Ophiolite

I was going to say much the same thing, but I'll probably say it last week instead. After that I want to see Theia hit the proto-Earth. From a safe distance of course. That was one hell of a bang.

Sorry, but you are misunderstanding. It is not true that unfavourable genes are being preserved. Unfavourable genes will generally be 'weeded out'. The rate at which this happens will depend upon how unfavourable they are. Their 'favourability' will in turn depend upon the specific environment. If genes that were previously unfavoured are now 'preserved' that is because the environment has changed and they are no longer unfavourable (or certainly less unfavourable). Very unlikely and certainly not the case in the example you have cited. Absolutely false. All that medical technologies have done is to change the environment in which natural selection works and therefore changed the genes which are favourable and unfavourable, fit and unfit. Natural selection is still fully engaged in controlling the gene pool.

Anything that is 'engineered by nature' does so through the mechanisms of evolution. The word 'engineered', even in quotation marks, will cause some biologists considerable discomfort since it carries with it the suggestion of purpose and direction in evolution. The only 'purpose' is to encourage organisms that work and discourage those that don't. That is neatly expressed in the tautology, survival of the fittest. And there seems to be no direction, other than a tendency to increase in complexity at the highest level, a tendency that is readily explained by the Drunkard's Walk. In short, Swansont and InsaneAlien's dismissal of any 'purpose' is accurate. Perhaps you meant function. Function does not carry the teleological baggage of purpose. Here, however we see no more predatory/control behviour amonst micro-organisms than amongst macro-organisms. All nature works in approximate balance much of the time. That balance is achieved through the behaviour and interactions of all organisms with each other and with their physical environment. In that regard organisms (large and small) are very much a part of the environment within which their neighbours live, breed and die.

It would be a mammoth tusk. I mean task.

Very good effort. There were traces of Australian, but also of East London. If I had met you and you asked me to say where you were from I would confidently declare that you had travelled much in your childhood, picking up a bastard accent. I would have theorised that you left Australia when you were six, lived in Limehouse, east London till you were ten, then moved around the Midlands, before attending one of the better universities. I would not have thought you were American, so excellent job.

Simplistic. Let's examine just the figure for the gas giants. You claim tens of millions of years. This is not possible. The hydrogen and helium in the nebula was dissipated by T Tauri and FU Orionis activity within one million years. The gas giants have to form within that time span, or they do not form at all. Your speculation is falsified by this inconvenient observation.

I've tried it. Despite being calm, respectful and objective, I was run off before my posts got to double figures and all them were deleted. I think the provocative post that led to my downfall was along the lines of "Would you consider it possible that quite a lot of evidence seems to point towards the reality of evolution?" However, you have inspired me. A scientific analysis of this situation should be based upon more than anecdotal evidence. Expect a full report in a year or two. Revenge?

Hello cperkinson, we haven't interacted before. I don't think anyone is ganging up on you. You asked for a definition of falsifiable. ajb offered you such an explanation. Since you are unfamiliar with the terminology a few further words on the topic may be of interest to you. The concept was pormoted and described by the philosopher Karl Popper back in the 1960s. He argued that no scientific hypothesis could be considered valid unless there was some experiment or observation that could potentially disprove it. Most scientists would consider this a vital part of any hypothesis. Part of this means that one should be able to make predictions based on the hypothesis. If the predictions prove true that tends to confirm and support the hypothesis. (It can never be proved true, only proved false.) If the predictions are not borne out then the hypothesis is seen to be incorrect - it has been falsified. You made a prediction in an earlier post, so iNow was making the lighthearted comment that such a prediction was, at least, falsifiable. In relation to your op I think there is research out there that confirms we can assimilate data and new ideas while sleeping. Anecdotally I often deliberately sleep on a problem and wake up with the solution. However, as mooeypoo may be suggesting, this only works for oneself. It still needs conventional, falsifiable experiment and rigorous mathematics to convince others.

A new born baby, presented with a nipple, will automatically suckle. It does not require to be taught to eat. Children sleep from their first day after birth. They do not require a university diploma, or even a high school certificate to sleep. I cannot speak for the entire planet, but I required no education to engage in the initial stages of the reproductive process! In short, humans are well endowed with instincts. (Your main point requires more thought, at least from me.)

No. It is not odd. Urine in a crystal decanter would be odd. Urine in the hydraulic system of an Indy car would be odd. Urine in a second hand book store's antique oil lamp would be odd. Urine in a toilet is rather normal. No? (To be honest, I think the photograph is just someone taking the piss.)

Transdecimal, the speed of light is approximately 670,000,000 mph. That is over 22,000 times faster than the alleged speed of the meteorite. Einstein was never in any danger. I suggest you delete your post to remove further embarrassment.

iNow, you are missing something. For example, you are missing reading my first post in this thread. Although simplified it accurately describes the situation: small meteorites are slowed to approximately terminal velocity.

After the expedition where they found none, one was sighted. There was then a concerted effort to find others with the possible notion of securing them in a reserve. I can't find anything definitive about this. I fear they are gone.

It has to be the bajii dolphin for reasons obvious to any dolphin afficionado.

To echo Cuthber and DH, the one thing we can be certain of in regard to life in the universe is our uncertainty as to its frequency and character.

I recommend one of two actions. Demonstrate the truth of this statement with some very solid evidence, or retract it. From someone who has invested as much effort in exploring the subject of global warming as you have this statement has all the appearance of a mind blinded by an agenda. It devalues your contributions to the debate and calls me to question almost everything you have ever posted. Good one.

