foodchain

While reading on life cycles of plants and of course other related organisms in the context of global warming I was wondering a certain something. Do you think that various CO2 sinks will just be overwhelmed leading to a CO2 saturation or more or less is there a probability that not only will saturation continue to occur but that giving life cycles of say plants again a large surge of CO2 could suddenly appear in a relatively short period fo time, say a few years. Now granted plants are foodstuffs in many different ways and birth to death is probably not a perfect number, but life cycles do tend to exist such as with the seasons. So the question in general is could the slowly creeping and growing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere receive a sudden spike from say plant or other organismal life cycles? For instance agriculture alone in brazil is changing the global landscape I would say. Massive amounts of the rainforest are typically destroyed for a short term gain on soil that really holds not long term ability to support agricultural needs, which to me would suggest a possible dustbowl and a hole or gap really in what used to be something of a variable in global climate stability. I would think such a change could possibly resonate far out through life. Lastly, and if somewhat of a dismal reality, does life support the ozone layer, and would massive reduction of plant life reduce ozone protection? it’s a bonus question that I don’t think needs its own thread. *I don’t know if it would have been proper but in the title could I have used xor possibly rather then and or?

Life I would suggest did not form in the atmosphere. I would also suggest that a protocell such as a protobiont for example could have an internal environment. Abiogenesis is in itself not evolution. If you want some proof on evolution just read up on scorpions, or any other organism really, or just look at the human genome. Organic evolution is a natural process that has been scientifically verified with what amounts to nothing short but a mountain of physical evidence. I would also suggest as you do in your own post that the exact physiochemical nature of the early earth at any point in such a time frame in all respects is not perfectly understood. Lastly it seems as if life today on any particular scale you would want to bring up manages to persist in the presence of if simply put even require in many cases oxygen to survive. http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/life/protobionts.htm http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biog105/pages/demos/106/unit04/3a.protobionts.html

Are you trying to make grenades for paintballing or something. As the previous post states oxygen starvation or saturation is not the best of things, as it would be with most any chemical really. I think titanium will burn purple in the presence of nitrogen, but somebody should check me on that. I don’t know exactly what you would want to use really that is non toxic to a certain extent as I am sure it would all be considered a pollutant in which case judgment typically goes by exposure amounts. Plus in all reality most substances that I know off that are used for such burn at very high temperatures would induce very easily burn injuries if not chance for fire all on its own.

I would say the life sciences have to stick purely to physical observation and empirical proof not only because its sound scientifically, but because the field is attacked far to much for reasons that have nothing to do with science, such as religion. As for ordered structure, well I get rather interested in all of it too, the molecular basis of life that is. I don’t see the code as in DNA coming online in the beginnings of life if you will, and I started a thread asking people there views on what came first, the cell or the code. I personally think it was the cell, or protocell that managed to basically keep integrity or equilibrium and over time doing this managed to develop more and more complexity. I don’t however see it as just chemistry, there is a devout physical aspect to biology. Such as biofilm, or why the virus? As you say the structure and function of life in many regards is to obtain order, or really the structure probably evolved into order for function which is survival. I think the problem is people cannot view the evolution of life in the actual timeframe that such occurred. I don’t think people cannot cognitively put together the pieces in such a large amount of time, I try to think about it, typically I get hung up on thinking just how damn big dinosaurs were. For instance, which is more common in Europe, a mutation came about that basically makes people immune to the HIV virus and or aids. It came about far earlier then aids and current thought on the subject links the mutation with people that survived previous plagues. Its one minor mutation but in a reality it would allow those people to survive a fatal virus as it stands. Another aspect is the human immune system in general, in which a push of immunity is to make the germs or virus basically mutate itself into a fatal mutation basically for the population. Or mutate to death overall. I see a lot of biology as constantly trying to play catch up, because it has to try to develop how the current form came from the past form. The idea of a giant symbiosis of life all on its own is a massive puzzle really. Its also the idea that a simple organism can be effectively studied from so many disciplines, and trying to get all those disciplines to communicate effectively. About one of the only ways I see this making it day to day as is evident I think in reality from reading on the subject extensively is via of course evolution.

