Catharsis

Yea, but regardless of what you think I know or don’t know I’m still entitled to make a statement. Yes or no, right? As far as everything else well, I guess it all speaks for itself - such skills in encouragement and inspiration... This forum will be teaming with enthusiastic participants... Like I’m going to spend time in a debate over semantics; forums someday in the future will start to censure it’s members, just wait and see. Oh I just didn’t make it personal - I’ve got lots of friends and am highly regarded on my science forum come join us we have lot’s of members participating in all sorts of interesting discussions, it’s the wave of the future. See ya...

I think we’re in a cycle of semantics. When you say pressure from the environment, I’m saying “it’s there for us organisms to survive in”. I’m just trying to point out that straining you neck isn’t going to effect your DNA. I know on some level, such as fish for example, will be more sensitive to it’s immediate chemical environment and will evolve accordingly. But for mammals I don’t think they work like that - like they say dinosaurs grew so big because of the amount of excess oxygen in the air. I don’t think because of that extra o2 it chemically altered the DNA. Is what I’m trying to point out. But there has to be a gray area since we did evolve from fish and I’m sure we all can agree that fish were and are susceptible to their chemical environment... So I guess were back to where we started again - this raises an interesting issue, no?

I was told that a giraffes neck got long only because (at random) an offspring was born with a longer neck hence making it easier to reach more food therefore (in the long run) striving in the environment more productively, being more attractive to the females, hence, sharing his offspring with that propensity to have a long neck. The need to have a longer neck to reach higher for leaves is not influenced by the environment. It’s just there for us organisms to survive in. Living in the sun (from what I understand) does not physically effect the DNA to make the skin black (like people from Africa). Rather over the millions of years people who at random exhibited the darker pigment were more popular, more successful, more happier, so that in the long run reproduced more. No?

My two cents on the subject is as follows: Environment stands alone separate from an organisms evolutionary development just like a house would grow or the neighborhood would exist indifferent to it’s citizens or occupants. And it’s just random luck of the draw who gets the long lasting survivable traits from DNA that are best suited for the “house or neighborhood”. Therefore it’s just a propensity that evolution is best suited for it’s environment. When truth be told, evolution can easily evolve into species not suited for “that” environment. Right? Let’s say we humans made a conscious effort to only breed people who have a birth defect of sorts - we just evolved the human race into the environment not being suited for it to survive in. Right? So in closing what I’m trying to say is: yes environment and evolution do have a relationship (influence on each other) but still stand alone indifferent of each other. But also keep in mind that the randomness in a birth isn’t so random that one offspring can have wings ready to fly during his life to the next. I’ve heard that there are a handful of basic DNA traits at first that end up being used in “new” ways (to create randomness). Meaning a DNA trait for moving, DNA trait for breathing, A DNA trait for reproduction. So at some level DNA is composed of, really, just a handful of basic Points that life must have to be considered life (mammal and or reptile of this here nature). I find that rather interesting: that means there is a rather small threshold that were dealing with when talking about the propensity to be the right combo for that environment. What does that mean? Well, mistakes are easily made and Corrected (in the sense that we are talking about millions of years that is). I also think that’s what “spawned” that new game that came out a year ago about creating creatures that you yourself create and try to live on some planet (you know is it called Spawn) you know the one I’m talking about, it was all the rave? Meaning this discovery of there just being a handful of traits that are used in new ways to create randomness... I just bet...

Good point - I have asked that question too (or thought about it)... What is the definition of domesticated? I always thought it would be the production of testosterone hence less aggressive and leading into eventual changes in mind, body and spirit, right? I mean sounds good to me... But someone then brought up to me, what about the female species? Are they so entwined with the levels of testosterone? I don’t know?

