We have directly observed the generation of new species of fish, specifically ciclids.
Ring Species are rare but can be found several places. They are characterized by a genus of animal that surronds an impassible obsticale (Mountain range or huge lake etc). The original species expanded into the area and was split as it progressed down each side. By the time both sides met up on the far side of the obsticle they have all the appearances of two distinct species. However all the evolutionary changes are maintained along both paths. So while they can't directly breed with each other, they are still connected through a common ancestor which they CAN both breed with and still exists.
Personally I have absolutly no problem with teaching creationism. However it should not come under "Science" class. It belongs in a moral/philosophy class that teaches the wide range of beleifs our society is based on and just like basic science should be mandatory...
Absolutly...sadly skeptics are right more often then they are wrong.
But I bet if a single atom was used even a few times it would be a net gain. The reason is simple. To electrolyze water you have to provide enough energy to ionize the hydrogen and thereby seperate it from the oxygen. The energy to ionize out of water is roughly the amount of enery created as the electron gets stripped off as it passes through the membrane which isextracted from the heat energy. So assuming he is even close to accurate and he gets a 50% efficiency then you would need to cycle the hydrogen twice to recoup the energy used to generate the hydrogen. From that point on, you have a net energy gain from that one hydrogen atom.
While the principles seem to be sound the only question seems to be if it is "economical" which of course has it's own laws.
For instance so long as the system creates any extra power, it still could be economical even if 90% of the energy is wasted regenerating hydrogen. If it costs $5 to extract extra power from your trash, I could see a huge market.
As far as being skeptical, absolutly. But being skeptical means I am not going to buy it now or even invest more than token time researching it. But I am still going to remember it if it comes up again.
Being skeptical doesn't mean ignore everything, it just means to keep everything in perspective.
But the grandparents point about cycling the hydrogen 100's of times is still valid.
We are assuming we have a heat source for this since that is what is used to generate the electricity. Why not have a resevoir of say a cup or two of water. As needed, the device can divert a little power to pull out the hydrogen and inject it into the system while releasing the oxygen. Water is very easy is contain and provides gobs of hydrogen gas per unit of liquid water.
So long as each atom of hydrogen is used many times before it is lost (very likley especially if he can get to the 600 degree mark) than the minor energy cost to maintain it is worth while. All you have to do is dump a few cups of water into the resevoir every few weeks/months/years.
Remeber, there is an equal number of positive and negative charges in the universe therefore over any great distance they tend to zero out to nothing. Also, the sun is still "local." When I was speaking of non-local influences, I was refereing to the distances discussed in the article, hundreds to millions of light-years. Over thoes distances, there is no measurable impact of electric charge. I would like to point out that even over a few miles it is extremly difficult to distinguish two oposite electrical charges as anything but a neutral point.
Also, there is a difference between electric charge and electro-magnetic radiation. Electric charge has the same drop-off rate as gravity. Since gravity is only cumulative, the effect can add-up over distance whereas electrical tends to zero out. All other forces operate inside atomic radii and have no real effect outside that. Electro-magnetic radiation is an electric charge with a mutual supporting magnetic wave and does have a linear dropoff. However this combination has a net zero electrical charge and has no electrical effect execpt in rare conditions and therefore can be safetly ignored.
We can directly detect gravity at interstellar distances. Even with the strength difference, we have yet to detect electrical charge at that distance.
Hawkins radiation has been proven. Please look up "Zero-Point Energy." The Casimir effect is directly obsereved experimental proff of the QM effect I mentioned. This observation around a black hole would cause it to lose mass without directly releasing particles or radiation.
The major problem with the voyager spacecraft is that their instruments are effectivly dead. We don't know what sort of local environment they passed through. There are a wide range of very reasonable explinations for the disparity. We just don't have the information to eliminate any of them and honestly we probably never will.
The new energy levels we are about to reach are exciting but it is VERY unlikley that we will find anything that really disturbs the current theory. We are likley to find that is supports and extends our understanding rather than destroy what we have already seen.
Actualy, the Hawkins radiation is a result of quantum mechanics (QM) and results BECAUSE nothing can escape a black hole.