I was looking at various images of structure in regards to seeds such as cross section views and what not. I was thinking about the reason for the various arrangements seeds take in that regard and how much of it has to do with aspects such as molecular structure and physical chemistry in application of larger biological structures. I would like to find if the continuity of equilibrium regarding large scale systems comes to apply here. As easy example to look at of course I think is DNA, it has a particular physical structure which relates to its function and or interaction with its surrounding environment. I was wondering about how large a scale this comes to apply, such as in the physiology of a seed or to bone structure.

Ok, I am struggling to keep up but here is some questions. 1) Are strings literally to be taken as the most primordial substance? 2) Can you isolate a string? 3) What does string theory say of dark matter/dark energy?

Evolution will allow organisms to exist on the basis of what can survive. Evolution itself is a word used in general for such a process or processes, it does not however guarantee humans and or survival because life does not always make it and species go extinct. Well the probability I would say obviously was non zero. That point aside what’s the probability of say Iron existing, creationists don’t seem to have a beef with that, which I would only highlight as a bit of a paradox really in there whole though process is all. I like to point this out but obviously we have all the required chemistry and energy desired here on earth along with in regards to time a geologically stable planet with environments that don’t seem to change every other day. Just try to imagine the passing of a million years worth of time, or say ten million years worth of time. On a graph the time that would represent the lifespan of say even a person would seriously need some zooming to be able to be observed. No, science has not figured out the exact mechanisms that brought life along, science does however currently hold some pretty good evidence to how it might have come about. Then again the simple reality of life emerging which cannot be ruled out is the exact mechanisms or process that brought it about might need to be perfectly recreated, and if that’s not the case the entire process itself could take who knows in regards to time to complete. Lastly evolution in itself as a process is entirely natural, and in this you find from nano scale bacteria with in comparison very simple structure compared to say that of a placental mammal. Its just a matter of time before it is figured out I would say, unless the process again that spawned life would need basically a few hundred thousand years to complete, at that point I don’t think any human experiment would even be able to undertake such a task.

what is space matter? I mean I have heard of all kinds of names for I guess stuff with mass if that’s what you are talking about, but its not like the pressure factor is not in effect, or that say overall the laws of physics somehow fail to apply right? You say heated matter attracts, you say this is I guess why the sun is the sun or what not, which is great, so then are you saying that thermal energy is gravity?

Why does heated space matter attract? I mean from one example I know that I guess with the hotter it gets typically elements pass through phases into say a gas. Is this somewhat similar to your argument? I mean things have to be pretty damn cold to get solid helium, which is a trip to look at actually, solid helium that is.

Well to cut a long story short I would say the "why" is survival basically. I think it gets shrugged off by humanity at large because it appears ugly, its not very romantic. I mean what cant survive typically dies, or really it goes extinct. If life was not mutable, had no way to adapt, it would have never survived. The reason its called natural selection is you have a genotype, a phenotype and its relation to the environment. I think that’s it in short order really. Now if you want to say natural selection is just an operator on genes, well, you are still agreeing with me really:D Now if you want to get into exact mechanisms, such as mutation rates, types of mutations, epigenetic networks and so on like evo-devo, go ahead, but it all trails back to that somewhat simple model. Mutations typically appear to be nothing short of random really. In that really genetic models go one way, such as genes--> proteins. So chiefly you have DNA repair mechanisms, or really many mechanisms basically to support keeping DNA the way it is for transcription and such. Typically then you have a low mutation rate. Then when a mutation occurs there a few things that can happen to it after the mutation, such as being negative or positive, or neutral in regards to fitness(environment). This I think derives from basically the mutation, some mutations are null, as in don’t do anything themselves, but would still hold some impact as a gene, such as being neutral or negative again. That whole area in itself is a great deal of research and reading, but overall mutations are random, and in time get selected for or against. This is why rapid environmental change is devastating to life overall. Then you have it in reproduction being passed off as a genotype. Everyone has a genotype. Now how the genotype basically comes to be expressed along with environment to cut it short in large is a phenotype. Though the phenotype can express a degree of plasticity, it is highly thought of as next to impossible for two organisms of different species to have identical phenotypes with different genotypes. An example of this is a person, who without any exercise looks like a professional body builder, such does not happen in reality right? Genes can get switched on and off and in general again you run into a huge block of information not suitable for a single post really, or in large I could not explain it all to you, simply I don’t hold all that information, yet... Now the relationship of the phenotype and genotype along with environment is not perfectly understood, such as epigenetic networks and reproduction, novel roles of RNA are also being discovered, along with so much other discovery that’s almost hopeless to try to keep up with. The point again is that life evolved over time, and via natural selection is really how this works, such is present in all the physical evidence you can want. Having holes in the record here and there is not a failure of the theory as much as it may be simply a failure of not having enough specimens to study. The opposite of natural selection would be what, and what would evolution look like then?

