foodchain

I think conservation of energy pretty much keeps the replicator an item of science fiction really. As I think at best only a few minor exceptions to the law of conservation have been observed or even postulated really. It might be possible to get more and more efficient production, which would be great, but I don’t think you are going to be able to really say do much more then that.

I think he is trying to talk about the behavior of say hydrogen in regards to cellular function, or using hydrogen as a basis of cellular function. Such as how you would use DNA as a basis of explaining life for example.

I have a idea, somewhat an unstudied hypothesis about life also, you can fine a very brief explanation of such in the speculations section, being in comparison to known science its all I felt barely comfortable with in placement. I would advise I had a person come in the thread and basically attack me more then the idea, but its a decent read. There are more ideas or topics relating to your idea somewhat on this board also, such as the cell in one variable, Hydrogen. Basically, looking at planets, its more or less a process that can reach an end from the material it has over time, or more on energy, but to generate and keep a geometry of energy alive, you have to be able to keep that energy variable satisfied in a very basic sense, and well such as with the eyes of a living thing, and interactions of light and or quanta with matter happen to be a quantum effect, so you do have grounds already existing in which to study.

This is not directly related to the topic but more or less a point on fire. If you happen to simply breathe in super heated air it will destroy in a fatal way various tissues. I know you see movies that go contrary to the point I am trying to make, but if you inhale a breath of super heated air you basically happen to be dead after that.

Not to go off topic but when Clinton was involved against radical Islam with that whole black hawk down episode most all the republicans back home were talking about nothing but cutting and running, in fact demanding it, it must have showed them we cant stand to fight.

I am not talking of language as the means simply to create verbal patterns, but the cognitive ability that comes with it. Human language on its own as evidence in the modern world alone is rather complex, and in reality I think the ability to be able to encapsulate say concepts like quantum mechanics into something that can be spoken to say others is vital, our ability to communicate period is vital. Mathematics for instance is a version of this. I am not against the position of technology in regards to our species and the evolution of such, its just that hominid ancestors that also were technology users did not make it, so I cant really say if its the only piece of the puzzle then is all. Maybe is our oh so cool brain that allowed us to persist in time overall:confused:

The state I live in for instance does not reflect my political ideology when it comes to signing up to vote, why, probably money but then if you sign on independent you can get screwed in general, so even on such a small scale of things the combat does not seem to stop. Why that has to do with the topic, well, I lived in Washington state for example, in which I consider the state to be a bastion of conservative democrats, which might seem to be something of a paradox but its in large a large group of people. The last round of elections in that state I paid attention to actually had corruption being performed at the hands of a republican challenging the status quo, why, don’t care, its pretty normal anyway. Now the state I live in is still democratically controlled, and as a joke you can always use the states name along with a -stan suffix to point towards living in communism because dems don’t support for the most part any idea of a small government, though our current one being the largest in U.S history with vice presidents setting up there own intelligence groups(why do we have the CIA) and so on. The dems are going to take whatever it is they currently plan to run and shape it on a voting base, for at the end of the day its still survival. I mean bush jr. wears his religion out in the open constantly, and gives away troves of tax dollars to religious groups, millions and so on of bucks, the kind of groups that want to ban evolution in public education, if not public education in general. Which could support charters or coupons systems for private education, aka cult centers in general where you can learn the wonders of intelligent falling. Anyway the anti war crowd can be rather emotionally driving to, and thusly prone to fallacy about situations in the world. I mean in large will I never support, nor even did support OIF, I can appreciate the constant attempts by the dems to derail or end our occupation of that nation, on that ticket though the anti war crowd is kind of dumb in that how can you forgive or forget the people that did 9-11, I think its safe to say debate is out of the question with those types, or people that like to cut the heads off of people then put the videos in circulation. SO to me what I look for first is anything that has nothing to do with bushco, and then something with a level head. Sure the anti war crowd is not going to be that, but no more is the evangelicals, or big business, or Halliburton. So in large I probably will be reduced to voting for whomever I think has the best shot at healing the massive damage bushco has brought upon us, or that’s my carrot on a stick.

