foodchain

Clarification,this post is posting to the first, original post.

 

of course the chromosomes bands are going to look similar, almost every feature of man, or ape, is mirrored in ape, or man.

we have 2 legs 2 feet 2 arms 2 hands; they have 2 legs 2 arm 2 feet 2 hands.

if their bands did not look like ours they would not have features similar to ours.

 

much like programing if you want something that looks similar but is different you apply the same code but edit it appropriately.

this doesn't mean that the program,creature, is from a common ancestor; it simply means 1 bit of code only has 1 function.

What are you talking about? Thats not even close to an accurate description of what you are trying to answer. The bauplan as you talk about has evolutionary significance!

Read up on evolutionary developmental biology or here is a nifty link to give you a rough idea along with more links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauplan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

Make a disc or something of solid helium and try to do stuff with it like drop it.

The last bit of help I could try to offer is something like a mold can look different at different times or points in its life. So if you do get a good lead you might not want to just look at one image of the specie and then be off if its not a perfect match.

Sorry I could not be more help.

I found this other picture that looks a bit like it, thought it might help in clarifying

 

http://www.mycolog.com/4_Aspergillus_herbariorum.jpg

 

these just happen to be Aspergillus herbariorum

 

imagine those in this pic http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9080/sporezp4.jpg

 

and not transparent

crud, I was thinking of something totally different as in I thought it was more 2d then that. No, I don’t know of any chemical reactions that look like that:D I was thinking of properties of diffusion waves and what not.

I don’t know, I was thinking mold at first but I don’t know of any molds that look like that. It sounds biologic for sure but I don’t know of anything off hand of what you describe, then again I don’t really know nearly enough to know for sure. I do know that some chemical reactions can make patterns and leave products is all, so I was just checking with you but it sounds different then that.

Hey

 

I need to identify this for a class and I searched google for anything I could find, and an accompanying picture, but got nothing.

 

I'm wondering if I'll find help here.

 

Here's a picture I drew of it. It's horrible, but it's what it looks like.

 

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9080/sporezp4.jpg

 

ALL white, spiral with two or three rotations, about .5 cm stalk length, with white balls (spores?) on the ends.

 

I found it on a door on the outside of an upstairs building in a perpetually shady spot.

 

Any help would be much appreciated!!

 

Thanks

 

Jon

Are you sure its not just a chemical reaction? They can leave patterns also is all and produce products.

A bit of confusion I see. There is no typical liberal as there might be more on average a typical conservative. See you can have liberal hippy types, which are really just hippies, then you can have another type of liberal like the metrosexual type in cities, the list could go on. Conservatives on the other hand seem to be on average more of the same mold. You can even find variation in liberal to conservative in regards to religious beliefs, such as homosexuals that attend church to comparison to other conservative types you might find at some gathering of evangelicals. Also, libertarian conservatives are another branch of conservative thought, and some liberals are not anti gun to boot, so its not an easy or decisive cut off on what is what.

Typically though the main difference in the two is time and situation dependent. Such as republicans and democrats of say sixty years ago are nothing compared to what they are today.

ON average I would state a good chunk of modern day liberalism is a very diversified group of people, much like modern conservatism. You can find a gross amount of conservatives simply being conservative because they want to retain there position and power or status, nothing more, or basically you can also find a giant cult of very religious conservative types in which change is the product of satans work. You can also find liberals that basically would like to emplace for all intensive purposes communism and happen to be rather out of touch with reality, its not cut and dry.

ON average I don’t know if it rates to intelligence as much as it simply rates to worldview. It would be very easy to say that the middle east is the bastion of what conservative thought is all about in many regards, or you will not find progressive liberal thinking in Iran period. Liberalism for what its worth is not known for being super aggressive warmongering, or hating on people for difference for the most part, though of course exceptions exist. I think really that is the prime difference, such as bush wanting to ban same sex marriage for various reasons that its the anti christ in short and liberals not being exactly nice to the concept but at the same time allowing a more open atmosphere to exist on the issue, that’s really the only real difference in my opinion of the two. They both produce crappy results most the time and of course both happen to be profoundly dumb for the most part. You can see an easy divide in regards to how environmental issues are handled by both groups for another example.

Well that’s my two cents on the topic anyways.

Point well taken.

However, not to minimize dangers associated with mercury poisoning, please note that methyl mercury is NOT elemental mercury.

Methyl merc is considered to be the form of mercury most easily bioaccumulated. Also, mercury (and methyl merc) is known to easily penetrate latex, so they should not have been used in the situation you mention. Latex gloves were never intended for chemical lab use and shouldn't even be there. One should NEVER use them as the only means of protection in a chem lab. They were developed for routine biological/clinical (ie, aqueous liquid only) work. Nitril gloves are known to be a better option for work with mercury (and many other chemicals).

I agree with you. The best protection is knowledge (and proper equipment).

I concur. I had a friend back in high school, years ago of course, into the whole anarchist cook book deal, he managed to make some pretty impressive stuff along with basically getting both his hands and a good percent of his arms covered with serious burns. Reactions can be rather instant, like boom instant!

With that being said proper understanding and care should be taken with this stuff just for the reality that its rather real, the outcome of such, its not as if you made a mistake on you math homework or what not. The other idea is not just toxicity of elements to our particular chemistry but the reality that say having high velocity shards of glass to a multitude of other realties that can come about as a product of unknowing actions. Some poisons only become such through long periods of absorption also, so you would not even know you are harming yourself. Now that I have taken the thread off track I will make apologies and hope all is well as I go on my merry way:D

"In December 1997, a chemistry professor, Karen Wetterhahn, working at Dartmouth College in the United States spilled a drop of dimethyl mercury on her latex glove. She began experiencing the symptoms of mercury poisoning within 5 months of the exposure and, despite treatment, died a few months later."

This and more in the link. The post being overboard or not, I don’t think its bad that maybe hobby chemists or such develop a more broad understanding of what they may play and or work with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning

Yes. I think what is studied in say the physics is the accumulation or amplification of the laws that operate within atomic structures. Moreover, I think that understanding an atom internally, and then relating that externally would reveal a whole lot about everything actually, from gravity, to time and space and just about everything inbetween.

Michael Behe has made comments like this before.

"In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish"

The reality is the number of links on such endevors on that page alone to stuides in which he states has never even existed totals well over a hundread alone, many to published books on the subject. The man is not all to honest in his endevors is all if he would make such a comment like that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html