Mokele

Is this thread going to have to be moved to Psuedoscience? Mokele

Actually, if hydrogen cars use air rather than canned O2, they might not be the best option after all. One of the annoying tradeoffs in hydrocarbon-burning engines is that if you work at a low temperature, you have high carbon monoxide but low NOx (which eventually becomes nitric acid in the atmosphere, then acid rain), and if you increase the temperatures enough to reduce CO, you get more NOx. I'm wondering if hydrogen engines can run feasibly at temperatures low enough to make the NOx emissions tolerable. Mokele

Basically, which gene is passed on depends on which sperm fertilizes which egg. This is random.* Mokele *It's not quite random for X versus Y, because the Y is lighter and thus sperm carrying it can move faster. But in all other cases, yes, it's totally random.

Random variation over time. Since eye color is unlikely to affect survival or reproduction, those alleles are not likely to be affected by selection. Thus, the continual influx of mutations will yield an ever-increasing number of colors. Mokele

Allow me to clarify, then. I used "Apparently" because this is not direct, first-hand knowledge. However, I was informed of this by my prof, who was working at this university at the time of the attack, in the context of the part of my initial briefing covering "why PETA loonies are dangerous and we should never, ever ever let anyone with any affiliations to them into our labs." The factuality of this incident is not debatable. You know, the funny thing is that we kill more mice than you probably do (though as food for the lab animals, not as lab animals themselves), yet few people seem to care about our work, because it involves animals that aren't cute and fuzzy. I love how they hypocritcially claim to be for "animal rights", but what they actually mean is "endotherm rights". I have never once seen them so much as raise a finger to "help" anything that doesn't have warm blood. Let alone invertebrates. Heh, I almost wish they'd gone for the lab currently next door to us that time. "Ok, let's free all the OHMY****INGGODITSCOLLOSALSPIDERS!!! RUN AWAY!!" Nothing exposes their hypocracy like a spider the size of a dinner plate, let alone dozens of them. Or a hamster or gerbil (or, if they the money and room, a chinchilla). But I agree, too few owners actually care about the quality of life of their pets. Mokele

Well, it depends. If we have two people with different-sized arms, but the arms are identical in proportions, then the smaller one is faster. This is because if you increase the linear dimensions of the arm twofold, you increase all relevant surface areas 4-fold (which includes muscle corss-section, which determines force), but you increase mass 8-fold. So the arm that's twice as long as 4 times the force working on 8 times the mass. This means only half the acceleration. Ever wonder why insects can move so fast? Smaller means faster, generally. However, if we're talking about two people with arms that are just as long, but one guy is a bodybuilder, it gets more complicated. For every increase in thickness, there is an increase in both force generation and in mass. If the mass increase is small compared to the total mass of the arm, then the overall result will be faster punches. But with each increase, the benefits decrease, because the muscle mass increases, and eventually it gets to the point at which any increase in muscle will add enough mass to eliminate the benefits of more force. Of course, there's also the matter of the *type* of muscle fibers. You have fast-twitch, slow-twitch and intermediate. As you can guess from the names, the first is fast but easily exhausted, the slow-twitch are slow but strong and capable of sustained activity over a long time, and intermediate is, of course, in-between. Depending on the type of exercise done, you can alter the proportion of these fibers in your muscle, increasing one type at the cost of others. Thus, if the guy with a big, massive arm has mostly fast-twitch fibers, he'll still be faster. -------------- Of course, it's all really moot: A proper punch is mostly guided by the arm muscles and powered by your trunk muscles. Watch a good martial artist punch and pay attention to how their hips and shoulders move. The trunk has far more mass and momentum than the arms, and using that mass and those muscles dramatically increases the power of any punch or kick. Mokele

Well, actually the only place I was ever admitted as an undergrad was FIT. I went to U of Cinci for my MS in Aerospace, but switched to Bio undergrad there without having to be re-admitted, and I'm actually still here for my MS in bio. Interestingly, it seems like most people here recognize me, which is rather surprising since it's a university of 30k+ undergrads. Mokele

Google it

You can find out about course requirements on any university's webpage. As for getting in, from what I know, GPA and SATs (or ACTs, depending on the uni) can counterbalance each other. If you have a high GPA, that can (to an extent) counterbalance a lower score on a standardized test. If you have a high SAT (or ACT) score, that can counterbalance a lower GPA (it certainly did for me; I hated HS and never really applied myself). As for "extracuriculars", frankly, I think they're overemphasized by HS compared to their effect on college admissions. But, then again, I did spectacularly well on my standardized tests, so they didn't care that my stance on community service was "f*** the community". Mokele