QM predicts that the baseline energy of empty space will spontaneously generate particle pairs (Electron/positron, proton/anti-proton). These will almost immediatly annialate each other leaving a net energy change of Zero. However if this happens onthe edge of a black hole, there is a possibility that one particle in the pair will escape while the other is eaten. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the positive energy creted in the particle that escapes must be balanced by a net energy loss in the black hole. Therefore baring any additional mass falling into the black hole, it will eventually evaporate without anything escaping.
The extra mass is "observed" through the motion of the galaxies. The outer portions move faster than they should. The theorized reason is that there is "Dark" matter outside the observable galaxy which compensates for this higher speed. I was wondering if the same theory could explain this discrepancy.
While the orther forces ARE many orders of magnitude greater, it is important to realize that they do not have the range and do no sum up like gravity. Therefore on a local scale gravity can all but be ignored but on much larger scales, gravity surpasses all other forces easily and the effects of the other forces can safetly be ignored. The issue is when you attempt to NOT ignore the effects of all forces regardless of scale. This is the goal of the Grand Unified Theory.
I do agree that the new energy levels created in the next few years will be exciting to watch.
#1 The US is probably the most litigious society in history. People rely on the law and courts rather than tradition to solve disputes.
#2 As a species we have one of the highest miscarrige rates on the planet greater than 50% of conceptions although most of the time the mother doesn't realize it.
#3 We can now but over the counter tests for pregnancy that can detect the hormonal shift at 5 days.
Now you have a young couple who find they are pregnant. Mom accidentally walks through smoke and later miscarries. Mom and Dad breakup...Dad has the mom arriseted for manslaughter etc.
The reason the bible is pro-choice is because God knows that as a species we aren't stable until after birth and even then it was a tossup till about age 2 until very recently.
Almost everyone I know refills a water bottle from the tap.
I personally will continue to reuse it until I lose it...and of course since I lost it, it doesn't make it into a recycle bin...but I have also used it maybe 100 times since I bought it...
There are a LOT of theories about it from the mundane to the esoteric. I have heard dark matter theories suggesting that it is the influence of alternate universes and I have also hear that it is just a lot of very dim brown dwarf stars along with many others possible theories. Both theories explain why there appears to be extra mass around even though we can't see it. Both describe "dark matter" but one needs a huge leap and the other doesn't. The multitude of theories does not destroy the apparent necessity of dark matter.
Also, we CAN directly observe black holes through the Hawkins radition they emmit. Plus their observable interaction on the rest of the universe also proves their existance. The observed gravities indicates that there is an apparent hole in space that is essentially black (a black hole). Therefor black holes exist...this doesn't say anything about the structure. Up until recently it was possible that a cluster of dark neutron stars were causing the gravity effects. About 10 years ago that theory was disproven and now a singularity is the most probably cause to explain the observation of "Black Holes."
Remember, UFO's exist! Unidentified Flying Objects appear all the time. Are they spacecraft flown by martians? I doubt that theory is correct but that doesn't mean that the UFO has suddenly been identified just because you eliminate one theory...
There is a little more...when I read the article, the biggest thing that jumped out at me is "perspective."
From our perspective the universe is 15 or so billion Y.O. from a bubble it is 18+ BYO. It's all perspective.
Now if you look out far enough, the universe DOES look homogeneous. So the assumption used in the standard model still has merit but this article suggests that the "local" differences in the universe (local meaning the empty bubles hundreds on Millions of Light years across) are more importatnt than the overall universe.
While any light absorbed by the cell would not directly heat the surface under it (like your roof) it doesn't mean it will never heat the planet...
When you eventually use the electricity created by the solar cell (say for your computer), it will in the end come out as heat in the system exhaust fan.
I absolutly agree that using a solar cell is a fantastic idea however if what you are suggesting is true and all the heat from the light never escapes, we would see an ice age almost immediatly after wide spread use.
But since the solar cells will delay the heat generation and move it away from your roof, it might lower your AC usage....
If you manage to eliminate Arsenic from your diet completly you will die.
Arsenic like most other elements is required for some protein operations.
Now we need pico-grams a day rather than the micro grams for most other metals and if you get too much it will destroy the large protein complex responsible for the citric acid cycle in mitochondria but you DO still need a tiny bit.
I also worked in a lab (not as a scientist) keeping mice and performing a wide varieies of experiemts on them. I now work in the regulatory depratment of a pharma company.
I have some concern about your statment.
