Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 January 6

= January 6 =

Dragonfruit question
What are those things that look like artichoke leaves on the outside of the fruit of a dragonfruit, or pitaya? Wiwaxia (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bracts. Vespine (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oscar (fish) question
I've had a single Oscar for about 2 months and now I've just added 2 more. When I approach the tank, all 3 now come right to the top, and when I drop the food in, they all but attack the pellets, etc. But the single Oscar didn't do that when he was alone -- is this how they usually act when in groups?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know really know, but I can only assume that they are running to the food to make sure to get it before it's all eaten. With just one there is no urgency. I assume that in the wild there usually isn't a concentrated source of food, and they just each search on their own for what they can find. (Again, this is just conjecture on my part.) It does remind me of something I read a while ago where someone was trying to breed an animal (some type of deer or gazelle) with no success - the male showed no interest in any of the females. Then one day males from other pens broke loose and the all ended up together - the competition from the other males stirred all of them, and all the females ended up pregnant. (The original author was rather more dramatic in how he described it, it's too bad I don't remember where it's from.) It seems that competition is not just for capitalism. Ariel. (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The impulse towards competition can be absent when potential competitors are absent. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

evolution propaganda
Does anyone know of any evolution propaganda in the same format as the creationist pamphlets that you get from Jehovah's witnesses et al? I'm thinking of making my own but wondering if someone has done it already, I haven't really been able to find anything my self. Searching for "evolution pamphlet" predominantly gives results for the creationist ones. Vespine (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be the need for such propaganda? Evolution has the weight of evidence on its side, it doesn't really need loud, garishly colored pamplets with words in all caps announcing that EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL'S HANDIWORK or something like that.  Science is generally publicized via peer reviewed journals and the popular scientific press; something the creationists lack access to, being that what they do isn't really "science".  Hence the garish, badly made pamphlets.  -- Jayron  32  05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyways, giving out pamphlets would only further expose the fact that evolution is desperately looking for support and evidence. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Evolution can not look for support and evidence, it does not have a mind. Scientists have found a lot of evidence for evolution. I think THFSW is correct in the fact that evolution could loose credibility in the public if pro evolution propaganda pamphlets are distributed widely.--Gr8xoz (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would find such mock-tracts amusing. WikiDao    &#9775;  10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does something that can be observed and there is no doubt about need propaganda?Zzubnik (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the USA, "no doubt" is the minority view, presumably because more people read Chick Tracts than Nature. --Sean 14:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While those who reject evolution may be stronger in their beliefs for example show it about even with about 20% not sure. Level of support for evolution mentions something from 2007 where 49% believe in evolution although only 14% of the total don't believe god had a part. (This may seem to be a minority but I presume there are some 'not sure' there in particular while the citation seems dead the title suggestions it's 45% who believe in creationism.)Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first link says, "In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true,"...". "Definitely true" is not a bad synonym for "no doubt", and 14 percent is certainly a minority, so I stand by my statement. --Sean 16:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I missed the 'no doubt' part. However I still have strong doubts about your statement. It seems unlikely the reason for the entirety of the 86% of the population who don't have 'no doubts' read or have had much influence from Chick tracts. Perhaps the 45% or whatever who believe in creationism at most. It's also questionable if reading Nature is needed. For starters, understanding journal articles can be difficult for those without much experience in the field. Also the evidence for overwhelming evidence for evolution has existed for so long it's well covered in far more accessible publications and in fact what is in Nature nowadays is often going to be limited and written without any consideration of the possibility of dispute of evolution. Nil Einne (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the question of where exactly 'no doubt' isn't in a minority. Not the UK for example . The survey referred in the earlier link appears to be from the supplementary material  it appears in 2002-2003 only Denmark of the 10 countries surveyed had a majority with 'no doubt'. (United States), Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, (Britain), Austria, Germany, France, had a minority having 'no doubt'. In fact France the highest after Denmark didn't even have 40%. So while it may be true the US lags behind most of the developed world in acceptance of evolution and from the ref, also differ in a number of ways, having only a minority with 'no doubt' isn't one aspect that differentiates them. BTW if you look at the main article, it has more countries but without the 'definitely true' part, interesting France is the 4th highest in this list of acceptance, and the UK is 6. Denmark is 2. Of course that doesn't mean at most 3 of the surveyed countries would have no doubt, it's 2-3 years in the future so attitudes would have changed and the different positions of countries tells us not surprisingly that potentially there's greater acceptance in some countries among the population even if fewer who think it's 'definitely true'. