Thank you Meffy for finding that statistic. I was going to post one myself, but I couldn't find a really good source. To myself, this is unacceptible! How can we call ourselves an advanced nation if most of us don't even know the basics of science.

I also read another statistic that says 20% of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth. Personally, I think that the people who did this statistic messed up somewhere, but the idea that anybody in the U.S. thinks that is rather disheartening.

yesrah wrote:I also read another statistic that says 20% of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth. Personally, I think that the people who did this statistic messed up somewhere, but the idea that anybody in the U.S. thinks that is rather disheartening.

You mean it doesn't ?!?!
Joking. Seriously though, that is kind of a sad statistic. Where did you get that? I doubt it's true. Then again, I guess I'm not technically an American and can't speak through personal experience. Still....

Just FYI in case any confused Americans happen to be reading this and actually aren't sure:
The earth revolves around the sun. Not the other way around.

Dylan1473 wrote:Seriously though, that is kind of a sad statistic. Where did you get that? I doubt it's true.

Well, I think the first time I read it it was in Scientific American, in that little side section where they do a whole bunch of statistics. I think they got it from somewhere else though. Here is the most relevent info I can find on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

wikipedia wrote:Morris Berman quotes survey results that show currently some 20% of the USA population believe that the sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know.[6]

If it's an internet poll, I assume most people were just messing with whoever made it. Well, I hope.

According to sociological folklore, in the 1980s there was a big upswing in belief in the Me-ocentric theory of the universe. :-}

[edit: Obviously, present company excepted! ]

windspast wrote:Dinosaurs evolved into birds everyone knows that... But we've maybe found 1 dinosaur that might have looked like a bird or a bird that might have looked like a dinosaur... seems awfully few for so many creatures that supposedly evolved into every flock of birds that exists now.

well, there were the first dinosours, some of them evolved into raptors, some of those raptors, started to have proto-feathers, some of those proto-feathered raptors started to have large feathers that became actual wings, and some of those winged dinosaurs became light enough to actually fly and become a bird:

A: Dinosaur
B: Raptor
C: Proto-feathered raptor
D: Winged raptor
E: Bird

I guess we have all steps right?

snibwig wrote:
Lizards, dinosaurs, and birds are all considered reptiles. Species' inherit whatever classifications their parent groups had as well (by that same reasoning, birds are considered dinosaurs just like we are considered mammals/primates).

By that logic Mamals should be considered reptiles, since they evolved from reptiles.

But they are actually considered their own groups, even though they evolved from the same source. The name of a group has barely anything to do with where they came from.

The true basics of what evolution says are: You are the combined traits of your parents, ie you have your mother's eyes or your father's nose, and changes slowly happen over time. It says nothing about how that happens.

kal777 wrote:The true basics of what evolution says are: You are the combined traits of your parents, ie you have your mother's eyes or your father's nose, and changes slowly happen over time. It says nothing about how that happens.

Well, maybe not the genotype's mechanism -- could be DNA, could theoretically (in some other lifeform) be another method of inheritance and recombination. But at the very core of the principles of evolution is natural selection, the mechanism on the phenotypes' (our) side. That's pretty well established, with lots of evidence to back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

But I agree that birds are not reptiles, nor are birds dinosaurs. They're the dinosaurs' descendants, close relatives but not the same. However, the taxonomy of reptiles is (sorry but I must say it) an odd bird. My own feeling is that dinosaurs should be considered separate from reptiles, but it looks as if my view is either obsolete or overly simplistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile

A complicated system, as you can see. What we think of as one group, modern-day reptiles, comprises two quite separate groups, isolated from one another on the cladogram, with "dinosaurs" and other extinct relatives farther back up the phylogenetic tree. The upshot of all this modern analysis is that I've had to rethink my impression of this whole complex of animals.

Dinosaurs are considered seperate from reptiles, the main reason I know being that dinosaurs had their legs underneath them, while reptiles have them to the sides a bit.

Well, take a look at the information in the Wikipedia article. Lots of the old taxonomy, made before DNA analysis clarified (sometimes completely redrew) phylogenetic relationships, has lately been discarded in favor of new information showing how evolution has resulted in differentiation. In the case of what we think of as "reptiles" this is especially tricky; the cladogram and listings in that article show how the taxa are thought to be related, given recent research. Could be the lines will be redrawn as we get more information. An interesting show, however it will turn out.

kal777 wrote:Dinosaurs are considered seperate from reptiles, the main reason I know being that dinosaurs had their legs underneath them, while reptiles have them to the sides a bit.

There is some evidence, that for at some dinosaurs it is believed, that they must be separate from reptiles.

Reptiles' cardiopulmonary systems are different then mammals, whereas the heart is three chambered. In reptiles, the heart does not separate the blood being received from the lungs and body. This blood is mixed and then pumped out of the heart. What this means is that the blood leaving the heart is a mixture of oxygenated and de-oxygenated blood, basically low oxygenated blood. Also the blood leaving the heart is at the same pressure for both the lungs and body.

Mammalian hearts are different were as there are two ventricle chambers, making a four chambered heart.
The main difference is that because the ventricles are divided and separate, they can keep oxygenated blood separate from de-oxygenated blood and pump the blood at different pressures. This is appears to be the key to having a highly active lifestyle.

