foodchain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement http://www.echamicrobiology.co.uk/pages/tank_and_hull_corrosion/1,23/default.aspx I don’t know if these will help but its all I could pull of the top of my head. *Thinking about it the second one is scary thinking about evolution. What if the bacteria eat all our metal ,LoL.

I have to agree. Not to know on math but it cant be used as a stand alone for figuring out reality around us. This has been demonstrated more times then I could care to find out about really. Math is super useful, in just about anything I imagine to some extent. This is a blatant misuse of such. You see, nobody probably knows more pain about trying to put reality to math then a physics person, and even they still have to test gigantic amounts of math against reality on regular basis. Why do you think they do this, the testing of the prediction you think? So your book may have math, which I don’t understand to be honest in its entirety, but do you have any tests, or anything empirical to offer beyond what you did divulge? I mean I can do a math equation to a lawn showing mowing it would involve infinite work, I don’t however think 10square yards of soil to mow would take infinite energy unless I am missing something.

Right, but I think natural selection is that. Even if you have a mechanism in biology that supports in some robust manner in defining evolution, say DNA for instance, where can you subtract natural selection from the equation? I might be getting confused but evolution by natural selection is more or less a giant umbrella term for anything big and small. Simply because in reality its what can survive to reproduce that makes it for instance. Regardless or not if a predator cant hunt to any success it will die out. To deep sea vents. The organisms occupying such are allowed to simply because they evolved via natural selection to be able to, this is found in comparisons within biodiversity and ecology. So this has to then work all the way down to a cellular molecular level. Else I don’t see how variation in genomes comes to mean all that much. I think another issue is the idea of natural perfection so to speak. IN many cases I don’t know how you rate any trait natural selection could work on from a scale of doing the best it could physically do, to being just enough to satisfy survival. I also do not understand how you can pick apart down to very discrete units with perfect separation from the rest of the organism and thusly ecology. I think such problems are the paramount issues today in regards to study in molecular biology really, at least in medical concerns. Which of course diversity via evolution in an intraspecies domain boggles down medical advance. why are some people allergic to something and not others? Which of course that question to can be environmental more so then intrinsic as gene function naturally without any environment, which of course does not exist in nature.

Unless you could modify the membrane to operate some form of procedure similar to diffusion or osmosis. Of course it would not work out to be the same but I imagine a fully controllable membrane could have things like entropy tweaked along with of course physical chemistry subjects or physics or what not to allow permeation of the membrane by a recognized object. Maybe a spray on chemical perhaps or even some kind of programmable logic done on a chemical level, I hear people work on that stuff. Something involving the ability to use lasers to make I think a security code in a chemical reaction or something, its been some time since I have read anything on it. The door lock and related sound to hard structurally speaking for the membrane I envision really. I am thinking more along the lines of a bigger version of a living cell, or somewhat modified to the extent of how living cells work perhaps? The doorway idea sounds suitable as maybe just certain aspects of the cell maintain a permeable port so to speak, maybe with some apparatus. I don’t know the extent of nano tech or nanotubes for that instant but if such could be used to some extent by a computer system it would I think enhance functional capability along with other technologies. I don’t think such would have to be in the nano end directly to modern standards. A pulse of information can come into a Varity of forms, all a receiver piece would have to supply for is connection of such information into a comp.

Yes but that whole statement is vastly complex and open to error in interpretation. As nature stands now for that to be true at some point on the earth someone throwing an object up into the air should have that object go against the laws of physics, such as escape the earths gravity for instance. I don’t know of anything like that to be honest and I think such an example speaks clearly on the issue. I guess it comes down to when someone can say about something that 100% empirical understanding has been reached. Personally I don’t think humanity is in any position to claim when this will be but I do think it exists again going from reality. A simple example is the evolution of germs in human thought. Germs in western culture existed but of course not in thought at one point, countering such ignorance with the concept of germs was actually a hard battle to win which could be viewed as both good or bad I guess or neutral depending on the observer. The reality as it stands now though is we do know about germs. This empirical proves we can learn and understand the physical world around us. Unless you are saying information is infinite not in form but sheer volume to be learned then I think its possible to know everything. What I mean is of course is the universe is not frozen or static, giving the reality of string theory, QM, and of course evolution who knows what forms or possible realities nature can have, but its still just nature at work, which unless again is infinite outside of form alone, I think it could be understood to 100% type levels. I think that’s also a bit of a math like argument as to why infinity is a hard concept.

