Mokele

He was banned for being a total asshat. I'm sure there's a more technical way of putting it, but that's basically what it boils down to. Mokele

Ahh, that makes sense. I don't suppose you could take a guess what the different lines across the graph represent? Currents? ------------ Ok, so, alternatively, since I only need a very modest degree of cooling, and cooling is proportional to current: 3 volts, and a guesstimate resistance of 2 ohms, which gives an I of 1.5 Amps, so I should be good, right? It seems like, unless the resistance decreases *really* fast, I can get away without a resistor. Especially since the one I'm looking at, on ebay, has a voltage range from 0 to 15, and amps from 0-10, but nothing online about the resistance and how it varies. Also, the power source I'm thinking of is a kit which can apparently be customized from 0.5 V (amps not given) units by arranging them in series and parralel and such, so I'd be able to monkey with it. Also, a bit of googling showed me that the resistance isn't dependent on voltage, but rather on temperature. I'm tempted to just buy one and start messing around. Mokele

Is this what causes the 11-year cycle, with "solar max" producing all the huge flares and coronal mass ejections and such? I've heard of it indirectly from my astrophysics friends back in college (because we were in college during the last solar max, evidently), but I don't really know much about it. Mokele

Well, time for some electronics questions that are so basic you'll think I ride the short-bus to school... Basically, there's a plant I want to grow, and it requires cool water around it's roots. Because I don't have the time to put icecubes on the damn soil all day, I decided that I wanted to find a way too cool it down automaticly. And I found the perfect things: Peltier junctions (apparently also called Thermo-electric coolers), which transform electrical energy into a heat difference across the device, with one side cooling and the other warming up. I can find lots of them, with lots of statistics on them, but here's the problem: Although I took a bit of electronics (from the theoretical end) at a college level, I have almost zero practical experience and remember almost nothing. I remember stuff like V=IR, and that's actually confusing me. I basically need a peltier, some associated stuff like thermal tape and a heatsink that I can handle, and a DC power source that doesn't need to be plugged in (no ac to dc converters) simple because there are no outlets on my porch (and I'll be damned if I'll let the mosquitoes feast on me for the sake of the plant). What's confusing me is how everything is described. They'll say that the peltier can take up to ___ volts and/or (I dunno which) ____ amps. The power sources I've been looking at (rechargable batteries and solar panels) all say the output __ volts and ___ amps. This confuses me, because I thought the power sources just set up a voltage difference, and how many amps was a consequence of the resistances in the circuit (via V=IR). So, seeing power sources also give amps is confusing me. Similarly, why are both max amps and max volts given for the peltier junctions? Shouldn't the volts over the resistance of the junction give the max current? Or is giving me those a way of telling me the resistance? I found a little "kit" of solar panels online for less than $20 that apparently assumes you know nothing, and allows you to customize voltage and amperage, so I'm probably gonna go with that (especially since I only need the cooling when the sun is out), but I'm still confused about a power source giving amperage. Don't they just give volts, and the volts generate the amps in the circuit? More specificly, how do I know what to hook up to what? I know the heat differential across a Peltier is proportional to current (thanks to wikipedia), but how do I modify that? By modifying the current of the power source or the voltage? I guess I'm basically just confused because I'd always been taught that voltage produces amps when there's a circuit, so telling me that batteries and panels generate amps is throwing me off. Anyone care to help the poor biologist? Mokele

The only way I could see it being introduced is if one candidate voluntarily took a battery of psych tests and submitted to analysis, the publicly displayed the results, saying something to the effect of "I'm putting all my cards on the table, now let's see my opponent do the same. Or does he have something to hide?" I can't imagine it being used outside of a cheap political trick, though. Mokele

Probably just insides. Various insects sequester or produce unusual chemicals for various reasons (mate attraction, becoming noxious to predators, etc), so that could explain it. Mokele

AFAIK, there are no CN groups in Hemocyanin, and the color comes from the copper atoms that are used in Oxygen transport. You're also, by smashing the fly, mixing a lot of body fluids together, and my guess is that the green comes from the mix of Hemocyanin, digestive enzymes and food in the process of being digested. Mokele

Why guess? I'm sure someone has studied this statisticly; the trick is just to find the study. I'll ask my GF (she's a theology major). Mokele

Um, no, he's not, nor do I see anything in that article to even suggest that as a motivation or a position. This game no more promotes intelligent design than "Black and White" promoted theism or the "Civilization" series promotes theocracy by control of a divine geek. Users control the evolution and design creatures because without those features it wouldn't be interactive at all, much less actually fun. This game is, in essence, a new version of "sim-life", a game that's a bit similar (though more ecologically oriented) and much more primitive (it was released for windows 3.1). I think you're just jumping at shadows. And, frankly, the fact that ID has become so pervasive as to engender such a response in even you makes me have serious doubts about the long-term future of *our* species. Mokele

