foodchain

i read through the first little part of that and it says that the genotype parts of dna are the looks which is the only thing we are trying to change but it also says that the dna is mixed during reproduction so if u actually mixed 2 animals the "old fashioned way" they would end up with the genotype of the female and maybe the phenotype of the male, which is why you would have to genetically alter the females genotype dna to create a new species?

I don’t know if the link is the latest and greatest but from what I do know it gives a very good overall description that would pertain to your question greatly.

also ive heard about this kind of treatment being done with fish, creating new patterns and designs on them, even one experiment where they successfully created glow in the dark fish

Yes, people have changed the DNA of other life forms. The common term for such is GMO or genetically modified organism. You can google such for information, far more then I can really muster. Yes, people also modify or change life to induce bioluminescence, and naturally it can occur from other avenues such as the chemicals(enzymes) like luciferases or luciferin(funny ass name) or even symbiotic relationships with bacteria that induces or creates light, plus even more.

Here is a good place to start.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/

You have to ignore culture to accept the argument. Be it eastern or western or other cultures you have certain cultural patterns, thoughts and or assumptions that have made things less the user friendly for female inhabitants. I don’t know if it applies directly to standard thought around sexism or racism but it is generally stupidism. There have been plenty of highly intelligent female whatever, be it scientists, politicians, humanitarians, the list can go on. Technically I think they whole argument as framed is a bit of an abused on the concept of the individual. Human beings period seem capable of being rather dumb or rather bright. It seems to be one of those things that heavily relies on environment, such as did you grow up in one that supported you being able to access intelligent people and resources cradle to grave, or did you get born to a war zone with a rifle in your hands. I don’t know how many star physicists come from such places these days.

Another thing which of course is impacted from the environment and of which should be common sense is interests. I have come to many standard conclusions held by biology all on my own, I can take various online chemistry tests and ace them, I have zero skill and doing physics:D Or so it would seem, and I hate math, well I don’t hate it, doing its actually quite relaxing I just hate how people frame it sometimes as the end all to everything or the perfect tool.

Yet in my math classes, of which I pay acute attention and of course focus, why is it I can be outdone by a female human? Why is it not always males being the smartest at everything at all times? I mean if we have a natural genetic advantage, or if somehow modern society and understand of say a refrigerator is in our genetic codes for example, such should show at a constant I would think... It would also I think then physically appear with females, but as far as I know females are perfectly capable of graduation in honors with degrees in mathematics and foreign language for example, which to me denotes a rather intelligent person. Plus plenty of females work in all branches of science in all tiers of society anymore.

For instance, genetically speaking. My wife’s ears lay almost flat against her skull, while mine have a different shape seeming to almost want to hear in front of me rather then to directly to my sides. I don’t think this really has any noticeable impact on me or her functioning in the world to be honest. Some people have better peripheral vision then others, but where does that imply and does it give any actual superior advantage in all reality.

Overall genotype to phenotype is not some perfectly understood facet of science. Also in all reality many times environment cannot be accounted for perfectly, more so in regards to people. So what you have typically is stupidity saying things like African Americans are not as smart as whites, or only men can be genius. What is a genius by the way? Some artist?

Ok, this thread placement I hope will satisfy all as its more or less just an idea.

Ok, here is it with, a synthesis of things I thought up.

Taking into account QM and other aspects studied under physics or any field of science really, is it quite possible that the universe evolved into a current form. What I mean by this is everything, such as the existence of the electron. It basically has the most profound impact on chemical reactivity, without chemistry what would the universe look like, or how would change even appear really. Looking at life which is a composite of chemistry and physics, you can see that matter and energy is open to change, and in time we came from microbes or less really to dinosaurs and primates in time. Well, what about galaxies and stars, or molecular clouds of debris that can even produce such? Did basically an evolution of sorts take place primarily based from Quantum mechanics?

To take for instance natural selection I would like to attach a more broad meaning to such a statement for the purpose of this thread. Which is basically stating the reality of physics are naturally selected in a giving environment over time from QM. Which leads to states of matter and energy. I would like to postulate that from this relativity is basically a large QM field effect sustaining itself. To get into more details on my pseudo idea I would like to subject wave particle duality to this. At the subatomic level a certain degree of strangeness can occur, as such to the relative reality of various particles that can exist. IF for instance we just think of a waveform as maybe something barely over the most primordial level of existence for stuff in the universe one can think of the idea that a quantum environment is making selection possible.

