akh

I think this is a valid assumption.

The biggest issue is the lack of a magnetosphere. With out it, Earth would have been stripped of most of our atmosphere. The magnetosphere also shields us from radiation. Whats the point of terraforming if the radiation levels are so high most organisms would not survive at the surface?

I will take particular issue with this argument, and this is a direct result of the media comparisons and laymen comparisons where there should be none. These are two samples using different sampling techniques, and most likely sampled of different sub populations. As such, you can not compare the two! In fact, because of this it would be surprising if they did match. Additionally, these are most likely point studies, and point studies do not reveal an overall trend. You can get a spike or increase in population followed by a rapid decline; the spike and the decline are caused by the same conditions. You can also have deteriorating fitness in a population long before actual numbers decline. You also must consider overall population dynamics. The birth rate may be declining while the population remains steady, there is a delay here before actual numbers decline. So don't draw any conclusions from this illusionary contradiction. JohnB, you should be ashamed . When it comes to predictions, I really think it is a catch-22 situation. You have a situation where the scientists say, we think we are seeing something here. We may need to look at this closer. Then you have the "so what ers" and "who cares ers" who stand on the sidelines and complain about the waste of money, and ask questions like, "whats this mean for me?". The people on the sidelines demand predictions. Then the scientist then try to satisfy the demand for predictions. They make predictions, and when these predictions don't come true, then the people on the sidelines turn and say the whole concept is bunk. You also have the situation where the scientist, in their expert opinions, think that there may be serious consequences, but don't yet have to tools needed to confirm them. This does not mean that they are incorrect in their opinions. In any case, I would take the scientists opinion on climate over a politicians, just as I would take a doctor's opinion of my health over wall street banker's. The major quandary, is that by the time we get all the facts, all the information, and predictions accurate enough to convince the denialist, that it may be too late to change course. At this point, everybody looses. Then there are people who somehow think that they will be immune to at all and only "certain people" will suffer. Which is a calllous reaction at best, and hard to believe considering the global nature of the economy alone.

I could be wrong, but I think that in some ways the Antarctic study is intentionally leaving out things like currents and such. The reason is to eliminate them from the equation, or show that they are not the major component in relation to CO2 for GW. So if they find that the CO2 levels in the past correlate to temperature differences, and those readings fit GCM predictions, and both correlate to current observation, then you have a fairly good argument for CO2 as the major agent. This is not to say that other factors are not at play, but if you eliminate the other variables, then it does start to weigh in favor of AGW. I am really hoping for more studies like this.

No, in fact I do not believe in prophecies. I follow no church. I do not engage in making definite predictions of future calamities. Yes. mememin69, the point is that one needs to be very careful when it comes to the terminology of science. Scientist will rarely, if ever, speak in absolutes. This is why you do not see terms like absolute "certainty" (they will talk about degrees of certainty) or "impending". And this does create a great deal of problems when the scientific community is covered by the general media. Then the media coverage gets into the hands of the general population, and a lot of misconceptions and misinterpretations arise.

Again, (how many times is this?) no you have not What you believe does not matter, you need to provide real evidence. Sources? Your interpretation by itself is not evidence. Even if it was, why do you think your interpretation has any value when you clearly do not have good knowledge of the topic you are arguing? You keep trying to place meaning and purpose behind the existence of DNA. There is no meaning or purpose behind the existence of DNA. There is no what else or why. The only question is how. Do you understand why this is the only question?

Your examples of supposed contradictions is supportive of your ignorance of science. Your lack of understanding of scientific vernacular makes your ignorance of the scientific process highly likely.

I admire your level of pessimism. It is truly unrivaled. You speak about ultimate truths. You see things as they are, not through the glass of perception. You are not fooled by the grand illusion. Most people don't see reality the way it really is, but the disposition comes to you naturally. You know what? You are not special in this regard. These are things I have felt with since I was a child, unaware, at the time, of how far these feelings really extended. The feelings simply existed. I am at constant odds with "world" and modern society. I feel humanity has stretched itself thin, living and breathing in an artificial reality that could crash into oblivion at any moment. But at the end of the day, you have to have "faith". Not, faith in the religious context, but "faith" in humanity. It will try you like no other, and leave you disappointed more often than not, but you must be steadfast. I do not believe for one second that you are completely sold by your own abysmality. If you were, you would recognize the futility of your own existence, and terminate that existence (please do not do this). You would not have a job, a family, children. You would not get up in the morning, you would not eat or drink water. Do you feel that your own life is the greatest irony of all? The greatest tragedy?

