according to research engineers article in popular science magazine, it will take close to five years to develope .How many years are we away from a practical alternative to gas?
We already have the practical alternatives, the difficulty is the application. Today, it should be law that all buildings are built with solar power. This alone would make many countries full efficient.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Is it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
It's a popular science fiction idea. Turning bone into metal like say, Adamantium. (Is Wolverine's skeleton fully Adamantium or is it just plated?). But is it possible in real life?
Humans experience 6 percent bone loss annualy in zero-G. Unless we manage to simulate gravity in space ships (the ones for travelling) for long rides, our bones as they naturally are will become frail. That's the reason behind the question.Is it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
sound like alchemy huh?
its imposible with this modern technology;
cant say what will happen years to come.....
lets just hope, instead, to turn my sister into her ancestor - a monkey! and proving the plausiblility of evolution theory instead...Is it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
nope. you can't change an element into a different element. or we'd all be swimmin in gold right now wouldn't we? if you do that, you have to change the makeup of the nucleus and take out/ add protons. and that's possible in radioactive elements, but i guess it never ends up as gold
good question thoughIs it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
how would i know??? lol
i'm only __ years old ya know....haha
Humans experience 6 percent bone loss annualy in zero-G. Unless we manage to simulate gravity in space ships (the ones for travelling) for long rides, our bones as they naturally are will become frail. That's the reason behind the question.Is it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
sound like alchemy huh?
its imposible with this modern technology;
cant say what will happen years to come.....
lets just hope, instead, to turn my sister into her ancestor - a monkey! and proving the plausiblility of evolution theory instead...Is it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
nope. you can't change an element into a different element. or we'd all be swimmin in gold right now wouldn't we? if you do that, you have to change the makeup of the nucleus and take out/ add protons. and that's possible in radioactive elements, but i guess it never ends up as gold
good question thoughIs it possible to turn bone into another material? Or bond it with another?
how would i know??? lol
i'm only __ years old ya know....haha
Do you think computers are a part of human evolution?
Do you think we'll eventually integrate computers into our bodies and what do you think about that possibility? I read in popular science that the technology to inject nanobots into our blood that would carry with them abilities like speaking a new language or storing vast amounts of information are being designed. Cool or scary?Do you think computers are a part of human evolution?
there's a big possibilities. human wont stop experimenting anything. human in nature wants to be God.
I think it's pretty cool and very likely...my 5 year old is almost as capable on the computer as I am after all these years, maybe we'll to much better and greater things faster than we have in the past. Try answering this question...http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Best wishesDo you think computers are a part of human evolution?
I doubt it, there are thousands of people trying to find medical cure for each disease, indicating we don't need machine to help us. No computers are not a part of human evolution. It would be scary to see a human become atached to a machine as whole.Do you think computers are a part of human evolution?
Technically the answer to your first question, no it wouldn't be part of Darwin's theory, even I that is taken as true. It is possible that technology could be used to enhance us but that isn't evolution.
Please don't believe all you read in popular science.
Computers are just as much a part of evolution that fire and the wheel were. Bloodstream nanobots sells magazines.
Human evolution and technology evolution are two different things, whether some day they mix and what becomes of this is hard to say, but in our minds what we portray this to be is more important!
No, computers are machines, nothing to do with the natural selection process. (ie. we could wait a billion years and we'll never develop computer parts). Nanobot technology such as you are describing are science fantasy at best today. Will we ever get there, who knows? It will be scary if we are surrendering our humanity.
as far ur question is concerned everything,every idea that is a part of human history or now holds some space in our minds are a part of human evolution...
now about the nanobots stuff it is both cool and scary ..cool in the sense ur r explaining things right now ,scary because u have to understand its implication ..any thing that can be used to carry info to the mind can be of course used to carry an idea ..a good one orrrr a baaad one
and of couse ideas r dangerous
That depends on whether you view it as being more human,or less.I don't think it's a good idea,but neither do I see a way to better use computers in the advancing nano-technological revolution.Obviously,as computers get smaller and faster we are going to require a better way to interface with them.
But at that point, are we still human?
It may serve as the best way to "tame" humanity,to control the things that cause war,greed,genocide,and unify mankind even more than mass media and the Internet.It would be hard to declare war on another part of the same machine.It would eliminate the power that dictators use,to manipulate information to their own ends.
In the interim,the advanced nations armies would be the ultimate weapon,as each soldier would have the same data as the generals,and an entire view of the battlefield.This would be a great tool,since the most obvious problem of the war-front is a lack of understanding of your orders,and it would allow instantaneous information gathering for the field commanders from the front.
The problem will be largely one of free will.Will you know the difference between your thoughts and the implants?Seems sort of like the nightmare world of the Matrix.
I started out in the computer industry when there were card readers and dropping your stack of cards meant hours of resorting before you could submit them to the card reader. Computers ARE our future and if we are to succeed we need to figure out how to successfully incorporate them into our lives and that would include our bodies.
I think intergrating computers into are bodies is an inevitability, after all how different is a computer on the outside different to a computer on the inside?
Machines designed to work inside us have been around for a while, look no further than pacemakers, I don't think it's too big a leap (in concept at least) to have machines interfacing with our brains.
Certain science fiction has done some damage to our perception of future advancements, see Blade Runner and the Terminator series, to make people fearful of technology but how many people are afraid of the PC infront of them?
As for evolution it's not evolution in the sense of natural selection, we stopped evolving like that when health care was invented. Nature has got us to a point where we can use technology to choose how to evolve.
As a scientist, I can assure you that such "technologies" are only theoretical at this point. I am skeptical it, since we don't really even know how the brain works enough such that we *could* manipulate it with nanorobotics. I doubt we will be able to do this even multiple generations from now.
Let me put it into perspective: just to develop a new drug in the pharmaceutical industry, it takes billions of dollars and about 20 years from start to finish-- and drug development is a relatively simple concept compared to what you've described! So, even if we knew how to do it, the practical / legal / ethical / financal risks involved would probably not justify the benefit of developing such a thing.
Also, "evolution" technically refers to genetic change over time- a distinctly biological process. Therefore, anything we add to our bodies in the future (assuming we even could), unless it can self-replicate along with our DNA, would not constitute as an evolutionary process.
Yes. But you're not going to like this. They represent the beginning of the "END" of human evolution. Humans will go the same way as all species that were not able to adapt quickly enough or who were simply exterminated from the environment.
What did the Native Americans do to the mammoth? What did the European settlers do to the Native Americans? It's all about survival of the fittest and computers are being designed to be the "fittest".
In less than 14 years an event is predicted (by Ray Kurzweil) to occur called the "Singularity" when the intelligence of machines will begin to surpass the intelligence of man.
Remember, there is no "limitation" to intelligence. Therefore, there could possibly be no limitation to how intelligent computers will become.
I'd better be careful about what I say because there could be some computer reading this some day and it will spell my doom.
My computer just started acting more intelligent lately and has refused to follow my instructions.
See the Video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAQgVTl7鈥?/a>
My advice:
Enjoy today while it is here. Live in the moment. You may never get another chance.
Probably no more than any other technology we have invented. Many of the claims of what we will be able to do are fanciful, and are very out of touch with what is technically possible today. For instance, an insect has a few thousand nerve cells in its brain and can walk, engage in cooperative activity, hunt for food, reproduce etc etc. Our fastest computer robot cannot reliablly carry a cup from one place to another unless it was all preprogrammed. And our brains have 20 billion cells.
We have no idea how the brain actually carries out thought, no idea how to interface to it, no idea how to simulate particular cerebral activity, no idea how to model thoughts...need I go on.
We are very far from even understanding our own language well enough to have a computer carry out a reliable written translation. And when it get to recognising speach - why do you think they have all those call centres in India.
We have no nano-robots, no idea how we would build or power them, and the most precisely engineered IT technologies remain on silicon, the same as in your PC.
Yes, computers are becoming very impressive, but this stuff is science fiction.
And we do not even know what sort of computer intelligence might be impossible, but we do know one thing. There have been thermodynamic calculations on the computing power of the brain to see by how far it might theoretically be exceed and it is not by much. This is because to get it smarter it would have to be larger and more complex which - paradoxically - would make it slower and less good. The same would apply to computers.
But we are definitely affecting our evolution. Genetic differences - even genetic illnesses - no longer kill people. Some are deliberately "corrected". We have tampered with the very mechanism of evolution. We have toyed with the very heart of creation. With most of this genetic engineering revolution there has not been so much as a moral murmer from the right wing Christians, because they are making too much money out of it. But - if there is a god - they are trying to usurp him.
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.
Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This
"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.
(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)
Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.
Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.
2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.
3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.
The power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life鈥攖ime, mud, and chance鈥攊s actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.
In this section, I will examine these three basic points in general outlines:
The First Insurmountable Step:
(The Origin of Life)
The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.
"LIFE COMES FROM LIFE"
On the other hand, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."30
For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.
The French biologist Louis Pasteur
The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin
The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.
(Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century)
The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.31
Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.32
After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.33
All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?34
One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts; The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive earth was totally unsuited to life.
All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposely designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.
(THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF LIFE)
The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.
The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.
The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.35
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.
(IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION)
The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection鈥?br>
Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.36
(Lamarck's Impact)
So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.
(The French biologist Lamarck)
Lamarck thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example to this line of reasoning, he suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of grass. With the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all. As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century.
Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.37
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.
The direct effect of random mutations is harmful. Above is a mutated calf which was born with two heads.
(NEO-DARWINISM AND MUTATIONS)
In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.38
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.
(THE FOSSIL RECORD: NO SIGN OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS)
The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed.... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39
The larger picture belongs to a 100-million-year-old Nautilus fossil. On the left is a Nautilus living in our day. When we compare the fossil with today's Nautilus (on the right is the cross section of the creature's shell), we see that they both have the same identical characteristics.
(Darwin's Hopes Shattered)
However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find 鈥?over and over again 鈥?not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.40
This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.41
Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but creation.
(THE TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION)
The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.42
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."43
By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus %26gt; Homo habilis %26gt; Homo erectus %26gt; Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.44
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.45
This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.46
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"鈥攖hat is, depending on concrete data鈥攆ields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"鈥攃oncepts such as telepathy and sixth sense鈥攁nd finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible 鈥?and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.47
The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.
Imaginary representations of 'primitive' human beings are frequently employed in stories carried by pro-evolution newspapers and magazines. The only source for these stories, based on these imaginary representations, are the imaginations of their authors. Yet evolution has suffered such a defeat in the face of the scientific facts that fewer reports concerning evolution now appear in scientific magazines.
(TECHNOLOGY IN THE EYE AND THE EAR)
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?
Compared to cameras and sound recording machines, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior designs to these products of high technology.
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.
The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.
As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.
So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.
(To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?)
Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?
The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.
For this consciousness is the spirit created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.
Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.
Motion
Tought
Touch
Talking
Vision
Tasting
Hearing
Smelling
We live our entire life within our brain. The people that we see, the flowers we smell, the music we listen to, the fruits we taste, the wetness we feel on our hand鈥?All of these form in our brains. In reality, neither colors, nor sounds, nor images exist in our brain. The only things that exist in the brain are electric signals. This means that we live in a world formed by the electric signals in our brain. This is not an opinion or a hypothesis, but the scientific explanation of how we perceive the world.
(A Materialist Faith)
The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.
However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?
The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.
Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist":
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.48
These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.
They said:"Glory be to You!
We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.