Lastly one part of the definition to life is a certain level of metabolic activity that can reproduce itself. Looking at the universe or even the geology of the earth cant one at some point attach this definition to things? I know a great deal of conclusions are made is this thread but maybe just maybe what exists now is a product of the universe basically trying to sustain itself in time, of which on a QM level reflecting up through relativity is why physics has come to be expressed in a certain and regular manner. I have more but I think this is plenty of words to start off with.

Please remember where I placed the thread, its purely just that but I am interested in the idea and would like to get input on it.

It is absurd, but not entirely.

 

You keep going back to try to figure out where everything came from you get two things GOD or NOTHING.

Well, you would have to be able to physically prove that, or else you have "nothing" really. That’s the trick to science, and all there really is. Its still just people pondering things, but the big evolution was testing them, before that it was basically word of mouth and common consensus. We have no ability to defeat the need of empirical testing. People have tried to just use math before but that does not work.

As for the origin of the universe, well that’s open to being diluted by human thought like anything else. How many people would object to a universe with no cause because it unsettles them emotionally? How many people do you think are like that in science? A recent pole on say just chemists by the ACS shows chemists that believe in god and supposedly see it, and other chemists that don’t? Wow, its the human element like that DuPont commercial at work.

I don’t suppose I can say what is trivial to you or not, but for an all powerful all knowing being as some supernatural entity like god is to be according to what ever religion that happens to be dominate at the time the Universe, life and everything else surely does not seem to reflect that really. I personally still find gods like Thor and Loki more entertaining to think about, as I do with Egyptian mythology or wait religion.

Trying to bring religion into science always backfires, because religion is primarily a composite mostly of human subjective or philosophical thought about the reality around them that for 100% of the time escapes ever being able to be scientific because it cannot be tested at all, or studied even. The best you can ever hope to do like creationism generally does is contort facts to fit an agenda. I mean evolution, organic evolution, with its untold amount of applications and factual support is attacked endlessly by every nutcase that happens to find confliction with that and there chosen or giving religion in many cases. I personally find this insulting as a human being.

As again in relation to the universe, science has a lot of support to the big bang, and people work on issues like the pre big bang reality of everything, the lack of a current absolute answer though like in evolution with any possible thing is typically used as a scapegoat or avenue to emplace anything a person wishes for an answer, and in all those cases such intelligent people find no need whatsoever to prove such as long as it helps them feel good about things, its what lead to the opiate of the masses statement...

I don’t need religion, what I would like is truth.

ABSOULTY NOT

 

I have posted a scientific based article not a soapbox. Do you have scientific knowledge about the subject? I am a degreed engineer and my calculations are fully scientific and mathematic based. If you do not understand I will be glad to explain any question you may have.

Thanks for reviewing but More knowledge may be needed for your informed input.

Ken

Note: In another forum I have received input from a geologist and he agrees in general with my assessment. Also Richard Wagneer of the Corps in New Orleans has written me and stated the Corps will address this concern when they address the LA Speaks Master Plan. Would you like to see the letter?

 

Paralith has asked a question and I tried to share another way of understanding the scientific based conclusion agreed with by a Geologist and head of river forums.

 

Please do review the post which is an inviting discussion.

 

No one else has posted and I am only posting more details for many to read.

 

Definition of Bashing. Please share where bashing applies to me. Neither one of the below definitions of bashing apply to me as far as i can see. Do you believe I am sharring intensely critical and/or overly hostile, excessive, or unwarranted criticism? If so then please explain where I have done this.

 

Bashing: vb, hostile comment directed at a particular individual or group...

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/archive/index.php/t-12231.html

...In my opinion, bashing is being intensely critical and/or overly hostile. I think that it is entirely possible to intelligently discuss dislikes of the film without going overboard [bashing]. Others have different opinions...

