SkepticLance

To Winston When you talk of ion energy, I assume you mean the ion drive engine. This expels ions after acceleration in an elecromagnetic field, at very high velocities. It uses relatively little reaction mass. It cannot be used to leave a gravity well since the thrust is too small, but it makes a very good alternative for acceleration once clear of the gravity of a planet, or moon etc.

There is a research team working on a space elevator. The goal is a 78,000 km long ribbon of material, probably based on carbon nanotubes, with enormous tensile strength, stretching from the surface to 78000 kms out, and held firm by centrifugal action. Once achieved, a 'railway' up the ribbon is used to take people and goods into space. From 78,000 kms, these can be simply released and their momentum will shoot them off into space. The 'train' can be run on electrical energy, and the cost of transport will be minimal compared to today's costs. The team made a claim to the effect that they could achieve this by 2018. I find myself doubting that. However, once achieved, whenever they manage it, the transport of large numbers of people and goods become practical. Once the first such elevator is in place, the construction of more becomes a hell of a lot easier! My guess is that it will be underway in 50 years, but that is a guess.

It is a start. What makes Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) different to other preserved tissue is that a chunk was preserved in ethanol, instead of the more commonly used formalin. Formalin destroys DNA while ethanol preserves it. This permits DNA reactivation.

Loss of genetic diversity has frequently been used as an argument against GM. This, of course, applies mainly to crops, not humans. The problem, though, such as it is, is not related to GM so much as to agriculture as a whole. Loss of genetic diversity began when the first human farmers began selecting only those varieties that gave better yields, and dumping the rest. This process has been going on for 10,000 years now, give or take a bit. More recently, certain groups have been collecting more varieties and setting up 'gene banks' to provide genetic diversity, in case such is needed in the future. Since WWII, seeds for farming have become concentrated into the hands of a few massive multinational seed companies. Farmers buy those seeds. This has nothing to do with GM per se. It is just a result of the fact that the big companies, with their legions of scientists can do a better job of developing various high yield varieties than the farmer, with fewer resources. These seed companies have been patenting the seeds for decades now, and preventing farmers replanting from their own stock. Again, this has nothing to do with GM - just a business practise that the law permits. The use of specialised seeds also reduces genetic diversity, but this is not limited to GM. The best bulwark against loss of diversity is living or frozen gene banks, and these are springing up in various places all over the world. Dedicated researchers are in the field right now collecting as wide a range of genetic diversity as possible for growing in a living gene bank, or freezing in the other kind.

Just as an aside : I discovered that the word 'placebo' in Latin means 'I will please', where 'nocebo' means 'I will harm'.

Rev said "You are also assuming that more people will become educated as the population increases. " Actually, I was trying to hedge my words so that no such conclusion would be drawn. Obviously I need to learn to be a better hedger! More people become educated as a nation develops, rather than as their total population grows. However, a nation with a billion people and 50% tertiary educated will have a lot more 'brainpower, than a nation with 300 million and 50% tertiary educated. China and India are both developing at a great rate of knots. Their populations are still growing, but at a reducing rate. However, their educated classes are growing very rapidly indeed. If Julian Simon is correct, and I think he is at least partly correct, then China and India will become innovation powerhouses.

Following on from lucaspa. It would seem that a 'loss of complexity' is better seen simply as a particular evolutionary development in response to environmental conditions. A parasite becomes 'less complex' because that is advantageous in that environment. The 'loss of complexity' is an evolutionary movement forwards in a different direction, rather than evolution backwards.

To the Capn No criticism here of your ideas. They are good, intelligent, and well thought out. However, in this case, I have a bit more data than you to go on. For example : I know that on the farm guns are common. Some dogs are trained to hunt and get used to the firing of guns. I have not observed them showing signs of pain or discomfort at the noise. Once they know the gun is for killing something other than dogs, the fear is gone. Even horses get trained to be quite non reactive to the sound of guns going off. We actually had the local rifle club use a part of our farm for their target shooting (my Dad received a rental payment). Every Saturday, the sound of 303 rifles crashed across the farm. All our dogs were used to it. I see no alternative interpretation to a certain kind of reasoning in the dog's mind. Very basic, to be sure.

Evolution is, indeed, a paradigm. However, this may be misleading. The word tends to get used in relation to paradigm shifts, as part of one school of scientific philisophy. And evolution is seriously unlikely to change as a basis for the biological science. Some aspects of evolution may be changeable, such as the distinction between slow evolution by minor genetic changes, and punctuated equilibrium. But that is another argument.