You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
(Surat al-Baqarah: 32) Holy Quran
NOW, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF THIS LIFE, PLEASE CHECK AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING LINKS. (All books are FREE)
The Truth of This Life:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Allah (God) is Known Through Reason:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Nightmare Of Disbelief:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Jesus (PBUH) Did Not Die:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Millions of Proofs that Refute Darwinism
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Jesus Will Return:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Evolution Deceit:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*鈥?br>
Never Plead Ignorance:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Never Forget
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Not By Chance:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(word)
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(PDF)
=*=*=*=*=
Signs Of God:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(word)
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(PDF)
=*=*=*=*=
Our Messengers Say
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
A Definitive Reply To Evolutionist Propaganda:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Signs of Jesus' (pbuh) Second Coming:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Main Reference:
http://harunyahya.com
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*鈥?br>
Two wonderful VIDEOS:
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE (video).
http://harunyahya.com/m_video_creation_u鈥?/a>
The miracle of man's creation (video):
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail鈥?/a>
Related site: http://www.creationofuniverse.com/
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Other Islamic references:
http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.p鈥?/a>
http://www.muslimconverts.com
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
smiling4ever222@yahoo.com
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
I heared a news that a tiny nanorobot is injected to nerves to purify the blood.
Computers are not a part of our evolution, they are just an example of the evolution of our intelligence. If we continue this evolution of intelligence, it is very likely that we could implement these technologies on ourselves for improvement, or by enemies for other purposes. That will open up a whole new battlefront for the human race.
there's a big possibilities. human wont stop experimenting anything. human in nature wants to be God.
I think it's pretty cool and very likely...my 5 year old is almost as capable on the computer as I am after all these years, maybe we'll to much better and greater things faster than we have in the past. Try answering this question...http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Best wishesDo you think computers are a part of human evolution?
I doubt it, there are thousands of people trying to find medical cure for each disease, indicating we don't need machine to help us. No computers are not a part of human evolution. It would be scary to see a human become atached to a machine as whole.Do you think computers are a part of human evolution?
Technically the answer to your first question, no it wouldn't be part of Darwin's theory, even I that is taken as true. It is possible that technology could be used to enhance us but that isn't evolution.
Please don't believe all you read in popular science.
Computers are just as much a part of evolution that fire and the wheel were. Bloodstream nanobots sells magazines.
Human evolution and technology evolution are two different things, whether some day they mix and what becomes of this is hard to say, but in our minds what we portray this to be is more important!
No, computers are machines, nothing to do with the natural selection process. (ie. we could wait a billion years and we'll never develop computer parts). Nanobot technology such as you are describing are science fantasy at best today. Will we ever get there, who knows? It will be scary if we are surrendering our humanity.
as far ur question is concerned everything,every idea that is a part of human history or now holds some space in our minds are a part of human evolution...
now about the nanobots stuff it is both cool and scary ..cool in the sense ur r explaining things right now ,scary because u have to understand its implication ..any thing that can be used to carry info to the mind can be of course used to carry an idea ..a good one orrrr a baaad one
and of couse ideas r dangerous
That depends on whether you view it as being more human,or less.I don't think it's a good idea,but neither do I see a way to better use computers in the advancing nano-technological revolution.Obviously,as computers get smaller and faster we are going to require a better way to interface with them.
But at that point, are we still human?
It may serve as the best way to "tame" humanity,to control the things that cause war,greed,genocide,and unify mankind even more than mass media and the Internet.It would be hard to declare war on another part of the same machine.It would eliminate the power that dictators use,to manipulate information to their own ends.
In the interim,the advanced nations armies would be the ultimate weapon,as each soldier would have the same data as the generals,and an entire view of the battlefield.This would be a great tool,since the most obvious problem of the war-front is a lack of understanding of your orders,and it would allow instantaneous information gathering for the field commanders from the front.
The problem will be largely one of free will.Will you know the difference between your thoughts and the implants?Seems sort of like the nightmare world of the Matrix.
I started out in the computer industry when there were card readers and dropping your stack of cards meant hours of resorting before you could submit them to the card reader. Computers ARE our future and if we are to succeed we need to figure out how to successfully incorporate them into our lives and that would include our bodies.
I think intergrating computers into are bodies is an inevitability, after all how different is a computer on the outside different to a computer on the inside?
Machines designed to work inside us have been around for a while, look no further than pacemakers, I don't think it's too big a leap (in concept at least) to have machines interfacing with our brains.
Certain science fiction has done some damage to our perception of future advancements, see Blade Runner and the Terminator series, to make people fearful of technology but how many people are afraid of the PC infront of them?
As for evolution it's not evolution in the sense of natural selection, we stopped evolving like that when health care was invented. Nature has got us to a point where we can use technology to choose how to evolve.
As a scientist, I can assure you that such "technologies" are only theoretical at this point. I am skeptical it, since we don't really even know how the brain works enough such that we *could* manipulate it with nanorobotics. I doubt we will be able to do this even multiple generations from now.
Let me put it into perspective: just to develop a new drug in the pharmaceutical industry, it takes billions of dollars and about 20 years from start to finish-- and drug development is a relatively simple concept compared to what you've described! So, even if we knew how to do it, the practical / legal / ethical / financal risks involved would probably not justify the benefit of developing such a thing.
Also, "evolution" technically refers to genetic change over time- a distinctly biological process. Therefore, anything we add to our bodies in the future (assuming we even could), unless it can self-replicate along with our DNA, would not constitute as an evolutionary process.
Yes. But you're not going to like this. They represent the beginning of the "END" of human evolution. Humans will go the same way as all species that were not able to adapt quickly enough or who were simply exterminated from the environment.
What did the Native Americans do to the mammoth? What did the European settlers do to the Native Americans? It's all about survival of the fittest and computers are being designed to be the "fittest".
In less than 14 years an event is predicted (by Ray Kurzweil) to occur called the "Singularity" when the intelligence of machines will begin to surpass the intelligence of man.
Remember, there is no "limitation" to intelligence. Therefore, there could possibly be no limitation to how intelligent computers will become.
I'd better be careful about what I say because there could be some computer reading this some day and it will spell my doom.
My computer just started acting more intelligent lately and has refused to follow my instructions.
See the Video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAQgVTl7鈥?/a>
My advice:
Enjoy today while it is here. Live in the moment. You may never get another chance.
Probably no more than any other technology we have invented. Many of the claims of what we will be able to do are fanciful, and are very out of touch with what is technically possible today. For instance, an insect has a few thousand nerve cells in its brain and can walk, engage in cooperative activity, hunt for food, reproduce etc etc. Our fastest computer robot cannot reliablly carry a cup from one place to another unless it was all preprogrammed. And our brains have 20 billion cells.
We have no idea how the brain actually carries out thought, no idea how to interface to it, no idea how to simulate particular cerebral activity, no idea how to model thoughts...need I go on.
We are very far from even understanding our own language well enough to have a computer carry out a reliable written translation. And when it get to recognising speach - why do you think they have all those call centres in India.
We have no nano-robots, no idea how we would build or power them, and the most precisely engineered IT technologies remain on silicon, the same as in your PC.
Yes, computers are becoming very impressive, but this stuff is science fiction.
And we do not even know what sort of computer intelligence might be impossible, but we do know one thing. There have been thermodynamic calculations on the computing power of the brain to see by how far it might theoretically be exceed and it is not by much. This is because to get it smarter it would have to be larger and more complex which - paradoxically - would make it slower and less good. The same would apply to computers.
But we are definitely affecting our evolution. Genetic differences - even genetic illnesses - no longer kill people. Some are deliberately "corrected". We have tampered with the very mechanism of evolution. We have toyed with the very heart of creation. With most of this genetic engineering revolution there has not been so much as a moral murmer from the right wing Christians, because they are making too much money out of it. But - if there is a god - they are trying to usurp him.
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.
Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This
"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.
(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)
Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.
Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.
2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.
3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.
The power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life鈥攖ime, mud, and chance鈥攊s actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.
In this section, I will examine these three basic points in general outlines:
The First Insurmountable Step:
(The Origin of Life)
The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.
"LIFE COMES FROM LIFE"
On the other hand, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."30
For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.
The French biologist Louis Pasteur
The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin
The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.
(Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century)
The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.31
Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.32
After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.33
All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?34
One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts; The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive earth was totally unsuited to life.
All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposely designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.
(THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF LIFE)
The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.
The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.
The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.35
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.
(IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION)
The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection鈥?br>
Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.36
(Lamarck's Impact)
So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.
(The French biologist Lamarck)
Lamarck thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example to this line of reasoning, he suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of grass. With the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all. As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century.
Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.37
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.
The direct effect of random mutations is harmful. Above is a mutated calf which was born with two heads.
(NEO-DARWINISM AND MUTATIONS)
In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.38
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.
(THE FOSSIL RECORD: NO SIGN OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS)
The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed.... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39
The larger picture belongs to a 100-million-year-old Nautilus fossil. On the left is a Nautilus living in our day. When we compare the fossil with today's Nautilus (on the right is the cross section of the creature's shell), we see that they both have the same identical characteristics.
(Darwin's Hopes Shattered)
However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find 鈥?over and over again 鈥?not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.40
This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.41
Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but creation.
(THE TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION)
The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.42
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."43
By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus %26gt; Homo habilis %26gt; Homo erectus %26gt; Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.44
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.45
This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.46
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"鈥攖hat is, depending on concrete data鈥攆ields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"鈥攃oncepts such as telepathy and sixth sense鈥攁nd finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible 鈥?and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.47
The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.
Imaginary representations of 'primitive' human beings are frequently employed in stories carried by pro-evolution newspapers and magazines. The only source for these stories, based on these imaginary representations, are the imaginations of their authors. Yet evolution has suffered such a defeat in the face of the scientific facts that fewer reports concerning evolution now appear in scientific magazines.
(TECHNOLOGY IN THE EYE AND THE EAR)
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?
Compared to cameras and sound recording machines, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior designs to these products of high technology.
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.
The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.
As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.
So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.
(To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?)
Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?
The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.
For this consciousness is the spirit created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.
Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.
Motion
Tought
Touch
Talking
Vision
Tasting
Hearing
Smelling
We live our entire life within our brain. The people that we see, the flowers we smell, the music we listen to, the fruits we taste, the wetness we feel on our hand鈥?All of these form in our brains. In reality, neither colors, nor sounds, nor images exist in our brain. The only things that exist in the brain are electric signals. This means that we live in a world formed by the electric signals in our brain. This is not an opinion or a hypothesis, but the scientific explanation of how we perceive the world.
(A Materialist Faith)
The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.
However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?
The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.
Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist":
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.48
These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.
They said:"Glory be to You!
We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.
You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
(Surat al-Baqarah: 32) Holy Quran
NOW, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF THIS LIFE, PLEASE CHECK AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING LINKS. (All books are FREE)
The Truth of This Life:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Allah (God) is Known Through Reason:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Nightmare Of Disbelief:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Jesus (PBUH) Did Not Die:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Millions of Proofs that Refute Darwinism
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Jesus Will Return:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Evolution Deceit:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*鈥?br>
Never Plead Ignorance:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Never Forget
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Not By Chance:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(word)
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(PDF)
=*=*=*=*=
Signs Of God:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(word)
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
(PDF)
=*=*=*=*=
Our Messengers Say
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
A Definitive Reply To Evolutionist Propaganda:
http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
The Signs of Jesus' (pbuh) Second Coming:
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download鈥?/a>
=*=*=*=*=
Main Reference:
http://harunyahya.com
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*鈥?br>
Two wonderful VIDEOS:
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE (video).
http://harunyahya.com/m_video_creation_u鈥?/a>
The miracle of man's creation (video):
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail鈥?/a>
Related site: http://www.creationofuniverse.com/
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Other Islamic references:
http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.p鈥?/a>
http://www.muslimconverts.com
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
smiling4ever222@yahoo.com
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
I heared a news that a tiny nanorobot is injected to nerves to purify the blood.
