SkepticLance

jck said : Then empty space in isolation can be shown to curve as accordingly it must be testable to be science? The scientific method requires that hypotheses must be testable using empirical methods. This is done by making a prediction based on the hypothesis, and then running a real world experiment or observation to see if that prediction holds. In the case of your question, Einstein came up with the hypothesis that space curves around objects that have mass, with more curving when there is more mass. A prediction that was made from this is that light will bend with the curving of space. This is observable, and has been observed. Thus, the requirement of science has been met, and Einsteins hypothesis has stood that test. This phenomenon has even been put to practical use, with large mass objects in space being used as gravity lenses, to curve light towards us, revealing objects that are otherwise invisible.

jck I hate to have to say this, but ... Your last posting basically says nothing except that anything you cannot understand cannot be science because you cannot understand it. I admit to not understanding quantum chromodynamics. However, my lack of understanding does not lead me to say it cannot be science. I know it is science, because those who study this subject make testable predictions, which fail to be falsified when tested, even after repeated testing. That is pretty much the definition of science. Those who study cosmology also use their understanding to make testable predictions. When, as is usually the case, they fail to be falsified by empirical testing, this is science. Trying to find out what happened 'before' the Big Bang can be science. Speculation is not science, but an attempt to discover new material pertinent to that question may well be good science.

Chupacabra. Your logic is sound, but only applies to the short term future, which is not important in terms of a long term process such as evolution. The reason, at the risk of repeating myself, is that humans will (probably within 100 years) take control of their own genetic development. Advantageous genes will be inserted into the human genome. This will undoubtedly include genes for high intelligence. Harmful genes will be deleted. Our descendents in a few centuries will doubtless be far smarter than we are. And stronger. Faster. Healthier. Longer lived. etc.

I am a scuba diver, and I have very convincing and totally practical proof that gravity affects air. Weight comes from gravity. When I carry a scuba tank full of compressed air, it is damned heavy! When it has been used, and there is hardly any air left in it, it is remarkably light in weight. Oh yes, air has weight, and thus is affected by gravity.

Most bad backs heal themselves. However, it won't do any harm to get it checked if you are worried. Just don't go to a chiropractor. Your back does not need potentially damaging voodoo massage. If you are really worried, find a suitable medical specialist. If there is nothing specifically organic wrong with your back, as shown by your specialist's test results, the best advice is to carry on with normal life, just avoiding any activity that causes pain. When the back pain is gone, begin with gentle back exercises, and slowly build them up till your back is strong.

The Cap'n said : May the supernatural being of your choice bless you. In my case, it ain't the ghost in the machine that will bless me, but the spirit in the bottle.

jck Nice reply.

jck The masses of 'hidden' mutations do express themselves from time to time. This is due purely to chance. An organism is born which contains that mutation either in diploid, or accidentally as a dominant. The mutation expresses. This is, of course, happening all the time. If we look at our fellow humans, we see enormous variation. Some of that variation is mutant genes expressing. Some such expressions are deformities, or handicaps. These would, in the normal course of events, slowly be selected out of the gene pool. However, mutations that cause characteristics that are not very harmful (eg more melanin in the skin of a pale Laplander) are not selected out, or at least only very slowly. Thus they are available as the source of evolutionary change if the environment changes. The Laplanders can evolve darker skins if climate changes, making Lapland exposed to more ultra violet.

To jck. Mutations may be classified in three lots. 1. Harmful. These are eliminated by natural selection. 2. Neither good not bad. These are conserved to a great degree, and remain in the population. However, they will most probably make up a tiny proportion of the total population genome. 3. Useful. These will increase in number, and become a bigger part of the genome, as a result of natural selection. Most mutations are 1 or 2. However, the classification of good or bad changes with changes in the environment. Genes that are rarely expressed may become common with an environmental change, as they change from neither good or bad to suddenly becoming advantageous. The same thing happens with whole species. Most species are actually quite rare. Of the 20 million or so in existence, only a relatively few are classified as common. When the environment changes, rare species may become common and common ones become rare. This is natural selection at work.

