Ophiolite

Curiously, since this is a question about meaning, the question is meaningless. The argument in favour of, or against, the options, potentially involve not only science, but politics, religion, culture and other complex, opinion-loaded considerations. Scientists can not even agree on a definition of life (see many threads on this forum), so how can we expect to satisfactorily define the beginning of human life. To borrow a phrase from physics, unless we have defined our frame of reference any statement as to when life begins is meaningless. And two observers in different frames of reference will never agree.

Surely you did physics in high school?

I had completed my finals when I was twenty one, but graduated when I had just turned twenty two.

Since my primary historical interests lie in military history, World War II and Hitler I would be OK with a fifty year moratorium. I just checked my data base and see that I have 324 books on history, of which close to 2/3 would cover those topics. So I am very much in favour of adding such a category. Why not try an experimental roll out for three months?

That old chestnut. Many of those wars in which religion was the declared cause were ultimately issues of politics and economics, with religion providing the rationale, not the motive.

Shock, horror. Human communication varies in tenor and type depending upon context. What deep insights will the psychologists come up with next. [1] 1. For those who think this may be an example of the subject condition please note were I talking to you face to face I would convey my meaning with the aid of a disparaging tone, a selection of expletives and a readiness to share my home address, none of which are appropriate in the online milieu.

Please sir, I know this one. Parisian taxi drivers would not be hailed as the heroes of the Battle of the Marne. This may not seem important on a global scale, but I'm sure it matters to Parisian taxi drivers.

I'm not sure what Vexen's original claim was in detail, but - speaking as a geologist - decades away is now. Realistically I would have said it was one to three centuries away, but that is still quite close. I recommend anyone interested in the topic to read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars). It has a great deal of hard science in it (plus some authorial presumptions) and does a neat job of examining the views for and against terraforming. Personally I hope some of my descendants have an opportunity to go wind surfing on the Hellas sea.

Building on MigL's comments, I am always amazed and a little saddened, by those critics of religion who fail to acknowledge the vital role that religion played for millenia in helping foster unity within societies. I don't doubt that it also contributed to enmity between societies, but arguably those societies would not have grown in the first place without the moral structure and common world view created by religion. Please note, I am building on MigL's comments, not asserting that he will necessarily agree with mine.

Given that practically all scientific discoveries are based upon prior work I suggest that you should care. I'm sorry if seeking to provide you with information about others who have thought along similar lines impinged upon whatever ego you do have.

It would have been helpful if you had expressed it this way at the outset, without the misleading excursion into an invalid analogy. Anyway, as noted, the idea of variable constants is not new. Dirac's name came to mind, but I can find no more than a citation. He considered the possibility, I think, that the gravitational constant was reducing with time. Some geologists used this to provide a mechanism for an expanding Earth - one of the contending hypotheses for orogenesis before plate tectonics won the day. P. A. M. Dirac, Nature (London) 139 (1937)323. However, there is a raft of papers on the overall concept running up to the present day. I haven't looked, but I'll be amazed if there is not a wikipedia article. Edit: I'm not amazed: Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis

I think I disagree with your premise. The biological examples you give are a matter of increasing complexity. I hope you are not suggesting that the fundamental laws governing the more complex organisms are different from those governing the simple ones. There is a hint of such a suggestion in your post. We see exactly the same increases in complexity in physics. BB Theory has the four fundamental forces united at the outset. Particles can not, at first, exist. Temperature falls at some point to permit simple atoms to form. Nucleosynthesis builds more complex elements. And all as a consequence of the same fundamental laws,constants and forces. So I fail to see the distinction between physics and biology that you seem to be trying to make. You then throw in what is - as written - a non-sequitur, asking if the laws of physics were always the same. (Hence my suspicion that you think the laws governing biology changed in some way.) This is not a new thought. A quick search should reveal a number of explorations of such an idea. Let me know what you find.

1. The extent to which the absence of printing inhibited the development of sub-Saharan civilisations. 2. The role of climate change in the rise and fall of Empires. 3. The misonomer of Pax Brittanica. 4. Whether Hitler's views were shaped by his experiences in the trenches, or his earlier experiences in Austria. 5. Is the notion of history as being subject to continual reevaluation equivalent to the concept that all scientific hypotheses are provisional. 6. The manner in which political views are shaped by necessary historical simplifications. 7. Are historical simplifications necessary? 8. The French rationale for the Lousiana Purchase. 9. What if Santa Anna had won at San Jacinto? 10. How might he have done so? 11. Should more emphasis be placed on the history of science in school and university? 12. Was the success of the Roman Empire strongly tied to the lack of racial prejudice in the system? 13. Why have the animosities in the Balkans remained strong over several centuries, whereas the Civil War in the US creates no such violent divisions. 14. To what extent did colonisation of the East Indies delay, or promote their subsequent advances. 15. Will the techniques of the Han Chinese in creating a mythology of a long unified country survive the realities of this century? 16. What factors were most critical in determining the time and place of the Enlightenment? 17. If you were Russian wouldn't you be pissed of that the Americans think they won WWII? 18. etc.

