JaKiri Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by dave i worry that human knowledge will come to such a point that we can't actually teach all (or even a specialized branch (maths, physics etc)) of it. The concepts are being taught younger and younger. 30 years ago, volcanos were a degree topic, now the same things are being taught in prep school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 We're already at a point where the vast majority of the population can't learn fast enough to know everything that is known about a specific field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 well said faf. considering that I am spending the next three years studying output coupling of OLEDs, I agree totally. unless someone discovers the elixir of eternal life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone We're already at a point where the vast majority of the population can't learn fast enough to know everything that is known about a specific field. bah we already know that a vast majority of the population can't learn anything there is known about ANYTHING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spuriousmonkey Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Humans cannot yet fully explain how life emerged on this planet. Evolution is still a theory because of several missing stages in the evolutionary process. One thing that chemists find interesting about the emergence of life is the chirality problem. In biology, almost all amino acids used in human DNA are in the L-form. the reason for this is because chiral compounds can form two chemically identicle compounds which are either left or right handed. If a single r amino acid is used in a dna chain, the chain cannot be built farther because the molecule will jut out at the wrong angle. the same goes for proteins, which almost always occur in the r-form in the human body. All living things have evolved ways of differentiating between enantiomers (optical isomers), as it is impossible for them to be separated in nature. the chances of 100 amino acids all being n the l-form is close to 10e-30, and thats for a non-functioning simplisitc dna chain. You can imagine the chances of a high number of complex, different amino acids all being in the right form are impossibly minute. So the question is, how did life start when its near impossible to have a solution of an optically pure chiral compound? they just dont separate. A racemic mixture is very difficult to separate with an intelligent observer, in nature its inconceivable for it to happen on its own. Evolution hasnt answered this problem yet. actually, chirality would be logical if first life obeyed the rules of evolution and natural selection. The first succesful biological systems had to be specific for a certain chirality because the enzymatic activity depends on it if i am not wrong. It would be more efficient then if all molecules had the same chirality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by spuriousmonkey actually, chirality would be logical if first life obeyed the rules of evolution and natural selection. The first succesful biological systems had to be specific for a certain chirality because the enzymatic activity depends on it if i am not wrong. It would be more efficient then if all molecules had the same chirality. his question, is how did the chirality occur in the first place, since in a purely random chemical process, it wouldn't happen. However that is making the assumption about what sort of molecule came first. It could have been som rudimentary molecule that spliced amino acids together... and then it could have happened more easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spuriousmonkey Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 we might not know exactly how it happened, but it is not like we have no clue how chirality could come about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 well I havent heard of any conclusive arguments of how a solution of a perfectly pure optical compound can occur in nature without the aid of an already existing biological agent. If your interested, heres a list of possible solutions to this problem and why none of them are satisfactory, hence the remaining mystery about chirality in life. Its essential to our very existence yet how did life come about with the problems it poses? the structure of a dna double helix depends on it for a start. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spuriousmonkey Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 there are no fixed answers in science, just data and interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocBill Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 I for one see science as learning what is "out there" as well as what's "down here." As my friend Carl used to say, "we are looking out at the cosmic ocean. So far we have only wadded ankle deep, and the water looks inviting." Another friend says that "we can not know what lies beyond our borders until we learn all we can about our own land." One was an astronomer; the other is a biologist. I guess we probably know about 10% of our own planet amd about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% of everything else--but that is of course, just a quess. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Isaac Newton said something very similar, and I doubt we even know 10% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spuriousmonkey Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 the shitty thing is that for every answer we get right we receive 3 or more questions free of charge.