The Dumb Science Questions - Pro Science Answers Megathread

[Tarminic]

If you were to eat and drink lots of Akaline based stuff, would it neutralise your stomach acid?

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that in order to actually neutralize your stomach acid you'd have to drink things that would sicken or kill you.

[dpidcoe]

If you were to eat and drink lots of Akaline based stuff, would it neutralise your stomach acid?

Stomach acid is HCL, which is a strong acid (it disassociates entirely in water). In order to neutralize100% of it, you'd need to measure the exact amount of acid (H+ ions) currently in your stomach, and then take a pretty exact amount of strong base to neutralize it. Looking at Wikipedia's list of strong bases, I don't think I'd want to drink any of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(c...)#Strong_bases

If you were neutralizing it with a weak base (what you'd be more likely to find in random foods), then you'd need to setup an equilibrium equation and look up the kB of the specific base under conditions similar to the stomach, then work it backwards to find out how much you would need to consume (I could run some numbers if you want).

Ultimately I think the best you could do eating "normal" foods (without killing yourself or burning your throat) is raise the pH a bit before your stomach goes nuts making more HCL.

[Tarminic]

A question of my own:

For all life on earth, Natural Selection is the singular (or at least primary) driving force behind evolution. Generation B is different from generation A, which leads to differential rates of reproduction, etc. One would assume that any alien life would have to operate using these same principles.

However, I've occasionally wondered if we only assume this to be true because it's the only mechanism of evolution to which we as a scientific society has been exposed. The universe is guaranteed to be bigger than our own imaginations. Has there been serious scientific consideration given to alternate mechanisms by which evolution could take place?

[Malcanis]

A question of my own:

For all life on earth, Natural Selection is the singular (or at least primary) driving force behind evolution...

There's plenty of evidence which suggest that Sexual Selection is at the least, a strong contender for driving speciation. And Artificial Selection (ie: selection through the intervention of an intelligent 3d party) has already created new species like dogs, domestic livestock, etc.

Then there are geographical effects like Ring species, island giantism/dwarfism, etc.

[Lallante]

A question of my own:

For all life on earth, Natural Selection is the singular (or at least primary) driving force behind evolution. Generation B is different from generation A, which leads to differential rates of reproduction, etc. One would assume that any alien life would have to operate using these same principles.

However, I've occasionally wondered if we only assume this to be true because it's the only mechanism of evolution to which we as a scientific society has been exposed. The universe is guaranteed to be bigger than our own imaginations. Has there been serious scientific consideration given to alternate mechanisms by which evolution could take place?

Evolution doesn't require natural selection, it just happens to have occured by that method most often here on earth. Artificial selection is also a form of evolution (see: dogs). All evolution requires some form of "selection" as evolution is literally the propegation of a selection of traits. Given than natural and artificial selection seems to be a dichotomy, its fair to say there aren't other options.

Taking natural selection to only refer to reproductive-effectiveness selection then yes, its possible to imagine other mechanisms. For example if there is an alien species that is able to 'assimilate' other individuals of a species and force them to have the same DNA (or equivilent), then there would be selection for traits that improved the effectiveness of the assimilation. (semantically this would still be "natural" "selection")

Basically any "propegation" mechanism could be the determinant of evolution.

[Malcanis]

[QUOTE=Lallante;382644]

Taking natural selection to only refer to reproductive-effectiveness selection then yes, its possible to imagine other mechanisms. For example if there is an alien species that is able to 'assimilate' other individuals of a species and force them to have the same DNA (or equivilent), then there would be selection for traits that improved the effectiveness of the assimilation. (semantically this would still be "natural" "selection")

Basically any "propegation" mechanism could be the determinant of evolution.

Many bacteria do something like this already. They're much more promiscuous about sharing genetic material, even between species. Viruses operate on exactly this basis.

[Frug]

A question of my own:

For all life on earth, Natural Selection is the singular (or at least primary) driving force behind evolution. Generation B is different from generation A, which leads to differential rates of reproduction, etc. One would assume that any alien life would have to operate using these same principles.

However, I've occasionally wondered if we only assume this to be true because it's the only mechanism of evolution to which we as a scientific society has been exposed. The universe is guaranteed to be bigger than our own imaginations. Has there been serious scientific consideration given to alternate mechanisms by which evolution could take place?

I have a great book called The Armchair Universe that touches on suggesting that there is more at work by looking at broader concepts like pattern formation and fractals and all that fun hippie stuff (with enough science and math not to be completely wishy washy), identifying all the weird patterns found in nature. It never posits what is at work or how. It just says that something interesting is going on which, I guess, we already knew.

[Equium Duo]

A question of my own:

For all life on earth, Natural Selection is the singular (or at least primary) driving force behind evolution. Generation B is different from generation A, which leads to differential rates of reproduction, etc. One would assume that any alien life would have to operate using these same principles.

However, I've occasionally wondered if we only assume this to be true because it's the only mechanism of evolution to which we as a scientific society has been exposed. The universe is guaranteed to be bigger than our own imaginations. Has there been serious scientific consideration given to alternate mechanisms by which evolution could take place?

Why intelligent design of course!!

