Solar Power for the Workshop??

[Digit]

Lamarck? The transmission of acquired characteristics? The blacksmith who develops big muscles will pass them onto his offspring?
Darwin got the results correct, what he lacked was the mechanism, genetics, as did Wallace. In fact the only person of the age who got that correct was Mendel, and his work was limited to plants, but the mechanism works for all.
Darwin has yet to be proved wrong, his theory has never been supplanted by another.

Roy.

 

[NeilO]

the use of solar power in the `shop, to the Darwinism theory all in one thread.....
thats why I love UKW forums :lol: :lol:
And in General Woodworking too......

 

[Raggy]

the use of solar power in the `shop, to the Darwinism theory all in one thread.....
thats why I love UKW forums :lol: :lol:
And in General Woodworking too......

I was thinking the same thing as I finished reading the last page and was going to post something similar but you beat me to it

 

[Digit]

Yep! Whatever else it's never dull here is it? :lol:

Roy.

 

[tnimble]

Lamarck? The transmission of acquired characteristics? The blacksmith who develops big muscles will pass them onto his offspring?

Indeed. One of Lamarck many examples to validate his theory was the blacksmith. But its: "The blacksmiths son has bigger muscles than the son of the weaver". The darwinists (There is little to conclude Darwin has the same attitude as his 'followers' towards other works) immediately detest transmission of acquired characteristics. There is only one thing, natural selection of the strongest variation out of a random set of micromutations. Shortly after Darwins publication Miescher published his work on DNA. So evolutions is only survival of the stronger most viable DNA strand for the perticular ecosystem. However there is more at play sociologically epigenetically, etc. Lamarck does not say that the acquired characteristics are transmitted through DNA (the grasp on DNA came about 40 years after Lamarcks death). That is wath darwinists make of it. Lamarck acquired characteristics are transmitted sociologically, economcally and psychologically.

Darwin got the results correct, what he lacked was the mechanism, genetics, as did Wallace.

Darwin's work is correct as his (or better) Wallace his ornithology and historical research is correct. The question is about relevance in the whole of.

In fact the only person of the age who got that correct was Mendel, and his work was limited to plants, but the mechanism works for all.

Peas to be precise. His work does not explain the mechanism only the transmitter. Which is the basis for the later reach in genetics.

Darwin has yet to be proved wrong, his theory has never been supplanted by another.
Roy.

Because Darwin's theory is not wrong. His works describes precisely what van be seen through out history. he only thing that make Darwin special that his predecessors where not able to publish their theories because of the scepticism at that time. Or in other cases like with Wallace they did not dare to publish and actively promote their publication.

Darrwin work is certainly not the last. There are many publications that broadens and compliments the work. The most important recent one is the research on Epigenetics which again goed back to Wolff and others.

 

[Digit]

As regard, acquired characteristics how would you interpret this reported in today's press?
The average IQ of successful Oxbridge candidates is 130, a figure reached in 16% of affluent families and only 2% of poorer peoples?

Roy.

 

[Rich]

This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.

Rich.

 

[Digit]

I can't help wondering if this guy was thinking at all!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 06,00.html

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

Professor Richard Dawkins is pretty convinced "Old Charlie" got it right... My sister, a cellular macrobiologist explained to my why Evolution is the only 'truth' (As the 'first born', my share of the bequeathed brain-genes were rationed and I'm not nearly wise enough to question either Dickie Dawkins or my Sister ).
But both seemed to centre around multi-species evolution and the basic 'survival of the fittest' of these evolved diversifications, thus leading to the status quo as we know it today.

I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:

Agree also about the cleanliness of Neuclear Fission as an energy source.. however, I also know that some neuclear power stations were constructed by numptys such as I... and thats a scary thought !
( Pipefitter at Torness Station Construction.. mid 80's ! )

Great debate though !

So..... you going to go for some solar power for the workshop ? :wink:

 

[Slim]

I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:

:?: Are you sure about that?

Ice is 10% greater in volume than the same mass of water and steam 1600%.

Ice caps melt, sea levels go up. Guaranteed. You are also assuming that only the sea ice is going to melt. What about the ice on land?

 

[tnimble]

Professor Richard Dawkins is pretty convinced "Old Charlie" got it right...

