foodchain

The cultural primitive could be viewed in a different light looking at organ function and structure of say the brain of a human being totally the product of his or her life span in relation to the environment but such is simply not true. Yes many things happen to have cells that would be say brain cells, but that does not mean we can teach a ferret to play football or sing opera. Also this basically ignores even why a brain of a human for instance like so many other aspects of biology even has to have difference, I mean why does a human brain have different areas with different function? I mean this intrinsic variation exists in many species the same as some species having claws and us having I guess finger nails or what not. Then also why can brain damage cause specific medical conditions overall, such as a tumor on the pituitary gland for instance. I mean our closest living ancestors have a very similar biology which is also evident in the fact that we share around 2% genetic variation from them, which I think this number is now less then 2% from study or floats around 1.7% anymore. The problem as I see it is why then cant an chimp go an get a job as a ceo the same as a person, because it has dumb neurons and our exactly copies of such neurons are just some how different? I mean you state that a human could take the place of an octopus for instance in regards to its physiology with our brain, and even if we could do that for instance, this still does not denote that how the human managed to muster controlling eight feet for instance at once means that it would be the same as how the octopus would do such. I mean we can teach some other organisms to do basic arithmetic and even communicate, but it does not mean they are doing it in a human fashion.

Yes, but its that organ or those cells and type in conjunction collectedly with the overall biology of a specie I think that we are talking about anymore, or at least I am. The human reality is far more based on sight rather then smell, we don’t have movies of smell sensations for instance. The biology of organism is definitive of that organisms reality overall, or a bear is a bear, and, a zebra is a zebra and, a rock is a rock or something. TO equate intelligence in a compare and contrast to human beings is basically then attempting to ignore this. A bears brain is different from a humans, for instance its far more adapted to use smell then sight, along with who knows how many other variations that we do not have, and the bear does not have in comparison to us. To look at an image of a bears brain, say a brown bear in say the pacific northwest of America, you can see this as the areas of the brain that deal with smell are quite massive. A polar bear for instance if memory serves can detect and work with smells from an excess of 20 miles. So really its an interesting area to study evolution I think, but that’s besides the point.

Yes, but then you have to understand the evolution of the specie as to why this is the current form and function really. I mean when you say that our brain or really the function that organ does in our biology took the role of say these other senses you basically state that evolution knew or something that humans would make it and build rocket ships or something. Second, a bears sense of smell, and its power equate into its brain and its brains function. So for our thinking process, which is much more bent on say sight, then smell, who knows how we would think for instance if smell was giving more "power" for instance or place then sight. Basically if evolution knew that a big brain was the only way to go, it would state some preexisting condition and mechanism overall. Second, one way to view intelligence may simply be natural selection in some regard.

Its not really politically correct as its just realistic actually. A grizzly for example has a sense of small far greater then anything a human could ever hope to obtain, or more to the point its biology is suited or attempting to survive basically, and likewise it will have a certain behavior, the same is of cats for example. If you watch say a documentary on big cats like a puma, you can see behavior that mirrors in many ways that of a typical house cat. More to the point humans are human because of our biology, and another organism shares in being a product of its biology. To gauge intelligence basically needs then to be applied to this aspect. Studying animal behavior on its own in regards to many different things leads to a gross amount of complexities that still exist to this day, so would you say humans might be dumb because we have not cracked why a lion will do something, or why a hippo may nurse a wounded animal from a predatory attack?