I dunno, it could happen within my lifetime, according to the Farnsworth Principle of Doom: "Yes, it's the apocalypse. I always thought I'd have a hand in it." -Prof. Hubert Farnsworth

Two things: 1) Just because lots of people believe it doesn't make it any more true. Lots of people believe in God, too, but that doesn't lend any creedence at all to his existence (not that he does or not, but simply that number of followers is irrelevant) 2) Poleshifts have no significant correlation to extinction events in the fossil record. If they did cause some sort of "doomsday", we'd've seen evidence for it. Mokele

Ions, specifically sodium and potassium. The movement of these ions across special gates in cell membranes is what produces "action potentials", the pulses that travel down nerves. It's less elctricity, and more a traveling flux of ions across a cell membrane. Mokele

No, that's accounted for. After all, grandpa still has to be alive in order to take a more fit second mate. The main point, however, is that even if short lifespan is good for the species in terms of adaptations, long lifespans will occur (when not simply necessary due to size or complexity of the organism) because if longer lifespan means more reproduction, it'll prosper, evolutionarily. "The good of the species" has only ever really been strived for by one species, and we've never gotten it right either, usually letting our selfish individual desires get in the way, like any other species. Mokele

Yes and no. The main line of crocodilian evolution (the form you see now) has been pretty stable since the Triassic (though it's interesting to note that they originally looked like a reptilian greyhound, and the "crocs" of the Permian, phytosaurs, looked almost identical but was unrelated). However, crocs have repeatedly had outbranchings that explore other ecological niches, including becoming fast-running land carnivores (and quite sucessful at that, for a long while), semi-aquatic clam eaters, diminutive vegetarians, and pelican-billed things which seem to have either been filter feeders or sifters like ducks. Most of these divergences have appeared in a geological instant, showing that, while they are perfect for their current niche, change is not only possible but rapid. The problem with that is what "the species" needs is irrelevant. Cheaters who can live longer will still produce more offspring, spreading the "cheating" gene, even if it's detrimental to the species. Also, it's contradicted by the availible data. Crocs live for a century, and haven't changed much (aside from the offshoots noted above) in 200 million years. But mayflies have been around and unchanged since at least the Carboniferous (around 300 mya), and their reproductive lifespan ranges from days to mere hours (nymphs may live for years, though). Again, as Phil pointed out, it's group selection. Whether your kids are "better" than you doesn't matter. If you let them reproduce, you get grandkids that have a 0.25 relationship to you (25% chance of inheriting a particular gene from you), but you say "screw them", be selfish, and reproduce yourself, you make offspring with a 0.5 relationship. As you can see, once again, cheaters prosper. A good counterpoint is whiptail lizards. Sex is important, since it mixes genes and contributes to genetic diversity, which is vital to the species evolution (especially in the face of fast-evoling biotic selective agents like parasites). But in Whiptail lizards, there are 17 species which are all-female, reproducing clonally through parthenogenesis. This is probably bad for the species, and they're probably screwed (pun intended) in an evolutionary time scale. But for the individual, it was a great boon. The first female that could do this could produce just as many eggs, but didn't have to dilute her genes with those of a male, in effect doubling her ability to pass on the genes for this ability (along with the rest of her genes). Before long, these asexual "cheaters" had spread and become the sole form of the species. This has also happened in geckos and snakes. What's good for the species as a whole and helps it adapt is irrelevant, only what's good for the individual. The individual is the fundamental unit of selection, so self-sacrifice only makes sense if there's a genetic payoff for that individual (helping kin and the like). Mokele

Interesting, but flawed, and I'll use one of your examples to show why: Actually, the fossil record shows a fairly rapid level of adaptation for reptiles, for precisely the same reason your idea doesn't necessarily work. Let's use crocodiles as an example. First, while they *can* live over a century, few do. You are right about the retention of old individuals, and as a result the territorial battles are fearsome, and often lethal. But older crocs (which are bigger and stronger, since they never stop growing) eventually accumulate enough injuries to be killed by a usurper. The point is that potential lifespan doesn't equal actual lifespan. However, as to species with longer lifespans adapting more slowly, I disagree. Again, consider crocs. Sure, they have a long life, even with premature death in the wild, but look at the reproductive output: a single female produces about 50 eggs a year, for about 40 years of reproductive life. That's 2000 baby crocs, and if they all survived, we'd be waist-deep in crocodiles. Instead, the young undergo horrificly intense selection, with only the very best surviving even to the 1st year. This is where selection acts, not on the old. As a result, even this long-lived species can evolve quite rapidly, as I'm sure you can see, if the environment changes to necessitate a change from the current form. Also, old animals can always be displaced by animals which might be younger but also more vigorous (due to a beneficial mutation), especially in species like crocs with so many violent territorial battles. On top of that is sexual selection: if the new generation is just plain sexier, it doesn't matter how long the older ones live, as they'll not get any. In fact, in species such as crocs, you get this sort of vicious cycle going. Natural selection will favor larger size, which means more eggs and also a longer lifespan. Natural selection will also favor just pure longer lifespan, as it increases reproductive output. However, anything that reduces lifespan, no matter how good for the species, will die out, because "cheaters" who have longer lifespans (with the attendant increases in reproduction) will produce more kids and spread their cheater genes through the gene pool. I would like to say thanks, though. Compared to some of the recent posts, this one is certainly a breath of fresh (and logical, and informed) air. Mokele