Well I don’t know what would convince you. Evolution is present physically in evidence, in life basically. If you would just study why science makes the claim of evolution you would see this. As for the math and the generation bit, well, I would think that’s not exactly the reality of it. I mean what’s the typical lifespan of a rat in the woods, how many offspring does it produce, how many of them survive, is it always the same number? Is it like this for all mammals, what about fish, how about reptiles, or for any specie or organisms period? I mean if you don’t accept vision or the organs and related biology for such to come about from natural selection then I don’t know what aspect of evolution as understood by biology you would accept really. Vision most likely made it in a macro and micro sense or in time, it was successful and thusly successful aspects of biology sticks around. It does not have to be perfect, nothing in biology is perfect in regards to what is the best trait, that’s typically Hitler like vision really, not saying you do that. What allows something to survive today may not be what it takes in X time for such. Lastly again from the molecular scale to the ecological scale there is a massive amount of evidence physically for evolution, this includes vision also. Simply put like in my earlier post more "primitive" versions of such are still alive today, you have to go and take the theory as put forward in the books though to life itself, as in you actually have to go and study organisms and what’s related to them such as behavior to understand where the theory comes from.

Try to find a stable unit or structure. Use it as a base, and basically replicate above it until the weight becomes to much. I am sure there are calculations out there you can use, I don’t know any off hand though. Maybe a trapezoid type structure and internally fill it with triangles. I would think you could lessen the triangle structures the smaller the units get, or you could even once stability is obtained try to get more artistic with it. I don’t suppose just rolling a piece of paper up into a meter high roll would work lol! Like rolling a poster up.

One thing you can also look at today is the simple fact that you can look at the complexity of the eye in reference to more simpler versions, such as on a crab compared to say a human eye. Or the evolution of the eye is still around today. Its not as if one day in one specie appeared a perfect eyeball or something. Insect vision is also a bit different from peoples I would say, and how the eye works and related anatomy varies considerably taking into account all the various species that posses such.

I think I understand where you come from a bit. I could not easily understand a great many things in physics on contact. What I got from it overtime is that how the universe works does not have to have anything in common with human perception really. What I mean by this is what is now known about the universe through experiment basically proves this. TO add to this the reality is physics could be close, or not very close at all to understanding everything about the universe. For instance dark matter/dark energy. WTF is it really, I mean wow. How about black holes. The reality to me is reality can be weirder then anything you or I can possibly imagine simply because we can only think on what we know. For instance, what if on a QM level matter or energy has some relationship with dark matter we cant currently perceive via math or technology yet? The questions become quite endless really. Its sort of like studying organisms in an evolutionary sense. You see what you have on land, various differences and ecological adaptations towards niches, well you have this in the oceans also. Even in the deepest reaches of the oceans, places where people know more about the moon even life exists, and it takes on some properties that many would simply say could not exist, yet it does. There is a type of fish that can biologically from above look practically invisible. Of course there is a predator type with an adaptation to counter this. The point I am getting at is basically that, who knows really what the heck people will learn about reality in the next hundred years. Maybe some person will find that quarks are made of particles, and those particles are made of particles. Maybe someone will find out what the dark stuff is and its own reality in nature. Maybe we just don’t know enough yet to "see" the whole picture. I think the reason people stick to experiment and physical evidence is its all you can do really as a human. TO go outside of this is fine and dandy, but until its proven what is it? I mean I can say mutants from mars put life here until I am blue in the face, does not make it real until I can prove it. I can say because the universe allowed for evolution and life, that it must be this way on purpose, I can also just as easily say that the environment of the earth and of the universe is pure death to life, or evolution would still have what for life existing? After a bit you have to realize the most simplest divide between science and philosophy, in that science requires empirical validation, and such substance is what science uses to foster growth.