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylon Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I think this all depends, I think that in the future, with all this "Pure knowledge" you can't do very much. You need to be CREATIVE, not just recite facts. You need to SOLVE PROBLEMS, not just discuss ones that are/have been already solved. I think in the future better education techniques, biomedical technology will allow us to learn far more than we could possibly ever hope to learn now. You may say, "Well, that looks IMPOSSIBLE THERES NO WAY!" but trust me, if there is enough profit to be had, SOMEBODY WILL FIND A WAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by Kylon I think that in the future, with all this "Pure knowledge" you can't do very much. You need to be CREATIVE, not just recite facts. intelligent people solve problems and are creative all the time. Just because I have some 20 years of learning to do before I get to the stage that I am at doesn'T mean I am a machine. Certain rules always have to be followed, and you can be as creative as you like, but you still need foundations such as the ability to spell, and to do maths, and understanding of establised physical rules, in order to get things done. "creativity" was tried in the 60s, to the point where they told children that they didn'T have to learn to spell, just be creative with their writing - to the point that there are now thousands of illiterate adults, because they weren't taught rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by Kylon You need to SOLVE PROBLEMS, not just discuss ones that are/have been already solved. Hello? This is http://www.scienceforums.net not http://www.englishliterature.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiguelBladesman Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward or even if there is an answer to 'why the universe came into existance' Radical Edward, that is true. The one perrennial in all of philosophy is that we do not know WHY. We can know what. and I apologize for trespassing beyond the bounds of What-We-know-scientifically, because I'm writing philosophically, because Science has no teleological framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by MiguelBladesman The one perrennial in all of philosophy is that we do not know WHY. or even if there exists a reason in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiguelBladesman Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward or even if there exists a reason in the first place. You are correct RE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakepi7 Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by Tau What aspects of the natural world are there that we cannot explain scientifically? What dont humans know? I believe Roger Penrose attempted to answer that question. Its debated whether we are capable of even knowing the answer. Of course we are now proving Godel wrong. So perhaps its skys the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakepi7 Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 well I havent heard of any conclusive arguments of how a solution of a perfectly pure optical compound can occur in nature without the aid of an already existing biological agent. If your interested, heres a list of possible solutions to this problem and why none of them are satisfactory, hence the remaining mystery about chirality in life. Its essential to our very existence yet how did life come about with the problems it poses? the structure of a dna double helix depends on it for a start. Is this another question llike which came first the chicken or the egg? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 I fear that our curiosity and development will only bring about our own demise. We are rapidly reaching a point where the planet can not sustain our needs for food and energy. Via science and medicine we have prolonged the average lifespan such that population continues to grow at a rate where the plane cannot sustain it. Even with our technological advancements, which more often than not rape and pillage the planet, we cannot find a way to feed all our peoples. Opec says that we will exhaust the planet of all its majore oil reserves within the next 70 years. Other experts say 40! WIth everything becoming computerized we are losing basic skills that took hundreds if not thousands of years to develope. For instance, I watched a program last night on the timber industry. Saw mills are all computerized now so that they get the most out of each log. People who work at saw mills no longer know how to produce timber from logs. They know how to run computers. If some cataclysmic event took place, such as nuclear war or total loss of electricity due to lack of fossil fuels, and we no longer had machines to do things for us how would we survive being that no one possesses any skills any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 We don't need fossil fuels for electricty or motion. Science could solve all of these problems, if it wasn't for damn things like the Anti GM brigade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 There really isn't a viable replacement for fossil fuel energy. At least not anything that can currently and readily be mass produced, save maybe nuclear energy. You are correct though, there could be via science if politics would only allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakepi7 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Originally posted by Star-struck There really isn't a viable replacement for fossil fuel energy. At least not anything that can currently and readily be mass produced, save maybe nuclear energy. You are correct though, there could be via science if politics would only allow it. T thought the Japanese had some interesting Photo-voltaic panels that were quite efficient yet inexpensive to produce from silicon. Although they have yet to produce a truly efficient battery, but like honda decided to use diode-capacitors to retain power that may be the way to go. They have diode reactors to produce power. If the US government would allow the use of such devices in electric vehicles we would not have a hydro-carbon shortage. There are viable alternatives,but the regulatory agencies of the government will not permit usage,because they are in the back pockets of the oil industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Originally posted by Star-struck There really isn't a viable replacement for fossil fuel energy. At least not anything that can currently and readily be mass produced, save maybe nuclear energy. You are correct though, there could be via science if politics would only allow it. You are wrong. Light, wind and water power can all be used efficiently and effectively not just to augment fossil fuels, but to completely replace them. That's before we even start considering biofuels such as vegetable oils, husks and bamboo. What gets in the way is money. And not because there isn't enough of it - quite the opposite in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now