I totally disagree. Whether one is arguing the reality of the holocaust, the truth of evolution, the validity of relativity, or the likelihood of the Big Bang, one is rarely arguing to convince the proponent of the other view. One is arguing to persuade the lurkers who have not heard the solid arguments one can present and have been swayed somewhat by the rhetoric of the cranks. This is an important role and is one of the main reasons I engage in such discussion.

Me Scottish. I see your point. You are mistaken. I have demonstrated why you are mistaken. My work here is done.

A simple example that proves my point and refutes yours. As bicycle makers they were very familiar with the practicalities of constructing robust frames, providing mechanical controls and selecting appropriate materials in terms of strength and weight. Do you seriously think they did not become well versed in the internal combustion engines characteristics before their first flight? And do you actually imagine they were not aware of the principles being employed by other inventors experimenting with powered flight? They pushed the envelope, for sure, but it was an envelope they knew intimately. To assert otherwise is a combination of disrespect and ignorance., Based on your input so far I can objectively conclude I have done considerably more research on the evolution of ideas than you. And perhaps you fall into the common trap of thinking his atoms were akin to our atoms. Not so. Matter had to be either particulate, or continuous. It wasn't a huge leap to propose the possibility that matter was discrete. There was, however, no sense in Democritus's atoms of different kinds; no notion of elements; no perception of components of atoms; absolutely no awareness of size. Just the simple idea that matter was particulate. Good thought, but so what? 2000 Years ago Thanks Even if you abstractly consider Democritus to be a scientist his teachers were not there abstract though trigger his propositions, and that is the mastermind principle at work. Thanks

If we have a section on religion then we absolutely should have a section on history. And we do have a section on religion, therefore.......

You imply that people without religion have no need of opiates or crutches. If that is your intent then I challenge it. There are few persons who do not have some belief, or perception that allows them to function in a hostile universe.

It is invalid if X does not equal 2. And in the relevant example you will not necessarily see the dilution you describe. Chance is involved. Sometimes 15 comes up on the roulette table three times in succession.

Let me be blunt. I know of no instance in which someone almost wholly uninformed on a topic has been able to offer suggestions that have led to an advance in that topic. If you know of such an example please provide it. Advances are made by innovative thinking based upon sound understanding of the subject matter, not seat of the pants comparisons that fail to stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Your belief that your analogy might stand some chance of overcoming the standstill you say exists in string theory is at best naive and at worst arrogant. In post #18 you say: Sorry, if you wish to see advances made you have to do the hard work. I can churn out half a dozen analogies and out-of-the-box thinking every hour on the hour. Each would have as much potential as your string-DNA analogy appears to have. You have to do a much better job of convincing me that you may have something of value here.

You used the word if. Since the if need not apply your conclusion would appear to be invalid.

Let me - for the moment - concede, in order to advance the discussion, that the analogy holds. Then I am forced to ask, so what? Analogies are useful as explanatory devices. They do not reveal hidden relationships.

There is no "safe distance". My understanding is that the issue (excuse the pun, my paronomasia is genetic) is that there is a higher probability of defective recessive genes being possessed by two closely related individuals than by ones who are only distantly related. So it comes down, essentially, to a roll of the dice. This is reflected in both law and practice wherein the marriage of first cousins is permitted in some jurisdictions, but not in others.

The situation of the UK in this regard has long intrigued me. The percentage of practicing Christians is low and probably still declining. Evolution is accepted by the majority of the population. There is no influential anti-evolutionary movement (yet). Politicians almost never bring religion into any debate and certainly not their personal beliefs. And yet there is not only no separation of Church and State, the church is a key ingredient of the state. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, the established church. Bishops sit in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister recommends the appointment of the leading bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Queen. Yet this intimacy has not led to the imposition, or attempted imposition of anti-evolutionary views into society. My conclusion is that Church and State can mix harmoniously if you do it right.

In the world at large, when things are wrong, I generally favour incompetence over intent. (Although when I used that excuse with the magistrate as an explanation for non-payment of a speeding ticket she fined me an extra £50.)