Mr Skeptic

Does defrosting a frozen cell count?

I doubt that the rubber dust is good for the environment, but the degree of harm that it might have is more important than whether it is harmful or not. In any case, we don't want rubber dust because it means the tires are wearing out and will need replacing. So it is only natural that we will use more and more resilient materials to build the tires. An example is the tires with tiny diamonds in them.

Yes, I was looking for those too. As was John Cuthber. Best we found was numbers for the top ten breeds, and I didn't post it cause he already did. It seems that there should be something at the American Kennel Club. But its statistics are for breed popularity rankings, and doesn't seem to include pit bulls?

Somehow I thought the second post was the first :doh: http://inchinapinch.com/hab_pgs/marine/mangrove/animals.htm "An enormous variety of wildlife is found in Mangrove swamps. Some organisms live attached to the trunks and lower branches of the mangroves. Others live up in the top branches and others live within or above the muddy sediment between the trees. Animals from both the marine and terrestrial environments can be found in the mangroves." No particularly special adaptations required for the environments, as they occur elsewhere as well. If you know the environments of the creatures, you can guess at the adaptations they would need. Notably, the environment people are suited for (dry land) is absent. A human in a mangrove swamp would make very slow progress, and you could put monsters in the tree tops or underwater to make things even more interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove#Ecology "Mangroves support unique ecosystems, especially on their intricate root systems. The mesh of mangrove roots produces a quiet marine region for many young organisms. In areas where roots are permanently submerged, they may host a wide variety of organisms, including algae, barnacles, oysters, sponges, and bryozoans, which all require a hard substratum for anchoring while they filter feed. Shrimps and mud lobsters use the muddy bottom as their home[9]. Mangrove crabs improve the nutritional quality of the mangal muds for other bottom feeders by mulching the mangrove leaves. [10] In at least some cases, export of carbon fixed in mangroves is important in coastal food webs. The habitats also host several commercially important species of fish and crustaceans. In Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and India, mangrove plantations are grown in coastal regions for the benefits they provide to coastal fisheries and other uses. Despite replanting programs, over half of the world's mangroves have been lost in recent times."

I too have heard about the metabolism/lifespan relationship. I believe that it is also related to the life extension technique of caloric restriction. Caloric restriction however may have a large effect only on animals with short lifespans; it may be a failsafe to ensure survival through a famine.

That kind of infection rate could destroy our advanced civilization (if it cut down life spans so much that its not worth finishing college). Or it would drastically speed up the search for a cure for HIV (actually well before such an epidemic). Or, we might see the delta 32 mutation become near universal very rapidly.

This website has dog attacks (only for dogs of clearly identified breed by a professional) for the US and Canada 1982-2006, excluding dogs trained to attack or guard. Interesting how the number for pit bull terriers compares to that of other pit bulls, and that for rottweilers to rottweiler mixes, to any other dog. dog attacks by breed

I don't see how science can be undermined or abused. Are some scientists falsifying data? Are some scientists using bad methodologies? Even such fundamental problems are eventually found out. Science is not a good tool for lying to people, by its very nature. But you know what is the perfect tool for manipulating people? The media. Whoever controls the media gets the lion's share of people to believe stuff, even if it isn't true. Perhaps it is time to get some news sources that are run by scientists. That would be difficult and scary. They'd have to be incredibly unbiased and intelligent. And putting that kind of power into the hands of a few people would make it that much easier for it to be corrupted by politicians. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a kind of internet opinion poll that you need documented proof of your scientific knowledge to be able to vote or comment in. That would be interesting, and non-binding (aka safe), and would have a large number of people. Corrupt politicians? Never! However, I doubt that there is much that can be done to remove corruption from politics. One of my teachers suggested that a few decapitations would drastically reduce corruption. But really what we need is for people to care. If some politician is shown to be corrupt, they should be yanked out of office. But people just don't care.

Hey, it only took me about 15 years to switch sides. Though to be fair, I was a kid part of that time. I'm an odd one. I grew up without a TV so I did a lot of reading, and when I ran out of books I started reading the encyclopedia, which is when I first started on this. My mom told me to read the bible for myself rather than accept the beliefs of any particular branch of Christianity, so it wasn't like I accepted spoon-feeding. In my teen years, I was reading from the AnswersInGenesis website, which which seemed like the most scientific from the bible side. Also I'm one of the people who love science. And I just finished/am taking 3 college biology courses. Despite all this, it was difficult to change such an important idea as to whether god exists or not. What finally convinced me is genetics, which I understand exactly how it can be analysed, without bias. Also that is at the core of evolution, much moreso than changes in anatomic structure, and where you might expect god to have put (copyright Yahweh, 5000 BC) or any other evidence of purposeful design. Instead, its a mishmash of random-looking changes. If life was designed, the only way it could have been done is with an evolutionary algorithm, but that would be an empty hypothesis. Did I mention it is hard to change such a fundamental idea as to whether god exists or not? But it can be done

It is theoretically possible to have an indefinite lifespan. But completely immortal, no. Especially if the universe will heat death or be destroyed. And you could be physically destroyed anyhow. But I do believe that we have a chance to cure aging, and maybe even extend lifespans long enough for some of us alive now to live to see it. With genetic engineering and our current rate of scientific progress, who knows what may happen. However, it is a long shot that a cure for aging will be discovered in our lifetime.

