Ophiolite

Demosthenses, it is also worth remembering that to some extent the age, in years, of the fossils we examine is of only passing interest. I wouldn't really care if an Olenellus I was examining was 500 or 450 million years old. I am interested in which fossils are older, or younger, than the others. It was after all specific fossils and fossil assembalges that were first used to date, in a relative way, different strata. Absolute age dating by radiometric methods, followed much later.

And on a large element of chance. If, for example, Australia were to survive say a bolide impact, relatively unscathed, we might see a resurgence of marsupials.........., or perhaps giant rabbits. They do spend a lot of time underground.

Severian's suggestion (approaching a University physics department) is good advice. I'd like to join Ivan in wishing you luck. I am, however, puzzled by a side issue. You say you are twenty two, so your were born in 1983? The mag lev train was first seriously considered in the 1960s. This was very public as the British inventor of the motor system (if not the concept itself) was desparate for funding to continue the research. The Germans and the Japanese have been running experimental versions since you were in kindergarten, again with much associated publicity. So what exactly, relating to mag lev, did you invent?

The atmosphere freezes out on the dark side. Atmosphere from the light side moves around to replace it. In short order the entire atmosphere is frozen. This is an absolute.

Pangloss, with no intention of giving offense, but a concern that I shall, it seems to me that your effective definition of a demagogue is someone who passionately believes in a view different from your own and actively promotes it.

This is a very good law as it will reduce the number of Americans.

I like the description of the Earth's shape as being a geoid i.e. Earth shaped. So very precise, seemingly erudite, yet containing absolutely no information.

arkain, your logic is flawed. You can't get something for nothing. All 'engines' are inefficient, some to a startlingly high degree. Your proposals to capture some currently wasted energy is sound, but as Swansont has pointed out it is already in restricted use. Should we make more use of it? I certainly think so, but that will not transform the energy sistuation in the way you seem to believe.

And I get sick and tired of apparently educated people on a science forum displaying illogic, bias and using snide debating tricks to 'win' arguments. I believe you know perfectly well that a large body of Christians hold the view that the story of creation in Genesis is a metaphor for what occured. That is the point that was being made, as I perceive it, by lucaspa. So you have a scientific atheist's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared, unaccountably, out of nothing; or, the mainstream scientific Christian's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared through an unaccountable act by an entity, which act is poetically described with the words "Let there be light." To a card carrying agnostic there ain't a whole lot of difference twixt those two positions. And if you do mean no disrespect perhaps phrases such as "spare me your bullshit", "I had enough of patronising.....", and "I don't care what you think" could be toned down.

"At the age of 3.5 years' date=' wild chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea, begin to use hammer and anvil stones to crack oil-palm nuts to get the kernels. To clarify the developmental processes, the authors did a field experiment in which stones and oil-palm nuts were provided. Infant chimpanzees' stone-nut manipulation was observed and video recorded. Data were collected from 3 infants younger than 4 years old from 1992 to 1995. The authors analyzed 692 episodes of infants' stone-nut manipulation and 150 episodes of infants' observation of nut cracking performed by adults. Infants observed other chimpanzees' nut cracking and got the kernels from them. The stone-nut manipulation developed from a single action on a single object to multiple actions on multiple objects. Although infant chimpanzees at the age of 2.5 years already acquired basic actions necessary for nut cracking, they did not combine the actions in an appropriate sequence to perform actual nut cracking." From Inoue-Nakamura N, Matsuzawa T Development of stone tool use by wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol. 1997 Jun;111(2):159-73. Sumita, K., Kitahara-Frisch, J. & Norikoshi, K. (1985). The acquisition of stone-tool use in captive chimpanzees. Primates 26:168-181 Here is a video of a chimp using sticks to recover ants. OK, no stones, but it's cute. http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Pan_troglodytes/Pan_troglodytes_tr_08a.html?movietype=rpMed

It is no secret that A is secretly doing B.Have you heard of logic? Have you heard of coherent thought? Do you know what rhetorical questions and irony are?