Yes but having three dimensions on its own could entail the change or maybe even bring about another dimension

"Unfortunately, the advantages of discrete models, which are receiving increasingly serious consideration from the scientific and philosophical communities, are outweighed by certain basic deficiencies. Not only do they exhibit scaling and nonlocality problems associated with their “display hardware”, but they are inadequate by themselves to generate the conceptual infrastructure required to explain the medium, device or array in which they evolve, or their initial states and state-transition programming. Moreover, they remain anchored in materialism, objectivism and Cartesian dualism, each of which has proven obstructive to the development of a comprehensive explanation of reality. Materialism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful nonmaterial aspect, objectivism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful subjective aspect, and although Cartesian dualism technically excludes neither, it arbitrarily denies that the mental and material, or subjective and objective, sides of reality share common substance.5" This is from your link fred56. This whole paragraph needs to be destroyed to be honest, its pure junk science if even that, it might just be junk. Subjective views are not the same as objective views. Everyone has a subjective view of a multitude of things in life, even Hitler had a real bad one. Objective views are different in that regard, for the connect to the empirical or what is real outside of human thought. Its empirical that gravity exists, current hypothesis on such is subjective until otherwise proven empirically as objective. This field or what you call it is a massive hybrid that does have some good points such as the various separations of natural sciences that I see as a problem for lack of communication in regards to the idea that they all study nature. This problem though will not be solved by this theory. I can appreciate the concept of reality theory, one that seeks to explain in detail what everything really is to the best of our abilities. I don’t see however how this can possibly work. First of all anything theological is outside of the scope of science period, it always will be as far as I know. You reference something super natural and in point the only way to make any verifications of something is using god of the gaps or god did it with no actual way to prove such, if you can counter this argument truly I would probably explode. Maybe just maybe one of the problems with science currently is not a problem at all also. Zero in many operations is undefined, zero in reality means it does not exist in many cases. Case point, caveman had zero understanding of the microwave oven. Maybe science just does not know everything yet but is a gradual process. I want to know everything, i honestly do, I don’t see this as a viable route to such from its stated structure and function.

How do you prove the existence of the universe via evolution by intelligent design. The whole sentence makes no sense to me to be honest. I am very interested in the idea of evolution as applied outside of the scope of life from the reality of natural selection holding an environmental property. I don’t however know how to go about actually trying to apply such to anything outside of life, which is of course part of the universe and related physical phenomena. You see, part of the problem with organic evolution as it relates to being applied by principle of natural selection to cosmic function is in difference. Many people support in large a degree of determinism from the bang to now. Trying to apply such strict determinism to life simply falls apart to keep things short. Life though has sustained itself for billions of years though, but that does not have to have the exact same physical basis as for the origin or reality of things like galaxies I would say even while issues like quantum mechanics would also apply to life. Maybe determinism is just not fully understood, or the reality the word or math describes is not fully understood like the definition or concept really of time.

What I never understood about time seems to me as some duality of its understanding. For instance I have heard so many times that time is a dimension that you cant poke with a stick, or in short it has physical properties that are real and not real:confused: I can accept time as a dimension in which physics professionals can use the argument powers of math to make solid predictions of the universe thus understanding, but this does not tell me what time is or if its real or not. Relativity gives a definition to time, but relativity cannot be fully integrated with other physical models of the universe, so obviously its either something missing, or something in some model is wrong. Though I don’t know the definition of time from a quantum perspective, it does seem to differ from that of a relativity perspective? Maybe its just the scale of things involved, and the interaction of matter and energy from the subatomic to the galactic at work, but such is only a sentence and hardly an answer. I think this is why physics wont use anything but math for models. When a mathematical argument works and predicts phenomena, there is no need to go any farther I guess, or really to me this means how do you go farther, how do you describe what mass is outside of math that reflects the true reality of mass throughout all physical reality. I can look at this as a shallow means of understanding, but in reality it may be all humans can do currently in regards to understanding. Such would seem not true giving the idea of what advances other scientific fields have made without relying purely on math, but observation and experiment, which I think validates empirical means works too. Which in reality is the final test of predictions in physics. All of this I think still escapes the question though is when can you say with absolute precision what something is outside of a mathematical description in regards to what physics studies. Mass has certain properties other stuff does not:D That’s the best I can do for mass I think.

