Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
97 online now:
CosmicChimp, nwr, PaulK, Stile, Theodoric (5 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,087 Year: 6,199/6,534 Month: 392/650 Week: 162/278 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unexpected Dates.
compmage
Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 16 of 33 (17086)
09-10-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by frank
09-10-2002 11:10 AM


Sorry about that. I got it horribly wrong. It's not aliens, it's extra terrestrial. The theory goes that life originated on some asteriod, it crashed it earth, and evolved further. If you search for aliens, you've probably got to sites of new age alien sites. sorry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 11:10 AM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 1:05 PM compmage has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4995 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 17 of 33 (17087)
09-10-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by compmage
09-10-2002 3:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Well, actually, all my sources are secondary. Unfortunatly, I do not have the time to do the thorough research, because I'm not a scientist. However, I would like to see evolusionist scientists and creationist scientists go head to head on these matters, instead of just accussing each other of misinterpretation on these matters.

But I would love to know if this IS misinterpretation. As I said in the beginning. Evolusionist should admit error if something is disproved by creationists, BUT ALSO, creationists should not use evidence that has all ready been disproved.

I'll be doing some more reading. I'll be comming back later for more questions.

PS. I am aware of Carbon datings limits. But wouldn't It then show an infinite reading, instead of 36000 years?

Cheers

Hanno


JM: Now that your blitzkrieg into the forum is over, maybe we can talk about the reliability of your secondary sources. Number 1, regarding the claims about C-14 dating. I have investigated two studies by Andrew Snelling (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm) and found some serious flaws with his analysis. I won't bother to repeat them here because they are discussed in detail on the site. Secondly, depending on the lab and equipment, a C-14 date of 36000 years might be the limit. Your assertion that the age should give infinity is specifically incorrect though grossly accurate. Why? Depending on the equipment and technique used, an 'infinite age' for C-14 dating IS 36000-55000 years (essentially the limit for the technique). As for your assertions regarding a 1968 paper from JGR, you might want to note that some samples contain excess argon. Sometimes dating doesn't work. Heck, sometimes my watch does not run properly, but I do not conclude that because I have a bad watch, all watches must be wrong. You might want to consider how one derives consistent radiometric ages (http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm). Finally, your attempt to marry communism to evolution is laughable. Bilogical evolutionary theory says nothing about the views expressed by idealogues. As you or someone else has noted, true Communism has a goal of 'Utopia' where no one is oppressed and all work for the common good.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 11:58 AM Joe Meert has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 18 of 33 (17088)
09-10-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Joe Meert
09-10-2002 11:48 AM


Well, they are not actually so disconected historically. Marx was waiting for something like Darwins publication. He needed a non-religious theory how life came into being, so he can justify his theory on religion. I'm not sure about it, but they might actually have met. So, historically, if not anything else, there is a connection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 09-10-2002 11:48 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 12:23 PM compmage has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 19 of 33 (17093)
09-10-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by compmage
09-10-2002 11:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Well, they are not actually so disconected historically. Marx was waiting for something like Darwins publication. He needed a non-religious theory how life came into being, so he can justify his theory on religion. I'm not sure about it, but they might actually have met. So, historically, if not anything else, there is a connection.

Hitler and Winston Churchill are historically connected without their philosophies overlapping...what kind of an argument are you trying to make?

Evolution (again) is the scientific description on how speciation occurs. Communism is a political system. Marx was a philosopher. Darwinism is in direct disagreement with Marxism....where Darwinism was co-opted for a negative purpose was by Francis Galton (one of the founders of forensics) who also was a leader of the early eugenics movement. Darwin was in complete disagreement with Galton as Galton had completely misunderstood evolutionary theory and proposed that the upper classes of society were "fitter" and superior. Eugenics has been debunked as horse caca by science since the 60's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 11:58 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:45 PM Mammuthus has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3883
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 20 of 33 (17100)
09-10-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by compmage
09-09-2002 9:21 AM


quote:
Lastly. The dating techniques I still not sure one way or the other. It is based of the deteriation cicles of certain elements in the bones, but how can you be sure what the element ratio was in the beginning? A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year. This must be because there were already of the deteriated material in the Mollusk.(Science, Vol 141 (1963) pg 634)
Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801. (Journal of Geophysical research Vol 73 July 15, 1968, Pg 4601)

Joe Meert and others have already made substantial replys to this topic, but I'll add a few comments.

