foodchain

Computer speed and Internet speed? Will a home computer ever be able to render every shot in Shrek 3 in under a second? Will my home internet connection ever be going 1TB/s?

I think its because so much has to change really. For instance I know that not all to long ago windows really did not support threading on any level not entirely superficial. I went along and purchased the 64 bit processor that AMD had out. I thought wow, this should make some difference advancing from the 32 bit platform but not much anything else has followed suit and of course all the rave is the dual core. I think most anything can still be sensibly run on say 3ghz roughly, but that’s from my perspective and my first computer was running a coppermine 666mhz pent 2:D Try playing a first person shooter on that, I think it killed my comp to be honest.

For most of the young atheists in his classroom, the glory of science would almost certainly not have been routed in reading on the scientific methodolgy that got us the evidence, or the evidence itself. It's certainly not based on reading the bible, as the quote shows.

 

Quite often in classrooms, science is presented as mystical truths from on high. To use an example given by Feynman when he made a talk on the topic of science education, "What makes a dog move? Energy makes it move!"

 

That's not science, it's not teaching people about the world or how we reached that conclusion.

And I agree with you. Though for the sake of brevity in my reply I would have to think such may be a product of being human possibly? I mean how many people can with 100% accuracy explain why they even used the words they chose in a sentence? Or the thoughts used for the matter?

So basically if you were again to take a molecular biology class a possible scenario is a joke or pun made on human nature, but in reality such as eyesight there is a grain of truth to it, but as you state its hardly the exact reason on why science may claim something. You also do learn that though as you go along. I mean I am not going to call myself a giant amino acid complex, but its a possible joke I guess;)

He's twisting the burden of proof there, somewhat. There's some blind faith from both sides, but from the sound of it he was trying too hard to present both sides as incorrect.

 

That may have been the point, quite often if you want to teach you argue for effect, rather than necessarily what you believe.

I don’t know. The history of religion would basically have it in any recorded sense as basically pagan. What I mean by pagan is basically in China for instance religion was different depending on the house you currently were visiting. It was pretty much the same the world over before more large scale or organized religions came about. This subsequently on its own lead to the extinction of many other religions and in many cases this came by means of violence. Science on its own as a field continues to bear the burden of constant attack from various religious sects and I cant really find one that is free from causing human misery to be honest.

I don’t lump individual spirituality into the mix, nor am I trying to attack a persons concept of something like that. I know such questions cant move currently beyond the realm of faith. Its just the point that an entire generation, like say during Martin Luther’s rain in Europe can pour its actions collectively into something like that, its why you get crusades and jihads I think. I mean the world is what it is, you could go swimming in a lake and die from an amoeba eating your brain basically... This is where I think religion came into play, as its a something of a reaction by our species over time to the environment and surely has elements of nature and nurture at play.

I mean there is one recorded moment from the crusades I think in which the slowly going mad armies conducting the crusades basically approached of course in he form of a person all normal and stuff with the question about all the death and destruction. The clergy then promptly basically used the I talk to god or this is gods will to resolve the issue. So it was by itself an enabler and really continues to be for death on a quite massive scale. I don’t see how anyone could be taken wrong for disagreeing with such a reality.

I mean you have spokes people for the worlds main religions talking about how they are all about peace, but then you have reality. Its like all those intelligent people that state what Iraq is, and then of course you have reality.

Personally also I do not see how science could be a religion really. Last time I checked a molecular biology class does not deliver a sermon on why its wrong to covet thy neighbors wife. It might describe a possible mechanism on why its occurs> :D but it does not delve into any "moral" jargon.

One thing I do know is that organized religion has made a point about combating empirical understanding. This should be alarming to any rational person. I mean you do know some whackjobs built a creation museum down in the south of America that shows carnivorous dinosaurs at peace with homo sapiens right? I mean what would they do to any textbook of natural sciences if actually allowed to? The earth I think would be flat and the center of the universe and only 2007 years old overnight, at least that’s my opinion.