But these philosophical doctrines are not proof. Think of it this way. If I accept for a moment, that this "veiled reality" exists, and that quantum mechanics supports the notion of a "veiled reality". Its still leaves a question of which is more "real". The truth is that reality "inside the veil" is far more real, than anything "outside the veil". In fact, I will argue that "inside the veil" is the only thing that is "real"! There is the totality of empirical science, of scientific realism, to support this. As time goes on, scientific realism discovers more things inside the veil. At the same time, there is nothing tangible that represents anything outside the veil. You (only) have quantum mechanics suggesting that it is there. I don't care what Plato or Advaita say, you still only have quantum mechanics suggesting. If you are going to get into discussions about how everything is a illusion, you might as well stop. This what you are saying, isn't it? There is no point to it, there is no outcome, nothing constructive will ever come from it. Its a circular argument. You don't have to have any knowledge of quantum mechanics or the mystics to propose that everything is an illusion. I came to this conclusion when having an argument with my brother, when I was 10 years old. It was a child's game to say "how do you know". And with every answer to the how, the question was repeated "how do you know that" .... and so on. And before we go further into this, if you conclude that the circular nature of the argument, which is the issue that quantum mechanics presents, is proof that there is "something else" I will enlighten you to the fact that this is also a circular discussion of the same nature, value and weight as the original argument. As such, it does nothing to provide proof, is not constructive, and has no value.

I suggest that you study developmental biology. Specifically, you should look into Hox genes and Hox proteins. These are the genes that control regulatory mechanisms. They can activate and repress genes. The important aspect in regards to morphology is that many of the differences we see in morphology from one animal species to the next are a result in changes in the Hox genes, changes in the regulatory mechanism of a gene and not the gene itself. This is why embryos of different animals look very, very, very similar. I will try to give a simplistic model of how this works. Say you have a four legged animal. That animal has the genes that code for four legs/limb development. Then there is a Hox gene that regulates the expression of the genes that code for four legs/limb development. Say in one example the Hox gene has changed so that it has no function or very little function, and the genes for limb development do not turn on or are extremely limited. The result is that the animal does not grow any limbs, or growth is extremely limited (dolphin). Now in another animal, the Hox gene activates the gene for limbs but shuts off early in development of the animal. This animal ends up with stumps for legs, or flippers (a walrus). In another animal, the Hox gene triggers the genes for limb development late. In this animal, the limbs are short, but the appendages (fingers) end up being very long and webbed. This animal ends up wings for flight (bat wings). In another animal, the Hox gene switches on the genes for limb development early and these genes stay "on" throughout development and you end up with something like an ape, with long arms and legs and fingers. Again, these are very, very simplistic examples and obviously many other changes occur. The important thing is that from flippered whale to human being, the changes are not in the genes for limb development per say, but in the Hox gene that regulates the limb genes. There are other changes that can happen too, like a mistake during crossover of meiosis (prophase I) that results in one gamete with no limb gene and another with a double limb gene. In this individual, the double limb gene effectively produces double the factors for limb development, and you get offspring with longer limbs. Again, this is overly simplistic, there are many other things that come into play like feedback mechanisms and such. So, you can get a surprising amount of changes in morphology not from a change in the gene for a specific characteristic, but rather from a change in where, when, how much a gene is expressed.

Don't worry, there are all sorts of people bashing this amazing accomplishment. Saying its a waste of money. imho, Its a great day for humanity. It will be remembered as one of our greatest achievements in space exploration. We now have the ability to land very large craft on Mars. Its only the beginning and I can't wait to see what we find! I can't wait for the actual video of the landing as seen from the rover itself. I think NASA said that they hope to have that available in the next day or so.

All as well for now! Landed!!!!!

Ohh, but you do and you can't which is why you refuse to do so. BTW, I fixed your statement so that it is now true.

And you still have not provided proof that DNA, or all codified information, always comes from the (a) mind. All you did was pose another question. So, again I will ask you prove that codified information must come from a mind. In fact, I can show that the codified information does not even need a mind to translate it. Thats two degrees of separation from your argument.

Yes, you have mentioned it already, DNA. There are others, like RNA. So that's two. Please address the concerns in my previous post.

You can't infer it, you have to prove it. They are not the same things. Prove that codified information must come from a mind. No it does not. Define "finely tuned". "Why" in the sense that you pose the question is not a valid question. There is no "why", the appropriate question is how. By asking why, you are already assuming "greater purpose". That assumption is not part of evidence based investigation. Moreover, there is mountains of scientific knowledge that contributes to the how. And Christmas presents are evidence of Santa Clause, and Easter baskets are evidence of the Easter Bunny.

Lol, your criticism of scientific realism and of empirical rational is what? Hold that criticism against what you just said, and any logical examination would again reveal that this approach is inherently more flawed at all levels than scientific realism. When you bring in concepts of non dualism, you are inferring the concept of unity. Similarity does not make sameness, and you still have not proven sameness, or non dualism. So what, being "amazingly similar" is not sameness. It still lies in the subjective realm, an experience that is unique to each individual. I don't care if they got together and compared notes. You can't prove that the experience is identical. I ask you again, prove that the experiences are identical...not similar...identical. Exclusivity? You must be in the circle to know the circle, but you as an outsider you can't get in the circle? Classic non response circular garbage, an argument older than the written language itself. Also the above two statements automatically introduces hierarchy. Hierarchy is not non dualism is it? I would argue that the objective world, the world of empirical science is far closer to any notion of non dualism than any mystical endevour. We have empirical proof of the sameness of experience. There are endless multitudes of facts brought to bare by empirical science that proves sameness of experience. In fact, humans don't even need to be involved, and this sameness still exists. This base of knowledge is constantly growing through empirical science, through scientific realism. Compare that to all the knowledge of the collective mystics, and the absolute lack of proof of sameness in non dualism because it lies entirely in a subjective realm. Make a comparison chart. Any logical, thinking, rational person would see that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of a reality as described by scientific realism.