It might be of interest to read: (under Blog2 > Spirit) http://web.me.com/finland1/Reindeer_Instructor/Welcome.html Also blog: (Aug 31st, Sep 5th) http://www.myspace.com/reindeer_instructor The myspace blogs are about some books that have way more interesting titles then the reading was... Which brings up an interesting point - so much in life has “interesting titles” then the actual material that’s covered under them. I wonder if this can tell us anything? *********************** Also I would like to add what I believe is very interesting (and in my opinion). They (in science) are talking about how we maybe did not evolve From Apes but rather shared a common ancestor. It took me some time to think about this; because the alteration in the DNA that will eventually LEAD to humans down the road took place in one of the offspring and not the other does not mean they looked any different when, at the time, they where born. Meaning the two (let’s say hypothetically speaking) siblings where in every biological sense of the word “the same” but the change in DNA for one of them took place that would eventually lead to humans. Are you with me? This needs to be emphasized! Changes that occur in DNA that lead to the definition of “evolution” might not immediately show themselves, actually might just be the first step in a long line of changes before “surfacing”... I think with this in mind we can see the real big picture when we talk about evolution and Billions of years. *********************** Also what’s the deal when they talk about evolving from the dinosaurs - like chickens are distant relatives etc. When we as life as we know it actually evolved from what was fortunate to have remained after the meteor hit (such as moles, and life that could “burrow”). So we as life as we know it - actually evolved from rodents (metaphorically speaking) no? This seems to not be emphasized all that much (at least from what appears to me). Because if this is the case then the actual origins of life on the planet actually comes from a very small (and strangely inferior) group, no? Comments, suggestion and opinions are greatly appreciated, Thank you in advance... Peace be with you .

Well - they don’t know what gravity is... and the basic concepts of trying to figure “it” out (to me) would be how atoms work in order to get “up” and how the force of gravity originates... So I’m just “postulating” in a general way that we get the notion of “up” by a layering, a departmentalizing (of sorts) with atoms and their differentiation found by the proton / neutron “make up” at the center of their atoms... Hence the bigger ones go to the bottom the smaller ones end up on top... With that in mind - put together with the origins of gravity (warping of space and time) the analogy of pushing your finger down on a bed sheet (but in three dimensional space) you have the ingredients for figuring out who, what, where and how gravity is... No? (I mean in at least the way I see it).... ************ I like to get to the hart of the mater - not sensationalize science “propaganda” (I wouldn’t make a good teacher)... Almost all science TV shows don’t really explain things in black and white... Example: Einstein was notorious for telling children that we only use 10% or 15% of our brain for thinking and they don’t know what the rest is used for... When we really “do” use only 10% of our brain to think - the rest is for the body to use for it’s automatic behavior keeping the lungs breathing, hart pumping etc... *********** Also the concept of string theory - basically their saying that - our model of little balls spinning around a bigger ball could be just us applying a model to a concept to help us understand something we can’t see... That maybe in actuality it could be threads that vibrate at different frequencies (or sorts).... They like to use the concept of “alternate reality” as a bait and switch concept to make science attractive... Like the concept of worm holes to travel through space - well if dark matter is really matter (based on the idea of how we get gravity - a warping of space and time) then maybe (just conceptually) we can “pluck” a piece of fabric from one side of the bed and along with another piece of fabric “plucked” from another part of the bed - put the two together - then you get Warp Drive (or a worm hole).... So to me that’s the way I like to think of things to make sense with (and I’m assuming that to other people the way things are portrayed on TV and in class rooms aren't thought of being to kosher either - because I would think people would be quick and happy to discuss, at least in a small way, the most Wild concepts of reality) and we all know they are not.. Very seldom (never) do you hear people discussing really of anything of interest at Starbucks except “what did you get for question number eight”... ******************* Because otherwise in closing (I don’t know) “which word didn’t you understand”....

Wow - good show (good fellows).... The exact points I think I’ve been dancing around (just couldn’t think of them) - bravo, bravo.... Wake the kids and phone the neighbors.... That sphere with no air in it was perfect... ************* For my two cents worth (which is by all means, just not all that much).... Is - (with my handful of sand example in mind) the more denser atoms (more proton, neutron make up at the center of the atom, that is) the more support and “up push” you get on the lighter atoms (collectively) and even the more better “no atoms” (hence the vacuum example).... So when the math is done (after the dust settles) the more (collectively speaking) denser atoms underneath the lighter (collectively speaking) atoms - you get float (or even better - you get “up”).... Now with that in mind (for all you young protegees out there) try and think “simultaneously” of pressing your finger down on a tight bed sheet with a marble spinning around and around like water in a toilet bowl and making its way to your finger (in three dimensional space and time and that finger being earth “or matter”) you now have gravity.... So with those two in mind (the bed sheet and handful of sand) - what do you get - .... Ha, ha, ha, ****************** All that comes to my mind - is like what they're talking about - “no space” (the nothing between here and the moon) “dark matter” etc.... Is actually “something” (as if it were a form of matter also) just a different kind of matter.... It’s the only thing that makes sense (no?)....

