foodchain

You get to draw little dots on a piece of paper, these dots represent electrons in a configuration. Such as in carbon dioxide for instance, you would draw a carbon, and two oxygen, and then you would draw some or all of the electrons, or at least the electrons that your professor wants you to draw, these would most likely be the ones pertaining to whatever bonds happen to be going on at first. If you spend sometime reading on say electron configurations, you will be able to understand how a atom is modeled currently in regards to electrons and "shells" for instance, this can or does relate to your octet rule. The electron configuration will also let you understand the periodic table with more precision, such as electronegative for instance. The reason I throw all these random terms at you is simple, I took my first chemistry class, and it annoyed me all to heck because I knew that some mechanism or what not was going on in which the professor never spoke about, then I went on my own and looked at chemistry from a more physics perspective and things made much more sense. Some people can get by with just repeating and memorizing, but I needed to understand to actually work with it, and I think it pays off to do such. Chemistry is a whole lot of stuff, it really is, such as knowing the erthyo form or the threo form is there in configuration or what not, and a lot of it simply is memorization in my opinion. The lewis dots are a very basic and vital aspect of this, and really its making a drawing of electron interactions in regards to elements for instance, such as how many electrons happen to be present for bonding in an s2p3, or does such matter in regards to environment and what other chemical its interacting with. Really there don’t seem to be a set pattern overall in my opinion. Here, this link might help. http://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho/lessons/lesson38.htm

http://evolution.uoregon.edu/thornton-wsj-2006.pdf

I don’t really give that much credit to the question. I personally find it more of a product of partisan sniping then anything positive. I mean the last round of elections the democrats took major wins simply on the note of changing the situation in Iraq, with a level of presidential approval I think the lowest in history along with a U.S populous that has not faith in the conflict at all really. I know most Americans don’t support a hasty withdraw, but from where I sit we never really went in with enough with any real plan to make victory possible in the first place. So for what its worth its really pull out now and deal with the future, or pull out that much later and deal with the same. My money is on the reality that our next president will most likely be voted in simply by saying he or she will bring the troops home, or at least I hope so.

Will enough energy in a an appropriate environment, such as pressure, break apart any bonds matter may take, say for instance carbon dioxide. Also, if that’s true or not, is there a point in that regard in which elements themselves will begin to break apart, such as just carbon, giving enough energy in an appropriate environment again.

I would agree with reporting all hate crimes, or crimes motivated by racism for instance. Homicide rates in the U.S are quite staggering compared to say other nations in the world in general. I would also like to know what percent of these crimes were race related for instance, but its hard to say really, simply because I don’t know if they record such statistics or even release them if they are indeed recorded. PC is like the united nations, its all loved until you figure out its not just about you.

"Safe water shortage threatens Iraq’s children News item 22 March 2007" http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail.asp?news_id=917

I never really understood what victory was to be over in Iraq, but I do know the latest news on the situation puts 1 in 200 down to 1 in 5 child/infant will die this summer from diarrhea resulting from drinking impure water.

Thinking about the topic I simply don’t understand why biologists or scientists simply don’t attempt to find a way to use DNA polymerase for such. Really I guess is what I am getting at is already existing biological mechanisms exist that probably could get people everything they want to know, but I don’t know if anyone’s actually worked at "farming" such enzymes or found a way to put them to work or use the process in action in a cell to obtain a result, such as a single strand of DNA or what not. I mean I know PCR exists, but I don’t really consider that the same.

From what I know, I don’t know really. I don’t know how playing with the temp will work unless you plan to take advantage of that, whatever that may be, as it occurs or something. From how you worded it to my understanding of it, basically it sounds like you want to dissolve the human genome and then build it back up exactly in some fashion, I don’t know how you would do that really, I think a great majority of it would already have to be known then you would have to have some rather precision technology or what not to take advantage of such.

Then I would guess that from two equal points in distance the redshit should be different? Say if you have to galaxies of equal distance from the earth, that the redshift exhibited should vary, or be exactly the same? More or less would two exact copies of photons from exact situations in a set and equal distance from a point express any variation in regards to redshift?