I do see the importance of this, the importance is that you are asking for acceptance of a non-empirical construct. Sorry, I am not that easy. This unity you speak of is the result of inward perception. The entire premise of this discussion is that outward perception is inherently flawed. How then can this inward perception be less flawed than outward perception? The truth is that this inward perception must be inherently more flawed, because it is an entirely subjective experience. The experience can not be proven to be universal, and is arguably not universal because it is subjective and therefor unique to each individual. There is absolutely no possible way to measure or weigh one individuals experience to the next. Even if ones description is similar or perceived to be identical, it does not prove that it is in fact identical. The simple fact that Bernard and other mystics came to a universal conclusion is a moot point, because no one can say with certainty that the experience/experiences that brought about the conclusion was/were in fact identical. Prove to me that the experiences are identical! If you can not, then your argument is invalid.

No they do not, not in mitosis. The chromosomes are replicated before anaphase. Meiosis, on the other hand... A lot. Try looking up videos of the process of mitosis on youtube. There are plenty of them.

What I get from this; my thoughts are italicized. a)There are somethings science has not yet explained. This is true b)There is the possibility that humans can not use science to describe everything due to fundamental nature. This may very well be the situation, but not an absolute. It also does not mean that something else can. c)intuition. Humans act on it all the time with "beneficial" results. In fact scientists rely on it at some levels, they have "hunches". However, these "hunches" are still rooted on previous empirical knowledge, and they still must be tested! d)music, art, poetry create a strong emotional response. Can't argue against that, but it does not mean that there is "something else" that is responsible. You are not forcing me, but you are asking me to accept through a self-supporting argument... that is belief, a problem of induction. With what tools should Religion be investigated?

This is the apex of your view and is the oldest and most tread upon disposition in the guise of an intellectual argument. The discussion should not focus on what science cannot explain, but should instead focus on the lack of evidence for "something else". That is where in onus lies. If not, the argument is strictly a belief based emotional endeavor, and as such does not have merit.

I will start by saying that concepts of evolution and speciation are fairly advanced topics. Its very important to have a strong command of the principles of genetics to be able to understand many of the concepts of evolution and speciation. With that said, it is not impossible to have some basic understanding. The best definition; the processes by which an organism becomes genetically isolated from a common ancestor. Over time, due to the genetic isolation, the two separate lineages become unable to reproduce or produce viable offspring through interbreeding. Genetic isolation can occur through many processes. Obviously, there is a lot of grey area during the process. When it comes to actually defining what makes a species, you maybe disappointed to know that there isn't a "best" definition. There is some disagreement among biologists in this area. In many cases, it really depends on what is being studied. Speciation processes: Allopatric speciation Parapatric speciation Sympathic specaition Peripatric speciation This is a fallacious inquiry. The answer; there isn't a specific point, and never. But this does not mean that speciation does not occur. I suggest that you look into speciation processes I listed above. I will try to find links to the processes later, or better yet, look them up yourself.

And we still have the possibility of life on Mars. Not to mention the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which are considered to be outside the habitable zone.

Well I will have to admit, that I am naive to these previous scenarios. I can agree to this criticism. I am fully aware of other situations were the study skips the submission process and goes straight to the media that ended in complete retraction. I still don't think so. Its science for the sake of discovery. If science took the perspective that every study must have a applicable ramification, then many things would not have been discovered. Sometimes it is years later before anything "beneficial" or "revealing" comes from a study. The prediction is that CO2 increase is causing warming, and the CO2 increase is attributed to human activity. That is it. However, I am not saying there isn't more to the story. As far as the temperature increase a result of CO2 increase and GCMs, there is work going on in the Antartic to see if the GCMs are doing a good job of prediction. It will be interesting to see how this factors into AGW. I wish I had access to the full article. Well the black crows may lower albedo, provided they are in the open and not in the shade. But many crows spend time on similarly dark surfaces such as roof tops and asphalt roadways (they like road kill). The net albedo of the crow will be lower when in flight, due to increased surface area. But a crow in flight will provide a shorter path and less atmosphere for IR to escape, and will also block light from reaching ground level.

I agree, it was actually my first reaction to the "worm" paper before a read it. I thought it was possible that a bacterial symbiot was responsible. Interesting line of thought though. What if we engineered yogurt cultures with probiotics which had the ability encapsulate toxins before they entered our systems? I would prefer a clean environment, but...