foodchain

That’s cool, I have heard that one done in a different light though, you are pretty much blown out in the start by the math really, being I picked number eight, then its on to statistics really or topography if I can get away with it, anyways its nice to know that I am in the majority.

Yes, but where is the published scientific works of those people showing that we are not in any way connected to environmental change in regards to global climate? Again where is the science that disproves say the IPCC collection of scientific literature on it? Why so many endorsements by scientific institutions? The science behind the global warming claim has been presented, what more can you do? If you don’t want to think its real, that’s your personal choice, but exactly what peer reviewed scientific block of data are you using to counteract the science behind global warming? I mean if you will take just the words of a scientist as gold, that’s fine, I want to see the work as produced via the scientific method and utterly peer reviewed, I have been to sties composed of scientific professional skeptical of global warming, they have very little research papers typically and the biggest body of such skeptics does not even have a paper past 1998 published really. If you look at temperature readings in the past up until today, you can see that it goes up, and it goes down, and then back up, and then back down, what you don’t see for a very long period of time, this is of course a time when organismal life existed, a constantly growing source of CO2, and possibly why, maybe because before industrialized human activity nothing was digging up all the fossil fuels on the earth and using them! Yes, and its true science in very basic lab experiments has produced consistent results that CO2 alone can trap heat or energy. "Are greenhouse gases increasing? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#Q1

I know its my problem and I don’t know if its other peoples problems as well but I will give it a shot. See on the skeptic side, well that side lacks the science. The global warming side has the science going for it. So when dealing with the skeptic side typically arguments are x occurred in our natural history which we did not cause so how can we be of impact now, I personally hate that argument for simply how do you really defeat it, you can show where people make large scale environmental impacts, but then the argument evolves into something about how people are so small in the scheme of things, again, all you can do is present what scientists that actually study global warming produce, I can say going from the data that human activity is increasing concentrations of a ghg which in turn will effect global climate, I mean its been posted numerous times. Then typically its called a religion then, and that people who support the global warming science are actually of some cult, which I don’t know how to defeat this idea save for the first time in recorded history of such polar bears are drowning. I mean in that aspect supporting any idea could then of course be called a religion. The sheer volume of respectable, established and well staffed scientific institutions that support the idea that human activity is impacting global climate is numerous and many. I personally am not an environmental scientist currently, I am working in such a direction though via higher education. All I can say from the vastness of scientific literature and research that supports global warming is just to much to simply rap up as some political stunt or a religion for that matter. I mean take evolution or gravity for instance, well supported, well documented with fact, in fact evolution has a literal mountain of scientific evidence to support it and of course you still have troves of people that denounce such as a lie or what not. You have to be able at some point in time be able to say that enough science is enough to begin to look at the issue. If global warming was realistically nothing but a false premise built around the knowledge that carbon dioxide can trap energy such would have come to light. Science does not make its way by producing fallacy and garbage as fact about the world around us. One thing about global warming that is surely contested is what it will lead to, I don’t know much in science anymore that is contending that human activity cannot impact the environment, or its climate on a global scale. On a last note as point out in an above post its not that the idea is met with resistance, even Darwin of course had to use mass amounts of what was available to support his infant theory of evolution, and how long did it take before it got acceptance really, and still is. You could say the same of germs, people did not buy into the idea such even existed. Science can bring to bear such in terms that is hard to debate, because its factual. With global warming science again has ponies up with a rather large and growing body of data collected via scientific professions with sound scientific practice a body of data that supports global warming. To refute such really has to be done in a scientific manner in which is fully explored or the reality is that the skeptics are doing really what they claim the people who do research on global warming are doing, which is simply making fallacy for some political point, or to start a religion.

