Ophiolite

This turns out not to be the case. Evolution is current, ongoing and much more rapid than you suggest. For example, Hawks,J. et al Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution PNAS Dec 26 2007 Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species. Full article here: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full.pdf+html

The consequences of the reality of evolution as approximately described by the current version of the theory of evolution lead us to particular experimental methodologies. Those methodologies would not have been developed without the undersanding inherent in the theory of evolution. However, once they exist they can be applied (often) without paying any heed to the theory on which they are based.

You presume that there significant discoveries to be made. While there is oil there - in commercial quantities - I would be staggered if there were sufficient to seriously dent the import levels.

Thirty and forty years ago the concerns over pollution from the offshore drilling process were minimal. The objections to the offshore drilling process were based upon that cavalier attitude of the oil companies and their contractors. The change has been almost one hundred and eighty degrees.

Radical and iNow, I am speaking of the possibility of a form ofintelligent design, wherein the intelligence lies within the ground rules. And, to repeat the point, the intelligence need not be omnipotent, and it may be contingent and ad hoc in its application. There is nothing in evolution, as presently understood, that excludes intelligent design. The counter statement is, of course, "but there is no need for it, and no evidence". I would question that, citing for example, the suggestive precision of the fundamental constants, without which life would be impossible. Now this is moving us off topic, I'm simply pointing out that while ID is a no-no, id is worth a further look.

Strictly speaking we should distinguish between volcanism and tectonism. Actually, we should just distinguish between - no strictly is necessary - since the two are quite different. It is true that on the Earth most volcanism is related to active plate tectonics, but such is not, and was not, the case on Mars. In contrast much of the tectonic activity on Mars has been related to volcanism, rather than the other way around. As you say the planet has probably been tectonically dead in terms of large scale tectonism for a very long time. The same may not be true of its volcanism. The perception of a planet that became volcanically dead a billion years or more ago has been challenged. For example, Dohm et al cite the following evidence for recent volcanic activity: (1) stratigraphically young rock materials such as pristine lava flows with few, if any, superposed impact craters; (2) tectonic features that cut stratigraphically young materials; (3) features with possible aqueous origin such as structurally controlled channels that dissect stratigraphically young materials and anastomosing-patterned slope streaks on hillslopes; (4) spatially varying elemental abundances for such elements as hydrogen (H) and chlorine (Cl) recorded in rock materials up to 0.33 m depth; and (5) regions of elevated atmospheric methane. Source: Recent geological and hydrological activity on Mars: The Tharsis/Elysium corridor; Planetary and Space Science, Volume 56, 2008 Issue 7, p. 985-1013

What you say is true, but it is also - in my opinion - a great loss. I like to distinguish between Intelligent Design, the camouflage concept for fundamentalist Christians, and intelligent design. (Note the lower case.) There is evidence for the latter, not for the former. The evidence for intelligent design (lower case again:-)) is sketchy, provisional and open to other interpretation. It will readily fall to Occam's razor, but may not entirely go away. [Think Strong Anthropic Principle, Henderson's Fitness of the Environment, etc.] The ID stance is such that is inhibits proper objective discussion and scinetific investigation of id. That is the loss.

Not exactly true. It is, after all, called intelligent design, not omnipotent design.

What does concern me is that while, as you say, the reality of evolution should not be in doubt, the precise mechanisms especially for macroevolution and - at the other extreme - the development of eukaryote cellular architecture, remain obscure. My concern in this area is not our ignorance of these matters - that represents an opportunity for research and futue understanding - but the glib way many dismiss these uncertainties as being of little or no consequence. Indirectly, it provides creationists with ammunition that can convince lay persons.

While many things are possible, not all of those things are equally probable. Science provides a means for distinguishing between the likely and massively unlikely. It does so in a rigorously methodical arrangement of observation, hypothesis formation, testing, re-evaluation, etc.On different occassions - ans with differing intensities and levels of seriousness - Sir Fred Hoyle and Sir Francis Crick proposed life on Earth was seeded by an intelligence. The difficulties are the minimal amount of evidence for such hypotheses and the problems of falsifying them. Some problems in science cannot be realistically or legitimately tackled until the time is right. That time will not be right for any form of intelligent design until and unless we re-engage with a teleological paradigm.