Nobody says he is wrong, the matter that is debatable is the attitute of darwinists.

My sister, a cellular macrobiologist explained to my why Evolution is the only 'truth'

Only if you put up the question is human kind created by a god in his image or is his existance a result of evolution. Darwin has described and verified that ecological factors are depended on how a species adapt to it. This is based on the field research done bu him self and mostly Wallace. Analize two clode related population of insert. Find out how they life, what they eatand what characteristics they have. Define the differences and try to find a relation between. This defines 1 parameter at work not all there is. Darwinists tend to this: "When it rains I get wet, so when I'm wet it rains. Anybody who say you also can get wet by swimming in a river, standing under the shower etc are wrong. There has never been anything other than rain and never will be anything other than rain."

But both seemed to centre around multi-species evolution and the basic 'survival of the fittest' of these evolved diversifications, thus leading to the status quo as we know it today.

Darwin's and Wallace their work is not about survival of the strongest or smartest. Its about the effects of changes in food supply, vegetation and predictors on the extintion of species and characteristics of species.

The more complex a species is the more factors come into play. Darwin and Wallace have not handled more factors nor have they provides any explenation how these changes and adaptations lead to micromutations. Neither have they explaned how it possible for micro and macro mutation to occure. Nor have they provided any views on how life can start to exist. Darwin is only a small piece of the puzzle.

I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:

Around 4 degrees celsius ice changes into a liquid. The warmer water is the more volume it takes up. The colder the solid ice is the more volume it takes. However the natural ice on earth is not that cold that is has a volume of 4 times the volvume of ice/water at 4 degrees.

Ice caps melt, sea levels go up. Guaranteed. You are also assuming that only the sea ice is going to melt. What about the ice on land?

97% of the water is salt water at sa, about 2.5% is glaciers, polar caps and snow about 0.5% is in lakes and rivers. Some of this 2.5% is on land which when melted causes the sea level to rise, the rest is on water (most of the ice on water is below the water level) and causes the sea level to drop when melted.

The rising or dropping of sea water level is both bad if you would like nothing to vchange in out environment as it is.

 

[Jake]

This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.

Rich.

It doesn't sound obtuse. It does sound racist.

 

[Jake]

Not to mention absurdly stupid.

Here is the brainiest man in the world (for short term problems):

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitio ... 0xh600.jpg

And if you have a longer problem, this man is proven the world's most brainiac:

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/Image/ ... ydmain.jpg

 

[Digit]

Darwin and Wallace have not handled more factors nor have they provides any explenation how these changes and adaptations lead to micromutations.

Neither was Newton able to explain the mechanism by which gravity caused something to fall to Earth, but in general his Laws worked.
You also haven't taken into account how sexual preferences effect Natural Selection.
Darwin did and that has been scientifically tested.
And Jake, I've had the pleasure of meeting Rich and his family, and he may not have expressed himself well but I certainly wouldn't call him racist.
Taken in general how would you describe the peoples who won't agree to marry out of their Clan, religion or social group, as, commonly, amongst people in Asia, India, Japan, China and the Middle east. Yet no body ever calls them racist. Why is that?

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:

:?: Are you sure about that?

Ice is 10% greater in volume than the same mass of water and steam 1600%.

Ice caps melt, sea levels go up. Guaranteed. You are also assuming that only the sea ice is going to melt. What about the ice on land?

Yup, 100% Sure.
Ice 4x its own volume
Steam 16,000 times its own volume

But even if my 'factors' are incorrect.... you're still confirming that ICE expands to occupy a greater volume than it did in its liquid state.. and the relative densities are almost the same, as proven in the "9/10ths of an iceberg is below the water's surface".. so its as close as doesn't matter... so therefore, by anyones logic... melt the ice... less volume occupied.. level goes down.

There's NO LAND under the arctic ice cap... thats why its not classified as a (sub) Continent, as is the case with the ANTARCTIC... where there is Land underneath the penguins Playground.

ARCTIC = NO land
ANTARCTIC = Land.