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You could always set up a new religion like L Ron Hubbard did. How about 'The Church of the Evolved Christ' where we have to evolve to get better, give Christ a blue skin too - that looks good. With a few million followers donating a tithe you could easily get them to produce pamphlets just like the creationists' ones and distribute them all around the world translated into a hundred and fifty different languages. How else would you distribute such pamphlets? How else would you get people to do anything with them except put them with the other paper for recycling? Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be fun to just change the words on Chick Tracts, like this one where Chick demonstrates to his own satisfaction that Jesus -- not gluons -- mediates the strong interaction. --Sean 14:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how possible it is to mock something which is so inherently risible already. (It's not just physics, Chick even fails theology.  Here he claims that Jesus's blood was not human blood, which is not exactly mainstream Christian thinking.) Marnanel (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You make it sound like Chick Tracks are the supreme authority for anyone who doesn't believe evolution. The're not. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 17:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that first tract (the one with the irritable douchebag teacher and the tranquil babyfaced student) is a pretty good showcase of most arguments used against evolution. Ok, the gluon thing isn't exactly omnipresent, but open up any anti-evolution site and you'll find things like the ridiculous "six stages of evolution", the "carbon dating is inaccurate" silliness or the endless masturbation over the Piltdown man. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not terribly sure how you got that out of my words, or Sean's. I am sure even such people can see the foolishness of Chick tracts. Marnanel (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking to use your creativity to compose a novel joke, and that's not something that a science refdesk can really help you with much. You already have evolutionary theory - what you need is a mock religion to make it funny.  Existing groups like the Church of the Subgenius might give you some ideas.
 * There is not actually any need for a conflict between religious creationism, which occurs in the dimension of time in which God authors and edits the universe, and scientific evolution, which occurs in the dimension of time in the universe as created. Just because the Foundation Trilogy covers many centuries doesn't mean that Asimov took that long to write it, or wrote it all in the order you read it. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to compose a joke. The fact that most of North America thinks people magically changed from lower animals is funny enough to me. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As opposed to being magically created from dust (or ribs)? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That happened due to an external influence. Different animals changing into one another is supposed to happen by itself. Would you say its weird for the keys on my keyboard to type out this message? No, because there's someone doing it. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For THFSW: Introduction to evolution. You look markedly un- or mis-informed if you think the modern synthesis of evolution is "desperately looking for support and evidence" or that "people magically changed from lower animals". We have good articles on the subject; read them. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and keep reading. Unlike creationism, which is based on one unchanging, not allowed to be questioned, source, evolution is based on an ever growing body of knowledge being observed and interpreted by open minded scientists happy to change their minds when new evidence appears. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OP here, I was about to write, STICK TO THE QUESTION! I'm not starting a debate.. but i had to run and i thought it might be a little presumptuous, i was obviously wrong! lol.. I don't care if you think such propaganda is needed, i'm asking if it is around. I have some people close to me which have been given the creationist propaganda and it is making an impression on them. I understand "the weight of scientific evidence" is behind evolution, but there are obviously a lot of people not so scientifically literate who find a concise "to the point" pamphlet more convincing then "the weight of scientific knowledge". Thanks.Vespine (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with you that 1. the off-topic responses here have really gotten out of hand (which is entirely the answerers fault in my opinion), and 2. there's a lot of good reason to believe that good would be served if the basic arguments in favor of evolution could be condensed down into something that a "man off the street" could read, understand, and be convinced by.
 * There's plenty of evidence that the Chick tracts have been compelling; heck, even when I read some of them, I think, "gosh, this guy is a clever manipulator of emotions, even if he is a nut." Throwing scientific papers at laymen (even intelligent ones) doesn't do anything; appealing to scientific authority only gets you so far; and dismissing the "lay" opinion as unchangeable or, worse, irrelevant is dangerous and wrong as well. As for having examples of said good "propaganda" (which is really an unfortunate word to use because of its negative connotations), the National Center for Science Education produces a good number of pamphlets and short books that are aimed for this purpose. I'm not sure they have them posted online, and when I saw them (in the late 1990s, in their Oakland location), a lot of them were moldy golden oldies of an earlier time (arguing against Henry M. Morris and other, uh, transitionary fossils). But I'm betting if you wrote them or sent them an e-mail they'd send you some samples; they're a pretty generous bunch and I seem to recall the pamphlets being free anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Try "An Introduction to Evolution" from UC Berkeley's "Understanding Evolution" project. There are printable links on each page. I'm pretty sure it's as close as you're going to get to a religious tract about evolution, without the appeals to emotion, authority, or circularity. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Or here! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-the-story-of-life-on-earth 71.198.176.22 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rotating momentum exchange tethers in LEO, drag and space debris
Does there exist a altitude range in low earth orbit were a rotating tether (Tether_propulsion) for launch assist cold be placed?

