Ophiolite

I understand your argument. I am taking the viewpoint that there may be something extraordinarily fortuitous about emergence of life, or of intelligent life, that knowledge we acquire in millenias time could lead us to understand we are unique without visiting all environs. I doubt we are unique, but believe it is too early to say.

That looks like an Argument from Ignorance. Just because you cannot see how we might determine this does not mean it is not possible.

I think this is the underlying thesis of those of us who are arguing against overtone's position. Professor T. Neville George, in his lectures on vertebrate palaeontology, would declare "Pigs are primitive." then, after a pause add "And so are humans." His intent was to convey the idea that humans have very few specialisations. This makes them well adapted to a wide variety of environments. It also allows them to handle changes in environment more robustly than those organisms that are specialised. Our specialisation - intelligence - extends this adaptability further, so that we can readily accommodate to the environments of a new continent. Homo sapiens is biologically adapted to Planet Earth.

Another example of your sloppy writing that is causing, it seems, participating members great difficulty in figuring out what you are trying to say. I puzzled for some time over what "quote quote" meant. Try punctuation in future, in this way: "Dear Ophiolite, if you quote, quote correctly:". You claim my quote, of your words, is incorrect. Here is what I quoted - a copy and paste of the relevant element of your post. "Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0." This is what you maintain is the correct version. So your objection is, apparently, to my omission of an irrelevant part. I am objecting to your statement "Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device?" The answer is a resounding no. There is no frigging way that you can call a display device a measuring device. I have been involved in instrumentation and display to a greater or lesser extent for over four decades, including specifying, selecting and operating such equipment, and I can assure you that display devices, such as the cockpit indicators, are not measuring devices. When the output on such a display shows suspect data we do not declare "there is something wrong with the measuring device", we note "the display, the measuring device, the interconnectivty between the two, or the environment are producing an unusual reading". Since you routinely misinterpret what others are saying, here is my point again. You are completely and utterly wrong to call a flat screen display in an aircraft a measuring device. It is not. Your position in this point is indefensible. It runs counter to accepted usage in a multitude of industries. You are wrong. I have not misquoted you. Understand clearly that a misquote would involve changing words, or omitting words within the body of the text. The only important sentence is your first one, which claims a display is a measuring device. That sentence is wrong. Your thought experiment is invalidated by that. I routinely use thought experiments in my work. I sometimes indulge in them for amusement. I have no difficulty thinking in this way. Once again you are using snide little digs to imply that the reason so many of us are disagreeing with you is that we lack one or more aspects of intellect that you possess in abundance. And thereby you demonstrate that you have no bloody idea how to make a case, or persuade an audience. Astounding.

Nice find. I suspect that without a wide range of studies, whose findings are encapsulated in a mega-study, there will be no easy way to exclude selection biases.

I recognise that many religious people link imagined paranormal phenomena to religion. Is is surprising that religious people link events, real, or imaginary, in their world to religion? I think not. I don't. When I investigated, in an amateurish way, ESP and the like in my teens, I saw no connection to religion, despite at that point being a theist. I have no idea what the commonest attitude would be, I simply know that I strongly doubt the general tendency you suggest exists. A proper study would, however, be needed to reach a sound conclusion.

Painful as your experience was it is not anything to go by. It is anecdotal. We can find other anecdotes where the step-parent provided superior parenting to the parent, where neither provided adequate parenting, and all shades and combinations you can think of. Anecdotal evidence does not count on a science forum. Nothing in dimreepr's posts suggests that homosexual parents would provide superior parenting. Indeed, he seems to make it very clear that the parenting will be independent of the sexual orientation of the parents. He uses anecdote to illustrate an exception to what might be thought of as a rule. You use to establish a rule. That simply won't fly.

Dawkins is a self-satisfied pain in the ass, who gives atheism a bad name by treating it as if it were a religion, complete with all the trappings of dogma. Books promoting, or explaining atheism are, to my mind, no more useful than a smear of blue paint on a white wall. .......... Exactly, no use at all, so to have a favourite is simply silly. I do think books attacking fundamentalist nonsense on evolution are valuable. Here is a partial list of some I have. I heartily recommend them all. Eugenie C. Scott 'Evolution vs. Creationism' ISBN:0-520-24650-0 Mark Perakh 'Unintelligent Design' ISBN:1-51902-084-0 David R. Montgomery 'The Rock's Don't Lie' ISBN:978-0-393-08239-5 Robert T. Pennock 'Tower of Babel' ISBN:0-262-16180-X Michael Brant Shermer 'Why Darwin Matters' ISBN:0-8050-8121-6 Mark Perakh 'Unintelligent Design' ISBN:1-51902-084-0 Jill S. Schneiderman, Warren D. Allmon 'For the Rock Record ' ISBN:978-0-520-25759-7

If you posted in a coherent, manner, avoided talking nonsense, stopped jumping all over the place, ceased using weird mixtures of font and wide open spaces, then we wouldn't have to guess what you mean. If anyone is insulting your intelligence it is yourself. Members are being outstandingly patient in trying to help you gain knowledge. I recommend you show appreciation of that, instead of attacking them.

Have you done any FEA work on bearing loads with the wheel? If so, how does the loading differ from a conventional arrangement?