I'll second DQW on this. I've not seen the movie (and I'm certainly no physicist), but I've heard some *really* scathing reviews of it (from Skeptical Inquirer and the like). Mokele

True, and you are right, but I was mostly taking issue with your claim that the volcanoes themselves would vent oxygen (which you mentioned specifically as something given off by volcanoes, not as a product of the actions of autotrophs). The last part is unwarranted speculation. The only issue I have with an extraterrestrial origin of life on earth is the current testability of the hypothesis, and that it seems a bit like "passing the buck". I don't object to the hypothesis or it's implications, but merely think it's not terribly useful until it can be tested. As for you hideously inept understand of mutation and natural selection, it's time for evolution 101: Mutation introduces *RANDOM* variation into the gene pool (Source: every biology textbook written since 1910) Selection, on the other hand, *removes* diversity from the gene pool, acting in such a way that those random variants who reproduce the best become more common, supplanting those who do not. To give you an idea of how well selection can counterbalance random mutation, I cite a computer experiment run, IIRC, by Richard Dawkins. He decided that he wanted to get a character string of 13 letters, "TOBEORNOTTOBE" from a computer. He calculated that, if the computer simply generated a series of random strings, it would take, on average, several billion cycles to generate that string. Then, he wrote a different program. This time, it started with one random string of letters. Each cycle, it copied that 5 times, but imperfectly, with a few letters switched in each one. Whichever was closest to the ideal was *SELECTED* for, and became the basis for the next generation. Do you know how long it took? 31 cycles, on average. 31, versus several billion. THAT is how powerful natural selection is. Yes, because in the real world, the selective pressure that maintains antibiotic resistance is constant. These were laboratory tests. The same thing happened with mosquitoes and pesticides (specifically DDT) in the late 60's in Thailand: within months of starting to use it, resistant forms appeared and spread, until the entire population was resistant and the sprayings did nothing. So, they switched to a different pesticide, and a few years later, the DDT resistance in the population was back to almost 0. Why? Because it cost energy to be resistant, so when the DDT was stopped, there was expense without benefit. What formerly was a positive trait became negative, and soon vanished. They keep them because B-cells never totally die off (unless you have some horrible immune disease). It's vaguely like evolution. You initially have lots of different B-cells, and every time they divide, they make errors that produce mutations that can result in new antibodies. When an infectous disease invades, the B-cell with the right antibodies proliferates wildly. Then, when the infection is gone, *it returns to a background level*. However, the immune system is *not* a good model for evolution as a whole. It cannot reproduce beyond the organism it is in, and any children of that organism inherit the immune system that organism had at birth, not the one it developed (plus mutations, of course). No, I have explained how it works. Any gene that is lethal or selectively negative will be quickly wiped out. Oh, guess how many mutations you and I have, statistically speaking, that affect final protien structure. Four. And many, many more that are neutral because they have no effect or act on "dead" genes. If you want, I can dig up the source for this, but I remember it was in Nature within the past 4 years or so. Ever met a dwarf? That proves me right. Achondroplasic dwarfism (as distinguished from other disorders, usually of the growth hormones or receptors, that reduce height while maintaining proportions, usually called midgets) is a Dominant trait that is *lethal* in homozygous form. Every dwarf either is the product of a mating of a dwarf with a non-dwarf, or is a mutant. There's a lot of them, eh? Mutation is more common than you think. ------------- Frankly, you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of knowledge about the functionings of evolution, and I do not have time to teach you Evolution 101. Your objections to natural selection (as well as your theories) are based entirely on misunderstandings due to your lack of knowledge. I suggest talk.origins as a great source for information (google it) which will clear up many of your errors. If you want to continue to debate this, I'm going to ask the mods that it be moved into the Psuedoscience forum. I'd like to end with a quote:

