Mokele

Carolina biological has numerous gels that are used for tissue culture, if that's what you're after. If we're talking about mature plants, sand or perlite, depending on the density required. Cheap, very permeable to water, no nutrients of their own, etc. Long-fiber sphagnum works well for plants that need loose media but don't mind acidity. Mokele

You missed the point: their argument about hair direction is that it evolved to reduce hydrodynamic forces, therefore claiming that reducing hydrodynamic forces was a selective pressure. If that selective pressure was present, we would expect to see major changes in overall morphology relating to streamlining, but we don't. Basically, they're picking and choosing, claiming drag affected the evolution of hair, but somehow miraculously missed having any effect at all on the far larger cause of drag, body shape. As for being fully aquatic, that has nothing to do with it. Streamlining is present in plenty of amphibious species; hell, hippos are at least rounded. And if they just waded, the velocities of the water would have been too low for hair to matter, and even if it did, then we'd have hair on our legs pointing backwards, not downwards. I'm not saying this disproves AA, only that the hair-direction argument is bunk. If there was enough drag for hair to be a factor, there was enough drag to make body shape a factor too, and a much bigger one at that. Furthermore, hair would make no difference unless they were swimming fast; drag is proportional to velocity squared, which is why boxfish can look like they do, but dolphins, ichthyosaurs and sharks all look the same. If they're claiming hair was affecting drag, then they're claiming fast movement through an aquatic environment, period. And that means selective pressure on body shape, which we see no evidence of. It's like claiming that color is being selected on, but only for the animal's left side. If you postulate a selective pressure, and it affects one thing but not others, you need a damn good reason. If you postulate that drag was a selective pressure, you need a damn good reason why hair (<1% of drag) was affected while body shape (>80% of drag) was not. Even gene flow can't explain it, because it would have tended to dilute/delay both adaptations, and body shape would have had a *much* higher selection coefficient for simple mechanical reasons (plus body shape has more natural variation and phenotypic plasticity anyway). What I see in your post is essentially equivocating: when a trait fits an aquatic lifestyle, it's because they swam a lot, but when it doesn't, it's because they swam a little. AA needs to pick a damn position. If they just waded in the shallows, then they would *not* have needed sleek hair or to hold their breath, and if they swam a lot, then would *not* have kept their ungainly, poorly streamlined primate form. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Mokele

That's how it was in the book; you left the enclave of your group, it was just the basic rules, and you couldn't enter a group's territory without either permission or at least knowing it and knowing what was entailed. It's been a while since I read the book, though. Mokele

One system I'm actually quite fond of is the society of Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age: a global government with minimal laws, and humans voluntarily self-organize into small tribe-like societies within the cities, each having their own enclave where their rules apply. For example, one society is a re-creation of Victorian England, while another is a psychedelic drum-cult, another may just be a loose association of hackers. People can join any group tht accepts them, leave at any time, start their own, and basically choose the rules they live by. That they're all in the same city eliminates geographic restrictions (the best have chapters all over the planet). IMHO, this is better than the current system because changing the rules you live under is as simple as finding a new apartment, as opposed to having to move between entire countries. If you want a Christian theocracy, you can live in one, but if you get sick of it, you can pack your things and literally just walk down the street and find somewhere that suits your new needs better. Mokele

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how either of these is the sort of adaptation to the water we'd expect. Plenty of aquatic mammals have hair, and all aquatic birds have feathers. Aquatic reptiles are actually more likely to have ridged (technically 'keeled') scales than smooth. The orientation of the hair is just stupid; the affect of hair on drag in minimal in comparison to the overall streamlining of the body shape. Primates are NOT hydrodynamic, and altering body proportions and shape would be *much* more productive than just re-arranging and losing hair. From a biomechanical standpoint, the AA hypothesis makes as much sense as claiming Archaeopteryx was a burrower. Mokele

The prevalence of heterochrony is also dependent upon the taxa: there is a *LOT* of it in amphibians, with numerous independent evolutions of paedomorphic adults, but in mammals, it's a lot rarer.

Why not coat the inner surface of the cup with two layers, a deformable pad of sorts and, on the surface of that, a slick coating to reduce friction? Ideally, you could find something that does both, being both slick and squishy, like cartilage.

Honestly, I have better things to do, and yes, as tree said, the title *does* point to a creationist. Nobody except creationists use the word 'darwinism'. You've just proven he's a moron: carbon dating is *not* used on fossils, because they don't retain original carbon and the method only works up until 14,000 years ago. Other radiometric dating methods are used, and we *KNOW* these are accurate, both from dating things of known age and from the fact that different methods produce the same dates for the same items. We've been doing this for over 50 years; he's got no excuse. Mokele

It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists, who hold the idiotic belief that if they somehow find a flaw in evolution, everyone will accept their magic sky god. The link above should be able to rebut any and all of the arguments of that book, if you look. If you can't find a rebuttal there or in the link below, post it here and we'll be happy to analyze it. Creationists are sneaky bastards, and their arguments can *seem* very solid if you don't know enough about biology. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Mokele

