Radical Edward

if we were capable of considering self preservation, neither would we

fiven that evolution today is based more on the modern synthesis that darwin's original work, I am inclined to agree with those who say that modern texts are more practical to read.

I'm up for that.

blast, I forgot to post it I was sorting out the network in my flat and it completely slipped my mind... I will try to remember today! the book idea is basically this: look at the various bits of the human body and talk about their origins. Things like the eyes would go way back, things like the jaw/ear less far back, and things like the modern human brain most recent (though it would be nescessary to go from early brains too)

the energy powering the hydrothermal vents (and generating the various compounds) originates in nuclear reactions in the core of the earth. even if the sun went out, these reactions would continue for some time, allowing life to continue around these vents. Just as a side note, the first of these vents to be seen was dubbed the "rose garden" because of it's bright red colours. Interestingly, there were many colours in the life there, but absolutely no green - the colour of chlorophyll. Sadly the rose garden is gone now, probably destroyed by a lava flow, though we know of plenty other vents. Other forms of life that might survive for a while are those in the Movile Caves in Romania. these organisms live purely on chemicals released from the rocks, again the sun is not a source of energy. Admittedly though, once the earth starts to freeze, these would disappear before those round the vents, which have a heat source to live on too. hydrothermal vents: http://www.geotimes.org/july02/NN_vents.html http://www.ocean.udel.edu/deepsea/level-2/creature/crab.html movile cave: http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/5771/ http://www.geo.utexas.edu/chemhydro/Annette/movile_cave_images.htm

interesting stuff. Is there no way that the engineered plasmids would work outside the nucleus? not that I can think of any advantage to this, I was just wondering about mtDNA and how that works. Could engineering these plasmids be a possible method of genetic engineering?

a sphere has two surfaces. the surface where the normal points towards the centre of the sphere and the surface where the normal points away from it.

well the neutrinos get a head start since they are emitted in the last stages of fusion of some pretty heavy elements (like silicon and stuff I think, I don't have the fusion tables to hand) before the actual star gives up and collapses (the bounce causes the SN) The final stages of fusion occur at an absolutely incredible rate.

what happens if you stick a plasmid in a eukaryotic cell?

SN1987A was detected after a neutrino burst. It might be the only one though, and probably the one dave refers to. SN1987A was rathe close though, in the large magellanic cloud. the neutrino burst, by the way consisted of a whopping 19 anti electron neutrinos

that would be the Denton who says there are no transitional fossils between, for example, terrestrial mammals and whales or bats, or between reptiles and birds, right? be a bit careful about books by creationists, they tend to quote mine alot, and are oftend a bit shady in their science. here is a critique http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

physics. but I am going to start an open university degree in biology soon (a distance learning thing one can do in the UK). Just got to scrape together the pennies.

well I'm only a beginner at this biology lark... still you've given me a good idea for the mods forum. a glossary

this is where things like sex and plasmid transfer help. It stops one from requiring sequential mutations, at least once the basics of respiration are up and running. Then of course there is the evolution of evolvability itself. In the long term, embryological processes which are open to novel changes are probably more likely to survive, since they will be able to tolerate a greater range of conditions. For example the mammalian embryology includes possibilities such as neoteny (humans are a great example of ape neoteny) and the loss of whale limbs.

I think you are straining definitions there. Biology does not care if organisms are moral or not, even if Biology is in some ways the source of morality (through game theory), and morality is evolutionarily benificial to certain species. The processes of mutation and natural selection do not care if nasty things happen, whereas we do. Besides, humans are a slightly odd case, since we are memetically driven, and morality is just another meme. Does the most successful meme care if it is a moral one or an immoral one? Is the meme of morality simply defined by whichever memeplex wins out? Looking around the world, and through history, that certainly seems the case.

Evolution is a process in which species change and diversify as a result of mutations and natural selection. mutations are largely random events which occur in the germ line of an organism. They are not evolution, merely change. They are an element of the process of evolution.

different genes switch on under different circumstances and at different times in life. So there could be some disposition to increased or decreased melatonin production. This may occur entirely naturally, and not after extensive chemical treatment a-la Michael "doesn't matter of you're black or white" Jackson* *this person is entirely fictional, and any resemblance to anyone alive, dead, or in court on child molestation charges is entirely coincidental.

mod note: I changed the title for clarity. hope this doesn't cause any confusion

There are no upper limits in any current theories, at least none I am aware of. The highest energy photons recorded come from cosmic rays with 10^20 eV. However as photons get to a higher and higher energy, there are increasingly more things that they can transform into (i.e. an electron positron pair) and this makes these photons less likely to occur.

how about tying a weight to one end and spinning it round in a circle, see if you get the same effect. also stretch it and look under a microscope or magnifying glass.

depends on the material properties of the elastic I suppose. the black is most likely made up of a number of dyes, and it might be these you are seeing. Other than that I am not sure.

Exactly Navajo - Biology is completely immoral. It does not care that the best way for an organism to spread it's genes results in large numbers of it's members never breeding. Evolution does not care that the very processes that it is made of, natural selection and mutations result in painful death and miserable existances. Nature is truly a heartless beast, but stunningly powerful and equally beautiful and hideous in it's results.

well there is no step by step guide to how we got from replicators in the primordial soup right through to homo sapiens sapiens however, there is an awful lot we do know. The thing is, when you go into a university library you will see it is huge, the biology section alone of my old uni filled up a whole floor, and there is all your evidence. The problem is that billions of years of evolution have led to some very complex organisms with very complex interactions. Just reading Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and then The Extended Phenotype will give you an impression of this, since there is a massive level of interaction from the genetic level right the way through to interspecies interactions. then you have to look up mammalian evolution - particularly the evolution of the therapsids. These show the evolution from reptiles to mammals. sadly the cochlear and so on are soft bodies, and soft bodies don't leave evidence in fossils, except under very special circumstances, so this info is probably lost forever. I believe that this is the topic of Dawkins' next book, but I am not too sure. If it turns out not to be, then you have an excellent book idea on your hands there. The evolution of many components occurs pretty far back in time, and alot of people might not know where to look for it. If nothing else I suggest you do a search on http://www.talkorigins.org - that is a brillant resource for evolution. feel free to post blike lots of money to pay for the server. The ads are basically there just to help pay for things, feel free to ignore them.

Professor John Maynard Smith, the internationally renowned evolutionary biologist, 84, died peacefully at home on April 19. He was known for his great understanding and contributions to evolutionary biology, particularly the introduction of Game Theory to show that altruism can be a beneficial strategy. He recieved a great number of prizes for his work, which he continued even after retirement, right up to his death. He will be sadly missed. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media399.shtml