I am thinking of a tether with the tip 50 km from the centre of mass and a tip speed of about 2 km/s relative to the centre of mass and an allowed load of at least 80 kN (1000 kg). It should be used by gaining orbital momentum by moving incoming objects from a high orbit to a lower unstable orbit and then give that orbital momentum to payloads launched by suborbital launch vehicles. The tether need of curse to be constructed with multiple strands for redundancy like the Hoytether. This would be part of a larger transportation system.

It must be operated at an altitude below most of the space debris in order to get a useful expected survival time. At the same time it will have high surface area and need to operate at an altitude where the atmosphere are thin enough to not generate a prohibitive high drag. Does such a altitude exist?

Would (micro) collisions with the tether generate a significant amount of new space debris? --Gr8xoz (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should assume that a tether needs to passively accept collisions with debris or other micrometeorites, given sufficiently effective sensors. To take a simple example, suppose that a tether has two cables separated by a few meters. If a piece of debris heads for one of the two cables, it temporarily relaxes its hold (perhaps at the expense of tightening in several other segments upward and downward).  As a result, the loosened cable can be pulled out of the way toward that which is still taut, and the space debris flies through the hole.  True, this requires a 2x redundancy factor, but only temporarily, and in case of catastrophic failure of the taut cable the lax one may still be able to hold the elevator while a repair module is dispatched to the site.  And in practice I suspect that there would be quite a few more cables than just two, lowering the required strength-to-weight ratio needed for redundancy in all cases. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ability to avoid collisions is very useful but I think there exist a gap between the debris that reasonable can be detected and the size of debris that can cut the tether. on page 180 or according to the pdf-reader 187 estimates that debris as small as 0.2 mm can cut a 1 mm strand. I think it is hard to detect so small debris if it is approaching at 15 km/s (page 164 or 171) --Gr8xoz (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you plan to detect debris or micrometeoroids on the order of millimeters in dimension moving thousands of meters per second, especially far enough in advance to calculate the probability of impact and take action to move the tether? The tether WILL be hit with MMOD. I doubt that these small pieces would pose a new debris risk, though damage would accumulate over time and threaten the tether. A large, undetected object would also threaten the tether. So for any space elevator, this is a real problem with no easy solution. anonymous6494 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems absolutely unbelievable that people can track a satellite in Earth orbit, or even smaller bits of lost materials. Getting down to 0.2 mm is not that many orders of magnitude of difference.  Also, pieces that are isolated specks and cut only a single cable should not really be so dangerous, because there should be periodic cross-struts between several cables, and repair modules that fix one broken cable while the others hold the structure together.  After all, there will be spontaneous ruptures in the cables due to defects in manufacturing or deployment or during use, and the system will have to be ready for those. Wnt (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "periodic cross-struts between several cables" is very important in order to get a useful expected survival time. I think that in order to not add to much weight this cross linking will need 100 m or so to spread the load evenly between the strands when a strand is cut. The problem is that the cross linking can not be allowed to pull the strands to close together since that would reduce the redundancy. I think repair modules requires a much more advanced technology and would increase the cost, remember, they need to climb in a acceleration from 0 to 80 m/s^2 and have to be mobile over about 70 km tether. They requires a rather good power supply to climb at any reasonable speed. I think a tether could handle between 100 and 1000 cuts during its lifetime without repair. For a lifetime of 10 years that translates to about 0.02 to 0.2 cuts per km strand and year. An additional problem are that each cut could produce new derbies and accelerate the problem.
 * --Gr8xoz (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In practice, the performance of tethers in orbit has been very poor. They have failed spectacularly in several high profile incidents, and orbital dynamicists are so frustrated with their inability to accurately and usefully predict their behavior that they have been avoiding the use of tethers for at least the past two or three decades in microgravity orbital and outer space applications in favor of rigid, propulsion, formation flight, and balloon-based solutions to the same problems. Many if not most of the orbital tether failures are still not well understood, except that people now realize that they depend chaotically on initial conditions far more than was originally thought. I am pessimistic about the long term outlook for tether-based orbital dynamics solutions which do not make use of substantial propulsion and tension systems to stabilize them. It's not clear that the bolo launch assist mechanism couldn't be effected by a set of rigid structures. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to read more abut these problems, do you have any useful links? I have not found any information on failures due inability to predict the orbits. There have been some failures in electrodynamic tethers and some single strand tethers have been cut by debris/meteoroids. Some very low budget experiments has had problem with deployment and telemetry. None of the these problems seems unsolvable to me except maybe space debris.--Gr8xoz (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-09/news/mn-6218_1_shuttle-lands
 * http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1996-012B
 * http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-03-04/news/9603030189_1_tether-columbia-returns-space-shuttle-columbia
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA lol
 * http://www.vectorsite.net/tarokt_5.html#m2 says "most experiments were successful" and lists many of them. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cause of vibration of a string
Project of “ ANKITIUM ”,  The  Unit  Of  Life :-- When we make an approach to the string, we assume the mass, charge and energy as the fundamental properties of a particle. In this way of approach all of our thinking ends up to the Big Bang. We could not be able to know that how does it occurs or what was the situation before it occurs. But if we change our approach by considering the cause of producing mass, charge in an electron (or proton) from a string vibration, we might be able to find out the reason lying behind the Big Bang or the situation before the Big Bang. Every mass contains some atoms. An atom contains a nucleus and some electrons. Nucleus contains protons and neutrons. Protons are positively charged, neutrons are neutral and electrons are negatively charged (It is our convention to assume that the charge in protons is positive and the charge in electron is negative.).

As all we know that vibration is the only way to transfer energy (such as thermal energy, sound energy etc.) from one place to another, we can conclude all of the energies can be created from vibration. As vibration takes place in different mode, different kind of energy can be produced at different mode of vibration.

Now, consider one electron. The electron is negatively charged. But from where does the charge come from or rather I would say where does it produce from? We can assume an electron as a negatively charged spherical cloud (as per electron’s wave nature). The radius of the spherical cloud is equal to the radius of an electron when it is considered as a particle. The spherical cloud implies the area of the electric field, produced due to the negative charge, in which it acts. In between this spherical cloud, there exists a vibrating string according to the String Theory proposed by Sir Stephen Hawking. The vibration is at one direction (say in anti-clockwise direction). This vibration produces some amount of energy. A part of which converts into a mass which is equal to the mass of an electron, obeying the famous equation E=mc2, of Sir Albert Einstein. Another part of this energy gets converted into some amount of charge, equal to the charge of an electron. This amount of charge produces a spherical shaped electric field which is called an electron in particle theory and electron cloud in wave theory, owing to the dual nature of the electron. Now, from where does the vibration of the string produce? In account to solve this problem, we can assume a string consists of many infinitesimally small units which are continuously getting compressed and elongated in success. These units can be called as the unit of life or rather I could name it after my girl friend, “Ankitium” (“Ankitia” in plural). But why does an Ankitium get compressed and elongated in success?

