Ophiolite

Thanks for responding. Two points:1. I don't think we are restricted to discussing the central point of the thread. Granted we don't want to move too far away from it too often, but equally the excursions down unexpected lanes can be rewarding. 2. I was not attempting to prove that psychics don't exist. Yourdadonapogos had delivered a naive(?) claim that his friend was psychic. I wanted him to consider alternatives and a personal anecdote was quicker than trying to rememeber the name of arch-debunker James Randi. I entirely agree that psychics may exist and that if they do it may be an ability that evolved. However, based on the current absence of evidence or any plausible mechansim I shall pretend I am from Missouri and say "Show me". Nullius in Verba

Gobbles, you are so right. Let's see this year I've watched the sun set over the beach in Perth, Australia while drinking a ice cool beer; I've walked on a glacier in Norway in the company of friends; I've had the worst Indian meal ever in Amsterdam and the best in Aberdeen; I've travelled down the Mekong on hydrofoil, I've visited the Botanic Gardens in Bogor, on the island of Java; I've delivered lectures to small groups of students, totalling over three hundred on four continents; I've contributed to sales efforts for my company that have generated in excess of $20,000,000; and throughout it all I've continued to play the piano very badly. Its just as well I still have November and December left to actually do something in.

I find myself in agreement with almost everything you say, except your conclusion. As a provisional hypothesis I'm ascribing this to sloppy thinking on my part. Help me out here Sorcerer, which part of the following sequence of linked statements is wrong? (Please don't say all of them, I don't wish to take up basket weaving.) 1. One way of defining evolution is that within a species the proportion of different alleles for a gene changes significantly. 2. Cultural development (in the sense we have been using it to cover clothing, fire, agriculture, community, etc) has made life 'easier'. 3. When pressures are reduced in this way alleles that might have been eliminated or reduced in proportion may actually increase. 4. Consequently we now have a different proportion of alleles in the popultation from what we started with. 5. Which is, by virtue of point1., evolution.

This is an excellent thread. It looks as if many of us have been using 'osmosis' as a convenient label without concerning ourselves with the mechanism. I too had assumed that in biological systems it was passive and related purely to size of 'holes' in the membrane versus size of molecules/ions. On reflection I should have known better: clays in sedimentary sequences can function as semi-permeable membranes generating or retaining pressures greater than hydrostatic in the rocks beneath them. In this setting the clays do so by actively trapping ions in their inter-layer spaces. Hindsight says we shouldn't then be surprised that living systems achieve their results with such sophisitication and elegance.

I understood that under the conditions early in the big bang the two forces were effectively indistibguishable, they were the same force. As conditions ameliorated they took on distinctive characters. I understand you are saying this is not so. Could you clarify please.

It's the only thing that's made sense to me today! Should I resume the medication??

Sounds as if you have re-invented the 'tired light' theory, which I understand most cosmologists view as just a 'tired' theory. It seems likely that the current conventional view is correct, but I do wish it were promoted less dogmatically. Some proponents have a religious zeal when they defend it. Could that reflect a lack of confidence in what they are espousing? Perhaps one of our knowledgeable types could comment on this alternative: The abstract says “From the assumption that intergalactic space is filled with tachyon plasma, it can be shown that the cosmological redshift can be explained by electromagnetic attenuation in the tachyon plasma field.” [Now, that’s what I call an abstract] http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-1/Cosmo.pdf

Beyond the fact of the ratios, is the why of the ratios. I doubt that many are trivial, though some will be coincidental. One suspects that many of the relationships depend upon efficient application of power to the limbs, and thus to strengths of materials - in this case bone and muscle. From a quick scan of a score or so of the links turned up by Sayonara's suggested google, then such ratios are being used extensively to identify abnormalities and to predict final growth proportions. What in particular, mba2005, drew you to the foot-ulna combination? Hypothtetical conversation overheard in faculty lounge: A: "His body seems out of proportion in some way." B: "He has a very low torso:tibia+femur ratio. It's makes it easier for him to put his foot in his mouth."

Absolutely, their extinction is part of evolution, but it is an extinction brought about in many/most/all cases by humans through our impact on the environment. We can ignore it and watch biodiversity disappear off the bottom end of the scale, then see what effect that has on our evolution! Or we can behave with enlightened self interest and seek to counter it.

I would disagree in some of the detail (call it nit-picking if you will, but not the last point). By 'anatomically modern' I take you to mean Cro-Magnon. Are they not on the scene around 100kya rather than 200. Yes, they would be closely similar, but similar is not identical and some of those differences would be the result of evolutionary pressures, which could in part arise from cultural devlopments. 10000 generations is a lot of genearations no matter how you stack them. I fail to see the absence of selective pressures in the period we are talking about. Glacial/Intergalcial alternating, climate change, environment change on a huge scale. A continuation of the diversities of change that got us down from the trees in the first place. Have I misinterpreted your main thrust here?