It is true that in all likelyhood mice brains function on the low level almost exactly like ours and I am willing to bet that reptile brains also exhibit this behavior. While I haven't examined their research yet I am confident in making the statment.
The reason is simple...brains are built upon the prior layer. The cerebrum is layed on top of what is known as the "mamalian brain" which is on top of the "reptilian brain" which is on top of the "hind brain." Each "brain" from hind to cerebrum is increasingly complex but essentially takes the onput of the lower brain as it's input.
For example, vision. Vision is first processed by the retinas (hind brain) which is then passed onto the reptilian brain where motion, light, dark and straigth lines are decoded. This is then passed onto the visual cortex (mamalian brain) whcih inerprets colors and complex shapes. Finally this information is passed onto the cerebrum where it is integrated into our personal experiences. If you damage and part of this chain then vision is dramatically effected.
Since the type of neural modification underlies all the more advanced structures of the brain it is almost certainly universal. If you were talking about a mouses problem solving skills (cerebrum) I would agree with you but as for your prior post I say "bullshit."
I have to disagree with you when you stated "decades worth of non-treatment."
If you recall she received all potential treatment including at least one experimental treatment. She recieved a large amount of money in a malpractice lawsuit and essentially ALL of it was spent on experimental procedures and hospice care.
The sad truth is that even if there hadn't been a court order to remove her feeding tube, her family wouldn't have been able to continue treatment for more than a few years anyway. Hospice care is very expensive and you will not be able to keep people there indefinetly unless you can pay.
Her husband did everything possible and when no hope was left of recovery he tried to give her a death with dignity which her family, the media and the government denied her. Her death was very sad. Personally I think everything she was actually died over a decade ago. Only the empty shell of her body died recently.
The real tragedy of this whole situation was how the rest of us reacted to their private and painfull situation.
Absolutly, IDers DOaccelerate the research. But just like any bit of information it is cumulative.
We understand 98+% of physics. that last 2% is always the hardest to get. It is extrodinarily unlikley that something we discover in the last 2% will suddenly mean that gravity no longer pulls things down. The last bit of research will almost certainly not destroy the rest of our understanding.
ID is exactly like that. We understand almost all biology. There are just a few places that we don't know what is happening. That is what the IDers use to "prove" their theory. But if ID was corect than the rest of biology would have to be thrown out....if it came to that then honest scientists would do so but it would take a LOT of evidence to conteract all the current evidence.
When I say 98% I am actually being fairly litteral. But of course the last 2% is where all the really interesting stuff is. the real tratments and mediacl breakthroughs will come from the last bit...
I did read you post....you asked questions that I knew the answers to therefore I answered your questions.
The problem with ID is that NONE of their questions are very good. They managed to scratch the paint job and thats it. I have yet to see a single question they have asked that hasn't ALREADY been answered to about 98% complete.
You are forgetting a fundamental component of the system....you as a living being are INSIDE the system observing it.
Therefore you have already filtered out any universe that can't support you. That is like saying my shirt is blue, therefore I have a blue shirt.
Circular logic. You cannot use the absence of proof as proof. Constant X doesn't change because if it had ever changed you wouldn't be here to ask why constant X doesn't change.
irreducibly complex says that there is no way with the availible resources that the observed structures could have come about. There are two solutions to this.
#1 incomplete knowledge....there may be structures and components that we don't know about yet that allow the organ to arrise on it's own. This is the most common cause of apparent irreducibly complex systems.
#2 deleted scaffolding....did you know that every single large structure is irreducibly complex. there is no way that the egyptians could have built the pyramids with what we currently see that they had. This is what sparked so many UFO ideas in the past....aleins must have built the pyramids because we couldn't. What we found out more recently is that after the egyptian civilization peaked they began to forget what they knew. They COULDN'T build pyramids anymore. the technological scaffolding that let them do it was removed. The same thing applies to biology. There are systems that with the current genes that the organism posses could not have been evolved. But there usually is evidence that at some point in the past the organism did have the ability to evolve the feature but now has lost it and so the system APPEARS irreducibly complex.
Information is passed through DNA and lipid vessicles in the cell.
The sun provides an influx of energy. by the logic you suggest all life would be impossible regardless of intelligent design or not.
The thing is I firmly beleive that religion SHOULD be taught in the classroom. Religion and spirituality are vital to creating a mature and responsible adult capable of thriving in society. That is, after all, the entier point of school.