I'll take the views of the sideline commentators, who have a breadth and depth of vision that is lacking in the grunts who are crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's of established paradigms, any day. [And the error is deliberate]. Which is a reflection on your knowledge rather than on lucaspa's observations.

Based on what evidence please? Uncharacteristically fast for what? A creature with a wholly unique brain that was in the process of developing culture. Why would you expect a 'characteristic rate' of 'genetic fixation'? Superior speech was favoured through improved survival and reproduction. It was not needed by it. To phrase it in this way is to rewrite the principles of evolution. You seem to be making an unwarranted leap into groundless, and unnecessary speculation. Lucaspa's summary of current thinking on this matter presents a much more cogent and cohesive explanation in my view.

No.

Let's just start with a skyhook.

I think you are being too kind in calling that hatchet job a critique. The emotional tenor of the author is reminiscent of a Creationist web site. Every one of his arguments may be correct ( I have not had time to dissect them), but he is using a thoroughly unscientific demeanour to present them.I have been aware of the acquatic ape theory for some time. It has some compelling aspects to it and for me gels well. It may or may not be valid. I'm not sure. What I am sure is that it was far too large a paradigm shift to be accepted from someone outside of the anthropological community. Hell, you might as well expect a meteorologist to come up with the idea of continental drift. What nonsense!

My opinion is that when we have a far more detailed understanding of the probable pathways through which life arose we will then have to recognise that the distinction between living and non-living has little meaning at a certain level. There is a gradation in complexity between the two states and where we choose to draw the line is likely to be arbritary and misleading. (It will, however, provide the material for countless Ph.D. dissertations and an impressive number of academic careers.)

As a closet elitist my explanation is simple (and no doubt simplistic): most people are thick.

The questions wouldn't be raised in those sections. The Big Bang, as postulated, has, as noted, everything to do with the origin of life and its subsequent evolution, since the parameters are set by it. You clearly feel this is not the case. I am at a loss to see why you would think this. Yes, it has also determined the colour of your shoes: I suggest,however, that the colour of your shoes is trivial, whereas you are not. That is the distinction. You can, of course, seek to prove me wrong, by demonstrating that you are also trivial.

ybk could you give us the exact wording of the question relating to an equation.

But all three (origin of the Universe, origin of life, evolution of life) are linked in the mind of a creationist as being in contradiction with their belief of how the world came to be as it is. It is also somewhat specious to claim, as Mokele does, that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Since it is generally accepted that the fundamental constants were set at the 'time' of the Big Bang, and these constants are critical in determining that life can actually exist, then certainly the Big Bang has everything to do with setting the parameters for evolution.

None of which, by itself, necessarily invalidates what Moore is saying. And Pangloss declared that "What I'm really objecting to is the demogogery more than the message itself." I suggest PanGloss, that you stop listening to him. And if you are going to attack the style not the content, then please make that clear. I've always thought the most effective way to approach any message is to ignore the style, focus on the content. (In other words **** McLuhan.)

It is probably safe to say that no consensus has been reached yet in this area of research. Panspermia has undoubtedly received a boost from the variety and complexity of organic compounds detected in interstellar gas clouds, in meteorites and on comets. No one would seriously doubt that cometary impact during the heavy bombardment phase contributed significantly to pre-biotic chemistry. By that same token the emergence of life soon after, or possibly during, this phase favours an extra-terrestrial origin. Hypotheses focusing on the roles of crystal structure, such as Cairns-Smith clay progenitor, are plausible, well argued, but wholly lacking in evidence. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis of the primordial soup has been largely discarded in favour of the emergence of autotrophs in subterranean locales, safe from the repeated sterilisation of large impact events. The 'RNA World' approach seems to be still popular (I don't think anyone is still maintaining DNA was the first replicating molecule), but it has significant problems. I lean towards self-replicating polypeptides and self-catalysing metabolic loops, with cellulat bodies emerging from the tendency for lipds to form spherical mebranes in water. i.e. the first cells were almost certainly a symbiotic combination of several chemical systems that together merited the term life. I'd be happy to address any specific questions you have, but I don't want (and I don't think you want) a twenty five page essay on the subject.