Sorry about that. I don’t have links in my mind to everything I have ever watched or studied. The nasa link was just a video, nova or some kind of educational program like that. The made a magnetic field, and then would put materials into it, ranging from plastic beads to an apple, and well the magnetism would exist in those objects. The other idea I brought forward is from this link, which I read I think around three or four months ago. I am course cannot independently verify such past words on any particular site. I attempted to find a link on the web to the nasa project, but I could not find anything, which I pretty much blame on my vocabulary. "In 2004, it was reported that a certain allotrope of carbon, carbon nanofoam, exhibited ferromagnetism. The effect dissipates after a few hours at room temperature, but lasts longer at low temperatures. The material is also a semiconductor. It is thought that other similarly-formed materials, such as isoelectronic compounds of boron and nitrogen, may also be ferromagnetic. The alloy ZnZr2 is also ferromagnetic below 28.5 K." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetic

I dont think we are at a point to say we really know what we are doing.

Yes and many other issues exist currently in regards to mutations. Such as so many "generations" ago our ability to produce ascorbic acid internally was basically turned off, though like many other structures such still exists in vestigial. Its so difficult to comprehend billions of years you know. I know its rather shortsighted, but many people are in the business of attempting to find a short cut to the explanation of biological phenomena, so I thought I should jump on the bandwagon. I think what’s funny is natural selection can be applied to a majority of physical processes really, such as what environments allow a hurricane to persist or come about, but such is purely speculation. I still do wonder about naturally occurring amino acids in a colloid as a basis to attempt to understand the beginnings of life, but many in the past point to clay of all things, or bubbles really. I mean really that so much ground could probably be covered in biology if we could know what came first, so sort of “code” or the cell. To attempt to look at life from a purely chemical perspective I find very important, but I know that you cant reverse engineer every chemical reaction. Molecular biology for the most part looks at life not only from the chemical but from the physical perspective, one and the same I think but for the sake of modern perception they differ, blame it on ancient philosopher types me thinks. Amway’s, thanks for the post. I thought in major that I was really talking about genetics in some abstracted fashion, but I learned from posters that I was not, so it pays to come to this site.

Maybe so, maybe not, we still have to make it like everything else, which basically means being able to persist in any giving environment. All the above material means is that kind of an envionrment, we make nukes, we almost have nuke death during cold war, you see where I am getting with this? As for global warming, well, I could only see what some lasting drought might do to motivate people, or changing vectors of disease for that matter, its still just simply if you can survive or not regardless of flavor. I mean in most all of my posts, all I am trying to point out is comparing life in regards to intelligence really does not mean a whole lot in explaning anything. You can say we are smarter then x, but it simply does not say anything close as to why, or what that even means. It also totally cirumvents the simple reality that a different brain and structure is probably going to yield a different result, it takes really none of any of that into account, and thats really what I am trying to argue. "The number of neurons in the brain varies dramatically from species to species. One estimate puts the human brain at about 100 billion (1011) neurons and 100 trillion (1014) synapses. By contrast, the nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) has just 302 neurons making it an ideal experimental subject as scientists have been able to map all of the organism's neurons. By contrast, Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly) has around 300,000 neurons (which do spike) and exhibits many complex behaviors. Many properties of neurons, from the type of neurotransmitters used to ion channel composition, are maintained across species, allowing scientists to study processes occurring in more complex organisms in much simpler experimental systems." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron "The authors note that spindle neurons probably first appeared in the common ancestor of hominids about 15 million years ago, since they are observed in great apes and humans, but not in lesser apes and other primates; in cetaceans they evolved earlier, possibly as early as 30 million years ago. It is possible that they were present in the ancestors of all cetaceans, but were retained only in those with the largest brains during their evolution. It may also be that they evolved several times independently in the two cetacean suborders; part of this process may have taken place at the same time as they appeared in the ancestor of great apes, which would be a rare case of parallel evolution. "In spite of the relative scarcity of information on many cetacean species, it is important to note in this context that sperm whales, killer whales, and certainly humpback whales, exhibit complex social patterns that included intricate communication skills, coalition-formation, cooperation, cultural transmission and tool usage," the authors state. "It is thus likely that some of these abilities are related to comparable histologic complexity in brain organization in cetaceans and in hominids." The authors conclude: "Cetacean and primate brains may be considered as evolutionary alternatives in neurobiological complexity and as such, it would be compelling to investigate how many convergent cognitive and behavioral features result from largely dissimilar neocortical organization between the two orders." They also suggest that the current study provides a framework for further investigations into the brain and behavior of cetaceans, which are naturally elusive, poorly documented and often endangered." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061127111607.htm

