Area54

Senior Members
  • Content count

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

1 Follower

About Area54

  • Rank
    Protist

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Astrobiology, vulcanology

Recent Profile Visitors

1935 profile views
  1. Evolution

    I think this point merits repetition and expansion, NimrodTheGoat. I have the impression that you perceive bacteria as all being much of a muchness. After all, they are only single celled and merely prokaryotes at that. In fact the bacteria, by one current system of nomenclature, represent two of the six biological Kingdoms (Plants, Fungi, Animals, Protists Archaea and Bacteria.) They exist in far wider range of environments than any of the others and consequently their diversity is greater. It is difficult, therefore to see how they represent, in toto, the norm. I suggest the norm, if is existed, was LUCA, the Last Common Ancestor of all life. Everything currently extant and everything that has existed since then is an aberration, in the terms of this thread.
  2. Evolution

    Chimpanzees! You mean those dirty, smelly, violent, deceptive, confrontational animals were outperformed by a chimpanzee!
  3. Personality change

    What worked for me was living through half a century. I can now do an excellent impression, in public, of a confident, self-assured, out-going individual. It's so good I fool myself almost all the time. While perhaps therapy would be indicated and valuable for some, I recommend the carpe diem approach of Horace, or in the 'official' words of Admiral Farragut, in the Battle of Mobile Bay, "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes".
  4. A marxist analysis of mental disorders

    Firstly, I did not ask you to prove anything. I asked you to state what evidence you had to support your general assertion. The evidence" you have provided appears to consist of two parts: I did not ask you about any potential genetic link related to schizophrenia, so your comments on statistical genetic analysis are irrelevant. Strident agenda driven rhetoric does not constitute evidence. Most intelligent people understand that launching into such emotionally charged rhetoric, where bold assertions and wild accussations are used to cover up the lack of substance, are not the way to convince ones audience. I therefore conclude you are most likely trolling.
  5. Evolution

    I had forgotten that!
  6. A marxist analysis of mental disorders

    I am sympathetic to the view that some behaviours described as mental illness are nothing more than part of the natural spread of behaviour. However, what evidence do you have that schizophrenia is nothing more than a linguistic tool of those nasty capitalists?
  7. Culture

    Some observations, in no particular order: It is an interesting essay, but as StringJunk said, and? It might work better as a blog. Your suggestion that insitutions in mature societies have reached agreement appears valid only if you ignore the facts. A single example will suffice: the Exuctive branch and the Judicial branch do not seem to be in agreement in the US. You stated that "Society is concerned with the concrete, not the abstract". This is nonsense. If this is the case we would not have museums, concert orchestras, poetry and similar. You stated that "Culture is the raison d'etre for human intelligence". Surely you have misspoken! You seriously mean that human intelligence arose in order to generate culture? You stated that "History has shown Civilisation's seminal progress when isolated cultures merge. In both genetic and cultural encounters and new structures emerge." Unfortunately, in most instance, the cultures don't merge, but one overwhelms and practically destroys the weaker.
  8. Hear Wagnertuben

    Interesting. I've recently started revisiting Classical music. I'm not a fan of Wagner, but I recall fondness for Bruckner symphonies. I'll have look at his works.
  9. You are most welcome. It is a commonly held belief - I'm not sure how it arose. Thinking out loud, if no one has written a popular science book on The Ten Most Common Misunderstandings About Science, then someone ought to.
  10. Light: visible or invisible?

    With respect you appear to be allowing emotion to overrule comprehension skills. On that basis I'm out.
  11. Light: visible or invisible?

    Eise appears to say that "you" must conclude the daily use of 'seeing', in the sense of 'seeing houses, cars and apples' is the wrong meaning. He does not say that he concludes this.
  12. Light: visible or invisible?

    You have missed the point. The meaning of an expression is contingent upon ones interpretation of the meaning and interrelationship of its components. When ambiguity as to these meanings exists contrary interpretations are possible. The inherent awkwardness/peculiarity of my phrase, can we feel touch, was there to provide an alternative example. It either works for the reader, or it doesn't.
  13. Light: visible or invisible?

    I haven't read the entire thread, but I incline to CharonY's remark that this is a semantic debate. That made me wonder, can we feel touch? If you reflect on what that means - and i haven't figured it out - it might lead you to a similar conclusion. If it does nothing for you please excuse the interruption.
  14. Lizard regenerate any part

    It seems unlikely. Blastemas are only one component that is required for regeneration to occur. i.e. blastemas are necessary, but not sufficient. For example In the case of severed limbs an Apical Epithelial Cap forms from the injured epidermis and appears to play a key role in mediating the process. When macrophages were eliminated from salamanders there injuries healed, but regeneration did not occur. Caveat: I'm not a biologist.
  15. The BBC report on the long term orbital behaviour of Musk's Tesla, launched by the Falcon Heavy last week. Here is an extract: The Tesla car that Elon Musk launched into space is likely to stay there for tens of millions of years before crashing into the Earth or Venus. That's the conclusion of an analysis by Czech and Canadian researchers. They calculated that the roadster has a 6% chance of colliding with Earth and a 2.5% probability of hitting Venus over the next million years. But there's no cause for concern: if it eventually returns to Earth, most of the vehicle will burn up. The team's computer simulations suggest there is a very slim chance of the vehicle colliding with the Sun, but little to no chance of the car hitting Mars. The results have been published on the Arxiv.org pre-print server.