Computers are not a part of our evolution, they are just an example of the evolution of our intelligence. If we continue this evolution of intelligence, it is very likely that we could implement these technologies on ourselves for improvement, or by enemies for other purposes. That will open up a whole new battlefront for the human race.
What are some publications for new technologies?
Similar to popular science or popular mechanics? (bonus points for one that might tie in to agriculture or animals)
I want to contact them about a new carcass-dissolving system which is much more environmentally friendly than current methods, and less costly!What are some publications for new technologies?
Agricultural Research magazine
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/
it has fun topics like
Knowing Where To Look for Infestation of Leafy Spurge
and
Biodiesel With Benefits: Fuel for Cars and Leftovers for Livestock
I want to contact them about a new carcass-dissolving system which is much more environmentally friendly than current methods, and less costly!What are some publications for new technologies?
Agricultural Research magazine
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/
it has fun topics like
Knowing Where To Look for Infestation of Leafy Spurge
and
Biodiesel With Benefits: Fuel for Cars and Leftovers for Livestock
What is the density of gasoline? How much does one gallon weigh?
Popular Science magazine said that 19 lbs of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere for each gallon of gasoline burned. Anyone with a basic knowledge of science knows that this is ridiculous (unless they've found a flaw in the law of conservation of mass).What is the density of gasoline? How much does one gallon weigh?
Some of the mass of the CO2 probably comes from free diatomic oxygen in the atmosphere. The gasoline contributes the carbon, but the oxygen comes from the air.
Carbon has a molecular weight of 12. One oxygen atom is 16. Then CO2 is 12+(2)16 = 12+32 = 44.
44/12 = 3.667
That means for every pound of carbon burned, there will be 3.667 pounds of CO2 gas released.
About 16% of the weight of a gallon of gas is hydrogen. If the gallon of gas weighs 6.6 pounds, then the hydrogen in it weighs 1.1 pounds, and the carbon will weigh about 5.5 pounds.
If all 5.5 pounds of carbon turns into CO2 during the combustion, the weight of the CO2 will be 20 pounds. (The weight of the oxygen used up will be about 14.5 pounds.)
Of course, the combustion process isn't perfectly efficient. Some of the gas won't burn, and some of what does burn will become carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide. But 19 pounds isn't an unreasonable figure for the magazine article to mention.
And that 1.1 pounds of hydrogen can combine with 8.8 pounds of oxygen from the air to produce 9.9 pounds of water vapor.
The formation of both CO2 and water vapor from the complete combusion of one gallon of gasoline removes 24.5 pounds of free oxygen from the atmosphere.
Gas weighs about 7lbs per gallon. I don't think their calculations are right.What is the density of gasoline? How much does one gallon weigh?
One gallon of gas weighs about 6.25 pounds. The weight fluctuates with temperature and octane, but this figure is good enough for government work.What is the density of gasoline? How much does one gallon weigh?
Like all goody good liberals , when it's for the good of the planet and it's people tnen fudgeing on facts is allowed and will not be challenged by any liberal run regulartory body or group. They know better what's good for us! Just look at the dour predictions by the lot that never got close to reality!
P.M. is correct. When the hydrocarbons burn, there is a chemical change taking place.
There is a change from the carbon chain being stripped from the hydrogen and re-assembling with the O2. O has mass as well.
Also expelled from the tail pipe is H2O. Water; about 8 to as much as 11 gallons of it for every gallon of fuel. There is no water in the fuel so it must come from the air mass (moisture in the air) and the chemical process that occurs in the combustion process Hydrogen + Oxygen = H2O)
The natural result of COMPLETE combustion (something an internal combustion is not yet capable of) is CO2 and Water (H2O) Vapor.
6 pounds / gallon, maybe part of the combustion process includes the o2 in the air as well,since it is co2.So that leaves about 17 pounds of o2. not sure how much volume of air that is.according to web site below 7392 liters of 02 is burned for every gallon of gas combusted at 100% efficiency. weight of air is approximately 0.00129 gram/cubic-centimeter (g/cm3), OK i know that's mostly nitrogen, but that does not com bust. so 7392 liters of oxygen=7.3 kilograms or 14.6 pounds. so 14.6 of + 6 pounds gas = 20.6 pounds , OK I'm off , well maybe I'm not at sea level.
Jeesh who said stoned people were dumb. Legalize it dude
I use to know the answer, but have since forgot. If my lack of memory serves me correctly, a gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.9lbs.
There is no flaw -
Gasoline weighs about 700g/litre with a generalised formula of CnH2n. This allows for some aromatics and olefinics as well as the base paraffins.
A "gallon" depends on whether you are talking US Gallon (3.75lt) or Imperial Gallon (4.54lt), which equates to either 2.65kg or 3.18kg of gasoline.
Based on the relative masses of carbon and hydrogen, this means that there is (about) 2.27kg or 2.73kg of carbon per gallon (once again, depending on the type of gallon you are talking about).
OK, so CO2 = 1 carbon atom + 2 oxygen atoms
or
CnH2n + (1.5)nO2 -%26gt; nCO2 + nH2O
O2 has a molecular weight (ie molar mass) of 32. So for every 12grams of carbon you use 32grams of oxygen, therefor:
2.27kg of carbon reacts with 6.06kg of oxygen to give 8.33kg of CO2.
8.33kg x 2.2lb/kg = 18.32 lb of CO2
2.73kg of carbon reacts with 7.28kg of oxygen to give 10kg of CO2 or 22lb of CO2.
Mass conserved. Not so ridiculous. It would appear that you lack a basic knowledge of science.
If only americans would adopt SI units the world would be so much simpler!rosacea cream
Some of the mass of the CO2 probably comes from free diatomic oxygen in the atmosphere. The gasoline contributes the carbon, but the oxygen comes from the air.
Carbon has a molecular weight of 12. One oxygen atom is 16. Then CO2 is 12+(2)16 = 12+32 = 44.
44/12 = 3.667
That means for every pound of carbon burned, there will be 3.667 pounds of CO2 gas released.
About 16% of the weight of a gallon of gas is hydrogen. If the gallon of gas weighs 6.6 pounds, then the hydrogen in it weighs 1.1 pounds, and the carbon will weigh about 5.5 pounds.
If all 5.5 pounds of carbon turns into CO2 during the combustion, the weight of the CO2 will be 20 pounds. (The weight of the oxygen used up will be about 14.5 pounds.)
Of course, the combustion process isn't perfectly efficient. Some of the gas won't burn, and some of what does burn will become carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide. But 19 pounds isn't an unreasonable figure for the magazine article to mention.
And that 1.1 pounds of hydrogen can combine with 8.8 pounds of oxygen from the air to produce 9.9 pounds of water vapor.
The formation of both CO2 and water vapor from the complete combusion of one gallon of gasoline removes 24.5 pounds of free oxygen from the atmosphere.
Gas weighs about 7lbs per gallon. I don't think their calculations are right.What is the density of gasoline? How much does one gallon weigh?
One gallon of gas weighs about 6.25 pounds. The weight fluctuates with temperature and octane, but this figure is good enough for government work.What is the density of gasoline? How much does one gallon weigh?
Like all goody good liberals , when it's for the good of the planet and it's people tnen fudgeing on facts is allowed and will not be challenged by any liberal run regulartory body or group. They know better what's good for us! Just look at the dour predictions by the lot that never got close to reality!
P.M. is correct. When the hydrocarbons burn, there is a chemical change taking place.
There is a change from the carbon chain being stripped from the hydrogen and re-assembling with the O2. O has mass as well.
Also expelled from the tail pipe is H2O. Water; about 8 to as much as 11 gallons of it for every gallon of fuel. There is no water in the fuel so it must come from the air mass (moisture in the air) and the chemical process that occurs in the combustion process Hydrogen + Oxygen = H2O)
The natural result of COMPLETE combustion (something an internal combustion is not yet capable of) is CO2 and Water (H2O) Vapor.
6 pounds / gallon, maybe part of the combustion process includes the o2 in the air as well,since it is co2.So that leaves about 17 pounds of o2. not sure how much volume of air that is.according to web site below 7392 liters of 02 is burned for every gallon of gas combusted at 100% efficiency. weight of air is approximately 0.00129 gram/cubic-centimeter (g/cm3), OK i know that's mostly nitrogen, but that does not com bust. so 7392 liters of oxygen=7.3 kilograms or 14.6 pounds. so 14.6 of + 6 pounds gas = 20.6 pounds , OK I'm off , well maybe I'm not at sea level.
Jeesh who said stoned people were dumb. Legalize it dude
I use to know the answer, but have since forgot. If my lack of memory serves me correctly, a gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.9lbs.
There is no flaw -
Gasoline weighs about 700g/litre with a generalised formula of CnH2n. This allows for some aromatics and olefinics as well as the base paraffins.
A "gallon" depends on whether you are talking US Gallon (3.75lt) or Imperial Gallon (4.54lt), which equates to either 2.65kg or 3.18kg of gasoline.
Based on the relative masses of carbon and hydrogen, this means that there is (about) 2.27kg or 2.73kg of carbon per gallon (once again, depending on the type of gallon you are talking about).
OK, so CO2 = 1 carbon atom + 2 oxygen atoms
or
CnH2n + (1.5)nO2 -%26gt; nCO2 + nH2O
O2 has a molecular weight (ie molar mass) of 32. So for every 12grams of carbon you use 32grams of oxygen, therefor:
2.27kg of carbon reacts with 6.06kg of oxygen to give 8.33kg of CO2.
8.33kg x 2.2lb/kg = 18.32 lb of CO2
2.73kg of carbon reacts with 7.28kg of oxygen to give 10kg of CO2 or 22lb of CO2.
Mass conserved. Not so ridiculous. It would appear that you lack a basic knowledge of science.
If only americans would adopt SI units the world would be so much simpler!
Where do you usually read or find any current news or information?
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
What is the best technology magazine out there?
Im looking for a magazine that deals with technology/biotechnology that talks about the latest inventions/technological advances and how they work (or how anything technological wise works for that matter). I like popular science and Wired but they dont get in depth about how things work. I want something kinda like Make but maybe a little more serious. Does anybody know a good one where i can suscribe to it and everything?
ThanksWhat is the best technology magazine out there?
do a google search
ThanksWhat is the best technology magazine out there?
do a google search
What books about evolution would you recommend?
Recently, I've become fervently interested in evolution and other natural phenomenon like symbiosis. I'm reading "The Selfish Gene" currently and I'm wondering what other popular science books I should pick up that will hopefully make me more knowledgeable on the subject.What books about evolution would you recommend?
Try these
"The Origin of Humankind" Richard Leakey
"Seven Million Years, The Story of Human Evolution" Douglas Palmer
"The Ancestor's Tale" Richard Dawkins
"Wonderful Life, The Burgess Shale And The Nature of History" Stephen Jay Gould
And not least, "The Origin of Species" Charles Darwin. It is still in print!
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLAWhat books about evolution would you recommend?
Put down the books! Get a full set of David Attenborough's narrated works, starting with Planet Earth, preferably in Blu-Ray. And while Sigourney Weaver is so awesome, Sir Dave is just irreplaceable! It's not hard to find his other major narrations, but the Trials of Life series and Blue Planet are absolute classics.
Anyway as for some books. I haven't read much in the last 5 years, and I try to avoid too much non-fiction so I will defer to reviews:
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/books-鈥?/a>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16鈥?/a>
There have been a number of books coming out recently with Darwin's birthday (including one which draws parallels between Darwin and Lincoln!), so you have much to work from.