Then you have no right to complain about, and doing so just makes you look whiney. So, how exactly can you be a scientist without hypotheses or theories, I mean "opinions". For instance, I am of the *opinion* that molecular phylogenies are nearly useless for any taxonomic group higher than genus. My opinion is based on facts, but there are many ways of looking at those facts. Similarly, I hold with the aquatic origins of snakes, and that is *opinion*. It is scientific, in that it is based on facts, but the facts can *also* lead to the other conclusion (a fossorial origin), and there is no 100% guarantee of which is right. The data is there, but how to interpret it is *opinion* (aka hypothesis). Personally, I'm skeptical of technocracy as a system of government, mostly because it can't stand alone; there must be *some* method of making decisions that are not about facts, technology and science, which is, frankly, most of government. I will admit that I am also turned off by the "More-logical-than-thou" and excessively wordy nature of most sites on it. In my experience, if it's *that* complicated, it's not feasible. Also, the whole "giving people what they need" is a crock. A system *truly* based only on logic and science cannot arrive at that conclusion, because it has underlying assumptions that are non-scientific, such as "suffering and death and starvation are bad". While such things may be obvious, they are *not* scientific statements, and since 'technocracy' obviously takes that as a basis, such a system cannot truly be called scientific. If you want to argue the point, find me a published experiment that determines "goodness" and "badness" of things like war, suffering and death. You can't. Any such system is inevitably based on arbitrary decisions, cultural norms (which are similarly arbitrary), and our instincts (which are both irrational and misplaced, given that we evolved in a drasticly different surroundings than those we now occupy). So, IMHO, while technocratic solutions can be used for *some* problems, attempting to turn it into a fully-functional, stand-alone system of government is both contrary to the very nature of technocracy (as most governmental problems cannot be solved by technocratic means) and probably doomed to failure. Mokele

Why does this sound suspiciously like a homework question?

They're morons. Apparently, a while back they vandalized a lab at my school, because animal testing happens here. But they vandalized a *plant* physiology lab. And it said as much on the door. Mokele

Why the hell are you still here?

Depends on your state, and even the local law enforencement. I know that in FL, for instance, you need a license for concealed weapons for anything bigger than 3 inches blade length. However, they're apparently real dicks about enforcing it. Simply put, if they want to take you in, they will, unless you have a concealed permit. Basically, they claim that if it's in a scabbard, it's 'concealed', and if it's not it's 'being brandished'. Generally, I'd advise against carrying a sword, as they're a) mostly useless in the modern day b) highly visible and difficult to conceal even remotely well c) liable to make people think you're crazy and therefore mkae them more likely to start shit, be they thugs or cops (who will think you are "menace to society" type crazy). If you want an old-style weapon you can use, carry, coneal in plain sight and not get into shit for, go for a staff or short-staff. After all, it's just a walking stick (until you beat the piss out of someone with it). Mokele

True, but, though artificial, they must have at least *some* sort of biological relevance (in how they are defined) for them to be useful as a communication tool. Mokele

While both of those *contain* oxygen, there's a world of difference between belching CO2 and SO2 into the air, compared to O2. AFAIK, that combination will *not* react to produce significant ammounts of O2. There most definitely is such a thing as a burden in cells, and your concept of how mutation works is grossly misinformed. For instance, take antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Great thing, that adaptation, but, like everything else in the natural world, there is an associated cost, in terms of the time and energy and materials needed to produce the protiens that render them immune. As a result, you see that antibiotic bacteria *only* proliferate when there are antibiotics around. If you remove the antibiotics, some will (through mutation) lose their resistance, and be better off because they no longer have to waste energy making protiens they don't need. Those individuals will be able to compete for resources more effective, and will supplant the resistant bacteria, so long as no antibiotics are introduced. Everything has a cost. As for mutation, while trasposons *can* cause alteration in gene function, that is *not* where the vast majority of mutations come from. In fact, most mutations are the product of either errors in the process of DNA replication or environmental insults (carcinogenic/mutagenic chemicals and radiation). These muations permanently alter the DNA in a totally random way, and there is no way to "prevent" mutation from happening. Mutation doesn't work the way you think it does. Oh, and so you know, Lamarkian evolution was thrown out centuries ago, and that's precisely what you're advocating, along with a healthy dose of the also-wrong concept of group selection. What, precisely, am I supposed to prove wrong? As I said in the prior post, the main thesis of your initial post never materialized, nor did anything after it. Natural selection fits, it works, and it has been observed. You haven't even *stated* your position, much less presented any support for it. Unless you count the parts I disproved above as "support". Yes, but what I am saying is "There is so reason to presume the current theory is *not* right, nor any compelling reason to seek it's alteration." That's not saying "It is right", but rather "There is nothing to indicate that it is wrong or inadequate". As for the eye, that was simply a problem that needed solving, and it has been solved. Darwin simply had insufficient data due to the level of scientific knowledge availible at his time. Mokele

Two books I'd recommend that would help immensely with this are: 1) Stephen Jay Gould's "Wonderful Life", a book about the burgess shale fauna. It has numerous illustrations of all the bizarre and wonderful animals that showed up when multicellular life evolved, and seeing just how weird life on earth can get might give inspiration for your art. 2) Barlow's Guide to Extraterrestrials, which has depictions of many of the most famous aliens from science fiction. The artist is utterly incredible, and the pictures not only show a good grasp of the author's creatures, but also a good grasp of anatomy and physiology (where applicable). Hope this helps! Mokele