But I balk at the idea of teaching that in a science classroom just as I would of teaching science in a language class or history in an english class.
Science is fundamentally a philosophy (Ph.D = Doctorate of Philosophy). The philosophy is that nothing can be known unless it is tested with a falsifiable test and adheres to occams razor. You must be able to prove or disprove something and when you create a theory the simplest idea that fits all the data is the correct one. Science may one day determine that god DOES exist. Because the ONLY way to explan everything we see is with god. (sound familiar?) However at that point we will be able to point to specific tests. All the current ID does is say we don't know everything therefore god did it. It is untestable and therefore not science and does not belong in a science classroom.
I am a christian, therefore by that belif I also beleive that god created the universe and us in his image...I beleive in intelligent design. However I also beleive that evolution is the best way we have found of understanding HOW god did it. I will stand right next to you shoulder to shoulder to support the creation of mandatory comparitive religion and moral philosophy classes in every school district. These are important topics and deserve their own class...we shouldn't minimize them by shoving them in with science.
I am a christian and therefore I beleive that god created the universe and man in his own image. However I also beleive that evolution is a perfect explination of HOW god did that.
Science in general only provides the how, it NEVER provides the why. You need philosophy and religion to do that.
But I am off track. We were talking about whether god forged the fossil record. I submit that is doesn't matter one way or another, we will still act the same way.
Possibility 1 (the fossil record is all a lie and was placed there by god):
To answer this we should look to the bible. There are litterally dozens of passages that instruct man and belivers in particular to explorer gods creation. The world was created for us and we are instructed to appreciate it's glory. Science is simply a structured way of exploring the universe. Even if god DID create false fossil records we should still explorer them and science is the best way we know of to explore things.
Possibility 2 (the fossil record is an accurate measure of history):
Not only does the prior paragraph still apply but now we have an added incentive. We can now begin to understand god himself through his method of creation. By studying how he did things we can begin to guess why and therby come to a better understanding of the almighty and our place in it. If the record is false than we can't derive any info like that.
Since god is all powerfull and we have no way of directly observing his power we can't PROVE he did or didn't do anything. FOr instance say the fossil record is fake....when did he actually create it? 10,000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200 years ago or 10 seconds ago? The truth is, if you refuse to trust what you observe than nothing you observe will have any meaning.
You should do a pub-med search for "Ciclid" and "Lake Vitoria." They are an excellent example of evolution in action. We have directly monitored the creation of new genes in the species. The creation of more complicated life from simpler life if a very well proven observation. It is only the level of the concept of gravity in scientific evidence.
You are correct in saying that we have not triggered the spontaneous creation of life from non-living chemicals but that also isn't a surprise. It took evolution a minimum of several million years to get simple cells...we must expect a similarly long time scale to observe spontaneous bio-genesis. While we could go in and construct a living cell right now (given time and resources) that doesn't prove anything regarding evolution one way or another. All we can say for certain right now is that there are NO laws of nature or probability that prevent the creation of life from non-living chemicals spontaneously.
As for this country, most (but not all) of the founding fathers were religious, some very much so. But the constitution of the US (which is really what the country is) is actually the very first completly secular government ever concived by man. God and religion are not mentioned once in the constitution and in the amendments the only time religion is mentioned is when the government is told to butt out and leave religion alone.
This country is a SECULAR country that protects religion, NOT the other way around.
But at that speed there is no advantage to using light over conventional electronics. Your modulator dictates the maximum speed of the system. By slowing down the light in the areas you need to work with it and allowing it to resume it's normal speed everywhere else you can do all your advanced calculations while maintianing the overall high speed of light.
The light advantage is you get cleaner data at lower power usages but the same speed, therefore you can pack things tighter without worrying about heat and data bleeding out and THAT is where you get your speed boost.
Using light and fiberoptics you can make the processor essentially produce not heat. All the heat will be generated by the laser/modulator which can be located elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Ciclids in Lake Victoria or Ring Species.
We have directly observed the generation of new species of fish, specifically ciclids.
Ring Species are rare but can be found several places. They are characterized by a genus of animal that surronds an impassible obsticale (Mountain range or huge lake etc). The original species expanded into the area and was split as it progressed down each side. By the time both sides met up on the far side of the obsticle they have all the appearances of two distinct species. However all the evolutionary changes are maintained along both paths. So while they can't directly breed with each other, they are still connected through a common ancestor which they CAN both breed with and still exists.