In reply to insane_alien. I agree. Specialization is probably not only a more correct way to go, humanly, its probably the only way to go. My problem is this, I think chemistry is very neat without a doubt. Looking at a plant to say just going to the beach the ability to study such from a chemical perspective would be simply awesome. See, I just want to know where it ends per say. Like if I wanted to experiment with a dynamo, using material that was an anion, to neutral to see if any difference existed, is that something chemistry as a field actually ever does? Would that constitute study of the physical properties of matter? To looking at the evolution of a proton pump in organisms, to actually studying the subatomic structure and function of the atom, which is prize in my thoughts. Does chemistry in the real world actually do any of that stuff, or does it basically map out reaction mechanisms overall of matter in various environments? In reply to jackson33. I think education position at a university would be a prime spot to hold, more so because of research possibilities still be very much open to a person. Though career wise I am heading towards environmental protection, and such an interdisciplinary field is probably why I am so confused as to the relation of the natural sciences and wanting to know if any single one of those is really broad enough to study just about everything. I mean looking at the atmosphere, or the biosphere, you cant really say the two are ultimately separate in reality. I mean I think I could just study environmental science, but in its own right such a field really is an endeavor only in many regards to understand the impact of human interaction on the environment, it would be nice if such a field really was the study of the totality of circumstances surrounding an organism in a much more detailed level, such as from the quantum to the galactic.

why would you catch heat for saying politicians are less then honest possibly? Politicians can say a whole array of things, then get elected and basically do whatever they want for the most part. Some posters above have it right though, you might as well being saying I don’t believe in gravity, on that note though its not personal beliefs that bother me, its just the fact that for the past eight years republicans in general because of ties to say the evangelicals for instance in America have been using the government as a means to ruin evolution by basically restricting it in public education and of course these same people have been active in pushing 'ID'iot ideas in public education even though you cant get anything close to being scientific with such, but teach it as science anyways. Believe anything you want, but using the government to make sure everyone believes creationism is another thing, science curriculum in public education teaches evolution because its accepted scientifically as real. I mean if you happen to follow the flat earth idea, should public education avoid producing anything contrary to such a notion?

In decision making. Basically I just would like to ask a simple question. If you wanted to be able to study basically anything or everything or have that option open to you for instance, from studying say bacteria to the formation of a galaxy to the behavior of an electron in the atmosphere of Mars, what would be the best field of science to do this in? I have a little less then a year before I have to make a choice basically in education on what I would like to do, every time I think about it I can never reduce such to an answer that I can live with really. I cant find any comfort in basically putting blinders on for the most part and only studying a certain subject, as I basically see most everything in reality as connected one way or another. So I want to be able to get some education that would allow for me to be able to study basically anything having to do with nature/reality as in natural sciences. I already have a firm idea of where I am going to go as in terms of a career, but I plan to continue education and research, experimentation stuff on the side for personal satisfaction. So overall if anybody would like to chime in, what is the natural science that most allows an individual the freedom really to get scientific with nature overall, regardless of form again, such as being able to study volcanism if desired or the behavior of parasites, or does such a field simply not exist? Thanks in advance.

well its a sound analogy really just that I don’t understand then why differentiation would take hold overall in regards to say rings around a planet for instance. Such as the orientation they take can be different or not always planar, though I don’t know if this a fringe of a solar system effect, or if the effect of gravity on spacetime will simply vary in each situation it comes to bear in.

Right, but then everything should always go planar in regards to geometry then right? IN space or elsewhere, or am I getting something wrong?

Its these same people that push the bible to be taught in public education and attempt to abolish the teaching of evolution or anything making the world past 2000 years old or whatever, so its like that ignorance they hold can come to harm a great deal, and bush jr. being a fine example of this.

Then use of entropy by creationists to denounce evolution is based on a fallacy. First of all if the earth had no energy period, I doubt for anything such as geological processes to exist. Second, most life on the surface is based on the sun, which is a constant input of energy, energy that exists it was allows for hurricanes to come about. Basically its a very ignorant argument if you even take two seconds to step outside, or notice that sun block needs to be sold or the fact solar/wind power is an option. Overall it simply is a daft argument really in the face of reality, for taking it seriously basically states that the reality we live in simply cannot exist really, or for instance there could never be a warm or hot day, or that the universe I guess or earth for that matter should have become a Bose-Einstein condensate a long time ago. Though I guess mind over matter could save you from a tornado or something:rolleyes: Energy is also able to work in a system, this is a basic cornerstone of study in physics, the reality that energy can work in a system that is, much like the forces involved in volcanism.