abciximab I think you may have misunderstood the moths eggs/imitation eggs deal. As I understand it, the plant makes imitation eggs to STOP the moths laying their eggs on that plant - since the caterpillars that result eat the plant. The moth is not likely to lay its precious eggs where the offspring will face competition from caterpillars from another moth. Thus the moth looks for a plant with no eggs. The plant that has imitation eggs escapes being eaten by caterpillars. On another front. Where do the mutations come from? In fact, most are already there. All life is 3 to 4 billion years old. Over that time, thousands upon thousands of mutations have accumulated in the genomes of the various organisms. Those mutations persist because they do not really do any great harm, and are thus not removed by natural selection. However, sexual reproduction results in gene shuffling, and these mutations can suddenly have an impact. This is the cause of a great deal of normal genetic variation. If two brothers are born - one with a short nose and one with a long nose - it may be due to a long nose mutation suddenly appearing due to gene reshuffling. When a new characteristic is needed - say bumps on a plant to simulate moth eggs (probably initially a very bad simulation - but moths have lousy eyesight), then the mutation is likely to be one that pre-exists. In the normal course of events, one plant in 10,000 may appear with bumps. When the egg laying moth appears in that environment, suddenly the plant with bump making genes is advantageous. Bump making genes survive and become more common. Those that are associated with other mutations (which appear all the time due to gene shuffling) that make the bumps look even more like eggs are even more likely to survive. etc. And at the same time, new mutations are always appearing, albeit at a far slower rate. Those that do harm are selected out of the population. Those that are relatively harmless may remain. An interesting variation on this is mutations that cause harm, but have their effect later in life. A harmful mutation like progeria will kill those with that gene at a very young age. It is eliminated from the population within one generation. Another mutation like haemophilia may not kill quite so young, and it may take a few generations to eliminate it. Huntingtons disease is a mutation that kicks in middle to late middle age, and it takes a long time to be eliminated from the population by natural selection. Possibly hundreds of generations. And then there are all the mutations that cause old age. They have their impact after the victim has completed the reproductive process, and raised grandchildren. These harmful mutations are never removed. And they have accumulated over many millions of years, so there are heaps of them. This is what gives us all our inevitable death sentence.

To 1veedo I believe you are altogether far too pessimistic. There have been lots of predictions of disaster in the past that proved wrong due to technological development. Club of Rome, 1973, "The Limits to Growth' predicted disaster by 2000 due to resource limits. We went out and discovered more resources than they ever imagined. Paul Ehrlich 1968, " The Population Bomb" predicted deaths by the hundreds of millions by the mid 1970's. Then came the Green Revolution. Rachel Carson 1963, " Silent Spring" predicted massive ecological disaster due to toxic pesticides. And so we invented low toxicity and biodegradable pesticides. Right now we face other potential problems. Energy shortage. Thousands of scientists are already working on this. New technologies are being developed by the hundreds. Most will fail. However, a few will prove to be just what the world needs.

Why bother cloning? I can think of three reasons. 1. Research. The search for medical knowledge. 2. Therapy. If we clone stem cells from our own genetics, those stem cells (in theory at least) can be induced into growing into some part of our body that is diseased or defective, and cure an ill. 3. Reproduction. This is the one that gets the moralists most uptight. Not because there is anything wrong with the process (in theory) or even because, at present, it is not possible to do it without unacceptable negative problems of the human suffering kind. Not, they argue against it for emotional reasons. It is 'unnatural' and therefore must be wrong. I predict that this attitude will not survive the deaths of the current generations of moralists. Once it is technically possible to clone new babies without unacceptable problems, then it will become part of the range of reproductive technologies in use. This may take 100 years, but is inevitable.

I read an article by an Iraqi political scientist (I guess that makes him an expert?) who said that the only possible road to any sort of stability in Iraq right now is partition. If it is split into three states, that may be a road towards peace. 1. Sunni state. 2. Shiite state. 3. Kurd state. At least the Kurds would be delighted!

Ryan asked : Say for example when you instruct a movement in your hand, there are no receptors that can fire for this because there is no external stimulus so my question too you is: how does this occur? In a real sense, you asked the wrong question. We know the immediate answer to your query as above. The initiation is internal. A process in your brain results in a nervous signal travelling down to your hand to instruct the movement. The real question is : How does the brain initiate action? Answer, no-one really knows, but it is bloody complicated!

ParanoiA said : I don't believe we are in the position where we should have to live down anything that happened 900 years ago Morally, you are correct. However, in the real world of practical politics, your statement is definitely unhelpful. People (not just Muslims) have very long memories, and historical wrongs tend to linger long past what should be their 'use by' date. This fact must be taken into account when planning future action. Piling more real aggression on top of perceived aggression just makes things worse. We need to be pragmatic and do what will work - I believe changing their hearts and minds is the way to make it work. This I agree with. Softly, softly is the approach. Aid with such things as health and education to raise their standard of living, and the avoidance of anything that can be perceived as aggression.

Isn't mating success dependant on psychological welfare? No, it is not. Think about it. In your own experience, is it only well balanced, happy people who have lots of kids? Or do lots of thoroughly screwed up, indeed psychotic, types get to have lots of kids?

Dak, We are in serious danger of arguing semantics. By your very tight definition of 'racist' you are correct. However, that is a seriously unforgiving and inflexible definition. Racism as an evil is not quite the same as the natural desire to save one's own children, or children similar to.

