warri0r45

Yes, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine are amino acids. I don't exactly understand your other point. I wouldn't take Answers in Genesis seriously because they're motivated by their own religious beliefs, not an objective search for the truth. Quite romantic. But why do you want to simplify these issues to the point of inaccuracy in the process? There's way more to abiogenesis than life coming from nothing.

Skillerman explained abiogenesis fairly well. The only thing I'd fault him on is that endosymbiotic theory doesn't state that the Golgi apparatus came from bacteria (you don't really need to worry about that because it has nothing to do with the formation of the first cell). Alternately, you can check out this website. As for the second question, we're not the same because of mutations in the replication of DNA. Every time a cell divides, the DNA must be replicated; in essence it needs to form a clone of itself. The problem is that life isn't perfect, and every now and then mistakes creep in. A mutation can be the insertion or deletion of a single nucleotide or the substitution of one nucleotide for another. Assuming you don't know highschool bio (sorry if you do), a nucleotide is the basic building block of DNA and it comes in four types - A, G, T and C. So when the sequence "AGGTTCA" is replicated, on a rare occasion it may result in the copy being "AGCTTCA" or even "AGGTTTCA". These changes are passed down the cell generations and in organisms like us, to our sperm and eggs. Essentially, mutations are the foundation of evolution. Alternately, a broad class of processes called genetic recombination can cause more significant changes in DNA. For example, when our chromosomes are copied, the copies line up along the equator of a dividing cell before being partitioned into the two daughter cells. It's at this time that the clones can exchange information with each other, or the maternal copy can exchange information with the paternal copy. That's called crossing over, and unequal crossing over can result in one cell with extra information and the other with "deleted" information. This facilitates another process called gene duplication, which then leads to the evolution of gene families. Ok, I'll not go off on a tangent too much. You can ask me more about that if you like. Another means of attaining genetic identity between organisms comes with genome duplication, which, not unlike the crossing over scenario, results in both copies of all chromosomes entering the one daughter cell. This process is called nondisjunction, and it can also lead to duplication of entire individual chromosomes. Some of these changes are biologically feasible, while others aren't. You can think of Down Syndrome as an example here - they have an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. Again, the reason for that is a failure of cell division to partition the chromosomes properly, i.e. nondisjunction. Well, that deals with change, but something else I'm getting from your question is why aren't we more similar if we all came from a common origin. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your question, but I'll answer it anyway. Warren essentially touched on this point in his post - at the fundamental level, all life is remarkably similar. Firstly, all life uses DNA as the genetic material (made of the same four nucleotides, no less), and its function in all organisms is the same - to direct the production of proteins via the genetic code. Speaking of the genetic code, it is very similar across all life on earth and identical across most species, hence why we can express human proteins in E. coli, for example (diabetics probably know what I'm talking about as they get their insulin through that technology). The next logical observation here is that all life uses the same subset of 20 amino acids to make proteins. There are some exotic outliers like selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, but those fundamental 20 are the main ones by far. The next point of similarity would be metabolism, where all organisms utilise glucose as their main metabolic fuel and shunt it through the glycolysis pathway to generate energy. The majority of organisms (save for some families of bacteria that rely only on glycolysis) then input the products of that process into the citric acid cycle, which provides energy to fuel another fundamental metabolic process - oxidative phosphorylation. Some bacteria get tricky and use sulphates, nitrates, hydrogen gas, etc, as final electron acceptors whereas we animals use oxygen gas for that purpose. And as Warren said, all organisms use the same energy currency to drive our chemical reactions - ATP.

The Negation by Decapitated (album) Brutal auditory bliss.

Story to Tell by Death.

1) Bill Hicks (comedian, dead) 2) Chuck Schuldiner (death metal legend, dead) 3) Albert Einstein (science genius, dead) 4) George Carlin (comedian, dead) 5) Frederick Sanger (double Nobel prize winning scientist, alive) I'd probably split my time between talking to Schuldiner, Hicks and Carlin and talking to Einstein and Sanger.

I remember checking out their early stuff ages ago but I totally lost touch with it. Thanks for the reccomendation - sounds really good. :thumbup: And for Intriguing, try out some A Different Breed Of Killer. They're a deathcore band but you might find their sound appealing considering you like BTBAM. They're no where near as technical as BTBAM, though.

