studiot

Without a doubt it is both rational and scientific to consider the question "Does our experience and observation support or lead to intelligent design ?" The short answer is that ID can explain at least some of it, but it is not the only possibility and further enquiry is necessary. However the idea of an all powerful being leads to a self contradiction, so any designer has limited capability.

No sweat, thanks, now I can make a sensible answer. So far as I can see anyone who thinks that you can only lean left or right is being very unscientific and not thinking rationally.

Which question do you want answered ?

Do you mean learning or leaning (which make more sense to me) ?

You could start by reading these two excellent books (look for second hand copies) There will no doubt be course textbooks as well.

I asked because astronomy is about observing, mapping and cataloguing what is out there. Cosmology is about trying to understand the science of those observations.

Yes it does but there is nothing to distinguish the two 'forms' in the result. (Draw it out in 3D)

Do you mean astronomy or cosmology more generally ?

Formic acid has no chiral centre and is too simple a molecule to to have resonance forms or be a racemic mixture.

I can look out some details and pictures for you, so look back again in an hour or two. P S and welcome Don't answer this at the moment as you have 5 posts in your first 24 hours for security reasons. I would start by looking out the Brusselator, which is a simple non linear mathematical model, There are lots of papers on Google. Please give us an idea of the level you are going to be working at and confirm this is a maths rather than a chemistry project.

Well I find the current bioscience argument interesting in the light of my previous comment, although I must confess that the biological classification scheme has gone way beyond my knowledge. But I stand by what I said about the intention of the original poster and the rules of this forum, having been instructed by a moderator to keep on topic, here is what was originally posted we should be collectively able to identify the source node mentioned in the title of this thread.

Interesting, thanks. You can learn something new everyday if you keep listening. +1

Thank you, but then you reverse this by saying So yes it is a pity and will remain so until you preaching as though you are the sole authority on the subject and can accept that others may have valid thoughts to add. In point of fact this thread has been going for over 20 years and many folks have made their comments. The original post did not refer to fossils at all, just modern biochemical evidence like DNA and more. So I don't know why stratigraphy has been introduced at all. Yes I would agree that the biochemical evidence we can now examine and tailor our evolutionary hypotheses to suit, as it does not suffer the problems associated with some other methods. BUT The so called 'fossil record' is a whole different matter. It has long been known that by its very nature the fossil record is woefully incomplete. It has long been known that strata vary in thickness (and to some extent composition) with location, ans sometimes are altogether absent. What do you think are the implications of this for fossils and the fossil record ? A very serious question to consider is How are fossils formed? So yes the fossil record can tell us a lot but we have to be very wary as there are often several possible reasons for the absence or presence of certain fossils. Finally for the purposes of this thread we are talking about a common human anscestor, not the record over hundreds or thousands of millions of years.

If you said "run" to me why should I not think of the ladder in your nylons or the pen where my daughter's rabbits play or.... Single words rarely provide enough context to convey meaning.

Neither exchemist nor myself have said you are a chatbot. Read what was actually said more carefully. Really ? This is an oversimplified version of the Law of Superposition, as stated in the science of Stratigraphy ( which is a part of Geology ) What a pity you did not check out your link before you posted it. A good place to start would be with a proper geology textbook such as chapter XIV of Lake and Ralstall's A Textbook of Geology It is only a short chapter but clearly explains why the above quote passage is seriously in error ; when and why the doctrine of 'younger overlays older' holds and stresses the equally important when it does not. It goes into proper detail about how to use the fossil record and how not to misuse it.

Not sure I follow what you are trying to do here. Can you expand on your idea some more. Eigenvectors are very specialised devices - There are many ways to represent (large) datasets and plenty of theory about that subject. The simplest example would be the use of an average to represent a whole class of something. And any statistician would quickly tell you that the average is of little use without a second measurement detailing the spread of the data.

Yes thanks for the help, that worked.+1 Must be just when you are composing, and it settles after to have left the thread and returned.

In the old site we used to be able to ckick on an attachment, photo etc to get to a larger version (if there was one). We seem to have lost this facility here. Is it or can it be still available please ?

Not new, no but you must be careful not to confuse the model with the 'real thing' you are constructing the model of. Maxwell is famous for constructing a mechanical model of light which in his words, Satisfied all the equations but he knew it was not real. Such models are called analogue and can be very useful if this is borne in mind. Here is an interesting model of the electron which reproduces many of the characteristics of the electron.

Thank you for your thoughts but this source explanation does not hold up since many natural and artificial sources are 'ducted' to conduct the output away from the ground directly into the air (though not usually the stratosphere). Yes indeed there are mixing processes going on but the natural tendency of gas mixtures in a potential field is for the concentration of the lighter gasses to increase with a graduated field. That is why gasses like hydrogen and helium and even methane vanish upwards very quickly, whilst gasses like carbon dioxide do not and why Health and Safety executives around the world issue cautionary documents and classify carbon dioxide as hazardous. This shows very clearly the different fractions of different gasses that will naturally achieve the speed necessary to climb to any given level in the potential field. Chemistry LibreTexts5.9: Molecular Speed Distribution

Well I wonder what the mixture robot, AI , bots in general and humans bodes. BBC NewsroundWorld's first half-marathon with humans and robots takes...While robots have made appearances at marathons in the past, this is the first time they have raced against humans over this distance. Well I wonder what the mixture robot, AI , bots in general and humans bodes. BBC NewsroundWorld's first half-marathon with humans and robots takes...While robots have made appearances at marathons in the past, this is the first time they have raced against humans over this distance.

Well the thread isn't closed and you have a working member account again so how about responding to other members' comments on the content ?

With you there bro. +1

Uniformitarianism is not the only process observed. That argument is old hat and held back scientific progress for a couple of centuries.

One shortcoming of the algorithmic approach is that is only caters for one half of the rational process. Indeed this typical cryptic comment from dim actual nails it rather well. Rational thinking can be roughly divided into Analysis and Synthesis. The alogrithmic approach needs a goal and corresponds to Synthesis. Analysis on the other hand includes the observer having the nouce to say "Now how/why did that happen ?", which is of course what occured with the discovery of penecillin. In other words it includes inspirational thinking.