As we all know that the photons (unit of energy) are absorbed in multiple integrals of a quantum, energy of which is equal to ‘hv’ (h= Plank’s constant and v= frequency of the incident light). Our universe consists of different types of rays with different frequencies. Let, the different rays in this universe are of frequencies v1, v2, v3, v4....... and so on. Let us assume that v1=v. Hence, from Plank’s theory E=hv=hv1. An Ankitium absorbs the amount of energy in multiple integrals of ‘E’ or v1. When an Ankitium absorbs energy from the rays having frequencies which are of multiple integral of v1, the total energy of an Ankitium increases and the Ankitium reaches to a higher energy state. As a result, the Ankitium tries to elongate and a tensile force is built up. But all the frequencies must not be a multiple integral of v1. So, energy will not be absorbed by the Ankitium when the frequency of the incident photon are not of a multiple integral of v1. As a result, then the energy state of the Ankitium gets lowered and it comes across with a compressive force. Thus an Ankitium gets elongated and compressed in success. In case of protons, the vibration of the string must be at opposite direction that of in an electron. As a result, an amount of positive charge is produced. In the neutrons, the vibration must take place in such a way that it only produces an amount of energy which totally converts into a mass equal to the mass of the neutron. As a result, no kind of charge is produced in neutrons.- 61.11.120.66 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a question in there? I didn't see it.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the questions are 1) Where does an electron get it's charge from, and 2) Where does a string get it's energy from Zzubnik (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't answer the questions because not even Stephen Hawking knows the answers. The charge of the proton is known to come from the arrangement of quarks, but that only moves the question one stage back and doesn't explain the charge of leptons.  I don't think the "ankitium" will ever be discovered because strings are not believed to consist of matter, or to be in any way "divisible" (or even "real"), they are just mathematical constructs.  The vibration modes of the strings are the mass, energy and charge.  Alternative theories are M-theory and loop quantum gravity.    D b f i r s   12:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, Dbfirs. This is somewhat like asking for a grand unification theory, or the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything. Although, the answer to that last one is known to be 42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzubnik (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked a similar question just last month: Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 December 24 -- &oelig; &trade; 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the single best case for evolution?
The conversation about evolution above makes me think that we should pick out a single best case for evolution, a situation so well studied with so many different techniques that it provides a more than compelling argument. Of course, no evidence from the natural sciences can disprove that the world could have been affected by supernatural means, but the point to prove is that if someone made the world, it was deliberately made to look like it has a single consistent history going back millions of years which includes evolutionary change.

The case I want involves:
 * Two points on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, in places which visibly look like the continents once fit together there.
 * The currently measured rate at which these two points are drifting apart closely matches the established breakup of Pangaea.
 * Magnetic field reversals in the crust have been observed close to the line separating these two points, confirming a large number of reversals which match the time frame (though this is a weak argument, as a skeptic will argue the presumed reversal rate is only inferred from the data)
 * A land species has been found fossilized near each of the two points.
 * The radioactive dating of these fossils matches one another and the time at which Pangaea was breaking up.
 * According to radioactive dating, fossils of this land species are found only during a narrow interval of time. However, transitional fossils closely link it to later species which continued to thrive on either side of the ocean, which are different on either side of the ocean.  There should be as little confusion about this ancestry as possible.
 * DNA analysis of modern living descendants of this species from either side of the ocean reveals differences between them. Modern phylogenetic analysis concludes that they diverged at about the period of time shown by the fossils, assuming mutation rates that are typical judging by those observed today.