Bashing may refer to one of the following:

 

Wikipedia

...The pejorative bashing implies on a subject, group or individual...

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

 

Response from the CORPS concerning geotubes. I removed my name from the letter.

 

http://members.cox.net/pfsfst/Rivbar/Corps%20response.jpg

Well its geology then and things like bedload. I don’t know about you but I don’t know exactly how someone is to predict the exact reality of the existence of a new river over say a thousand years? I mean what if rainfall averages pick up by a half inch more then normal? What if some building structures are placed all around it in various locations over time? The environmental or total physical reality of such I think is truly hard to absolutely grasp more so in the face of time... Then again I guess one thing constant about human endeavor will be adaptation in the face of change, be it by mother nature or actions we commit. I mean smog for instance, how many people know what happens to smog through the day, or at dusk, its quite amazing actually, smog also does not move that much, that’s why at certain cities it always looks a bit foggy, and if you are not use to it such can give you a soar throat and a burning sensation in your eyeballs.

To this day, I do not know if this is a science or philosophy oriented subject. Most topics can at least be put in terms of science, even if science doesn't have the means to explain it in fine detail, such as the arts. We could put a piece of literature in terms of the neurochemicals it brings out in humans while reading, but we would be hard pressed to explain the nuances of a plot in terms of neural architecture. However, we do know that arrangements of neurons and chemicals are indeed the cause of such phenomena.

 

This subject is probably familiar to you by some name or another: "personal identity" or "personal continuity".

 

I've tried numerous times to squeeze the concept of who I am into a framework of the physical world. I'm unable to do it. Every time I think I've clued myself into a fraction of the answer, some possible scenario erases it.

 

First, let's get a "known" out of the way. Our bodies are constantly cycling out matter. Oxygen, phosphate, nitrogen, carbon, and so on. Within a year, your body will cycle nearly all matter out of it. I could cite this, but it's quite common knowledge if you've taken any entry level biology courses.

 

Now, let's inspect several of these scenarios that I mentioned:

 

1) The Gradual Transition of Matter Scenario - This one isn't hypothetica;, it is occurring as we speak. How much does matter... matter? Well, apparently it matters a great deal. Let's say that as I gradually cycled out matter, I stored it instead of letting it freely enter the environment (every breath, every drop of sweat, every hair, every dust particle, and so on).

 

Then, when the technology came around, I reconverted the matter back into an identical copy of myself down to every pattern. But wait! How can I call it a "copy"? It is me, and made of the exact same matter I was made of at a previous point. Who and where is my real self?

 

2) Gradual Transition of my Information Scenario - Instead of worrying about matter, let's think of our information (pattern) for a moment. Let's say that the neurons in my brain were altered relative position and genetic composition, one at a time, to reflect the neurons in your brain, over the course of a week or so. After a minute, you would have 0.1% of my information, and vice versa. After an hour, 1%. After nearly a day, about 10%. After 3-4 days, 50%.

 

Is my self lost instantly when the first neuron is repositioned? It is replaced once I cross 50%? Or is a unique individual created at every step in the process?

 

3) Gradual Shift of Both Matter and Information - Same as the previous two, except both are occurring. Actual pieces of our brains are gradually swapped. Does it even matter?

 

4) Time - This one is simple. Every particle in my body locks into its current position, and begins moving again at a later point in time. If one billion years passed, would that time pass instantly to my consciousness? Now, mix this with the first scenario. During the billion years I am locked, what if my matter is swapped out by an observer?

 

Would my consciousness be taken with the matter, and I would "awake" if the matter was used to reconstruct me elsewhere? What my matter was used to recreate another person? Where in the hell did my consciousness go in all of this insanity?

 

After I ponder these questions, I'm always left with the statement "There's no way in hell that my identity can even exist, yet here I am, and if a copy of myself walked up and claimed it was me, I would certainly have a different point-of-view (namely my own) from the copy."

 

I apologize for the ramble, but I struggle with this all the time. I want to know whether or not I've died multiple times during my life whilst my matter changed completely.

Well, death typically only occurs once and has a rather solid physical description. People can be rived after death but in many cases permanent physical impairment can remain, such as brain damage.