( And Arctic Ice, in general, is just a tad colder than 4 degrees C ! )

Therefore, as can be replicated in a glass or a bucket or anywhere else you would choose.... put ice into the container and top it up with water.
As good old Archemedes showed us in how displacement works, the ice displaces a given volume of water. then allow the ice to melt. Categorically, 100% no doubt about it, the level within the container goes DOWN. Try it with your Gin & Tonic or Whisky & Soda or any other fluid.. it goes down.
Spank me like a ginger stepchild, if it ain't so - I guarantee you, the level will fall not rise. 8) :wink:

. Darwinists tend to this: "When it rains I get wet, so when I'm wet it rains. Anybody who say you also can get wet by swimming in a river, standing under the shower etc are wrong. There has never been anything other than rain and never will be anything other than rain."

I'm not 100% Cast iron Certain... but I'd bet the farm on that not being a quote you'd find anywhere in the writings of Charles Darwin,
the key word being second word in.. " TEND". Can We take it that this is your opinion of how you perceive the behaviour of Darwinists to be displayed, or are you suggesting that Charles Darwin thought the only way people can get wet, is to be out in the rain. ?
You see, your method of writing there is like tabloid journalism.. and seeks to discredit Darwin and consequently his theories, by portraying him in a poor light, but by doing so with a statement of your opinion of Darwinist thinking, rather than some historically accurate quotation of Darwin himself. -- and that, really is perhaps a little unfair, don't you agree ? :wink:

This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.

Rich.

It doesn't sound obtuse. It does sound racist.

I'd have to agree with Digit there buddy... there's nothing racist about that, its an observation.
Just like saying " The Innuit People seem more tolerant of the cold than most"
or " The indiginous population of Scotland have more of a liking for Porridge and Haggis than most"
Observations only, 8)
We've reached a point in the UK Now where even the mere mention of another race or creed will have someone shouting 'racism'.
Thats half the problem.
There's nothing wrong with diverse cultures from around the world... 'celebrate them' rather than jumping to their 'defence' when they don't need defending.

 

[Digit]

If water didn't expand on freezing it would sink to the bottom of the sea as it is denser than the surrounding waters. A logical progression from there would no liquid seas.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.

Rich.

It doesn't sound obtuse. It does sound racist.

I'd have to agree with Digit there buddy... there's nothing racist about that, its an observation.
Just like saying " The Innuit People seem more tolerant of the cold than most"
or " The indiginous population of Scotland have more of a liking for Porridge and Haggis than most"
Observations only, 8)
We've reached a point in the UK Now where even the mere mention of another race or creed will have someone shouting 'racism'.
Thats half the problem.
There's nothing wrong with diverse cultures from around the world... 'celebrate them' rather than jumping to their 'defence' when they don't need defending.

The speed of walking bit was an observation of sorts - I doubt it is particularly related to ethnicity, probably has a lot to do with heat. But unobjectionable.

The thought process which gets one from 'Africans walk slowly' to 'Africans are stupid' is a racist thought process in my view - it isn't logic, it's working back from an assumption/conclusion.

 

[Slim]

Yup, 100% Sure.
Ice 4x its own volume
Steam 16,000 times its own volume

I think you should have a read of this, and steam is definately 1600 not 16000.

ARCTIC = NO land

There is actualy rather a lot of land within the arctic circle, as can be seen here. However, my point was, that why are you concentrating on the Arctic? The Antartic is a rather large continent. What makes you think that it isn't going to warm up there?

I conceed after doing a calculation (based on 90% ice below water) that the water level won't change, but the sea level won't go down. Simply because, there is a vast amount of ice on land.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really believe in carbon based global warming, but I do believe the Earth is heating up.

 

[Jenx]

Yup, 100% Sure.
Ice 4x its own volume
Steam 16,000 times its own volume

I think you should have a read of this, and steam is definately 1600 not 16000.

ARCTIC = NO land

There is actualy rather a lot of land within the arctic circle, as can be seen here. However, my point was, that why are you concentrating on the Arctic? The Antartic is a rather large continent. What makes you think that it isn't going to warm up there?

I conceed after doing a calculation (based on 90% ice below water) that the water level won't change, but the sea level won't go down. Simply because, there is a vast amount of ice on land.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really believe in carbon based global warming, but I do believe the Earth is heating up.