How are mammals "restricted in terms of local environment"? Mammals are found in all sorts of climates. It is the sauropsids that are more limited: they cannot exist in frigid environments like the polar bear and caribou do.

 

I have seen that dinos gained the upper hand over early mammals because of increased mobility. The early dinos were bipedal and thus able to move faster and quicker than the early mammals. Try the "Walking with Dinosaurs" series. The segment of life before the dinos goes into the advantages of bipedality.

I don’t know if this applies to dinosaurs directly but I heard it applied to reptiles. IN that reptiles and mammals, say both on a small island for instance. The size of the island would not denote the reptiles becoming small over time, in fact they would most likely become larger. Mammals on the other hand don’t do this, in that the size of the ecology does not state that if it is small so will the reptiles. I think its just a hypothesis but if I remember correctly it came about from trying to find out more about human evolution.

It just seems to be another case from the one size fits all fallacy really. A quick check on the net implicates such with a factor in strokes, in that it could be a cause, though that was just a quick check. It would be weird to do a study on norms of reaction over today’s commercial chemistry industry.

I think these people might just be suffering from cabin fever really. The universe existed before human life or life on the planet did. I would have to say also, though I cant be sure, that no life existed in the big bang. I would also have to state that the use of the observer fallacy is becoming far to rampant these days. I would also have to say the entire premise of the antrophic principal is a load of manure that makes no sense when actually studied. Yes the universe was fined tuned to make natural selection, evolution and extinction a reality. The sun is not going to go nova and destroy the life on this planet which did not have to make it or even evolve into something like humans...

That whole idea is getting closer and closer to being organized religion then anything else really.

This coincides with the development of more structured groups of humans and the development of large-scale agriculture and husbandry.

 

But we will. And we will have pruned the evolutionary tree a fair bit, I suppose.

Well giving the reality of evolution and extinction in the first place its a possibility for our species too. I mean from the relationship plants have had on the course of evolution to mass extinctions say the dinosaurs for instance its simply not a far fetched question to ask.

Personally I think giving the reality of GW and other ecological destruction our species inflicts combined with growing population rates and stagnation from green behavior at any level this possibility is being greatly increased.

Well following along with Dawkins blind watch maker I don’t see animism really as anything shocking to have exist. That being said I do generally hate religion as in a blanket statement. I see it really as nothing more then a stagnation towards people ever coming to grips with reality. I mean think about it, for say the bible, you do what the book says and then when you die you go to the forever happy place... I mean I don’t want to sound retarded but that pretty much does.

I think our past president here in the states, Clinton I think stated that some people simply need religion because they are pushed over the edge easily. I am not sure though if he was the one that said that. Such being said again I have found my way through life without religion. I have no criminal record, I have no illegitimate children, I have no drug addictions, in fact I basically wanted to spend my life furthering understanding of the natural world since I can remember.

I think the reality again is that blind watch maker concept and the human reaction to existence which we hardly understand that fosters religion. I do hate how it combats and advancement basically of the human condition and retards the minds of millions of young people to the point in which they would be suicide bombers or worse, vote for the GOP with people like bush saying god told him to invade a country, these people control armies and nukes and international peace to a large extent, they should be marginalized and then done away with in a peaceful and civil fashion before they get us all killed, article of evidence the history of religion and the millions upon millions of dead in its wake, the non stop attack on anything intellectual, the constant strive for governmental control thus law and influence. They are also prime I think in keeping humanity and life on general in the trajectory of heading towards GW. If you want to act now, the best thing you can do is spread dinosaurs all over the landscape, heck even get a dino t-shirt with a t-rex pursuing Jesus or Allah or whatever…

If religion had its way you would be lucky to have a vocabulary large enough to read whatever the current instruction manual of religious communism allowed, of course subject to the ruling elite monkey(funny how that works out).

