Biology - November 2007

What scientific method steps would I have to take in order to experiment plants responding to light?

2007-11-02 07:00:34 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Y'know that old tale of having your whole life "flash" before your eyes? There's a scientific name for that yeah?

2007-11-02 06:57:17 · 4 answers · asked by Allergic To Eggs 6

I'm doing this senior project and I decided to do how caffeine effects plant growth, so I was wondering on which plants i should use for my experiment. Thanks a lot for your ideas and recommendations :D

2007-11-02 06:55:47 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-02 06:44:17 · 14 answers · asked by meeeeee 1

2007-11-02 05:20:28 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am Male Human Species so why do I have a Female Infant Feeding Duct?

2007-11-02 04:04:10 · 12 answers · asked by D Bate A Bull 3

FIRST - do not say go buy bug spray! we have a pest control guy who comes here once every 2 months or so to spray around (its an apartment thing) and he came last week.

i looked at http://bugguide.net and couldn't find it.

kind of freaked me out to find it in my bedroom my cats playing with it, trying to eat it actually.

it was brown thing about 3/4 inch long and REALLY thin with a forked tail (NOT long) that was the same brown not antenna like, but it did have a head that protruded from the body a tad and had antennas, thing is it had clear/whiteish legs (6) and they were smallish and no wings. the body is also a darkish brown shell like texture. i didnt see any mandibles.

http://bugguide.net/node/view/110906/bgpage
kind of like that except no wings, thinner body, smaller clearish whiteish legs that actually looked more seperated from the body (now that i think about it) but this ones heads too big in proportion to its body n no visible mandibles.
maybe its a baby that?

2007-11-02 02:35:38 · 4 answers · asked by star9crystal 2

Scientists with impressive credentials are leaving the doctrines of evolution. Unfortunately, no one has informed the general public.

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:

The notion that...the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Researcher and Mathematician I. L. Cohen:

At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. ...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.

Evolutionist Michael Denton:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

Peter Saunders (University of London) and Mae-Wan Ho (Open University):

From the claims made for neo-Darwinism one could easily get the impression that it has made great progress towards explaining Evolution, mostly leaving the details to be cleared up. In fact, quite the reverse is true.

Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it...

Evolutionist Greg Kirby:

If you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments...

Evolutionist Lord Solly Zuckerman:

Students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution... The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is...in this field at all.

Evolutionist Tom Kemp:

A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?

Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose:

We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists...

Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History:

The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.

Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University:

I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.

Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist:

The best physical evidence that the earth is young is a dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling...the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. ...To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony physics.

Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University:

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. ...if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond...anything produced by the intelligence of man?

C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General:

When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.

Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho:

We ourselves would be less concerned about falsifiability if neo-Darwinism were a powerful theory with major successes to its credit. But this is simply not the case.

C. Martin in American Scientist:

The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.

Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolutionist:

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.

Arthur Koestler, author:

In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.

Norman Macbeth:

Darwinism has failed in practice.

Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist:

Modern apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans...is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.:

The Evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before...

John Woodmorappe, geologist:

Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order. ...it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.

Evolutionist S. Lovtrup:

Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?

J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science:

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.

N. H. Nilsson, famous botanist and Evolutionist:

My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.

Luther Sunderland, science researcher:

None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Tom Kemp of Oxford University:

As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record.

Francis Hitching, archaeologist:

The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.

David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist:

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.

Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist and paleontologist and former Evolutionist:

Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician:

A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. ...moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.

I. Cohen, mathematician and archaeologist:

It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of Evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers...

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist:

The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.

Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher:

The theory of Evolution...will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.

2007-11-02 02:00:56 · 30 answers · asked by Let's Debate 1

2007-11-02 00:56:46 · 9 answers · asked by Fausat Olajumoke A 1

2007-11-02 00:49:35 · 6 answers · asked by Radjiyev A 1

I'd like to characterize the opposing sides.