I think biology in time may be able to put the pieces together better and better. My own personal description in individuality and so on is phenotypes don’t live the exact same copy of actions. So you have your own phenotype and your own particular environment to experience, which with a wave of the magic wand leads to an individual. If per say you are more on the quantum scale of things, well that treads off into various vague and deffinently hard to define terrains, of which I am no use in trying to answer things. I do know that for what its worth each second of time does continue to pass regardless of me, and reality existed before human or other consciousness as far as I know, deffinently for life on earth. Lastly I think all one has to do is look at drug use or such. Free will diluted on crack cocaine is deffinently a pointer to something. Another is space travel and the reality of combating the insanity that easily could attack a homo sapien on such. I guess what I am getting at is having for instance testosterone as part of your physiology has an impact on you as a human being as it does to all males of our species, if you are a guy that is, else is estrogen and progesterone I think. What I am getting back at here is that genotype phenotype thing and the environment. I mean a cat can show variance of behavior, but its only going to show so much, and I guess as much as cats happen to be cats, people happen to be people.

They have laser based anti ballistic missile technology typically equipped to large frame aircraft. Such technology also has had applications attempted on ground based units which supposedly have stopped an artillery shell in flight.

The major problems with such are the amounts of energy required by the systems versus the reality of say the amount of projectiles and of course understanding what is what with say radar. In the first gulf war radar operators had to do some systems tuning because even mortars were getting picked up by detection systems.

On the subject at hand most conventional arms such as rifles produce rather high velocity projectiles, these can come from just about any angle in a giving situation, far more so in any urban environment. So a troop would have to for lack of better words carry another bulk of equipment that would have to produce enough of a field to not only deflect this, but say retain enough energy to continue working and lastly not interfere with anything he or she might be using actually. I am hoping that our troops just get better equipment, such as I always wondered about the application of carbon nanotubes or even diamond based nanorods for the use of some fibrous possibly body armor, then again stopping the projectile only means that you still have the momentum or "trauma" of the round impact. This also extends to vehicles which I heard though never verified that even a 30% nano based additive to say a humvee door greatly enhances its protective capabilities.

Standard ratings for ballistic glass is a good example. You want about 3.5 to 4 inches of such to stop a AP .50 cal round typically. Which I am sure would be relational to any field strength a magnetic system would have to produce.

I don't think life is explained by natural selection. Natural selection is the best explanation we have for adaptations, but the vast majorities of variations are nonadaptatives. I don’t personally understand why there is such a debate on the topic Well, probably because it's the most important debate going on in evolutionary biology right now. If we want to improve the predictive power of evolutionary biology, we need to know what mechanisms shape life, how they are affected by the environment, and how strong they are compared to the other mechanism.

I think I get where you are going but to simply subtract natural selection from evolution I think would basically shed light on its application really.

There is a vast amount of biodiversity alive now and also into the past. A simple example would be microbes in the soil underneath the nuclear site at Hanford Washington. They live in nuclear waste basically, and have adaptations that allow them to do that, without such, well I think it speaks for itself. The idea though is that through mutation or variation they were able to make it, but the fitness of such is relational to the environment. You can find this with just about any specie in any environment. Its not perfect of course, and of course life does go extinct, which again is relational to the environment, such as the existence of the immune system.

Hey Guys, My name is Tara, and I am new to these forums. I have really been having alot of trouble deciding exactly what I want to major in. I really love any sort of Biological science, but I also have such a passion for the environment. Originally, my major was going to be a Master's in Environmental Science, however, I have really been reconsidering. It is a very big decision and I want to make sure I choose properly. Any suggestions? or opinions? I just wanted some feedback from some environmentalists and some biologists. Thank you!

 

--Tara Schumacher

I would just start by taking some classes. You might want to be with X, but when you start to study something who knows what interests might open up really, you might find yourself in some biogeochemistry program and ramped up to explore the oceans. As for the environmental science aspect, its not just biology, which is a simple confusion. You have your social sciences, which for the most part might be tailored into more composite classes which could involve stuff like chemistry to law to local communities. Environmental science also explores the other natural sciences, though you can find many program options that could be for say applied ecology.

