Mr Skeptic

Friend, seriously. Please. It's not a war. It's about disregarding the most robustly supported proposal ever. It's not about a battle between religion and science, it's about the advancement of all life on our planet, and how a failure to think critically can lead to a failure to survive. It really is simple. It's not about faith. If you think it is, then that's okay, but please go ahead and take last year's flu vaccine so there's more of this year's for the rest of us. Now that's and exaggeration; surely the laws of physics are far better tested than evolution. The biggest problem with the evidence for evolution is the fanatics on both sides tend to exaggerate so it is hard to believe anyone even if they say they are scientists. That's also the problem with global warming btw. Because it conflicts with Christianity, and Christianity is a highly political subject. Some people think that Christianity and evolution can be reconciled, but that cannot be done without fundamentally destroying one or the other. That I agree with.

I prefer to turn Zeno's Paradox backwards. To get from a to b, you need to first get half way there. To get half way there, you first need to get a quarter of the way there. To get a quarter of the way there, you first need to get an eighth of the way there... Which just goes to show that if there are an infinite number of points between a and b, you can easily move through an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time. Nevermind, that is the way it was originally stated, I just heard it backward before.

The digit 6 is kind of cute, at least in base 10. I kind of like this problem. So you have ([6]7)^2 = [4]4[8]9, where the digits in brackets are repeated n times. This is similar to how ([6]6)^2 = [4]3[5]6, which might be easier to prove.

To all those who say that carnivores must eat meat to survive, but that we have a choice: We are omnivores, which means we have the choice to eat meat or not. Just like any other omnivore. Maybe you should all start the Campaign for Vegetarian Pigs or something.

I did not say that it was not evolution, only to show that at the timescales we are in we have not observed changes of the same magnitude that the theory of evolution requires to have occurred. Just because small changes are possible does not absolutely imply that the large changes have occurred. Kind of how the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... will never get past 1. Again, I am not saying it isn't evidence, just that it is not direct observation of the larger changes required by evolution. But I am ignoring much of the evidence. My area of interest is physics, not spending the rest of my life looking through biology stuff. And I don't trust anyone in this area because of how politicized it is. An example: if you did not trust the physicists, would you be able to dig through all the area relating to, say, the particles they say exist, to verify it yourself? I don't think so! Why then do you expect me to do the same for the theory of evolution? And I gave my suggestion of what I believed would constitute enough evidence to completely convince me. But the program to do the comparison should be small enough to verify. And given an unbiased program, you get an unbiased computer. Ah, the unforgivable crime of not taking things by faith. Not believing what the great high priests of biology say. I think that it is you who don't understand how science works. Don't worry, it won't. That's exactly what I am doing, not accepting something, that has you all treating me like a heretic. I don't mean this so much as a personal attack, but I do feel pretty passionately about the issue. If you doubt evolution by natural selection, you ARE foolish. And if you have 100% trust in anyone when it comes to a politicized subject, then it is you who are foolish. ****** I am not saying the evidence isn't there, only that I do not have the time to personally verify it myself, nor do I trust anyone's opinion on this issue because of how politicized it is, be they a scientist or not.

23/m 1.A. Yes 2.B. Yes, it is an element. 3.E. Around current gas prices. 4.C. Explosions 5.C. Nuclear (but a variety in green energy sources -- not in cars, of course) 6.C. 51-100 Cents Less (than hydrogen, because of many things including infrastructure) 7.B. No 8.E. Very Inconvenient What's this survey for? Also, what do you mean, "getting it right" you presumptuous...

Of course not. But most people cannot personally examine the data, and so must rely on credible people who have looked at the data. I am not. A fruit fly is a fruit fly is a fruit fly. Even with something as short-lived as them, you are not going to see them morph into some vastly different creature, in this timescale. A different species, yes, but still a fruit fly. In the fossil record I see countless fragments, missing pieces, and leaps of faith, and artist impressions, but I am not familiar enough with anatomy to tell whether or how reliable this is. Par global warming, I do think that as you said we should err on the side of caution, renewable resources, independence from foreign oil, minimizing the [non-CO2] pollution from fossil fuels, efficiency, etc. Not keeping an open mind is dumb. That's my opinion, and I stand by it. I think a rational man can still decide not to believe in evolution. However, we are at the point where we can sequence the genomes of entire creatures. This is the ultimate showdown. The theory of evolution makes trillions upon trillions of predictions, and all of the Intelligent Design theories that can call themselves science make trillions upon trillions of opposing predictions. When this is complete, I will be satisfied that evolution has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt, with math and impartial computers. And it will happen soon. Until then, do not presume that I am an idiot because I keep an open mind.