We still do not know exactly how life arose. Many argue - from positions of considerable knowledge - that life is inevitable whenever the conditions are right. Thus, Christian de Duve, Nobel Laureate, speaks of 'the Universe, pregnant with life', while Steve Kaufman complexity theorist, sees life as an inevitable emergent property of the Universe. But these views are, at best, well informed opinions. Until we have demonstrated in detail a mechanism by which life could readily have arisen in the course of a hundred million years or so (or have solid evidence for pan spermia) then we cannot be sure that the Earth is not unique. Consequently, I would have to disagree with the op. Is there life elsewhere in the Universe? Probably. Is it virtually certain? We just don't know. On the subject of the Drake equation, remember it was not designed to predict or calculate the probable number of intelligent civilisations in the galaxy, or Universe. It was intended to provide a framework or skeleton around which to build a meeting on extraterrestrial life held at the Greenbank observatory in the early 60s. It was a discussion tool, not a real algorithm.

How are you defining and identifying alpha males, cflsyndrome?

Oops. :embarass:The correct abbreviation for mitochondrial DNA is mtDNA, not mDNA, which I inadvertently duplicated from Vexer's post. MedGen has it right. (mDNA is too close to mRNA for comfort.)

Yes.If life evolved independently on Mars it increases estimates of the range of conditions under which life might arise (and be sustained) and thereby tends to increase the estimates for the number of extant civilisations.

I am having real difficulty in understanding what it is you are not understanding. The egg contains mDNA just like other cells in the body. When cells divide mitochondria are present in both halves.The fertilised egg is the next generation. So the mechanism of 'carrying' should be apparent. Any questions?

While Drake's figures now appear out of line with current thinking we need to recall context. Drake did not seriously entertain the idea that his equation would provide an meaningful estimate of the number of galactic civilisations. Rather he used it to frame the agenda of a meeting held at Greenbank Observatory in the early 1960s to discuss communication with extraterrestrial intelligences. Each factor in the equation formed a topic for dicsussion.

Vexer, this has been answered by more than one person implicitly and explicitly. However, you asked for it 'simple'. The mitochondria are inside the mother's egg.

As am I. I would therefore welcome a list of proper citations, rather than references to dead Roman geographers, 'French scientists', anecdotal experience, UPI press releases, and the like. P.Loubeyre, et al reported in a 1996 letter to Nature that solid hydrogen did not become metallic at the pressures and temperatures to be found in the core. Metallic hydrogen is a necessary prerequisite if the Earth's magnetic field is to be generated within the postulated hydrogen core. Having a cold core only exacerbates the problem.Problem 1: The hypothesis must explain how the magnetic field is generated within solid, non-metallic hydrogen, or liquid, non-metallic hydrogen. My understanding of Gold's hypothesis is that methane is exuded by the mantle and becomes converted to more complex hydrocarbons (possibly by the action of deep resident extremophiles) as it migrates through the crust. He made no mention - that I can find - of a possible hydrogen core. (By the way, who is Steven Solter - I can find no references to him?) For example, Gold,T. PNAS Vol.89 1992.Charles Warren Hunt appears to believe that deep hydrogen orignates from hydrides in the mantle and has nothing to say about a hydrogen core. For example, http://eearthk.com/Articles03.html Problem 2: Your quoted sources do not in any way support the cold hydrogen core hypothesis. Indeed Hunt's at least appears antithetical to it. Please provide a citation to support the generation of such high temperatures within the solid phases of a crustal setting. I do not see how reaction rates in these conditions could be fast enough to generate such temperatures. (Please note: this is not an Argument from Incredulity, but a request for ecidence to support your claim.)Problem 3: Where is the evidence for these high temperatures being generated within the crust by this mechanism? This is from Christianson's paper. Despite his credentials from the Titan missile program, I am left somewhat apprehensive by a further quote - "...the workings of a condensed cold-core model matched well events reported by paleaontologists, archaeologists, geologists and historians. They also matched well events reported in the Bible, including future events foretold by the prophets."Problem 4: Horizontal gravity? Overall credibility of this 'expert'? Dr. Ho-Kwang Mau's preliminary investigations were conducted in 1980. If these were corroborated by subsequent studies we can be confident that there would have been a massive re-evaluation of our thoughts on Earth structure. Problem 5: Your rejection of an iron-nickel core is based upon provisional results that do not appear to have been corroborated. You appear to have no understanding of a) the postulated impurities present within the core; b) the lithophile/siderophobe and siderophile/lithophobe character of many elements. c) The small quantities of minor denser elements that are present.Problem 6: Your logic is faulty because you do not understand the geochemistry. Therefore you need to offer another explanation for why the iron core should not form. The quantities of escaping hydrogen are miniscule and are fully accounted for by breakdown of water vapour by UV radiation.Problem 7: Where is all the mobile hydrogen from this cold core?