Right, but you cant just say for the sake of simplicity to think of a living cell minus the RNA aspect for example. I mean I am sure some working model of the cell could exist without it, but it would not represent the truth of the issue at all. As for the rest, well, a body like a planet has mass, I don’t know if its because of this mass alone that a warp or curvature(?) of spacetime is produced, but if that has something in common with the idea of different reference frames also being warping of spacetime(if that’s even close to correct on my part), at what level are they different? Is it simply different means to an end?

Right the concept of time dilation I suppose? I know, but if they share a fundamental relationship are we not arbitrarily doing that anyways? Well what I mean is gravity if I have my Einstein down is a product of relativity at some scale right? Which also ties into time, but on the course of time space being warped and inducing gravity, then the same would be of events or actions, such as a warp should follow the trail of a comet to some extent, or even me waving my arm up and down on some level, or is this an in bulk phenomena?

SO basically its that c remains a constant because its time that is shifting and or changing? So I would surmise from that that actions themselves, or then would it be speed or velocity should change time space? How does that equate to just mass, or is that also along with velocity, speed or what not?

Well, the bell test is primitive, at least that’s my opinion. For instance, look at the chemistry of life, understanding that would probably evolve the entire field of chemistry, but we fully are not at that point yet. Another angle is that the bell test probably shares in a primitive nature with such tests in general. The majority of this thread is basically attempting to gauge a not to well defined concept, such as intelligence, but the tests are created by what and operate though what to what. Basically organisms, which have as you are looking for a nature and a nurture, or hardware and software as I like to think about it. Like if I was to issue you an I.Q test in Japanese, and use concepts from a culture completely alien to you(not Japanese but in Japanese). The other concept basically is then an I.Q test is trying to qualify aspects of biology of an organism for heritable traits that apply, well that’s a vast concept. Typically I have a great memory for music, better then other things I would say, is that environmental or heritable? What if some people have a great working memory for colors, or what would appear to be a natural aptitude for such? How about pattern recognition? Some people are born with conditions that allow them to remember perfectly entire phonebooks on recall, but yet these same people cant muster the mental or cognitive ability to brush there own teeth, which is not physical in a sense of muscles, but mentally they cannot complete such a task, yet they can recite entire phonebooks they read years ago. I think more or less the question quickly reduces to a point ignorance, or really lack of understanding say humans for instance, or life in general. The bottom line to me is to try to understand the question you posed in some objective framework would basically mean experimentations overall on the human genome over diverse populations, on that note though you can see the impact of such in say people born with handicaps.

Creationism cannot claim any empirical grounds for its view of nature. ID is nothing more then creationism by another name, all it pushes is genesis, and of course ID also lacks anything empirical to support such. You see, naturalist philosophy, the scientific method, the various fields of science, the one thing that they all typically eventually produce in regards to human efforts in such is empirical explanations about nature, from nucleosynthesis to organic evolution, this is why science claims such. Its not a philosophy, not in the sense that such is purely a perception or state of mind, its the fact that people learned why in nature hydrogen will bond with another element in a certain way, or why it has a certain subatomic structure . Anything science or really a field of such touts as truth usually has empirical evidence to support such, not just words. Creationism and ID are absolute opposites of this, in that not only are such like theology in general built from pure philosophy, it does not, and will not simply make the move to require empiricism, and lastly why would it, sort of be self defeating. The best ID and creationism can do, and does is claim scientific proof as its own proof, I don’t know how but they do, then any unknown variables in an equation towards empirical understanding is typically abused as an avenue to push ignorance is some particular format they desire, you see it all thrives from ignorance! For instance, why does god make males born with XXY, instead of just XY, all kinds of problems from this, or what about people with both sex organs, or any particular trait that’s varies from the norm, like brown eyes, or green eyes, or curly hair? You can find a vast array of different forms of explanations for such in a theological perspective, and the one thing they all have in common is a total lack of anything empirical, and thus again its just ignorance. To me religion being a product of ignorance is no big surprise. Anthropology will disagree with me a bit on this, but I think animism, religion and ignorance of the natural world share healthy bonds, I mean why the conflict overall, because the facts conflict, why so many different forms of animism or religion, because ignorance came before science or empirical efforts. I mean look at the computer keyboard, its designed well for human hands, it must be the work of something higher… I will end at that. -------------------------------- As to the OP question. They are both just acts of ignorance inflicting human misery overall, its nothing new, its the reason holocausts occur, so my vote is they are equal.