I like this idea also but I have my exceptions. First, I do not understand why some look at it as dark green thought. As an ecominded person myself one think I have noticed is people don’t always pick how they die, not even the most powerful people in the world are free from this. In that if people are in control its sort of like saying people wanted world war two to occur. Obviously there is a limit to our ability to understand and rationalize the real world right now at large as a species. I mean physics is an awesome series of measurements about everything big and large, but we still have nasa accidents if you will. This goes for everything, science included.

So with that reality I think its easy to get platonic and state people learn. Well we don’t understand everything, I mean how much of a trophic disturbance can the world as an ecology take before they start to deteriorate? Do we know this the world over even, what kind of world would exist and three times the current population density? Can we know this?

With the stark reality that for all life extinction is a reality I see it as something that should be part of life in general, which is environmental understanding. I don’t want to get much more basic but if photosynthesis dies out tomorrow how much longer would a lot of life on earth persist? Not that long in all reality. This stuff is vital really, or ecological health is. I think such ties into so much more over all being it is natural selection but this is already a bordering being a rant. Its like you should feel bad because you give a damn if life persists, even if its just a specie of dicot.

Had something to do with that QM is completely non-random except for the measurement process and that the question where the observer is arises.

Does this relate to relativity and frames by chance?

I like this question but I think its proper definition hangs in larger issues not to currently discussed or really dissected. For instance time, relativity would have time as something real, at least that’s what I get from reading it. Time is also invoked in other aspects of physical equations for instance. So if time is real, as in a real physical phenomena I think that comes to bear on what you call random.

For instance, if time is a real thing, such as the arrow or time or entropy what is that saying? Time is work? What does time being real hold for implications on organic evolution? Is it another variable that would lump into natural selection if so? So I think really a proper definition of time needs to be accounted for before chaos can be solved, but I don’t think its the only thing that needs to be solved for.

Energy wise humans can only produce to such a level, and for the rest we are stuck doing observations on entities like an AGN. We have to use the current in a temporal sense to try to deduce the past from what we can gather. I mean is the big bang, what if millions of particle types where coming about in say just a pocket at some point existing for almost unimaginable short periods of time?

One thing I do know is that snowflakes I think are a fine example of such, or natural reality. A mountain range might have a common “phenotype” for example, but the mountain itself is hardly ordered as say a diamond is. I think this is why cross studies in different fields could become such a gem. What is the difference of say studying time in relation to physics to say studying time in relation to geology?

Many went extinct in the mass extinctions, but others did not. Does that not show that some species are able to adapt rapidly?

I would say that would have to be taken specie by specie along also with the extent of the change or environmental impact on life. Obviously bacteria can adapt rapidly and they are alive. I mean plants survive different then animals, if in a certain situation plants survive better then animals when faced with adaptation could also be just that case I would think historically speaking. I mean could an environmental change come about that is particular mean towards epiphyta?

*I have to go for a bit now.

Only if there are no individuals that will be able to survive it. Sexual reproduction is there to allow rapid adaptation. You can draw on the gene pool of an entire species in a matter of one or two generations.

Mass extinction events are named I would think properly and typically rely purely only one environmental conditions. The ability for life to persist has brought it past such situations and of course looking at just variation today its easy to see how but the extinction event still holds none the less. The relationship between and organism and its environment is a focal reality of life.

I suppose anything is possible.

 

If mutations are to frequent, there won't be a window of opportunity for the changes to be scrutinized and then incorporated into the population.

 

It can be argued that in a spider ball of eggs there are, say, 1000 offspring. Of those 1000 there needs to be only 1 breeding pair to maintain the population. If there are 2 than the population experiences a vertical pattern. As the world is not full of spiders, we can assume there is an equilibrium being maintained. We further make the assumption that this equilibrium maintenance is filling the role of "natural selector".