Yes that’s nice but it still does not factor in the human activity variable. It simply does not. You can say oh we only contribute 10%, so what does that mean, 10% does not matter? Do you think possibly that this 10% is only going to grow? I mean how much a percent did we push 75 years ago? There still is nothing that can link the data about the spike in CO2 to anything else as far as I know, I would like to see something if it existed though. Even in places as far away from human influence as possible on earth the concentration of CO2 has grown. Another thing is what exactly changed in the environment to cause a growth in the levels of CO2? Is there more bacteria and plant matter around now, more volcanic activity? I mean with all the focus on the issue I would find it a bit odd to think that science would just make spurious claims for no reason save to destroy itself, why with all the science stating human activity is effecting global climate? Is it really just 10%? I also doubt that if we had so little impact that our activity would be visible period, which its not. People get some idea that human activity in no way can change the environment, at least not on a global scale, well simply looking at the earth a few hundred thousand years ago alone previous to our existence would deny this, and in the past couple hundred years would surely deny this. A volcanic explosion alone is enough to change environment for a period of time, let alone the idea of billions of people using hydrocarbons on a regular basis, a growing basis also. Simply think of the amount of toilet paper in a year you consume, now multiply that number simply by the population of America alone, that’s a lot of toilet paper required on a yearly basis, and its just toilet paper, not to account for anything else that typically takes in hydrocarbon based energy. It simply shocks me to think that people could say there is no possible way that human activity could impact the environment globally. Now past the philosophy issue of it all, what exactly do you have that can prove human activity is not in any shape or form impacting global climate? You gave me a scale that would coincide with what exactly, the emergence of life, or the emergence of certain metabolisms, such as plant matter which consumes CO2 and makes oxygen? I mean that graph proves what exactly in relation to global climate as something outside human influence? Its like this. CO2 = ghg. So we have human activity producing via the consumption of hydrocarbons CO2, but not just CO2,its only one of the ghgs our activity spawns. Now what do you think is going to occur as this level of CO2 alone is constantly rising in time, as already evidence in physical evidence acquired and open to viewing by just about any person on the planet? What about the rest of the ghgs we produce, why is the warming even possible to link with this, why is the CO2 concentration spike growing along with the industrial age? I mean I asked a question and you basically keep the same line that has no scientific argument to it but basically circumvents my entire question and stats that because something has happened outside of human influence that we cant be responsible for anything that does happen. Going from current models as visible at say the EPA or IPCC sites, the growth of our emissions combined with the impact the register such as the 33% growth in CO2 concentration following the industrial revolution is to grow possible to over 1000+ ppm eventually if we do not cease and desist, will this only be some minor thing still, some minor human contribution that cant possibly be responsible for anything to do with global warming, heck no, even while we claim that increasing the CO2 concentration alone by 33% cant possibly tie into any warming, no way, its only a persistent long living greenhouse gas after all. Lastly here is this. "Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other. With this in mind the road to understanding global warming and our present climate begins with an historical journey through a chapter in Earth's history, some 30 million years before dinosaurs appeared, known as the Carboniferous Period-- a time when terrestrial Earth was ruled by giant plants and insects, and glaciers waxed and waned over a huge southern continent." http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html "In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1939, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of both carbon dioxide and temperature had been rising, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. For related theoretical issues, see the essay on Simple Models of Climate. )" http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm " Introduction This page is based on a brief synopsis of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council's 2001 report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, as well as NCDC's own data resources. It was prepared by David Easterling and Tom Karl, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C. 28801. One of the most hotly debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) data centers are central to answering some of the most pressing global change questions that remain unresolved. The National Climatic Data Center contains the instrumental records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a up to a century. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCDC's armamentarium are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, balloons, satellites, and aircraft. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, the paleoclimatology program, also at the National Climatic Data Center, helps to provide longer term perspectives. Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers. The IPCC met in full session in 1990, 1995 and in 2001. They address issues such as the buildup of greenhouse gases, evidence, attribution, and prediction of climate change, impacts of climate change, and policy options. Listed below are a number of questions commonly addressed to climate scientists, and brief replies (based on IPCC reports and other research) in common, understandable language. This list will be periodically updated, as new scientific evidence comes to light. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate? The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are greenhouse gases increasing? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the climate warming? Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998. Linear trends can vary greatly depending on the period over which they are computed. Temperature trends in the lower troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) from 1979 to the present, the period for which Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data exist, are small and may be unrepresentative of longer term trends and trends closer to the surface. Furthermore, there are small unresolved differences between radiosonde and satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures, though both data sources show slight warming trends. If one calculates trends beginning with the commencement of radiosonde data in the 1950s, there is a slight greater warming in the record due to increases in the 1970s. There are statistical and physical reasons (e.g., short record lengths, the transient differential effects of volcanic activity and El Niño, and boundary layer effects) for expecting differences between recent trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures, but the exact causes for the differences are still under investigation (see National Research Council report "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change"). An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data. Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere. There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR), (the difference between high and low daily temperatures) over about 50% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. Cloud cover has increased in many of the areas with reduced diurnal temperature range. The overall positive trend for maximum daily temperature over the period of study (1950-93) is 0.1°C/decade, whereas the trend for daily minimum temperatures is 0.2°C/decade. This results in a negative trend in the DTR of -0.1°C/decade. Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacier length is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations, the records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher alititudes that weather stations allowing us more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere. Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade. Although this seems to correspond to a general increase in temperature over the same period, there are lots of quasi-cyclic atmospheric dynamics (for example the Arctic Oscillation) which may also influence the extent and thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic. Sea-ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1 Here is also a link that is a collection of various graphs to represent global warming. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide_Gallery