Application. You have to use the material you have learned, ideally in some practical way, but in worst case use it in contrived situations. Example - since you mention anatomy, if you are walking to class look at other students. Work from head to toe, naming major skeletal components, then - perhaps seeing an obese individual, consider the full range of parts, along the digestive tract. If you drive to class envisage the result of a messy car wreck, naming the components that might become detached. (This will have the added benefit of making you a more careful driver.) Just seek out opportunities to use the terms. As you do so, think of key facts related to them. Use some mnemonic to aid you in this. Make something up that works for you. Off the top of my head (should that be cranium?) how about the F words. What is it For? Where do you Find it? How does it Function? What is it Filled with? And so on. But use what you have learned! Often.

From wikipedia - "Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6] This may appear to be off topic. I would maintain that requesting the use of respectful language is always on topic.

Fingle's cave in Scotland, the Giant's Causeway in Ireland, the Cuillins and Red Hills in Skye, Rhum, Ardnamurchan, etc are all part of the Tertiary vulcanicity that was rampant as the Atlantic opened up. Long after the Hercynian orogeny build the Variscide moutain chain. (Note some of those spellings, please.) The granite tors of Dartmoor are Carboniferous in age and thus predate the Triassic. I think we have previously covered the fact that the basic and ultrabasic rocks forming The Lizard, at the end of your peninsula, are oceanic crust and upper mantle obducted onto the continental mass, during the Devonian. I mention this again only because these rocks are called, collectively, ophiolites.

I was about to question this, until I realised you were not talking about communists. Therefore, excellent point. So some species, or sub-species of beavers do not built dams. Astounding. But never mind. My argument stands. So, you have not just moved the goal posts, you have moved the whole frigging stadium and the town and continent it is in. Probably not. We are not biologically adapted to living in Antarctica. How do I know this? Because we do not flourish there. We do not have families there. People do not live out there lives there. We are unable to secure adequate food there. Perhaps, when our cultural adaptations are strong enough we may be able to do so there and on the moon. A cultural adaptation is what is required. (In this context cultural partially conflates with economic.) I not arguing with them. I'm arguing with you. And I'm arguing about NA adaptation.

Pure nonsense: the flat screen is a display device. The measuring devices are gyroscopes and the like. And the 'content' of the display is much more granular than the simple digital offering you suggest.

The fundamental problem here is that the triangles are of immense use to one person: simplify3. Triangles help him better envisage all kinds of scientific, engineering and social topics/issues. What he is unable to understand is that they are of no value for anyone else.

What if green unicorns, having eaten chicken korma, induce retrograde motion in the satellites of Saturn? Science works by asking meaningful questions.

This is just silly. The clothes and shoes and fire are courtesy of our intelligence and culture, both of which are a consequence of our evolutionary adaptations. A frigging beaver colony cannot flourish without building a dam. A dam is the equivalent of our clothing. By your argument beavers are not adapted to North America. That is damn nonsense.

Teleology is a much maligned concept. I have long thought that a teleological thrust is implicit in "emergent properties", but that's perhaps best left to another thread. (I've been working on a reasoned argument to that end for five years, but never get it done. )

I think in a similar context, on another thread, I've already mentioned my wife. Thanks for the positive rep. If you did accidentally hit red it's not a problem. If positive, it cancelled out the negative. I was just puzzled as to what had been found so disagreeable by someone. , i

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

So, provide me with evidence that their are stationary waves in the brain. I've already admitted to great ignorance in this area. I'm trying to learn, but for that I need facts from you, not opinions from you.

Pointless discussions about alternative gravity theories have enough inertia to run on for several pages.

I think there are two situations in which I give negative rep. The most common is where a member has been posting baseless arguments over multiple posts, failing to provide evidence, refusing to offer citations, not answering questions, or combinations of these and other unwelcome behaviours. I, or other members have pointed this out repeatedly and the member has not responded, but continues to post in that style. I may then vote one of their posts down without a specific listing of why that post is bad. The down vote is more for their "body of work" than one in particular. In the second case I will both vote the post down and provide a reasoned critique of their contribution. the first approach, for me, is much more frequent, since anyone may make the occasional bad post - unless it is obscence, or deeply offensive, I don't think one bad post deserves negative rep - I need to see that the member is consistently screwed up. We've previously discussed the anonymity of both negative and positive rep. The strong consensus was that if we could see who had voted posts down it would initiate wars between individuals. I did not agree with that view than. I do not agree with it now. Coincidentally someone just voted down a very short post of mine in which I commented on what would be the significance of discovering we were the only intelligent life in the universe. I offered a thought, intended to provoke discussion, that also reflected my view. If I knew who had voted it down I could directly ask them to explain what they found so negative about my thought: we could engage in discussion, which is what this forum is for. Annoying.

Let me be as clear as possible. If anyone here is dumb, it is I. I am not well versed in standing waves, but I have some vague recollection of their character from my undergraduate physics classes and subsequent reading. You appear to claim that because 'brain waves' are confined to the brain they must be standing waves. This appears to me to be completely wrong. My persistent questioning has two objectives. 1. To find out if my understanding of what a standing wave is, is right, or wrong. If you had been able to provide an 'official' definition that matched yours, then I would know I was wrong. 2. In the absence of that 'official' definition you should realise you are mistaken in calling these standing waves. If that part of your hypothesis is wrong, other parts many be wrong also. That should help you to either improve your idea, or abandon it. (And if you persist in believing your idea is right when it is wrong, then yes - my intention is also to admonish - that is how science works. Scientists say to each other "Don't be so damn silly.")