I don’t know exactly how you would build a perfect simulation of what occurred on 9-11. I don’t think many companies posses such a budget really to add to that. The only real conspiracy to think off is an administration that previous to 9-11 had really little to no dealings with counter terrorism even though after 9-11 it would have it to be that way. Not to go to far off topic but Iraq was not even a blip on the radar pre 9-11, after such though the reality of even just the words of the current administration, or really what’s left of it just seems rather odd to be honest. Simply put the twin towers had already been struck, everyone that had any attention put into the world in regards to enemies of America knew that this group was alive and well and wanted to damage America, and after the Clinton administrations dealings with such this administration played little more then stay the course until 9-11. Post 9-11 while Americans were ripe with fear, the story sold basically implies a reality that should have called for much more previous to 9-11. The reality since this time frame has been one that basically points to little more then a manipulation really of people in general using the fear 9-11 generated, or really the effects of the terrorist activity were successful in altering the course of action an entire populous and its government would take. To date no real connection to Iraq and 9-11 has surfaced. No wmds have been found in Iraq past inert unmarked artillery shells in which the weapons inspectors already stated would exist. There has been only really one encounter with such in which the effects of such a weapon were nill. It also points to the idea of a one time use as probably the realty that whomever used them probably did not know such was even a chemical weapon. The reality as the evidence minus words would have it currently after many years is Iraq had no wmd programs or stockpiles, no connections to terrorist organizations and nothing at all to do with 9-11. So why is the connection still being applied by government? Why the need to spread hatred among our own civilians by evoking the concept that patriotism is supporting the war in Iraq, or even the supporting the notion that Iraq and 9-11 are even connected? What would Iraq being democratic have to do even with ending terrorism? Last time I checked a large percentage of those that actually committed 9-11 were Saudi. Last time I checked bin laden has a lot to do with Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked the big money maker in the mideast and ultimately for terrorist organizations and the building of nuclear weapon facilities by Iran is oil. Last time I checked it would seem patriotism would imply finding alternative energy sources. The last time I checked it would also seem fossil fuel use also supports global warming. Where are the priorities today? Or really what are they?

Car engines typically run from controlled combustion, or internal combustion for the most part. A gun on the other hand actually contrary to common understanding does not or the round when fired off actually does not in a sense "explode" per say.

Probably because there existed no system for the regular attempt to obtain anything empirical about the world around them, not to mention if even such words existed or what form such notions such as empirical even came in regards to human thought. Today it seems a much simpler notion, but even while science was starting to come alive its not as if people new about atoms, or germs, or air basically in regards to what it does. Today we have for instance force diagrams, dictionaries, technical manuals, high speed super computers, space travel, greatly extended lifetimes is probably another one. I mean if we could not beat back in any way illness or disease, find a regular way to cultivate food, what that would mean for humanity. So basically why I think people probably thought a heavier object would fall on earth faster then a lighter one, probably because a feather typically wont fall from the sky to the ground as fast as say a rock giving the concept of the atmosphere even, it might have been living on seeing is believing without understanding exactly what was being observed. I mean it does work physically, if I jump from a plane and deploy a parachute I will not reach the ground at that same time as the rock will that was thrown from the plane.

