Jump to content

akh

Senior Members
  • Posts

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by akh

  1. Since watching the newest Rover land on Mars I have thought again about what it would take to terraform Mars.

     

    Terraforming Mars has some good ideas, yet I don't know what would be the most practical at this time.

     

    I had thought about forcing a Chemical reaction in the atmosphere could be one way. What I was thinking is Finding a way to Split the CO2 into something else. One possibility could be to force a massive H2O reaction in the Atmosphere. I Was thinking maybe 10 Megagams of Hydrogen and 5 Megagrams of Oxygen would be a good start. Seeing as I have do not have a formal science background I do not know what would happen or even if this would do anything. I do know that if everything went right that it would make Carbonic Acid. All ideas are welcome.

     

    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?

     

     

     

  2. Or polar bears? The natives who live in the areas, on the ground all year round say the numbers are up, the "scientists" who fly around in choppers counting white bears against a white background from around 1200 ft are saying the numbers are down. Glad you have such faith in the extremely keen eyesight of those aerial observers.

     

     

    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.

  3. Fair enough. I have no problems with the idea of pure research either. The Antarctic is another piece of the puzzle. I do note that there is no mention of currents which were significantly different that long ago. North and South America weren't joined so there was a vast equatorial current operating to spread heat around the planet.

     

    It was the concentrating on CO2 to the exclusion of all other things that made me sceptical at the beginning. When we look at climate and imagine a huge, 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, back in the 80s we had the border pretty much done. Then someone grabbed the piece called "CO2" and declared it to be the most important piece in the entire puzzle and all other pieces revolve around it. Well, 30 years on and we've got some more of the puzzle filled in, maybe it's time to admit that "CO2" is just a piece of the puzzle and the world doesn't revolve around it after all.

     

     

     

    You forget that this is offset by the well known "Johnathan" effect whereby the upwelling radiation is reflected back to Earth from the undersides of the wings of the multitudes of circling seagulls thereby increasing the warming. :D

     

    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.

  4.  

    Hi mememin69, welcome to SFN. Don't worry about the detractors. They're just upset that all the prophesised calamities of the cult of the Church of Gaia have failed to materialise.

     

    No, in fact I do not believe in prophecies. I follow no church. I do not engage in making definite predictions of future calamities.

     

     

    They are also correct however in their comments about terminology. The IPCC etc does couch its comments in a careful way, in fact all scientific papers do, it is only after the alarmists and reporters get hold of things does "might" become "will".

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

  5. I have actually done so, and shown that the codified, complex, specified information contained in DNA unmistakenly evidences a intelligent mind as origin of life. But you prefere to tape your ears and eyes. So the same question, you should actually direct to yourself.

     

    Again, (how many times is this?) no you have not

     

     

    I am able only to show why i believe the scientific evidence points to a intelligent creator. I have done so. Information in DNA is just one of many examples.

    What you believe does not matter, you need to provide real evidence. Sources?

     

    If you do not believe in my interpretation of facts, how about you present a BETTER explanation , lets start, and talk - how about just the information contained in DNA ?!

     

    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?

     

    If you think , no intelligence was involved, what else, and why would that something else be more compelling ?

     

    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?

  6. :)"Scientific" Consensus Broken Down:

     

    26 years of climate change research and millions of studies later we are now left with the major scientific academies all agreeing;"Climate change is real and happening and could possibly be a crisis ofunstoppable warming."

     

    Yes "could possibly be". Not one single IPCC report ofcrisis ever mentions the promise of a climate crisis with "certainty","immanency" or "unavoidable" or "impending" etc. It is always with a "maybe".Always!

     

    And how could they all have consensus of unstoppable warmingwhen they all have their own special and unique studies on "effects" and almostnever on "causes"?

     

    Climate change was the study of the effects in a worst casescenario of the crisis of climate change caused by Humanity, a "crisis" thatcan't be proven or disproved anyways.

     

    Wouldn't the millions of people in the global scientificcommunity be acting just a little differently if this really was a real climatecrisis? Nothing could be worse besides a comet hit.

     

     

     

    Climate blame science has done to science what abusive priests did for the church.:(

     

    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.