Enjoy!What books about evolution would you recommend?
variation is the central concept
"Evolution for Dummies."
Pretty good book, written in an entertaining style. I found a couple of errors (ignore the paragraph about Gomphotheres when you get to it, it's totally bogus).
In addition to some of the above, I'd also suggest:
Dawkins, Richard, 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton %26amp; Company.
Dawkins, Richard, 1995, River Out of Eden, Basic Books
Dawkins, Richard, 2005, The Ancestor's Tale, Mariner Books
Ward, Peter D. 2006, Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, Birds, and Earth's Ancient Atmosphere John Henry Press
Try these
"The Origin of Humankind" Richard Leakey
"Seven Million Years, The Story of Human Evolution" Douglas Palmer
"The Ancestor's Tale" Richard Dawkins
"Wonderful Life, The Burgess Shale And The Nature of History" Stephen Jay Gould
And not least, "The Origin of Species" Charles Darwin. It is still in print!
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLAWhat books about evolution would you recommend?
Put down the books! Get a full set of David Attenborough's narrated works, starting with Planet Earth, preferably in Blu-Ray. And while Sigourney Weaver is so awesome, Sir Dave is just irreplaceable! It's not hard to find his other major narrations, but the Trials of Life series and Blue Planet are absolute classics.
Anyway as for some books. I haven't read much in the last 5 years, and I try to avoid too much non-fiction so I will defer to reviews:
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/books-鈥?/a>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16鈥?/a>
There have been a number of books coming out recently with Darwin's birthday (including one which draws parallels between Darwin and Lincoln!), so you have much to work from.
Enjoy!What books about evolution would you recommend?
variation is the central concept
"Evolution for Dummies."
Pretty good book, written in an entertaining style. I found a couple of errors (ignore the paragraph about Gomphotheres when you get to it, it's totally bogus).
In addition to some of the above, I'd also suggest:
Dawkins, Richard, 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton %26amp; Company.
Dawkins, Richard, 1995, River Out of Eden, Basic Books
Dawkins, Richard, 2005, The Ancestor's Tale, Mariner Books
Ward, Peter D. 2006, Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, Birds, and Earth's Ancient Atmosphere John Henry Press
How do you find the demographics of a magazine?
Im trying to find the demographics of a magazine. Actually for Popular science. I can't find it anywhere please help ive been looking since thursday. Its for a homework assignmentHow do you find the demographics of a magazine?
Contact their advertising department. They have all of that information and more.
Contact their advertising department. They have all of that information and more.
How do I customize a camera for x-ray , green screen, see through vision.?
I once saw an article in Popular Science and some free newsperiodicals. The camera was capable of seeing through peoples clothing.How do I customize a camera for x-ray , green screen, see through vision.?
Oh brother, is that legend still going on? You need to perform surgery on your camera (like ruin it for regular photos) to modify the sensor chip. Then you'd mount a specialized filter on the lens. Finally, you'd need to have your subject in the correct IR lighting.
There are/were Sony videocameras with Nightvision, that with the proper filter allowed for "x-ray" videos.
Better yet, read articles in Pop Science with tongue-in-cheek, as they've run articles on flying cars and such for years.
It is the heat (IR) that some cameras sensors can detect that gives the illusion of "seeing through" clothing.
The cameras that have this characteristic are rather old. Newer cameras have a "hot mirror" that absorbs all the IR light rays that enter the lens before it gets to the sensor.How do I customize a camera for x-ray , green screen, see through vision.?
fuji do an infra red/ultra violet camera .
S3PRO uv i belive its called.How do I customize a camera for x-ray , green screen, see through vision.?
Infrared is not heat, nor is it X-rays. However, infrared wavelengths do pass through certain materials. Generally, such IR viewing works best on a camcorder, not on a still camera.
To prepare your camera to see in IR, you'll need to first determine the filter size of the lens.
Next, you need to purchase the appropriate filter that blocks normal light, but lets IR pass. You also have to hope that the camera doesn't have too strong an IR blocking filter. Get the wrong filter and you'll need exposure times measured in minutes.
As it is, you'll need exposure times in the range of 15 to 30 seconds to get good IR images, because what little IR gets through doesn't affect normal images but it's too weak for a normal exposure time. Try for a filter in the 720 nanometer range which isn't blocked too badly.
Switch your camera to a night vision mode if it has it, and/or a black and white mode.
Camcorders do work best, especially in night vision mode, for IR video work.
Alternative: get a camera specialized in IR work, like the
FUJI FINEPIX IS-1 VISIBLE PLUS IR KIT
Another alternative: have your camera altered to remove the IR blocking filter. There are companies which do this, although I can't vouch for them:
http://www.irdigital.net/
http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html
Good luck!
Just put your X-ray specs in front of the camera lens.revlon lipstick
Oh brother, is that legend still going on? You need to perform surgery on your camera (like ruin it for regular photos) to modify the sensor chip. Then you'd mount a specialized filter on the lens. Finally, you'd need to have your subject in the correct IR lighting.
There are/were Sony videocameras with Nightvision, that with the proper filter allowed for "x-ray" videos.
Better yet, read articles in Pop Science with tongue-in-cheek, as they've run articles on flying cars and such for years.
It is the heat (IR) that some cameras sensors can detect that gives the illusion of "seeing through" clothing.
The cameras that have this characteristic are rather old. Newer cameras have a "hot mirror" that absorbs all the IR light rays that enter the lens before it gets to the sensor.How do I customize a camera for x-ray , green screen, see through vision.?
fuji do an infra red/ultra violet camera .
S3PRO uv i belive its called.How do I customize a camera for x-ray , green screen, see through vision.?
Infrared is not heat, nor is it X-rays. However, infrared wavelengths do pass through certain materials. Generally, such IR viewing works best on a camcorder, not on a still camera.
To prepare your camera to see in IR, you'll need to first determine the filter size of the lens.
Next, you need to purchase the appropriate filter that blocks normal light, but lets IR pass. You also have to hope that the camera doesn't have too strong an IR blocking filter. Get the wrong filter and you'll need exposure times measured in minutes.
As it is, you'll need exposure times in the range of 15 to 30 seconds to get good IR images, because what little IR gets through doesn't affect normal images but it's too weak for a normal exposure time. Try for a filter in the 720 nanometer range which isn't blocked too badly.
Switch your camera to a night vision mode if it has it, and/or a black and white mode.
Camcorders do work best, especially in night vision mode, for IR video work.
Alternative: get a camera specialized in IR work, like the
FUJI FINEPIX IS-1 VISIBLE PLUS IR KIT
Another alternative: have your camera altered to remove the IR blocking filter. There are companies which do this, although I can't vouch for them:
http://www.irdigital.net/
http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html
Good luck!
Just put your X-ray specs in front of the camera lens.
Science homework help?! easy 10 points?!?
i hav a current events project due on monday. i have to find an article that is current and has to do with science. it has to be from a newspaper or Time or Popular Science magazine. any suggestions? thanks:DScience homework help?! easy 10 points?!?
this seems pretty interesting:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334827/title/Sweet_beams_Lasers_to_measure_blood_sugar
Hope this helps!!!Science homework help?! easy 10 points?!?
anything with sports! that would be fun! thats physical science! :) hope this helps!
this seems pretty interesting:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334827/title/Sweet_beams_Lasers_to_measure_blood_sugar
Hope this helps!!!Science homework help?! easy 10 points?!?
anything with sports! that would be fun! thats physical science! :) hope this helps!
How is it possible that a planet can be on the other side of the sun undetected?
The new Popular Science Magazine answers the question of whether or not a planet can be hiding on the other side of the sun. While the magazine pretty much answers that if a planet does exist, it would have to be quite tiny, I don't understand how anything can exist. From what i know, planets revolve around the sun, so wouldn't any planet eventually be on our side of the sun considering they move in orbits. I mean, wouldn't anything on the "other" side of the sun eventually end up on "our" side of the sun.How is it possible that a planet can be on the other side of the sun undetected?
This isn't possible. Such a planet could theoretically exist however it would have to be at exactly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth for it to remain permanently hidden. However, we know another planet can't be there because Cruithne is in the same orbit as the Earth and exhibits a "horseshoe" orbit. This means that it passes through the area of space where the other planet would be every couple of hundred years, even as all three bodies continue their orbits around the Sun.
Yes but astronomers hate waiting ;)How is it possible that a planet can be on the other side of the sun undetected?
Remember, the Earth is moving too. So when someone claims there's a planet on the other side of the Sun, what they're saying is that it has the same orbital period as us, so it's always on the other side of the Sun from our point of view. There could be asteroids like this, but anything planet-size or larger would show up in how it effected other solar system bodies.How is it possible that a planet can be on the other side of the sun undetected?
Even if the extreme remote possibility that it were hidden, we have SOHO orbiting the sun including the other side of it. We would know it if there was one there.
If the planet is near out orbit, they're saying the planet stays on the other side of the sun due to its similar orbital speed to us, and therefore is undetectable through the suns radiation. They could also be saying that an extrasolar planet, one large enough to be considered a planet past the orbit of Neptune, is generally on the other side of the sun and hasn't been detected.
It would have to have exactly the same orbit in terms of distance from the sun, eccentricty, and tilt of it's orbit. At the same time it would have to have been created at exactly 180 degrees from the position of Earth.
All this is possible, though extremely unlikely. However, it's gravitational effect would have been detected many years ago, by pertubations of the orbits of interplanetary craft, and on the orbits of Venus and Mars.
Moreover, both those planets (as well as Jupiter) would have perturbed the orbit of the object through time, so at some point it would have been detected. So, rest assured such a planet does not exist.
There can't be such a planet of any significant size. Why not? Because Earth's orbit isn't circular. Because of that, any planet on the opposite side of the sun, even one having the same orbital semimajor axis as Earth does, and regardless of what its orbital eccentricity is, will at some point in its orbit become angularly separated from the sun, as viewed from Earth, and thus subject to being seen by people who study the solar corona while keeping the sun's disk occluded.
well yes, unless it has the same orbit as earth does. in which case it would always be between us and the sun.
but nothing of the sort exists, satellites and space probes would have directly seen it. not to mention the gravitational disturbances it would cause.
It is pretty impossible.
This isn't possible. Such a planet could theoretically exist however it would have to be at exactly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth for it to remain permanently hidden. However, we know another planet can't be there because Cruithne is in the same orbit as the Earth and exhibits a "horseshoe" orbit. This means that it passes through the area of space where the other planet would be every couple of hundred years, even as all three bodies continue their orbits around the Sun.
Yes but astronomers hate waiting ;)How is it possible that a planet can be on the other side of the sun undetected?
Remember, the Earth is moving too. So when someone claims there's a planet on the other side of the Sun, what they're saying is that it has the same orbital period as us, so it's always on the other side of the Sun from our point of view. There could be asteroids like this, but anything planet-size or larger would show up in how it effected other solar system bodies.How is it possible that a planet can be on the other side of the sun undetected?
Even if the extreme remote possibility that it were hidden, we have SOHO orbiting the sun including the other side of it. We would know it if there was one there.
If the planet is near out orbit, they're saying the planet stays on the other side of the sun due to its similar orbital speed to us, and therefore is undetectable through the suns radiation. They could also be saying that an extrasolar planet, one large enough to be considered a planet past the orbit of Neptune, is generally on the other side of the sun and hasn't been detected.
It would have to have exactly the same orbit in terms of distance from the sun, eccentricty, and tilt of it's orbit. At the same time it would have to have been created at exactly 180 degrees from the position of Earth.