Evolution is an explanation that scientists have arrived at through measurement, experiment and hypothesis. First came the observations, and then came the theory, which was then revised as new information came to light.

Creationism, began with a conclusion ("God did it.") and worked backwards, looking for physical evidence that supports it. It accepts as a given the claim that the bible is completely accurate, and it refuses to probe deeper into a glaring question: "If God did it, who created God?"

Regardless of one's spiritual views it seems to me that the first process I described is vastly more reliable than the second.

I can't think of any other example of a widely held theory that was arrived at backwards. In this sense it seems apparent that creationism is fundamentally tainted, and that an unbiased judge (unfamiliar with both Darwin and Deuteronomy) would have to side with science.

Thoughts?

2007-11-01 22:21:36 · 6 answers · asked by relaxification 6

2007-11-01 19:43:03 · 8 answers · asked by jennifer h 1

2007-11-01 19:31:06 · 7 answers · asked by bakanka1@yahoo.com g 1

What happens to energy as it is transformed?

2007-11-01 19:25:56 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

With changing climate awaiting us, and world food supplies at risk, aren't drought resistant, pest resistant crops exactly what we need? Yes, yes, I know, they aren't proven safe. But what would be the relationship between genetic modification to increase production, and safety to the consumer. Isn't it like saying "crops produced using agricultural equipment that runs on hydrogen fuel aren't proven safe". I'm wondering if it is just political hype causes us to shoot ourselves in the foot. This is not an opinion, it's a question. I am listening..

2007-11-01 19:23:14 · 8 answers · asked by kwaaikat 5

2007-11-01 19:18:27 · 1 answers · asked by kitkat 1

human males may suffer from having just one copy of the X chromosome, while females have two?

This part is really confusing to me so please answer and explain... Thank you!

2007-11-01 19:15:08 · 3 answers · asked by Hanna 2

How exactly does a chromosome mutation occur and why is it harmful to the organism in which they take place? (Like what really happens?)

2007-11-01 18:58:11 · 3 answers · asked by Hanna 2

2007-11-01 18:49:24 · 6 answers · asked by peace 1

where is the cell membrane of a human cheek cell and also where is the nucleus? how should the human cheek cell look like in low power 40x and high power 400x under a microscope a picture or a website that works will help a LOT!!! you can also give me a website of where it labels where a cell membrane and nucleus is in an actual picture of a human cheek cell, it can also be a drawing. thanx! best answer gets 10 points!

2007-11-01 18:48:25 · 4 answers · asked by I♡2PM!! 2

We are born, we die, we evolve, we become extinct. There is no reason. We as humans have probably reached our final stage of eveloution like the dinosaurs did 65 million years ago. Unchecked global warming and plague will finally wipe us out. and the monkeys with us. But the end of humanity wont be the end of the world. A stronger species probably from the insect world maybe the cockroach will take over. Who knows in another hundred million years of eveloution they may have colonized other worlds in other solar systems. Wont it be grand if our cousins the cockroach make it?

2007-11-01 18:46:22 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

what is the relationship between ADP and ATP?

2007-11-01 18:42:30 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

please help

2007-11-01 17:59:57 · 3 answers · asked by J 1

2007-11-01 17:56:12 · 2 answers · asked by nouran e 1

2007-11-01 17:51:29 · 5 answers · asked by rath 5

it's all in the question lol

2007-11-01 17:35:31 · 4 answers · asked by J 1

What process in our body produces carbon dioxide? How does exercise affect this process?

(I think Krebs Cycle but I'm not sure why)
~Thanks.

2007-11-01 17:31:01 · 2 answers · asked by noclue 2

during birth, the baby leaves the mother's body, passing through these TWO BONES: ________ and _______

2007-11-01 17:04:06 · 3 answers · asked by cb 2

first one to answer gets 10 pts

2007-11-01 16:40:27 · 3 answers · asked by Goody1234567 2

I have to do this test review for Biology and I need major help on it! Can anyone answer this question for me, please?

2007-11-01 16:10:19 · 5 answers · asked by I love band! 1