Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vexer

  1. So a silver crown would have floated.... a bit more.
  2. I think people have two nostrils for the same reason that men have nipples. I was serious. Given a successful generally "dichotoimic" model, something would have to be *wrong* with having two (anything) for it to be weeded out. Men have nipples, women have clitoris's. If there no reason why they *shouldn't*, Nature (evolution) works with the plan it has. "If it's not broke, fix something else".
  3. Well bascule, ad hoc is better than no hoc - the Crocodile Hunter's defense.
  4. I’m sure I’ve missed something. But is it true that a post of mine (here) has been deleted because it mentioned the book, “The Dawkins Delusion”? That wouldn't happen, would it? Maybe I missed my own post Either you think God/s exist, or you don't. There is no 'agnosticism'. There is no fence.
  5. A styrofoam crown would have fooled Archimides.
  6. I do thank you for your time. Thank you. Hm. "Inherits..." So the Mitochondria are in the 'egg' and a just go along for the ride, once 'fertilisation' occurs. It still kinda violates my idea of one DNA. So the 'first' cell of a new animal has the 'regular' DNA, and... (within the cell, as 'passengers') the mDNA? They're there as part of the female 'egg'. But when the cell divides... I don't see how the mDNA can be 'carried' to the next generation. (MedGen... you should regret someth8ng else) Unless, the cell divides, and the mitos are in the 'body' of that cell. Even though the 'main' DNA... ...ok.... So the cell does the DNA 'entwining' ... splits, and you say... each new cell has remanent mitos within the cell, unrelated to the 'main' DNA.. That's weird. When the cell duplicates... it still doesn't 'know' about mDNA... the mitos just split (as passengers) on each split? That's what you were saying, all along.
  7. Not quite getting my point then. fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point Early scenario: life on Mars indicates ‘t’ is 100%. I.e; two out of two examples. 100% on each sample. That’s er, “statistically significant”. Late scenario (life can be seeded): life on Mars means: nothing. Life on Mars: statistically insignificant.
  8. "The desert is an ocean with it's life underground, and a perfect disguise above."
  9. So everything is unknowable. In effect.
  10. I didn't know which category this fitted in, but you got the duty: When it’s hot. They say, “wear a hat”. To keep the heat off (No, not just the UV). When it’s cold, they say, “wear a hat”. “30% of your body heat is ‘lost’ via your head…” Isn’t this crazy talk? Your hot blooded brain isn’t going to conserve body heat because it’s got a hat on it? Isn’t putting a hat on, in summer, going to make you hotter? Given the above? My idea is that ‘hat’s have no net-effect at all except in extreme, extreme. Circumstances. Can a hat, at any time (not counting a blizzard), do any good?
  11. It says that a 'system' cannot be understood (or 'described') without the 'rules' of a 'higher' system. 1. Give me a better, but equally short definition. 2. Well.... I guess '2' depends upon 1. I want to know.
  12. I've read that there's two or three times the 'surface' biomass of Earth, living as micro-organisms, deep underground. Kilometer's deep, by some accounts. Most life is a mile deep? How true is this? (I'm not asking for web-links. I'm asking for people who know what they are talking about).
  13. (Wasn't sure where this topic would fit). I used to be keenly interested in the prospects of Life on Mars (or anywhere else in our system). I thought that the discovery of life on Mars would be a major indication of what we could plug into the Drake Equation. But things changed when it was realistically proposed that planets could ‘seed’ each other via impact ejecta. Now, as far as Drake and its implications, life on Mars (or anywhere in your Solar system) means nothing. Right?
  14. Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had. That makes it pretty unusual, if not unique. (I can only think of our concept of ‘time’ as an equally large and mostly unchallenged set of ideas - though, I have read ‘the End of Time’ (Balfour). (And one day, I’ll understand it)). Which makes me suspicious. It seems to me that the most scientifically interesting thing that could happen, would be if ‘Evolution’ was challenged. Be brave: where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks? It’d really be something, if there aren’t any. Unique, even. Wouldn’t that be… odd? (I only wish I didn’t feel I have to say this, but: I’m not a crypto-Creationist looking for ammo. I’m an atheist who thinks that Evolution is the single Biggest idea, ever. I’m not interested in creationist replies of any kind. Especially those dressed up as Science. I would like people who know what they’re talking about to tell me things I haven’t heard before). (I can only hope for the best, even though I suspect the politics of this are impossible). I’m a big-picture guy, and Evolution is the biggest (human) picture there is. Let’s challenge it. Be brave.
  15. “These pass” “…every living cell also needs mitochondria, and these pass only from the mother's side.” How do they “pass”?
  16. You OP has been responded to. “Responded to”, well yes. But not intelligently addressed, with the exceptions I’ve mentioned. There were some answers and some requests for clarification. If people are saying the question isn't clear to them, you don't get to say, "yes it is." You don't get to berate them for it, either. With respect, I can indeed tell people I’ve said it as best I can, and that they’ve completely ignored my OP. And if their responses seem to be directed at something I never said, they need to quote what I (never said) that they are responding to. There are no questions unanswered. Except mine. (The "quote function" is inefficient, and will not be used)
  17. (Auto "Merge-Post" is the cause of the messed-up thing below) There is no other theory that is so vastly supported by the geological record and our scientific knowledge. I said that in my OP. How can you be so inattentive that you quote me, to oppose me? Read my OP. That's verging on rude. It's knee-jerk city, in here. Why should we give you ammunition to help waste our time refuting the arguments that we give you? What? You really didn't read my OP, did you. But Swansont I am surely more sinned against, than sinning. I bravely tried. And owe no apologies. So, which one are you talking about? Evolution, or the mechanisms of evolution? My OP makes it clear. It's simple, as a question. And Vexer, please understand that if you're *not* an ID proponent in disguise, you're acting like every single one who has ever visited here. That's a tough one. Should your prejudice silence me? Or should your prejudice silence you? Nah. Can't you just be scientists for one second and respond to my OP as though you weren't in a political war? Or can't you. (Be scientists).
  18. They do suspiciously go out of their way to say 'science' a lot. But that can be taken in two ways. One; they want to convince you that what they are doing is really science (when you might not think it is, as an educated person). Two; they want to convince you that what they are doing is really science (when you might not think it is, as an school kid or more uneducated person). Yes, it's not great science, not ideal "what I would like to see" Science, necessarily. But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good. This puts me in mind of the argument about whether Steve Irwin, the "Crocodile Hunter" is a "naturalist" (or conservationist) or not. Similar question.
  19. So, he already had weighed the crown, but (as has been said) that in itself means nothing much. Then he measured the volume via the water thing. A two-step operation, you're saying. (Which, if I may say, the original story does not at all make clear, or even mention, in it's popular version). So the displacement of a stryofoam crown must be compared with it's separately determined weight. hm Athiest Perhaps you can see that your reply was not an answer to my question. If not, then let's talk numbers: What's the density of an object with a mass of 300 g? Ok, Athiest. It's density could be anything. I was thinking that in the context of 'sinking' (displacing) water, density, is weight. I wonder why this was/is so hard for me to ‘get’.
  20. Thus, he had measured the volume of the crown. Wouldn't a styrofoam crown have given the same volume? Thanks for the excellent description of what I'm talking about. Yes, that's it. Seriously, I don't see how weighing it is any different. So you don't understand it either, iNow. I feel better. If you did, you would have said. (I'm not being *intentionally" dumb, BTW)
  21. "Science" is the search for Objective Truth.
  22. I think missionaries should given their say, *before* we boil them.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.