A BS level degree in biology for the most part can be general, or can be tailored, such as environmental biology, which for the most part is slightly different then just plain ecology again because it takes on more of a modern role, such as knowing what the EPA is and or state or local environmental laws or situations.

Lastly both fields are huge, I would say environmental science is probably the largest scientific field overall really, because you have to study a range of topics again from law to chemistry to a lot of stuff inbetween. Its pretty much the same in biology, its just biology is an older science and I would say and more user friendly one because of such.

I'm not going to click on it. For all I know it could contain illegal content and you could be that Chris whatever his last name is dude from that TV show "To Catch a Predator".....

Its youtube also, I doubt the video could stay alive longer then a few minutes before it was shot down, that’s if it were what you were going on about. I only say this because youtube really gets a lot of use, and you can find the oddest stuff on there with hundreds of views.

I don’t know if I titled it correctly so please pardon me.

Is there a certain speed and or velocity in which you cannot anymore have chemical reactions take place? Such as is there maybe a min or a max in regards to speed or velocity of atoms in which they cannot react overall. I hope I worded that well enough.

Bonus question for anyone who cares really, I did not want to make such its own thread.

Would it be more applicable to view an atom somewhat like static on a t.v screen? I would like to try to word it better, so maybe just like a little fuzzy blip maybe? I have read on various versions on how to mentally view what an atom looks like and I don’t really know what’s the sound direction to take on that.

...well it's not really back. Mutationist hypotheses have been present in the last 50 years. But as most evolutionary biologists were debating about the relevance of the neutral theory, nobody really cared about "mutationists". It's changing, in the last couple of years several strong articles were written about it, especially by Masatoshi Nei;

Those were some very interesting papers to read. I don’t personally understand why there is such a debate on the topic past maybe what is more paramount in regards to time in relation to evolution I guess. The point I think that might be missing is simply comparing aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. In the case of directed evolution I think it would be somewhat difficult to separate the environment from other factors as to what organisms exist and why. The ocean or aquatic environment obviously has its own environment with different variables then you would fine on land, such as in a forest or a desert environment. That being said I think its easy to see the profound impact such has had on the evolution of life in these ecologies. I think that such studies of gene networks and the impact they hold along with mutation and development for example could easily be studied in cross comparison of aquatic to non aquatic life, and subsequently possibly amphibians, or those that are inbetween somewhat.

In one of the papers the remark is made about count of genes responsible for certain function, such as smell, and its higher count in species more prone to use such. I guess a fine question to ask in that is overall if the mutation that lead to such a reliance on smell for survival is merely a product of those genes going in that direction and staying alive or if its a product of the environment more or less making having that a selective advantage. I only think more and more studies of life in those perspectives could answer the question, being natural selection in a sense does not shape but more or less only guarantees survival to what can survive. I though however again see that direction hard pressed to explain really the differences between aquatic and non aquatic life in regards to natural selection. I however also did not see other existing ideas incorporated into a data, such as the concept of the red queen for example, or optimality theory, or simply put why some biological structures in time become non functional vestigial structures, as with whales or blind moles for example, which I think hurts the progress a bit. Simply put those "ideas" if you will also come from what this is, or life in general.

If per chance I may have missed the mark and its primarily on mutation to a point only providing really mutation to X other points, I still do not see how that can properly explain life as powerful as natural selection can. Again I think a subtle and easily missed point in much of this is really the time span of evolution. In example I think it would be practically impossible to realistically gauge mutation in evolution over say 5 million years, and on that note of mutation did not have to work via natural selection, one would expect to see I guess for lack of better words aquatic grizzly bears that happen to be grizzly bears or whatever really, or life that has no adaptive value.

Just to add the ecology of life is very important in regards to defining a species, simply put natural selection for a example and adaptations to a niche. One other point simple yet possibly overlooked is that the ecology accounts for biotic factors also, such as it did not go from microbes the highest level troph with nothing in between, which of course is nothing more then another physical aspect of evolution. The nitty gritty details are part I guess of the entire whole, such as giving a certain area why are bacteria more likely to gather on a certain surface area before others, or even the reaction or adaptation really over time to various hardness of surface areas, but that’s trailing off the point I think. Species of squid I think another fine example of such, that via the organisms entire lifespan or even development is relational to different but used regularly depths of the ocean. Such as at certain depths is where an offspring of a squid may spend X amount of time as it develops, this relates to other variables also, such of course as pressure and temperature, but its typically not a perfect of exact number down to microseconds; which among others things such as environment is another aspect of evolution, such as the awesome amount of variation in human appearance.