[walrus]

Intelligent design could be the driving force of evolution in a place with sufficiently advanced creatures. See genetic modifications and such shenanigans. It wouldnt be the source of the initial sufficiently advanced creatures tho.

[Steph]

A question of my own:

For all life on earth, Natural Selection is the singular (or at least primary) driving force behind evolution. Generation B is different from generation A, which leads to differential rates of reproduction, etc. One would assume that any alien life would have to operate using these same principles.

However, I've occasionally wondered if we only assume this to be true because it's the only mechanism of evolution to which we as a scientific society has been exposed. The universe is guaranteed to be bigger than our own imaginations. Has there been serious scientific consideration given to alternate mechanisms by which evolution could take place?

In other words, has anybody come up with a competing theory that allows for gradual changes in organisms over long periods of time due primarily to natural selection?

You might as well ask if there's a competing theory for gravity that allows objects of mass to be attracted to one another. That is the theory.

Or if I've misread and you're asking if there's a theory that incorporates a mechanism other than natural selection then yeah, intelligent design. Except that's not a scientific theory because it's not falsifiable.

[Frug]

In other words, has anybody come up with a competing theory that allows for gradual changes in organisms over long periods of time due primarily to natural selection?

You might as well ask if there's a competing theory for gravity that allows objects of mass to be attracted to one another. That is the theory.

Or if I've misread and you're asking if there's a theory that incorporates a mechanism other than natural selection then yeah, intelligent design. Except that's not a scientific theory because it's not falsifiable.

Biological organisms are ridiculously complex and exist in a web of relationships with other organisms and external factors. I don't think evolutionary theory is like gravitational theory, or that that comparison means it's the be-all, end all of means for organisms to evolve over time. Also it doesn't need to be falsified for other influences to become evident later. Actually I don't think you should ever put a stamp of finality and completeness on anything like that.

edit: btw tarm I may have confused the name of the book with another similar one. I need to go back to check what the hell one I'm actually thinking of.

[Steph]

I wasn't.

[Frug]

oh.. well ok then.

Oh and the book is called The Self-Made Tapestry, not armchair universe. Part of the point of the book IIRC is that structures that arise biologically in nature are (obviously) bounded by the limits of biological feasibility. But not just that, the repetition of certain patterns across different areas and some other things I can't recite on the spot because I'm the dumb suggest you needn't just look at completely random mutations weeded out by survivability as a source for these traits. They can appear naturally as a result of really simple interactions (zebra stripes and leopard spots he explains as really easy to reproduce, honeycombs as an example of a well-packed structure that didn't necessarily start with other shapes like triangles or squares). So basically if you move up a level of abstraction you can speculate on another order of self organization that isn't just natural selection as we generally talk about it.

[Steph]

This thread is fun. It needs to come back.

Here's something Cue and I were puzzling over...and by puzzling I mean arguing. Is oxygen itself combustible? Can it burn in the absence of another fuel source?

[elmicker]

Combustion is simply defined as an exothermic reaction between a fuel and an oxidiser. An oxidiser is simply a material that is reduced; something that gains electrons in a chemical reaction, accepting them from the reducing agent (generally the fuel) which is oxidised. If that's confusing, just remember OIL RIG: Oxidiation Is Loss [of electrons], Reduction Is Gain [of electrons]. Still remember that from year 9 chemistry, cheers doc harb. This means that combustion is not just limited to burning shit in oxygen, which is what gives us explosives and rockets: they carry their own oxidising agent so that they dont have to use the air, and that oxidising agent is rarely oxygen (except in some liquid fuelled rockets). So, the question becomes can oxygen be oxidised, to which the answer is probably yes but I really can't think of any examples, and it almost certainly depends on what species of oxygen, whether atomic oxygen, diatomic molecules or ozone.

ed: Probably a reaction between flourine and oxygen but you'd have to ask a chemist.

[Synapse]

This thread is fun. It needs to come back.

Here's something Cue and I were puzzling over...and by puzzling I mean arguing. Is oxygen itself combustible? Can it burn in the absence of another fuel source?

Simpler and not as useful answer as elmicker: Fire is a chemical reaction, so you need 2 things, just oxygen won't do. Throw in some hydrogen and you're in business though.

[Devec]

I think you need to see it like this. Fire is a reaction between certain elements. Adding energy to oxygen alone would only transform it into a different matter state, namely gas. Which oxygen already is but it won't just ignite, the density decreases because of the energy pumped in.

When we look at a classical combustion of say a piece of wood what we get is a sustainable reaction of the energy which has been stored inside the piece of wood in the form of carbon. By setting into motion the reaction through a pulse of highly concentrated energy, in this case fire, you start a process. Carbon reacts with oxygen through the addition of energy namely to keep it very simple:

C + 2O = CO2

Of course there may be other by-products and reactions going in within the burning of a piece of wood, but this is a simple as it gets. A reaction takes place which releases energy in the form of heat which are carried by the carbon-dioxide. Which is considered to be the most common reactionary byproduct on earth (in space this is helium because :stars

[Jurskjeld]

What would it take to make the moon crash into the earf?

[Straight Hustlin]

What would it take to make the moon crash into the earf?

the annihilatrix obviously.

[Zeekar]

What would it take to make the moon crash into the earf?

Time.