As to the original question, I am (m, 23) somewhat pro-choice with the following qualifications: *only with the mother's consent *abortion is preferable to an unwanted child. However, if there is someone willing to adopt that child the abortion should not be allowed *late-term abortion should not be allowed unless the pregnancy threatens the mother's life *a damaged or genetically defective fetus should probably be aborted. There's already enough suffering in the world, why add more? *aborting a child of rape is probably a good idea due to genetic reasons (unrelated to the male parent if there is one, "rapist genes" if there are such things), as well as emotional reasons for both mother and child. A fetus is easy enough to replace eh? At some time after conception and before birth, a single-celled non-sentient creature becomes a human child. Where exactly the line is I am not certain.

I do agree that there are very good reasons to look for life in our solar system. If it is there, it would probably be related to life on earth, either it seeded earth or earth seeded the solar system. I don't think life is so easy to create that it would occur twice separately within our reach. And if there is life up there, it would be incredibly different and a valuable study. However, I think most people looking for extraterrestrial life are doing it for the wrong reason. Ohhh, I forgot to mention martians. That was before my time. Did anyone believe in martians or was that just scifi? The reason for that is that evolution completely destroys the basis of Christianity. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded, lying, or at best uninformed. Also, if one starts with the premise that God exists, then evolution is fodder for Occam's Razor, but if one starts with the premise that gods don't exist, evolution or something similar must be true.

True, but it has a huge effect on its credibility. Conflicts of interest and bias can eliminate the presumption of good faith that usually allows us to accept a scientist's conclusions without going through it with a fine-tooth comb and a microscope (for people in a different area of study, that is.). This presumption of good faith is what allows science to advance, otherwise you would have to repeat every experiment ever performed yourself. This is also why people have to take results about smoking commissioned by tobacco companies with a grain of salt. But both sides are lying and exaggerating, which makes it difficult to tell who's data and who's conclusions to accept. The whole point is that there is so much data that no one can look at it all, and people are lying and exaggerating so you can't just take their word. For these two issues, the immense timescales and indirect nature of the data added to the politics makes it difficult to make a clear decision.

I did give my reasons for that claim, and will expand it further to clarify: a real scientist would not make an argument from ignorance (we don't know what it does so it does nothing) without an incredibly good reason, and give up on trying to figure out its purpose. Such good reason might be, "we understand what everything else in the genome does, but not this", or "removing the junk DNA has no effect on the viability of the affected organism, nor on its rate of evolution". Simply put, at the time people were pushing "junk DNA" there was nowhere near enough knowledge to say that it does nothing. It is but a simple observation. If none of the real scientists were pushing "junk DNA" than the folks who were pushing it weren't very good scientists. Same thing with other things, such as the highly unlikely SETI program, the holy grail of finding life elsewhere other than earth, the creation of "missing links" from a pig's tooth (Nebraska man), deliberate forgery (Piltdown man), and countless extreme exaggerations, loudly proclaimed in the news and quietly forgotten. These people desperately want proof, and will go to great lengths to find it (as opposed to scientists who get their theories from their facts, not the other way around!). Now I am not saying there isn't good proof, only that there is an awful lot of bad evidence. Actually, journalists may deserve the majority of the blame in this. Just pointing out that many (and I would dare say most) treat evolution and atheism like a religion, taking things on faith and parroting arguments that they do not understand and are sometimes wrong. Yet there were quite a few people reveling in "junk DNA" and some still do so today. Oh, did you mean you have some proof other than argument from ignorance that some "junk DNA" really is completely useless? Yes, I know much DNA can be removed or changed with little or no noticeable effect, but is it really completely useless? Please show me.

