Glider

I really can't remember. If it followed my usual pattern, I was probably searching for something completely unrelated, which, as a result of my stumbling across this site, probably never got found. Hey ho.

The function of science is to observe and explain. That's it. Science does not prove anything (indeed theories cannot be proved, only supported or refuted), it does not create anything. It is a formalised method for explaining reality as we percieve it. If you understand and can apply with validity and rigour the principles of scientific method in persuit of the above, then you are qualified.

You seem to be confusing intelligence with knowledge. If you consider that a defining characteristic of intelligence is the capacity to learn, then that fact that you have 'learned lots of things' suggests a degree of intelligence. If, as you suggest, your parents were not so intelligent, then this suggests that your intelligence is a result of environmental factors as opposed to hereditory factors. If this is so, then the intelligence of your child(ren) will depend more on how they are raised, and in what environment, than on your (or your husbands') genotype. In any event, skills and abilities learned in one lifetime do not alter the genes of an individual (e.g. body builders will not produce muscular offspring).

You seem to be confusing intelligence with knowledge. If you consider that a defining characteristic of intelligence is the capacity to learn, then that fact that you have 'learned lots of things' suggests a degree of intelligence. If, as you suggest, your parents were not so intelligent, then this suggests that your intelligence is a result of environmental factors as opposed to hereditory factors. If this is so, then the intelligence of your child(ren) will depend more on how they are raised, and in what environment, than on your (or your husbands') genotype. In any event, skills and abilities learned in one lifetime do not alter the genes of an individual (e.g. body builders will not produce more physically developed offspring).

It isn't taught as 'fact', it's taught as 'prevailing theory'. As far as evidence goes, there is none for creation. People saying "see that flower?....God made that" is not evidence.

RadEd's right, there is no precise location for consciousness. Current theory suggests consciousness is an epiphenomenon; a result of the overall complexity of the brain and the result of the whole being more than the sum of its parts.

Yep, Blike remembers correctly; I've been a PhD since October. My first degree (1995) is in Psychological Science (50% Psychology, 50% Physiology/Neurology). However, if it's 'life experience' we're talking about, I have the following: Five years military (Royal Artillery; joined at 16, left at 21), including a tour of duty in Cyprus and a stint with the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery. I've been an undertaker (a year), a builder's labourer, a (hunter) stables manager, a security guard, a despatch rider, a phlebotomist on a Renal Transplant Unit (4.5 years) which ran concurrent with my job as a part-time Lecturer teaching Psychology and Research Methods & statistics (8 years). I have lived: In barracks (5 years), on the streets (3 months), with Hell's Angels (18 months), in a nurses home (2 years), I once moved house (bedsits) six times in one year. Throughout, I have always had me trusty steed. In 1979 it was a Triumph Bonneville till 1984 when I got a Harley Sportster (iron head, which I rode to Africa), till 1988 when I got a Harley FXEF 1340 evo, which I have ridden all over Europe (France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece), until for some unknown reason I rode it into a roundabout Dec 6th 2002 and smashed it and me. I healed, although my left thumb (which snapped) and right knee still hurt sometimes. The bike is in the (slow and expensive) process of being rebuilt. I have had a chequered past, and (to quote Roy in Bladerunner) I have done....questionable things. I regret none of them. In conclusion, I'd have to say Blike (having not joined the Army or lived with Angels) is probably the wisest.

Why not? Why does there have to be a reason for life? If you throw a hundred coins in the air, and they all landed heads up, that is just one of many equally probable outcomes (combinations). Would there have to a reason beyond that?

There are not 'many types' of ultradian rhythms. Anything that cycles regularly more than once a day exists in an ultradian rhythm. I.e. any rhythm that cycles in less than a day, is ultradian. However, none of that has anything to do with what you describe. What you're talking about simply sounds like a loss of concentration. This happens to everyone from time to time. The 'concentration span' tends to be around 20 minutes (it increases with practice). The subconscious, by definition, never 'surfaces'. However, when you are reading or taking in new information, sometimes subconscious links between it and existing 'knowledge' can be made which will bring that existing knowledge into consciousness involuntarily, i.e. it just sort of 'springs to mind'.

