seems to me to be a vital distinction. That is, rationality. If it were measured, it would be RQ. Rationality is the ability to recognise the difference between reality and taurine excrement. Most people have little ability to draw the distinction. Hence such things as homeopathy, spiritist mediums, advertising and politicians.

DNA is a double helix, but it is a single molecule. Thus it would be more accurate to say it has two half strands. The reason it needs both is for chemical stability. Half a strand has all these reactive sites 'hanging off' it. They will pick up nucleotides, but are also capable of picking up other materials that we could call organic chemical trash. To keep itself complete, and preserve the genetic code, DNA needs both half strands.

XYY normally also results in ultra low IQ. I suspect the feminists might make something of this. If we were able to add a little genetic something in sperm, we should not. Extra DNA usually results in terrible genetic disease.

MattC. It is tricky trying to come to definitive conclusions about the origin of the universe, since there are enormous gaps in our knowledge. Some things appear sound. The date for the age of the universe at 14 billion years appears to be sound. It may be out by a few hundred million plus or minus. But it is basically correct. The universe is NOT a trillion years old. Was there anything before the Big Bang?? Maybe. We now enter the realm of intense speculation. Scientific conjecture that maybe, just maybe, might be a littlemore reliable than fantasy. The brane hypothesis suggests that a four dimensional 'brane' (short for membrane) in a multi-dimensional multiverse, intersected with another. The energies involved led to the Big Bang. Our current universe is where the two branes intersect. Of course, there are lots of other speculations. A lot of quite respectable physicists believe it is very possible that there may be an enormous number of universes, with basic laws of nature varying from one to another. On the other hand, some people believe in the Easter Bunny. When we start getting into these areas of speculation, it may be a fascinating mental exercise. But it ain't gonna give us any answers. At least not in the near future.

Sunspot. Our closest relatives, the chimps, are hunters. They attack, kill and eat monkeys, apparently with great relish. We are not that different.

You don't actually have to have 70,000 year old DNA. Various study groups have looked at differences between DNA from one current group of humans to another. For example : the Australian aboriginal is thought to have colonised Australia about 60,000 years ago. If so, a study of their DNA, and comparing it to other racial groups can show changes in genes over that time. The studies I have read about cover a shorter time span - only about 10,000 years, and reveal 3 to 4 important gene changes. For example : certain European groups, including those like me who are of British descent, have a gene to permit digestion of lactose, that is absent in some other groups of people. This permits milk (other than human milk) to become a significant part of the human diet. Lactose intolerance is a trait more typical of certain ethnic groups, due to this genetic change. Over a 70,000 year period, people will still be Homo sapiens. Speciation for slow reproducing animals like us takes a bit longer. The people living then would have looked very like modern humans, and if raised in our society would probably have fitted in socially quite well.

There is a bit more to my statement about lack of harm from DDT etc. These products are fat soluble, as opposed to water soluble, and tend to end up in layers of fat or blubber. If injected into blood, they kill at quite low doses. However, when they enter the body in small amounts over a period of time, they accumulate in fatty tissues. They are stored there, and are, effectively, biologically inactive. While there is a lot of hysteria about the fact that animals such as polar bears have a lot of these products in their bodies, the chemicals are in fat layers, and evidence to show they interfere with normal metabolism is basically lacking. And that is not due to lack of studies.