I don’t know where I have stated that humans are not the most intelligent animal, and that’s really not what I am talking about either. As for the ability to do all of those things you listed, I don’t really know what that has to do with attempting to understand the fact that comparative physiology exists as a field of study or animal behavior for that matter. No, a tubeworm may not be as intelligent as you, but for what its worth that really does not say much anything about a tubeworm. I mean in one instance, you state that neurons are like cells in species that have them, and that all they do is process impulses. Then on another tip you desire to combat the idea of predetermination from a biological perspective, its just somewhat confusing really. I mean does it take just a certain amount of neurons before you can stack blocks, what if they animal has a lot of neurons but none of them process for color vision? I mean some whales have rather large brains, and a complex language we cant decipher, and have social relationships, elephants have been known to even "mourn" a death of a fellow elephant. Yet it seems your ideation of intelligence on a biological scale basically means if you are not human, you might as well be a microbe overall, and just simply have a 1 or a 0 brain of blind processors, but not humans? I mean if you remove the neocortex, I think that gives you all the data you need to understand the idea of biological predetermination, but I mean its as simple to notice that as its simple to realize a beetle is not going to play you at chess. On that note though, that our brain as an organ gives us a cognitive perception of reality, it must not for other animals, and that perception probably is not influence by the biology of that organ or the organism. So in reality, its kind of pointless to compare intelligence in some regards, because its basically asking what’s a better force, strong or weak? For what its worth in all of our grand intelligence, we have very massive problems looming on our horizon that can spell out for mass death if not extinction. For what its worth if we simply allow this to come and pass, it does not speak very highly of us as that stupid tubeworm is still going to be doing its things if the ocean is not so drastically changed. I mean natural selection being what it is, if you cant make it then you happen to get deleted in time.

I don’t know the answer to your question save that magnetic behavior can also be short term in a material following a reaction, and not only this but at nasa they have produced magnetic fields strong enough that anything they put in it becomes magnetic, from apples to plastic beads.

Have you studied any other symbiotic relationships besides this one? Not that it would have any impact, just a question. Mutualism applies a benefit to all parties involved while parasitism is only a benefit of say one of the two in this instance. It would make sense to me though that the e.coli would have had to be able to keep homeostasis not only for itself but its host at conditions that would allow for survival to continue, or the host itself would have to keep stable in regards to health or find a way to reach it with a parasite over time. So in this instance the ecology or physical environment providing for natural selection would be for two organisms at once? Where the visibility comes into play on how this would reach a mutualistic end I guess is provided by the idea they both provide for larger rates of gene propagation. This is somewhat interesting as it would imply to me of maybe the bridge from prokaryote to eukaryote via different symbiotic relationships possibly, and this is why I would like to know how many relationships like this you have studied. I agree to a certain extent with the selfish gene theory, though I have not fully studied anywhere close to all the research that exists to support such, or the stuff that occurs weather I get it or not so to speak. I think it detracts from looking at the organism in total and in essence only favoring part of it over the rest in terms of explanation, such as maybe its selfish RNA.

The idea you propose is already being used in just a slightly different format. basically they have rows of a material the focuses the light on I think a pipe of some material containing a type of oil if memory serves. The concentrate light on the oil circulates the system and generates energy from solar energy. Its all a bit foggy but yes mirror type systems are in use in regards to alternative energy.