Hi again Slim... Take a look at the map you referenced there... yes there is land within the arctic circle.. Greenland, parts of Scandinavia etc etc.. ( I crossed the circle at Fauske in Norway, and I HOPE that was land, cause I was riding a motorcycle at the time :wink: ).. I may have not been clear in what I'm saying.. the POLAR ICE Cap or what we generally accept at the Arctic Ice.. has no land under it, as can be seen from your map. There No land, just the sea.
:wink: In the Southern hemisphere.. under the ANTARCTIC Ice cap, there is a land mass ... the Antarctic Continent. therefore the ice there, is land-borne, and not displacing seawater. Do you see the difference I'm talking about ?

Its my view, and that of a good many others, that Global Warming is not happening, nothing is changing, other than the cyclical clight warming and cooling down which has happened to the globe since time began, and the current 'greenie fashion' is there to allow the government to sneak some more taxes into your paypacket in a multitude of ways. :wink:

This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.

Rich.

It doesn't sound obtuse. It does sound racist.

I'd have to agree with Digit there buddy... there's nothing racist about that, its an observation.
Just like saying " The Innuit People seem more tolerant of the cold than most"
or " The indiginous population of Scotland have more of a liking for Porridge and Haggis than most"
Observations only, 8)
We've reached a point in the UK Now where even the mere mention of another race or creed will have someone shouting 'racism'.
Thats half the problem.
There's nothing wrong with diverse cultures from around the world... 'celebrate them' rather than jumping to their 'defence' when they don't need defending.

The speed of walking bit was an observation of sorts - I doubt it is particularly related to ethnicity, probably has a lot to do with heat. But unobjectionable.

The thought process which gets one from 'Africans walk slowly' to 'Africans are stupid' is a racist thought process in my view - it isn't logic, it's working back from an assumption/conclusion.

Did Rich mention Ethnicity ? I agree its everything to do with the heat , which I'm guessing would apply equally to all and sundry

I'm not sure how one arrives at "Moving Slowly, as a result of the regions ambient temperature" = " Stupidity"

Wouldn't that indicate one's own perceptions and views, when arriving at that conclusion ?

I'm not getting how anybody with a balanced view of the world and everything in it, could take Rich's observation as anything other than that.. an observation.

Myself,.. I am a humble 'ned' with no great level of education or qualification, other than the usual 'life experiences and education' gained from spending what time I have on this earth.. but I'm sure that Rich's post should in no way be considered racist or deliberately provocative.
Surely you don't honestly believe anything to the contrary ?

 

[tnimble]

Neither was Newton able to explain the mechanism by which gravity caused something to fall to Earth, but in general his Laws worked.

As I said Darwin is not wrong in the evolution. Its not the be all end all people make of it, its less relevant than consepted.

You also haven't taken into account how sexual preferences effect Natural Selection.
Darwin did and that has been scientifically tested.

The theory of sexual preferences based on ornamentations is his later work. It has been opposed from the start including by Wallace. That work has never been proven correct. The opposite seems more valid. The ornamentations play a role in evolution, being camouflage and weaponry against predators. But that was already covered by Darwins first work.

. Darwinists tend to this: "When it rains I get wet, so when I'm wet it rains. Anybody who say you also can get wet by swimming in a river, standing under the shower etc are wrong. There has never been anything other than rain and never will be anything other than rain."

I'm not 100% Cast iron Certain... but I'd bet the farm on that not being a quote you'd find anywhere in the writings of Charles Darwin,
the key word being second word in.. " TEND". Can We take it that this is your opinion of how you perceive the behaviour of Darwinists to be displayed, or are you suggesting that Charles Darwin thought the only way people can get wet, is to be out in the rain. ?
You see, your method of writing there is like tabloid journalism.. and seeks to discredit Darwin and consequently his theories, by portraying him in a poor light, but by doing so with a statement of your opinion of Darwinist thinking, rather than some historically accurate quotation of Darwin himself. -- and that, really is perhaps a little unfair, don't you agree ? :wink:

No its not. Darwin work is what it is. His theory on the evolution by natural selection is not wrong. Darwin is not a darwinist only people who know or think they know his work and believe in his theory are. That is where my the analogy comes in. Darwinist seem to be more interested in the religious debate evolution theory versus holy intervention.

Not to fall in repetition: Darwin's theory is correct, its a very small piece of the puzzle, not the be all end all. Most of the theory is not by Darwin. His credits go towards being brave enough and to persist against the sceptisim of that time.