Both of the above originated in peer reviewed journals. Apparently, both articles are about studies of situations where the respective radiometric methods gave erronious results. I must presume that there was also substantial discussion (in the original articles), on why the methods gave the results. I must also presume that the creationist(s) have chosen to focus in on the bad results, and ignore the discussion on the whys of the bad results.

Joe has covered the K/Ar question. My only comment is the question: Is that 3 billion year date a typo, the real number being 3 million years? Not that it really matters in the scope this discussion.

As for the carbon dating of mollusk shells. I have posted on this before, at one of the radiometric dating topics. I pulled the info from my isotope geology text.

For radiocarbon dating to be accurate, the carbon in question must have been in equilibrium with the atmosphere at the time of the life forms death. Or in the above case, while the mollusk is living. But the carbon content of seawater is often not in equilibrium with the atmosphere of the time. Rather, the carbon ratios perhaps reflects an atmosphere contact of the past. Or perhaps the carbon ratios of the sea floor sediment. There are also other potential problems.

Reference:
Principles of Isotope Geology, Gunter Faure, 1977, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The dating of shells is discussed on pages 315-317.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-10-2002]

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by compmage, posted 09-09-2002 9:21 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 32 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 7:33 AM Minnemooseus has replied

frank
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 33 (17101)
09-10-2002 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by compmage
09-10-2002 11:19 AM


No problem at all Hanno.

The only actual evidence I am aware of for extraterestial life (and I understand it is not conclusive, and certainly not meant to infer the origin of life on this planet) is a meteorite found in Antarctica a number of years back. You can learn more about it at :

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html

Have fun here and

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 11:19 AM compmage has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 22 of 33 (17103)
09-10-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Minnemooseus
09-10-2002 1:01 PM


Thank you for you cool and rational reply. Some evolusionists can become quite touchy, I noticed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-10-2002 1:01 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 23 of 33 (17104)
09-10-2002 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mammuthus
09-10-2002 12:23 PM


Really, old chap. It's elementary really. I did not want to put it quite so harsh, but since you insist that i clarify this, I will. Simmilar to Communist in Russia, Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not, just as Communist was forced down on the poor Russians. To you it might be a fact, but, for heaven sake, don't force it down on people that doesn't want to hear it. Chemistry and Biology is very closely related, yet it is two different subjects on school, and is hardly ever mixed in documentaries. Why can't Biology and Evolusion not be seperated into two different subjects as well? That way, anyone interested in nature do not have to listen to evolution if he doesn't want to. And foalla, everyone is happy. Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway? Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.

There is to date still no rational explination as to HOW evolution occurs in the first place. Don't tell me it's mutations. No random mutation can be positive. I'm a programmer. If someone who doesn't know a thing about computer languages come and randomly change something in my code, the chance is 99.999999999999999999999% that it will case an error. Now the human gene is a billion times more complex than my computer programs. What is more, unlike my program, each gene control many parts of the body. So in the very rare occurance that a gene has a positive change, it will also have quite a few negative effects. The overall efect will be negative. Also it still has to be proven how a mutation in one animal, can be transfered to the entire specie. Usually, they disappear or fade in following generations. There probably is a nice sounding theory, but has it been proven on large animals?

The process of exactly HOW evolution occures is pure speculation, and there is no experiment performed to date that successfully demonstrated this process. There is also no explanation why evolution would simply stop in some species, such as the shark and jelly fish.

Why is there not a single shred of evidence of a transitional form, both today or in the fossil records? I know that the newest theory says that evolution happens in leaps, but surely not within a single generation? Then with all the millions of changes there was in animals, surely some of those must have been preserved? Surely, at the very least there sould be one?
And when we take the evolutionary tree. You have skeleton thats 200 million years old and then one totally different 150 million years later, and then they are charted as relatives. What proof do you have of this? Is there still some dna left in the bones? Maybe, it evolved from something totally different, something that was never fosilized.

So there has been experiments which describe how the first molecules found in live were formed. But that is still a huge leap between organic molecules and a singe cell live form. On the transition from dead molucules, to single cell organisms, there is quite a bit on explaining to do.

Let us discuss how the creatures with two sexes evolved from something that can procreate on its own. What does a creature look like with one and a halve sex? Surely this transition must have been a long process. But then why would creatures have developed two sexes in the first place, if the original form could've procreated on its own? And why two sexes, and not more?