Daniel F Galouye "Counterfeit World" 1964. A fairly effective treatment if I recall, correctly (Although that sub-routine may just have been inserted in my program.)

I sense an ambiguity. Ealier you said 'cultural evolution hasn't been around long enough to have an impact on our genes', yet here you say its been around for at least 10,000 generations, maybe substantially more. We can pack a lot of evolution into 10,000 generations.What part of your reasoning am I missing?

The cells are surrounded by water in the intercellular spaces. The gases have to dissolve in this water in order to enter the cells. The same water is exiting the plant through the stomates and evaporating. So, the evaporation controls the ascent of sap carrying minerals and other nutrients from the root system, and provides an entrance for gases into the cells. That's it in a chloroplast. Is that what you were getting at?

Philbo, read post 10! You're as messed up as I am, just slower.

You seem to be assuming that the simulation would be taking place within a computer within a Universe that followed the same laws, had the same fundamental constants etc as this one. If our Universe were a simulation is it not more likely that the simulation was of conditions disimilar to that of the parent Universe? Thought for the hour: Why is there only one Monopolies commission?

I find it interesting that it is only because of 'local' exceptions that planets formed, life evolved, and we can figure out the principles of thermodynamics. As to why such exceptions should proceed in this way, I lean with those who feel there are several levels of self-organising characteristics inherent in matter. [i have to go now. There is a crowd at the castle gates,with torches, chanting 'weak anthropic principle', over and over.]

Where do half of all the socks go? I have a hypothesis that I believe can account for this and for the similar disappearance of pens' date=' keys and other small objects. Very small black holes left over from the early stages of the big bang. I sense your objection - why only half the socks? Well, once I've figured that out I'll be ready to publish. (What, you mean this [b']isn't [/b]the pseudo-science section?}

In sections for the reply, also (I didn't mind.) Ophiolite: "The planet is littered with smart failures who never tried, or gave up early" SubJunk: To me that is a contradiction in terms. Smart failures who never tried? They're obviously not very smart if they're a failure who never tried. I suspect we are may be debating terminology (isn't that typical?). Smart has to do, by my definition, with capacity to achieve, based in part on intelligence, social skills, knowledge, experience etc. Those who don't try or quit early, arguably do so out of fear of failure. Some very smart people can be very afraid. 'Smart' involves rational thinking; fear is irrational, hence the conflict and apparant contradiction. Ophiolite: "and mediocre individuals who were too dumb to know when to quit who went on to great success." SubJunk: Are you talking about monetary success? I don't know what you mean. But if by 'success' you mean 'fulfilling one's life goal/s' then yes I believe "smartness" is just as important as determination. That was why I asked you how you were definining success. I would distinguish commercial success which requires modest to moderate intellect, coupled with great determination, from monetary success, which can be down to chance. But I prefer to consider success in terms of your second definition, achieving life goals. And here I would argue determination is key and smartness influences the success only to the extent that the goals demand intellectual rigour. SubJunk: I think smarts and determination need to go hand in hand for great success Absolutely agree. The main reason I posted was that you seemed to be saying that determination was of minor or zero consequence. Sorry for picking you up wrong the first time aorund. Passing thought: I'm suprised you don't make more use of the subjunctive in your writing.

And you think that's reading minds? Not reading body language? Come one ydp, I thought better of you, unless you're just trying to wind us all up. Here's one way it can work: A couple of years ago two trainees had to present me with a detailed report that ran to about fifteen pages. The creation of the report was part of their training program and they had to complete it as a two man team with no input from me. They brought the report into my office, somewhat apprehensive, but keen to find out how I thought they had done. Without opening it I said "this is pretty good work gentlmen, but you have made a small error in the second paragraph on page three." They were, quite reasonably startled by this, so I turned to page three, second paragraph, and sure enough there was a clumsy grammatical error. The rest of the report, by the way, was pretty well flawless. I could have claimed I knew the error was there because of my psychic abilities and they would have been inclined to believe me, since there seemed to be no other viable explanation. The truth was far more mundane. I reasoned that since this was the first major work that they were being evaluated for within the company that they would therfore be taking great care with it. This would include thorough proof reading. But proof reading is not everone's cup of tea and I suspected by the time they got to the third page their attention would be flagging. It revives at the start of the page, but has slipped again by the second paragraph. The error slips through. Voila! Apparent psychic ability.

I would rate Hancock the 'Best of the Weirdo's', the pseudo-science brigade like Daineken, Bauval, etc. His arguments are well reasoned, the uncertainties noted, the alternatives considered. Indeed I'm probably being grossly unfair to lump him into the pseudo-science camp - honourable amateur might be closer to the mark. At any rate, always entertaining.