  7. You forget humanity's capacity for self destruction and also the destruction of the natural environment that it is prone to also.

     

    In many ways humanity's inherent destructiveness outweighs it's creative abilities.

     

    Working together?

     

    There is no us.

     

    There is only the wealthy privileged class utilizing the labor of everybody else for it's own designed end.

     

    The goal eventually is to eliminate everybody else when they are no longer needed so that the privileged and wealthy administrator class inherents the future all to itself without all the useless eaters around.

     

    I hope you enjoy this post.

     

    Entropy is the master of us all.

     

    Were all slaves to entropy and decay.

     

    At any rate on a long enough time line entropy will outright win followed by a extinction event.

     

    Problem with energy expansion is a planet with finite resources within a paradigm of infinite human expansion.

     

    Civilization a existence of comedy and tragedy.

     

    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?

  8. And yet the positivism of science can not distinguish the real from the unreal, they are not even sure whether an external physical world exists independent of the mind, so what proof do you have, you have nothing. Top quantum physicists themselves state that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and it falsifies a 100 more other philosophies and science is not about how logical your theory is, its more about whether your theory describes the nature the way it is.

     

    Now I want you to answer those above questions and prove scientific realism if not accept that physicists don't have an objective account of reality.

     

    Where as the theory of forms of Plato and the philsophical doctrines of Advaita describe eternal unchanging realities and it exists the same whether you see it around 2500 B.C or in the 21st century or in the future. Which is real now?

     

    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.

     

     

  9. Hello. I have always been confident in the fact Evolution based on the few bits of evidence I knew about and logical reasoning. However it is only recently it has started to amaze me even more, probably because of my studies of the complexity of the human body at school.

     

     

    So it is unintelligence design (to quote Dawkins) that determined the species better suited is the species that survives. However what is it that determines that any organism has a feature like that in the first place. It is a near impossible chance that some organisms slowly gained legs and managed to crawl onto land. Why didn't they all just not develop legs and be stuck in the water or die on land. And the fact that something so suited to an environment seems to develop again and again seems absolutely amazing.

     

     

    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.

  10. I had watched the computer animations depicting the sequence of events that needed to happen for the rover to land successfully on the martian surface. It strained my credulity believing that the engineering systems would perform flawlessly, which apparently was the case.

     

    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!

     

    This is pretty cool! NASA has provided us with an online 3D interactive view of Curiosity and the Martian terrain.

     

    http://mars.jpl.nasa...lore/curiosity/

     

    It looks like we'll be able to track its progress using this application.

     

     

    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.

     

     

  11. I don't need to prove anything, to show how rational my position is.

     

     

    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.

     

     

    I don't need to prove anything, to show how irrational my position is.

     

  12. 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.

  13. well, can you give a example, just one, of codified information, as contained in DNA, that has a natural, aka non intelligent origin ?

     

     

    Yes, you have mentioned it already, DNA. There are others, like RNA. So that's two.

     

    Please address the concerns in my previous post.

  14. I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

     

     

    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.

     

     

    Scientific data actually points clearly to a supernatural origin of all universe, since naturalism is not able to explain convincingly why our universe is finely tuned to create life, and life per se. And the origin of the universe points us to a cause of it. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

     

    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.

     

    thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

     

    And Christmas presents are evidence of Santa Clause, and Easter baskets are evidence of the Easter Bunny.

  15. I'm not speaking of the unity yet and its pointless to speak about the unity because its beyond the intellect. There is much to know about before knowing the unity. Its something which most scholars and philosophers don't know and keep talking about "unity" and "Brahman" when no one knows what it is. They are using broken forms of reasoning because no one can speak about unity and nor should anyone speak about it.

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

    This is in so much similarity with the Gnostic view of the world which says that everything comes in dyads i.e. with male and female forms.

     

     

     

     

    Similarity does not make sameness, and you still have not proven sameness, or non dualism.

     

     

    This is the ontological view or the ontological reality of Advaita Vedanta i.e. the pleroma of (Aeons) gods (fullness) exist in every living being which is amazingly similar to the Gnostic view.

     

    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.