 

Anyways, there can be a greater genetic drift in a species that has 1000 offspring. If 500 are a little f'd up and 100 are really f'd up that is O.K. It is sloppy and it turns out that's not what happens -- although mass producing animals do tend to experience more genetic "instability". "Instability" does rise in domesticated environments. This is more due to the laxing of the ordinary breeding pressure allowing the population to settle in at the lower standard.

 

A human has 46 chromosomes. Other primates have other numbers. The addition/subtraction of chromosomes and cross-species-breeding does yield viable offspring in primates and other mammalian species. In humans however any substantial chromosome remove is deleterious. The condition of have an additional redundant chromosome is also harmful, and often not viable much less capable of reproduction. Exactly what biological mechanism redundant-but-not-identical-chromosomes ?

 

It seems as though this would be easier if coding DNA and structural DNA were somehow separated. And they are, and this separation is on the chromosome itself. I don't know that the structure portions don't refer to coding on other chromosomes.

 

The X chromosome seems to be a very important, highly utilized chromosome. Many structural traits have been identified as residing on this chromosome, partly because of the unique way in which it is inherited. This unique inheritance also has the potential to stave off the polarity of sexual reproduction. So this unique virtual-mono-chromatin has a purpose and still undergoes genetic recombination. Defects on this chromatin are exaggerated in males. When there are two copy of a gene, one is defective, a defective protein will be made half the time. This allows for survival in sort of a "safe mode". Any sibling who has no defect is more likely to thrive -- evolution depends on this. It is highly unlikely the Y-chromosome does much of anything but sit next to X. I don't think another vestigial chromatin will find it's way into the genome.

 

But still the question may not be "where is my John Wayne?" but "where is Dr. Cornelius and the Ferengi?" as cross-"species" breeding may be the only way to add material to the human genome. At it is, we may have diverged to far from other species and lost our *real* genetic variation when we quit f'n goats. These labels cut to the bone.

 

There are theories of viruses adding DNA to the host cell genome. Species to species viral transmition could carry over genetic material that might find its way into gametes.

 

The food we eat, as well, is (almost) always of biological origins and contains DNA/RNA. This too could make it's way into the genome. I think it would manifest itself as a tumor rather than offspring with additional features. I don't know of any proved cases of this having naturally occurred, and I have seen no evidence that humans or any plants/animals share a common unique genome fraction. It is shown however that genomes are highly preserved, considering, and often these lowlevel genomea occupy the majority of all genomes. "Random" mutation (bit-flip, garbbly-goop, missense, tautology, repeat expansion, deletions) are contradictory to this fact.

 

A theory I am interested in is the potential for pseudo-intelligent-design. Whereby an organism actively scrambles DNA or proteins and somehow selects individual elements of its own (or something else's) genome. Like a super smybiotic anti-semetic amoeba. Intergalactic.

I like to think of natural selection as the sum of variables contributing to an organism. In which you could look at something like finding a niche by being a bottom feeder as a series of natural barriers a organism has to overcome in time. So in time you have variation which is inheritable, like DNA for instance. This variation meets various selective barriers and subsequently they interact, such as fungi behavior. In time you find specialization or niche occupation. These barriers if you will I think resonate in overall phenotypes, such as why do aquatic organism appear the way they do compared to terrestrial versions. Why the difference in life if environment held no sway. So basically having mutation is a gradual way to overcome such barriers hopefully but not always, and once past is sort of locks itself down into a stable pattern in the ecology and persists via reproduction. I think this is evident in trophic behavior also is in you don’t have autotrophs and then elephants. So a neat sci fi question would be what would life really look like on say Jupiter.

If life were not mutable it would not be able to adapt. You would not be able to get from fish to lion in time. The mutation process though is complicated, in that variance to mutation exists and that overall such a process is random. Basically if life did not have repair mechanisms or ability to cut down on mutation probability has it as life would quickly evolve towards extinction. On a side note rapid environmental change typically only leads to extinction. This to me subsequently speaks I think on the reality of mutation and NS.