No, I'm not actually assuming that. I'm assuming that a) if any animal can frequently cause humans wounds in self defense, we'll either find a way to avoid the possibility (traps or spears or poison arrows) or just stop hunting it (if it's not worth the risk), b) few animals have territorial reactions to humans, and those that do rarely kill us, since a standard of territorial displays is to display in order to deter a fight, as we'd learn fast to run away when the display starts, c) Stampedes are suitably rare and early man was unlikely to fall victim due to a variety of factors, not the least of which being scurrying up the nearest tree d) general injuries will be distributed across multiple species, and therefore unlikely to contribute majorly to kill count In contrast, active predators who deliberately target humans would actually seek us out in order to kill us. The commonality of the leopard, it's known propensity for hunting humans, combined with actively seeking us as a food source, IMHO, would elevate the kill number substantially. Mokele

Not to mention that, AFAIK, the technologies that we have which can measure brain activity in a living being while it is performing a task (fMRI, PET scans) lack the resolution to examine such small structures accurately. However, I hear this is being worked on. Mokele

Nothing like good old density-dependent intraspecific competion.

Indicating the obvious and blantant holes in your understanding of evolution are cogent to the thread, since it shows you are not qualified to start formulating theories about it. Not that we couldn't tell that from the start. Mokele

From what I understand, the answer is "yes and no". We understand what the broad parts of the brain do (like occipital lobes of hearing), but we're still figuring out the specifics of "this small cluster of neurons in this part of the occipital lobe is respobsible for this type of auditory signal analysis" As for the 4-D world, the question arises that, if it's there, why can't we detect it? (And if it's not detectable, directly or indirectly, it's not science) Or, if we can (as you postulate, if I read right), and it does contain information, why haven't we evolved to aquire more of this valuable information, and why haven't other animals done so as well? I'm not saying it's not possible, only that simpler explanations are more likely, especially given the lack of empirical proof for this added dimension that cannot be explained in other ways. Mokele

As far as direct kills, I'm dubious about hippos. While they're very dangerous and kill a lot of people *currently*, humans have not always had boats and therefore have not always been in close contact with hippos. I'd vote for leopards. There is fossil evidence that they've been hunting anthropoids since Australeopithecus, their range overlaps with ancient humans both in geography and climate/habitat, and they are hunters evolved to cope with prey about our size (compared to lions, which are more big-game hunters). Given that the vast majority of human history has involved us wandering around African savannahs, I'd be more inclined towards leopards. Hippos might be more dangerous on a per-individual encounter, but they did not hunt us, nor did we enter their habitat as often as we were in leopard habitat. Also, next time you watch a dragon in a movie, look at how feline the movements often are. Our fear response is triggered by felid movements (in part), while hippos look amusing to us. Mokele

I think they just bind to some sort of cell surface receptor unique to cancer (or maybe to that form of cancer). I'll ask my sister if she knows next time I phone her. Mokele

While this is only tangentially related, I should throw it in, because it is somewhat related. My sister will be attending Rice soon in order to work on a nanotechnology that might allow easier cancer treatment. The idea is rather elegant, and a bit like the original post: create particles covered in a thin layer of gold, and give them a way to bond selectively to cancer cells. Then, you can simply shine a light of the right wavelength on the person. The light can pass through the human body, but is absorbed and re-emitted as IR frequency light by gold, generating heat, which in turn basically cooks the tumor with minimal damage to other cells (certainly less than with surgery). Obviously, one does not wear gold jewelery during this procedure. I may have gotten some of this wrong (my sister is the physics major, not me), but I thought I should toss this out for everyone, since it is applicable here. Mokele

It's metatron talking, you didn't miss anything important, just more of his psuedoscientific, uninformed babbling. Mokele

The immediate inclination to run for political office.