What I get confused on is something I hope someone can help me out with. Ok, so the environment in total is a complex system, that’s great and its rather easy to see right off the bat that such is complex without actually having to see why its complex. This however is where I get confused. So say at some point in the past we have somewhere on the planet a warming event, it gets a few degrees warmer in general over some generally localized place on the earth, what does this have to do with global climate change in context of human activity exactly? I mean we have punched wholes in the ozone layer, destroyed entire ecologies, made various species extinct and managed to produce acid rain right off the top of my head. The extent of human terraforming is not fully known but to say its of no impact on the environment is a bit disingenuous at best. So we know that CO2 for instance can act or does act as a greenhouse gas. Such in evident in reality, in the earths past and today. Its contained in the complex system of our environment in which it will reflect or express its presence by various means. Now, this is the crucial part. The environment before the industrial age did not have various industrialized societies dependent really on fossil fuel or hydrocarbon usage to sustain those societies, so at large we now have a new variable if you will at play in the complex system of our environment. This variable which produces CO2 previous to us doing such simply did not exist. So if we know that CO2 for instance plays a role in global climate, what is this new source, which is accelerating simply from the point of population growth and consumption, playing out in the environment exactly. Now we know the earth previous to us or industrial us has experienced climate change, after all who needs to bring up the point about an ice age. What I don’t understand is basically people taking the fact that climate has shifted previous to industrialized humans, which now means human activity cant be the culprit? That’s a bit of a "logical leap", if not a quantum leap really. I mean what’s the scientific arguments to support such, the climate has changed previously, that’s not saying much really. If we know that CO2 plays a role in global climate, is it far fetched to think a new variable relatively speaking in terms of natural history, producing a constant amount of greenhouse gases is going to be null in effect, what about action/reaction for instance? What is for sure is that for around 600,000 years plus the levels of CO2 for instance in regards to our complex environment have been roughly at an equilibrium. This change to such in natural indicators, such as an ice core sample, shows a growing spike in regards to concentration that coincides with the industrial age. Now talking about systems, what about a saturation effect? So human activity is producing now an accelerating and growing source of GHG's that previous to us doing such simply was not occurring, at least not according to data that has been collected, yet knowing that such elements play a role in global climate in regards to our environment is simply detached with the argument that warming has occurred in the past? I simply just get confused at that point because there is no real explanation as to why. Overall the ppm concentration of CO2 for instance has increased along the timeline of the industrial age by 33%, this amount is only projected to increase. What exactly is going to happen to our environment when the concentration hits 50% and higher. I also cant understand or find a point in data that can link the growth in CO2 to any particular source that would coincide with data that points to the spike of growth originating around the time humans became industrial.

That’s the umbrella company:D I don’t know how it would work, I would venture to say that we already do it pretty much. I mean going from the idea that America runs on capitalism and all.

wow, that’s really interesting. Do you have more links for it. I have read about tesla before, but not to any real great detail. I think he feared circles or doorknobs actually if memory serves. Anyways, is what you talk about something that could be related to pick up on say a guitar, I always wondered about matching waves and seeing what all occurs when working with waves. I always thought that waves or energy in general probably is one of the best ways to gain insight into atomic structure and function, but I don’t know a whole lot which dampers things a bit.

What if the clocks are not running slow, it just takes so long for the information to travel x distance.

I was just expecting initially for there to be a much larger variance of shapes to compare is all, when it keep repeating similar shapes I got confused briefly in relation to the instructions, though that could just be my error of course.