If you like DT, you might get some joy from Opeth, though at times there are some serious death growls. Sorry if you already know them, they are fairly popular these days.

I'm going to second Death Magnetic as one of the best of 2008. I like it a lot, though I personally wouldn't rate it over Watershed by Opeth.

I think I totally went over this already. The disbelief in something is not the same thing as the disbelief in the existence of that something, much as the rejection of that which cannot be thought of does not mean the rejection of the thing that isn't. If I were to say something like, "Tom isn't bald" this would mean that Tom has hair on his head, not that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald. To argue that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald would be to make a confusion in the difference between the existential and the predicative. Same thing here. To assert a disbelief in God or something about him is not to assert his non-existence. To assert the non-existence of God is to assert nothing about Him is real. What does that have to do with how agnosticism and atheism are contradictory? I'm not saying that disbelief in god is the same as asserting non-existence at all.

Gender determines whether or not you'll be classified as a father or mother, hence the latter is dependent on the former. There's no such correlation between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is not a pre-requisite for atheism and vice versa.The problem is you're trying to join to terms which are contradictory or, more specifically, non-compatible. Atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory. I can lack belief in something yet concede I don't know whether or not that something is true. E.g. I don't believe that the Broncos will win next year's premiership (I hope they do, though :lol: ) but still, I can concede that I don't know whether they will or not. To give another analogy, I might not believe that a friend will win the lottery, but still I don't know whether he will or not, so in a way I'll also remain agnostic towards the prospect.

Arson by Extortion

No, HCl doesn't. I've worked with HCl 10x more concentrated than stomach acid, and it's kept in glass. I'm assuming the glass will just pass through the digestive system and you'll have to pass it out the other end. As for hydrofluoric acid, that's some seriously nasty stuff. It can kill you through skin contact if it's of a reasonable concentration.

Come to think of it, there's a simple answer to that criticism. The moon makes one full orbit of the earth every ~30 days or so. Also, the moon is involved in a "tidal lock" with the earth where it always shows the same face to us (hence the whole "dark side of the moon" thing). So if there was sunlight bathing the Apollo missions on the moon, the angle at which it hit wouldn't have changed appreciably in 40 mins (remember, we're talking 40 mins out of ~30 days here, not the earth's 24 hours), hence the shadows probably won't have moved to any obvious degree. I might not have explained that perfectly, but hopefully I made it understandable enough. Edit: Just out of curiosity, I had a play around with the scenario on stellarium (where I was looking to the sun from the point of view of the moon) and by my estimation the amount of time exposed to sunlight for one period on the moon (analogous to dawn-to-dusk on earth) was ~16 days or 384 hours. More than enough time for 40 minutes to seem like nothing in terms of moving shadows.

Sorry to hear that. But are you sure it was marijuana that killed him? Are you sure it was the reason he got into a car crash? What if it was the other driver was not paying attention and he hit him? What if it was he was talking on a cell phone and it distracted him? Did you know that cell phones are more prone for accidents then being high on weed. So, this could be an argument that cell phones should be banned while driving. I'd also like to point out one more thing. Did you know your friend was high at the time, or did he just have marijuana in his system? There's no need to make excuses for him. Some people have died while driving high before. I know of a case, but it's one of those "friend of a friend" instances. No one should drive while high/drunk/busy on the phone/putting on makeup/etc. It's just common sense.

Demons by Rigor Mortis.

Here's some of that mythbusters material: Flag in a vaccuum You can check out some other videos in the related video section, including those to do with the photos taken and footprints on the moon. Interesting stuff.

What's suspicious about it? the fact that the flag moves, that theres no stars in any pics, and for the life of me i can't figure out how the US got on the moon before rusia even though thet had a man in space before the US. i do believe that the moon landing was real though these are just some of the arguments people use Those two criticisms are two of the easier ones to answer. The flag moving was from inertia, not an atmosphere. In fact, with no atmosphere there's no resistance from the air to slow the inertia down quickly. Apparently the flag had a wire in it to hold it up as well. As for the stars, apparently the sun bouncing on the surface of the moon obscures the incoming light from distant stars. [1] I'd imagine it's somewhat similar to why we can't see stars on earth during the day. As for your point, ginger, I don't have an answer for that at the moment. Looks like more stuff to look into. :) The general thing I find hard to believe with a conspiracy theory like the moon landing is that the American government would be so dumb as to make such blatant errors while recoding the thing in a hangar somewhere. Surely they would have had some of the best science advisers around to make sure the thing looked authentic.

