Ophiolite

Please justify this linkage.

There are two problems with this paragraph. For the moment I'll accept that your simplified treatment produces a valid result. Schubert et al in Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets, page 297, observe "Thus the ratio of the Rayleigh number Raq to the minimum critical Rayleigh number for upper mantle convection Raq,cr(min)is between r= Raq/Raq,cr(min) =3.6×10^3 and 1.2×10^4, depending upon the applicable velocity boundary conditions. If, as you say, the Martian condition will be two orders of magnitude less than the Earth, this is still at least one order of magnitude more than the value required to initiate convection. Therefore, based upon your own figures, Martian mantle convection is probable. Secondly, you state there are no observed plate tectonics on Mars. This would be disputed by several authors. During the aero-braking maneuver to place it in orbit, Mars Global Surveyor detected linear magnetic anomalies in the southern hemisphere of Mars. Researchers, using the data from two full Mars years of polar orbital data and with an improved technique to eliminate the effects of external fields, constructed a global map of remnant crustal magnetization (I note in passing that the strength of this magnetism is more than an order of magnitude greater than comparable magnetism on the Earth.) The similarity between these parallel patterns of magnetic reversal on Mars and those flanking mid-ocean ridges on Earth, immediately suggested a Martian equivalent to sea floor spreading. The patterns are absent from large impact basins, such as Hellas and Argyre, and from the volcanic terrain of the Tharsis bulge. This is consistent with the loss of the Martian dynamo early in history, before the final Heavy Bombardment Phase and Tharsis volcanism, but after crustal formation. The researchers provisionally identified two major faults from offsets in the magnetic patterns. The character of these faults shows them to be transform faults, rather than simple strike slip faults. “The great faults in Meridiani are consistent with the properties of transform faults and define an axis of rotation (23°S and 80.5°E) describing the relative motion of two plates, north and south of the equator. The separation of the faults (1,200km) and offset of the putative ridge axis (+/-240km) in Meridiani are comparable with what is observed along ocean ridges on Earth." There is also work by Sleep interpreting the Northern Plains/Southern Highland intersection as arising from plate tectonics, while Zhong and others have published widely on the proposal that “degree-1 mantle convection induced by a layered viscosity structure may be responsible for the formation of the crustal dichotomy.” and that this requires a mobile lid, rather than stagnant lid scenario. (Reference for these last two hypothesis can be provided if required.) (1) Connerney, J.E.P., et al. (1999) Global distribution of crustal magnetization discovered by the Mars Global Surveyor MAG/ER experiment. Science 284, 794–798. (2) Connerney, J.E.P., et al (2005) Tectonic implications of Mars crustal magnetism. P.N.A.S. , 102, 14970–14975

This is a question that is unanswered in detail. It is likely that many multiple stars arise from fission of the collapsing protostar, but the precise mechanism is unclear in detail. There is good treatment of this issue in a review article from 1987, which also covers many others aspects of star formation. If this is too technical then the Wikipedia article may be of interest.

bombus, it would be useful when posting links like this to summarise the content and arguments. For one thing this will help readers to determine whether you understand the material, or are just performing a kind of quote mining. For another, it will allow the reader to decide whether they wish to be bothered with opening the link. Here is my synopsis of the material. (I use the abbreviation PPT for Plate Tectonic Theory) The author explores problems in seven key areas: 1. Space Geodesy 2. Moving Plates 3. Hot Spots 4. Age of the seafloor 5. Spreading ridges 6. Marine magnetic anomalies 7. Subduction Space Geodesy There are significant inconsistencies between measured plate motions and those determined by the NUVEL-1A plate-motion model, which is based on the magnetic-anomaly timescale for the past 3 million years. Moving Plates The discrimination of plates both vertically (the asthenosphere is said to be discontinuous and often deeper than called for by PTT) and horizontally (many plate boundaries are unrecognisable, questionable, or ambiguous) is vague and unsatisfactory. Hot Spots Hot spot geology is in disarray, with much evidence contradicting the conventional view, which is supportive of PTT. Ages of the Seafloor Contrary to the requirements of PPT their are many instances of rocks older than 200 my found in oceanic crust. Spreading Ridges The detailed topography, dimensions, heat flow, earthquake activity, and observed spreading rates of rifts are inconsistent with PPT. Marine Magnetic Anomalies These key elements of PPT are absent in 1/3 of ridges and are symetricall in only 1/2. Many other of their observed characteristics appear to be at odds with PPT. Subduction The detailed character of deep sea trenches is at odds with predictions from PPT, while seimic data and observed orogenic histories often fail to match expectations. bombus, my feeling is that there is too much material here for a single thread and running several parallel threads simultaneously would be confusing and unproductive. Could you pick out one of these areas where you feel the evidence is especially damning and we can concentrate on that. If and when that is disposed of we can turn to the next.