I gave it a go. I got a bit confused on the instructions for the first part, and during the second one I had to struggle a bit towards the 60% mark of the 40to keep my focus on it. The bird looking images sort of reminded me of chess pieces also. Have you tried such with just more basic shapes, such as triangles or circles?

That would be where the term evolution comes in. I could see in reality at some point the future barring extinctions of course the evolutionary psychology probably could study the evolution of depression for instance. Such as in social animals you can already see the negative treatment can bring about behavior or symptoms that you could paralleled with depression, it might even be found that depression might be something that occurs only in mammals, and in a certain path evolutionary speaking of mammal species. I think though that with the idea of it being psychology, that its going to study primarily basically the evolution of what would pertain to psychology, but that could be in part attributed to large issues such as role of diet for instance. I cant remember the guys first name, but his last name is pinkerton, or pinker I think. He is a neuroscientist that has some pretty strong theories going. Basically he hints on an internal language for the brain in relation to behavior that I think he started when studying the brains use of language. Basically decent with modification holds true, so that would speak of a great many things, including our behavior, such as why historically do people live in societies. Then again a lot of this would be hard to perfectly decide on why it exists. I mean humans learn right, so its not far fetched to think we are simply still dong a successful strategy that modern homo sapiens learned from our ancestors, more then the idea that we are “programmed” to live in societies in which language might have come from or come about overtime due to social living. You could look for more social related issues, such as shame or guilt, like why do those exist, but its complicated. The idea of a phobia has been shown to be learnable also. Humans have the most room to basically acquire data and make use of it, far more then say a zebrafish for example, which of course ultimately is reflective of biology. So overall its not going to be easy, and I think that’s where the use of the hard sciences will be crucial as to aid in what is organic in terms of behavior, example why do people act different when on drugs, and what is more of a product of that in play, such as football, or sports in general, politics or any various social institutions. Though one can see the importance that such knowledge could play if actually taken to a point in which it is empirical.

We interact with variables that would come into play with evolution on many levels constantly, this would just be another form of that. I always wondered simply what the impact of toothpaste has had on various organisms that make a persons mouth there home for instance. That aside, yes we have mapped the human genome, but I really doubt for that to have explained everything that should be in order to make genetic engineering a completely controlled reality, or in total I am all for research around genetics, but I cant really say I support application at this point because I would have to say I don’t think we know close to everything we should in order to do such safely. For instance stem cells, who knows how much knowledge that will bring to light as time goes on, which I am sure will tie into genetics or find application in such. Plus if you google the ACS for biochemistry papers you can find a constant or non stop source of new research that after browsing alone will reveal the reality of how much we know compared to how much we still don’t know for instance, the same could be said for molecular biology of course and the reality that we have not mapped out biology in regards to genetics fully or for that many species, I mean we have terms like "junk" DNA alive and well, which probably does not fit the reality of such overall. I think like nuclear power, genetics will become a more realized reality the farther we progress into the future, but currently again I would simply state I don’t think we know enough to apply such currently, I still of course fully support research, and genetics big break or main area of application in my opinion as of now should be used to combat various health problems, not to make designer people, could you imagine if it had some negative consequences? That would be rather horrible to say the least.

I think though that the word evolution gets drowned out by the word psychology though in the endeavor. I mean to think of evolutionary psychology that would mean studying the psychology of other living things besides human beings, which is a field of study called animal behavior and I think it can also be called Ethology. Which means at some place on the earth someone is probably studying the psychology of a mongoose, which I find all so neat or cool. So as in where did depression for instance start evolutionarily speaking? There might be some problems with this though for how far you go back. For instance with the part of our brain and related function gets the title of reptilian. I don’t know but I think it would be a bit complex and take a lot of dedicated people to apply evolution to psychology, I do think it holds the most promise though, but such was tried I think with sociobiology that probably only took a facet of what would be understood in evolutionary psychology and attempted to use it to explain far more then it could. Also evolutionary psychology would require a lot more interaction with the hard sciences, like biology or chemistry for instance, and I would imagine physics to, but neurophysics aside and all that stuff, evolutionary psychology really is in its infancy so to speak, and simply doing the psychological side of it alone without actually applying the evolution aspect is not going to help it. It would become far more powerful in regards to allowing people to understand though there relationship to the environment around them, so I do hope that field keeps getting many people that want to work in it.