I was not aware of the one giving smallpox resistance. However, my understanding was that the devastation of native American populations following European contact was a direct consequence of lack of exposure amongst the natives, not large scale geentic resistance on the part of the Europeans. I am not disputing the occurence of mutations that afford some measure of protection against diseases, I am questioning the examples offered by Mokele.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but your example is about what the immune systems were able to deal with, based upon prior exposure, and had nothing to do with genotype.

As noted above no objects involved in this incident were travelling that fast at the time of impact, or in the immediate aftermath.

In your opening post you say this: "If all Methane comes from Biological processes, and if Methane is common across the Cosmos, then perhaps Biology is common across the Cosmos." In your last post you say this: "Present Observations infinitesimally favor Life being everywhere (or at least quite common)." You appear to be a native English speaker with a good command of the language. You will recognise that these two statements are different in an important way. I have no objection to you changing your position, but it would be helpful if you made it clear - as you did in your thread on Martian plate tectonics - when you have done so. I don't think I suggested you were assigning a specific probability, but you were assigning a significant probability. You have now modified this to there being an infinitesimal balance of probability in favour of life. Now I don't see that an infinitesimal balance of probability in favour of life merits any discussion, or argument, or debate - well perhaps an infinitesimally small one.

Certainly. There is no way of avoiding it, all we can do is to modify it. (In this regard I ignore the possibility of wholesale genetic engineering.) Therefore mutations that lead to us being less suited to handling cold conditions will not be selected against and, if associated with a beneficial trait, could become dominant in the population. There is no disputing that the development of civilisation has changed the direction(s) in which we are evolving, but it has not and cannot change the fact that we continue to do so.

Do we live in an environment? Yes. Is this environment different from the one we used to live in? Yes. Will this create evolutionary pressures? Yes. Examples: Some humans living at high altitude for many generations have evolved to handle the lower oxygen levels. Some humans have evolved the capacity to continue drinking milk into adulthood. Some humans with characteristics that would have been damaging/fatal in a different environment are able to survive, prosper and reproduce. This certainly alters the distribution of alleles in the population, which by definition is evolution.

Deny away. Your denial is an opinion, not a scientifically based observation. You base the validity of your denial on a tripod of observations. Yes, we see life on Earth. There is the possibility of life on Mars, yes. However, you have implicitly engaged a cyclical argument that we should view the methane as good evidence of life on Mars because life is probably abundant in the universe. The abundance of organic chemicals is irrelevant. Sure, they demonstrate that the raw materials for life are abundant, but until we understand the mechanism of abiogenesis in detail we cannot know whether its origin is inevitable, or unique. So we are left with one thing. The observation of life on Earth. That is what you are extrapolating from. Your denial is the expression of an opinion, nothing more. My opinion is that life is an inevitable consequence of the nature of the universe. My opinion is that life arises readily in many places and is abundant throughout the universe. But these are only opinions. Opinions have no scientific validity. They provide a basis from which to explore possibilities and explanations, but even more than hypotheses or theories they are subject to immediate change when new evidence is presented. The Copernican Principle is a philosophical convenience, not a physical absolute. (Principle, by the way, not principal.) We are reasonably confident that there are not large herds of bovines roaming the Argyre desert. We see no vast tropical forests swathing the slopes of Mareneris Valles. The substantial biosphere responsible for the major generation of Earth's methane is very obviously absent from Mars. It might just be remotely possible that all the methane on Mars could be derived from biological sources. It is very, very unlikely, given the diverse range of alternative means of generating it abiogenically. Note that we are disgreeing over the level of probability. There is no justification for asserting that Martian methane is probably biogenic. (Note it is my opinion that it is, but we have already established the low value of opinions.) Since it is my opinion that life is widespread throughout the universe; since it is my opinion that there is life on Mars; since it is my opinion that the methane we are detecting has been produced by life; for all of these reasons I do not see how you can reasonably accuse me of harbouring a preconceived "Life phobia". The simplest explantion is the non-biological one because it involves the fewest presumptions. We have several non-biological explanations for the Martian methane, some of which we know for certain do occur, others of which are highly likely. The alternative is an unquantifiable possibility of life. Thus the non-biological explanations wins hands down and that is not an opinion.

I'll offer an iron clad (or at least a carbonaceous chondrite) gauruntee that the meteorite was not still travelling at 30,000mph when it hit the boys hand. Simplifying, we can split the meteorites/asteroids into three velocity classes. 1. Damnably big, like a dinosaur killer, that still has it's ass end hanging out of the atmosphere when the front end hits. Velocity is not reduced in any noticeable way by the atmosphere. 2. Medium sized items of a few thousand tons, which will explode in the air through differential heating and the fact that most asteroids are rubble piles. Some of the remaining components will come in fast, but most will be considerably slower than 30,000 mph. 3. Small objects waying only a few kilos that come in either as discrete pieces or form from the break up of larger bodies will hit at, or not much more than, terminal velocity. Depending upon shape this is going to be slightly more than 100mph. The boy got hit by an object from the third class, not something faster than a speeding bullet.

DH, the threads wherein bombus has presented views on EET have become acrimonius and unproductive. I think we can satisfy some of bombus's concerns about PTT, have an interesting and revealing discussion, and avoid a descent into emotion if we stick to a contemplation of the facts. In that regard describing David Pratt as a crank is not helpful. I should like to see us focus on ideas and hypotheses and demonstrate why these are flawed, if they are. The personality and agenda of the person offering ideas or hypotheses should be incidental. Let's focus on PTT theory. Let's ignore EET for the moment. Again, let's stick to facts and avoid discussion of personalities, on or off the forum.