The vast majority of dinosaur trackways wash away before they're preserved. Most that are found are in a single environment: stream shores. There, the soft mud takes the impression well, and as the water rises and ebbs, sediment is deposited on top of the layer where the dinosaur stepped, preserving it. As more and more sediment piles up, it's compressed and turned to rock, leaving the footprints in place as indentations between layers. Mokele

Ethics. We see how evolution works, and it is not a pretty process. Constant death and fighting, exploitation, and parasites so horrifying that the mere discovery of one made Darwin doubt God since no loving God could create such a horrific monster. Also, while evolution works, it's not necessarily the best system, but merely the one that occurs in nature. It's a dumb, unguided process sustained merely by mutation and the struggle to survive and reproduce. Why assume that human intelligence can't create a better system? Your reasoning is actually based on two flaws, the naturalistic fallacy (that 'natural' equals 'ethical') and the assumption that nature is optimal (when, in fact, there are numerous examples of sub-optimality in nature, starting with our own eyes). Furthermore, I'm not sure nature is a good model for economy; there we have groups who compete, but are part of the same 'team' (species), competition within teams, and, more importantly, genetic inheritance, while in the economy, a member of one team can join another, and information flows freely rather than being restricted to vertical transmission. Not to mention spatial restrictions (animals interact with just their neighbors, not the global marketplace) and transferrable value (you can move money back and forth, but not fitness). In spite of superficial similarities, I'd need a lot of convincing that economics is really like nature at any meaningful, functional level. Mokele

Just a quick note before class; I moved this from another forum and altered the title a bit so it would be truer to the OP's intent. While there is a general policy here at SFN against creationism, since the OP is asking about the suspicious methods known to be used in the promotion of such (rather than pushing an agenda), I think it would be a valuable thread. For the OP: this link should help a lot in answering your questions, as every creationist argument ever has been indexed and rebutted (there are surprisingly few, most of what they do is just repettition) http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html Mokele

Either you start posting topics that have an actual question or point for discussion, rather than rambling psuedo-intellectual garbage, or I start deleting your posts. Clear?

I'll assume that the injunction against loans doesn't apply to scientific grants, since they're used for research and not personal gain. Aside from frequent vacations all over the world (mostly to tropical locations) for both relaxation and studying/importing reptile species, I'd fund my fiancee's dog & iguana rescue efforts, and help her get her PhD in eastern theology. As for myself, I'd keep doing research, hopefully in a faculty position (hey, who'd turn down a faculty member they don't have to pay?). I'd have my entire yard torn up and replaced with a huge carnivorous plant bog in front and and a greenhouse full of tropical carnivores in back, along with some outdoor reptile cages. I'd buy assorted cool species of reptile, perhaps get them breeding in captivity, and collect more skeletons and fossils. And either publish my book or find an artist to make it a comic. Mokele

What's your GPA of only in-major courses. A "D" in calc isn't too bad for biology students (who are famously bad at math), but D's in Ochem and Biochem for a pharmacy student would give me pause if I were on the admissions committee. Mokele

Ramjets typically start working at about Mach 0.7 or so, give or take a bit depending on design specifics. Mokele

As has been pointed out, being 'alive' is not the same thing as being a person. A person who suffered an accident that destroyed all but the most basal portions of the brain would be alive, but everything that made them a person (personality, memories, emotions, etc) would be gone. Is it OK to kill them? After all, they don't care, they're just a sack of chemical reactions. Life is not enough to grant something rights.

And? Seriously, why did you post this? I see no question, nor points for discussion.

In an engineering context, when you subject a material to force, it deforms. You could express this deformation in absolute terms ("the steel sample lengthend by 0.01 mm when under 200N of force"), but it's often more useful to express it as a percentage, called strain (thus, if the above steel sample was 10mm long, that would be 0.001 poissons, a 0.1% elongation). The advantage to using 'strain' is that, since it's in purely relative terms, if you also express force relative to cross-sectional area, you get a relationship that holds true across all sizes (the same force per unit cross sectional area will produce the same % deformation, regardless of size). So, in shot, strain is relative deformation. Mokele

