Ophiolite

Spyman - how have you managed to convert a 30°F temperature difference to a mere 1.1° Celsius? The answer appears to be that you have decided, for some bizarre and foolish reason, to subtract 30 from 32, the latter being the freezing point of water under standard conditions. For the record, a 30°F difference equates to a 16.6..° C difference. Ardit, I see no particular reason to doubt the wikipedia data, though I should like to view the original research the comment is based upon. (Unfortunately wikipedi seems to be down at present.) You have already given us the explanation of why this is the case: "Heat exchange between this shallow layer of warm air and the cooler air above is very inefficient."

Please specify which aspects are not being afforded due attention and critical examination. P.S. I really don't care what these aspects are called. I'd just like to know what you think they are.

Fifth columnist sleeper cells.

@ Universal Theory - Thank you for your response to my post, in your post #25. I ask your indulgence while I respond in the Scottish vernacular. Och mon, yer haverin.

Three books related to geology and biology that I can thoroughly recommend are these: The Dinosaur Hunters: A True Story of Scientific Rivalry and the Discovery of the Prehistoric World by Deborah Cadbury Harper Collins 2000 ISBN:1-85702-959-3 The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology by Simon Winchester Harper Collins 2001 Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution Charles Fortey Harper Collins 2000 All three are readable, informative and accurate - a rare combination.

But as you saw I have stated I am also agnostic in relation to whether or not we can know. It's all down to the emphasis on being of two minds in any decent geology training.

Sorry iNow. I am just agnostic. I don't know if there is a God or not. I don't know if can ever know. About the only thing I'm really sure about is that if there is a God it is not akin to the Abrahamic God (unless we are in a simulation and God is a programmer with a warped sense of humour.) There is certainly neither belief, nor non-belief in my position: the waveform of my opinion has yet to collapse. Like Schroedinger's cat, it is neither on nor the other. I consider it the only sensible position to adopt and consequently feel quite superior to almost everyone else. Certain of my uncertainty; decisive about my indecision; definitive about my vagueness.

I'm sure there is a production company working on this somewhere for the 2013 season.

In the immediately preceding post Ringer quoted from one of your cited papers and demonstrated that far from supporting your position it contradicted it. There are several hours between posts, so you have no excuse for not having read. Consequently your statement is a lie.

It is not irrelevant, but wholly germane. The assertion was made that the early appearance of life on the Earth pointed towards abiogenesis being a 'simple' process, since it occured quickly. That is an invalid inference, whose invalidity is demonstrated by noting an alternative explanation, in this case pan spermia. I am not proposing we now discuss pan spermia in this thread -that might be irrelevant. I am stating that we cannot use the early appearance of life on Earth as supporting a rapid timing for abiogenesis.

Arete, as you are no doubt aware the forum software only allows one to award a single positive 'like'. Were that not the case I would have flooded your post #25 with them. You have systematically dismantled the nonsense that darryl has been posting in multiple threads and forums, and done so surgically and comprehensively. You have demonstrated him to be the troll that jeskill suspects. Thank you. I suggest there is nothing more to be said and that ignoring future, let's be kind, misinterpretations of reality by darryl would be the best approach.

It is, however, equally supportive of the notion of pan spermia.

It took me twelve seconds to locate this description by searching for "wash boring method": http://www.denichsoiltest.com/field/soil-boring-with-wash-boring-method.html That should clear things up.

Indeed. The concatenation of phrases and words apparently pregnant with meaning, but ultimately devoid of sense likely would be more at home in a work of science fiction.

Almost. The mantle does not need to be the source. Much of the material is recylced from the crust.

Mike, as I tried to convey in an earlier post we have not evolved political machinery to the point where decisions between competing and diverse cultures can be made on a global level in a short space of time. The demands that we do something now are being expressed by individuals, organisations and governments. It does seem as if you are as unaware of these appeals as the key decision makers. Perhaps you and they should both try harder. You declare emotionally: But you fail to applaud the one child policy of China, or to recognise that Italy's population would be declining were it not for immigration and other European nations are heading in the same direction. The Scottish government is targeting 50% of energy needs to be supplied by renewables by 2015. And that is simply step 1. How do you think we are able to feed and clothe 7 billion people. I'm sorry Mike, I applaud your passion, your intentions and your empathy, but I have serious reservations about your grasp of the facts.

I should be interested to see peer reviewed research that quantifies and demonstrates the damage to aquifers by shale gas development. All I have heard to date are rumours and unsupported assertions. It is a serious issue; would one of those who are opposing such development care to provide the meaningful data by which you arrived at your position. (Hint: I won't be convinced by a declared intrinsic distrust of Big Oil.)

Calcium is a common element in feldspars, pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas, all of which are very commonplace in igneous rocks. Calcite cement is common in clastic rocks. Many metamorphic rocks contain calcium rich minerals. Many clays are also calcium rich. There is a lot of it about and some of it goes into solution during the weathering and erosion process. I'm sure a quick google will give you concentrations in typical 'fresh water' and sea water.