Is that right? “The air doesn't need to be between slabs of steel”.... I thought it did? You mean if I had a single sided steal dish (with no honeycombing for sides) it would be just as buoyant as if it did have “air cavities”? By all means - I don’t know - but it doesn't sound right.... Because I can’t just go out in the water with a dish shaped (boat shaped) piece of steal and have it float (just as long as no water get’s into it).... I mean if I’m not mistaken - that bad boy is going straight down without so much as “I’ll see ya latter”...

Yea... Very interesting the repulsion of like charges (good point).... But I’m still thinking of the concept of “up”... Because up seems to wanna be quite on the fast side of the fence VS. spreading out.... Example: air in water (fast going up)... Why fast going up? It’s this concept of sand filling up underneath - pushing up on the “lighter atom” above (no?)... I would like to say “every force has a counter force of equal and opposite etc..” but if gravity has such an affect on a ball of air under water (fast rising up) - why all of a sudden dose it stop and float on top of water (yet while gravity is still having the same force on that ball of air as it did under the water)? Well, the atoms now in the air - putting force on the air that was in the water (lets say it was a different form of gas of sorts) is not so dense now to have that much of a force to “quickly” propel that gas further up into the atmosphere “the sand effect” (unless it dose - depending on the gas were talking about).... So what I’m saying: is that I have a hand full of sand (both hands, cupping it, like I’m making a snowball) and I’m squeezing the sand - and all the different layers of “density of atoms” are sorting themselves out “departmentalizing” to take there part in this layering affect to apply their force on the next lighter “mass atoms” above... This is why we have up.... No? ************ But - the whole concept of having trapped air in between slabs of steal that weigh tons - that have so much force to keep a battleship a float (kinda blows my mind). Because how is “sand” getting underneath the air (in between the slabs of steal) to force it up so powerfully to keep tons and tons and tons afloat? I guess you gotta think of it as a unit (and all that kind of stuff) - but still - to have that much power - you would think you could blow some air in your hand (while you’re under water) and shoot right up to the top.... But I’m just joking... And then the whole concept of compressed air in tanks.... I’m just opening up barrels of worms (or is that monkeys)....

Just to re-iterate: because I know someone can get lost by my original post “example” of rocks: (what’s he talking about - rocks and one being plastic?).... I was saying that - if you were to take an atom of water and an atom of air - that the difference between the two would be the amount of protons and neutrons at the center of their atoms... So what I did was compare “that” - meaning one atom having more proton and neutron “make up” to a rock and the air atom having less proton and neutron “make up” to the plastic rock.... So if you have a rock (water atom) and a plastic rock (air atom) sitting next to each other..... Are you with me? What will make that air atom go up and the water atom not go up? And what I was assuming was that - it’s the “accumulation” of more rocks (water atoms) being (denser, heavier “more mass” - this “all” being a big part of the debate “answer”) forcing the plastic rock (air) up.... Like sand filling up under something and lifting it up to the top... ****************** So I just wanted to clarify that - for people who couldn’t quite get the picture - of my rock and plastic rock analogy.... And you can see why I even questioned the idea of “up” too, also at the time... So in closing I just wanted to make clear my “rock and plastic rock statement” (in the beginning of this thread) - it might have been a little brief, to be really clear - as now I hope it is.....