I generally don't believe government conspiracies. Most of them sound overly paranoid and unrealistic. What's suspicious about it?

Same. I just wish it could be all and not most. No offence to any Americans here (and it's not really your fault at all), but I'd rather we not import your customs into our country when they have no relevance to us at all.

Haven't done this in a while, so I might as well. I'm going to be difficult and choose a few. Blackwater Park by Opeth - The epic closer to an incredible album. It's a progressive metal masterpiece with one of the best outros to a song I've ever heard (listen for that drum fill). Ghost of Perdition by Opeth - Another epic and progressive piece. The "breakdown" where Akerfeldt screams "Ghost of Perdition" sends chills down my spine. Epic by Faith No More - Probably the first FNM song I ever heard (it is their most popular, after all). The infectious grooves and mix of rap, rock and keys makes this musical bliss to my ears. From one of my favourite albums of all time - The Real Thing. Everything's Ruined by Faith no More - One of my all time favourite FNM songs, this time from the Angel Dust CD. There was something about FNM and the ability to put together a seriously good song. The Philosopher by Death - By any measure, Chuck Schuldiner was one of the most significant figures in death metal, probably because of his ability to work a guitar and write an incredible song. Not to downplay other members of the band at this time, of course - I quite liked Gene Hoglan on drums and the sound Steve DiGiorgio got out of the fretless bass. Pontification aside, this is probably Death's most popular song, and I can see why. Pull The Plug by Death - One of their oldschool classics. I took an instant liking to this song because of the memorable chorus and wailing solo. It remains one of my favourite Death songs of all time. The Grudge by Tool - By this time in their career Tool were at the top of their game, and it shows with songs like The Grudge. The way the song is put together, there are two climaxes and one climactic outro, all of which are arranged perfectly, which makes this song a treat on the ears. Third Eye by Tool - As I've heard it said before, this is Tool's "Stairyway to Heaven", if you like. It's long, meandering through 13 minutes of music/noise, all of which is absolutely captivating. A great closer to the Aenima record. Forty-Six & 2 by Tool - If for nothing else, I have to add this song because of the "breakdown" around 5 minutes in where the bass drops down, flange hits the guitar and Maynard sings "See my shadow changing, stretching up and over me..." The whole song is excellent, but that moment leaves me in sheer awe. Primitive by Sunk Loto - A song from one of my favourite Aussie bands. I doubt many people here would know them, but they've been one of my favourites for some time now. To my way of thinking it's hard to have a good band without a good singer, and the singer of this band is great. The way he matches the vocals to the melody of this song makes it an all time favourite. I'd probably sing along if I wasn't hopless at singing.

Have you heard the new single? I heard Chinese Democracy (song) on the radio the other day. Sounds decent, I suppose.

Spiritual Healing by Death (album). Currently on the song Low Life. Love it.

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial. Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour. What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly. I understand the point on religion and the unlikely notion that one out of thousands is the correct one, but I'm not satisfied with the other part to your answer. With the computer example, I don't see how that relates to the notion of god because god isn't made of atoms. To believers, a god is something beyond our worldly reality. While I find the concept of god wholly unbelievable myself, I still don't see how you can seriously expect to put a figure of probability on his existence. Also, what makes you say this: "That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang." Why is that the case? Believers often claim that god is timeless and has existed "forever". It's this completely transcendant defintion that, to me, makes putting a probability on god's existance laughable.

It's Cynic in general. Overproduced and seemingly fake. I'd much rather have Atheist release a new album. Btw, I think Voyager (Manilla Road) is this year's best metal album. I have heard some people turned off by Masvidal's electronic manipulation of the vocals, but I quite like it and their sound in general. As for Atheist, apparently they're releasing a new album next year. Hope it's a good one.

Cynic - Traced In Air what. that album is terrible. I quite like it. I'm definitely picking up a copy when it comes out. I'd also say that Opeth's Watershed is one of the best metal albums of 08'