Depends on your level of argument. I think to define human life, you have to define your frame of reference. Arguably, life never really ends. The egg is already 'viable' or it would be incapable of fertilization. On the other hand, a viable diploid cell cannot really be considered a human being. Even after fertilization, under the principle that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, it could be argued that an embryo cannot be considered truly human until it reaches the foetal stage. Even then, from some perspectives, although it may be human, it is not a human being. What defines humanity? If it sentience; conscious awareness and the ability to hold a mental representation of onesself as a disparate and distinct individual, then it could be argued that we do not become human beings until some time after birth.

It's ok. It's just that a friend of mine got smashed by a car driver. The car was parked in a bus-stop, and as my mate rode past, the idiot decided to peel out and do a U-turn without looking. Just re-confirms my attitudes towards cage pilots. We thought my mate was going to lose his arm at one point, but it's ok. He fractured his scapula and will be out of action for some time, but he'll recover. Well, white cells, antibodies and suchlike are parts of the immune system, but the immune system is a system. It's capable of independent action, but it is also directed by the central nervous system and the psychological state of an individual. Direct communication between nerves and certain immune cells has been shown. The immune system is hugely complex and not completely understood. But it is most certainly a system.

I understood that it was most likely to have been predators that developed warm blood first. To survive as a predator, you need to be faster than your prey. Reptile predators couldn't afford to sit around basking to heat their bodies, as by the time they were ready, their prey would also be ready for flight, so they developed a 'pre-heating' system to give them an advantage. The same kind of mechanism can be seen in (e.g.) the white shark. It is a fish, and cold blooded, but it's principle prey are warm blooded (seals and sea lions), so the white shark had developed a bre-heating system in some of its main swim muscles to give it the burst of speed it needs to catch these fast warm-blooded animals.

What would be the point? Stable Uranium (i.e. uranium that has decayed to a stable point) is lead. In terms of energy, isn't it a bit like asking "is there a way of stabilising petrol so it doesn't burn?".

Frogs must keep their skin moist all the time. Whilst they do breathe using lungs, their skin takes up oxygen also (which is why it must stay moist). Toads have dry skin which, in many cases contains glands which excrete noxious chemicals to deter predators. Toads only need to return to water to breed and spawn. Frogs must stay close to water and spend more time in it than toads, which only return to water to breed. The back legs of the common frog are more developed that those of the common toad. Thus, on land, frogs leap to get around, whereas toads tend to walk (crawl), although they can jump to escape predators (not as well as frogs though). Frogs lay their spawn in large clumps, toads lay their spawn in long strands. I can't think of any more differences of the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more.

I think this is a part of his (Moores') point; why did the US put him in power in the first place? i.e. why did the US feel the need (or believe it had the right) to dictate the government of foreign countries? (I'm perfectly sure the UK is guilty of such meddling too, that doesn't make it acceptable.).

Yes, it's timing. The surface of a root cannot be allowed to dry out completely (this results in die-back of the root hairs), but the roots of most plants thrive best in air of (extremely) high humidity, such as that found in spaces between soil particles. The roots of plants grown hydroponically thrive in the humid (saturated) air spaces between the inert granules of whatever medium is being used. Water is pumped through either at regular intervals, or is trickled through constantly to ensure the granules stay moist. Roots have to breathe though. There are not many (land) plants that can survive for very long with their roots completely and constantly immersed.

I made up my own system of categories to help clarify this (in my own mind, anyway : Idiocy = Incapable of learning. Ignorance = Capable of learning but has limited/no access to information. Stupidity = Capable of learning and having access to information, but won't learn (usually in defence of internal belief system against contradictory [but valid] external information).

Unlikely. Whilst, as Sayo says, the body can make its needs known through 'urges' for particular food types, this is very basic and has no real influence on general (long-term) 'taste and preference'. These are learned. If they were hereditary, wouldn't it have been more likely that you and your father would have agreed on the chicken curry? After all, where did you get your genes? How does your mother feel about chicken curry?

The man makes a good point.

...a very good article too...makes more sense than me...except for the stupid qwuestion "how do antibiotics work", to which the most recent answer must be "they don't anymore due to the fact we've been abusing them for the last 50 years" Anywya...who wants a fight? I had one already, and I'm still here.