Isn't its expansion canceled by gravity?

Anything that you can gather data on can be studied in a scientific manner.

People have been trying to find a pattern to the primes ever since they were discovered thousands of years ago... but good luck, you'll need it. If you can find an easy pattern, or show that no easy pattern exists, you'll be very famous.

Well, at one point ID was a logical argument on equal footing evidence-wise with evolution. But that is long past, especially now that we can read DNA. The only way ID could still be viable now is if the intelligence used an evolutionary algorithm for their designing Not that any ID proponents that I know treat it in a scientific manner. Especially the ones that know the name and schedule of the designer. Perhaps because religion has a huge impact in one's life, society's morality, politics, history, etc, and one religion in particular usually will dominate in a country? But the teaching would have to be more of a historical, current events/debates, etc rather than a fire&brimstone sermon.

There may also be an effect due to pH. Sparkling water is full of carbonic acid, so you should use a weak acid as a control rather than water if you don't want pH to have an effect, or a substance not affected by pH. The surface area explanation is also a good one.

Why would you expect to be conscious of a decision the instant that your subconscious makes it? It would be impossible for you to be conscious of all your thought processes, as that would require an infinite recursion. So the vast majority of your thought is unconscious. Since it takes time for information to travel along the brain, it is possible to figure out the choice you made before you are aware of making it (because electric signals travel faster than brain signals). However, interpreting the data from your brain is complicated so they typically need to have some sample data to match your brain waves with your answer.

Probably a side reaction with water?

I looked up arachidonic acid, which should have been your first step when someone tells you it is a dangerous thing. So we must have the ability to make our own since we are not obligate carnivores. However, as an essential fatty acid we need it, either we make our own or we eat some.

Well, then you might want to check out bacteria. They have little bits of DNA separate from their "main" DNA, and can even exchange it with each other. Very little. We are a colony of cells, as are every multicellular creature, but the cells are genetically identical. The mother's egg contains mitochondria, which are passed on to the mother's offspring. The sperm's mitochondria does not enter the egg. So all your mitochondria came from your mother, who got it from her mother, etc.

Yes and no. While data may be enough to falsify a theory, there is no reason to drop a decent if incorrect theory unless there is a better theory to replace it. Old theories may be kept alive by making exceptions or restricting where they apply, or they can simply be modified into a new if similar theory. For example we currently hold two contradictory theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Though they contradict each other as to whether gravity is due to warping of spacetime or gravitons, we keep both theories because they are useful. Though Newtonian mechanics has not only been shown to be false, but has been replaced by more accurate theories (relativity, and quantum mechanics), we still keep it because it is accurate enough given certain restrictions, and much simpler. --- I suspect that the major reason that people are reluctant to talk about challenging evolution is because that theory is under heavy siege from non-scientific circles. Unless their words are watched carefully, they might find that something they said gets yanked out of context in some creationist literature or newspaper, and ruins their reputation.

That would be the theory of evolution. You see, each time that they find a better explanation for a certain aspect of the theory, they change the theory but keep the name. Unless it is a ginormous or controversial change, then they would change the name too. There have been a few such suggestions such as "punctuated equilibria" dunno what became of that. In any case, the theory of evolution has been replaced by the theory of evolution (new and improved) a rather large number of times.

All scientific theories are by definition falsifiable. They can always be challenged, but only by a better theory.

With the popularity of FPS, I don't think so. Um, what about distracting in a different way? Sorry bud, I thought I was playing halo...

I've used my Ubuntu installation to find the identity of my hardware so I could get windows drivers for it Now Ubuntu has a device manager, the first gui one I've seen in linux. Not that I'm an expert.

Good catch. I meant that it should be safe, no black holes of the eat earth variety. That's an aspect I hadn't thought of. However, if it hit enough particles it would slow down very rapidly. And this brings up interesting questions. Would a mini-black hole react only gravitationally (or electromagnetically if it is charged)? How easy would it be to hit something with a particle that only reacts gravitaionally? Would it just pass through everything like a neutrino? Could a mini-black hole eat a single quark while leaving the other two?