iNow

Pioneer - Do you understand that artificial selection and natural selection are two different things?

Exactly. It makes perfect sense to people who specialize in that area. Usually the point of the paper is to point out something new, some previously unknown detail or something which adds to the existing body of evidence in some interesting way. It is not intended as a introductory class to the layperson who has zero understanding of the field. Do you think papers on new complex math theories should begin with an explanation of 1+1? No? Then why do you want this for science papers?

One anecodotal example that one person impacted by the physician/pharmacists refusal to treat had other options doesn't mean everyone will. In many areas, there is just one doctor or just one pharmacist, hence the importance of regulations that apply everywhere and don't allow such dumbass refusals based on personal faith (the key words there are "personal" and "dumbass").

The challenge with the salt water idea is that it still takes energy to power the radio wave generator. I'm not sure how they're factoring that into the mix.

Aha... but there's really no such thing as "oral insulin." What Type 2 diabetics take are drugs to help increase insulin production or to make their bodies more sensitive to the insulin being produced (like Glucophage or Glimepiride). <other info on Type 2 diabetes meds available at the following: http://www.diabetes.org/type-2-diabetes/oral-medications.jsp > In other words, when someone takes insulin, it's injected. There are no ingestable insulins since they are proteins which would break down via digestion in the belly.

Don't be a jerk. It's not like these people seeking "legitimate scientific/medical assistance" can just go anywhere. If their doctors or pharmacists refuse it to them, then the doctor or pharmacist is at fault for failing to perform the duties of their position.

Sounds closer to appeal to authority, but okay...

Smart economics doesn't trump long-term environmental impact, though. That's the rock which crushes your scissors. It doesn't matter how much gold you have left to spend if there's no where left to spend it. Also, "clean coal" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

I think I'm going to drive by a church and snatch up a child this Sunday. I've long been curious to learn more about the religious mind. I'll call him/her a pet, and put them into a class tank so I can watch them and take notes. There's nothing wrong with that, right? We humans can be such hypocrits sometimes. It'd be one thing if the animal was hurt and you were caring for it, but it's quite another to be so selfish and care only for your own personal entertainment.

What is your source for this claim? Also, can we get some real numbers? How many/what percentage is "most" Americans? What is the actual distance travelled that translates into your description of "lengthy?" Specifics are the only way to get out of this rhetorical mud of faux disagreement. Let's talk dollars since you brought up economics. How many factories will close? What is the cost to the economy as a whole for those closures? Also, how many factories will be opened to begin production of the batteries (i.e. to counter balance the other factory closures), and what is the net economic impact? Be specific. Specifics are the only way to get out of this rhetorical mud of faux disagreement. Let's see a source. Why would it take "several days" to recharge the batteries? What type of batteries would take this long to recharge? What is the power source filling them? How many days = "several?" How much money is the trucking company saving for the gas they no longer need, and how does that savings compare to the cost of longer recharge time on batteries? Be specific. Specifics are the only way to get out of this rhetorical mud of faux disagreement. Shall I say it again? Be specific. Let's see dollar amounts, and let's be sure to account for environmental benefits and new economic opportunities as a result of the change. Not exactly your best post ever, Luke. Try harder. If you're going to continue arguing for the status quo and being a nay-sayer toward some of the newer possibilities, you're going to need to do much more than just wave your arms about and expect us all to come on board with your pessimism.

I was simply saying what it reminds me of, not stating that this was the same exact thing. However, the doctors and pharmacists can, in fact, go get another job. However, if they wish to continue in the same profession, then they must abide by the laws regulating that profession. Rather simple really. They don't have a right not to be offended. The people seeking care, however, do have a right to be treated equally and without arbitrarily set obstacles due to personal belief in the veracity of some ridiculous fairy tale. Also, to Sayonara's illustrative question above about whether or not police should be able to choose not to help someone who is a known criminal... A more accurate analogy/question would be asking if the police should be able to choose not to help a woman being beaten by her husband because their religion teaches them that women are property of men and subject to their authority. It's so absolutely ridiculous in so many ways that I can hardly believe there are people still in this day and age arguing that some choice premised on a religious belief system should be allowed. What other exceptions for mythology should we make?

I have pets, too, but not ones that I plucked out of their natural habitat... ones that were born for that purpose and which were not born in or necessarily able to survive in the wild. I don't care. I was just stating that it seems selfish to me. We humans kill tons of animals each day with our way of life... what's one more frog, eh?

They shouldn't have become a doctor or pharmacist, then. We're not saying they can't practice their religion, we're saying they can't let their religion impinge on their ability to do the job. If they have some personal and deep seated reason to avoid providing the care required of them, that's fine, but they should have chosen another profession if that's the case. Reminds me all too much of the story last year about Muslims working at Target as cashiers who refused to scan customers bacon. It comes with the job. If that's a problem for your belief system, then it's time for a different job or a different set of beliefs.

I'm pretty sure ajb knows that and is wondering why you feel the need to place this natural animal into a box for the rest of its life so it can bring you some short-lived (quite literally since it will likely die in your care) selfish pleasure.