This is one of those experiments that kids love (big loud noise!) but adults should discourage since it involves an unstable, and explosive substance. When I was a teenager, we used to add ammonia to tincture of iodine till it went clear. We soaked it into filter paper and hung the paper up to dry. Explosive paper, whoopeee! However, not the safest of activities.

As YT said, the brakes recharge the batteries. In addition, when running electrically, if the car stops - as at a red light - so do the motors. There is no energy wastage when still. And no nasty exhaust fumes. We can breath clean air.

Rev said : "Arguably, the technology is the root cause of our over-population though, and that over-population is the cause of most of our modern problems." I am glad you said 'arguably'. There is an alternative school of thought, particularly pushed by Prof. Julian Simon, the economist. He said that human progress depends on those people with a high level of brain power, and the more brains there are, the more people with the brain power needed. In other words, when population increases, we have more people (assuming a high standard of education) that have the minds capable of innovation, and thus faster progress. This might even be a substantial part of the high rate of recent scientific and technological progress. If he is correct, we can predict that, once a high standard of education is normal for their whole population, China will gradually become the world leader in scientific and technological progress. USA will slip into second place (or third - behind India). 300 million cannot overwhelm 1300 million.

To capn and iNow Neither of your theories holds water. First, the dog ran away simply at the sight of the gun - I had not fired it. And my father was a big softie. He could not have beaten anyone or anything. Even if he had, he would not have used the gun - he had too much respect for expensive tools! If the dog simply associated the gun with a loud noise, that does not explain the abject terror. Loud noises are common on farms, and dogs get used to them. I had never seen that dog so terrified - its reaction was extreme. Later, when I coaxed it out (without the gun in my hand) it came to me slunk down and trembling. It took me quite a while to reassure it with petting and soft words. There is no escaping the obvious conclusion. The dog knew that the gun killed things. It saw the gun in my hands and jumped to a wrong conclusion, and was terrified. Not a terribly difficult conclusion, or one that required much intelligence, but still a kind of higher reasoning.

To layman Recharge is overnight. This is quite OK for most driving, since most is commuting or shopping. If more range is needed, you have the internal combustion engine. In relation to using power from coal burning electrical power generating plants, there is still a carbon saving. This is simply due to efficiencies, or so the article I read stated. However, the hope is that the world will move away from carbon emitting electrical generation. From a personal viewpoint, for most parts of the world, running a car on batteries recharged from domestic electricity is very much cheaper than buying fuel.

The problem with relying on natural genetic variation to solve human problems is that it is just too damn slow! Natural changes take dozens, hundreds, or thousands of generations. In the mean time, the human population has to cope with problems by the hundreds each century. Just new diseases alone is far too great a number for natural genetic variability to cope with. Maybe in the old tribal days, but not now when all forms of illness are being 'shared' by all of humankind. Today, to cope, we need technology.

To Edtharan I remember the incident vividly, since it impressed the hell out of me. I was holding the rifle under my arm with the barrel pointing at the ground. This was a result of my father's coaching on gun safety, and I always held the rifle that way unless actually aiming at a target. The dogs response to the sight of me holding the gun was instant terror. This was a pet dog that came when called and rolled all over us with enthusiasm for contact. That occasion was the only one ever, when the dog ran away instead of coming. The dog clearly had carried out a process of 'logic' involving the fact that it had seen my father kill a hen with the gun, and the fact that I was now holding it and had called him. The dog had applied a form of reasoning, in which one action (father killing hen) was applied mentally to another possibility (me killing dog.).

To PhDP What if the mutation rate is once per million years? As far as I know, this mutation has not happened more than the one single time. I could easily be wrong. It is possible that, in some other taxonomic group, it happens on a regular basis. If I am wrong, please let me know the paper or article where this is described, since I would be most interested.

Most of the time that placebos are given, there is no measurable effect. When clinical trials, controlled with placebo, are reported, the results usually say something like : Treatment X - 30% improvement Placebo - 10% improvement. In other words, 90% of those given placebo showed no improvement. About 30% of the popuation is regarded as being prone to the placebo effect. That means 70% are not. Perhaps, the major reason is a lack of faith in the placebo? Certainly, clinicians have found that placebos that are 'talked up' by the researchers are more likely to have a curative effect. Another thing that needs remembering is that a substantial part of the placebo effect has nothing to do with actual improvements in health. Much of the time, the people reporting improvements do not actually experience such, as shown by objective testing like blood tests, but report an improvement because they expect it, and adjust their subjective impressions accordingly.

ecoli It CAN be both. It requires a small degree of coincidence, but not beyond credibility.

