Ophiolite

Most of the definitions have a great deal in common, but there is no generally agreed definition. In the early stages of studying any subject it is important to simplify, so the teacher will be following one of the more common definitions and presenting it as standard. that's reasonable, but you are no aware that it is a simplification. Without knowing exactly what (s)he said I can't really comment on the issue of it beiing presented as fact and theory.

If in the ambient gases range, lets not forget water vapour, which is valuable as a green house gas and as a prerequisite for rainfall, without which life would be largely confined to the oceans. Also of potential use would be ozone, to minimise UV radiation. (Note here we are assuming 'life as we know it'. Other lifeforms may relish high UV concentrations, though the chemistry of carbon compounds would tend to suggest not. (And I'm not going down the non-carbon route in this thread.)) I think Edtahran's comments about water reactivity require clarification. The existence of hydrophilic and hydrophobic organic molecules is vitally important to Earth life. The bipolar character of water facilitates many reactions, promotes solution of key ions, etc. In short, water is damned reactive.

I wanted to alert you to the fact that someone has stolen your identity as demonstrated by this later post in your name. It is shocking that, after you have made it so clear you will make no further contributions to this thread, someone should undermine your integrity by this flagrantly bad impersonation. You should complain to the moderators.

Monster92, would you expand on when this homework is due?

There is no official definition of life. At an exobiology conference six or seven years ago delegates were asked for defintions of life. AS I recall over one hundred distinct definitions were offered. There are other more useful aspects of cell theory than the one which limits life to cellular forms. A simple modification of the theory to apply to terrestrial life as currently known avoids the problems you seem to feel exist.

It may be your purpose for using MSWord, but mine is certainly more complex. I wish to write lengthy complex documents in which I can readily incorporate tables and illustrations, appendices, tables of contents and figures, etc, with document segmentation clarified through formatting, structure easily discerned, and boiler-plate text readily accessed. 2007 is more effective at this than 2003.

I was reminded by elements in this discussion of a portion of a sketch from Episode 2, Series 1 of Monty Python's Flying Circus. " Well, we psychiatrists have found that over 8% of the population will always be mice. I mean, after all, there's something of the mouse in all of us. I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't felt sexually attracted to mice. (Linkman looks puzzled) I know I have. I mean, most normal adolescents go through a stage of squeaking two or three times a day. Some youngsters on the other hand, are attracted to it by its very illegality. It's like murder - make a thing illegal and it acquires a mystique. (Linkman looks increasingly embarrassed) Look at arson - I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building. I know I have. The only way to bring the crime figures down is to reduce the number of offences - get it out in the open - I know I have, ...." On a more serious note, for all of the excellent reasons put forward for legalising marijuana and for the absence of any substantial reasons against, I am in favour of legalisation. If legalised I would only consider taking it if it could be embedded in some kind of drink, preferably one that was similar to a frozen Margarita, no salt. Oh heck, just let me have the Margarita.

I switched from Office 2003 to Office 2007. I find the ribbon format superior to the older version. It took me about one week to get comfortable with the new arrangement. Very occassionally I take a few moments to locate a rarely used feature, but this is more than offset by the reduction in keystrokes I need to get to what I do use. The same applies to Excel, though with pivot tables I opt for the older format.

Cultural indoctrination possibly initiated by minor evolutionary benefits.

My perception is that we do so. There are researchers who look at the behaviour and evolution of individual genes, who would doubtless subscribe to Dawkins Selfish Gene concept. There are others who explore the behaviour of the biosphere as an evolving entity and wuld view Lovelock's Gaia as more than a metaphor. And there is every shade in between. This is as it should be. Meanwhile, the possibility that we might discover any teleological component to evolution is pushed into the background by the weak arguments of cypress and starlarvae.

They generate complexity. In what way do you think the complexity of an element, composed of fundamental particles, differs significantly from the complexity of a molecule composed of atoms? Are you surprised that since the constituent components are different that there will be some difference in the natureof the complexity? Are you claiming this difference is significant? apparently so? Define then, if you will, the difference - in detail - of the functional information you say is present in molecules, but not in elements.

Because the universe is 13.5 billion years old, and we are not. On the other hand, the Fermi Paradox can be explained if we are the most advanced intelligent race.

Here are four answers. choose the one you find most edifying. 1. No. 2. Apparently not. 3. On that basis the spatial dimensions would each be three dimesional. There would be 'this point here', 'all the points below this point' and 'all the points above this point'. 4. String theory requires more dimensions - I think eleven is the most popular and most recent, but time remains IIRC as a single dimension.

Still waiting for those citations that would support your assertions. Still waiting for justification rejecting the likelihood of extra-planetary colonisation.

How have complex elements arisen purely from the input of energy acting upon hydrogen and helium?

You have taken a complex issue, that is not yet fully understood and oversimplified it to the point where your conclusions carry nothing more than the weight of an unsubstantiated opinion. I should like to see citations that demonstrate the validity of your dating of the introduction of the javelin and the bow and arrow. I should like to see citations that demonstrate the validity of your claim that the develoopment of bow and arrow was a response to the diminishing quantity of large game. I should especially like to see citations that demonstrate that the human population has constantly grown, since it hasn't. There have been periods where it has remained static, or even declined - the Toba eruption being an extreme example of the latter. Where you are correct is in recognising is that we are now drawing more heavily on our resource account at the bank of life than we are receiving in salary. This is a coonsequence of overpopulation. Projections suggest that this population growth will level off, though probably at a level higher than we would wish. It is probable - and can be engineered to be certain - that population will then decline somewhat. When we combine that fall with improved technologies for food production and energy generation we will be in a position of no longer being overdrawn at the bank. No apocalypse, I'm afraid. Before I attack your umimaginative declaration that space colonisation is pure science fiction, would share with us why you think this is the case? How did you arrive at such a negative, conservative view?

A consequence of this claim would be that there is no differential attraction upon different parts of one body by another body. In that case heating of Io's interior cannot be the result of tidal flexure of the satellite. Would you care to speculate what is responsible for the vulcanism on Io, the most geologically active body in the solar system?

Varves.

You clearly feel passionately about this. May I ask where you were twenty or thirty years ago when the industries that depend upon these elements were exploring how to secure their long range supplies? Bandwagons can be attractive transports, but when you get on them late they are often rather crowded with a questionable bunch. The original passengers have moved on to more important matters.

Here is the entire issue in a nutshell. The specific routes to spontaneously generated complex molecules in a pre-biotic world have not been established. Those arguing against you see zero problem with this: the unknown and its elucidation are what make science exciting. What we see, as in this example, is one portion of a multi-step process. Spontaneous generation of simple peptides was at one time unknown to science. There is no reason (i.e. no scientific principles prohibiting) other steps building upon these simple peptides. Your argument, at the end of the day, is merely a God of the Gaps approach. Not convincing in the slightest.

Why are you demanding chirality be a part of the formation process, when it could be part of the selection process. You are erecting artificial barriers to exclude viable possibilities.

You don't consider polypetides generated by high speed impact of amino acid bearing ices to be an instance of complex, irregular polymers forming in a natural way?

Laws are made to be broken. That may turn out to be humanity's destiny.

Was that a yes or a no?

Cypress, this is what you appear to be saying, but you have it so couched in imprecise terminology and apparently moving goal posts that I continue to suspect you are deliberately obscuring your intent. If that is not the case then I - and a whole tranche of others - are mistaken. You might, therefore, consider trying to be clearer in future. Your present style just doesn't cut it.