Did the title work in getting attraction? Anyways, does anyone know any good links of such or thoughts to share on the subject. I personally find it ripe with possibility for studying evolution really. I am not speaking particularly of neoteny studied at a molecular level in regards to the specie but the molecular basis of life itself studied from such a neoteny perspective, such as studying the evolution of a particular chemical structure or function in an organism:confused: I think:D I don’t know if you can separate the two easily. Much thanks in advance.

would that mean falling is a different type of motion then also?

Is this the same reason for the reasons behind filling in electrons into orbitals? Such as if you had to model a configuration of titanium you would have to fill the orbitals using the pauli exclusion principal right, and from what you said above, is that the reason you fill the orbitals in such a fashion?

I was surprised to learn that surface area has such an importance overall in regards to temperature regulation, this is also important I think in relation to organisms closer to the ground then those that can get some elevation away from it, even if its not the entire body. There is speculation that some of our "ancestors", which were giants, may have failed in Africa eventually because of size in relation to temperature regulation.

Nuclear fusion right? "Fusion power refers to power generated by nuclear fusion reactions. In this kind of reaction, two light atomic nuclei fuse together to form a heavier nucleus and release energy. In a more general sense, the term can also refer to the production of net useable power from a fusion source, similar to the usage of the term "steam power." Most design studies for fusion power plants involve using the fusion reactions to create heat, which is then used to operate a steam turbine, similar to most coal-fired power stations as well as fission-driven nuclear power stations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power I mean if you and I happen to be talking about different things, then I guess I am the one that made that mistake, so I guess sorry then.

You can have your talk with the person you would like to talk with but I would just like to point some things out. First of all, if you are going to attempt to undermine the current understanding of natural history using the bible, well that’s little more then a losing proposition. This is the problem as I see it with such an argument. You cant find a natural science that will support anything the bible has to say in regards to the bibles interpretation of natural history, take any field you would like and it contradicts the bible. Second, evolution is not a misinterpretation, and anyone selling you that is on some really powerful drugs. You would basically at that point state that everything in biology and its impacts on science in general in regards to other fields that come into contact with evolution like medical science for example is doing little more then perpetuating a farce based on a misinterpretation. That’s quite a stance to take and I don’t know how you could support it, or really even support the notion of looking at life specie by specie to disprove evolution in any regard of the word, its that same process basically from a molecular to ecological scale that proves evolution from untold amounts or really mountains of data that support evolution. Lastly think about what you are saying, if for instance that you accept evolution, and accept from the stance of a creator what does that say, semi-intelligent design? Design by boredom? Lastly what is the grounds for the reason to want to disprove evolution, is it to support your religion, your faith, or is it because you cant understand evolution, or does evolution seem to complex to be something that came about naturally, though of course on that last one you wont see some giant debate to disprove the naturally occurring rock, like its really any less complex in all reality. Personally most the time I think it comes from the idea that people don’t want to think of themselves as living like other living things, but something far above that, because you know our world is so drastically different then anything else alive if you get right down to it! So what is it really, why do you need to disprove evolution really? That’s what I would like to know very much.

where did conservation laws go in all of this. The return on anything nuclear is still minimal overall also, and the byproducts of anything nuclear on a massive or growing scale currently have no real programs or acceptable means in which to deal with the byproduct of nuclear/toxic waste. Hanford Washington is a perfect example of this, and moreover they basically look for areas currently less then inhabited by people in which to basically dump or bury such stuff. The reality to me is people will continue to breed, consume and be human until the environment buckles. This is already evident on the planet and I am sure has a heavy hand in issues that lead and will lead to warfare. Its not another issue of planet of the apes, being that we can decide to possibly move away from such, but even on a hydrogen economy, getting the planet to having a person for every square ten feet of habitable land is going to lead to nothing but utter extinction on a massive scale, if we can even push out that far. As extinction of other life continues on, such is going to hold an impact as much as changing weather patterns are going to. The reality of this as I see it is nothing but an effect that humanity will experience for the simple reality that we happen to exist on the earth also. Such as what happens when a massive frost destroys a large amount of crops, or there happens to exist a drought, or the population of a certain insect is allowed to bloom to high extremes. Ecologically speaking action and reaction have not ceased because we have tools, nor has natural selection really. The funny part is aside from the illusion of grandeur posed by modern television for instance, all it takes is a few inches of rain to shut a massive city down. I would also like to point out, past probability models based on prior knowledge, extinctions will most likely lead to situations we currently cannot fully grasp until we get there. The dodo may have not been the real pain yet to be felt by making other life extinct.

