Ophiolite

I would like you to read this very carefully, then re-read it. If there is anything about it you don't understand, or are reluctant to accept let me know. 1) We can demonstrate that evolution has occured only from a study of fossils. 2) We can demonstrate evolution has occured only from comparative anatomy of living creatures. 3) We can demonstrate evolution occurs, only from a studies within microbiology. 4) We can demonstrate evolution purely from an examination of genetic code. We do not require each individual one of these to demonstrate evolution. Any of them will do. Yet we have all four. We have tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands of research papers addressing evolution. How welcoming do you imagine many of us feel when we encounter the claim, yet again, "there is no evidence". It can become depressingly boring. You, however, have it within your grasp to make several evolutionists very happy, by going away, studying the evidence with a truly open mind, then reporting back here with your conclusion. Good luck.

I present an analogy: before the Pioneer and Voyager craft reached the outer planets we had very little idea about the character of their satellites. The consensus was that the larger ones would be pretty much like the moon. When we actually saw the diversity there, it blew fuses in the minds of every geologist, planetologist and astronomer. We just aren't to good at imagining, in any reliable and detailed way, what might be. When we detect our first alien life, I think the same thing will happen. We sill be staggered and amazed by its diversity of character. The good news is once we are faced with these realities we get pretty good at explaining them. It's our predicitive powers that are comparatively lacking. And just to emphasise why we only have DNA based forms here [which isn't strictly true]. We DNAers ate up all the others.

The natural consequence of a flawed, misdirected and unnecessary 'war on terror'.

I am opposed to the death penalty on three grounds: 1) I sense it is morally wrong to take life. 2) As noted by a couple of you, the possibility of error exists. 3) The state should be setting an example to its citizens. That example should include aspects of forgiveness and rehabilitation. I understand it is technically difficult to rehabilitate a corpse.

Go join MENSA.

So if that's the policy shouldn't all ID threads and all ID discussions be closed down? Why single out this one? And if it becomes a forum policy to exclude ID related debate, what does that say about the openmindedness of the scientists and the scientifically inclined who administer, moderate and participate in these forums? And if it is not policy, then I ask again , why this particular post. I abhor ID and am mortified that I have felt the need to leap in to defend 'its' right to be heard, but I perceive the current approach as flawed and unwelcome.

They work for me. Do you think it's a placebo effect?

JC1 opened a thread (Intelligent Design struggles with an identity crisis) which included a lengthy extract by one Bruce Gordon former head of the Polanyi Center at Baylor University. In this Gordon presents the most cogent, unemotional, objective description and defence of ID that I have read. I am not a fan of ID. I have condemned it in this and other fora for its unscientific methodology. Gordon's presentation was persuasive by its reasonable ness. It may be that this conceals the same old ID distortions, but if so they were well concealed. When I say persuasive I mean in the sense of worthy of discussion and consideration, especially within a sub-section dealing with Metaphysics. I therefore am appalled that within one hour of the post being made Mokele had chosen to close it, describing the writing as More useless drivel from people who can't see the logical fallacy they're committing. There have been countless discussions, debates, arguments and outright battles over ID in the past. This is the first time I have seen a thread locked almost instantly. A thread that contained a single post that was noteworthy mainly for its reasonableness. I am well aware that freedom of speech does not exist on any forum, but does the censorship need to be this crude and blatant? I was frankly ashamed to see this action occuring on a forum that I have come to regard in many ways as a second home. I feel as if I have just been served with an eviction notice. Ophiolite

Blatant strawman! Nobody mentioned running out of oil (though funzone36 appears close to panic). The topic was peak oil. You are the only one saying we are about to run out of oil. Care to retract the slander?

? You see Gary, everyone can post the same thing in many forums.

If you ran really fast - supersonic that is - the shock wave should blast those raindrops out of the way. Even if you do get hit by any, your elevated surface temperature from frictional heating will immediately evaporate them. You will arrive at your destination dry, but exhausted.

Conceived as a long term project, with a large team of individuals, perhaps constructed along the lines of wikipedia, it does become marginally more feasible. This is probably a hugely out of date as a source, but in the 1960s a printed version of such a concept was produced globally under the auspices of the Geological Society of America (?). Called the Treatise of Invertebrate Palaeontology its aim was to cover the taxonomy, morphology, habitat, etc of all known Invertebrate fossils. This was, as you would imagine a multi-volume set. You should readily find copies in any University library, though it may well have been superceded.