I know that there are many situations where a few of these points are met. But I'd like to see an argument with sledgehammer strokes in which we show that geology, paleontology, radioactive dating, and conventional and molecular taxonomy all come together and show the same time frame over and over. That way the skeptic has to try to prove that most if not all of these disciplines are simultaneously wrong or conspiring to conceal the truth, an argument which becomes exponentially harder with each type of data that needs to be ignored. I know that finding such a case is very difficult, even for the expert - I'm just curious if people have in the course of disputations on the subject managed to hit across a good case that is suitably convenient and well-studied. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Peppered moth evolution is a common example, perhaps not as spectacular as you hoped for but it did take place in the blink of an eye rather than aeons. 92.24.188.182 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec): How about this paper on E. coli long-term evolution experiment? --Dr Dima (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys! Neither of those examples have anything to do with the above post other than the heading. Did you read the post? Please don't bother posting an answer if you haven't read the question! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP lists so many criteria that its unlikely that anything can fulfill all of them. So in the abscence of that, other examples of evolution were given. 92.24.188.63 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I did read the question. The OP asks for "single best case for evolution", and both my reply and that of 188.182 give examples of some of the best cases for the evolution. I simply do not think that "combining many different techniques that it provides a more than compelling argument" is a good educational strategy in this case. The reason is, whatever scientific evidence of evolutionary history -- no matter how compelling -- you present to a person who thinks the world was created as-is 5800 years ago, fossils and all, it will not alleviate that person's doubts. But if you show this person a colony of bacteria that has actually evolved to metabolize citrate literally in front of researchers' eyes, you may actually have a compelling argument that evolution does happen. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The question qualifies very heavily what it means by the "single best case", and your answer ignored that completely. That's what I meant by it appearing not to have read the question. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the example, this attempt will fail miserably. People who do not want to believe in evolution will not believe in evolution. Another way to put it is: You cannot reason a person out of a belief that they formed without reason. No matter what you attempt to prove, the response is simply, "God made it look like that" - the religious equivalent of "a wizard did it." -- k a i n a w &trade; 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your arguments seem more in favor of Plate Tectonics Theory than the Theory of Evolution. As for the strongest support for evolution, I'd have to go with dinosaur bones.  There are many skeletons of nearly intact dinosaurs, which are completely inconsistent with the Biblical record.  The number and variety of those skeletons shows that there were many eras of dinosaurs.  So, which day of Biblical creation were these created ?  It just doesn't fit.  And, unlike radiocarbon dating, the Big Bang Theory, etc., it really doesn't require any great scientific understanding to look at a T-Rex skeleton and see that it is very different than anything in human experience (or Biblical accounts). StuRat (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Creationists have long made their peace with dinosaurs. (They would have been created on the same day as the other animals, incidentally.) See e.g. this particular discussion. What the OP is asking for is something that is totally scientifically air-tight, not something that appeals to the common man. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't explain why the Bible didn't mention them (how about a full inventory, just like the "begets" ?). Also, are they supposed to have all died on that same day, too ?  If so, why ?  And are we taking the Bible literally, so that they only existed for 24 hours ? StuRat (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't mention a lot of animals, either, and in fact, as the page points out, big, dinosaur-like creatures (and dragons) are mentioned far more than a lot of other common world critters. It's not meant to be an atlas of all animals. I'm not a Creationist at all, but purposefully misreading the Bible (like the idea that they existed for 24 hours, which nobody contends) just sets up a rather foolish straw man, which is convincing to none. If you want to be truly convincing, you argue against the best oppositional case, and show why it is wrong. Not the worst. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, then, just what is the strongest Biblical case ? The other one I've heard is that dinos were around until The Flood and didn't make it onto The Ark.  That seems even more absurd though, if they were supposedly running around with people, as in The Flintstones.  Is there also an idea that they were around with Adam and Eve, but died out soon after ?  StuRat (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's creationism that's based on a single, unchanging, unquestioned source. Evolution, like all science, is based on an ever accumulating set of knowledge, combined with an ever questioning community of scientists. The knowledge is massive. Heck, Darwin's voyage in the Beagle took five years! Those who want to believe in creationism are missing most of that knowledge, or choose to ignore it. They oppose letting children have the former and will continue to ignore. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As the form of the question makes clear, the dispute about evolution is really a surrogate for a dispute about a far more important question, the age of the Earth (and the Universe). The two contending hypotheses for the age of the Earth are (1) about 4.5 billion years (modern science); (2) about 6000 years (biblical literalism). As an argument in favor of the scientific age, the one given above is pretty strong, although not necessarily the strongest possible. It is basically impossible to support an age of 6000 years without assuming that the visible universe is at most 6000 light years in size, which pretty much trashes modern physics. Looie496 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a fundemental flaw in the question itself, in that it assumes that theories like evolution are built on isolated pieces of evidence, and that some of those pieces of evidence are better than others. This isn't how science works.  The theory of evolution is a working theory, and has been for the better part of a century.  No one works at building evidence for it, they just use it as background understanding for their research, and the research works.  In a sense, all of biology and its subdisciplines has evolution as one of its cornerstones, and insofar as every experiment in biology and subdisciplines works, that's the evidence.  All of life is itself the evidence for evolution.  The flaw in the question asked in the title of this thread is why the creationist/intelligent design crowd always ends up fighting the wrong battle.  There is a belief that evolution (and indeed science) works only if every single piece of evidence that exists is correctly interpreted, and completely true.  If you can find one error, or find one single thing that does not yet have adequate explanation, then the entire system is completely and utterly wrong.  This sort of reasoning showed up in the defendant's testimony at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the most important trial case since the Scopes trial in this area, and forms a major part of what is known as the Wedge strategy known as Irreducible complexity.  The idea being that certain key elements of living systems, as yet unexplained by science (classic examples are the eye and the flagellum) can be used as the point of the "wedge" to drive into evolution, and prove it wrong.  The OP's question presumes the same sort of misguided reasoning, that there are "best examples" and "wrong examples" and that we merely need to put forth the "best examples" to prove evolution or the "wrong examples" to disprove it.  -- Jayron  32  21:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, all observational evidence is moot, because it is fundamentally impossible to verify the existence of "reality." This isn't new; Allegory of the Cave predates Christian thought; and the philosophical concept has been re-hashed out by every major school of thought, from rationalism to post-modernism.  If somebody doesn't want to accept observational evidence as proof of reality, it doesn't matter how solid your observational evidence is.  At best, we can prove that "I perceive something."  The next step, "I assume that my perceptions represent a real, natural, material world" is completely unfounded.  Religious belief attacks scientific thought at this level by presuming that a supernatural reality exists beyond anything which we can perceive.  So, purple unicorns, space teapots, and all that.  Nimur (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Pedant) I think you mean pink unicorns and purple oysters . CS Miller (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Burn the heretic! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The case for evolution is the same as the case for any other well established scientific theory: It is a simple explanation for our observations. There is no other explanation that even comes close. --Tango (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The best argument I can find against young-Earth creationism is varves. Unlike dating based on radioactive decay, varves provide a very direct, very simple to understand measure of the geological passage of time, even to people with a very weak understanding of any branch of science.  And the six million varve depth of the Green River Formation shows that the Earth is at least six million years old, which although that's only a small fraction of the total age of the Earth, is still vastly older than is thought by anyone who measures the time since creation in the thousands of years.  However, I still had no luck convincing some Jehovah's Witnesses I talked to that the Earth is at least millions of years old.  They didn't have any explanation for the six-million varve depth of the Green River Formation, but they really didn't care.  Some people are just going to believe what feels good to believe, regardless of what the evidence says.