Wieddekind, how do you address the several abiogenic mechanisms for generating the observed methane on Mars? The simplest explanation is the non-biological one. Unless you can find substantive fault in each alternative mechanism the biological source for the methane must be rejected. Martin, I have serious reservations about the process by which the Viking data was interpreted as failing to reveal life. This incident is certainly not conclusive, but the approach was sloppy science at best and leaves serious question marks. While I should not be at all surprised if we established conclusively there was no life on Mars, I should nod knowingly (and somewhat smugly) if we ever confirm its presence.

There are lots. The two obvious ones are volcanic activity and cometary impact. Volcanoes release variable amounts of methane. Has there been recent volcanic activity on Mars? Quite possibly.(1,2,3) Remember also that volcanic activity includes gaseous releases from hot springs. (4) These would not be as readily detectable as a full blown eruption. (A proper eruption would be difficult to miss.) Comets obviously contain the necessary components for the production of methane and there are plausible mechanisms which would generate it following impact. (5) While the first of these would produce variable amounts of methane, the second would obviously be a single hit with subsequent decline. Two further methods offer a mechanism for variable methane production that does not involve life, while a third mechanism could cause seasonal variations in atmospheric methane. First is the possibility that methane could be generated through the thermal decomposition of clathrates.(6) Secondly is its generation from atmospheric hydrolosis of carbon monoxide.(7) The third is temperature controlled adsorption of methane in the Martian regolith. (8) This is only the briefest of explorations of a complex and debated topic. Mechanisms I have not provided references for include impact by iron meteorite, serpentinisation, and degradation of ancient biogenic material. My opinion is that there is life on Mars. However, the methane evidence to date certainly does not prove this and so far is readily explained by non-biological processes. References: 1. NASA’s Observation of the Week Recent Lava Flows on Mars, Feb 3, 1999. 2. Vaucher, J., et al, LAVA RHEOLOGY IN RECENT VOLCANOTECTONIC ACTIVITY AT CERBERUS, MARS 3. Neukum, et al, "Recent and episodic volcanic and glacial activity on Mars revealed by the High Resolution Stereo Camera" 2004 Nature 432, . 4. Socki, R.A., et al, Carbon Isotope Equilibrium Between Methane and Carbon Dioxide in two Continental Hydrothermal Systems: Implications for Methane Production on Mars, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #P51A-1392 5. M.E.Kress, C.P.McKay Formation of methane in comet impacts: implications for Earth, Mars, and Titan, 2004 Icarus, Volume 168, Issue 2, p. 475-483 6. McMenamin, D.S., McGill, G.E., Thermal Anomalies Suggest that Ongoing Clathrate Dissociation in Icy Sediment Contributes to Martian Atmospheric Methane, 2009 40th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 7. Bar-Nun, A. Dimitrov, V. Methane on Mars: A product of H2O photolysis in the presence of CO 2006. Icarus 181, 320 322 8. Gough, R.V. et al, Methane Adsorption on Martian Soil Analogs: A Possible Abiogenic Explanation for Methane Variability.2009 40th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

I find Wikipedia to be often an invaluable resource. It can give a flavour of a topic and the references frequently provide an entree to in depth assessments. Since I believe nothing I read anywhere until I have seen it substantiated and confirmed by multiple sources I find no problem with the occassions when Wikipedia is flawed. These become apparent, or more likely because one has moved on they become irrelevant.

The abundance of organic chemicals on Earth is the cause of life, not its consequence. The abundance of organic chemicals in the interstellar medium points to the potential for life elsewhere, but not to its necessity. We do not yet know what environmental conditions and events must act upon the organic chemicals in order to generate life. Therefore, any conclusions we reach based upon our 1 of 1 intensely studied planet must be reclassified as speculations.

May I remind participants that this resurrected thread is about Evidence for Evolution. Interesting as some of the latter points may be it would preferable to either let this thread lapse once more into silence, or to focus on delivering Evidence for Evolution. (Or to directly disputing said evidence, with contrary evidence. Lets leave the philosophy for an appropriate thread.)