Yes, really. Try telling any Ordovician palaeontologist that there are not distinctive forms of thecal geometry in his key graptolites and he will point you to the nearest exit. Variations of any feature are around a norm and within specific constraints.

The correct way for a creationist to challenge the 'missing links' would be to query exactly how form A had evolved into form B. This is an approach that would have scientific merit and would produce more fumbling on the science side than a simplistic cacophony of cries of "missing ling, missing link", which are easily rejected.

Your first sentence makes me uncomfortable: progresses along a given evolutionary developmental path. There is a strong implication of direction in this phrase. The notion of a direction in evolution makes evolutionists squirm. It might be better to say it is the path an organism has taken, rather than takes. That would make it a matter of historical record rather than teleological necessity. You have identified a major weakness in your speculation. Perhaps I should say the major weakness.I see where you are heading with the rest of your thoughts. I need to think on them further if I am to offer any meaningful comment.

You sound sad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder)

Thank you for your positive remarks. The only thing is, I can't remember what we were talking about.

An error on my part. The brain perceives patterns and meanings where none exist. I repeated my opening statement because it was made several weeks ago and I certainly wanted to remind myself of precisely what I had said. I felt and still feel that the statment was sufficiently precise. I offered an amendment because the reaction to my posts suggested my meaning was not being accurately conveyed. I'm sorry you found this attempt at clarification was structured in an unappealling manner. I would be uncomfortable using your suggested approach: to say 'you misunderstood me', seems too presumptuous. I am not sure who 'we' is in this context. And it is 'back then' that I am discussing. All geologists live in the past. Yet, as noted, Bascule has clearly implied that he considers the theory to have been inherently and obviously absurd even 'back then'. I don't expect you defend Bascule's position, but if you would at least recognise it we could move on.

Moneypoo, do accept my apologies. It is clear my powers of communication have all but deserted me. I shall make a further effort to make my point. Bascule stated "So, in absence of evidence for either hypothesis, a somewhat reasonable one is on par with a totally absurd one?" He is utterly ignoring that at the time these hypotheses were current there was nothing to distinguish between them in the absurdity stakes. Indeed the one on which the most scathing condemnation was heaped was continental drift. I am fully aware that this is an absurd hypothesis. I have argued exactly this point directly with Neal Adams on another forum. Yet it seems clear that Bascule still wishes to retroactively apply today's judgements to yesterday's beliefs. All I am saying - and all I have always been saying - is that believing in an expanding Earth was at one time a perfectly rational, scientific position to take. Therefore ridiculing the idea because it is obviously absurd is a purely dogmatic position based upon what we now know and is not an objective, position based upon application of the scientific method. I meant precisely what I said. "I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could contemplate such a notion." Perhaps I should have made this marginally clearer in this form: "I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could ever have contemplated such a notion." Dogma is potentially even more injurious to science than to religion. Nothing I hav read thus far has convinced me that yourself and bascule are wholly free of it. And that, I continue to find interesting.