Describe them. Since I'm far to busy to read the book, explain what it says. Sounds like the author has no familiarity with the scientific literature. We know what genes cause what variations in many cases, and it always comes back to a mutation in the code. Mutations don't exist because evolution needs them, evolution exists because mutations happen. The imperfect nature of biological data storage in DNA set the stage to allow life forms to evolve rather than remaining static. Does it mention that group selection was discarded more than 30 years ago because not only was there no data in support of it, but plenty of data that flatly contradicted it? Group selection just plain does not work. False analogy. The author evidently isn't familiar with even the basics of evolutionary biology. Imagine you have a gene controlling size, with two alleles, big and small, so you have two phenotypes, big and small. Now imagine you have two genes, both controlling size; the result would be 3 phenotypes, big, medium, and small. Now try 3 genes, which gives you 4 phenotypes. And add more and more: combined with natural environmental variation due to diet, by the time you hit about 8 genes, you have a result indistinguishable from gradual variation, even with a nice bell curve. Furthermore, not all phenotypic variation is gradual. Look at albinos, for instance. Lots of traits, especially at the cellular level, are simply a case of you have it or you don't. And those genes would die out, because any animal that *cheats* and doesn't age will have more kids than those aging for a good of the species. That's the key problem of group selection: someone can always cheat, and usually reap great rewards. How does that aid evolution? Old animals have proven they can survive, young animals haven't. If you're a female crocodile, whose sperm do you want, some youngling whose never even seen a human let along proved he can avoid them, or the century-old 25-foot 2000-lb male who's outwitted 40 years of poachers and even eaten a few? This makes no sense. If an animal lives effectively indefinitely, wouldn't that *increase* the pool of cultural knowledge available to a species? That's just freaking silly. Do you know how *rarely* an animal dies of old age? It only really happens in animals like elephants or tortoises whose defenses are effectively impregnable. 99.999999999999999% of all animals die before they even begin to get old, due to predators, disease, accident, fights with rivals, low food years, drought, or any of a huge number of reasons. ----------------------------- I'll make this really simple: if mutation rate is controlled, picked somehow for 'optimum variation', then one would expect all organisms of a species/population to have the same mutation rate, yes? And that internal mechanisms would hold it constant? However, what would you say if you found that, in animals whose body temperature is determined by the environment, the mutation rate was not only dependent upon temperature, but followed the same rate increase you would expect for any purely chemical reaction? Guess which of these we've observed. Mokele

LD50 of oral caffeine in rats: 192 mg/kg Translated to human terms, that means I'd have to ingest a bit less than 19 grams to have a 50/50 chance of dying.

Any actual basis for this? Aside from the fact that it's flat-out wrong, I mean. We know how often species mutate, and far from being rare, they're surprisingly common. You, I and every other human has, on average, 5 mutations which affect final protein structure, and many more codon substitutions and the like. Digital does not mean perfect replication, far from it. Why don't we build a tower into space out of pasta? Because the material doesn't support it. Same thing here. Mutation isn't a design feature, it's a flaw, a limitation of the system which cannot be circumvented. One word: parasites. Parasites are usually smaller than the host, more numerous, and under greater selective pressures. As a result, an asexual parasite evolves faster than an asexual host, and will easily be able to counter any new defense the host comes up with. But if two hosts mix their genes, the parasite must now cope with that mixture. Becoming good a dealing with one mix likely precludes becoming good at another, and the jack-of-all-trades is the master of none. This is supported empirically by snails who can reproduce clonally or sexually. In populations with low parasite loads, they reproduce asexually, but when there are parasites around, they use sex. The incompleteness of the copy is outweighed by the copy's increased survival likelihood. Mokele

Well, all you had to say was insects. That's over 50% of animal life right there, and a good chunk of the animal biomass too. Pretty much. One of my thesis committee does sensory physiology and behavior, examining how animals perceive and interact with their environment, and the works I've been exposed to through him have convinced me that many animals *CAN* simply be considered 'machines made of flesh'. Some astoundingly complex behaviors can be produced by some very simple rules, and even 'advanced' organisms have some fairly rigid rules. Mokele

That if they want to be morally consistent, they can't simply base their dietary choices on taxonomy, like refusing to eat deer but eating octopus without qualms. Mokele

Of course, but alternative methods may have evolved. Wings are a great way to fly, but insects and birds evolved grossly similar structures independently. I think you're mis-understanding: I at least am not arguing all animals are mentally equal. What I am pointing out is that our criteria for "intelligent" is biased due to our heritage as a social primate (we place undue influence on social tasks in evaluating intellect), which might hinder properly evaluating the mental state of animals which display hallmarks of surprisingly advanced cognition but whose evolution, physiology and ecology are drastically different from our own. Octopi were brought up because experiments have shown they are *FAR* smarter than most invertebrates, and are capable of the sort of mental tasks previously limited to the smarter vertebrates. They run mazes better than mice, play, learn by observation, solve puzzles, etc, all with a surprisingly small brain. That they don't have our social skills is more a product of ecology than intellect; they're solitary and often cannibalistic. Look at nature: legs have evolved numerous times, as have limbless forms. Wings have evolved 3 separate times. Eyes, twice. There are countless organs for hearing, and just as many manipulatory appendages. The brain is just another tool for dealing with nature. Most organisms don't need much of one, especially since it's so metabolically expensive, but given it's power and versatility, why *shouldn't* we expect reasonable levels of intelligence to evolve numerous times. Hell, look at parrots. The point is not that everything is intelligent, but rather that other animals may be smarter than we give them credit for, and if they evolved this intelligence independently (as octopi seem to have), it may be so utterly alien to our mindset that clinging to an anthropocentric definition of 'intelligence' may hinder understanding. Otherwise you're just defining intelligence as "like us". Mokele