 * What I think is one of the best arguments for evolution are the Australian marsupials (Australidelphia). There are scads of different species of them, but there are biological similarities among them that aren't found elsewhere in the world.  Why all those different species of biologically similar animals happen to only be found in Australia is easy to explain with evolution, but hard to explain if all of those different species independently made their way to Australia somehow from Noah's ark.  But like with the varves, although the Jehovah's Witnesses I talked to had no explanation for the geographical isolation of the Australidelphia, that didn't actually affect their beliefs.  They just didn't care.  Red Act (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All observational evidence, even varves, is counteracted by "God made it that way". It's a pointless arguement.  Either people are prepared to accept that God created the world as it really exists, with evolution and the Big Bang, and all of it, or they believe that God created the world as they wish it to exist, on a Tuesday morning about 6000 years ago.  If they believe the latter, the believe it without any need to look for evidence for how God really made the world.  So any evidence you provide is pointless.  -- Jayron  32  02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your third sentence is a false dichotomy, in that it assumes that all possible belief possibilities include the belief in the existence of a God that created the world one way or another, which is not a valid assumption. Red Act (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, you could take God out of the picture and have the same arguement though; he's optional for the point of argueing the validity of evolution in this case as an aside, I do not find God personally optional; as an evangelical Christian myself, I find God pretty mandatory to any of my own belief systems. I also recognize, however, that it isn't necessary for this particular arguement, and so I won't belabor the issue .  However, if your point is to help those who believe in God also accept the validity of evolution, its probably more helpful to show how evolution is not fundementally contradictory of anyone's religious belief.  If you imply that God and evolution cannot coexist in the same belief system; then you fall into the same exact faulty thought processes that make it so that the strongly religious refuse to accept evolution.  Argue the important point; which is the reality of evolution, not the unimportant point, which is the existance of God. unimportant, I might add, to the validity of the case for evolution, not in general.  See my aside above.  -- Jayron  32  06:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If God's so smart, why does He simply not tell us what we should believe about evolution? Why leave us guessing? He dosnt reply to prayers etc, has no address, no telephone number, no webpage, no nothing. Do you think He has passed on? On the other hand, when I pray to Santa Claus at the right time of year, He (Santa I mean) brings me presents. Next time I see Santa, I will ask him what the trutrh regarding evolution is. 92.24.183.6 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he doesn't reply to YOUR prayers. Or maybe he does, and sometimes his reply is "No".  -- Jayron  32  20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the pronoun "He" for Santa and "he" for God ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For the OP, a good start would probably be a book like The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins. If anyone is going to summarize the best arguments in support of evolution it is Dawkins. You might also want to look at our article on biogeography which briefly discusses some evidence based on paleogeography, plate tectonics, and molecular analysis of fossils. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling it would end up in Dawkins... I'll have to actually read him the next time I happen across a copy. I should clarify though that I understand that such a perfect example is not necessary to justify the idea scientifically, and it is also not sufficient to disprove the religious idea of creation.  The point is to justify to creationists the idea that the universe is truly a four-dimensional work of art - a story for which a very long past has been written.  The creationist does himself an injustice when he fails to consider that if God wanted our planet to have a consistent, logical, richly detailed history stretching back hundreds of millions of years, it means that there is something to be learned from it. Wnt (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You won't find such an arguement in Dawkins. His stance on Evolution is a pretty good read, however he's rather intolerant towards any religious worldview.  His writing on religious issues is quite bitter and angry, and not at all "rational" if you ask me.  The God Delusion, for me at least, comes of as no less dogmatic than any religious apologetic text.  -- Jayron  32  14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, if you want to read someone who DOES do a good job of balancing the religious worldview with the scientific one, might I recommend Stephen Jay Gould, especially Rocks of Ages. -- Jayron  32  14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Speciation article has some concrete examples of natural and artificial speciation which make the case pretty well. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wnt - that's a significant comment about time being a critical factor. Evolution has created the complexity we now see through having 3 billion years in which to do it. And there's one of the big stumbling blocks. A creationist argument is that evolution couldn't have created what we now see in the pathetic 6,000 years which they think their god tells them it's had. And they're right. It couldn't have happened in 6,000 years. Dunno what "single best case" we could use to get over that hurdle. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Even a much less than omnipotent god could get past the physics difficulties if it were required - you could say, he just blew on the continents early on to separate them much more quickly than in the current day. But the difference is that such a minor deity would leave no field reversals in the part of the ocean that was separated in some rapid semi-cataclysmic fashion.  Now a suitably powerful deity can get all the tricky little details right, but doing that displays a deliberate intent to make the result match what would occur from the physical processes observed by natural scientists.  The point is not to show that the natural science model is absolutely true, notwithstanding supernatural intervention.  It is to show that it is meaningful - that even God thought it was important to keep the theory consistent!  I should point out that even a run-of-the-mill atheist can read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and at least suspend disbelief on a model in which an alien species perfectly recreates the Earth after it has been destroyed - for people on such an Earth a nonreligious creationism is actually the truth, and yet one supposes that it is still useful for them to study evolution.  Of course, with anything less than an omnipotent, omniscient deity, the errors will eventually show.  Actually, it has sometimes been my speculation that this really isn't the original Earth, but a historical recreation of the first period of history that was recorded well enough to make a decently accurate simulation, and occasionally I am prone to wonder whether certain details are errors in it.  (For example, I've wondered whether a primate species capable of such amazing feats of acrobatics truly could not manage to put one of a few keys into a lock without fumbling around for half a minute; perhaps the original humans did this only as a matter of politeness?  But I digress!)  Wnt (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am prepared to believe in a God that has created the world, by Intentional Design, so that it very cleverly in all its details is entirely consistent with modern Evolutionary biology (and Evolutionary psychology, too, and so on).
 * But the overwhelming weight of all the available evidence, and the learned consideration of it, supports -- is consistent with -- the possibility that it has all occurred the way it has over the course of aeons without any need for any "Divine Guidance" of it according to some divinely "Intelligent Design" of it.
 * But, still, God, for reasons of God's own, could have made it just look that way – exactly as if there is no need for a God even though there really is a God! Right?  But... what difference would the existence of such a God make?  And why would God want to do that?  If it is the God of the JudeoChristian bible that you believe to be behind such diabolical trickery, could it be because that God is a very "jealous" God, and just wants to test to see if we will still "believe" even though there is absolutely no good reason to do so on the basis of the evidence that God has seen fit to make available to us...?  Do you think a God capable of "creating" this whole world in all its unimaginable vastness and complexity would really be inclined to such childish games?