Personally I have absolutly no problem with teaching creationism. However it should not come under "Science" class. It belongs in a moral/philosophy class that teaches the wide range of beleifs our society is based on and just like basic science should be mandatory...
The comment that struck me is one board member stating that they were "Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact."
I suppose he should also be against teaching gravity or biology or even simple arithmetic...
All the above are based on theories that have been shown to be consistant but none are trully "facts."
When will we see an article talking about teaching alternate theories of Math?
Absolutly...sadly skeptics are right more often then they are wrong.
But I bet if a single atom was used even a few times it would be a net gain. The reason is simple. To electrolyze water you have to provide enough energy to ionize the hydrogen and thereby seperate it from the oxygen. The energy to ionize out of water is roughly the amount of enery created as the electron gets stripped off as it passes through the membrane which isextracted from the heat energy. So assuming he is even close to accurate and he gets a 50% efficiency then you would need to cycle the hydrogen twice to recoup the energy used to generate the hydrogen. From that point on, you have a net energy gain from that one hydrogen atom.
While the principles seem to be sound the only question seems to be if it is "economical" which of course has it's own laws.
For instance so long as the system creates any extra power, it still could be economical even if 90% of the energy is wasted regenerating hydrogen. If it costs $5 to extract extra power from your trash, I could see a huge market.
As far as being skeptical, absolutly. But being skeptical means I am not going to buy it now or even invest more than token time researching it. But I am still going to remember it if it comes up again.
Being skeptical doesn't mean ignore everything, it just means to keep everything in perspective.
Several times does it mention the materials problem and the need to get to 600 degrees
But the grandparents point about cycling the hydrogen 100's of times is still valid.
We are assuming we have a heat source for this since that is what is used to generate the electricity. Why not have a resevoir of say a cup or two of water. As needed, the device can divert a little power to pull out the hydrogen and inject it into the system while releasing the oxygen. Water is very easy is contain and provides gobs of hydrogen gas per unit of liquid water.
So long as each atom of hydrogen is used many times before it is lost (very likley especially if he can get to the 600 degree mark) than the minor energy cost to maintain it is worth while. All you have to do is dump a few cups of water into the resevoir every few weeks/months/years.
That chemical preservative isn't used anymore because of Autism fears...
Because of that our vaccines are significantly les stable and have shorter shelf lives!
Remeber, there is an equal number of positive and negative charges in the universe therefore over any great distance they tend to zero out to nothing. Also, the sun is still "local." When I was speaking of non-local influences, I was refereing to the distances discussed in the article, hundreds to millions of light-years. Over thoes distances, there is no measurable impact of electric charge. I would like to point out that even over a few miles it is extremly difficult to distinguish two oposite electrical charges as anything but a neutral point.
Also, there is a difference between electric charge and electro-magnetic radiation. Electric charge has the same drop-off rate as gravity. Since gravity is only cumulative, the effect can add-up over distance whereas electrical tends to zero out. All other forces operate inside atomic radii and have no real effect outside that. Electro-magnetic radiation is an electric charge with a mutual supporting magnetic wave and does have a linear dropoff. However this combination has a net zero electrical charge and has no electrical effect execpt in rare conditions and therefore can be safetly ignored.
We can directly detect gravity at interstellar distances. Even with the strength difference, we have yet to detect electrical charge at that distance.
Hawkins radiation has been proven. Please look up "Zero-Point Energy." The Casimir effect is directly obsereved experimental proff of the QM effect I mentioned. This observation around a black hole would cause it to lose mass without directly releasing particles or radiation.
The major problem with the voyager spacecraft is that their instruments are effectivly dead. We don't know what sort of local environment they passed through. There are a wide range of very reasonable explinations for the disparity. We just don't have the information to eliminate any of them and honestly we probably never will.
The new energy levels we are about to reach are exciting but it is VERY unlikley that we will find anything that really disturbs the current theory. We are likley to find that is supports and extends our understanding rather than destroy what we have already seen.
Actualy, the Hawkins radiation is a result of quantum mechanics (QM) and results BECAUSE nothing can escape a black hole.