That’s neat but my point is simply that the argument using entropy by creationists is based on a fallacy, simply you have to ignore the fact the sun exists among other variables to make it true in any regard. Entropy in a system was proved to be able via entropy to work itself into systems, this has been proved by electrical engineers amongst other people. The founding for this argument was based on an old research project that reached a conclusion using a certain environment that in no way reflects the earth as a system or as you would have it part of the solar system. Yes, I think its called heat death or something, its one of the scenarios of how our universe might simply die out in relation to entropy. I have no idea if this will come true or not, but for relation to organic evolution here on earth, the argument is little more then a fallacy that shows the level of intelligence creationists hold, or simply the level of integrity they hold. As in remarks to your talking on entropy as it applies to reactions, well homeostasis, is it really a word for equilibrium, or am I generalizing such to much? I think the latter, but then again I am still thinking the cell came before the code, so what have you.

I don’t know if I got it right, just throwing some terms out there really as I see connections possibly. The reality to me is water is one of the prime erosion agents really, so having the polar ice caps as free water alone will mean change in that regard, let alone what having that mass removed as a position will mean for tectonic forces and plate movement, to weather patterns and so much more really. I think such a large scale change overall to the planet as a system could only really spell a serious change from many different angels, but change none the less. If it will make volcanoes, well I could not say with any certainty either way save again having that much frozen water or mass now changed will surely mean change on a global scale.

I think he means you cant dived the electron into more subatomic particles. The most "fundemental" particles I think share in that discription, though I could be wrong of course. Here is an example from wiki. "The neutron experiences the weak interaction through beta decay into a proton, electron and electron antineutrino. It experiences the gravitational force as does any energetic body; however, gravity is so weak that it may be neglected in most particle physics experiments. The most important force to neutrons is the strong interaction. This interaction is responsible for the binding of the neutron's three quarks (one up quark, two down quarks) into a single particle. The residual strong force is also responsible for the binding of nuclei: the nuclear force. The nuclear force plays the leading role when neutrons pass through matter. Unlike charged particles or photons, the neutron cannot lose energy by ionizing atoms. Rather, the neutron goes on its way unchecked until it makes a head-on collision with an atomic nucleus. For this reason, neutron radiation is extremely penetrating and dangerous." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"Isostasy is a term used in Geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the Earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. It is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Certain areas (such as the Himalayas) are not in isostatic equilibrium, which has forced researchers to identify other reasons to explain their topographic heights (in the case of the Himalaya, by proposing that their elevation is being "propped-up" by the force of the impacting Indian plate)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostatic "But it's not nearly that simple. We know that the weight of the glacier ice was so great that it depressed the crust of the earth. The earth's crust behaves as an elastic structure and glaciologists know that, once the ice reaches a certain thickness, it depresses the crust about a foot for every three feet of ice (ice is roughly one third as dense as crustal rock). Normally, this deformation takes the form of gentle flexing and unflexing of the earth's crust, although it can be accompanied by faulting and reactivation of large regional structures. Thus, when the glacier melts, the crust returns (rebounds) to the position it had been before the ice advanced over it. It may do this smoothly and gradually, or the rebound may happen in quick jumps, resulting in earthquakes as faults form. I've seen quite fresh appearing 20-meter-high fault scarps in Lapland, where deglaciation occurred relatively recently and rapid rebound is currently taking place, spasmodically, as earthquakes." http://www.nd.gov/ndgs/Rebound/Glacial%20Rebound.htm

Would the composition of matter determine the physical reality of phenomena that can occur in a giving system. Basically could a ball of iron for instance by itself become a star, or would a jet aircraft on earth be able to function the same on say Mars of Venus as a more basic example. To try to get even more basic a car most likely could not function if attempted to be used in a large body of liquid such as an ocean, but on more detailed levels such as the use of refraction for example used to gauge where boundaries or different substances may be in regards to our planets structure, does the make up of a system in regards to its matter have a large or minor impact overall in the physical phenomena that occurs in it? I think it has a huge impact, but going on what I know I cant say for any real certainty past a gut feeling, such as the idea of angular momentum in say a body of sulphur vs. a body of dihydrogen monoxide(dangerous stuff!) for instance. Basically I would say yes without a doubt, but I cant come up with overall with some definitive reason as to why, I looked on the net but I don’t think I can word it right. Thanks in advance.