There have been some disturbing (to a geologist) inaccuracies by several posters on this thread. I'm not going get into those, but if this thread survives I shall be rigorous in pointing out future ones. I'd prefer to explore for a moment why the expanding Earth theory was at one time considered a viable player. That can lead us to examine why it was rejected by the greater part of the Earth science community and thereby identify which aspects of plate tectonics would best be challenged by someone promoting Earth expansion theory. Many are aware that continental drift was actively promoted by the meteorologist Alfred Wegner following his publication of the theory in 1915 (1). His favoured mechanism (differential centrifugal ‘force’) was faulty, as was that (tidal forces) of an earlier proposal by Taylor (2) in 1910. Although some researchers flirted with the idea of convection as the driving force, Arthur Holmes (3) was the first to place it on a solid footing (pun intended), as early as 1931. Despite his work and that of other visionaries, the idea continued to be rejected by the majority of Earth scientists. This began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s as growing evidence forced a reevaluation. There were two strands to this. Firstly, there was now clear evidence for divergent polar wandering, best explained by continental drift, from the research of scientists such as Blackett (4) and Runcorn (5). Secondly, seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges was posited by Hess (6) and expanded upon by Dietz (7) , and demonstrated through the analysis of magnetic anomalies, first by Vine and Mathews (8). I know, I know – Morgan found some first in the late 1950s, but I can’t be assed to find the reference. Heezen (9) and Tharp made the initial identification of the global extent of the mid-ocean ridge system in the late 1950s. This helped fuel the growing interest in sea floor spreading and the notion that the ridges were zones of divergence, a full quarter century after Holmes (10) first proposed it. If the generation of new ocean floor at the mid-ocean ridges was real, then either the Earth had to be getting larger, or old oceanic crust was being destroyed somewhere. S. Warren Carey (11) opted for an expanding Earth, a view that did not catch on. Why not? Carey’s proposal, even without a mechanism, was a reasonable option if there was not crustal destruction at deep sea trenches, or some other locale. Deep sea trenches seemed to provide a location and a means for this destruction. Several clues pointed to these trenches. Long, deep, linear features running parallel to island arcs, or young mountain chains, formed prominent and extensive portions of the ocean floor. Earthquakes adjacent to these trenches marked out planes (Wadati-Benioff zones) descending at an angle into the mantle (12,13). Negative gravity anomalies were found across the trenches by Vening Meinesz (14). Bullard determined that heat flow in these trenches was lower than the average for the ocean floor (15). Hess and Dietz saw how these various characteristics could all be explained by the subsuming of oceanic crust at the trench. By the end of the 1960s these threads had been pulled together, by the pioneering work of the likes of Wilson (16), Morgan (17), McKenzie and Parker (18) , and Le Pinchon (19). Plate tectonics was born. (The phrase was first used in print by Morgan and McKenzie (20) in a 1969 paper in Nature.) And Expanding Earth Theory was dead. So, if there were an achilles heel in plate tectonics, it would lie in the reality - or otherwise - of subduction. Interestingly, there are some question marks around the process. Are these sufficiently large to constitute a threat to established theory? I think not, but they merit examination. If the thread survives its possible demise I shall return with a consideration of some of these question marks and explore with you all the extent to which they could lend credence to EET. References: 1 Wegener, A. (1915) Die Enstehungder Kontinenteund Ozeane. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 2 Taylor, F.B. (1910) Bearing of the Tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the Earth’s plan. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 21, 179–226. 3 Holmes, A. (1931) Radioactivity and Earth movements, XVII. Trans.Geol.Soc.Glasgow, Vol.XVIII–Part III, 1928–3118, 559–606. 4 Blackett, P.M.S.(1956). Lectures on Rock Magnetism. Weizmann Sci. Press of Israel, Jerusalem, 131pp. 5 Runcorn, S.K. (1956). Palaeomagnetic Comparisons between Europe and North America. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Canada 8, 77–85. 6 Hess, H.H. (1962). History of Ocean Basins. In Petrologic Studies –A Volume in Honor of A.F. Buddington, pp.599–620 7 Dietz, R.S. (1961). Continent and ocean basin evolution by spreading of the sea floor. Nature 190, 854–7. 8 Vine, F.J. & Matthews, D.H. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature 199, 947–9. 9 Heezen. B.C., et al (1959) The floors of the oceans—I: The North Atlantic, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Amer. 65 (1959) 10 Holmes, op cit 11 Carey, S.W. (1958) The tectonic approach to continental drift. In Continental Drift, A Symposium, pp.177–355, ed. S.W.Carey, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania. 12 Wadati, K. (1928). Shallow and deep earthquakes. Geophys. Mag. 1, 161–202. 13 Benioff, H. (1949). Seismic evidence for the fault origin of oceanic deeps. Geol.Soc.Am.Bull. 60, 1837–56. 14 Meinesz, V.F.A. (1932) Gravity Expeditions at Sea: 1923 – 1930 Vol. 1 The Expeditions, the computations and the results. Netherlands Geodetic Commission 15 Bullard, E.C. (1956) Heat Flow through the Deep Sea Floor Advances in Geophysics, Volume 3. Edited by H. E. Landsberg, , p.153 16 Wilson, J.T. (1963). Hypothesis of Earth’s behaviour. Nature 198, 925–9. 17 Morgan, W.J. (1968). Rises, trenches, great faults, and crustal blocks. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 1959–82. 18 McKenzie, D.P. & Parker, R.L. (1967). The north Pacific, an example of tectonics on a sphere. Nature 216, 1276–80. 19 Le Pichon, X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661–97. 20 McKenzie, D.P. & Morgan, W.J. (1969). Evolution of triple junctions. Nature 224, 125–33.