All this is possible, though extremely unlikely. However, it's gravitational effect would have been detected many years ago, by pertubations of the orbits of interplanetary craft, and on the orbits of Venus and Mars.
Moreover, both those planets (as well as Jupiter) would have perturbed the orbit of the object through time, so at some point it would have been detected. So, rest assured such a planet does not exist.
There can't be such a planet of any significant size. Why not? Because Earth's orbit isn't circular. Because of that, any planet on the opposite side of the sun, even one having the same orbital semimajor axis as Earth does, and regardless of what its orbital eccentricity is, will at some point in its orbit become angularly separated from the sun, as viewed from Earth, and thus subject to being seen by people who study the solar corona while keeping the sun's disk occluded.
well yes, unless it has the same orbit as earth does. in which case it would always be between us and the sun.
but nothing of the sort exists, satellites and space probes would have directly seen it. not to mention the gravitational disturbances it would cause.
It is pretty impossible.
Where can I find information about the Polk Carburetor invention?
I know it was invented as a fuel saving device and bought out by the automotive industry. There was an article in Popular Science magagine many years ago but I cannot find it and would like specifics. Thank You!Where can I find information about the Polk Carburetor invention?
You're thinking of Charles Nelson *Pogue*. Like so many other urban myths, it is covered well at the Snopes link below:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/car鈥?/a>
Here's a site that shows his actual patents (they're real, and the USPTO versions do show the all-important "claims" sections of these patents).
http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.鈥?/a>
..not exactly blueprints hidden underneath a sheet of plywood..
.Where can I find information about the Polk Carburetor invention?
I have used several of their programs, most have rocked, some didnt -- so overall, I say that they are safe to do business with and have good programs.
You're thinking of Charles Nelson *Pogue*. Like so many other urban myths, it is covered well at the Snopes link below:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/car鈥?/a>
Here's a site that shows his actual patents (they're real, and the USPTO versions do show the all-important "claims" sections of these patents).
http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.鈥?/a>
..not exactly blueprints hidden underneath a sheet of plywood..
.Where can I find information about the Polk Carburetor invention?
I have used several of their programs, most have rocked, some didnt -- so overall, I say that they are safe to do business with and have good programs.
In basic terms why is a theory of quantum gravity so hard to come by?
You can use physics concepts in your answer because I read a lot of popular science books.I've never seen the answer to my question stated explicitly just that gravity is weak and hard to understand on the micro scale.Why does this make it such a conundrum though?In basic terms why is a theory of quantum gravity so hard to come by?
So, let me try to put it as simply as possible. In quantum mechanics, we know you can have superpositions. If you have a superposition of state A and state B, then there are two universes, one in which state A is the case, and one where B is the case. Now assume state A has a cat located in space at a given location, while state B has the cat 2 meters to the left of that location. The cat, like all matter, will have a gravitational field and a curvature of space-time associated with it. Since there are two states, there are two curvatures of space time for this system. But Einstien will tell you that space-time curvature is relative, and for this to be possible, there must be only ONE curvature of space-time, though the exactly how you observe it is relative to your frame.
Since quantum mechanics requires there be multiple spcae-times for superposition to exist, while relativity requires just one space-time, there is a huge problem where the two theories just can't agree. And this is the root problem.
Roger Penrose has the most understandable literature on this topic that I have found. Try reading the first part of his paper on gravitational decoherence.
There was a two part tv programme in the uk that finished last Monday called Steven Hawking, Master of the Universe on channel 4 and it explained why gravity was difficult to understand and how it was theoretically solved.
The gist was that gravity was weaker than the other three forces as it was "diluted" through 11 dimensions according to the String Theory. This would explain why it was weaker but cannot prove it. But they are hoping that the new accelerator in Switzerland may be able to prove in some way their theory.In basic terms why is a theory of quantum gravity so hard to come by?
Einstein's theories were smooth continuum's in which gravity fit the mold nicely - not so with packets of quanta.
Gravity appears to actually be a smooth continuum and there in lies the conundrum (I love that word).
Perhaps new discoveries will show that gravity is in fact made up of packets or quanta and can not exist in smaller units - presently, however, it remains that word - conundrum.In basic terms why is a theory of quantum gravity so hard to come by?
Although theories such a string and super symmetries have addressed the thorny issue of quantum gravity, there does not at present exist a complete working theory. Many theorists have published contributing elements towards a future theory of quantum gravity but at the present time these 'elements' have not been synthesised into a working theory. It seems that the physics community desperately needs another Einstein like theorist to come along and make the 'quantum jump' necessary.
Steven Hawking approached quantum gravity by suggesting that just inside the event horizon of a Black Hole, quantum fluctuations could result in a pair of virtual particle and anti-particles springing into existence. If one of these virtual particles quantum tunnels through the event horizon then it becomes a real particle and can escape into the universe. The process of Hawking radiation allows a gravitating object such as a Black Hole to 'shine' and evaporate. After many eons the slowly diminishing Black Hole would quantum explode back into the universe, according to Hawking's theory. This theory is perhaps the most well known and accessible version of a partial quantum gravity theory!
I don't think quantum gravity is a conundrum, it is just that all the theoretical 'bits' are not in place yet and the 'right' theorist is just not in place yet!
this is something I've thought about intensely and although I've come to a simple conclusion it still takes quite a bit of explaining
start at the beginning, the forces recognised by physics, are the two atomic forces, magnetism and gravity, gravity being the only one that doesn't fit into Einsteins equation
so gravity doesn't fit!
if you think of the other forces as being the forces of the very small and gravity being the force of the very large, things start to make sense
gravity is a force of mass, in a black hole where gravity increases due to an increase of mass it starts to become a stronger force
now picture a huge black hole (on a universal scale) where the mass has become a singularity, all the forces are in equilibrium momentarily until a large explosion, that the increased gravity can't contain (happens) which causes the formation of a universe and therefore the redistribution of gravity away from a single mass unto the collective mass of the universe
in my opinion there was never a starting point because everything is eternal, if you can get you head round that one then you're a better man than me
So, let me try to put it as simply as possible. In quantum mechanics, we know you can have superpositions. If you have a superposition of state A and state B, then there are two universes, one in which state A is the case, and one where B is the case. Now assume state A has a cat located in space at a given location, while state B has the cat 2 meters to the left of that location. The cat, like all matter, will have a gravitational field and a curvature of space-time associated with it. Since there are two states, there are two curvatures of space time for this system. But Einstien will tell you that space-time curvature is relative, and for this to be possible, there must be only ONE curvature of space-time, though the exactly how you observe it is relative to your frame.
Since quantum mechanics requires there be multiple spcae-times for superposition to exist, while relativity requires just one space-time, there is a huge problem where the two theories just can't agree. And this is the root problem.
Roger Penrose has the most understandable literature on this topic that I have found. Try reading the first part of his paper on gravitational decoherence.
There was a two part tv programme in the uk that finished last Monday called Steven Hawking, Master of the Universe on channel 4 and it explained why gravity was difficult to understand and how it was theoretically solved.
The gist was that gravity was weaker than the other three forces as it was "diluted" through 11 dimensions according to the String Theory. This would explain why it was weaker but cannot prove it. But they are hoping that the new accelerator in Switzerland may be able to prove in some way their theory.In basic terms why is a theory of quantum gravity so hard to come by?
Einstein's theories were smooth continuum's in which gravity fit the mold nicely - not so with packets of quanta.
Gravity appears to actually be a smooth continuum and there in lies the conundrum (I love that word).
Perhaps new discoveries will show that gravity is in fact made up of packets or quanta and can not exist in smaller units - presently, however, it remains that word - conundrum.In basic terms why is a theory of quantum gravity so hard to come by?
Although theories such a string and super symmetries have addressed the thorny issue of quantum gravity, there does not at present exist a complete working theory. Many theorists have published contributing elements towards a future theory of quantum gravity but at the present time these 'elements' have not been synthesised into a working theory. It seems that the physics community desperately needs another Einstein like theorist to come along and make the 'quantum jump' necessary.
Steven Hawking approached quantum gravity by suggesting that just inside the event horizon of a Black Hole, quantum fluctuations could result in a pair of virtual particle and anti-particles springing into existence. If one of these virtual particles quantum tunnels through the event horizon then it becomes a real particle and can escape into the universe. The process of Hawking radiation allows a gravitating object such as a Black Hole to 'shine' and evaporate. After many eons the slowly diminishing Black Hole would quantum explode back into the universe, according to Hawking's theory. This theory is perhaps the most well known and accessible version of a partial quantum gravity theory!
I don't think quantum gravity is a conundrum, it is just that all the theoretical 'bits' are not in place yet and the 'right' theorist is just not in place yet!
this is something I've thought about intensely and although I've come to a simple conclusion it still takes quite a bit of explaining
start at the beginning, the forces recognised by physics, are the two atomic forces, magnetism and gravity, gravity being the only one that doesn't fit into Einsteins equation
so gravity doesn't fit!
if you think of the other forces as being the forces of the very small and gravity being the force of the very large, things start to make sense
gravity is a force of mass, in a black hole where gravity increases due to an increase of mass it starts to become a stronger force
now picture a huge black hole (on a universal scale) where the mass has become a singularity, all the forces are in equilibrium momentarily until a large explosion, that the increased gravity can't contain (happens) which causes the formation of a universe and therefore the redistribution of gravity away from a single mass unto the collective mass of the universe
in my opinion there was never a starting point because everything is eternal, if you can get you head round that one then you're a better man than me
Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
I did, when I was in seventh grade. I had a science teacher named Ms. Pomeranz. She was the most popular teacher in my grade, but I didn't like the way she taught the class.
What about you?Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
Aaaaah, weren't you teacher's pet?!!!
I had a history teacher at the girls' high school I attended who was very good looking and all the girls were in love with him. However, he was a completely useless teacher and we all failed history!
yes my pe teacher Mr. Stapes (we called him Mr. Staples) he was all buff and stuff and he would just stand there and talk to the girls in our class about their bfs in other classes and he was totally sexist he had the guys play football and the girls sit on the bench and watch.Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
I'll refrain from putting her name, but yes. She didn't really teach ANYTHING though, because she didn't want her students to like her less, but it annoyed me because when I have english this year, I'll know nothing and be behind everyone else.Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
My algebra teacher, good looking, excellent personality, but couldn't teach algebra worth a damn. Finally wound up marrying one of this female students
As a former teacher, I knew a lot of teachers that were overrated, and most of them were coaches.
Yes. One wasn't a good teacher...though we were still supposed to learn. However she was a "fun" teacher so most people enjoyed going to her class...but came out with C's or worse. There were very few that had As or Bs. And when confronted with it she would get defensive.
I think there will always be teachers and students who clash simply because of personalities (we are all human).engine oil
What about you?Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
Aaaaah, weren't you teacher's pet?!!!
I had a history teacher at the girls' high school I attended who was very good looking and all the girls were in love with him. However, he was a completely useless teacher and we all failed history!
yes my pe teacher Mr. Stapes (we called him Mr. Staples) he was all buff and stuff and he would just stand there and talk to the girls in our class about their bfs in other classes and he was totally sexist he had the guys play football and the girls sit on the bench and watch.Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
I'll refrain from putting her name, but yes. She didn't really teach ANYTHING though, because she didn't want her students to like her less, but it annoyed me because when I have english this year, I'll know nothing and be behind everyone else.Have you ever had any popular, but overrated teachers?
My algebra teacher, good looking, excellent personality, but couldn't teach algebra worth a damn. Finally wound up marrying one of this female students
As a former teacher, I knew a lot of teachers that were overrated, and most of them were coaches.