Really, I was thinking about getting maplesoft for students but I cant seem to find any honest or in depth report about it out on the net.

I agree. Most of this thread has been nothing but a brutal and callous treatment of another human being.

I don’t know exactly what you are asking here. Comparative physiology exists because you can do it, its rather simple. Its not like someone said hey, the circle is a shape like a square so one must have evolved from the other. Similarities in organisms goes far beyond even the example you posed, and another aspect that you may not grasp enough or do is simply evolution. Things are going to change. Comparing a human to a microbe, then to a mouse, then to a chimp makes evolution more evident. Its also something that can be verified in a laboratory for a diverse amount of situations, such as even telling if known where a person might have gotten a disease from in regards to another person that was a carrier. If evolution did not exist, science would not be able to piece it together, its a rather black and white point about reality, as demonstrated in natural history, and in scientific experiments a lay person can come to learn how to do all on their own. Such as if you keep a generation of microbes, and follow if you will change in them over time. For instance, a more easy to notice aspect of this is somewhere back in our lineage evolutionary speaking the ability to internally manufacture ascorbic acid, the genes responsible for such basically mutated, this mutation has passed along via evolution into modern human genetic code, its but one example of basically a very large pool of such examples of concrete, very specific and hard physical evidence. I don’t think it also leads to much of the ability to get philosophical with such in the sense of evidence. Now if you want to trail off on that, the point about biology and why its still able to function as a diverse amount of scientific fields with evolution being the backbone of such a science is that constant scientific efforts everyday by a rather large amount of professionals from say medical science to zoology use such to understand life successfully. Is it 100% understood, no, but what does that say, and what really is? Gravity is not 100% understood, it does not stop such from being physically real, and or understandable.

Ok, pure speculation I devised while doing some dishes:D This is sort of based on my deformed understanding of GR I guess and some QM I would suggest, be aware though this is purely speculation. Ok, lets say dark stuff, dark matter/dark energy is the most primordial substance. Now lets say in this it has some degree of physics that currently is not understood save for interaction with gravity/time. Now lets say some weird quantum effect took place in which this basic substance was able to gain mass, or take on a form such as an electron or photon for example, or in general something that we see in the visible universe currently. Boom, you have your bang in a sort of reaction which gives rise to current physics of such, in accordance still with time and or gravity, which is really such rippling out through the dark stuff in some form of a constant. Now the only direct relationship the physics of such shares is via gravity because they both interact through time, which on a quantum level in the only thing such still has in common with the dark stuff. Now this is a general probability from a quantum system which interacts with time and space, and it produced a field like affect that gives rise to a continuity. So what do you think? Do I win an internet award somewhere for this at least?

The ultimate proof part is not time travel in the slightest. Its just more or less something sprung from if not directly related to relativity I think. If you can maximize minimize or control in terms of time and length of such an action can take its still derived from and still adheres to the normal universe as currently understood. Its akin to making more efficient cars as nothing more really. Plus the rest of it sounds more or less like conjecture and after that basically an entire web page to support my current topic points. We have Hubble amongst an arsenal of other equipment to probe the universe, we can actually make predictive assaults on a quantum reality and even manage to put facets of such reality into plain words that does not require a person with an advanced degree in math to understand, with all of this I am to think that for anyone in the world ever touched with the blessing of understanding that something in physics predicts time travel has never ever gotten the notion to even begin how to observe such in the wide univese not to mention figuring out even some small physically possible means to test such? Again, I don’t know if time travel is truly impossible, but I do think so.