Well what I am getting at is I think a basic question. If the most fundamental forces are typically described by the standard model, of course lacking gravity currently, then these forces are at a QM level. So if from a QM level we can get things such as a neutron or a star why is this? My current understanding going in a historical tone such as from the big bang on is that energy is certainly interacting. I mean I do not want to come out and say everything is a quantum step but how did all the electrons come about or get where they are? I mean what if you could “tunnel” via QM to particles that can only exist or perform certain functions of billionths of a second at very exotic conditions, or more or less why the lifetime of the pion?

So basically if you could create and environment in which pions could obtain stability and you could generate masses of them what would that look like or what could you do? Is the current universe a model of probable stability based on quantum effects? How do you intricately know the movement of energy/particles/forces for something such as even a geological feature here on earth.

So overall the idea would be the more ways to study say a particle like a pion I would only think could lead to more understanding. I guess its somewhat a question on the phylogeny of particles and the ability to maybe get somewhere else even if artificial to some extent. I mean does it not seem odd that three quarks can lead to certain effects but don’t have a perfectly guaranteed decay process as into products? Going from the reality that probability exists on a QM level as a fundamental reality of nature how can we say what particles or forces we have is all that can exist.

Is it possible to make environments in which lifespan of particles change? I mean if you could make one that could expand a pion lifetime would that open up new ways of research?

I mean just from one imaginary point of view if you will what would a mass of pion act like if you could interact with it in a variety of ways.

(X¡ôN)¡ê(XX)

Now take X to be N, and we have the contradiction

(N¡ôN)¡ê(NN)

Known of these was given by Russell himself in 1919 and concerns the plight of the barber of a certain village who has enunciated the principle that he shaves all those persons ans only those persons of the village who do not shave themselves. The paradoxical nature of this situation is realized when we try to answer the question, "Does the barber shave himself?" If he does shave himself, then he shouldn't according to his principle; if he doesn't shave himself, then he should according to his principle.

Other attempts to solve the paradoxes of set theory look for the trouble in logic, and it must be admitted that the discovery of the paradoxes in the general theory of sets has brought about a thorough investigation of the foundations of logic

http://library.thinkquest.org/22584/emh1800.htm

*You may have to scroll a bit to get to it.

My question is basic I think. Has this been resolved yet and what are the implications?

Could such be used in ecological application to discern fitness factors for an organism such as a microbe in an artificial environment? I know its sort of a energy in a system question I think but any reply would be appreciated. I don’t know how precise you can get with fitness in a population of microbes as is down to an individual because more or less I am looking for how such environmental stimulus is received by an organism, such as light or sound with hearing and vision for example. I would like to think this is orientated to seeing fitness in populations from such a scale while trying to identify molecular basis. My questions really is that I don’t understand the reality of a topological transitive enough on my own of course for such an application if possible.

Essentially Godel's theorem says you can't have unlimited scope in having statements talk about themselves. To put it a bit more rigorously,

 

Assume a system in which a statement is always allowed to refer to its own truth value or provability value. Then, if the system is consistent, there is a statement that cannot be proven.

 

Where do you disagree?

=Uncool-

That is a very interesting question. Do you have any thoughts about such in relation to boundary conditions or chaos theory?

yes but using occams razor to realize that invisible gravity aliens are not what causes gravity really does not say that much. In reality though if they did it just right we would not know they are there but such is currently not testable in any way I know so its a rather moot point.

Natural selection itself has evolved since Darwin first pointed it out. The same with evolution via such a mechanism. The same can be said of science in general. This I would describe as a "natural" process.

Math has already shown itself something to be something that cannot replace the empirical method. Contrary it seems the two work in tandem quite well and I don’t know why this would be destroyed, not that you are attacking it.

