The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

It has been legitimately observed: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Ultimately more observations are needed. You should watch the video I provided earlier.


>> ^dag:
That's adorable! >> ^shinyblurry:
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I am impressed that you missed my point after reading through the thread.

I never said a PhD should guarantee you a job.

I did say:
1) It is very hard, even for exceptional candidates, to find research/academic/industry jobs.
2) Labor jobs are not given to PhDs because companies believe they are not worth the investment in training.
3) Recent PhDs have a particularly hard time because most industry positions require 2+ industry experience.

Your final point is a non sequitur.
>> ^lantern53:
...I don't care if you have ten Ph.Ds, you are not guaranteed a job...

Gee, this guy has the same complaint as the Tea Party...debt!

Perhaps they have something in common. But all the progressives hated the Tea Party. Maybe we can all get along here on common ground.

but seriously folks, I don't care if you have ten Ph.Ds, you are not guaranteed a job. Where did you get that idea?

Do you seriously think the gov't can guarantee you a job? When they run out of good ones, you'll be left sweeping the streets, like they do in North Korea.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

(*#$&

I am getting a little annoyed at the science behind aquariums.

I know water quality via Ph and Parts per million in dissolved solids.

I put that aquarium salt in the water less than the instructions tell me, and my water shoots up to 850 ppm, which I know is "hard water" . so using this product I can only assume I have made my water hard.

I'll be joining another web based forum for aquariums, as this is blowing my fucking mind out.

It says to use it, but then it does that to my water.... I obviously do not understand tank dynamics fully.

Like hell I am going to be buying distilled water every couple days.

Edit- The PH down I use which is my old Phosphoric Acid, brings the PH down but also adds phosphates, phosphates are bad, Mmmm'Kay ?

My problems came from that I bet. the water hardness I am still figuring out. Very good to know though, I might have to invest in some Hydrochloric/ acid.

@kymbos Fresh water my friend. The salt I put in is glorified kitchen sea salt now that I have read about it. Yes it is put in the freshwater to help with the internal ph of the fish, same way we use electrolytes I assume. I had a little blip recently with my 5 gallon month old tank, found that this salt is something handy to use when setting up a tank as well as general use for fish well being.

I am partial to Eel like creatures, khuli loaches and such.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

pH 4.5

So thats where the term Sour Puss comes from.

>> ^ulysses1904:

I'm always suspicious of nice even numbers that sound like they came from a protest sign rather than from an exhaustive study (50% of America's PHDs are foreign born).
But I don't dispute the overall point.


A few statistics from wikipedia:
-55% of Ph.D. students in engineering in the United States are foreign born (2004).[4]
-Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of Ph.D. scientists and engineers employed in the United States who were born abroad has increased from 24% to 37%.[4]
-45% of Ph.D. physicists working in the United States are foreign born (2004).[4]
-80% of total post-doctoral chemical and materials engineering in the United States are foreign-born (1988).[5]

etc. etc.
Not all the statistics are that bad, though.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

I'll just add a little more data about wage disparity as a function of one's gender and qualifications:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/09/a-y-chromosome-is-worth-the-same-as-a-ph-d/

>> ^cito:

I understand the anger, I feel it also
the new diablo 3 you can't play it unless you are connected to the internet 24/7, not even in single player mode.

That's why I will not be paying for that game and supporting that shit.
http://demonoid.me or http://www.kat.ph/
thankfully all draconian drm's have been broken for example Assassin's creed 2 had the same drm requiring 24/7 internet to play, but it was broken in less than 1 week.
So I know me and thousands will be turning to piracy to play the game without draconian drm. Only the pirates get to play the fun game, while legit players get punished.


Hrm it's a bit of a shock to hear this, and I also agree that this anger is legitimate. If people really enjoy the game they'll play online on BNet, Blizzard needs to just focus on making the game attractive enough so that people will want to play with others instead of forcing people into it. Also, money for items, very sad day indeed.