Well what I mean by physical thought is that thought is physical, it has a physical basis typically being the brain for humans and I would imagine other animals also. I covered the point about other animals in regards to the idea of evolution being what lead to the CNS and brain, I thought you would understand that sorry on my part. In reality of physics or the universe I have no idea what it means. Going from the idea that natural selection has basically aided to the greatest extent the extinction of huge numbers of species on up I cant really go along with any idea of something intelligent behind it. Its not only this but reality of life currently does not seem to support such a notion either. The physical reality as I understand it is life was a possibility that occurred. Now what this means I have no real ability to speak on, what it will mean for the future I don’t have any means to speak on either. I just know that thought as in human thought or related such as puma thought for whatever that is exactly is biological in origin thusly relating to organic evolution heavily via natural selection. So for a physical description one would have to understand this reality evolutionarily speaking from a cellular/molecular level all the way up to an ecological level. To transfer all of such into equations I am sure is possible but I don’t think such is possible at this point. So for a physics related answer that’s the best I can give. It is easy to study the evolution of the CNS to a certain extent without heavy prior understanding of biology really. For example, without the extinction of the dinosaurs, I seriously doubt mammals would be where they are at right now, a huge and complex brain relativity speaking also did not seem to be prevalent in current understandings of dinosaur physiology, though the extent of dino intelligence is a disputed issue still, and how could you say it would be beneficial and spread through dinosaur population at any giving time from any specie? You run into ecology which when studied under biodiversity reflects just that in connection with natural selection. Overall to induce intelligent anything I think falls outside the scope of what can be studied currently. Evolution and life on its own is an intense enough of an application to warrant its own field of many aggregate fields. Reality is truly complex and as such development of understanding is really slow for the most part. Natural selection and evolution and human thought is a perfect example of this, but the reality of natural selection as it impacts life is not something understood very quickly, you have to actually study life to see it, not an equation really at this point. Genetics has some equations that are decent for such a purpose but noting definite yet as the final answer to life I would say.

The problem with this question is then you have a true linking of biological and physical thought having to occur, or a synthesis. Physics currently lacks any real investigation into the reality of organic evolution as it focuses more on less on universal constants and cosmic issues for example. The base reality then of the question you ask has to combine evolution into physical theory as an explanation for human thought or that really of any particular organism and the development evolutionarily speaking of such biological function, such as the nervous system. To make a hypothetical guess about the question you ask is because of such. Nothing in biology exists that does not communicate so to speak with natural selection to some extent. IF the evolution of the CNS was combated or eliminated by natural selection early on one has no guarantee that such would ever occur again. To induce this ray if you will into the gravity such has, eukaryotic life spawned fourth from prokaryotes. From basic genealogy such can be demonstrated on the concept of a genetic shift, which probably draws from the reality at hand such as plasmid behavior for instance, as a probability. So eukaryotic cellular life or differentiation has occurred for lack of better words only once from prokaryotes, in billions of years... Prokaryotes also do not evolve past single cell, are they alive? So in turn as natural selection in short means ecology, life is engaged with such. In all possibility being in bad health and feeling such is what really. This is beside the point but in the foundation of thought in an evolutionary sense such is intimately also tied to the environment, and as such so is our understanding. Thusly is a simple equation to why it exists, if offered a higher fitness value for such. How this works physical then is tied to evolution on a scale from the molecular/cellular all the way up to ecology. Now trying to put this into physics equations is far from possible right now in my opinion. Thusly like chemistry such fields of study branched off from simply being physics due to complexity. *Sorry I made a mistake in the above post. Instead of genetic shift, which is actually gene shift or really antigenic shift a term dealing with viral behavior I meant to use gene transfer. Just needed to clarify such for discussion.

Part of me strongly disagrees with abortion on the basis it just does not sit right with me ending life like that. Then of course I think of reality and all the stuff in that which goes against such a notion, so I have or really am forced to think that I don’t know everything and should look outside of myself for answers. In which I find how could I force a women who got pregnant from rape to have such a child? Where is the objective answer to such a question simply because I know I don’t have it, thusly why should I enforce myself on someone over an ignorant internal notion. I could only think we as people collectively somehow will figure it out over time. So where does that leave the laws. Then to me I would think science can at least attempt to validate when an unborn child would lack anything related to consciousness. I would agree if the child in such a stage of development was to be born severely handicapped, I think such because the family could know, and they then might to want to exercise liberty on such an option. Simply from the basis they might have no way as a family to support such. I could also agree from the rape basis for abortion at such stages. I cant however find it in my to agree with a female having sex and having abortions because she can, regardless of stage in development. I do not think such a strategy would yield a positive anything to how people would appreciate the world over time for one, and for another it is still human life after all we are talking about. Take away reproduction and we happen to all die out, such should be treated with more respect then simply a whim. In light of something objective appearing from the issue, my choice would to be go with that as law. I read a figure somewhere in which a total ban on abortion would cost the lives of a great many women from how things stand medically. Thusly I don’t see how one could have a total ban on abortion from just that alone.