I would not say you are overreacting, just probably showing either that you don’t pay much attention to American politics, which is a good thing in some regards, or your position really on the issue, which is also fine. Politics for what its worth is a back and fourth tuggle war, such as the conservative parties will say don’t do anything about guns, its against the constitution, but that same party will be quick to involve religion in government and fund it with millions of tax dollars, which of course I am sure has absolutely nothing to do with the separation clause right? Its a bloody partisan battle, and of course all the respective politicians know what’s best for everybody, that’s why America is constantly in a state of utopia, its just that no one notices it. My personal stance is I find it all rather silly, the topic that is or what its about. I mean even if you pull it out of textbooks, are you going to make having moms and dads in public illegal, so for the idea of influencing thought that way seems a bit silly, the only positive benefit about it is making something public, like public education, more fitting of maybe the American public, which includes although at a contested level, a population of homosexuals. The funny thing I find about this is various politicians in America, typically in the right wing, would or have passed ideas on about camps in which homosexuals could be put in to make them “normal”, then of course this party will talk about minimal government intrusion into private life, I think adults deciding what other adults they would like to have a relationship with as something rather private, but then again I am not an all knowing politician.

*I would just like to add to support your words. Its not only this, but looking at ecology you can find life adapted to almost every niche on the planet currently. I would suspect or even go as far to predict that introduction of life to a alien ecology would have something to do with making evolution more visible in shorter spans of time, which is something that occurs. For the most part though life has occupied just about every place you can go as a human being. Evolution is not a rapid process, more so if you compare it to say a human lifetime. Billions of years, or even a hundred thousand years, is simply hard to envision. Fast forwarding this time amount would allow you to view the formations of mountains to many things a human being or even a collective few thousands years of time will be hard pressed to really have occur for the most part. Lastly, studies on microbes to gauge evolution as in species basically attempting to adapt to overcome has shown that for a population of such as a constant, the amount of mutants you will get and the amount of mutants that will persist, or even populations for that matter will vary every cycle, so its not an exact rigid or perfect algorithm really, evolution can fail to achieve fitness. Lastly, evolution is a word that refers to a whole lot. you can study such from a molecular level up to a population level, ecology level, and everything in-between that is present in living systems. All of these angles have been and are continually studied and for what’s its worth all they do is lend evidence to support organic evolution, biopoiesis is its own entity, which is studied and so far ground is being made in that arena, but the simple reality is the formation of rock even in the planets geology currently escapes the human ability to recreate it currently. Its just like the past though and that at one point western culture thought of the world flat and the center of the universe, so its something we kind of have to learn by using a rigorous methodology of science.

I am going to say yes, just not for a rather long time though. I think in regards if people fully knew what they were doing with genetics, programming say a specific structure and the related systems and engineering specifics could be met. Such as genes can allow for the expression of so much currently, but evolution has not ever derived at some point the ability to save lemmings for instance when they fall. I personally wonder about the application for say ships in space, or spaceships really, though that could be nothing more then a cool science fiction story already portrayed.