Selective advantages that persist of course stay alive for lack of better words in organisms, such as the neuron for example, or a liver or any other various long lasting organs or organelles. Such as sight, its around in a multitude of organisms, but from insects, to birds, to humans its easy to see that such is open to evolution. How this relates from any particular angle, from the molecular to the ecological is rather wide I would say for angles of study, but from a standpoint of how to define an organism of course is tricky, one simple example would be asking if it simply reproduces, but of course for an entire multicellular organism I don’t think its typically looked upon as each cell being its own being, but that all goes back to more and more questions.

The question is remotely related to many things but the main question was to hear what people think of the appliance of normal probability theory to describing reality with focus on natural and physical phenomena.

 

 

 

One can probably make many reflections on this in different wayas. One way of seeing it is that if we want to make quantiative predictions in an structured way so we can have some book keeping on our progress, one seems to be naturally lead to develop symbolics and the concept of numbers and mathematics, which tends to be provide us with a consistent language, and sometimes considering the possible mathematical formulations, can provide a hint to how reality might behave that is consistent with the chosen framework. I see mathematics as a something that has been developed by humans, and humans are part of nature.

 

It seems to guide many physicists. For example extending the intuitive ideas of geometry to higher dimensions and non-euclidian geometries has attracted many people. Assuming you think that reality must be described by such framework, you can study the formalisms themselves and find that there are only certain ways that is internally consistent, which means consistent with the framework itself. The frameworks themselves are constructed from axioms, which themselves can not be proven or disproven, then must only be consistent with the rest of the axioms.

 

One can construct many different frameworks from different axioms, and the question is how to choose the more efficient one. Also, there is nothing that stops us from constructing new axioms.

 

Another framwork is the probabilistic one. My question was wether the probabilistic framworkd, originating from the axioms of probability really provides a sounds basis for a fundamental theory as is?

 

This is almost a philosophical question, but then even science has it's roots in philosophy.

 

My focus is not just to find the best theory, but also to describe that very process better, and consider theories as dynamical objects too.

 

/Fredrik

I have to agree. Regardless of opinion a certain pattern of thought of worldview has to surround the subject, which then of course leads to philosophical underpinnings. An example I can think of is biology. For instance its easy for many to quickly view life from the aspect of DNA. What about a view of billions of cells, differentiated even, working in concert. Of course this did not come about overnight, but evolved. So regardless of any current thought on the subject the one thing that instantly becomes apparent to me is that naturally evolution occurred, was allowed to occur, or some other wording to it.

So to take the concept of evolution from the biological realm and look for other applications of such is something of an interest to me. Such as in regards to other natural phenomena. Now in the universe physics is to be the same throughout right? Well giving the concept of QM, that would to me suggest probability, but one that has bounds, or else physics would come to be variable I would think relative to a giving environment. It would seem though that all the matter or energy in the universe has to some extent formalized to express what allows the idea of physics as understood to be universal throughout the visible or known universe. The problem as I would see it is how far in the past can we go with that.

Such as conservation laws and QM, do they correctly explain each other, or need to? Much as the drive to connect QM with relativity which seems to this date to elude any empirical answer. I just wonder how the current spectrum of physical laws came to dominate in the universe, if such was dynamically selected at a certain point from the reality of QM. Then of course many other questions exist such as dark stuff such as dark matter or energy that for some reason seems to exist but escapes currently means to interact with such. The universe overall does not seem to be static, and one of the prime reasons I say this again is that from the biological realm, things are dynamic, from the laws of chemistry and physics how life has evolved or continues to do such, could such allow other means to be derived to view possibly why we have hydrogen or galaxies for that matter, or even black holes. Which would imply at first some degree of philosophy towards making even a hypothesis. I think a neat place to look would be time as it relates to the QM level in regards to even the simple concept of multiple universes, but all of such is so large and currently the big means of testing seems to be atom smashers, but all of this ultimately is conducted in the presence of or an overall environment of the same, not is some void, which I think has an impact.