Yes. One wasn't a good teacher...though we were still supposed to learn. However she was a "fun" teacher so most people enjoyed going to her class...but came out with C's or worse. There were very few that had As or Bs. And when confronted with it she would get defensive.
I think there will always be teachers and students who clash simply because of personalities (we are all human).
What is that supposedly revolutionary tennis racket that came out a few years ago?
It had a weird T-shaped protrusion from the neck of the racket that connected to the vertical strings in such a way that the strings were not directly attached to the frame at the bottom of the head. Supposedly this provided more power or something. I believe I read about this unusual tennis racket in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics or some magazine like this. What was that tennis racket?What is that supposedly revolutionary tennis racket that came out a few years ago?
Was it this one?
http://www4.shopping.com/xPO-Volkl-Volkl鈥?/a>
I feel like Head might have made something similar at some point, too. Don't recall the name, or if I'm even right about that though.
Was it this one?
http://www4.shopping.com/xPO-Volkl-Volkl鈥?/a>
I feel like Head might have made something similar at some point, too. Don't recall the name, or if I'm even right about that though.
Assume that there are 8 different issues of Time, 7 different issues of Sports Illustrated, and 4 different i?
Assume that there
are 8 different issues of Time, 7 different
issues of Sports Illustrated, and 4 different issues of Popular Science,
including the December 1st issue, on the rack. You choose 4 of them at random.
(1) What is the probability that exactly 2 are issues issue of Time?
(2) What is the probability that you choose the December 1st issue
of Popular Science?Assume that there are 8 different issues of Time, 7 different issues of Sports Illustrated, and 4 different i?
q1
8 "Time", 11 "others"
Pr = 8c2*11c2/19c4 = 0.3973 %26lt;-------
q2
1c1*18c3/19c4 = 0.2105 %26lt;-------
are 8 different issues of Time, 7 different
issues of Sports Illustrated, and 4 different issues of Popular Science,
including the December 1st issue, on the rack. You choose 4 of them at random.
(1) What is the probability that exactly 2 are issues issue of Time?
(2) What is the probability that you choose the December 1st issue
of Popular Science?Assume that there are 8 different issues of Time, 7 different issues of Sports Illustrated, and 4 different i?
q1
8 "Time", 11 "others"
Pr = 8c2*11c2/19c4 = 0.3973 %26lt;-------
q2
1c1*18c3/19c4 = 0.2105 %26lt;-------
Can you help me find an old article on emerging clean nuclear technologies?
I'm horrible with time- it may have been 5-10 years ago. I think it was in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. The article discussed 3 different technologies- mostly in a positive light- that were new ways of thinking and not yet in practice I believe. Thank you.Can you help me find an old article on emerging clean nuclear technologies?
I didn't find the article, but I thought that one of the technologies might be the pebble bed reactor. I think it works by using 'pebbles' of fuel that can't form a critical mass and that, therefore, won't melt down. Anyways, I found an article in Wired that might cover some of the same ground - hope it's helpful.
Also, there were a number of people recalling a Popular Science article from about 2000 - 2001 that wrote about the PBR - perhaps that's the one you really want. Maybe you can find it with help from a librarian at a local library if the magazine doesn't have it on-line someplace?
I didn't find the article, but I thought that one of the technologies might be the pebble bed reactor. I think it works by using 'pebbles' of fuel that can't form a critical mass and that, therefore, won't melt down. Anyways, I found an article in Wired that might cover some of the same ground - hope it's helpful.
Also, there were a number of people recalling a Popular Science article from about 2000 - 2001 that wrote about the PBR - perhaps that's the one you really want. Maybe you can find it with help from a librarian at a local library if the magazine doesn't have it on-line someplace?
Help i dont have any friends in my science class?
Today was the first day of school and i really don't have any friends in my class. There is group of 3 boys in my class and they always stay together. They are the popular kids in the class. They are also in my history class and they think they could do anything and they always laugh when people do weird things and they think they are so cool. And there are hardly any people in my science class so i cant make new friend and we do a lot of group work and i dont want to be left outHelp i dont have any friends in my science class?
Be friendly, hard working and a serious student. Laugh at your own mistakes and don't ridicule others when they make mistakes. You will soon attract a group of hard working friends who are like you and like you.
Pray for God's favour and guidance. You will succeed.
Firstly, you should never worry about those "group of cool/awesome/delusional kids" that you have in your school. Honestly, the ones in groups like that have waaaaayyyy less fun than people considered weird or ones that refuse little groups. Believe me, I speak from experience.
You shouldn't worry too much about not having friends in your science class, it's not that big a deal after a while. Considering you'll be in a class with people you don't really know or care for several times in your educational years (and after), this is pretty much the norm. Don't fret though, you'll positively make a new friend in your class or at least someone you can work on assignments with without feeling the need to rip out your hair ^_^. You'll be surprised at how many people befriend each other over test tubes and chemical reactions!
Help i dont have any friends in my science class?
Well first I would say, you don't have to have friends in every class. About the group of 3 boys you said was cool, well don't worry about them just be yourself. Help i dont have any friends in my science class?
moose moose
Be friendly, hard working and a serious student. Laugh at your own mistakes and don't ridicule others when they make mistakes. You will soon attract a group of hard working friends who are like you and like you.
Pray for God's favour and guidance. You will succeed.
Firstly, you should never worry about those "group of cool/awesome/delusional kids" that you have in your school. Honestly, the ones in groups like that have waaaaayyyy less fun than people considered weird or ones that refuse little groups. Believe me, I speak from experience.
You shouldn't worry too much about not having friends in your science class, it's not that big a deal after a while. Considering you'll be in a class with people you don't really know or care for several times in your educational years (and after), this is pretty much the norm. Don't fret though, you'll positively make a new friend in your class or at least someone you can work on assignments with without feeling the need to rip out your hair ^_^. You'll be surprised at how many people befriend each other over test tubes and chemical reactions!
Help i dont have any friends in my science class?
Well first I would say, you don't have to have friends in every class. About the group of 3 boys you said was cool, well don't worry about them just be yourself. Help i dont have any friends in my science class?
moose moose
Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
How do things become true? Is it by acceptance of the masses? or is it based on proof? OR is proof subjective and the only real truth is that which can be accepted by the ruling majority?
So Without proof and just based off of popular opinion which may be passed down for generations as fact is this how god came into existence? or rather the idea of god, people living in a society without science, without truth only assumptions to guide them. Is this in fact how God came into being? And is it wise to follow assumptions made on nothing more than popular opinion?Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
Just real quick.....
The work is 'amok' not 'a muck'
I have an very powerful imaginary friend that I can not prove to you exists.
But if you believe he exists he will be your friend and you will come to realize that he is real.
You will feel the holy psychological satisfaction of spirit when you reflect on your belief in my friend and realize that you know you believe it.
I have many other people that also believe in my imaginary friend and many iconic and admirable historical figures have also professed belief in my imaginary friend.
But should you decide you do not believe in my friend.
He will get you.
Well when you die he will get you.
And you will be punished for all of eternity because you could not bring yourself to believe in my really nice loving imaginary pal.
So what have you got to lose?
Do you believe in my friend?
I should think that in this age we could move past such superstitious non-sense.Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
Don't worry about the opinions of others--popular or not. Better, watch out as the evidence of the truthfulness of the following scriptures unfold in front of your very eyes...
Matthew 11:25 ((American Standard Version)
“At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes”
2 Thessalonians 2:11 (American Standard Version)
And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New International Version)
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (English Standard Version)
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
wow, wish I could answer all of those questions. I never really doubted god until I went to high school. I went to a catholic girls school and one of the nuns told us one day not to take the bible word for word. It was just a book written thousands of years ago to show people in ancient times the proper way to live..like a propaganda thing.
It's not popular opinion...it's mass delusion
precisely. its a comfortable illusion.
Religion sells guilt and fear using a god for both.
Ask the creators of Zeus..
Science claims, that the existence or non existence of "God" cannot be proven either way. Actually, the "proof is in the pudding" (subjective). It is not about feelings (although the spin-off from the results sometimes, will make you feel "good" inside), it is about relationship. Within this spiritual relationship, God will prove more than just His existence but will unfold before you an opportunity, far beyond this temporary, transitory life of ours, which exceeds this current life and transcends on into eternity. It is not about numbers (majority rules) but again, about the degree of ones spiritual relationship with God, that affords hope, encouragement, strength, value, to its authentic believers. God created Science, so that mankind can behold the fascination of the Universe as he discovers more and more. Science is the study pertaining to matter; whereas, Theology (study of God) pertains to the spiritual (non matter). Both, require one another, as Einstein has referred to in his own, genius. Like your own parents, God was here first and ensures us all (entire human race ever, born, of a secure future, unlike that of today, in the light of this world's current problems, war, unresolvable economic woes, crime, Terrorism, etc. "Popular opinion" does not even, factor in, as God is very real to those, who have cultivated a spiritual relationship with him. The point is either, this world has had it or there is a God, who will step in to rescue us all from this hopeless state of being, the world is heading quickly, into even, more. Science, of it self somehow, is not doing the "trick". Really; does man have All of the answers - look around you and you will be able to answer this for yourself.great wear
So Without proof and just based off of popular opinion which may be passed down for generations as fact is this how god came into existence? or rather the idea of god, people living in a society without science, without truth only assumptions to guide them. Is this in fact how God came into being? And is it wise to follow assumptions made on nothing more than popular opinion?Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
Just real quick.....
The work is 'amok' not 'a muck'
I have an very powerful imaginary friend that I can not prove to you exists.
But if you believe he exists he will be your friend and you will come to realize that he is real.
You will feel the holy psychological satisfaction of spirit when you reflect on your belief in my friend and realize that you know you believe it.
I have many other people that also believe in my imaginary friend and many iconic and admirable historical figures have also professed belief in my imaginary friend.
But should you decide you do not believe in my friend.
He will get you.
Well when you die he will get you.
And you will be punished for all of eternity because you could not bring yourself to believe in my really nice loving imaginary pal.
So what have you got to lose?
Do you believe in my friend?
I should think that in this age we could move past such superstitious non-sense.Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
Don't worry about the opinions of others--popular or not. Better, watch out as the evidence of the truthfulness of the following scriptures unfold in front of your very eyes...
Matthew 11:25 ((American Standard Version)
“At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes”
2 Thessalonians 2:11 (American Standard Version)
And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New International Version)
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (English Standard Version)
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.Is gods existence merely popular opinion run a muck?
wow, wish I could answer all of those questions. I never really doubted god until I went to high school. I went to a catholic girls school and one of the nuns told us one day not to take the bible word for word. It was just a book written thousands of years ago to show people in ancient times the proper way to live..like a propaganda thing.
It's not popular opinion...it's mass delusion
precisely. its a comfortable illusion.
Religion sells guilt and fear using a god for both.
Ask the creators of Zeus..
Science claims, that the existence or non existence of "God" cannot be proven either way. Actually, the "proof is in the pudding" (subjective). It is not about feelings (although the spin-off from the results sometimes, will make you feel "good" inside), it is about relationship. Within this spiritual relationship, God will prove more than just His existence but will unfold before you an opportunity, far beyond this temporary, transitory life of ours, which exceeds this current life and transcends on into eternity. It is not about numbers (majority rules) but again, about the degree of ones spiritual relationship with God, that affords hope, encouragement, strength, value, to its authentic believers. God created Science, so that mankind can behold the fascination of the Universe as he discovers more and more. Science is the study pertaining to matter; whereas, Theology (study of God) pertains to the spiritual (non matter). Both, require one another, as Einstein has referred to in his own, genius. Like your own parents, God was here first and ensures us all (entire human race ever, born, of a secure future, unlike that of today, in the light of this world's current problems, war, unresolvable economic woes, crime, Terrorism, etc. "Popular opinion" does not even, factor in, as God is very real to those, who have cultivated a spiritual relationship with him. The point is either, this world has had it or there is a God, who will step in to rescue us all from this hopeless state of being, the world is heading quickly, into even, more. Science, of it self somehow, is not doing the "trick". Really; does man have All of the answers - look around you and you will be able to answer this for yourself.
