Skye

Well it would be fallacious to conclude that because life co-operates at some levels it co-operates at all levels, but it's not fallacious to hypothesise in that way. I don't think there's much to say it's right though.

I think the Raptor may have been briefly considered by the USN but the problem is that it was not in any way designed to slow down to land on a carrier. The F-14 has those fancy swing wings, and fitting them to a Raptor retrospectively would have been difficult. I suppose the main reason the USN wasn't so worried about losing the phoenix is because the AEGIS destroyers are so effective for air defence. But also the 65 mile AMRAAMs will probably come close to matching the phoenix in practical range in any case, and can be fitted to the super/hornets.

Well the phoenix was an old design, beiginning service in the seventies. It could only be carried by the F-14's, which are being replaced by super hornets currently, so the missile was at a dead end in any case.

Well it's not so much capitalism as free trade. And that's only in effect to a limited extent in any case, and only where it is in the interests of the nation. Clearly it would make economic, and perhaps 'moral', sense for the US to trade with Cuba, but it's not in the interests of the US to do so. Clearly it would be fairer if China deregulated its currency and stockmarket, but it's not in China's interest to do so. So I don't really think we have to think of free market ideals as being an unavoidable moral obligation that can't be shirked, we're all sinners as it is.

The most obvious answer is that the marine bacteria lives somewhere cold, higher AT percentages are normally in things that live in cold envirnments. A and T bind with two H-bonds, whereas as G and C bind with three, so it require more energy to break the GC's apart. This makes it easier to transcribe or replicate DNA with a higher proportion of AT. Organisms that live in hotter places tend to have higher GC percentages because it makes the DNA more stable.

I avoid buying from factory farms because I think it's a tough life for them, mainly the chickens. But I've lived in rural areas a fair bit of my life though and most of the animals don't suffer that much. I can live with it. I'd probably miss them even. But they say you are what you eat and I don't want to be a fruit. I want to be a sheep like everyone else.

There's also everything else to take into consideration though. I don't feel the suffering most animals appear to go through in the course of their life to become my dinner is such that it makes me need to restrict them from my diet. Aniamsl will suffer to some extent whatever life they lead, so it is a matter of reasonable suffering rather than not causing suffering at all for me. As that applies to humans, I don't think I'd like to eat people myself, but I don't have any problems with cannibalism in a general sense. I think the knowledge of being farmed to be eaten would make humans in most societies suffer too greatly though. But if say a society existed where consenting to cannibalism upon your death was normal, or an accepted judicial process, I don't have a problem with them doing so. Same with slavery, if it is part of an accepted judicial process, I don't think there is any greater suffering than that caused by incarceration or capital punishment, so I don't reject it outright.

I've always known thermodynamic systems categorised as, Open: the system can exchange matter and energy with its surroundings Closed: the system can exchange energy but not matter Isolated: the system can exchange neither. Like severian said, the 2nd law applies to isolated systems.

Do you mean why as in what causes a bacteria to divide, or as in what purpose does division serve for bacteria?

I don't entirely agree. We generally treat mammals with more concern than we do fish or crustaceans for example.

You forgot the slashes in the url: http://www.ohsu.edu/pmcb/current_students/documents/OstranderDomesticDog.pdf

The Romans tried that, and the lions won

There appears to be two certainties in life: death and creationists (tax is for suckers!) So we might as well try to have decent discussions with them.

This is a poor approach because it can lead to confusion. First, you may wish to discuss other scientific theories of how to explain the diversity of life that we see today, rather than creationism. Secondly, if you are arguing for creationism, you should be clear what you mean. Creationism isn't a monolithic concept, different people mean different things by the word. Say what you mean and mean what you say. By all means be logical, it's the most effective way to discuss causality, but remember that ideas that are logical aren't necessarily true. They do, (well unless they are interested in early 20th century absurdist theatre, but we can generalise) but on top of logic they also want something that can be shown to be false. I wouldn't suggest you use it as an argument because I don't see how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, so it will only make you look like a fool. I wouldn't ask for proof of anything scientific, because proof isn't a possible outcome in scientific enquiry. Ask for evidence. Yes, please do. Most creationists would be better off just asking questions about evolution, rather than questioning evolution. Yes, always try to be, as it tends to lengthen your stay at a forum. Also, remember to take criticism constructively, that's the main benefit of these discussions. I'd suggest you avoid creationist websites and link to scientific sources.

If I were setting up a nation I'd probably just write a constitution that sets out the powers and procedures for the government, and then let the elected officials sort it all out.

Funding.

So if you think of 4D space-time as a plane, and you have gravity as these kinds of indentations in the plane. In the case of a quantum gravity black hole the indentation sort of opens out at the bottom as you have the inflationary expansion. So then if you roll the unierse plane up into a big ball, with curved space-time I think this is what happens, you would maybe have something that looks like asexually budding yeast. Some nice pictures of yeast budding off little baby yeast. http://www.alltech.com/Resources/Yellow_yeastBig.jpg http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/sgm/images/yeast.jpg http://microbiology.mtsinai.on.ca/mig/images/direct/fig05-dm.jpg http://www.biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/vogel/assets/images/cells.gif I guess the question, if I'm not completely mistaken here, is whether the little pieces of universe bud off like the yeast do.

Well the second question. But what I don't want is an explanation that's simply jamming pins into the voodoo economics doll. I'd like to have some idea of where the money is going, and how and how much it is growing.

How?

The strange thing is that gene was chosen when nucleotides are the obvious most basic unit of selection. Genes are also only a part of the genome, and certainly the other parts are under selection as well. I suppose The Selfish Nucleotide doesn't sound as good. Then again, The Extended Phenotype is no better. It is probably just due to the virulent popularity of the gene meme. Anyway, at every level there's some influence from other players at that level. Nucleotides rely on there being the nucleotides of rest of the genome for replication. The genome relies on the phenotype created, includes perhaps somatic genotypes, to replicate itself at the organism level. Organisms themselves rely on other organisms within their species, especially in sexual and social creatures (man o' war ). And species often, not always I guess but at least for most species, rely on other species to survive. Web of life and all that.

Well if there's still some advantage in having the toxin, it shouldn't be surprising that they retain the toxin, as long as this is balanced against the cost of producing the the organs and toxin. By the way, not all bees have stings (or are brightly coloured).

Snakes use their toxins to kill the things they eat, so it has a selective pressure anyway.

Arrr ye land lubbers wouldn't know a buntline hitch from a Flemish eight!

The number of tropical cyclones in categories 4 and 5 (the highest two categories) has steadily increased over the last thirty years, the number per five year period doubling in that time. The number of storms and their duration also increased, but I personally didn't find these data as convincing. Whether this is linked to increasing global temperatures is a matter of speculation, and it may be part of a longer term oscillation. In any event, it looks the like the End Is Nigh placard business is set for some solid growth. Number of cats owned owned by crazy old ladies as compared to windspeed, plotted over a thirty year period. Note that while windspeed has remained fairly constant, the number of crazy old ladies with nine cats has risen alarmingly. Webster, P.J., et al. Science. 309, 1844. (2005)