To vexer Satisfaction is not what I am seeking. I am searching for intellectual stimulation - new ideas - new ways of seeing things - new views of the universe. I find all these comments of interest, and so 'satisfying'. There is no final answer to any aspect of science - just the ongoing search. And the search is satisfaction in itself. lucaspa said : "Scientists and philosophers of science have tried various ways to say what is and isn't science for over 2500 years (it goes back to Aristotle). " My own view is that there is true science and false science. True science dates back only a few hundred years. I regard it as beginning with Francis Bacon and his insistence on empirical evidence. Aristotle thought that all causes could be obtained by deduction, if we were just smart enough. To me, that is not science. It is perhaps a touch above astrology, but not much. Of course, before modern science, there were a few people who thought more or less scientifically anyway, and made good contributions. That does not make my view of empiricism wrong.

lucaspa said : "Bullshit. First, faith is not "independent of evidence". Faith is based on evidence; it just isn't the subset of evidence that science limits itself to. Second, science is based on 5 statements of faith about the nature of the physical universe. Beyond that, science is based on 2 statements of faith necessary to search for any truth. Third, the empirical evidence over the last 500 years of modern science shows that people who do science have had faith. It appears that your faith that science and faith are incompatible is independent of evidence." I doubt you and I will ever agree on the question of faith. Reading between the lines, I suspect you have certain faith based beliefs outside of science, and have an emotional attachment to those beliefs that you do not want challenged. Faith is based on evidence??? Yes, but normally evidence that lacks critical validity. As I said before, most religious people are so because they have accepted the faith of their fathers. In other words, they have chosen to believe what they were told. Their evidence was simply that someone they respected told them so. Faith based science??? Could you please elaborate. There are certain aspects of science that are not truly known. However, we cannot call it faith, because the real belief is not there. What is the cause of abiogenesis? There are theories but no certainty. Only if people expressed 'true belief' in an idea explaining abiogenesis, would you call it faith. Or did you have something else in mind? Having religious faith while being a scientist. Sure. Very common. But this does not obviate my point. I once knew a Fijian man who was a member of a fire walking troupe. Their belief was an animist god once rewarded an ancestor with this power. Yet he was Christian. I asked him how many gods there were. Answer : only one - the Christian god. Very adamant! I asked him then about the story of the conferring of fire walking power. From a god other than the christian god. He believed both very fervently, and saw no contradiction. People can hold two opposing views simultaneously and often do. Science and religion. Belief from empirical evidence and belief from faith with both held at the same time.

ecoli I cannot really answer your queries. The major theory, based on my reading, suggests there is no selective advantage in the mutation, and so genetic drift is the normal hypothesis. I don't want to be too adamant on this. Anything is possible within the laws of science.

ecoli Sorry about the confusion. I meant social evolution, not biological.

Halogirl asks : "SkepticLance thinks the cost will come down. How long?" The only data we have to approach this question is recent history on recent innovations. The time varies a lot, but generally seems to be well under way within 20 years of the invention. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. As to people going on some kind of killing rampage -- seriously unlikely. There have been a lot of innovations which benefit the rich at first. There are protests, and lobby group actions, but no killing rampage, even when the innovation is a very expensive new drug that can save lives. To Rev, re blue eyes. I recently read an article in New Scientist, which impinged on this. It produced the hypothesis that the blue eye trait, which expresses only with a double recessive, became widespread in certain populations because of sexual selection. The suggestion is that, particularly for females, having blue eyes made for more physical attractiveness, and thus more reproductive success. On blonde hair - it appears likely that this trait may have been a result of genetic drift. If it appeared in a small population as a mutation, then random chance may lead to it becoming the major trait in that tiny population. If that population then grows and becomes a very big population, we see the blonde hair trait becoming more frequent. Rev asked "Can we create a super gene, taking a recessive gene and making it dominant over even previously dominant genes?" It all depends on the mode of action of the gene. The brown eye gene is dominant over blue eye, because the brown eye gene works by manufacturing pigment. The blue eye works by lack of pigment. Obviously, brown eye will ALWAYS be dominant because of its mode of action. As long as any brown pigment is being manufactured, the eyes will appear brown.

The other thing that relates to loss of vitamin C manufacturing ability, in addition to the fruit diet mentioned by ecol, is a very low population number. The loss came about because of a mutation in a key gene, that spread to all humans. That spread would not have come as a result of natural selection, since there was no selective advantage. It would have come as a result of genetic drift, which is something that does NOT happen in large populations. Thus, the loss happened at a time when our forebears were very low in population size. We can also conclude that a similar event CANNOT happen today, with 6.5 billion people interbreeding.