I don’t like the term time signals, something just does not click about it. As far as I know of course do any time signals exist non dependent on physical reality? Of course being time not fully defined physically does not help either I would suggest. I mean the time evolution operator because it can describe some facet of nature then should mean this is a facet of such nature, but is that so? So the concept of quantum foam. See gravity and time seem to have something in common from what I understand, or at least they can interact. So how does any of the understanding equate of the concept of quantum foam if such is a real aspect of nature. See as a biology student the one thing I have surely noticed about nature is its interaction with itself and of course what appears to be a continuity or continuum to it also. Nature seems to be some meshed entity of itself, or moreover I don’t understand how you say one part of nature is totally a separate entity to its own reality, it is after all nature. So basically in physics you have so many grand ideas, I don’t think any single one is small. They are all vastly complex giving the reality of which the field studies. Also the field is fully dependent on the use of mathematics to describe and or explain this reality, which then couples even more complexity into the equation. Lastly its also a human endeavor, so just add one more error bar to everything:D So basically what I am saying is for any thought experiment, you do you validate the reality of knowledge which you work with even is correct or in line with how nature actually operates?

I did not know about that, thanks. My question is basically how I got my mind around the concept of cultural determinism, of which of late I basically equate with animal learning, what can further reduce of course. I don’t know of such a view is the correct of factual one but that’s why science exists, so people can test crackpot ideas:D So the question is basically that. I will try to redefine for sake of clarity. Consciously thinking, in which you understand your thought such as a thought of needing to use the bathroom. Attempt to think of anything that you cannot associate with anything that you already know, such that the sky is blue or a fire engine is red. I personally think its impossible.

Wow, that’s an interesting idea. I could see the rock even somewhat though I don’t know the physical properties of basalt all to well giving such conditions.

I think the video was very informative and with the soundtrack even better with entertainment value. I don’t however see this is a proper way to engage or combat creationists. IF they don’t care to spend the time to learn the subject, a few minute video is going to do little good.

Yes and no. The scientists studying global warming are still just doing science. The succession of such information through the public including politics is a different issue. I think the issue gets worse in that regard for a couple of reasons. One being the public I would say on average does not retain high concentrations of understanding about that topic, I mean I don’t even know one person on this board even attending to become a climatologist nor any professional ones. I also don’t even think basic environmental science or understanding is to widely distributed yet in the public. Second is that the issue is a rather large one. Evolution or extinction aside environmental changes do hold the ability to register profound impacts on life. The idea of the planet changing in such a fashion would indeed be massive change. So the gravity of the issue draws in vast amounts of attention in a myriad of forms. It only takes a heat wave or a drought for that matter to hold profound impacts on life.

The definition of life has not matured into something static yet. Personally I find the definition of life lacking the virus to be problematic. IF the virus is not alive then what is it, and what else in nature could you look at in relation to a virus and not call life? Protobionts have similar qualities or functions found in modern life, key to me being the idea it can reproduce in a crude manner and maintain an eternal environment. If by going for evidence about the origin of life on earth I don’t think anything else currently exists, naturally occurring, to use it its place. If by chance that reality dictates a scientist is currently wrong on a concept or line of thinking or hypothesis, should the scientist ignore this to keep the integrity of the currently lacking model intact?

I would say you know close to nothing about what you are talking about really. I don’t mean to be mean but to say mutation=death for an organism is just patently false in every empirical regard. Scientists do forced evolution studies in the lab on simple bacteria that shows how mutability allows life to adapt to a changing environment. The point being is mutation is not just one type of mutation or the only mechanism of evolution really. As for energy building up and becoming more complex then obviously you don’t believe in nucleosynthesis either, or chemistry, or physics, or science, in fact you might as well come out and say you don’t believe in reality, DNA, phylogeny, the list could go on. I think you should redo your statement but obviously that cant be done because you surely lack any drive to get proper education on the subject obviously from some personal slant or bias. Its quite pathetic really.

Yes but during wartime you have human beings actively trying to kill each other, and the populations of soldiers for instance during a war is typically far smaller then say the population of an entire nation. The point is that you are under the control really of a person who has a worldview. Such as if they are truly religious then they see death as passing on to any conceived notions of an afterlife. I am agnostic, as such my choice is based on the reality that we don’t have an answer to such questions, and then to answer such is a faith regardless. I mean what is the difference. Animal learning in hand did our culture evolve from whatever culture primates had? I would suspect so giving what we know about reality. Is that the same as faith when all one can really do is decide to believe in something with not facts? Bottom line is its my life, and I don’t care to through it away on some officer that believes all dogs go to heaven.

