aguy2

Do you think that the angular momentum of a pre-inflationary, rotating BB event could have been translated to the 'spin' of the newly forming sub-atomic particles? aguy2

If a system displays a high degree of angular momentum, and this a.m. were to decrease, would the a.m. be translated to sub-systems within the system? aguy2

This is the point I was trying to make in other words. All they can do is artifically drive up the price, thus seducing more people to take the risk. The war is unwinable, and was never meant to be willable. The war was meant to last much longer than those that started it, in order to assure them long and prosperous careers. aguy2

'Drugs' or 'drug abuse'? There is a big, big difference. aguy2

Although I wouldn't discount the possibility of exogenesis in either direction, I personally think the concept just 'muddies the waters'. Besides, 3 1/2 billion years is a substantial chunk of the history of the universe. It would seem biological life couldn't arise anywhere else that much earlier. aguy2

Wouldn't 'blaming' exogenesis for Terra's life form just be 'begging the question' as to how biological life arose? aguy2

Wouldn't it seem that if 'biological life' could so easily arise spontaneously in nature, it should arise even easier in the benign, supportive environment of the laboratory? aguy2

The 'problem' is our b'rats have figured out that if you create an artifical 'problem', that can never be solved, it means job security and promotions to said b'rats. aguy2

Do they wear out after only taking 12 steps? aguy2

My most dependable source is telling me that the 'regular' forces seem to be holding up surprisingly well. The only big problem would seem to lie with the National Guard forces. They are definitely not 'happy campers'. aguy2

What was the source of the conserved angular momentum? What form would it have taken at the BB event? aguy2

Angular momentum is conserved within a system. My question is: can the universe be seen as a system in which angular momentum is conserved? aguy2

(1) I would contend that it does not 'just' start over because the 'problems' have been solved. Wouldn't it be more logical that the 'starting over' is the solution to "the last problem which is also the first problem". see (3). (2) Isn't the term 'emergence' a rework of the concept of 'gestalt'; with 'gestalt' being the recognition that complex systems seem to be more than the sum of their parts? Either way wouldn't these concepts tend to invalidate 'Determinism'?

Use 'autocatalysts' to try to come with rna in the lab? aguy2

I got a 'this page not available' from this site. aguy2

1) My post made no mention of 'evolution' and certainly did not imply that the phenonomon was evident in 'biological evolution'. 2) You say, "there is no such thing as deteriorative evolution." Isn't extinction a form of rapid deterioration? A species is an interbreeding community. Non-breeders remain members of this community only in the sense of their potential. They have not in fact joined the community until they have demonstrated their ability to successfully breed, by doing so. I contend that it is 'biologically desirable to be a member of the community'. No, of course not. My sub-sub-hypothesis contends that 'ideal states of perfection' are 'dead ends'. I think that the hypothesis is even more validated by 1st world, hetrosexual couples who forego breeding in order to 'get things the way why want them'. aguy2

Shouldn't this hypothesis be falsifiable? aguy2

The Russians used to say, "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us." aguy2

Thanks for the advice. Do you know where I could find a metallurical microscope and someone with the training to interpert the results? ago2

I would tend to restate your question as, "Would it be fair to define 'normal' as the behaviors that emerge regardless of localized 'culture'?" Animal and human infants tend to share a common attribute generaly called 'cuteness'. This cuteness tends to stimulate behavior that is protective and nuturing in regards to the infant. I would say that this behavioral response is a norm that we share with other animals. aguy2

gcol et al, I think we agree that human animals and other animals both can change their behaviors in response to changes in their environment. I would contend that that the major difference between us and other animals revolves around what constitutes our respective environments or contexts. The animals behavior is adapted to an environment that is by in large imposed on the animal by forces that are beyond the contol of both the individual and its community, while the individual human's behavior is largely determined by its 'cultural' context, which is an artificial environment that is determined by the collective choices made by the individual's extended community. If you would like, I could give an experimentally verifiable example of what I am talking about? aguy2