QM predicts that the baseline energy of empty space will spontaneously generate particle pairs (Electron/positron, proton/anti-proton). These will almost immediatly annialate each other leaving a net energy change of Zero. However if this happens onthe edge of a black hole, there is a possibility that one particle in the pair will escape while the other is eaten. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the positive energy creted in the particle that escapes must be balanced by a net energy loss in the black hole. Therefore baring any additional mass falling into the black hole, it will eventually evaporate without anything escaping.
The extra mass is "observed" through the motion of the galaxies. The outer portions move faster than they should. The theorized reason is that there is "Dark" matter outside the observable galaxy which compensates for this higher speed. I was wondering if the same theory could explain this discrepancy.
While the orther forces ARE many orders of magnitude greater, it is important to realize that they do not have the range and do no sum up like gravity. Therefore on a local scale gravity can all but be ignored but on much larger scales, gravity surpasses all other forces easily and the effects of the other forces can safetly be ignored. The issue is when you attempt to NOT ignore the effects of all forces regardless of scale. This is the goal of the Grand Unified Theory.
I do agree that the new energy levels created in the next few years will be exciting to watch.
Lets put forward a few truths...
#1 The US is probably the most litigious society in history. People rely on the law and courts rather than tradition to solve disputes.
#2 As a species we have one of the highest miscarrige rates on the planet greater than 50% of conceptions although most of the time the mother doesn't realize it.
#3 We can now but over the counter tests for pregnancy that can detect the hormonal shift at 5 days.
Now you have a young couple who find they are pregnant. Mom accidentally walks through smoke and later miscarries. Mom and Dad breakup...Dad has the mom arriseted for manslaughter etc.
The reason the bible is pro-choice is because God knows that as a species we aren't stable until after birth and even then it was a tossup till about age 2 until very recently.
Almost everyone I know refills a water bottle from the tap.
I personally will continue to reuse it until I lose it...and of course since I lost it, it doesn't make it into a recycle bin...but I have also used it maybe 100 times since I bought it...
Just a small point...
Dark matter JUST means unobserved matter.
There are a LOT of theories about it from the mundane to the esoteric. I have heard dark matter theories suggesting that it is the influence of alternate universes and I have also hear that it is just a lot of very dim brown dwarf stars along with many others possible theories. Both theories explain why there appears to be extra mass around even though we can't see it. Both describe "dark matter" but one needs a huge leap and the other doesn't. The multitude of theories does not destroy the apparent necessity of dark matter.
Also, we CAN directly observe black holes through the Hawkins radition they emmit. Plus their observable interaction on the rest of the universe also proves their existance. The observed gravities indicates that there is an apparent hole in space that is essentially black (a black hole). Therefor black holes exist...this doesn't say anything about the structure. Up until recently it was possible that a cluster of dark neutron stars were causing the gravity effects. About 10 years ago that theory was disproven and now a singularity is the most probably cause to explain the observation of "Black Holes."
Remember, UFO's exist! Unidentified Flying Objects appear all the time. Are they spacecraft flown by martians? I doubt that theory is correct but that doesn't mean that the UFO has suddenly been identified just because you eliminate one theory...
Just a random thought.
There is a little more...when I read the article, the biggest thing that jumped out at me is "perspective."
From our perspective the universe is 15 or so billion Y.O. from a bubble it is 18+ BYO. It's all perspective.
Now if you look out far enough, the universe DOES look homogeneous. So the assumption used in the standard model still has merit but this article suggests that the "local" differences in the universe (local meaning the empty bubles hundreds on Millions of Light years across) are more importatnt than the overall universe.
FYI
Good post with ONE error...
While any light absorbed by the cell would not directly heat the surface under it (like your roof) it doesn't mean it will never heat the planet...
When you eventually use the electricity created by the solar cell (say for your computer), it will in the end come out as heat in the system exhaust fan.
I absolutly agree that using a solar cell is a fantastic idea however if what you are suggesting is true and all the heat from the light never escapes, we would see an ice age almost immediatly after wide spread use.
But since the solar cells will delay the heat generation and move it away from your roof, it might lower your AC usage....
Still a great post anyway!
If you manage to eliminate Arsenic from your diet completly you will die.
Arsenic like most other elements is required for some protein operations.
Now we need pico-grams a day rather than the micro grams for most other metals and if you get too much it will destroy the large protein complex responsible for the citric acid cycle in mitochondria but you DO still need a tiny bit.