Maybe some time of a slingshot with a button to release it? I would go with the crank idea also as you could basically just test different angles and how much to pull it back, seating of the egg and so on or what materials to use in it.

That made things seem more clear to me. What I wonder now is then can you apply time overall, say you have to different times such as in the twin paradox, but could you have a time that overlaps such? Moreover could you have a clock for say our galaxy, and then one for the solar system? If I understand correctly it all goes back to the concept of a frame or time being relative or even possibly local or purely dependent on the environment that it has influence on? Lastly, what if one twin was simply spinning at the speed of light, one foot away from the other twin, would this change the paradox at all, or does the paradox need in reality travel to occur?

Now there is some debate as to the role of mutation in evolution as just for fun I thought I would start this to see what replies might exist. Lets take an organism, single celled for instance. When the environment is made negative in regards to its fitness the bacteria can go into a hypermutable stage in which mutation allows via population for genetic change to increase the organisms level of fitness. Now I know that this has not been tested for all life or for all bacteria for instance. One of the reasons I think that we can label it hypermutable is simply because the bacteria may not have as much of a genetic load as say a human being for instance, that far less genetic material exists for bacteria then a human being. Now in general if you look at plants, the packaging of genetic material or simply the count of in relation to chromosomes is much finer then say for animals in general. One of the reasons I think this may occur is that a plant might be attuned if you will in relation to variables in the environment that can place stress on the plant in general. So overall my idea that I am trying to put forward here is relation to say a gene to the environment and basically how it relates in total via the physiology of the organism and its related behavior and how it plays out in the environment. This of course would detail that the environment in total is made visible basically by structure of an organism. Then mutations if you will play out via population genetics over a period of time in relation to adaptation basically to the environment, or environmental recognition in order to achieve fitness. I think then the more stable basically a population becomes in regards to a niche the less stress will be applied overall and thus evolution slows down. Now this could be looked at in a couple of ways, such as a high stress environment or a low stress environment could come off in different regards to biology of an organism. Such as with sea vent communities. The environment might be so acute, vs a more broad environment in which environmental variables are rather fuzzy for instance. Then of course this would also interrelate between species, in which a mutation has to be able to "click" in a great many regards to the rest of the biology to the organism, in which we can find a great many times that a mutation has the ability more often then not to be deleterious rather then helpful, but again all of such is based on either the biology of the life form staying stable enough to support required functions internally, which in itself applies to the environment greatly. So overall basically I am asking to look at the organism itself as an environment, and changes to that environment correlate to the surrounding environment, such as food, temperature, or a rocky mountain in which something might have to survive on. If you look at changes in that regard, accumulated via time within a population I think it could make some sense. I think this also could correlate in which a sexual reproduction barrier might come into effect, and such would basically be of course traceable if it exists at all. Basically take an organism, and its constantly flowing physiochemical reality in relation to the environment over population biology in regards to environmental fitness via mutation, but on a more molecular level, or cellular level even in how the biology of a life form itself interrelates over the total of the organism and its fitness or ability to survive a giving environment. I hope I can get some reply as this is an idea of mine I might want to work into a hypothesis someday as in relation to what I am doing in college. I have not used any real big words such as horizontal shift of genes from pro to eukaryotes or anything because simply at this point its not needed at all, and after all I am still very much a student that knows close to nothing, and in regards to this board data I could get from other people could save me a lot fo time, such as if I am looking at a dead end but just cant see it yet;)

I know but I think you have me confused. I am not saying time is this or that, I am trying to ask a question on what time is, and I guess from what you are saying that its general relative to whom you are asking. I think its important that we can correctly define the physical world around us also.

Could that at all be attributed to instrumentation used? I know the variety of things used to gauge time can vary greatly is all and well I have had to replace more then one such device already in my lifetime.

I am not trying per say to attempt to say time is something, I am more or less asking a question and attempting to at this point learn even how to ask the question:D I can understand time I think as used as nothing more then a measurement, but a measurement of what exactly? So for a completely controlled chemical reaction, it will take x time for the reaction to take place, though I don’t know if time for the reaction is absolute down to say a billionth of a second every time around, but the reaction occurs over a certain period of "time" in general. So conservation laws aside as I don’t know how to apply them really to what I am asking about, is time merely a measurement of physical activity then, such as a meter or a second, or how many seconds a slug takes to move a meter in distance for instance, or is time again some tangible entity, like an atom or a photon?