They have a problem with any sort of evolution of any organism. Some claim to accept "microevolution" without accepting "macroevolution" without realizing the distinction is artificial. Mokele

Actually, if you classify reptiles as Reptilia = Diapsida, then reptiles do indeed form a meaningful monophyletic clade (paraphyletic only if birds are excluded). The key is chelonians. Formerly, they were the thorn in everyone's side because they represented yet another outbranch of basal anapsids, presumably the sister taxa to the clade of other reptiles + mammals. However, we've always just been *assuming* that chelonians are anapsids (the basal amniotes), and their taxonomy within fossil anapsids has always been confusing and conflicted. But when you treat the anapsid-like skull of chelonians as a secondarily derived feature, you get very strong results putting them within diapsida (though morphological and molecular are in conflict, placing them closer to lepidosaurs and archosaurs respectively). So, if the anapsid skull of chelonians is a secondary reversion to the primitive state, you get two monophyletic clades: Diapsida (lizards, snakes, turtles, crocs, dinos, birds, etc) and Synapsida (mammals). Fossil anapsids would be paraphyleticly grouped, though. Mokele

I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes... Someone with more geology knowledge correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, volcanoes do not release oxygen. Any extra DNA would be a burden on so simple an organism as a bacteria (note how little of their DNA is unused), and any bacteria that discarded this "memory store" would enjoy faster reproduction and lower nutrient requirements, which means natural selection will ensure that bacteria will out-compete those who retain the stores, eliminating them. Let's not forget that any "stored" DNA is subject to mutation (*and* that bacteria have a higher mutation rate than eukaryotes), so by the time the bacteria even could evolve into eukaryotic or multicellular life, all that would be left is the random genetic gibberish. All the information would be wiped out by accumulated mutations. I suggest you actually learn something about Darwin and natural selection. 1) It is called a "theory", not a hunch. The difference is mountains and mountains of evidence. 2) While he didn't all our modern knowledge, guess what? Theories can be changed, and evolution has (fittingly) evolved to suit new discoveries and data. What is currently used is the New Synthesis, a re-formulation far superior to the old. 3) I am not aware of any significant major gaps in modern evolutionary theory. 4) Encyclopedias are worthless, pedestrian tomes. If you want real information, look in the primary literature or at least in textbooks. 1) There is no need for a new model. Evolution as is works perfectly well and explains the data. 2) None of the crackpot "new models" proposed have ever been able to show that their "new model" is any better, explains things more clearly and completely, or accounts for more data. In fact, most have glaring holes and are formulated by those with a merely cursory knowledge of biology. ------------------------------- On the whole your post is a useless waste of space. It begins by stating the bleedingly obvious, providing a review of this obvious information. This information all seems to build towards a central goal (something about terraforming planets), but that goal never quite materializes, and the short remaineder of the paper seems to wander around pointlessly, generating a few errors, then dies quietly in a corner somewhere. Please sweep up the carcass before it starts to smell. Mokele

Try using a *real* reference, and you'll see that things are rarely that simple. Both of your definitions are flawed and worthless, on acount of being from an inferior, non-technical source. I'll explain. So aren't ostriches or penguins birds? What about Auks? And what if dinosaurs truly were warm blooded? Would they be birds, then? Then tell me, which was Archaeopteryx? 1) "Warm blooded" or "cold blooded" has got nothing to do with the blood. It has to do with body temperature, basal metabolism, and hormonal controls. The technical terms are "endothermic" and "ectothermic" (or "homeothermic" and "heterothermic"). 2) So, what's an opossum? Sure, it's usually got a high body temperature, but that temperature *does* fluctate slightly based on environment. It also hibernates, during which time it's body temperature drops to ambient and it becomes effectively "cold blooded", to use the vernacular. ---------------- You cannot simply pull definitions out of your cloaca and say "there, that's it!", because those definitions are meaningless without some sort of support. What I'm talking about is how we actually get those definitions, the overal schemes for how we classify all life. Plus, as Sayanora says, "For the love of Jebus, Dictionary.com is not a technical resource." Mokele

One data point. Wow, that's really a firm basis for any claims.

Personally, no, I don't think there's a way from either viewpoint to argue archosaurs as separate, since they're just not different enough for phenetics to separate them, and are part of the clade so that cladistics keeps them lumped. Mokele