FYI
I also worked in a lab (not as a scientist) keeping mice and performing a wide varieies of experiemts on them. I now work in the regulatory depratment of a pharma company.
I have some concern about your statment.
It is true that in all likelyhood mice brains function on the low level almost exactly like ours and I am willing to bet that reptile brains also exhibit this behavior. While I haven't examined their research yet I am confident in making the statment.
The reason is simple...brains are built upon the prior layer. The cerebrum is layed on top of what is known as the "mamalian brain" which is on top of the "reptilian brain" which is on top of the "hind brain." Each "brain" from hind to cerebrum is increasingly complex but essentially takes the onput of the lower brain as it's input.
For example, vision. Vision is first processed by the retinas (hind brain) which is then passed onto the reptilian brain where motion, light, dark and straigth lines are decoded. This is then passed onto the visual cortex (mamalian brain) whcih inerprets colors and complex shapes. Finally this information is passed onto the cerebrum where it is integrated into our personal experiences. If you damage and part of this chain then vision is dramatically effected.
Since the type of neural modification underlies all the more advanced structures of the brain it is almost certainly universal. If you were talking about a mouses problem solving skills (cerebrum) I would agree with you but as for your prior post I say "bullshit."
I have to disagree with you when you stated "decades worth of non-treatment."
If you recall she received all potential treatment including at least one experimental treatment. She recieved a large amount of money in a malpractice lawsuit and essentially ALL of it was spent on experimental procedures and hospice care.
The sad truth is that even if there hadn't been a court order to remove her feeding tube, her family wouldn't have been able to continue treatment for more than a few years anyway. Hospice care is very expensive and you will not be able to keep people there indefinetly unless you can pay.
Her husband did everything possible and when no hope was left of recovery he tried to give her a death with dignity which her family, the media and the government denied her. Her death was very sad. Personally I think everything she was actually died over a decade ago. Only the empty shell of her body died recently.
The real tragedy of this whole situation was how the rest of us reacted to their private and painfull situation.
Absolutly, IDers DOaccelerate the research. But just like any bit of information it is cumulative.
We understand 98+% of physics. that last 2% is always the hardest to get. It is extrodinarily unlikley that something we discover in the last 2% will suddenly mean that gravity no longer pulls things down. The last bit of research will almost certainly not destroy the rest of our understanding.
ID is exactly like that. We understand almost all biology. There are just a few places that we don't know what is happening. That is what the IDers use to "prove" their theory. But if ID was corect than the rest of biology would have to be thrown out....if it came to that then honest scientists would do so but it would take a LOT of evidence to conteract all the current evidence.
When I say 98% I am actually being fairly litteral. But of course the last 2% is where all the really interesting stuff is. the real tratments and mediacl breakthroughs will come from the last bit...
I did read you post....you asked questions that I knew the answers to therefore I answered your questions.
The problem with ID is that NONE of their questions are very good. They managed to scratch the paint job and thats it. I have yet to see a single question they have asked that hasn't ALREADY been answered to about 98% complete.
You are forgetting a fundamental component of the system....you as a living being are INSIDE the system observing it.
Therefore you have already filtered out any universe that can't support you. That is like saying my shirt is blue, therefore I have a blue shirt.
Circular logic. You cannot use the absence of proof as proof. Constant X doesn't change because if it had ever changed you wouldn't be here to ask why constant X doesn't change.
Ok, lets look at your "questions.."
irreducibly complex says that there is no way with the availible resources that the observed structures could have come about. There are two solutions to this.
#1 incomplete knowledge....there may be structures and components that we don't know about yet that allow the organ to arrise on it's own. This is the most common cause of apparent irreducibly complex systems.
#2 deleted scaffolding....did you know that every single large structure is irreducibly complex. there is no way that the egyptians could have built the pyramids with what we currently see that they had. This is what sparked so many UFO ideas in the past....aleins must have built the pyramids because we couldn't. What we found out more recently is that after the egyptian civilization peaked they began to forget what they knew. They COULDN'T build pyramids anymore. the technological scaffolding that let them do it was removed. The same thing applies to biology. There are systems that with the current genes that the organism posses could not have been evolved. But there usually is evidence that at some point in the past the organism did have the ability to evolve the feature but now has lost it and so the system APPEARS irreducibly complex.
Information is passed through DNA and lipid vessicles in the cell.