Personally I don’t think the anti GMO crowd is purely dogmatic beliefs. Dealing with environmental issues for at least right now and historically escapes being black and white science, or more or less it always has. On one tip in a more scientific endeavor is how do you know the outcome of a GMO over the course of say a million years? Can anyone in science actually state something factual about that? Is evolution perfectly understood in every possible facet to some 100% level? The list could go on. I mean what about plasmid transfer among GMO bacteria and non or native versions for instance? A lot of where GMO tries to find work or applications of such is in regards to food. There is a maximum efficiency I would say or roof to what earth as a total system can support in regards to life. I would also say we don’t know what this is, and from current living standards we might have already passed such if not already done much worse. So to couple with growing extinction rates now of modern life or how should I say more native or natural forms of life we supplement into the ecosystem GMOs. Now the total effect of human behavior on an environment in itself is a massively complicated endeavor, with the most part it being nothing but an uphill struggle for any time for conservation efforts. Its also looked on for the most part as pathetic by some, or being a liberal green tree hugger. Most people do not view evolution into the equation, or the fact that if tomorrow all that was left was humans on the earth that our survival would probably be reduced to death in short order, that’s also backed by science if you want to check. So in the meantime you have to be able to take environmental science, and really social science and meld the two together, in the hopes really for sustainability. Now most people probably don’t care to keep organisms or species alive for the study or sustainment of life, or even the understanding of humans from such a point, or for the most part probably do not understand in any fine detail that environmental change chiefly is not a great friend of life historically, see mass extinction. What I am trying to get at here is that science cannot attest to the true effects over time of the introduction of GMO, nor do I think past some BS argument can they really control the reality of such. I also doubt for science to be able to control the social aspect of it, or else I would think science might have found a way to end war by now. I do not look at it from a playing god perspective, I look at it from what do we really know and what are we really doing and is ignorance present in that somewhere, and the answer to that is currently yes. Lastly, what is GMO going to do for any real issues? Is some super GMO going to be created that will feed an infinite number of people or an infinite period of time in a finite reality? Its a band aid or really diversion from issues that the global community needs to come to grips on, and that is the reality of things basically in my opinion. I also don’t find my approximation to much skewed from what’s going on really.

Well, I guess the future better welcome GMO just about everything, I still don’t think its going to fix any real lasting underlying issues that for whatever reasons people simply wont realize. Sure, break laws that support a species of life from going extinct so some people can work, and then when you have three times that amount of people, maybe they can just eat each other, who knows.

I am not 100% sure as to the extent of QM in human thought. I don’t know if per say information processing in the human brain is simply a product of QM, or again really the extent of QM again. I think most of life takes place at least on the elemental level, and then in large quantities of such in terms of differentiated structures such as the famous neocortex or corpus callosum. As per how you described thought with QM as an example, I am confused if you are just applying the mathematical principles behind QM alone to human thought or what perceived physical reality such implies about the universe as a living function of human thought also. Personally I never wake up on any certain day and randomly for no reason speak some weird langauge:D I don’t know if that exactly qualifies or if QM has to be with more "trivial" things such as chosen flavors of ice cream, even then you tread into territory where QM does not put the picture together as reality would have it. I am sure QM plays role in living organisms, after all with no universe or no physics I think such linearly adds to having no life. Then again ben, its kind of pointless to debate anything with you. You seem to only respect people with phds in physics, and everything else happens to be wrong if it goes against a math equation somewhere. Such as in this debate, I pointed out in my opening post that I don’t know if time travel is possible or impossible, but you made the position to take my points on why I think its impossible to insinuate that I think such is truly impossible. I don’t know if you call it putting words in other peoples mouths, but as QM would have it, how do you know what I think ben besides the words you read in one of my posts? Heck giving the large degree of possibilities of anything I would think people in general should all be suffering to a large extent some form of Tourette syndrome really. I don’t know if time travel is impossible or possible, the one things I do know is that such is not observed in the universe anywhere ever to my knowing, and for all intensive purposes I don’t know of any one that can even put forward a simple experiment to even probe such. GR has been around for a few decades now, and regardless of the complexities such proposes to human thought in regards to understanding, I simply think currently the reality of such speaks for itself, what will we have in another hundred years of research, heck, maybe QM might be defeated, maybe DSR will be in the spot light, and maybe somewhere a person might actually be able to test string theory somehow, you never know right?