Ophiolite

The common grounds of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are widely recognised, often being referred to as the Abrahamic religions, since Abraham plays an important role in all three.

One of the things I like about participation in forum like this is that I have the opportunity to read the thoughts and experiences of individuals whose perception of the world differs radically from mine. That often leaves me with a feeling of "Holy Shit!" This is a good thing as it shakes me out of any complacency and forces me to broaden my horizons. So, all I can say after reading your thoughts on this thread is "Holy Frigging Shit!!" Alternatively, I've forgotten what it is like to be very young.

blike has not posted here for over three years. Aman last posted in 2007; fafalone in 2004. I understand thread necromancy, as this is called, is often frowned upon. Probably commenting on thread necromancy in the thread and thereby extending the offense is frowned on even more.

This may be the tenth time I have posted these words. It is foolish to extrapolate from a sample size of one. We do not know the precise conditions and route by which life arose, therefore we cannot know what the probability of the event is. Therefore any speculation is exactly that - a guess. A guess constructed on assumptions, hand waving estimates and further guesses.

I know this is going off topic, but are you sure? I am fairly certain I have never had any homosexual thoughts and have no idea why I would have. I shouldn't be fussed if I had had such thoughts, but I'm puzzled as to why you would think it is something that everyone has experienced. Perhaps you are defining having such thoughts in a different way from my understanding of the phrase.

Is this your argument? When we construct a building and its associated environment (roads, parking, etc) we remove trees and vegetation, both of which are efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Also, the construction of the building generates more carbon dioxide, as do the workers in the building when they travel to work. This is an imbalance that makes the problem of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase worse and thus increases global warming. More care should be taken in planning, design and construction of buildings to minimise this problem.

Satisfying. Everyone is significant. Some people, however, are unaware of this.

Apology fully accepted. I understand your goal. I am not sure that, despite the wide range of member interests, we have enough genuine expertise to reach a meaningful conclusion. One point to keep in mind is that most human characteristics are present in some form, though perhaps not as developed, in other animals. Human nature then becomes not a matter of specific features, but of the degree to which these features are expressed. I cannot think of a single feature for which this could not be argued - though not necessarily successfully.

I strongly suspect that opinions formed from a biased review of insufficient facts is likely to lead to a distorted viewpoint. However, I also suspect that Iwonderabout things will not think this applies to him.

I am not a moderator on this forum. The Expert designation is offered by the mod/admin teams to individuals who have a track record for providing accurate, or insightful and informed contributions reasonably consistently. This does not ensure that I might not occasionally talk rubbish. And I offered you what I thought to be useful guidance to help towards moving in this direction. Without identifying potential problems it is difficult to deal with them. I think I identified a problem. I may be mistaken in that, or I may not. But you asked a question and I tried, within the limits of my abilities and knowledge, to provide at least some additional background for an answer. As noted above I do not have the authority to delete the post as I am not a moderator. If I was a moderator I would see no reason to delete the post. It is a reasonable question, but one that is not as simple as it initially appears to be - hence my attempt to clarify the content. This site is a good one for you to reach a resolution of your question, but to fully benefit from it I recommend the following: 1. Be willing to listen to all input, but consider it all critically. 2. Don't bite the hand attempting to feed you. In rereading your OP I think you may have actually answered your own question. There are multiple aspects of human nature, including, but not necessarily limited to anatomy, biochemistry, genotype, embryology, behaviour, etc. It is this diversity that I was attempting to hint at in my earlier post. This is such a large field that an answer embracing all would be hugely complex. Thus my suggestion that one needs to define, or more precisely select which of these topics one wishes to address.

I don't see the phrase human nature as being one with a scientific basis. Consequently, I don't think a meaningful answer can be given in scientific terms, at least until you have defined what aspects of a "thing" are to be considered part of its nature.

iRock you say you do not have the time to reply to my question. Here are some points I advise you to consider. 1. I did not ask a question. I asked you to provide an abstract, a summary of your hypothesis. 2. This is a discussion forum, not a personal blog. You are expected to respond to reasonable questions and requests by other members. Asking for an abstract is a reasonable request. 3. I have no intention at all to read any of your posts until and unless you provide an abstract. I strongly suspect many other members will feel exactly the same. By refusing to provide one you are harming yourself, since few will give your idea any consideration. Thank you.

Well my nose is a biosensor and I am pretty sure it biodegradable, though Im trying to postpone a final test of that.

What you are speaking of in regard to atomic clocks sounds more like the experiment where atomic clocks were flown east-west and west-east around the world to to test resultant time dilation. As Swansont said, without more specifics there really isn't even a question to answer.

It is a rather simple question and you seem to have received a rather simple answer. No, scientists are not to blame. You provided a list of what you claimed were expensive technical products. As a consequence of these products, this morning I have been able to make several major amendments to a document with over 150 pages, transmit these amendments half way around the planet and have them printed out and bound, ready for a course I shall deliver starting on Sunday. That ensures my students receive the most up to date version of data in an accessible format. Without the technology you claim is expensive this task would simply not have been possible, or - at best - would have taken well in excess of one week to implement. These "expensive products" have saved my company a great deal of money - and that is a single example of the type of benefit being derived multiple times every day.

Well, on the one hand......

Blaming science seems like a means of avoiding ones own culpability. Global warming, for example, occurs because we make the choices that inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Trying to offload our responsibilities onto a convenient scapegoat is cowardly.

Going from left to right, then down the page: 1. Difficult because of poor focus, but I think a metamorphic rock, specifically a gneiss. But it could just as well be a migmatite, or even a cataclasite from a fault zone. 2. I agree with other posters. It is some form of amorphous silica. 3. Picture too small and unfocused. 4 Looks like marble. i.e. metamorphosed limestone, 5. Limestone 6. Really need to see a fresh surface, but it could be a schist. 7. Might almost be a stromatolite These are informed guesses, but the lack of fresh surfaces, and sharp focus, are major limitations. I would not bet on any of these guesses.. Edited to correct typing of amorphous.

Horizontal is a direction tangential to the mean surface of the Earth at any location. Presumably anything not tied down would therefore fly off into space. Frankly, though, the question makes about as much sense as asking "Is yellow more adaptable than a C#minor?"

Since the Islamic extremist bombings in London on 7th July the UK security forces have forestalled several comparable Islamic terrorist plots. I am not sure why you think the UK is free of organised terrorism. Could you explain?

If you are familiar with the concept of an abstract or summary please make one for your hypothesis and post it here. Thank you.

The London Olympics were seen as a major potential terrorist target. Frankly, I was amazed (and delighted) that no act of terrorism occurred. One may reasonably attribute this to all aspects of security implemented for the event. This included, for example, surface to air missile batteries mounted on apartment blocks and a couple of naval vessels anchored in the Thames.

I've been meaning to open and read this thread for almost a week now. Well, at least I've opened it. I'll read it later.

To make CharonY's point in the words I prefer to use about this issue: It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one. Whether we discover we are the only life in the universe, or that life is abundant and ubiquitous, or anywhere in between, the discovery will be surprising.

Hello jose-cl. I'm not sure Andres has quite given you the answer you are looking for. (Was it a yes, or a no.) I think you have it correct: the production of fruit is an example of mutualism. As your linked article suggests, the importance of mutualism in evolution is often overlooked. Herbert Spencer has a lot to answer for: by introducing the phrase "survival of the fittest" he emphasised one aspect of the processes governing evolution. Darwin is certainly not blameless in this regard, either. It is that inter-relatedness of all life forms that Andres is apparently referring to - the Biological system of life.