In this you are correct. This is a big problem with Farsight's idea, because neutrinos don't react with electromagnetism -- and hence cannot be made of and electromagnetic wave AFAIK. So how did you point out his model's prediction of the neutrino then? Now you're not being coherent. You would post a 120 page response, judging by your previous participation in Farsight threads. I don't mind, so long as you keep it all together.

Nuclear plants may be bad, but coal is worse! Apart from the inevitable C02, coal plants contribute to acid rain, and they release poisonous compounds which never decay! Yes, that means that they will remain for all of eternity (they may be removed from the biosphere, but then radioactive things are also removed from the biosphere which people conveniently forget). Dangerous elements released by burning coal include mercury, arsenic, lead, and uranium. Due to the sheer quantity of coal burned, coal plants actually release more radioactivity than nuclear plants produce. Meanwhile, all radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants are carefully packaged under the watchful eyes of paranoid people. Also, modern reactors are usually built so that they can't possibly go critical (if the coolant dries the reactor stops because the coolant is the neutron moderator). In fact, its the worst things about nuclear plants that go unmentioned. Namely, the ability to use its radiation to produce nuclear weapons. Anyhow, I would rather have a nuclear plant nearby than a coal plant. Here is a random website saying why coal is bad.

Yup. Bonus points if it pisses off silly people PS: I eat less meat than a lion does.

An yet they have now found that something similar does indeed happen. Certain critters which can switch genes on or off can transmit the switch to their offspring, which seems kind of like lamarckism . The difference, of course, being that the critter already had the gene and a switch.

That depends on whether the universe is infinite or not. With infinite universe the math works quite differently... Mutations are mistakes. Most of them are bad, the key word being most. Now that's and exaggeration; surely the laws of physics are far better tested than evolution. The biggest problem with the evidence for evolution is the fanatics on both sides tend to exaggerate so it is hard to believe anyone even if they say they are scientists. That's also the problem with global warming btw.

I believe that your immune system will destroy the cells. Tissue rejection is a common problem with transplants. Anyhow, the problem with cancer is that it is your own cells so your immune system doesn't fight them. Since these are foreign cells, and not even human, your immune system should destroy them. That's just my opinion though.

I don't believe the term "quantity genetics" means anything. If it does, please educate me.

Smaller critters have shorter life cycles and larger numbers; these allow quicker adaptation be it via mutation or natural selection. I speculate that humans will inevitably either destroy themselves or take over the galaxy.

I'm pro prevention. If you don't f***ing cause the problem in the first place, you don't have to deal with the consequences. I think the focus should be on prevention, though of course that is not perfect. Failing that, I think that if there are some good parents willing to adopt and raise the child, that the child should not be aborted. However, I do think abortion is preferable to an unwanted child.

The true IQ of rich people tends to be higher than that of poor people. There are various aspects that influence IQ including nutrition and education, where the rich people have an advantage. Also a person with a high IQ will be likelier to get rich (though that is by far not the best indicator). If what you are asking is whether we overestimate the IQ of rich people, then yes. If you are asking whether artificially changing a person's resources or perception of himself can change his IQ, I would also say yes. In general self-image would have a larger impact on IQ (and EQ) than resources. Also, I think EQ is incredibly badly defined currently.

In that case what he wants to know about is buoyancy. An object in a fluid will weigh less by an amount equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces.

One must not forget that the pig cannot live forever anyhow, and after it dies it will get eaten regardless, be it by animals or bacteria.

Sure, just vomit. Ha, NeonBlack beat me to it

Farsight, you may just want to drop the whole time and change distinction. You can use time to measure change, or change to measure time, and without one you can't measure the other. Why is this one of your major points though? Nobody things that the definition of how to measure a second is an explanation of what time is. Edtharan: The mathematical arithmetic that Farsight did with time is correct (if one assumes that the wavelengths are the same), even if it is meaningless. As to your other question if 1/T = x, then T = 1/x. just multiply both sides by T and divide both sides by x.