Outstanding preservation. Interesting point in the evolution of primates. It is and will remain important. The media hype is probably part of an orchestrated attack on creationist thinking. So, yes - it is a big deal. And no, it is not any kind of monkey.

Earlier you said "What if the essence of matter is “the observer” and the electron only existed within space and time during observation. And the particle(s) state exists in a present time state, yet only existing wherever the electron was present within the subatomic fractures of a multi-verse." There seems to be some cirularity in your cause and effect. Would you clarify your meaning please.

The elevator would be approximately 35,000km long. There is practically no atmosphere above 100km. So you are debating a major design change that would be relevant for less than 0.3% of the elevator.

Will you consider this possibility? Any debate requires a set of ground rules. Frustration can arise when one or more participants are unaware of the ground rules, or consciously choose to ignore them. I think you may be unaware of the ground rules that are implictly embedded in any scientific discussion. I'd like to point out a couple. 1. As mooeypoo has pointed out in science we can never absolutely prove anything. Scientists will generally argue this is one of its great strengths. Creationists often argue it is one of its great weakenesses and rant on (sorry, but many of them are rants) about how science is incapable of proving evolution, while they blithely ignore the deliberate choice in establishing the methodology of science that we will not to be able to prove anything. (And that includes many things that the creationistswould believe to be proven.) This is rarely as 'weak' as it sounds. When the body of observation and experiment have been sliced and diced in so many ways, by so many researchers and have generated the same answers and yielded solid predictions, then the hypothesis or theory is accepted as pretty well factual. It is as proven as anything is ever going to be and scientists would be happy to bet their house on its 'truth'. Evolution is in that category as far as science is concerned. You can reject the conclusions, but only in as much as you reject the entire scientific method. It is not scientists that conclude evolution is real, it is the scientific method that demonstrates it. 2. Science is methodologically naturalistic, a point that many scientists overlook. By this I mean that science takes as axiomatic that everything we perceive in the universe can be explained by the working of natural laws. This may seem to undermine the open minded stance expressed in point 1. That is not so. By saying the process is methodoligically naturalistic we are saying that perhaps aspects of the universe are supernatural in character, but we aren't going to deal with those. Our methods can't deal with those. They might exist, but their character is outside our remit. If you choose, on the basis of faith, or for any other reason to accept the existence of the supernatural and claim to have some understanding of some aspects of its character, that's fine, but it has no place and absolutely no valdity in a scientific discussion. The scientists in the discussion think that science has the answer. Either evolution occured pretty much as science has described it, or God made the universe so that it looked as if evolution had occured that way. Since science, as pointed out before, is methodologically naturalistic, the second alternative has no meaning within a scientific disucssion. I agree and there can be much pride on both sides. When a scientist exhibits that pride, or arrogance (or whatever you wish to call it) it should be ignored. Scientists are human and subject to error. Science, withint the sphere defined for it, is not, or rather that error is readily corrected in the light of fresh evidence, or fresh appreciation of old evidence. And that is your choice. I have no problem with that. I do hope, however, that you accept that this is a logical fallacy. You are arguing against evolution on the grounds of personal incredulity. Again, such arguments have no place in a scientific discussion.

Technetium. It is element 43 in the periodic table. It is not clear if SwansonT's suggestion it is not found on the Earth is correct or not. For example, according to the US EPA "It occurs naturally in minute amounts in the earth's crust, but is primarily man-made."http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/radionuclides/technetium.html

Apparently. That is the word missing from your statement and it is the key word. Good science begins with good, unpredjudiced observation. Dismissing observations and research because they do not generate the expected results is the surest way to halt scientific progress. There are three valid reasons for rejecting the results: 1)Demonstrated flaws in the method. 2)Demonstrated flaws in the interpretation. 3)Repeated failure by other researchers to duplicate the results. Absolutely. What I object to is the summary rejection of the results because they 'are likely to be wrong'. By all means subject the methodology and analysis to more rigorous scrutiny than normal, but do not prejduge. I didn't see an analogy and I'm not quite sure what help you thought I needed.