How many have seen fiction become a reality over the last 50 or 60 years?
Just read very old Popular Science magazines and see just what was fiction and is now a reality.How many have seen fiction become a reality over the last 50 or 60 years?
It's really amazing. About everything in sci fi has been done, other than faster than light travel, and time travel.
And I have a feeling those will come eventually.
To say nothing of visionaries like A.C Clarke, and Jules Verne - maybe the most visionary science fiction writer ever! (And I loved the recent Tom Cruise War of the Worlds movie, for the record).
Well, I'm still waiting for my flying cars, or cars that drive themselves. Same with space tourism (not just billionaires paying to go along).
Basically, if you look back to the 60's when I was a kid, not a whole lot has changed. We still pick up the phone and call people. We still hop in the car and drive places, using the same controls, roads and traffic laws. We still build and live in the same kind of houses. We still watch TV, in color! Most of us won't live to be 100 years old still.
The only difference is that those types of things have evolved a bit. The TV's are bigger and sharper. The phone goes with us now. Cars are safer and more comfortable. Medical science will keep you healthier longer, but in the end most of us still die in their 70s.
Really, the only really big change is the information technology. Computers and the Internet. A wonderful change it is, but if I were magically transported back to the 60's, I'd adapt pretty quickly.How many have seen fiction become a reality over the last 50 or 60 years?
scary....
Star Trek gave us cell phone... floppy disks.... lasers.... space-age fabrics....
It's really amazing. About everything in sci fi has been done, other than faster than light travel, and time travel.
And I have a feeling those will come eventually.
To say nothing of visionaries like A.C Clarke, and Jules Verne - maybe the most visionary science fiction writer ever! (And I loved the recent Tom Cruise War of the Worlds movie, for the record).
Report Abuse
How many have seen fiction become a reality over the last 50 or 60 years?Well, I'm still waiting for my flying cars, or cars that drive themselves. Same with space tourism (not just billionaires paying to go along).
Basically, if you look back to the 60's when I was a kid, not a whole lot has changed. We still pick up the phone and call people. We still hop in the car and drive places, using the same controls, roads and traffic laws. We still build and live in the same kind of houses. We still watch TV, in color! Most of us won't live to be 100 years old still.
The only difference is that those types of things have evolved a bit. The TV's are bigger and sharper. The phone goes with us now. Cars are safer and more comfortable. Medical science will keep you healthier longer, but in the end most of us still die in their 70s.
Really, the only really big change is the information technology. Computers and the Internet. A wonderful change it is, but if I were magically transported back to the 60's, I'd adapt pretty quickly.How many have seen fiction become a reality over the last 50 or 60 years?
scary....
Star Trek gave us cell phone... floppy disks.... lasers.... space-age fabrics....
What is the job title of a person who develops graphical representations of data?
For instance, I was thinking of the people who come up with all of the unique graphs that Wired magazine uses, or Popular science. I'm assuming this is a field of some kind?What is the job title of a person who develops graphical representations of data?
An illustrator.
Statistician assuming the graphs actually mean something.
The problem is that anyone can whip up some graphs based on data and they often make it into magazines, but only statisticians do it properly.What is the job title of a person who develops graphical representations of data?
data analyst, data representator, statistical analystWhat is the job title of a person who develops graphical representations of data?
Statistician
An illustrator.
Statistician assuming the graphs actually mean something.
The problem is that anyone can whip up some graphs based on data and they often make it into magazines, but only statisticians do it properly.What is the job title of a person who develops graphical representations of data?
data analyst, data representator, statistical analystWhat is the job title of a person who develops graphical representations of data?
Statistician
How could I go about finding if old magazines are worth anything?
My mother has magazine *Popular Science* from the late 1950's. Where could I find out if they are worth anything?How could I go about finding if old magazines are worth anything?
Old Mags are rarely worth anything. It has to be a big cover. I don't know about the Popular Science scene but I'm guessing that the mags are worth a buck a piece and one or two might go as high as five dollars. Sorry!
Old Mags are rarely worth anything. It has to be a big cover. I don't know about the Popular Science scene but I'm guessing that the mags are worth a buck a piece and one or two might go as high as five dollars. Sorry!
What do I need to make a half descent short film (5min. or less) for youtube?
I'm thinking equipment.
Do I need a broadcast quality camera?
Lights.
Is the sound from the camera good or do I need to remix the audio.
What's more popular, Science fiction, fantasy, horror, action or a combination of two or more?
I have an Idea of what I want, I'm just looking for suggestions and Technical tips.What do I need to make a half descent short film (5min. or less) for youtube?
I personally like a horror comedy type theme, as for specs i think if you just take your time n do some good editing it will be great, forsound on a cheaper camera just make sure there is no noises such as a windy outdoors scene, gunshots in the background ect. lighting try a trouble light with a dark cloth over it gives the movie a darker theme to it, make sure you dont let the cloth burn
Do I need a broadcast quality camera?
Lights.
Is the sound from the camera good or do I need to remix the audio.
What's more popular, Science fiction, fantasy, horror, action or a combination of two or more?
I have an Idea of what I want, I'm just looking for suggestions and Technical tips.What do I need to make a half descent short film (5min. or less) for youtube?
I personally like a horror comedy type theme, as for specs i think if you just take your time n do some good editing it will be great, forsound on a cheaper camera just make sure there is no noises such as a windy outdoors scene, gunshots in the background ect. lighting try a trouble light with a dark cloth over it gives the movie a darker theme to it, make sure you dont let the cloth burn
What is the three wheeled helicopter called that is in the movie road warriors?
im trying to find out what the helicopter in movie road warrior is called or where a kit like this could be purchased at? i know they also used to advertise and sell these kits in the back of popular science magazine.What is the three wheeled helicopter called that is in the movie road warriors?
It's called a gyrocopter or an utralight helicopter. You can do a search and find loads of info, different brands, makes, sizes, etc.
http://ultralight-airplanes.info/Gyrocop鈥?/a>
http://ultralight-airplanes.info/Ultrali鈥?/a>What is the three wheeled helicopter called that is in the movie road warriors?
Mad Max 2 / The Road Warrior Vehicles
The Gyrocopter
Although the gyrocopter appears to be designed like a helicopter, and also behaves like one in the film, they actually require a runway for takeoffs and landings - they cannot ascend / descend vertically. A gyrocopter is basically just powered by your standard car engine, many of the Mad Max 2 era gyrocopters would have been using a VW engine or similar. Apart from the exotic paint job, there really isn't anything special or non-standard about the Mad Max 2 gyrocopter.
Note that the graphics on the tail fin and tanks of the gyrocopter are not actually air brushed on, as would more commonly be done to show cars and so on. The pictures have basically just been cut out of various men's magazines of the time, and stuck on! I'm sure if you were building a replica and did some "research" you could probably find the exact same pictures - someone did email me a link where you can find one of the pictures here (Karen Price, Miss January 1981), I've no idea where you might find the rest. (The picture at the link given matches the image on the tail fin shown at the top of this page).
Another item of interest with the gyrocopter is that it could actually only support the weight of one person. When you see the wide shot of Max and the Gyro Captain riding, only the pilot is real, the other body is just a lightweight dummy. Additionally, when you see the injured Max riding back on the gyrpocopter, he is actually hanging out the side of Byron Kennedy's helicopter, which was used for many of the gyrocopter POV (point of view) shots.
As with the Interceptor and the Mack truck, there were actually two gyrocopters on set for the film. When it came time for the gyrocopter crash sequence, you guessed it, they just dropped the dummy gyrocopter from a crane.
The primary gyrocopter, the one which actually flew, survived the film intact, and was sold at the post film auction, as happened with many of the vehicles and other items. Subsequently though over a number of years and repairs and so on (the new owners actually flew it), the gyrocopter eventually ceased to exist as had been seen in the film.spots
It's called a gyrocopter or an utralight helicopter. You can do a search and find loads of info, different brands, makes, sizes, etc.
http://ultralight-airplanes.info/Gyrocop鈥?/a>
http://ultralight-airplanes.info/Ultrali鈥?/a>What is the three wheeled helicopter called that is in the movie road warriors?
Mad Max 2 / The Road Warrior Vehicles
The Gyrocopter
Although the gyrocopter appears to be designed like a helicopter, and also behaves like one in the film, they actually require a runway for takeoffs and landings - they cannot ascend / descend vertically. A gyrocopter is basically just powered by your standard car engine, many of the Mad Max 2 era gyrocopters would have been using a VW engine or similar. Apart from the exotic paint job, there really isn't anything special or non-standard about the Mad Max 2 gyrocopter.
Note that the graphics on the tail fin and tanks of the gyrocopter are not actually air brushed on, as would more commonly be done to show cars and so on. The pictures have basically just been cut out of various men's magazines of the time, and stuck on! I'm sure if you were building a replica and did some "research" you could probably find the exact same pictures - someone did email me a link where you can find one of the pictures here (Karen Price, Miss January 1981), I've no idea where you might find the rest. (The picture at the link given matches the image on the tail fin shown at the top of this page).
Another item of interest with the gyrocopter is that it could actually only support the weight of one person. When you see the wide shot of Max and the Gyro Captain riding, only the pilot is real, the other body is just a lightweight dummy. Additionally, when you see the injured Max riding back on the gyrpocopter, he is actually hanging out the side of Byron Kennedy's helicopter, which was used for many of the gyrocopter POV (point of view) shots.
As with the Interceptor and the Mack truck, there were actually two gyrocopters on set for the film. When it came time for the gyrocopter crash sequence, you guessed it, they just dropped the dummy gyrocopter from a crane.
The primary gyrocopter, the one which actually flew, survived the film intact, and was sold at the post film auction, as happened with many of the vehicles and other items. Subsequently though over a number of years and repairs and so on (the new owners actually flew it), the gyrocopter eventually ceased to exist as had been seen in the film.
Why are the (Social Science, Local Businesses, and Dining Out) Categories less popular than other categories?
Because they are topics for civilized, thinking human beings, and the world is sadly bereft of such beings these days. There are very, very few.
What is the difference of reading medical journals or medical publications?
What is the difference of reading medical journals or medical publications than that say popular science or scientific American.
Or is medical journals or medical publications more for doctors and people who know alot about it and popular science or scientific American try to explain it in simpler terms for less scientific knowledge people.What is the difference of reading medical journals or medical publications?
I just grabbed an old jounal from the library to give you an example. The first article in the December 2007 Annals of Emergency Medicine is "Survival Outcomes with the Introduction of Intravenous Epinephrine in the Management of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" by MEH Ong, EH Tan, FSP Ng, et. al.. It gives an abstract. Then it describes the purpose of the study and its methodology, selection of participants, methods of measurement and data collection, and outcome measures. It discusses data analysis and their interpretation of the results, along with the limitations of the study. And then it gives the data, for others to re-interpret. All of that being done, there's a further discussion of the study, its findings and implications.
You'll note that this is somewhat more focused and detailed than a general synopsis of some broad topic written for popular consumption.