The sun provides an influx of energy. by the logic you suggest all life would be impossible regardless of intelligent design or not.
silly rabbit mental institutions are for people who believe they ARE god not for people who beleieve IN god....I am sure you meant to say that :-)
The thing is I firmly beleive that religion SHOULD be taught in the classroom. Religion and spirituality are vital to creating a mature and responsible adult capable of thriving in society. That is, after all, the entier point of school.
But I balk at the idea of teaching that in a science classroom just as I would of teaching science in a language class or history in an english class.
Science is fundamentally a philosophy (Ph.D = Doctorate of Philosophy). The philosophy is that nothing can be known unless it is tested with a falsifiable test and adheres to occams razor. You must be able to prove or disprove something and when you create a theory the simplest idea that fits all the data is the correct one. Science may one day determine that god DOES exist. Because the ONLY way to explan everything we see is with god. (sound familiar?) However at that point we will be able to point to specific tests. All the current ID does is say we don't know everything therefore god did it. It is untestable and therefore not science and does not belong in a science classroom.
I am a christian, therefore by that belif I also beleive that god created the universe and us in his image...I beleive in intelligent design. However I also beleive that evolution is the best way we have found of understanding HOW god did it. I will stand right next to you shoulder to shoulder to support the creation of mandatory comparitive religion and moral philosophy classes in every school district. These are important topics and deserve their own class...we shouldn't minimize them by shoving them in with science.
I am a christian and therefore I beleive that god created the universe and man in his own image. However I also beleive that evolution is a perfect explination of HOW god did that.
Science in general only provides the how, it NEVER provides the why. You need philosophy and religion to do that.
But I am off track. We were talking about whether god forged the fossil record. I submit that is doesn't matter one way or another, we will still act the same way.
Possibility 1 (the fossil record is all a lie and was placed there by god):
To answer this we should look to the bible. There are litterally dozens of passages that instruct man and belivers in particular to explorer gods creation. The world was created for us and we are instructed to appreciate it's glory. Science is simply a structured way of exploring the universe. Even if god DID create false fossil records we should still explorer them and science is the best way we know of to explore things.
Possibility 2 (the fossil record is an accurate measure of history):
Not only does the prior paragraph still apply but now we have an added incentive. We can now begin to understand god himself through his method of creation. By studying how he did things we can begin to guess why and therby come to a better understanding of the almighty and our place in it. If the record is false than we can't derive any info like that.
Since god is all powerfull and we have no way of directly observing his power we can't PROVE he did or didn't do anything. FOr instance say the fossil record is fake....when did he actually create it? 10,000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200 years ago or 10 seconds ago? The truth is, if you refuse to trust what you observe than nothing you observe will have any meaning.
You should do a pub-med search for "Ciclid" and "Lake Vitoria." They are an excellent example of evolution in action. We have directly monitored the creation of new genes in the species. The creation of more complicated life from simpler life if a very well proven observation. It is only the level of the concept of gravity in scientific evidence.
You are correct in saying that we have not triggered the spontaneous creation of life from non-living chemicals but that also isn't a surprise. It took evolution a minimum of several million years to get simple cells...we must expect a similarly long time scale to observe spontaneous bio-genesis. While we could go in and construct a living cell right now (given time and resources) that doesn't prove anything regarding evolution one way or another. All we can say for certain right now is that there are NO laws of nature or probability that prevent the creation of life from non-living chemicals spontaneously.
As for this country, most (but not all) of the founding fathers were religious, some very much so. But the constitution of the US (which is really what the country is) is actually the very first completly secular government ever concived by man. God and religion are not mentioned once in the constitution and in the amendments the only time religion is mentioned is when the government is told to butt out and leave religion alone.
This country is a SECULAR country that protects religion, NOT the other way around.
But at that speed there is no advantage to using light over conventional electronics. Your modulator dictates the maximum speed of the system. By slowing down the light in the areas you need to work with it and allowing it to resume it's normal speed everywhere else you can do all your advanced calculations while maintianing the overall high speed of light.
The light advantage is you get cleaner data at lower power usages but the same speed, therefore you can pack things tighter without worrying about heat and data bleeding out and THAT is where you get your speed boost.
Using light and fiberoptics you can make the processor essentially produce not heat. All the heat will be generated by the laser/modulator which can be located elsewhere.