     

     

    knowledge of that sort but in the east we have well preserved methods on how to access the noumenon but not many people in the east know about this either.

     

    This is something which most scholars and philosophers outside the tradition don't see.

     

    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.

  16. I guess you're not seeing the importance of this, Sam Harris who is a propenent of New Atheism himself admits that he has no idea from where the people from the east got the non-dual philosophical doctrines from. The John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of this. Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal recognizes this,

     

    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.

     

     

     

  17. Hallo eveyrone

     

     

    In male cells, the chromosomes x y are separated in anaphase

     

    No they do not, not in mitosis. The chromosomes are replicated before anaphase. Meiosis, on the other hand...

     

    What did I miss?

     

    A lot. Try looking up videos of the process of mitosis on youtube. There are plenty of them.

     

     

     

     

  18. Why not? Science is a branch of philosophy and even its assumptions, its foundations can be questioned.

     

    Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner

     

    The scientist who leaves room for spirituality

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

     

    My argument is not based on belief since I am not forcing you to accept anything, I am just showing what is the need and importance of Religion and why it should be investigated.

     

    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?

  19. World religions are still a possible road to reality as long as science doesn't give a complete account of the nature of reality which we are living in. Its very much possible that we are living in a Veiled Reality and other traditions are open for speculation.

     

     

     

    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.

  20. 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.

     

    1. What is the best definition for speciation

     

     

    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

     

     

    One of my creationists friends asked me how and at what point, does a dog become/gives birth to a non-dog

     

     

    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.

  21. Life came into existence some 700 million years after the earth's formation. That's an incredibly long time. The ingredients were here, it was only a matter of time before something interesting coalesced from them. I'm sure life formed a few times before that point but wasn't as successful. A better question would be what are the odds of our planet being just far enough yet near enough to the sun to support life...

     

    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.

  22. Which is exactly why the way Dr Muller is going about things is bugging me. We saw the same thing last year when they had the big press thing for the earlier papers when they were submitted. AFAIK, all have been rejected after review. We get a media blitz on submission, but if the paper is rejected then it isn't a paper, it's not even an op ed, it's a nothing. By all means have a media circus on acceptance if you want, but not on submission.

     

    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 think I see where you coming from with this, but I can't quite agree. The test, the only valid test, of a theory is to make predictions and compare them to reality. Temps have gone up about .8 degrees, some of this is sure to be natural, some will be from CO2, some will be from feedbacks, and there are possibly "unknown unknowns". The only way to solve the attribution question is to arrive at values for each of these factors and to feed those values into GCMs and then to compare the output to reality. If it doesn't match, then you have made a mistake. :P I can't speak for others, but I do see predictions as a neccessary part of theory development. Without it, how do you verify that the values you've arrived at for the forcings are actually correct?

    There is also the point that very much intertwined is the political aspect of what to do about the AGW "problem". This begs the question "If it isn't a problem, why do anything?"

     

    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.

     

    You just asked for something that correlated, please don't move the goalposts. :P How about crows then? A protected species in many nations their numbers have exploded with the advent of technology. Lots and lots of heat absorbing black birds? And I'm not even going to touch the "dumping bicycles into the atmosphere" bit. It's giving me wierd mental pictures and asking odd questions. "Is a 28 speed road racer a more potent GHB than a 21 speed mountain bike?"

     

    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.

  23. If the resistance to heavy metals is acquired by vertebrates i would suggest that cooperation with bacteria that detoxify heavy metals is far more likely.

     

    Elephants is a good example of this, they eat things like grass, leaves, tree bark, small limbs and anything else vegetable they can ingest but they can't digest any of it, in fact with out their symbiotic bacteria that actually do the digesting they would starve no matter how much food they ate.

     

    Due to the elephants slow reproductive rate i once saw an estimate we that it would take literally billions of generation of elephants have a decent chance evolving the ability to digest their food items. Symbiosis with bacteria is far quicker and cheaper from a genetic stand point.

     

    Instead of evolving these traits complex animals use bacteria to do the work for them, termites are another example... with out their gut bacteria they could not eat wood...

     

     

    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...

     

     

×
×
  • 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.