Yes, but one thing you can find in social sciences is that they have to be a soft science for various reasons, I don’t find this much different. Its the only reason why I understand some sciences being labeled physical science. A global population of humans has such a rich density of variables considered to say the path of a comet out in the cosmos. I mean in twenty years what will happen if Europe has some cultural change that places emphasis on a baby boom, how about if china is not so tight on its birth control? All human population has done in physical reality that is a constant or giving is grow overall. It may be a product of radiating out all over the planet and the introduction of say different technologies, I cant be sure, the one thing I do know is that its never ceased to continue to grow, that’s an observation of mine.

Keywords being they were extinction events, in where the environment had changed. I don’t doubt the U.S is starting to hold a higher standard, but even in politics the only politician to truly voice any concern about environmental issues was or is Gore and look at all the drama surrounding that. We have to make natural refuges for wildlife and wetlands, put things on the endangered species list and why? Because life is so resilient, its not a negative view, its reality. I mean we have punched holes in the ozone layer, which finally got peoples attention because now they could have an increased rate or cancer. Even today the EPA is marginalized. Reports happen to get silenced along with people and it took so much this time around to save anwr. I mean oil is a finite substance, its going to run out, but first we should destroy ecosystems that took who knows how long to flourish or come about for what? You can call it negative, and maybe it is a dreary view of things, but its a real view of things overall. When push comes to shove, people get there way, its always going to be like that. We will continue to have to make more and more stuff to support a population that will continue to grow. I mean living standards are only increasing, this does not mean much anything anymore, the population has done nothing but climb, and it will continue to do nothing but climb, all you have to do is couple that with industrial lifestyles and the image you get is what? Probably something dreary. In 500 years the amount of people alone on this planet is going to be staggering. Its sort of pointless to try to stop it either, most people will just think of you as some liberal true hugger, and well at that point I don’t really care anymore. I have watched the movie soylent green, and in all reality what’s to stop that from being our future anymore. You know the pentagon has military plans for the future that surrounds and environmentally ruined one, where even drinking war becomes another resource to conduct war for, its going to take an extinction event before people pull there heads out of there %$# and start to care via understanding and action. The science is already in about what’s going on with the planet, it does not matter much right now because it applies no real stress yet to the money. To be honest I don’t even know why I care, because I am confident in my predictions, its just I know what it will mean to get to that point I guess.

Its just a point. Its like that topology question in which you can keep dividing to infinity and so on, or where you do a math problem involving an area of grass that shows a person did infinite work mowing the lawn. Math is better suited being molding to reality rather then vice versa. Plus I am still using my calc mainly in attempts to draw pretty pictures with the graphing function.

Breaking and forming bonds in an organism for say energy to do work is constant, thus you have find vacuoles in a cell for such a purpose, or issues like a proton gradient or an electron transport chain. ATP for instance in many cases is not to be reduced to simply say the energy currency but can be also thought of as an activator to other things that actually do work. As for your description of H, or using it really as the anchor to talk of other aspects of a cell or the chemistry in cell is off for a couple of reasons. One is that elements react, its not just everything reacting to hydrogen. Plus the cell is not just hydrogen nor uses just hydrogen. Its one of the reasons thermal energy can be used to denature say an enzyme is by basically destroying its structure and thusly for one reasons is activation sites, but they enzyme for instance can be much much more then simply a single elemental ion. You can find glands in an organism that are nothing more then a cell, which can be rather small, but for regarding a cell from the viewpoint of it being organized just around hydrogen, well I don’t really think you can do that. For just how you explain the natural behavior of say hydrogen, other elements also posses such, which then basically brings you to nothing more then a system with a structure, and function and or course an origin. I think you would be interested to look into the roles of say Ca2+ in the life sciences.

No, its quite the opposite actually, I fully support the science and in time think that it can answer all questions about nature. The point I am trying to make is to say you don’t just take genetics in a biology curriculum for instance. I think it automatically induces fallacy also to view life as nothing more. The scope genetics has on biology is intense, large, and wide for instance, but its not all of biology or life. Life is a living system of course, it has a structure, function and origin, genetics is but one aspect of this. If it were just genetics that became to only objective truth to biology or life, from any angle you could study it, I imagine that such would have already surfaced, and biology again would be reduced to nothing more then genetics, its simply not true is any meaning of that word. I also have an ardent naturalist streak, and personally despise what humanity is doing to life in general all over the planet. I think our ignorance is not going to pay off in the future, and I think its going to take life being brought to the brink of extinction in time to point this out. I talk to so many people that have such shallow views of life, and that I come to find out they typically have very little experience with such, the most being maybe a family dog. I know its not everyone’s cup of tea, but I just think that modus of operation in general for any society is truly ill.

yes, but I imagine that such a thing might face some selective pressures, plus its math. I could probably develop some algorithm that states Godzilla should exist by now.