Mike, it is almost as if you are wholly unaware of the work of the IPCC. Further, given that the issues relate primarily to biology, why do you think geologists should take the lead?

@Logic Gates You seem (no doubt unintentionally) to have erected one or more strawmen (which some posters have been tempted to support) against which you are then arguing. Opinions, based upon careful consideration of the available facts, not upon assumptions, lead to a range of assessments as to the probability of abiogenesis. On the one hand we have the optimistic view of Christian de Duve, Nobel laureate, whose book The Cosmic Imperative explains why he sees life as inevitable and abundant. On the other hand is the pessimism of Jacques Monod, another Nobel laureate, who believed life was a freak accident, unique to Earth. And we have every view in between. Study any of these views carefully, when expressed by a qualified commentator, and you will find the which observations they have given weight to and what caveats they are applying to their (highly) provisional conclusions. Why the range in views? Because, as I am fond of remarking, to extrapolate from a sample size of one is a questionable practice. You have a number of errors of thought here. 1) We have not detected any planets in far-flung galaxies. The most distant exoplanet yet identified is around 22,000 light years distant, well within our own galaxy. (There is some highly questionable suggestion of two planets in other galaxies, but confirmation is - as I understand it - currently lacking.) 2) Only two exoplanets have had methane identified in their atmospheres: HD189733b and WASP12b. These are, I think, Jupiter size gas giants, in which methane is expected to be found. 3) Methane is a commonplace organic molecule, but not necessarily a biological one. There are methane rains on Titan; a thin atmosphere of nitrogen and methane on Pluto; Uranus has a high altitude methane haze, while at lower levels it and Neptune harbour methane ices; traces are to be found in Saturn and Jupiter; comets contain methane ices. The list goes on. The evidence for life doesn't.

You provide thirteen examples of " ''and of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability''. I examine some of these examples here and demonstrate that they not only fail to demonstrate yourpoint, but in some cases run wholly contrary to it. If you divide things into pairs then we imply a ratio 1:1, not 2:1. The invisible energy is divisible into infra-re and ultra-violet. Where is the division of the visible energy? That's right - the seven colours of the rainbow. No duality there. In what way is the inverse square law evidence of "pairs of opposite variability"? Are you aware that not all forces follow the inverse square law? How do you account for that? While we are on the subject of forces why is there no paired force for gravity? These pairings are more a consequence of the ease with which two variables can be represented on a two dimensional sheet of paper. With the advent of computer analysis three-dimensions and higher are being used for more sophisticated analysis. Indeed, long before computers ternary diagrams were being used to illustrate rock compositions based on three components. This is only one of the many artifical ways of dividing up the cognitive process. The alleged match is meaningless. I know English is not your native language, but you please make an effort to write sentences that nake some kind of sense. Sure. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't. Please. Now you are just being silly. There are many instruments of psychological study that are multi-dimensional. The periodic table is not based upon metals and non-metal,. but upon a periodicity of properties when the elements are arranged according to their atomic weight. The clue is in the name periodic table. If there is any number present here it is eight. These are not opposites. Eukaryotes contain what were once prokaryotes. Since when did an opposite contain its opposite? This obsession with breaking things down into pairings, yin and yang, life and death, true and false, is a human characteristic, not a characteristic of any deity.

A very quick literature search leads to the following conclusion: 1) Earthquake lights are a real phenomenon. 2) We do not know what causes them. 3) Many ingenious explanations have been proposed. 4) Most involve some change to the magnetic field. 5) If we could figure out what was happening then they could be a very useful prediction tool.

By biological consensus I mean the broad sweep of current thinking followed by the experts in the field. This thinking is expressed in research papers, lectures, text books and arguments in wine bars. As has been pointed out by Arete and others, on this thread, on other threads you have started and on other forums where you have presented the same argument: you are mistaken. You want to give the current concepts a new name because they have, in your view, deviated too far from Darwinism and neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis. A new name will not alter the fact that the 'biological consensus' recognises these mechanisms you are so engrossed by. Yes, I can explain: 1) You should stay in more and actually read what is written. You might find these other mechanisms are discussed from time to time. 2) However, you also need to recognise that a large portion of internet traffic about evolution consists of arguments with creationists. Since many of these do not even understand basic evolutionary theory it is natural that it is the long established, 'simpler' mechanisms that receive emphasis.

Eye positions indicate that many of them were bottom dwellers. One suspects they may have buried into the mud with only their eyes exposed, waiting for a tasty morsel. Others were likely (relatively) efficient swimmers. I don't recall any data on proportions between various lifestyles. While trying to fin such data I stumbled across this paper that you may find of interest. http://geoweb.uchicago.edu/pdfs/jablonski/JablonskiSepkoski1996.pdf

Subscribe to Nature. Access articles on the weekly Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They have free access articles in most issues and all articles become accesible after one year or eighteen months. http://www.pnas.org/ Or search for astronomy articles on http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html