I am curious if there is anyone on here that would under some circumstances could imagine a sensible fundamental non-unitarity model of physical reality?

 

To argue about conservation of probability may seem foolish, because it follows from the axiomatics of probability theory. This is not the level the question is intended.

 

The key is, in reality, as opposed to pure mathematics, can we really properly attach the axioms of probability theory to a fundamental theory? That we can do it with great success in many effective theories we all already know. So that isn't the question either. We can calculate the probability, and then collect all the data from the lifetime of the universe and then get the relative frequency, which we take to represent probability? Is this completely satisfactory, or just almost satisfactory? And does the distinction make a difference?

 

I don't mean to make this a lenghty discussion of the topic but I am mainly curious to hear comments, reflections and opinions from everyone that has been reflecting over this once of twice.

 

/Fredrik

Perhaps I don’t understand the question enough but are you by chance looking more for a dynamic selection over a constant? Such as maybe how we would observe or what would exist if most the visible universe was made of helium or carbon, or maybe some other exotic material? I think I understand the question to a point in which you may be just referencing mathematical tools of models used for data, and if that’s the case well I don’t think I know enough about such really. I always wondered what really happened when all the natural phenomena of the universe was fed into math operators and the likes, but its just wonder on my behalf and I doubt I could word such well enough for debate.

I'm curious to see how many people here think we will never achieve the Theory of Everything (TOE). I think it's quite plausible. In fact I can think of may reason why we couldn't find it; our intelligence is too limited, our maths are too limited, we're unable to collect enough information, we're unable to test some important theories or even worst, the TOE of everything might not even exist.

I think overtime that study of our physical reality will lend itself to utter understanding of such. I do not however see this coming tomorrow, or for some time actually. I mean absolute understanding of everything? I mean as far as math is concerned I think it still cannot work to well with highly unlinear systems, to figuring out how to represent mathematically reality to a real model of such basically. To finally connect all the fields of natural sciences is currently underway in interdisciplinary means, but such will take time. I mean you have fields like biogeochemistry, I am waiting for biochemophysics and such, eventually it might all just be called science, but that too will take sometime…

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/microbes/textonly/eaters_howtoeat.jsp

http://www.pnl.gov/biology/highlights/2007061107.stm

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061019_bacteria.htm

Lastly...

http://www.news.com/Diving-into-mysterious-Crater-Lake/2100-11394_3-6109485.html

Yes I am simply looking for any information I can find on relative motion as applied to chemical thermodynamics in any kind of a field effect, I tried on the net but I am sure I am simply not wording it right so I figured here would be a good place to look for help. I could go for anything on the EM aspect if no one knows anything on the thermodynamic aspect also and thank you.

what do you mean by other cultures?

For instance how Arab family structure performs in Iraq, by the various definitions of psychological problems that can be labeled on individuals in America the entire family scheme in Iraq is mentally ill. On that note though the Oedipus complex is demonstrated by various primate offspring to some degree such as oral fixation. Its not black and white and psychology is an immensely complex field. Basically how do you emprically understand individual thought and problems?

Can having the future of the environment for what that really means be left simply to the field of environmental science? Can all of the reality of the natural science and social sciences from biology, physics to law and psychology really be condensed into one field and have such people expected to be able to perform, or should such be a reality that humanity needs to embrace in its aggregate of interests and activities that such a field solely has to encompass?

I'am studying psychological problems and could someone clarify if these problems are really problems because what if these problems are just altered or different realities and wouldn't these problems just be opinions because society chooses not to accept these differences,this is not an argument I would just like to know the answers to these questions,I would really apreciate any answers:confused:

The standard American manual on psychological issues or problems cannot be applied to different cultures.

That being said issues like schizophrenia of course is a problem.

"Such as the production of a new chemical for some particular application should have in its process or generation really the environmental reality that such a product will have, how will it react in the atmosphere, the geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere.'