First of all, I am not claiming anything empirical in my threads unless I am stating common fact, such as the semiconductor is vital in regards to computing technology, I just want to settle that, this thread is purely hypothetical if even that. The reason I made the comment about the lose of hair in regards to an immunity response is two fold. First the immune system is something direct to our biology, tools are not. The parts of our brains that utilize tools or concepts or thought related to such happens to be, but so is the use of language, would our specie have made it without such. Other species used tools but in the end they did not make it, they went extinct overall. Plus if migratory the reality is a whole new ecosystem many times over of simply anything from prions, to bacteria to virus, and so on. Not to mention this would become even worse being we are social, which could have an equal footing if not more then tools, not to mention state of mind, who knows how much fear ruled our ancestors thoughts, just look how much it rules today’s. Organisms are composites of behaviors that for the instance of the phenotype do not even have to survive overall naturally in strict accordance with the genotype overall. Plus on that note you cannot segregate life into units like that, its a system in which parts all happen to be required. DNA may be a step away from RNA for also a composite of reasons, who is to say, a great deal of past evolution points towards a giant symbiosis. Life in terms of its reality though evolution has slipped away it seems from something studied by for example wildlife biologists. Pretty soon life and human terms to understand it will be little more then products of calculus and a computer as life is slowly pushed in general to mass extinction for the placement of wall marts. I mean we are so separated from life its not funny. Biology in many ways has been reduced to a lab, which of course has its own role, but life is so large overall that its rather insulting to hear someone say its just genes, that’s simply not true overall. I know firsthand and I have experience events in life that tend to contradict with interpretations like such. Lastly the topic or case is still open as the empirical truth of such is not fully known yet. TO add to this class or so on can have over a 120,000 species in it easily. Evolution against occums razor, the razor fails. Life is vastly complex, and no simple generalization is going to fix this. Also, my thread was a question posed as to why we are able to conduct such widespread change to the environment in general, or the earth. Nothing more or less, and its a hypothetical question.

Well, I understand the technology bit, and tool use of course I would think is paramount but its just one facet of it all. Its like the constant obsessions with genes, a single gene, I don’t even think nano bacteria has only one gene, so its lots of genes, but how does it all equate, well see you have these genes just floating around in the air by themselves, and all they do is use tools to make fire so they can lose hair, sorry I am truly joking at this point to maybe lighten things up a bit. The reason people lost hair was cavemen were catching themselves on fire to often, so over time the hairless gene became selected for. Nothing else, reality all that point in time was all about the hairless gene, and how does that equate into the organism itself, wait, there is no organism, its just naked genes floating in the air, hairy ones catching themselves on fire! If it were just genes the concept of a phenotype would have little to no bearing, if it were just selfish genes why did we ever evolve or for that matter why did evolution ever take place, bacteria alone has a far better survival rate overall then anything else on the planet, but that’s right, genes don’t know anything, unless of course ~50 nm bacteria has some master plan. Heck DNA cant even operate by itself and most likely came later after life emerged in my opinion. Looking at just genes basically subtracts not only there purpose but the whole organism from view, looking at just the genes of a tiger for instance, or how about a lion? What’s the difference with saying its just chromosomes. Its the same thing with humans and placing everything on the crutch of technology. Humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years with little to no technology past very primitive versions compared to today’s standards, that’s not covering ancestors of course. To say that human evolution was solely surrounded by fire, spears, and say cutting rock with rock for instance, well, I don’t think that quite covers the whole issue.

Its just hard to find, you know the cultural primitive does not exist past looking at an infant with a blank slate really. The question I know from a debate board cant reach some empirical level, past maybe if people have done such studies before, I don’t know of any really, not in conjunction with the question I posed, its more or less for discussion purpose. I mean the pattern of a family, its not something purely akin to say humans, to many other facets, so its more or less a question really of our nature and nurture facets viewed via evolution really. I don’t think every human social set conducts itself like many industrialized nations happen to do in regards to the environment though, but looking at that is social science. I am looking more for the idea that humans specialized possibly at being generalists.

