Ophiolite

Newtonian, can you provide the original url, failing that the scale and the lat/longs. thanks..

I think all taxonomists should be required to recite the following every hour they are at work. Classification systems are artificial systems, created by the human mind, designed to help us understand the diversity of nature by imposing an imaginary simplicity upon it. They are a wonderful tool for this purpose, but must not be taken literally, or too seriously, or out of context. As long as we remember that, then sub-species can be a useful concept, for the reasons noted above, plus it gives researchers an increased chance of adding 'one of their own'.

Gnieus, I believe you have overlooked two points: 1) An important part of our environment is the culture/society that we are a part of. This society has attributes that are, in part, independent of our genotypes and phenotypes. Societies are complex 'entities' that can be subject to analagous selection pressures as biological organisms. However, because they can change without awaiting a change in gentic character they can be more malleable. 2) Until this time evolution has been random, dependent upon mutations that are more favourable in a given environment. We are now in a position where, very soon, future evolutionary steps may be chosen by us, if we consider it ethical to do so. Both of these differences are dramatic; are a result of the evolution of intelligence; mean that future evolution will be different from what has occured in the past. So, contrary to the standard paradigm that we are not at any uniquely preferred place in time or space, we are at a remarkable point in time. [if you think the Universe is replete with intelligent life forms, rather like Byres Road on a Friday night, then it would not be so remarkable.] Edit: I am sure Syntax 252 can speakl for himself, but I believe he is stating a subset of my position. Our intelligence has allowed us to adapt our environment, making us less dependent on it. This adaptation is more than simply physical (see point 1 above) and has not yet gone as far as it can (see point 2 above). You seem hung up on 'we're all going to die'. Of course we are. That does not change the fact that the nature of evolution is/has/will change as a result of the application (and misapplication) of human intelligence.

Hell, Martin. You mean that's not you. Edit: It would be nice if they could be added to the profile. I have a team of image processing experts working on mine right now. I should be presentable by July 4.

Nice photo Us.2u.. It is now on my desk top. 'tree image thingymebobs': elaborate please Newtonian!

Apparently he will test it in three weeks.

TANSTAAFL Robert Heinlein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

The introduction of intelligence has made possible an entirely new form of evolution that is as different from the evolution of life as that was from the 'evolution' of matter. These three steps, tied as they are to this cultural evolution, have everything to do with it.

China has never been and never will be a communist country. The current governmental structure began with an ideology based on the principles of communism, that were never fully applied . Attempts to forcibly advance the transition from the socialist phase to the communist phase during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution failed, in part because of the growth of the personality cult around Mao Zhe Dung. Today China is closer to a laissez faire capitalist economy than anywhere in the West. (e.g. compare the number of deaths in the mining industry in China today with those in Victorian England.) If China establishes anything on a global scale it will be a global Empire, something they feel entitled to do as the most cultured, intelligent, diligent, longest established society on the planet.

You need to update your thinking..... Try nitrogen and carbon dioxide. And look to comets to provide the bulk of the amino acids.

If you notice your clothing is on fire you are likely to take immediate action to put it out. You are motivated to act by a clear and present need. Action, in the form of study, to obtain good grades, to expand your knowledge, to acquire skills, is directed to vaguer, more distant goals - a 'good' job, a better life. The rewards for this action are thus deferred and ill defined - quite a contrast with extinguishing a dress or jeans. What helps me self motivate in these situations is this thought: it is the ability to act for the distant future that distinguishes humans from animals; it is the decision to do so consistently that distinguishes successful humans from unsuccessful.

I want to clarify my earlier comments. The arrogance I refer to is his practice of dismissing alternative hypotheses with minimal or zero scientific argument, but rather a stance that implies 'I am an expert so you must accept what I say'. He may be right in everything he postulates, though that seems doubtful. I would find his writing more palatable (but no more or less convincing) if he controlled the overbearing certainty. I enjoy a bit of arrogance from great minds, but it is best tempered with a measure of self deprecation.

His overwhelming arrogance that his particular take on evolution is the only correct one. Not a very scientific approach.

I'm with your Dad! I get vertigo if I stand on a thick pile carpet.

China will, slowly and inexorably. The East is Red. And so is Mars.

I would be willing to stake my reputation on the fact that weather systems are directed by the Coriolis force. You may feel that's not much of a stake to bet, but its all I've got.

Superimposed on this are variations (largely due to continental placement) that give it somewhat of a pear shape. Although you are talking diameter rather than shape, the earlier observations hold: it really depends where you are measuring it. A final word on its shape: the best descriptor is that it is a geoid - i.e earth shaped!

Which pretty well sums up the attitudes and actions of most geologists and pretty well all geophysicists when they rejected Wegener's theory of Continental Drift. Blind obstinacy is not limited to creationists, nor outwith the behaviour of scientists.

George Leigh Mallory - Why climbing? "The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest ?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is no use'. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It's no use. So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for." -- George Leigh Mallory, 1922 From:http://willerup.com/climbing/

Try this http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JenniferHu.shtml obtained with a google search for "astronomical telescope" basic reflector It includes this paragraph, which I think indirectly answers your question. " Hubble's focal length - the distance between the main mirror and the point at which it focuses light - is 189 feet (nearly 58 meters), or about three times as long as the shuttle, but because the light is additionally reflected by a secondary mirror back through a hole in the main mirror, a long focus can be attained within the confines of telescope."

No one is obliged to reply to any questions. Motivations for replying range from being helpful, to showing off, to socialising, to expanding ones own knowledge. Whichever applies, they all take time. Tycho did not have to take the time to respond with a good answer (and some free advice). As Swansont observed "Doesn't anyone Google anymore?" Do you get my point? [Edit: If that sounded harsh, my apologies. We are all guests here and as a new one, welcome.]

No. When I qualify a statement with 'I believe' I am generally indicating that this is my understanding, but that I am not confident I am correct. I hope (a hope that is generally realised) that if I am wrong a more knowledgeable person will correct me. You may wish to go straight to source. This is Einstein's own popular account of his work.http://www.bartleby.com/173/

The 'Scottish ancestry' just isn't strong enough.

I believe you may have this back to front. Surely Einstein first postulated the equivalence, and mutability, of energy and matter, then asked 'how are they related'....