I used to train in kung fu wearing weights. We'd do our normal workouts, then do the same workout with ankle weights, then do the same workout with ankle weights AND wrist weights, then do the same workout with ankle and wrist weights AND weight vests. By the time I had all of the weights strapped on I'd be 110 lbs heavier. We'd do this often. Everything from kata, to sparring, to stationary punches and kicks, to pushups/situps, to frog leaps (where you jump from a squatting position as high as you can, reaching upward, and kicking your own ass with your feet). We'd do this for weeks at a time. Then, when the weights were removed, our muscles were much stronger, adapted to "higher gravity" conditions, and we could bounce around very quickly and jump incredibly high and far. It's just a matter of training the muscles in an environment that is more difficult, and then being that much better when the environment is easier. It's like playing a video game on Difficult setting to get better at it and then playing it on Easy setting and completely dominating, or why Superman was normal on Krypton but super on Earth. It's not a waiver of physical laws, just an exploitation of them.

There are likely multiple theories and also multiple paths taken toward carnivorousness in plants. Long story short, some plants somehow at some time began ingesting organisms and ultimately survived in a new niche and continued reproducing.

This thread is offensive to my religion, and I hereby demand that you stop discussing it. More religiously inspired stupidity. How bad must this world get before people realize it's a bunch of ludicrous nonsense and discard it like they did Thor and Zeus? God told me he didn't want me to fill your prescription for birth control, but for some reason he allowed the doctor to prescribe it, the pharmaceutical companies to design it, and you to want it... But MY god is the most important, so nanner nanner boo boo. Oh yeah, and he wants me to discriminate against your gayness even though "he" made you gay. Morons.

Indeed.

This is pretty amazing. I've seen this guys work on injecting metaillic nanoparticles into cancer cells and hitting them with radio waves on 60 Minutes. It's a clever approach, and holds a great deal of promise. Either way, during John Kanzius' research, he found out that he could burn salt water. Yep... You heard me correctly. Salt water. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_vjQgCvISU

Just to supplement this point, it's not always the case that evolution takes thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. That only applies in a stable environment. If the environment suddenly changes, you can have a sharp change in traits. Think in terms of the asteroid that hit circa 65mya. Practically immediately lots and lots of life died, but others quickly flourished and filled the newly available niches. As a general rule, evolutionary changes do take a very long time to notice, but there are often events which quickly change the population which must be considered when making such comments and sharing ideas on the topic. Also, bacteria can be seen evolving on incredibly short time scales... like hours... but we are talking about humans, so that's not quite as relevant.

For ParanoiA and Bascule (and all others interested): The above is a playlist, so the next part will begin as soon as the one being viewed concludes.

Nice article, scalbers. Here's one I read today, not about solar, but about warming itself: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93706882&ft=1&f=1001 Extreme temperatures around the world are likely to rise dramatically as a result of global warming, a new study finds. Some heavily populated parts of the world — including the American Midwest — could face heat waves in which the temperature soars above 120 degrees by the end of this century. These extreme heat waves are likely to kill people and crops alike. The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that extreme temperatures will rise two or three times faster than average temperatures. So in Europe, peak highs could go from a sweltering 100 degrees up to 110 or 115 degrees. There's even a chance the mercury could hit Sahara-style highs of 120 degrees. <...> But he says the story's different in India. "There, it's not very easy for people to turn on the air conditioning or to pick up and move, just because they don't have as many resources," Greenstone said. "My preliminary research on India suggests that the impacts on mortality could be quite dramatic." Horrible heat waves could lead to mass fatalities, he says. And agriculture is also likely to suffer more in places like India, where it is a large fraction of the economy. <more at link> line[/hr] Not sure if I've shared this yet, but here's a good assessment of the climate models that just came out: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm

I'm afraid you're correct. I can only hope that those who appreciate nuance come out in greater numbers to the vote than those who speak in terms of <cavemen chest thump> us good, dem bad </caveman chest thump>. Uhhggg... There was an interesting angle discussed this morning on This Week with George Stephenopoulos whereby one of the commentators at the round table stated that it's not so much important that Obama get these people to vote for him, but that he encourages them not to vote at all (hence, a lost vote for McCain since they don't feel strongly for one or the other). It was an interesting take I hadn't considered. While I'm sure many of this audience will choose to vote for Obama, it's important to note that his position might also cause fewer people to come out just to vote against him. line[/hr] Thou dost protest too much?!? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/18/mccain_in_letter_charges_nbc_w.html John McCain's campaign manager sent a blistering letter to the president of NBC News yesterday, accusing the network of bias for a report that suggested the senator from Arizona had violated the rules of Saturday's forum at an evangelical church. McCain appeared after Obama at a forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., but he was not supposed to watch Obama's appearance under forum rules, because host Rick Warren planned to ask both candidates the same questions. NBC political reporter Andrea Mitchell reported that Obama aides felt that McCain "may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." The attack on the media was not unusual for the McCain campaign, which recently blasted the New York Times for not publishing an op-ed written by McCain on Iraq, after it had published one by Obama. The paper's editors say they objected to how the piece was written, but were open to having McCain revise it.

Immortal, One of our members here has posted extensively on this issue. I advise you go the Advanced Search, enter keyword = Penrose and UserName = Bascule, then show results as Posts. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php If you're lucky, he may even respond here, although (and this is partially my fault) it's not really on topic for this thread.

How is that response satisfying to absolutely anyone on this planet? I just don't get it. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070827.html http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29