Hey yea - that’s a real royal idea - asking the pro’s what book’s (text books or not) to read..... Outstanding good fellow. ************** I just study this stuff as a way of occupying my time - I’m a live in heath care provider, now on the job with my fourth or fifth patient. Currently (this case is not hospice) so it’s been two years now on the job... Also (I’m afraid) I myself, am getting old (being that I’ve lived an athletic life and around age thirty five is kinda “it”) So I learn about (I guess) the mind and it’s neurons “gerontology” because that’s the way I’m heading and neuron decay seems to be what I’m exposed to (daily) just the nature of the beast.... So I keep up a yahoo 360 page that I use to kill time with - however, with messing around with photo’s, art, exercise, the computer in general, movies, the beach - I bounce around doing many different things.... ************* I really liked that basic comparison a few post’s up... Sometimes that’s all really need and you end up getting the long version...

Well, like wow - I’m not even going to even begin to try and figure this one out.... But I at least know that something very different is aloof between the two.... I‘ll leave it at that - that one is more of attraction, rather, than of sharing... Good enough for me..... ************************** But I tell ya - all that runs through my head (all that could logically run through my head) is this: you got two planet earths (with the moon) - the moon of one planet (hydrogen) get’s pulled by the force of the oxygen atom and instead of going side by side with it’s moon (electron) and spinning around both earths in one big lunar orbit (which would be covalent) the moon of the hydrogen earth just get’s pulled enough to go in between the oxygen earth and moon (hence making it around the oxygen earth only) and then going back (making it “attraction” not bonding) or it doesn’t necessarily make it around the oxygen earth, but rather, turns back before “circling”. Because to me it’s gotta happen one way or the other. That electron (moon) is going to get pulled to the other oxygen earth and turn back before it quite get’s there or it get’s there and just makes it around the oxygen earth and then back (or some variation in between, or not even really). Because if it were to hook up “together” with the oxygen moon then it would be covalent... No? At least as I see it... And also I’m getting the feeling that several different types of bonds (attractions) are going on too at the same time (meaning that it’s not all just one standard type of attraction). But so in closing: I think text books could be written better though - but I suppose a book get’s written under a certain amount of controversy (as we see even in this thread - so I can imagine what goes on with a book) not to unlike politics (meaning, it’s hard to make a push to one side “of things” - but rather the best is the middle ground - mediocrity - it makes both sides content (pacified) it kinda makes things - should I say - homeostasis - ha ha ha).....

Oh.... I see - that helps a lot - I understand if it’s not all figured out... That explains a lot... I know that we don’t have gravity worked out, so I understand when things get a little “sketchy” (I can put it in perspective)... I didn’t know this was the case here - otherwise, I would have thought it‘s a very poor job of explaining things. Now I can understand.... It’s just sometimes things seem to be explained very badly at times and or without rhyme or reason.... Like in my biology book - it started taking about amino acids, fatty acids, simple sugars, nucleotides, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and nucleic acids just out of the blue - meaning I thought they were going to lead into something... I spent time trying to remember them - but outside of knowing that they exist and one kinda relies on the other, it really didn’t go anywhere. So I guess - it’s the “being exposed” to information over and over as time moves on. Because science can go in so many different directions that sometimes “information” is given for “information sake”.... So depending on which direction you decide to go in, information will repeat and be applied appropriately, latter on, in more “job” specific classes..... No?

Yea - I see the reference to electronegative (whatever) on Wikipedia. So I see - that’s what that means - it has to do with (static electricity type of stuff). Which I guess is a whole other beast... It’s just that my biology book (hence why I cam to biology - although others may be more specialized - I can understand) said how the electrons of hydrogen (in water) spend more time spinning around the oxygen creating negative and positive sides etc... Therefore making it a good environment for mixing stuff in, cleaning and to defy gravity.... That’s why I though it sounded like a covalent bond (of sorts)... But Wikipedia dose talk about this electronegative stuff that I get lost real quick with - and now that you said - think of static electricity - I can see that there is something else to pay attention too... I don’t know why it seems to be so hard to understand - it seems like it’s written in code, that Wikipedia article... So I guess I gotta look up, how static electricity works - or “reread” my biology book with this static electricity concept in mind and try and make more sense out of it. But I could have sworn that by having the electron from hydrogen spending more time around oxygen - it makes the hydrogen positive hence attracting other stuff, that I guess is negative... And or, other hydrogens (somehow I guess)....