 * I am prepared to believe in any God in Whom there is any good reason or cause or use to believe in. That God is welcome to make Its existence known to me at any time.  If you have some reason to believe in the God you believe in -- well, God bless you and more power to you.  But don't assume that reason or that God must necessarily exist for anyone else - and I recommend just leaving it at that, especially here at the Science desk.   WikiDao    &#9775;  05:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "no need for God" part is tricky. Very tricky.  The universe could have operated "spontaneously" with a set of physical laws that didn't allow for life.  The strong anthropic principle suggests that we just happen to see the universe which allows us to exist.  But what does it mean for us to exist?  To perceive things?  Why doesn't a fire, say, count as having a perspective that it devours fuel and responds?  Why aren't its ever-changing currents as capable of feeling and experiencing as our brains' electric currents?  (Then again, I suppose I don't know for sure that they're not...)  The point is, this idea that things can be experienced comes from somewhere.  The ideas that there's such a thing as space, such a thing as time, such a thing as perception, such a thing as thought, where do these come from?  The materialistic idea that matter just exists and knows what to do by some laws of physics, all without any designing intellect ... it seems like a shell game.  God has just been swept into tidy little corners, The Mind's I kind of stuff, where we find the philosophy so hard to think about that we ignore it.  But it's not a meaningful settlement.
 * The simplest way to describe the difference between the purpose of religion and that of science is to picture the universe being intelligently designed in stages, like a draft that is gradually written and revised by an author. If you picture space as a movie, and take one "frame" of three-dimensional space frozen in time, then the relationship of that frame to the ones before and after it as defined by physical laws and perceived by mundane consciousness is one temporal dimension.  God's involvement in that dimension is deliberately very small, and may not be distinguishable from the indeterminate laws of physics.  But another dimension of time links a frame to a different frame in which a process of divine authorship and revision is going on, according to its own supernatural laws.  Thus there is a linear succession of parallel universes in a fifth dimension, which is defined as "God's sense of time".  This is particularly consistent with Christian theology in particular, which postulates that the universe was created on a succession of days (in God's time only, as there are no humans described to see the first few days) leading to a small, simple, easy universe, which is then replaced by a series of more complex universes, and where even the current universe is not the final form, but is to be replaced by a perfected version. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For most religions the thing you have to get across is that their religion does not require them to believe evolution is wrong. Some of their teachers think it which is a different thing altogether. They don't have to believe in a God who is scheming to test them with tricks like having layers and layers in the mountain dating back millions of years when it is only their teacher who believes in the six thousand years dateline. Do they really want a God that plays silly tricks? Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Dmcq: it is important not to try to just rip a person's religion away before they have a better sense of how they could get along just as well or better without their beliefs. Permit God, but explain the Science... and then let them come to question their notion of God on their own.
 * In your case, Wnt, I get the impression you've already got some Science and would like to keep your God, too. Fair enough.  I suppose the main criticism I would have of your comments above would be the extent to which you are implicitly anthropomorphizing God.  Perhaps this stems from that "created in the image of" business in the Bible, I don't know.  But if you are going to believe in a God that thinks (which implies not just "knowing" some things at some times) like us and feels (including "jealousy") like us and acts (including "designing") like us – well, first of all, that's a really imperfect God!  If you waive that apparent imperfection away as part of a mystery that is beyond us – well, what good is the concept of a mysteriously imperfect "perfect being"?  It sounds more like just sloppy thinking to me.
 * Any Absolute Being should be beyond "personality" in any comprehensible sense. In fact, saying anything at all about such a Being artificially limits that Being into belonging to our own personal, cultural, etc. conceptual categories and linguistic usages.  Which is why, presumably, Buddha, for one, refused to even say a word on the subject: you say a word, you get it wrong, and trying to say anything just causes endless confusion, so why bother?  Similarly with Science: there is no need to understand how the universe works by appealing to some person-like Creator and Designer, and doing so just is not very useful, so why bother?  There is no need; and eg. Evolution can be understood better without having to do so!
 * That still leaves room for various personal beliefs in God, in which, depending on the person, there may be some utility. But the Universe does not require it.  It works just fine whether you believe in it or not.  (And no God I would care to believe in would be so weak and emotionally clingy as to "need" me to believe in It!)   WikiDao    &#9775;  18:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong about the order of things. Twenty years ago or so, I was very close in thinking to Richard Dawkins, frequently denouncing religion as a virus and so on (when I began the word "meme" hadn't been invented yet).  I was greatly appalled by the use of religion to promote injustice, arbitrary restrictions on behavior, and mindless cruelty.  But a large number of things came to change my mind.  One was the sterility of libertarianism - despite the goal of people to promote freedom in a general sense, the rhetoric sours into lunatics who want to copyright every word of every sentence and defend their right to "respond to violence" if someone infringes that.  It is a philosophy that starts on the right track, but doesn't have any sense of direction, and hasn't led people anywhere.  Meanwhile, one appreciates the tremendous strength of movements like the SCLC and Martin Luther King, Jr. which were not afraid to look for a broader spiritual basis.  I should also mention Peter McWilliams' Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, a surprisingly strong defense of libertarian Christianity, and a protester at an abortion clinic who withstood my tirade and convinced me of his inner sincerity, as well as a highly ill-considered foray into the genuinely paranormal.  After some evaluation I concluded from the history that the belief in individualism, free speech, and liberty in general was derived in large measure from the message of universal and absolute love in Christianity, with some important additions from Laozi via Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Secular enlightenment, by itself, is like a vehicle that one can drive some distance - but the religious background ultimately provides the sense of purpose that is the fuel.  I don't mean to say anything negative about atheists in this context, because as we've all seen, one can (all too easily) have a conception of God that has no inner reality, and likewise one can have a view of atheism that leaves room for a sense of deity under some other name.
 * Now as for the meaning of a personal God, this is a very sectarian issue - even many Christian groups did not consider the Old Testament as part of their doctrine prior to Constantine I, who began the persecution of heretics as once all Christians had been persecuted; it was part of an all too commonplace effort of a government to take a religion and use it for its own purposes. But to make an imprecise analogy, the Earth is vast, and yet personal - we go here and there, and touch the stones and the soil, and see many different facets of its beauty and also of its pain; and yet we shall return to it, our atoms commingled with all the others.  [Some part of this conversation might best be transferred to the Humanities section...] Wnt (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as Laplace said I have no need for that hypothesis. If other people want to believe that sort of thing it's fine by me. I do think it is a pity though for people with their finite span on earth to obscure their minds with weird stories. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All very interesting, but yes I agree we are now not only way off-topic but way off-desk, too. ;) Regards,  WikiDao    &#9775;  01:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a parting shot I should point out that the "finite span on earth" is itself a religious view: in modern materialism it is assumed that everything that happens to a person is perceived (even if it is forgotten in an alcohol blackout or subsequent Alzheimer, stroke, etc.; but that nothing that happens to another individual is sensed by a person. The "person" is defined as a physical brain, rather than as, say, a general process or algorithm, such as an Atman like universal force of consciousness.  I would say thus that materialism also is a story that obscures the mind, because while the "person" or soul may be a piece of software that should be developed and made worthy of being preserved in a future release of the universe's operating system, they nonetheless all run on the same core processor. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wnt, there are plenty of places for the publication of sophomoric musings and irrelevant memoir. This isn't one of them.  Self-edit, please. 63.17.76.203 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lost in taxonomy
A Pliosaur discovered in Stretham in 1952 and discussed briefly in that article is causing me some nomenclature concern. In his 1959 paper, Tarlo argues that "... the characters of the anterior cervical vertebrae show that the Stretham specimen belongs to the species P. macromerus Phillips ..." then goes on to suggest "... a new generic name [is] necessary for P. macromerus. The name Stretosaurus gen. nov. is chosen as it seems fitting that the village of Stretham where this giant skeleton was discovered should be commemorated".

