Should evolution be taught in high school?

Thank you children. Just think, when you grow up, you might be able to add something new to science, one day.

Psychology wrote:

Dam piece of crap board. Posting is terrible.

Oh, that's right - BLAME THE BOARD!

Psychology wrote:

Thank you children. Just think, when you grow up, you might be able to add something new to science, one day.

Ah shaddap Jimbo.

How them carpet tacks working out?

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because Arguing With Idiots IS Psycho. Most people have stopped replying to his posts, so he invented a friend to cheer him on.

'fraid not.

They are both daft though.

Psychology wrote:

With COPD, my very breathing is challenged at every moment of everyday. Challenging the body and mind are a gift. I have learned many new things by my challenges and look forward to learning and sharing as much as I can.
I relish the ability to still work and my efforts to be one of the best must be re-doubled, for which I say, I am happy for the chance to be all I can be, even with all my faults.
Each new thought brings new challenges and new life. Cherish all that is afforded you.

If you suffer from COPD you have my honest sympathy.

If you stop being such a dick - you will gain some respect from all.

Your choice.

Gosh, just think, if I reject intelligent thought and say what others want me to say, I can have new friends. Lol

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, there's the Jim Ryan we know and love.

Psychology's post sure sounded like a threat to you. He's written like this before.'Psycho' might be a better moniker for him.

Psychology wrote:

Gosh, just think, if I reject intelligent thought and say what others want me to say, I can have new friends. Lol

We just want you to either acknowledge when you've been refuted or explain why you haven't. You never do either. That makes you a liar, and few of us have any respect for liars.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but I did not make the argument that spin has no effect. That would be like saying mass has no effect on gravity.

Does spin generate gravity?

More about mutations and evolution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/...

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Does spin generate gravity?

I just spun around several times and I DO feel heavier. I just don't know which direction to fall.

Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well. However, earth has water all across its surface, where most other planets don't, so that likely plays a big part in having a strong atmosphere.

Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth and its barycenter is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 

Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the barycenter and the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the suns barycenter, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.

Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere. 

Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the suns barycenter is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.

Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun and their respective barycenters at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.

On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?

According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan 

Make that " we also rotate around the sun."

sweets2360 wrote:

Make that " we also rotate around the sun."

Actually, we don't, all revolving planets and stars, revolve around barycenters. Some scientists say we revolve around the sun, because it's easier to explain for most people.

Psychology wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, we don't, all revolving planets and stars, revolve around barycenters. Some scientists say we revolve around the sun, because it's easier to explain for most people.

Amazing. You got that dead right. Congratulations!

When you finally get a thought all your own, let us know.

Lenski's antibiotic claim
If you claim something, show proof.
Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.

By Jim Ryan 

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Amazing. You got that dead right. Congratulations!

Yes, actually this has taught me something. Thank you Jim. Barycenters make sense. What is Bary? As a pilot, I always calculate weight and balance so this concept makes sense. Also, I wonder what effect it has on the moon recession issue.

Well, Isaac is just a TS but still everyone is freaking out. We will see what happens.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, actually this has taught me something. Thank you Jim. Barycenters make sense. What is Bary? As a pilot, I always calculate weight and balance so this concept makes sense. Also, I wonder what effect it has on the moon recession issue.

Your welcome.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, actually this has taught me something. Thank you Jim. Barycenters make sense. What is Bary? As a pilot, I always calculate weight and balance so this concept makes sense. Also, I wonder what effect it has on the moon recession issue.

Something to consider,---why does water go down the drain in a spinning motion, one direction north of the equator and in the opposite direction, south of the equator?

Any ideas?