Yes, but you cant just separate neurons into being exact copies of such specie to specie or for that matter neurons differ and work in conjunction with the rest of the organisms biology. Here for instance is an image of a such that is not human. http://tolweb.org/accessory/Cephalopod_Brain_Terminology?acc_id=1944 Here is some stuff on a human brain, just an overview. "Anatomically, the brain can be divided into three parts: the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;[3] the forebrain includes the several lobes of the cerebral cortex that control higher functions, while the mid- and hindbrain are more involved with unconscious, autonomic functions. During encephalization, human brain mass increased beyond that of other species relative to body mass. This process was especially pronounced in the neocortex, a section of the brain involved with language and consciousness. The neocortex accounts for about 76% of the mass of the human brain;[4] with a neocortex much larger than other animals, humans enjoy unique mental capacities despite having a neuroarchitecture similar to that of more primitive species. Basic systems that alert humans to stimuli, sense events in the environment, and maintain homeostasis are similar to those of basic vertebrates. Human consciousness is founded upon the extended capacity of the modern neocortex, as well as the greatly developed structures of the brain stem." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain Now I understand what you are saying, but even in blood cells you can find variation. In relation to intelligence you have to define some absolute of what intelligence is and then make that the hallmark by which all life is judged by. In reality to life though I don’t think such a straight forward measurement can be conducted that basically is simply not existing in some state of fallacy overall. I mean you can say we are more intelligent then any kind of an insect, and I would agree with you, but that does not speak very much on the reality at hand. For instance why would the octopus for example have such a different structure when it comes to the application of a nervous system in its biology, do you think on the neuron level this difference might become apparent in some regard, such as maybe size of a neuron or how things may be wired? I understand what you are saying about a caterpillar, but I think you are making mistake by simply subtracting the rest of the caterpillars biology in regards to simply looking at one aspect of its biology. Here is a link on the caterpillar and its uncomplicated biology as you would have it. "Two specific aspects of the caterpillar's movement are being examined in detail: first, the research is trying to understand how crawling is controlled by the central nervous system and how it interacts with peripheral structures such as muscles and cuticles. Second, the unique ability of caterpillars to climb using curved hooks at the tips of the abdominal prolegs is being examined. This gripping is passive but very strong (similar to Velcro hooks) and can be actively released. To examine these questions, Trimmer and his research team are using 3D kinematics, electromyography, hydraulic measurements, magnetic resonance imaging, 3D modeling and animation and biomaterials testing. Caterpillars provide a useful survival model: They do not escape predators by running but instead use camouflage, chemical defenses and cryptic behavior. As a result, their movement crawling has evolved into a highly specialized form of locomotion which allows soft-bodied animals to crumple, compress and rotate body parts into confined three-dimensional structures such as tubes and branches. Trimmer is working with Tufts colleagues across the University in physics, mathematics and mechanical engineering, and often employs undergraduate researchers as well. The majority of the knowledge about how humans move is based on research about creatures that walk, fly or swim using hard bones and exoskeletons (a hard outer structure that provides protection or support). By looking at soft bodied animals like the caterpillar, Trimmer can copy some of the unique ways in which they move. This summer, the team will begin to design a physics-based computerized simulation model of the locomotion, and it hopes to have an operating prototype ready next year. "We need to solve the artificial muscle problem first, currently there are no good soft actuators (motors) available," according to Trimmer. "Professor Trimmer is a trailblazer in the field of biosystems and neural processes," said Susan Ernst, a biologist and dean of the School of Arts & Sciences. "His work could help scientists and engineers around the world navigate complex and even dangerous situations." Trimmer who is from Leicestershire County, England, and has been at Tufts since 1990 has presented his work on the neural control of soft-bodied locomotion at several meetings over the past two years, including the British Biochemical Society, the East Coast Nerve Net meeting, the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, and the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology's annual meeting" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040514032954.htm