Ophiolite

Pioneer, you seem to be asking evolutionary theory to account for the origin of life (the zero point on your curve). That would be faulty logic, would it not, or have I misunderstood your thrust?

I certainly look at what an applicant has studied, though not at the results they achieved. It provides a basis for asking questions such as "What made you lose the interest in history?" "Why did you decide to take up geology at that point?" "Did you ever regret abandoning the economics?" The answers can provide considerable insight into what motivates the applicant, how commited they are to goals, how logical they are in planning in the long term. On this basis their GSCEs are important, their specific results, very much less.

Since the largest tides would have occured while the Earth was still actively accreting it makes for some interesting mental pictures. 4.2 b.y. ago, for example, impacts large enough to completely evaporate the oceans and melt a significant portion of the crust would have been commonplace. So now instead of an ocean of water subject to massive tidal forces, we have a sea of lava subject to the same forces. I rather like the idea of a 150m lava tsunami rolling up a primeval beach. Not very good as an environment for abiogenesis, but it would look great in cgi.

"In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so I would not have told you." So, apparently not. If Martian life is found to be radically different from Earth life it would provide powerful perspectives to understand how life originated and to improve estimates of its likelihood elsewhere in the universe. As ajb pointed out, if it is broadly similar to Earth life, so that a common ancestor seems likely, then it would enhance our understanding of Earth life, but do little for the broader picture.

What Mokele said, plus: Good luck with that.Or, to put it another way: no chance. It is a moving target. Change the environment and what was 'forward' becomes 'backward'. Scientific theories are not formed for the benefit of the layman, but as a means of better understanding some aspect of the universe. It requires hard work and an education to take maximum advantage of what has been discovered to date. Your proposal is simply a form of dumbing down. We should instead be smarting up.

Thank you for expressing clearly and concisely my exact thinking on this point.

You have quite missed my central point. These deaths were due to a misapplication of IQ tests, which was a consequence of Hitler's warped perception of reality. By the same argument we can say that the Judaism is wrong because it directly led to the deaths of six million people in concentration camps!!! Many ideas have been misapplied. If we follow your logic we should abandon evolutionary theory since it led, inevitably, to the concept of eugenics.Please tell me why you are willing to continue the use of evolutionary theory, but demand the abandonment of IQ testing? You haven't read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, have you? However, you were implicitly defining a racist as anyone who did not agree with you. And later you accuse me of arrogance. It is a slight deviation, but I guess, by your definition, I am a racist. I am a keen athletics fan (track and field, for those who use US terminology)and I have no doubt that some genetic characteristic has granted those of West African origin, superlative fast twitch muscles. No white man has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. No asian has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. No East African has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. As a racist, according to you, I celebrate the achievements of Jesse Owens in the Berlin Olympics of 1936. Now ask those guys to run over 800m and they are just crap! Back to reality. Race is, as you say, a somewhat artificial construct. We've been interbreeding as a species for a considerable time before cut price airlines provided the opportunity. Nevertheless there are differences between individuals and I see absolutley no reason there would not be differences between 'races', however those might be defined. According to you that makes me a racist. According to me that makes me a realist. What would make me a racist would be if I started to categorise those differences as 'good' and 'bad' and deliberately emphasised those where 'my race' was 'better'. We can recognise differences, we can celebrate differences, we don't need to hide them because we are to immature to handle their existence. I look at the whole human species, our wars, our disagreements, our illogical thinking. I see the incompetence, the silly mistakes, the ineptness. And then I look at what we have achieved and think 'Bloody hell, that's not bad for a bunch of monkeys who decided to give up high rise living." But I still wonder (in both sense of the word) how we managed to achieve it given how inept we actually are. I think you'll find that perspective is the very essence of humility, not its reverse. Regretably the smilie icon for backpeddling does not appear among the options. You are trying to bury your original defintive declarations in a smokescreen of waffle. Fortunately your original statements are still there for all of us to read. Abdul-Aziz, I suspect our discussion has outlived its value. You have raised some valid concerns about IQ testing, but these concerns have been relegated to a side issue by two things. Your unfortunate emotional loading of your arguments; your absolutist statements in which you have erected strawmen to attack. I shall follow the discussion, if it continues, with interest, but I do not plan to take any further part in it. Thank you for your time. Ophiolite

Will this be a commercial service? If so, what percentage of the company will we get for providing all the knowhow to set it up?

Thank you. And a Merry Christmas to all - and to all a goodnight.