What does Tarlo mean? Is he suggesting Stretosaurus gen. nov. is a synonym for P. macromerus or even P.? Confirm P. is the genus and in this case is Pliosaurus. How should I refer to this extinct animal? Is it a Stretosaurus, a Stretosaurus gen. nov., a Pliosaur, a P. macromerus, a Pliosaurus, all of the above or a what?

yours sincerely, very confused --Senra (Talk) 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You will find further reference to this question, which may or may not clarify, in the article Liopleurodon. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you 87.81,230,195. Just to be very clear here, I am refering to the specimen with the Sedgwick Museum catalogue number: J. 35990 a–z, aa–zz, A–Q. I have looked at Liopleurodon which seems to suggest
 * Stretosaurus macromerus Tarlo 1959 -->
 * Liopleurodon macromerus relegating Stretosaurus to a junior synonym of Liopleurodon Halstead 1989 -->
 * Pliosaurus macromerus Noè 2004
 * implying (to me) I should refer to this animal as a Pliosaur, P. macromerus? Am I correct? --Senra (Talk) 00:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pliosaurus article mentions the species with no content on a dubious classification, so yes, I think you're right. Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Having now tried to read the minefield which is represented by the Wikipedia articles on Taxonomy, Alpha taxonomy, Biological classification, Author citation, Synonym and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, I feel the need to modify this particular Pliosaur species references to P. macromerus Phillips, 1871 --Senra (Talk) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Followup on element symbols
In chemical symbols like what is the purpose of the left-hand subscript (6 in this case)? Chemical symbol says it's the atomic number, but that's already known from the element name. Why the redundancy? --Sean 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chemical formula notes, "This is convenient when writing equations for nuclear reactions, in order to show the balance of charge more clearly." DMacks (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Nobody needs that for Carbon, because "everybody" remembers the atomic numbers of the first twenty or thirty elements. But Yttrium and Ytterbium, now that's a whole other story!  Heck if anyone can remember the atomic numbers of all hundred or so elements.  Particularly in nuclear chemistry when we have a lot of nuclei on the paper, and a lot of changes and intermediate products, it's convenient, albeit redundant, to annotate the atomic number.  Nimur (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec, continuing my thoughts) In general, if the whole focus of some discussion is centered on the nuclear charge (for whatever reason), may as well just state it instead of having to look it up, and especially for cases where the atomic symbol is not universal (systematic vs eventually blessing by IUPAC, or international language differences). DMacks (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, nuclear physicists also draw the periodic table a little differently than regular chemists: Table of nuclides (complete); it visualizes the information differently and makes it easy to draw decays and reactions on the chart. Nimur (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not strictly necessary, and you'll find lots of instances where it is dropped. But it's convenient. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does a grape soda stain on a white paper towel look like a bird map?
A small paperback book I've had since I was a child has pictures of familiar American birds and shows a map of where they live. The summer range is pink, and the winter range is blue. Some birds can live in certain areas year-round, so the area where the ranges overlap is purple.

One would think a grape soda stain would be purple. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The pink/blue map overlay sounds characteristic of the Peterson Field Guides A Field Guide to the Birds; I have found those to be better than the official National Audubon Society bird guides. Do you have a question?  Nimur (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The question is hidden in the section title (annoying but common) and would appear to ask about the separation via paper chromatography of the various pigments in grape juice. -- 119.31.126.67 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is really a shame that that article has no illustration in it. I seem to recall endlessly doing this experiment as a child, where you separate out black ink into its component colors. It's a very vivid illustration of a basic concept, and easy to do if you have the right materials (e.g. a bottle of blank ink). Anyone game? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * India ink ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, as that's made of soot, it won't separate. Thin layer chromatography has a pic which shows it, but I've done it before with a circular filter paper + a black felt tip. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ER
can anyone tell me the names of  tv show's where they take you into the emergency  room and show whats going on ? example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0p74MgfV-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy35750 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be blunt, but what has this got to do with science? You'd be better off asking the uploader of the video on youtube. SmartSE (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the need to bite the questioner? The link to science seems pretty obvious: a desire to see examples of the science (admittedly sometimes considered an art) of emergency medicine in practice. Edison (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have many entries in Category:Medical television series. ER sounds a lot like what you describe? DMacks (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is looking for documentary material, not drama.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  01:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Trauma: Life in the E.R. APL (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP does not make it clear whether he wishes to know about actual medical emergency departments or fantasy fiction. Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are asking about this show, but any show that covers the subject. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that the OP chose not to post the question at the Entertainment desk. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)