maikeru

When it comes to evolution, efficiency and perfection are relative.

It is "free game" and "open," but in more ways than you realize. Evolution has a guiding hand which often takes care of "wrong" choices (note that there really is no "wrong" or "right" in evolution, I'm using the terminology to simplify the discussion)--we call it Natural Selection. Individuals (and their collective genetic package) which acquire lethal or too many detrimental mutations have natural selection selecting against them, and hence are less likely to be able to reproduce and pass their detrimental mutations onto future generations. So long as natural selection applies pressure to sh

.

Please acquaint yourself with a biology 101 textbook.

:)

It makes no sense. Replicating blood cells would impose a substantial energy burden on the organism as well as survival liabilities such as heightened risks for dangerous blood cancers similar to leukemia, lymphoma, etc. and failing cell membranes and organelles (due to the rigors that RBCs must endure) that your proposed hypothetical RBC-replicating organism would probably be dead within the blink of an eye. Their task is simple but important, their life short but dutiful. Given these thoughts, it is better to mass produce RBCs and replace them than to replicate and repair them with said liab

"Better" at what?

1. Higher O2 percentages in the air during those times. More O2 = more available for metabolism and bigger body mass/higher metabolism. Studies suggest up to 35% O2 in the Cretaceous. http://geology.com/usgs/amber/ 2. Birds have air sacs that allow for unidirectional flow of air throughout their respiratory system, essentially allowing them to breathe "fresh air" each time rather than mixing "old" and "new" air like mammalian lungs do. I suspect many dinosaurs had a respiratory setup similar to birds, especially if they were highly active or theropods. More efficient respiratory syste

Hi Nerdasaurus, I might recommend not giving out your name so quickly on the forums just for safety's sake. Other than that, welcome to Hypography! :) I studied microbiology and took many classes in immunology, cancer, and a few virology courses as an undergrad. I think neurology--and anything to do with the mind and cognition--is endlessly fascinating. One of my cousins studied neuroscience before he went to medical school. I also spent some time shadowing doctors in high school, because at one time I wanted to do medicine as well. I totally reversed course. I'm more interested in farming

Love that thought! It always seems so easy, but actually is nothing short of an absolute nightmare. I was thinking this a few nights ago when I read Moontanman's link on Japan's idea for "floating cities" in the sea. http://scienceforums.com/topic/22716-green-float-concept-a-carbon-negative-city-on-the-ocean/ While not exactly terraforming, what we have been doing with the earth is a sort of terraforming, by making the Earth's surface more habitable for us and inhabitable for just about everything else. If we can achieve major projects here on earth, such as controlling global warming, c

That's similar to what they did in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe when desperate farmers raided graveyards and nations fought wars over guano. I find the notion that millions, maybe billions of pounds, of phosphate are flushed away out to the sea to be reprehensible. We're mining our soils until they have nothing left to give. Nitrogen is usually easier to add back into system with appropriate measures, but phosphate and micronutrients are invaluable.

Moontanman, there's a king-sized **** on my screen. Are you sure it needs to be that big? Someone left his calling card!

There is no perfect capitalism, just as there is no perfect communism. Your definition of "absolutely perfect capitalism" as the "free flow of information" is inherently problematic. It misses the whole point of capitalism. Capitalism is about *capital*, i.e., inputs, resources, energy, or money, and how it is invested and owned, mainly through private ownership, and arrangements of owners and workers in a profit-driven society. You can spin out a few more definitions of capitalism if you want, but I have never seen one that revolves solely around information and its flow. Information is still

Infamous, welcome back old friend! :) Things have been too quiet around here.

n/a double post