This is a truly bizarre statement. They were slaughtered because Hitler was a warped meglomaniac. You might as well argue that it was the fault of the Jews for being Jews that led to their slaughter. If IQ tests were abandoned then Hitler could not have killed the less intelligent. If Judaism was abandoned Hitler could not have killed the Jews. Really? Some examples please. I am aware of instances where the children of friends have been given special classes to help overconme their 'mental challenges'. The friends have no doubt that these mental challenges exist, even though the children are 'normal' in all other respects. They are delighted that the special classes are available and report upon the benefits to their children of attending these. You implicitly insulted many readers by your 'if you do not agree with me you are a racist bigot' approach in your opening post. You make this statement: Then in the next paragraph you tell me You are rather picking and choosing, aren't you? Please don't distort my words, nor be so hypocritical. You were quite happy to 'welcome me as a brother in arms' and take my experiences with IQ testing as objective and relevant previously. Now I am arguing against your position I have suddenly become arrogant.Far from being arrogant I actually find myself to be rather inept in matters of intellect. However, objectively I find the majority of persons I am in contact with are even more inept. Do you want me to lie to myself? The whole point of bringing up my personal situation was to emphasis my belief that intelligence between individuals does vary. I understand that you would agree with this general statement. This does not match up with your previous statements.all human beings (provided they are neither mentally nor physically disabled) have the same innate capacity for high intellectual/creative achievement throughout the life cycle. In a sense, everyone is a potential Einstein, minus the influence of external variables of course. While I do not discount the influence of genetics over the development of the human personality, I believe genetic influence is obviously quite minimal, with the influence of external variables being considerably more important. So which is it? 50:50, or nurture being "considerably more important". This small icon - - indicates that the remark is intended humourusly. It was designed to defuse tensions that might be arising from our differing opinions. Perhaps you feel that humour has no place in a serious discussion. If so that would be another differing opinion. Thank you for your advice. I shall give it appropriate attention. Good fortune is not granted, but is worked for.

No, I was not victimised. Out of a sincere desire to help me find a productive place in society my teachers, specifically, and the educational establishment, in general, used the best tool then available to them to try to plan my future education. Just because some aberration in that tool lead, apparently, to a misreading of my 'true' intelligence can hardly be described as victimisation. Indeed, recalling at a distance of many decades the efforts of my teachers I feel offended on their behalf that you level such a charge at them. Apology fully accepted. You might wish to consider whether others who have participated in this thread may also merit an apology. Welcoming with open arms? I think not, for I think you are mistaken. Secondly my personal experience in this is really largely irrelevant. The issue is too important to be swayed by personal, anecdotal evidence. I believe myself to be more intelligent than the majority of people I meet. I also meet the occasional person in whom I am in awe of. I have no doubt that there is a wide range of intelligence in the population. I am also certain that a large part of this is genetic and a large part is environmental. But all you have been doing is insulting peoples morals, insulting their knowledge, and - dare I say it - insulting their intelligence.You have taken a position in a way that invites disagreement. If you can't see this perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are. And how exactly has this happened? What was the impact on me? I got to do woodwork instead of Latin. . Disaster? I think not.

I understand that this is a subject upon which you feel very strongly. I have observed, over many decades, that unless one has the oratorical powers of a Martin Luther King, then openly expressed moral outrage will turn people away from your argument. Should it be this way? That is irrelevant; that is the way things are. From a pragmatic point of view, if you wish to persuade people as to the rightness of your thesis, the tangible emotion will act against you. Of course, if you are simply indulging in a rant against bigots, racists and fools, then I supppose the openly expressed emotion is essential. I will assume you actually wish to change people's views. In that case I recommend, for a second time, toning down your rhetoric. It probably helps your argument very little that you make so many assumptions about those you are debating against and that you openly insult them. In my own case you have levelled these two charges: 1) Strongly implied that I lack a conscience and am therefore, at best, immoral. 2) Assumed I have not read up on the history of IQ testing and application. It is quite possible to have explored the history of IQ and yet to reach a different conclusion from yourself. I am not condemning you for the conclusions you have reached. (I am not even saying the conclusions are different from my own conclusions. You have, in what seems to be an emotional haze, assumed they are.) I would appreciate it if you refrain from moral condemnation of my views on the matter when I have not expressed them and when you are ignorant of my own experiences relating to IQ testing. In that regard here is a short story. In the 1950s the Scottish Education Department tested all schoolchildren at the end of their primary education in order to stream them into an appropriate secondary school. This 11+ testing included an IQ test. Indeed it was the central and major part of the scheme. On this test I scored 108, barely above average. My parents were told on this basis not to expect anything of me academically. I might manage to scrape a couple of 'O' levels, but any thoughts of continuing to fifth and sixth year of secondary school and sitting for Highers, should be abandoned. Without working too hard I got nine 'O' levels and five highers. Also, with minimal effort, I got an upper second class honours degree. Ten years later, as part of a work related process my IQ was tested again. It was in the mid 140s. Having been a potential victim of the testing/labelling process you find so abhorrent I find it amusing that you condemn my ignorance on the matter and choose to question my moral credentials. I say amused, because I think that is preferable to being enraged. There has been enough of that in this thread already.