Why would you consider it to be a necessary result of intelligent design. I don't follow your logic there. That is only necessary if one is adopting the religious take on ID.

I heartily applaud JohnB's points. The question is a valid one. It may be that it cannot be properly addressed at this time, in which case it cannot be investigated by science at present. That does not exclude it from future investigation. The interesting possibility that either the universe, or life were the result of intelligent design has been hi-jacked by religious fundamentalists in such a way that mere mention of it generates dogmatic reactions from many scientists, or those of a scientific bent. That is unfortunate, since it is a self inflicted closure of a potentially interesting area of research. I favour making a distinction - which I certainly do in my own mind - between Intelligent Design, which is a backdoor way of talking about creationism from the position of a fundamentalist, and intelligent design (lower case), which is the possible involvement of intelligent direction in some fashion in the development and possibly the creation of this particular universe. Such intelligence need not be omnipotent, omniscient, or especially interested in us. Does such an intelligence exist? I have no idea, but I am irritated that creationists have made it difficult to even discuss the possibility.

Scepticism is an essential part of science. It is important that the scepticism have a sound basis. That does not seem to be the case with several of the sceptical views posted in this thread. They seem to be based upon one or more of these points: 1. Previous claims of cold fusion were found to be faulty. This is irrelevant. All that matters is the rigour of the experimental method and the soundness of the logic. 2. No mechanism has been offered to explain how the cold fusion could occur. This is a very weak objection. Formation of hypotheses requires observation. Sound observations do not require, though they should ultimately lead to, explanations of the observations. 3. Posters are unable to imagine any mechanism that could be responsible. Arguments from personal incredulity have no basis whatsoever. In consequence of these three points I find no reason to reject this latest research as flawed, which is what the majority of posters appear to be doing.

Dak, you are saying that evolution evolves. Correct?

I find the term not just unscientific, but objectionable, since it implies evolution has a direction. However, it is used in respectable journals, both in the sense that the organism is en route to extinction, or that it is merely stagnant.

I have seen ghosts twice. I certainly don't believe in them as spirits of the departed. Both of my sightings were hallucinations occuring immediately upon waking and lasting for up to one minute. The first occured within two days of reading about the phenomenon, being fascinated by it and hoping it would occur to me. I am sure if I were gullible, or predisposed to believe, then I would have thought I had seen 'real' ghosts.

/Display ignorance If we are accelerating a charge with mass, wouldn't the magnitude of that mass be important? /ignorance.

Hello Liberator, welcome to the forum. Before anyone else picks you up on this, let me be the pedantic one. You don't have a theory; you have an idea, or speculation. A theory is a very well established concept, validated by many interlocking observations, experiments and realised predictions. I think you will agree your idea does not meet these criteria. This is incidental to your main point, but it is important to bear in mind. A lot of crazy ideas are posted on the forum and most of them begin with the words 'I have a theory'. You will generally get much more positive reactions from everyone if you change the phrasing slightly to 'I have an idea and I'd like to know what you think'. But to the meat of your idea. Physics is not my strong suite, but a couple of thoughts came to mind. 1. Temperature is a measure of motion of atoms/ions/molecules. I don't see how that is connected with the binding forces between them. 2. If anything, as we reduce relative motion between 'particles' it should enhance the binding forces, or rather be less disruptive. 3. We have, as Bignose pointed out, got very, very close to absolute zero. Do you truly expect something remarkable to happen at absolute zero? (Actually I wouldn't be surprised, but that's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.) 4. What do you see as the difference between a pile of atoms in one of the recognised states of matter and a pile of atoms in this new state your postulating?

I reject Intelligent Design out of hand. It is nothing more than a creationist ploy. I am more sympathetic towards intelligent design, in lower case. This could be of two kinds: intelligent design of the universe as a whole; intelligent design of life. The evidence for the first, already mentioned by an earlier poster, are the particular values of some of the fundamental constants. I would prefer not to discuss these here. I am interested in what might constitute evidence ofr the second category. A number of posters on this thread appear to have ruled out the possibility of evidence for this. That seems rather precipitate. Even as a pure intellectual exercise might it not be interesting to consider possibilities?