I respect you opinion fully, I am sure you have forgotten more about physics then I have learnt. I just don’t understand something conceptually when I try to put it together I guess. I mean to me, to think that somehow the reality as a quantum level cannot be fully integrated into the why for larger scale phenomena really bugs me. I also don’t fully understand also how relativity works, which I am does not help. I just don’t think really that relativity is the answer, I see such from my understanding as being something that has to be solved for on a quantum scale. Then again unlike most people I think such has a larger impact on why life exists then just the typical chemistry aspect most take. Well I have to go, and I hope I did not offend.

I think this link should do you just fine. http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html

While that could be a possible avenue of corruption the science behind global warming is anything but conserved to a figures of scientific authority, nor is the data really. It also has the backing of numerous prestigious and recognized scientific bodies or organizations. The data is open source really, so I don’t see how its something as a product of a few. As for your variables remark. I don’t know about that one either. I mean I think every single variable has been accounted for that leads to the temperature of our planet save for the fact maybe the moon is a eight of an inch farther away. I just don’t know how small of detail you want basically. No, I don’t think global warming models account for every possible reality, such as if some kind of giant fungal bloom is taking part in some place of the planet or if some giant change/shift of microbe life has occurred in the earths crust, and on that I give you credit for a solid point. I think what current models based on data can show though is a direct correlation to human behavior and related impact environmentally speaking in regards to greenhouse gas concentrations trapping more energy in the earths environments subsequently increasing its temp. I think this is so cut and dry anymore that science is really past that point and now is on the point of how to adequately combat such. There is nothing yet found on earth that can account for the sudden and growing CO2 concentration found in naturally occurring "records" such as ice cores. This spike coincides with the industrial revolution and continues on along the progression of such. The subsequent variation in temp also follows along with this. For all the ruckus and the fact that GW study is widespread in science, why cannot all of these people find that hidden variable if it indeed did exist? I guess what I am asking then is what is the cutoff to adequate information in your opinion that supports GW in context or relation to human behavior? I mean if the IPCC is so horribly off, it must really say something about the ability of science more then anything else then. Again not to say it does not, but why not as to its discovery, and why the clear relationship between human behavior, CO2 growth and temp variation then?

How so? I mean you made a claim, I just want to know how you say that. When you say graph, do you mean some people just sat in a room and made a graph from nothing? I mean from what I understand graphs that pertain to global warming happen to come from the collection of physical evidence in many ways, not just someone playing with numbers after all. Faith is devoid of anything other then that. Some people can have faith and not become irrational to the point of extremes, creationists just don’t happen to be in that boat because well, the earth is a little bit older then say 2000 years to start, nor is it flat and we happen to be decedents of other living things, not just beings here in a “poof“ of magic. I think the reality of GW in regards to science is pretty darn sound anymore, or not some subjective philosophy waiting to be painted by whatever whims someone currently has. I mean I wont put someone down for thinking thunder is thors work, but in reality we have data to show otherwise to a certain and comfortable extent that thunder is not thors doing to say the least. I don’t find it shocking though. I mean with all the support evolution has you still have presidents elected by the masses of some advanced country trying to legally ban it to a certain degree, so none of its shocking. See, I like science, you can think whatever the heck you want, but you have to prove it, so that sort of means coming to terms with reality over time for humanity, hopefully. Lastly though, why is GW a faith as you would have it?

Humanity collectively has basically terraformed the environment in so many ways its hard to consider really in any junction of chat and or individual thought to be honest. I mean how many species have we pushed into extinction to the fact human activity has created radioactive events of global scale to punching holes in the ozone layer. Its not as if the planet is immune to our behavior. Also for action and reaction is the gross amount of CO2 alone we put off into the environment going to carry a null effect, what effect is it going to have, save over a hundred years of growing release of such a greenhouse gas? I just don’t understand the emphasis some have on saying global warming is not human. Its as if they accept something is changing, but it cant be at the hands of humans. Then with just physical evidence alone, what in the world is causing the spike of CO2 and the change brought along by such. If solar sources cant be it, then what is it exactly. I mean its not as if GW is studied by just a few scientists that get to keep all the facts or studies secret is it? So to you, exactly, what is it then causing GW if not human activity and if such evidence you provide is refuted, what will you say?