I thought it was interesting that in a thread intended to discuss intelligence testing in a scholarly fashion the following word count may be found in your opening post: charlatan(ism) 2 falsehood(s) 2 bigot 7 racist 3 The emotion weakens your argument, for it carries with it the risk that you may be cherry picking your data. On a separate point, why do you feel that if intelligence were genetic this would have to be controlled by a single gene? What leads you to believe that intelligence would be controlled in a quite different way from many other genetically controlled characteristics?

I accept there are no free lunches, but I should be interested to hear from iNow why coal should be rejected. With a proper carbon sequestration program, ideally initiated a site, coal could be an important component of the energy program through the end of the century.

I am rarely on this site now, so perhaps I can be forgiven for throwing together a post composed of several diaparate points, though all - I think - touch on the thread topic. That is a perhaps the most important point made in this thread. I have often modified what I post until I feel comfortable that it is a claim that can be backed up if I am called upon to do so. (Sometimes, to force myself into doing some reading up on a subject I'll make a statement right at the margins, with the hope of being called on it.) Tom, there seems a lot of anger in your posts. I can understand you may feel frustrated by what seems to you unfair treatment, but allowing that anger to display itself is counterproductive. I'm also puzzled by your claim that a scientist is someone who is taught in the scientific arena. Mokele and others have pointed out that this is certainly not the conventional definition of the word. I was taught science. I graduated with a science degree from what was then one of the better universities on the planet. I often apply scientific methodology to solve problems and generate new understanding. I don't think I have ever described myself as a scientist. I have described myself as a keen amateur geologist, as an armchair astronomer, as a laypeson with a deep interest in evolutionary biology, but never as a scientist. I too would be interested to know in what manner you are a scientist. Would you share this with us in more detail than to date. Tom, again, it is not my intent to offend, but I have to say the combination of your writing style, the evident 'chip on the shoulder', and the belief that biasm might be a real word, all speak to me of someone in their late teens, or early twenties. Let me accept that you are not and therefore offer this free advice: you need to change your style of writing (and thinking?) if you wish to be treated more 'fairly'.

I really must object to this ungodly talk about sex. It is quite clear from the following post that sex is not the issue. Sex is simply a substitute for the far more important life-issue of geology.

I would agree that theories, in detail, can readily become outdated. The generality tends to remain. Of course, the alternative is that the detail remains and the generality changes. The classsic example of this would be the introduction of the plate tectonics paradigm. All the observations are extant, but the explanations is wholly different. Go to a stratigraphy/sturctural geology/sedimentology textbook of the 1960s and you will find many pages dealing with geosynclines. Go to a similar batch today and the term likely won't even be mentioned.

Thank you Pioneer. I have been much engaged in my work of late and needed a good laugh. Your last post provided this.

J.K.Rowling has also made a very good living this way. Both authors write fiction.

It is an intriguing experiment. (Although I envisage a colony of such mice escaping by chance and for ever after we shall be fearful to sit upon a toilet.) It would offer nothing in relation to the reality of evolution, though it could produce some interesting new detail. As iNow has pointed out evolution does not lack conclusive evidence. Evolution is as solidly rooted a theory as anything in science and more solidly rooted than most. That's because they are speaking from ignorance. There is abundant fossil evidence. The problem is it requires open eyes and minds to see it. I hate to sound dismissive, because your intentions are excellent (and the proposed experiment is clever), but pandering to a scientifically illiterate minority with specially designed experiments is not the way forward.

As you have described it, your difficulty lies not in remembering facts, but in correctly analysing data. If this is the case then you have an entirely different challenge with different solutions. Might I be correct?

A basic principle of tribology is that you do not make two surfaces of the same material if they are in moving contact,

I am sure you felt compelled to say that.

The sea is a dangerous place. Ships sink on a regular basis. Most people are unaware of how regular an occurence this is. A combination of severe sea conditions with improper maintenance, or unskilled crews is all that's needed to change a sea voyage into a mystery. (Let's be topical and add piracy to the list.)

Not it isn't. Science declares it has nothing to say about deities either way, that it cannot investigate deities or their supernatural acts. It is methodologically naturalistic, not intrinsically naturalistic: an important distinction. I don't like to think otherwise, I am constrained to think otherwise by manner in which scientific methodology evolved. I could try denying reality, but I don't believe that's very effective. YAA.