While its easy to say the democrats use the anti war slogan as a platform the democrats in total did not object to the war at its start. I am going to break symmetry here and go on another angle all together, its called spin and image. This two things along with other elements such as the press have come about in such a form that image has become more and more important then even message half the time with politicians. If you ever sit and watch say an hour of C-SPAN and or read books written by such people you find so much information that is never visible in the fast food industry of product sales really. So why the democrats have become the anti war crowd, yes, they are anti war, it has noting to do with being anti Iraq war for instance, which of all things does make a difference at some level I am sure you understand of course. The democrats however don’t seem to be in large anti Afghanistan war, so they must no longer be the anti war crowd. Then of course with the talks about drafts and Pakistan, they surely are not the anti war crowd. The point I am trying to get at is its all a delicate mesh of spin, so fine its hard to delegate what is what half the time, and more or less people really just seem to go with gut feelings curved towards sloganeering. Image sells, its probably genetic, but image does sell, and that’s what seems to be a highly reproductive debate topic in politics is clashing images with shallow barely half a paragraph long explanation on the image or the support, and always clearly lacks any objectivity. For instance, Iraq is a bloody mess in a civil war, yet with a gleam of hope, regardless of how small comparatively the plan is surely to work in X time into a future that no one knows of course because if they did, then that would mean they also allowed for this to come about in the first place, but that would be two cents worth of critical thinking. Then of course after that comes the image of being a pessimist or an optimist, I hate slogans, untold amounts of lives are being destroyed either permanently or for long periods not to mention overall trauma, shock and stress. I don’t care about images from people that have never carried a rifle for some government sending them off to war to basically kill or be killed. I do know that if every person of age was readily deployable, that politics would most likely be different, because it could be you or your loved ones having to go over there, and that’s not even giving any slight sliver of talks to the life of the Iraqis we supposedly are there to liberate from whatever anymore. Of course if we leave, its because we left if we lost, and if we plan to leave in fifty years, well if we had just stayed a few more months we would have won. You see, running slogans and adds is easy, actually talking about anything that goes on over there is a bit more difficult, but what person, or the voting populous actually spends any great deal of time day to day studying the reality of anything, be it Iraq or a politician with detailed study?

Can you use sound of any frequency or amplitude for example to induce a chemical reaction?

Eventually you will be facing chemistry and physics if you keep reducing, so there might be a point you can logically gate the question to as to what level you have questions on. A lot with the computer has to do with the discovery and or creation really of the semiconductor.

So its maybe a product of taxis in an evolutionary sense then compared over the ecology of our evolutionary history? For me to think that a genotype or even phenotypes of a specific population would only begin to migrate if stress(-form or maybe why altruism exists in one angle) asked for such, or if migration is natural for populations of certain types, which then brings in the question of boundaries to me. So radiation then I guess is what it boils down to, or to what degree does life in general radiate out and how dependent such is species to species, or really populations of individuals in action. I mean does this generalization or specialization have an impact on say linkage so of course many other questions, or the relationship from the organism down to a cell and of course more. That’s my question in general, if in fact we can really just look at our biology in general for understanding of what we are and of course what we do, and of course via evolution is what I am trying to find the answer with. So its easy to say that humans are just generalists, which makes sense I guess. So the issue then is not only that we happen to migrate, its the combination with other aspects of our biology in general that allows for us to cause as much destruction as we can. See to me, you cant just pick up a population of a specie and toss it into some new ecology and expect no change or impact, and of course adaptations for survival in a particular ecology happen to be prevalent. Maybe as an immune response is why we lost so much body hair? I mean from an organismal point of view, if our population is highly specialized to be generalists, then I think it would be paramount for understanding of this in regards to the environment, simply put we still have to use the earth to survive and other biota in it. I do think diet plays an important role in evolution, I mean energy is traversed via solar to organic molecules, whatever is eating such would of at least then need to be able to work with such on a chemical level, the food source that is. I don’t know if food needs where a driver of human evolution, though we did at some point become omnivores, then again where is the cause and effect to that, if not such being random of course...