Second the scope of support factually in terms of empirical for evolution is something in which the oxide layer is barely scratched in such debates. I mean looking at the family Cactaceae for support along of natural selection alone yields large amounts of information. I also do not understand how one can view trophic systems and not see evolution and natural selection at work from related field studies and scientific endeavors pertaining to such. Physics as applied to living systems has no conflictions as understanding currently stands, nor does chemistry. Noting in the natural sciences conflicts with evolution, or organic evolution if you want.

Evolution also is key in understanding human consciousness and culture, along with history. It allows for further understanding to be obtained.

*I would have used quotes but its so nested my current lazy mood really did not feel like contending with such.

Just change your diet. I eat garlic, my girlfriend seems to know two days later. I drink pineapple juice, she knows that too, but expresses a significantly different response. So, what types of odors do you mean? Of course we can manipulate how we smell. It's diet and environment, especially apparent among those with a higher frequency of sweat glands.

Right but if you happen to watch T.V at all there was an ad that showed a person unhappy at work, then the doctor and a pill, then back happy at work. I don’t not understand how such is not drug dealing in the slightest but its just an example. I don’t see why at the point of manipulation that society wont allow such for even entertainment value such as a pill that can change a trait of an individual phenotype really if only daily. The pill was an example of what I think an aspect of such a market will be in time. I think the same will also occur with genes in time and heck maybe even a relationship of the two.

I mean the reality is that people will take such already and in quite great quantity. The money I think in such a market will make it appealing from law makers to doctors alike.

I just realized that this is not really a biochem topic in a traditional sense huh?

Now not to be taken to lightly but in all reality I think if you could produce pills that over time allowed a person to have a natural body odor of choice you would become a very very rich person overnight really. Anyone else agree or disagree and in reality what do you think the limits of action will be on the understanding and ability to manipulate a humans biochemistry?

Is it even that static?

Just how likely is it in this day and age? Though I've read up on several possible scenarios, I find that most of them are at very best far fetched, and and most they seem more like doomsday prophesies or other kinds of baseless paranoia and nonsense.

 

The only scenarios that I have found that are plausible are either technological (e.g. nukes, maybe genetics, etc) or that of an asteroid impact, or the end of the universe. Environmental damage may pose some pretty hefty problems too.

 

But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am wondering is is it anything to really worry about (other than asteroids or nukes). Or is it more along the lines of the belief that civilization is the end all and be all of the human species, because I know those usually collapse on a regular basis anyways...

Considering that we as a specie have only been around for a relatively short period of time in all reality I think we need to wake up. For the most part common mainstream philosophies have us as some almost magical unicorn like "race" of super beings, personally I think that is all bs.

I mean how many people can look at history and say wow, morality kills. Simply put it does. It may not be the subjective quasi metaphysical spirituality that is killing, it is indeed people, and of course anything beyond subjective thought on the issue really does not exist.

Its like social sciences. I do not think knowing the exact reality of biology down to the real time individual, but on that same note we lack so much understanding there really as in applied its kind of scary.

Then of course you have this "ignorance" for lack of better words executing in time as we as a species persist, and then when stuff happens to go bad you have a bunch of so called "intelligent" people that simply spew matter that typically has nothing to do with the reality of anything.

I look at the reality of environmental issues as something possibly of a blessing. It will reaffirm life I would hope in the minds of people and what we really happen to be. I think its utterly horrible that such a reality would have to come to pass, but I do not see such a tract ending now and it will be environmental pressures that causes us to "adapt" I think. I do think at this point, which will not be in my lifetime of course, will be very close if not an extinction event for humans, I think it will depend on how wide scale the change of the environment is, either abotic or biotic. To talk physics the amount of energy at work either in an aboitic of biotic tone that could be changed rapidly is something I think most do not think about all to often. Environmental pressures such as resource scarcity will only increase of course rate and magnitude of warfare. I guess to some extent really the future is in our hands at this point.

How smart is that???!!!

Then how come that action happens in no time? because photons are beyond the time barrier!

But yet we can measure the action in time of light with units of time like a lot of other things;)