Or is medical journals or medical publications more for doctors and people who know alot about it and popular science or scientific American try to explain it in simpler terms for less scientific knowledge people.What is the difference of reading medical journals or medical publications?
I just grabbed an old jounal from the library to give you an example. The first article in the December 2007 Annals of Emergency Medicine is "Survival Outcomes with the Introduction of Intravenous Epinephrine in the Management of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" by MEH Ong, EH Tan, FSP Ng, et. al.. It gives an abstract. Then it describes the purpose of the study and its methodology, selection of participants, methods of measurement and data collection, and outcome measures. It discusses data analysis and their interpretation of the results, along with the limitations of the study. And then it gives the data, for others to re-interpret. All of that being done, there's a further discussion of the study, its findings and implications.
You'll note that this is somewhat more focused and detailed than a general synopsis of some broad topic written for popular consumption.
Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
HEY HEY NOW, HOLD IT, I'M SERIOUS. I'm not trolling (I always give you guys heads up when I'm not trolling. I don't know why you all continue to get mad when I am...)
Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human but were more evolved than animals and crap like that. Some chick asked me if black peoples skin gets leathery in the sun if we stay outside to long (I almost punched her in her face). I bet that was a scientific "fact" at one point too, huh?Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human
Sources please?
No it makes hypotheses then tests them with a process known as the scientific method. If through testing multiple times the hypothesis is not refuted it becomes a theory and if the theory is shown to apply in many different situations it becomes a law. You obviously have a very poor understanding of science if you assume it just declares things facts without testing them.Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
The actual thing is that true science changes as new evidence comes available to discredit earlier observations....
Many racial stereotypes have been created and disseminated by religions and others by other 'races' through teaching to their kids...
Sorry to say there are still some 'people' that create, believe and repeat racial stereotypes. These are not scientists, but idiots...
and, sorry to say, will always exist...
IMHODoesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
Yes! You finally figured it out. Now you know that the theory of gravity is just what ever they want it to be on some particular day. So tomorrow things will be falling up. You can test this out by finding a tall building and jumping off.
Science never claimed any such thing. Give us a source.
No, not at all
And actually, the irony is that the Bible is full of crap that was popular at the time
You know, like keeping slaves.
Science never made that claim.If you see something racist in science, that's your problem.
Unlike religion, science makes advancements. I'm sure it says in the Bible about a girl being a prostitute and stoning disobedient children. It's only secular-based morals that have changed that from being an occurrence.
Could you please provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific source every time you say "Science used to claim"? Thank you.
I cannot wait until tomorrow, when all the kids are back in school and we grownups can have some time for intelligent discourse.
║█║█║║█║█║█║║█║█║║█║█║█
║█║█║║█║█║█║║█║█║║█║█║█
║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║
╚╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩OH BOY
Sup, Flowertower? Does "Mega Savage" ring a bell? YouTube? Marky?
Yes. Charles Darwin believed in the spontaneous generation theory. He was such a smart man.
Right now I'm sitting here looking at you trying to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ***.
"Science used to claim..." science is not a being with intelligence, and neither are you for that matter.
NO, science never did or does. Psychotic people who want to control other people SAY that science does or says many things, but in the end, no science does not.
Are you trying to say all people who support science over religion and creationism are racist?
Where are you getting your information from? I know that science says that we're all apes, and just another animal.
la la la ????? la laaaa ????
You know today Blackss-hole as you are popular
Well, if not trolling, then very stupid.
barf
Depends on the science.
The scientific method - that thing you hear about in school where you hypothesize, experiment, and throw things out if the experiments don't prove them - that always produces good results. Universal law and reality don't care about contemporary trends - they're always going to come to the same conclusions.
But the times and the culture can definitely influence the types of experiments that are performed, the types of results that are ignored, and what gets publicized and what doesn't. And often, journalism will deliberately try to confuse the opinions of individual scientists with the results of the science that they had done. (Newton, for instance, literally believed he could cast magic spells. He also discovered an enormous amount of useful information about physics. The science is the physics; the magic was Newton's opinions. He didn't scientifically test his magical opinions - not rigorously and properly, anyway.)
In today's world, I'd say you're pretty safe trusting information out of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and most branches of biology - those are sciences that are from the most part free of political influences and journalistic distortion. Sciences like economics and medicine are murkier, not because the science isn't sound, but because they make good grounds for journalistic sensationalism. And sciences like psychology and sociology are, frankly, still maturing as scientific disciplines - there's still a lot of opinion and tradition that gets mixed in with scientific results in those fields.
"Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human but were more evolved than animals and crap like that."
No, certain Scient-ISTS claimed that.
You're talking about the self-serving conclusions of a couple racists like Arthur Jensen and Rushton. If you read others, and more recent research and studies on the subject you'll see just how debunked they are. They took human development and attributed intelligence and behavior to genetics without proper justification.
Science itself is a CORRECTING method, the one that has demonstrated the most reliability for determining the truth. I've see a LOT of non-scientist racists, more, to be specific. You'd prefer people just based their lives around BIASES and unquestioned MISATTRIBUTIONS, often resulting in irrationality and racism, rather than correcting them through study and consideration? Science destroys racism when given the time/studies to correct biases like Rushton and Jensen.
Watch some videos by this user if you want to see a geneticist dismantling racists who think Rushton and Jensen are legitimate.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoGenVideos
"I bet that was a scientific "fact" at one point too, huh?"
You do you know what a fact is, right? A confirmed observation. A scientific fact would be a confirmed observation that has had the scientific method applied. Rushton and Jensen's conclusions are NEITHER.
Below are some sources that ALL contradict your initial statement that science(observations of reality put through a strict correcting process) supports racism. I hope you will do better research in the future so you do not contribute to the propagation of misinformation.
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rav…
http://tv.isg.si/site/ftpaccess/elogedus…
http://pubget.com/paper/19205953
http://asm.sagepub.com/content/18/2/156
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pas/22/1…
Yes, to a point. Darwin was a sexist, racist man. Now they avoid some of his writings and deny he ever was. There was a time when science thought the universe was eternal, unchanging. It's not like it is ALL science or even good science, it's just scientists are human and subject to the failings of humankind.
Darwin on women
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses.”
“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a pas.”
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the ***** or Australian and the gorilla.”
No, there was no and is no science behind racism just people being dumb.
Go Away, *****.
Yup ^___^
Just asked a question about it in fact... atheists too stubborn to be truthful !
Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human but were more evolved than animals and crap like that. Some chick asked me if black peoples skin gets leathery in the sun if we stay outside to long (I almost punched her in her face). I bet that was a scientific "fact" at one point too, huh?Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human
Sources please?
No it makes hypotheses then tests them with a process known as the scientific method. If through testing multiple times the hypothesis is not refuted it becomes a theory and if the theory is shown to apply in many different situations it becomes a law. You obviously have a very poor understanding of science if you assume it just declares things facts without testing them.Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
The actual thing is that true science changes as new evidence comes available to discredit earlier observations....
Many racial stereotypes have been created and disseminated by religions and others by other 'races' through teaching to their kids...
Sorry to say there are still some 'people' that create, believe and repeat racial stereotypes. These are not scientists, but idiots...
and, sorry to say, will always exist...
IMHODoesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
Yes! You finally figured it out. Now you know that the theory of gravity is just what ever they want it to be on some particular day. So tomorrow things will be falling up. You can test this out by finding a tall building and jumping off.
Science never claimed any such thing. Give us a source.
No, not at all
And actually, the irony is that the Bible is full of crap that was popular at the time
You know, like keeping slaves.
Science never made that claim.If you see something racist in science, that's your problem.
Unlike religion, science makes advancements. I'm sure it says in the Bible about a girl being a prostitute and stoning disobedient children. It's only secular-based morals that have changed that from being an occurrence.
Could you please provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific source every time you say "Science used to claim"? Thank you.
I cannot wait until tomorrow, when all the kids are back in school and we grownups can have some time for intelligent discourse.
║█║█║║█║█║█║║█║█║║█║█║█
║█║█║║█║█║█║║█║█║║█║█║█
║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║
╚╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩OH BOY
Sup, Flowertower? Does "Mega Savage" ring a bell? YouTube? Marky?
Yes. Charles Darwin believed in the spontaneous generation theory. He was such a smart man.
Right now I'm sitting here looking at you trying to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ***.
"Science used to claim..." science is not a being with intelligence, and neither are you for that matter.
NO, science never did or does. Psychotic people who want to control other people SAY that science does or says many things, but in the end, no science does not.
Are you trying to say all people who support science over religion and creationism are racist?
Where are you getting your information from? I know that science says that we're all apes, and just another animal.
la la la ????? la laaaa ????
You know today Blackss-hole as you are popular
Well, if not trolling, then very stupid.
barf
Depends on the science.
The scientific method - that thing you hear about in school where you hypothesize, experiment, and throw things out if the experiments don't prove them - that always produces good results. Universal law and reality don't care about contemporary trends - they're always going to come to the same conclusions.
But the times and the culture can definitely influence the types of experiments that are performed, the types of results that are ignored, and what gets publicized and what doesn't. And often, journalism will deliberately try to confuse the opinions of individual scientists with the results of the science that they had done. (Newton, for instance, literally believed he could cast magic spells. He also discovered an enormous amount of useful information about physics. The science is the physics; the magic was Newton's opinions. He didn't scientifically test his magical opinions - not rigorously and properly, anyway.)
In today's world, I'd say you're pretty safe trusting information out of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and most branches of biology - those are sciences that are from the most part free of political influences and journalistic distortion. Sciences like economics and medicine are murkier, not because the science isn't sound, but because they make good grounds for journalistic sensationalism. And sciences like psychology and sociology are, frankly, still maturing as scientific disciplines - there's still a lot of opinion and tradition that gets mixed in with scientific results in those fields.
"Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human but were more evolved than animals and crap like that."
No, certain Scient-ISTS claimed that.
You're talking about the self-serving conclusions of a couple racists like Arthur Jensen and Rushton. If you read others, and more recent research and studies on the subject you'll see just how debunked they are. They took human development and attributed intelligence and behavior to genetics without proper justification.
Science itself is a CORRECTING method, the one that has demonstrated the most reliability for determining the truth. I've see a LOT of non-scientist racists, more, to be specific. You'd prefer people just based their lives around BIASES and unquestioned MISATTRIBUTIONS, often resulting in irrationality and racism, rather than correcting them through study and consideration? Science destroys racism when given the time/studies to correct biases like Rushton and Jensen.
Watch some videos by this user if you want to see a geneticist dismantling racists who think Rushton and Jensen are legitimate.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoGenVideos
"I bet that was a scientific "fact" at one point too, huh?"
You do you know what a fact is, right? A confirmed observation. A scientific fact would be a confirmed observation that has had the scientific method applied. Rushton and Jensen's conclusions are NEITHER.
Below are some sources that ALL contradict your initial statement that science(observations of reality put through a strict correcting process) supports racism. I hope you will do better research in the future so you do not contribute to the propagation of misinformation.
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rav…
http://tv.isg.si/site/ftpaccess/elogedus…
http://pubget.com/paper/19205953
http://asm.sagepub.com/content/18/2/156
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pas/22/1…
Yes, to a point. Darwin was a sexist, racist man. Now they avoid some of his writings and deny he ever was. There was a time when science thought the universe was eternal, unchanging. It's not like it is ALL science or even good science, it's just scientists are human and subject to the failings of humankind.
Darwin on women
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses.”
“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a pas.”
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the ***** or Australian and the gorilla.”
No, there was no and is no science behind racism just people being dumb.
Go Away, *****.
Yup ^___^
Just asked a question about it in fact... atheists too stubborn to be truthful !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)