Prime Evil. I will make an attempt at your queries. Quote : 1. In the context of a 50 year half-life, are the micro-organisms destroying these chemicals and biochemicals completely, or are they also using them within their own structures, at least partly? In other words, does the 50 year half-life refer to the entire breakdown chain, or just the levels of the most complex chemicals that you start with? 2. How long does it take for these micro-organisms that breakdown these chemicals to evolve or adapt to the new concentrations/structures compared to more naturally occuring chemicals/biochemicals? 3. Is it possible that sub-biological chemical changes to the environment can cause evolutionary or adaptive changes at this micro-organism level which causes the population and diversity of these micro-organisms to go up but also change significanty, such that the population and diversity of higher level organisms eventually collapses and has to rebuild because they cannot adapt as quickly? 4. How long would such a process of high level die-off and renewal take and is it reversible? 1. Micro-organisms use enzymes to break down organic molecules. For DDT, PCBs and the like, this takes a long time. The delay comes from the chemical stability of these compounds. For a million molecules, it takes 50 years to attack and destroy 500,000. then another 50 to destroy a further 250,000. etc. Treat it as a two stage process. Stage one lasts until a particular molecule is initially successfully attacked. This takes time. Stage two is to complete the destruction, all the way down to simple harmless materials like carbon dioxide and water. This is really fast. Essentially instantly, compared to the 50 year time scale. Thus the 50 year half life is the entire break down cycle. 2. Evolution and adaptation. Mostly, the concentration in the environment of DDt etc is very low, and the breakdown of these by micro-organisms is incidental to their normal way of life. Thus there is no driving force towards genetic change. Occasionally, there may be a pool of highly concentrated chemical. When this happens, bacteria may adapt. If and when they do, the actual adaptation is rapid. The spread of the new genes through their population is also rapid, if said genes are advantageous. Probably a few days, or weeks. However, sometimes there is no apparent adaptation at all, for decades. 3. I doubt we would see any collapse of higher organisms. The food chain is sufficiently complex that a change in one or more populations of micro-organisms would not have too much impact higher up. 4. Die off and renewal etc. We are dealing here with micro-organism ecology - mainly bacteria. At this level, changes occur quickly, including ecological change. Rebalancing the ecology would take days only, if it happened at all.

Prime Evil. You see to have a fairly good handle on what is needed. Carbohydrate, strictly speaking, is not essential. If you get enough fat in your diet. Vitamin C comes also from the flesh of carnivores. So if you kill and eat a few foxes etc., you are covered. I would think that, for good health, it would be of value to eat a range of fruits, berries, and wild greens. However, Inuit do not, and they seem to have survived OK. Multi-posting. Seems to me that this topic is one of great interest to Prime Evil.

The universe is 14 billion years old, give or take a few million. Trying to base anything on purported values for the 'cosmological constant' is a sure fire way of making serious errors.

eruheru. If you look at human anatomy, we are lousy plant eaters, and lousy carnivores as well. Our teeth are not carnivorous, but they are not massive enough for serious grinding of plants either. Our digestive system is seriously limited. It is closer to carnivore than herbivore, but not quite right for either. The answer to this question is that we had had technology, be it so primitive, for a hell of a long time. Very crude stone tools have been found with Australopithecus remains. It is probable that the use of fire (soot deposits with old pre-human remains) is almost as old. Thus, cooking. Since we have easy food, softened by cooking, evolution has reduced both our teeth and our gut. Killing animals for food is something that dear old Mother Nature invented long before humans came on the scene. Pretty much every wild animal has to be constantly alert for predators, or else die rather quickly. Mother Nature's deaths are often really painful, terrifying and nasty. I think the way humans do it in the western world is a vast improvement, and I feel no guilt about biting into a juicy steak!

daneeka. Bioaccumulation is a tricky subject, about which a lot is said but little understood. The main chemicals accused of accumulating through the food chain are such things as PCBs and DDT, and dioxins. These have a half life of about 50 years. Half are broken down by micro-organisms each 50 year period. This gives them the opportunity to accumulate in tissues of organisms that operate at the top of the food chain especially at high latitudes. eg. seals, whales, polar bears. And sure enough, we find lots of PCBs, DDT, and dioxins in their blubber. The problem is that there is little or no real evidence to show that these levels of PCBs, DDT and dioxins actually cause any harm.

In theory you can get rich. In practise ... First you have to patent your idea. Last I heard, that cost at least USD 100,000 to do in the major countries. If you don't (and even if you do) you are likely to have your secret stolen. If you are successful with a patent... Statistics show that 49 out of 50 people who try to commercialise their own patent end up losing money.