I sort of understand. I have not spent a lot of time studying physics per say, but I am now so I will not be as educated in it as I would like for the sake of communication. Ok, an atom is real, its physical. The name if you will could change, or the human thought about the atom can be changed, but the atom itself is simply just that, its a physical reality or it exists. I think the same could be said of energy, like a photon, human thought about what it is could indeed change, but the photon itself, for its physical reality is simply just that, whatever the absolute fact of either matter or energy is aside, they are existing physically. So is time the same?

So does that mean time is relative or time is not a constant? I mean we can judge how far light will travel, so it does exist in time right? I am greatly confused now:D I mean a lot can happen in the passing of a second, but one that that did occur was the second past right? Independent of whatever occurred.

Basically we have energy and matter. Such is physical, I was wondering if time gets that same label and where does it fit in, or if time is a product of energy and matter interacting. Either way I was looking for peoples thoughts on the matter, or facts, whichever is fine.

Yes, it would be a great benefit to understand a persons thought process but to simply use fact as the basis of an argument is not something that I would say any of the groups typically aiming to falsify evolution via attacking Darwin stick to, so what does that say? Yes but no proof exists for that. Its a matter of opinion, and I am sorry there is nothing scientific about that. As for labels what’s to stop a person from saying Satan is the one behind evolution? IT would not work out in the arguments and not because of fact but it does not fit into the currently accepted patterns of subjective thought on the issue that in no way can you study via the scientific method in any way. It all goes back to the FSM, not to be rude but it does. You could have also called it reductionism I think. The point I am trying to make is science is a framework built to attempt to gain fact about the world around us. Doing chemistry in itself is not an endeavor you would take on in a philosophy class. Of course philosophy lead to science but the main point of what I am trying to get at is science really is just a method. It was not devised to be any particular human label such as saying science is religious is about as phony as saying science is atheist or science really works to further the agenda of Chuck Norris. Save for intelligent falling. I also don’t remember the bible explaining gravity, though I think if such exists it would help out the field of physics a lot and of course every other scientific discipline. Again its a subjective perceptual issue that decides what science is bad or good in relation to religion. I agree, but it leads me to feel sorry for atheists. That’s not my point. My post is that for people in general to simply denounce evolution is basically claiming a great deal of science to be a conspiracy. Its one of the points I try to use against other arguments, in that for evolution to be false all of science that deals with it would have to be not only ignoring the scientific method but be working on some vast conspiracy, to me if you can believe that I have an ocean to sell you but that is a rude remark. Yes, but it takes a human mind to say evolution is atheism. To me evolution is simply a fact about the world around us, you cant go in any direction past that fact in terms of fact without studying such for fact, so in essence to say its(evolution) atheism is really to say anything you want, because there is no difference to me. You cant prove that evolution is anything more then that really, to say so is a matter of opinion that is relative to the person. To attempt to go the other way is to take what is subjective and move it into the realm of being objective. I agree.

Being not an expert I am just a bit confused as to what you are asking? As far as I know save for various experiments that aim to slow down light or for what that means may not apply aside, light travels at the speed of light or its a constant? As for your math and your words or logic, do you mean to apply maybe variables of say what effects behavior of the galaxy in total into the equation for the speed of light, or maybe just the earth, or possibly room temperature and chemical composition? I would simply that that such math would be a huge equation and really we cant plug in all the variables that you might want? I think the best way you could attempt to judge that would be simply something that collects light as it comes into the earth, and then outside of the earth, and basically check if the light is constant in speed, you could slow down or speed up a satellite to check this also, and the same could be done on the ground. You could even apply a monitoring device for such on the moon and have it change as to see impacts it has. Overall if I understand it correctly you are looking to see if the speed of light is relative or a product of the environment it may come from, or interact with maybe? I always looked at light or characteristics of it as a tool to gauge other physical phenomena with, or at least that’s what I get from it. Thats if I am even close to understanding what you are talking about of course:D

But not just any type of alien, no sir, these were the microscopic kind.