Ecoli said : But wouldn't he be just a likely to forgive her? That, of course, is a possibility. However, much would depend on the actual circumstances, and the nature of the people involved. The point is that our behaviour is determined by evolution which does not care about our emotional welfare. Happiness is not a prerequisite to success in the evolutionary sense.

All humans, to some degree, have an instinct for parenting and nurturing. It is stronger among those who already have children. This instinct, the result of millions of years of evolution, is strongest towards one's own children, and second in strength towards children that look like one's own. No-one would consider anyone had done something wrong if that person saved a human child instead of a kitten. This is simply instinct at work. If the choice is between black/white babies, you will choose the colour of your own child. Again, I say, this is not racism. It is just instinct, and any conclusion of racism is a distortion of the facts.

ParanoiA What you say about hearts and minds, and the need for an idea to counter another idea, is absolutely true. However, it is an uphill battle. We are countering 900 years of hostility, brought on by the activities of ourselves in the West. We are in the position of a bully who has been persecuting a smaller child for years, who now realises the error of his ways and want to make up. How many years will the victim need to come to trust the ex bully? Certainly, the actions of Bush junior are utterly harmful. To invade a Muslim nation is to exacerbate the hostility, hatred and distrust. Only an enlightened approach, with genuine efforts at real assistance will begin to change the terrible reality of 900 years of hatred. And that will take decades to even begin to make progress.

Evolution never stops, though it can change direction. Currently, due to our stirling efforts to preserve humans with defective genes, those genes are increasing in the human gene pool. We could call this devolution. However, I do not believe this will continue for long. Our knowledge of genetics (both theoretical, and very, very practical) is increasing dramatically. It is only a matter of time till we manipulate human genetics in such a way as to simulate accelerated evolution. The hypothetical 'super-human' is very, very possible.

The standard method of training cats is as below. This works best on young animals. First, train them to associate a sound with a reward. eg. tweak a bicycle bell and then give them a treat. After a while, the sound of the bell can substitute as an immediate reward (but always followed by the treat). Now, give the command you wish to use. Wait till the cat accidentally does the first movement towards the act you are training it to do, and ring the bell (followed by a treat). Many repeats will cause the cat to carry out that action every time you give the command. Now refrain from the bell till the cat carries out the first stage, followed by the second. eg. If you are training it to go pick up an object on command, the first action is to turn towards the object (now trained into it) and the second to walk towards it. Many repeats with the bell and reward will mean the cat will respond to the command by carrying out both actions. Then you train it to the third action, etc. Later you get it to nose the thing you are training it to pick up, then mouth it etc. Finally the cat will do, on command, the entire sequence of actions you are training it to.

A bit of history. Troubles with Middle Eastern Muslims began around the year 1096 when Pope Urban II began the first crusade. The crusades that followed were unmitigated aggression by Western powers against Muslim nations, that had given no cause for invasion. Towards the end of WW II the United States and Britain set out to create a homeland for Jews. They did this by taking over the Muslim state of Palestine, and kicking out enormous numbers of the residents, without compensation, to make room for Jewish immigrants. This created a massive refugee crisis and unbelievable human misery. Millions of these refugees moved to neighbouring Muslim nations, creating a massive economic drain. Anyone still unsure as to why the Muslim nations hate the West??? Since WWII, certain western nations, and especially the United States, have set out to increase their sphere of influence in the Middle East. This is primarily a response to the presence of oil. The fact of the all-pervading influence and presence of Americans (classified as the enemy, as in paragraphs 1 and 2 above) drove many Muslims into hating America even more. It was Americans in Saudi Arabia that was the reason Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda and started killing people. None of this justifies terrorism, but perhaps permits us to understand the Muslim position a bit better.

The 'forces of evolution' do not give a damn about your level of happiness. The end goal is to preserve and spread your genes. If this process makes you miserable as hell, that is not even an issue. In terms of survival and reproductive success (ie evolution) knowledge is vital. For example, if a man's wife is cheating on him, he needs to dump her (in terms of evolutionary benefit), regardless of how unhappy that makes him, since otherwise he may end up devoting his life to raising another man's child. This is to the detriment of his own genes. Evolution has built into us the need to seek information. This information is to increase our reproductive and survival success, not our psychological welfare.

If you take a hard look at recent history, you will find that values change, and things that are 'just not done' later on become regarded as OK. For example : In the 1950's the idea of artificial insemination for humans was anathema. However, there was a need for it, in some situations, and the human drive to have kids is very powerful. Today, AI for humans is quite acceptable. Cloning will be the same. Right now, there are strong technical reasons for not doing it. However, technology moves on, and the time will come when human cloning will become as safe as IVF is today. When that happens, society will change to eventually accept it as a viable means of reproduction. After all, the result of successful cloning is the same as any other successful reproduction. ie. a human baby.