Well this is an admirable goal, but I respectfully suggest that, unless you intend to devote half your life to it, it is an impractical one. Consider these numbers: Phylum brachiopoda –30,000 species Phylum bryozoa – 15,000 species Phylum chordata – ??, but around 10,000 vertebrates Phylum echinodermata – 40,000 species Phylum mollusca –35,000 species I make that 130,000 species. And I haven’t considered the archaeothyacida, porifera, tardigrada, cnidaria, or even the arthropoda, which account for 75% of living species and were just as prolific in the past. Nor have I counted in any plants or prokaryotes. I have read that the total number of catalogued fossil species is around 250,000. Assuming it takes you thirty minutes to process each species, that translates into forty years, even if you work a sixty hour per week. You may want to take a look at this site to grasp the magnitude of the task you are considering. http://www.palaeos.com/Default.htm

Presumably the winning team cannot actually be identified till the end of eternity.

That wasn't so hard. Here is another example of the cell going to a great deal of trouble to put a methyl group on the C-5 of uracil. It is a major energy-requiring process that needs a very special enzyme and vitamin cofactors in order to occur (thymidylate synthetase). The reason is not, however, all that obvious unless you step back and look at the chemical reactivity of the bases. The amino group on cytosine is somewhat vulnerable; under even physiological conditions, cytosine residues will undergo a small but finite deamination reaction. The result, of course, is to convert C to U. This means that a measurable population of RNA molecules have defects; but since several RNA molecules can be made from one template and the probability that a large fraction will have that defect is very small, the net effect is negligible. But if that happened in DNA, it would result in a permanent, heritable change in the genome, since there is but one copy of it. Indeed, the cell takes this seriously enough to have evolved a repair system that hunts out any uracil in the DNA and replaces it with the base dictated by the complementary strand. Pretty neat! Taken from http://uhura.rpc.msoe.edu/sepa/preview/sec4/4-20.htm

Ah! That one is more difficult. I think it is simply a matter of chance, but I do not know that. I'll google a little and if I find anything relevant I'll post it.

The strange notion that we only use 10% of our brains has been thoroughly debunked on another thread. I just wonder if we weren't too hasty to generalise.

I think you are getting confused. RNA has only four bases. One of the bases is different from the corresponding one in DNA. Specifically: DNA Bases: Adenine Guanine Cytosine Thymine RNA Bases: Adenine Guanine Cytosine Uracil So both RNA and DNA employ four bases each, its just that in RNA Uracil takes the role of Thymine in DNA. If your biology teacher did not know this you need to change schools! I suspect you may have asked the question in an ambiguous way: perhaps they thought you were asking why is there that difference of a single base between RNA and DNA.

I have not yet viewed the link. I suspect that it will turn out to be flawed for two reasons: a) I suspect everything. b) As noted earlier, to date all such footage has been at best inconclusive in the extreme, and at worst obviously faked. Alien visitations would be of such huge importance from a scientific, cultural, religous and survival standpoint, that plausible evidence for them be ismust be subject to rigorous and sceptical information. That said, there are a set of 'deunkers' who will continue to debunk even when, and if, a true alien visitation does occur. This group are as unscientific as those who blindly believe everything they are told.

I find it an excellent starting point for all sorts of information, not just in the sciences. Since I am excessively paranoid and sceptical I don't tend to believe anything from anywhere without corroboration and plenty of evidence, but wikipedia gives that leg up quite quickly. I usually go to it third though: first my own library, then a quick google, but if I can't find anything at the right level there on the first couple of hits, its of to wikipedia.

The Penrose argument, as ably summarised by DV8 2XL, appears to be analogous to the following: 1. Rocks are made of minerals. 2. Some Universities are made of rocks 3. Minerals can often be green or white or brown etc 4. Therefore colours cause advanced centres of learning to be built It's not wholly convincing.

Why are some people ambidextrous? Well, on the one hand.....

They come from the same area. I vote for throwing them back into the same area.