I understand where you are going with the argument, and what I have to say is that hybrid technology really has no had a solid push for development up until now. Some car companies sell hybrids that push 19mpg, which is a joke compared to the prius with over 50mpg typically. The technology will increase only on regular demand of such a product though. If cars in general only used fractions of what modern day cars used in regards to fossil fuels it would be a large plus for the environment really from the perspective of CO2 really. I think a common ground really needs to be made with the people and the environment, showing that a healthy and fit lifestyle that is available today can also be available with green technology would be nice.

chemotaxis and chemotrophy are also good subjects to read on. I am greatly interested in such also as the chemistry of living systems is really stunning to learn about. "Although migration of cells was detected from the early days of the development of microscopy (Leeuwenhoek), erudite description of chemotaxis was first made by T.W. Engelmann (1881) and W.F. Pfeffer (1884) in bacteria and H.S. Jennings (1906) in ciliates. The Nobel prize winner E. Metchnikoff also contributed to the study of the field with investigations of the process as an initial step of phagocytosis. The significance of chemotaxis in biology and clinical pathology was widely accepted in the 1930s. The most fundamental definitions belonging to the phenomenon were also drafted by this time. The most important aspects in quality control of chemotaxis assays were described by H. Harris in the 1950s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the revolution of modern cell biology and biochemistry provided a series of novel techniques which became available to investigate the migratory responder cells and subcellular fractions responsible for chemotactic activity. The pioneering works of J. Adler represented a significant turning point in understanding the whole process of intracellular signal transduction of bacteria.[1] On November 3, 2006, Dr. Dennis Bray of University of Cambridge was awarded the Microsoft European Science Award for his work on chemotaxis on E. coli. [2][3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis "Chicken soup has long been regarded as a remedy for symptomatic upper respiratory tract infections. As it is likely that the clinical similarity of the diverse infectious processes that can result in "colds" is due to a shared inflammatory response, an effect of chicken soup in mitigating inflammation could account for its attested benefits. To evaluate this, a traditional chicken soup was tested for its ability to inhibit neutrophil migration using the standard Boyden blindwell chemotaxis chamber assay with zymosan-activated serum and fMet-Leu-Phe as chemoattractants. Chicken soup significantly inhibited neutrophil migration and did so in a concentration-dependent manner. The activity was present in a nonparticulate component of the chicken soup. All of the vegetables present in the soup and the chicken individually had inhibitory activity, although only the chicken lacked cytotoxic activity. Interestingly, the complete soup also lacked cytotoxic activity. Commercial soups varied greatly in their inhibitory activity. The present study, therefore, suggests that chicken soup may contain a number of substances with beneficial medicinal activity. A mild anti-inflammatory effect could be one mechanism by which the soup could result in the mitigation of symptomatic upper respiratory tract infections." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11035691

There is a lot people can do. Personally if the only car available on the market was the Toyota Prius things would start to look up. Now most people will say that’s bad, and I agree at some point with that argument. The problem being I don’t know what economies will look like if natural happens to collapse on us. Such as if Americans for instance had to take the role of what everything nature currently does for us, I don’t think it would be a very pretty picture, but again that’s a point not brought up very much in debates like this. There is a lot of "green" technology on the market, its getting such technology to be the norm that’s happens to be the real obstacle in my opinion. The funny part is such technology could offer the same standard of life in time, such as the evolution of the gas powered engine for instance, and I would but the shift in better technology would be many more time rapid due to current infrastructure, but the reality is our current infrastructure and that of many nations happens to be build on fossil fuel.

People ignored so much or simply committed actions in ignorance and now we are basically attempting to play catch up with action/reaction really. I try to envision basically a system, the earth for instance, in real time down to tiny increments of time to very long increments of time all entangled in interaction leading to the system of earth. Humans popped on the horizon and in time became a variable that has sway on the system, yet for what its worth people really don’t understand at any factual or fundamental level the total reality of it all. I am sure if we persist at some point environment issues will arise in the solar system and transporting matter will change orbits or what not and of course you will have planet hugger being a word juxtaposed with tree hugger even while basically its just an attempt to derail very bad things from taking place, business tends to speak louder which probably has a very human reason, then again I am sure some medieval warming period fallacy again will probably come into play on some level. Now we have all sorts of information about what’s occurring on the planet and in conflict with it is typically groups that simply happen to be scared of losing position in the economy because of required change, and even going so far as to saying massive environmental change will be of benefit to life in general, as if that has held true in the past at some point that did not involve massive extinctions, which of course wont effect people at all because we happen to be magical unicorns separated from reality or nature.