 

If you can get any consensus on that then we'll make you God. Your 'environmental reality' will be removed from mine and someone else's. Claiming any reality or 'the answer' on complex subjects moves out of the realm of science and into the sphere of politics and ideology.

 

In theory I agree with you but in the 'real world' science needs to be independent of myopic views and agendas.

This was somewhat the view during the revolution which lead to empirical thought having importance in the realm of human thought/activity. Its obscure because its of no importance and or overall focus right now. Things are just for the most part blindly done with no regard to the future of such. Education can change this as focus of importance could shift. Environmental science is a real field, which from the reality of such has to be able to deal with all of the natural sciences plus the social sciences. To me this is a fallacy of sorts. The reality of environmental science needs to be moved to more grassroots reality of education in any particular discipline for it to be effective, or else you have a bunch of confusion, no communication and lastly no understanding.

Yes, but every branch of science is individual in many regards. I cannot sit and hold a detailed discussion of snail phylogeny I would think at a physics convention overall. Its not only this, but branches of science even have legacy assumptions and other modes of operation one could curtail in a working definition of a culture really. Its still human thought at the end of the day, even if it does produce empirical results. The point being is a major thrust of science is impacting the day to day lives of populations and the world in general. Science education overtime really should have environmentalism embedded into it. Such as the production of a new chemical for some particular application should have in its process or generation really the environmental reality that such a product will have, how will it react in the atmosphere, the geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere. I think one would be hard pressed to find that as a standard in say the first year general chemistry sequence at most any major universities, thus for the most part such thinking is overall absent in thought.

This can apply to the full spectrum of science. Environmentalism has a social aspect, but so does science or anything human really. The scientific aspect of what environmental science is can apply to any science really or field of engineering, on that note though the reality of such is not part of a regular curriculum of education in such fields. People then working in such ether have to deal with it through government oversight, or not at all. Environmental education should become a regular and far reaching aspect of all forms of education, kindergarten though university.

When environmental issues reach a political platform they interface not only to politicians and lawmakers, but to the populous at large. What does our current president know of chemical kinetics? Does he even know what our atmosphere is primarily composed of, or how it would react to aerosols or related industry products, how about a typical person? Do they know the local fauna or flora of there respective environments, or even what those words mean? What about curveball like megafauna:eek: You might find it easier to be called a communist in many ways already then a scientist.

In which I think again the main problem is lack of any adequate education on the subject. The environment is constant and all around everyone, its what allowed evolution to take place, its what WW2 was fought in. Lack of understanding of such, or human activity in, is the major problem. I don’t think any of this is ever really going to change until education on the subject starts to become mandatory, cradle to grave.

But murder is a tiny percentage of deaths (and more relevantly, deaths before and during child-bearing age). So whatever traits there are that help "not being murdered," they're evolving quite slowly, if at all. It's possible we're evolving to be more careful drivers, though...

 

EDIT: Also, about Iraq. I just looked it up, and Iraq's violent death rate is about five times that of the United States. I think you're thinking of comparisons between the most crime-ridden U.S. cities and Iraq as a whole, which is a poor use of statistics, IMO, but that's extremely OT for this thread...

Yes but they are national averages for homicide, and again just from firearms, which for the U.S can be over 20,000 for a year. That’s twenty thousand people killed in one year in the U.S from firearms in a manner consistent with the definition of homicide. That means in a decade that well over one hundred thousand people will die in the U.S from firearm related homicide. That’s a pretty big number, it also does no include any other cases of homicide, such as vehicular manslaughter or what not. In comparison to Iraq four years of such conflict have not produced U.S casualty above five thousand, for the entire nation. In fact a decade of the U.S in relation to just firearm related homicide is greater then the number of U.S casualties produced during a decade of the Vietnam war. Socially I don’t understand why this occurs, as is evident in the very conservative state of Alabama crime is pretty rampant there, to very multi cultural California which has had murder capitals attributed to cities, so I will not try to define the why, just that its a big killer in regards to people.

I think it stays consistent with the thread in the aspect of natural population control, or population density basically. If the OP does not happen to agree with me of course I will listen to him or her, but we don’t have that yet.