OK....you're coming into the ground (usually thought of as quite hard) from 38,000 feet (usually considered a long way up) at between 500-600 mph (which most people would agree is quite fast)...and they are considering installing really fast inflating balloons to save your hairdo? Is it just me, or the tequilla, or has everybody gone f***ing nuts? That makes a smuch sense as those stupoid bloody blow-up vest things they put under the seat. What's the pilot going to to in the event of everything going pants? Aim for a really deep puddle? Under the circumstances (i.e. being a long way up), why the crappy poopy flipping blimminy pants don't they issue parachutes? I mean...call me deranged if you will. but surviving an extremely long fall, to the best of my recollection, usually involves more parachute-related things and less keep-afloat-in-water or bounce-off-hard-things related things. Or is it just me?

It's beem an odd kind of few days. A friend got smashed by a cage pilot on friday, and for some reason this have involed a lot lot of tequila on saterday and whatever days follow that until now. Anyway...immune system...ok (I do this only for the one who hates the pointless use of elipses...whoever he is...). The immune system is a system, insofar as it is capapble of independent action (even in vitro). In essence, it is a system that evolved to check for, recognise and respond to non-self thingys. It is regulated (at least partly) by the HPA axis, and will respond aggressivcely, in normal cases, to non-self substances detected in the body. Eevery cell in the body has an identification 'code'. In red blood cells for example, this is the glycocalyx (the pattern of sugers on the cell membrane). If immune cells (e.g. white cells like macrophages) encounter an object that does not have correct ID pattern, they will attack it, and release substances calling for reinforcement, i.e. things like immunoglobulins, and killer cells and so-on, It's a very violent place, the internal mileu. Anyway, in short, the immune system is a system that exists to recognise and destroy anything it detects in the body that is 'non-self'. Occasionaly, it all goes pants and fails to be able to differentiate betewen self an non-self and attack 'self' systems. Such faults is implicated in conditions such as certain forms of rhumatism and lupus and so-on. I forget the actual question now. I think I'll have to get back to you...probably..later.

An ultradian rhythm is defined as a regular (usually physiological) cycle or oscillation (e.g. of hormone levels) that takes less than a day, but greater than an hour to complete (Ultra = 'beyond'; being of greater frequency than circadian). An infradian rhythm is one that has a period of recurrence longer than a day i.e. that occurs less than once a day (Infra = 'below'; expressing a greater frequency than circadian (Latin Circa = 'about', dies = day). The cause depends on what ultradian rhythm you are talking about.

I'd have to say it's highly unlikely. The muscles in your neck evolved to support your head. They are not aligned in a way that could provide the lateral force necessary to pinch or sever the spinal cord. The only exception would be if you already have a prolapsed intervertebral disk, or a fracture of a vertebra that is putting pressure on your spinal cord. However, in this case, you'd already have numbness and parasthesias and movements which exerted more pressure would give you shooting pains, so you'd know it by now. An x-ray would reveal any such problems if you have any doubt.

...and be taken up from wherever it can be found in the ground. The vast majority of plants (excluding aquatic and bog plants) don't like having their roots immersed. The microscopic root hairs responsible for taking up water and nutrients develop and function best in the humid spaces between the granules of whatever medium they're in. The high humidity of these air spaces, and moisture on the surface of granules of the inorganic components of the medium are sufficient. In most cases, these root hairs work in conjunction with either an exomycorrhyzal or endomycorrhyzal fungus (depending on the species of plant), which lives in symbiotic partnership with the plant either in the cells of the root tip, or surrounding it. This fungus sends out microscopic hyphae and brings moisture and nutrients (particularly nitrogen) to the root from places the root itself can't reach. These fungi also enter the tissues of rotting organic matter and help fix the nitrogen resulting from their decomposition. In return, the fungus receives sugers produced at the root tip of the plant (the exception are the legumes, which fix nitrogen from the air and store it in nodes in their roots). In any event, the fungus can't live in saturated soils, and nor can the plants which depend on them. There are exceptions, for example rhododendra and azalea, which prefer wetter soils. The roots of these plants don't have the symbiotic relationship with fungus (too wet). But then (and partially as a result), the roots of these plants are very inneficient and can't easily take up certain elements (iron in particular). As a result, these plants have to live in acidic soils (pH <6) as alkeline soils lock up iron, whereas acidic soils leave iron in a form easily available to these plants.