It is believed that some dinosaurs must of had a four chambered heart, because most dinosaurs had an upright skeletal structure. Kept their bodies off the ground (legs underneath), some had their heads above the body line, and some body structure indicate being quite fast. This could not be with a reptile heart, and no reptile maintains these body position or activities. The crocodilians are about halfway, their ventricle has a wall that almost divides it completely, and thus they have slightly better separation of the bloodflow. Sauropod evidence shows that they kept the necks upright, like a giraffe. This could not be accomplished with a reptile heart, as the blood leaving the heart could not be under sufficient pressure to reach the brain without also rupturing the capillaries in the lungs. Sauropods must have had a four chambered heart, or at least, an cardiopulmonary system different then a typical reptile and closer to mammals or birds, allowing separation of outgoing blood. Also having a highly active lifestyle for other dinosaurs, as it is believed they did, would require highly oxygenated blood being pumped through the body.

The only group of animals that have true four chambered hearts are mammals and birds. Actually, the cardiopulmonary system of birds is more efficient at extracting oxygen from the air then mammals, particularly from species that fly at high altitudes.

bobus1st wrote:If evolution were so right... why are there more stupid people in the world then ever before? Are we evolving into stupidity? Isn't the backwards?

The reason for this is all the programs that prop up those who in a true survival situation would die out. Technology is a means of counteracting evolution. If we were still at the hunter-gatherer stage, you and your genetic line would have died out long ago due to eating the red berries. You know, the ones that "taste like burning?" I guess it's easy to dismsiss millions of years of evidence for evolution if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and all those fossils were placed in the ground to mess with scientists' heads. Sorry if this post went over your head, but I am incapable of dumbing it down enough, that comes as a result of being decended from a long line of scientists, doctors, artists, and engineers.

link99912 wrote:Every one in my school, and from New Jersy that I know believes in evolution. I think you're referring to a big ol' state called Texas.

I take offense to that, being born and raised in Texas. The common misperceptions regarding Americans, and moreso the "Bible Belt" states, not believing in evolution stems from the documentable, psychological fact that those who disagree with something are much more likely to voice their opposition to it. We who know we are correct in believing in a testable, adaptable theory have little need to voice support for it, and are content to allow those of less advanced intellect carry on with their antiquated beliefs, since it keeps them out of the centers for higher learning.

A few things to keep in mind:

Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

True randomality does not exist, if you take all variables into account.

The entirety of existence can be summed up by a single mathematical formula of infinite complexity that fulfills the three primary requisites for being a god, namely omnipotence, omnicience, and omnipresence.

Seliam wrote:Technology is a means of counteracting evolution.

I've often thought the same. Developing a society that utilizes technology such as ours, survival of the fittest really doesn't apply. We care for our infirmed and ill, medication for diseases, glasses or surgery for eyesight, and even potentially correcting genetic disorders.

I've heard it said that America is the one of the few countries where you could be both stupid and lazy, and still end the day with a full stomach, and place to sleep and a color TV. There are people around, who frankly, if they had to survive on their own, they couldn't.

seliam wrote:

bobus1st wrote:If evolution were so right... why are there more stupid people in the world then ever before? Are we evolving into stupidity? Isn't the backwards?

The reason for this is all the programs that prop up those who in a true survival situation would die out. Technology is a means of counteracting evolution. If we were still at the hunter-gatherer stage, you and your genetic line would have died out long ago due to eating the red berries. You know, the ones that "taste like burning?" I guess it's easy to dismsiss millions of years of evidence for evolution if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and all those fossils were placed in the ground to mess with scientists' heads. Sorry if this post went over your head, but I am incapable of dumbing it down enough, that comes as a result of being decended from a long line of scientists, doctors, artists, and engineers.

link99912 wrote:Every one in my school, and from New Jersy that I know believes in evolution. I think you're referring to a big ol' state called Texas.

I take offense to that, being born and raised in Texas. The common misperceptions regarding Americans, and moreso the "Bible Belt" states, not believing in evolution stems from the documentable, psychological fact that those who disagree with something are much more likely to voice their opposition to it. We who know we are correct in believing in a testable, adaptable theory have little need to voice support for it, and are content to allow those of less advanced intellect carry on with their antiquated beliefs, since it keeps them out of the centers for higher learning.

A few things to keep in mind:

Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

True randomality does not exist, if you take all variables into account.

The entirety of existence can be summed up by a single mathematical formula of infinite complexity that fulfills the three primary requisites for being a god, namely omnipotence, omnicience, and omnipresence.

No lack of self-confidence there, eh? Well, I have to say I agree with you (particularly about technology counteracting evolution, though in a sense I believe it is another step along evolution). Granted, though technology certainly helps slow down deaths from things that otherwise would have gotten people killed, it doesn't quite stop it. I'm interested by this last statement you have here- about a mathematical formula that sums up the universe. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, if you are saying there is probably one that will be found later, or if you are talking about one we have now (the string theory? Not sure that explains everything, I'm not exactly well-versed on it). At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on that statement.

Dylan1473 wrote: I'm interested by this last statement you have here- about a mathematical formula that sums up the universe. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, if you are saying there is probably one that will be found later, or if you are talking about one we have now (the string theory? Not sure that explains everything, I'm not exactly well-versed on it). At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on that statement.

It's not something that we have now, and indeed can never be discovered due to having an infinite number of variables. It is my belief that all laws of physics can be unified into one over-arching formula, it exists, and the formula itself is actually expressed in the existence of the multi-verse, but our finite minds could never fully comprehend it, which circles back to the statement on sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. I don't believe in "special cases" in mathematics, all formulae must work together if they are correct in application to this universe, each universe being a sub-set of the multiverse. No individual formula we have discovered is completely correct, but are close enough to get consistent results while leaving out the infinitude of negligible factors.

And the answer to your riddle is to ask one guard if the other would tell you the door they guard leads to freedom, since if the guard you are asking is the liar, and the other's door leads to freedom, he will respond no, if he is the truth teller, and the other's door leads to freedom, he will still respond no, and vice versa. So if he responds no, use the door he isn't guarding.