Lets talk about that one thing many people that believe only in the laws of science want to avoid. Your self conciousness. Surely if you would arange (dead) atoms in some magical way, they become not become self aware? People that believe in the New age movement says everything, even rocks lives. In that case, I can understand. But if atoms are dead (which I believe they are)? If you could make atoms self aware, why am I, I? Why was my "awareness" born in this body, and not in another? Yes the brain is incredibly complicated, and it's programmed with several processes, BUT If I program a computer to ACT human, it doesn't mean it IS alive. It is still just a bunch of variables, unaware of itself, moving around as it was programmed to do. If that is what was going on in my brain, I would ACT self aware, but would I BE self aware? The point I'm making is the evidence of a soul. Something that can not be the result of the organisation of matter.

Just a bunch of thoughts. Use it, don't use it...
I look forward to your reply to them.

Oh, and I just thought of something else: The larger and complicated someting is, the less likely it is that a random change would be positive. Therefore, it can be argued, since evolution is explained by rare positive changes, it could be expected that the more complicated a creature, the slower it would evolve. But, instead, if we look up the evolution table, evolusion seems to accelerate rhe close you get to now. Why is that?

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-10-2002]

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 12:23 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-10-2002 3:40 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 25 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-10-2002 3:40 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 26 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-10-2002 6:22 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 27 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 6:33 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 29 by joz, posted 09-11-2002 12:53 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 31 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 6:13 AM compmage has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 24 of 33 (17107)
09-10-2002 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by compmage
09-10-2002 1:45 PM


Deleted due to copy. Opps

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:45 PM compmage has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 25 of 33 (17108)
09-10-2002 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by compmage
09-10-2002 1:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Simmilar to Communist in Russia, Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not, just as Communist was forced down on the poor Russians.

And just like christianity was forced down the throats of so many in this hemisphere?

quote:
Chemistry and Biology is very closely related, yet it is two different subjects on school, and is hardly ever mixed in documentaries. Why can't Biology and Evolusion not be seperated into two different subjects as well?

Well, lets see. Could it be because evolution is as much a key part of biology as Molecular Orbital theory is to Chemistry.

quote:
Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway?

Do you take any biotech based drugs. Well there you go.

quote:
There is to date still no rational explination as to HOW evolution occurs in the first place.

The rest of the paragraph was a bit of a data-less rant. Mutations, unlike your computer code, cause a real physical change in a protein. And I can tell you from experience that change is not always bad. If you review the early work in mutational genetics you can see (namely with bacteria) that many mutations useful to the bacteria creep up. And, in contrast to your statement, not everything in evolution is random. Natural selection certianly is not. Which feeds into the next comment by you.

quote:
The process of exactly HOW evolution occures is pure speculation, and there is no experiment performed to date that successfully demonstrated this process. There is also no explanation why evolution would simply stop in some species, such as the shark and jelly fish.

Well, other than the fact that your last statement is garbage w.r.t. evolution. Do you really want papers and citations and if I post them will you read them?

quote:
Let us discuss how the creatures with two sexes evolved from something that can procreate on its own. What does a creature look like with one and a halve sex? Surely this transition must have been a long process. But then why would creatures have developed two sexes in the first place, if the original form could've procreated on its own? And why two sexes, and not more?

Ever hear of bacteria, they have sex in that they exchange genetic material and yet are sexless.

quote:
Oh, and I just thought of something else: The larger and complicated someting is, the less likely it is that a random change would be positive. Therefore, it can be argued, since evolution is explained by rare positive changes, it could be expected that the more complicated a creature, the slower it would evolve. But, instead, if we look up the evolution table, evolusion seems to accelerate rhe close you get to now. Why is that?

That is bunk, evolution does not appear to be increasing. Care to tell us where you came up with that?

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:45 PM compmage has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6892 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 26 of 33 (17115)
09-10-2002 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by compmage
09-10-2002 1:45 PM


[B][QUOTE]Simmilar to Communist in Russia, Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not, just as Communist was forced down on the poor Russians.[/B][/QUOTE]

Or like Christianity?

[B][QUOTE]To you it might be a fact, but, for heaven sake, don't force it down on people that doesn't want to hear it.[/B][/QUOTE]

You think the school curriculum should take into account what some people want to hear, even if it is in conflict with the generally accepted view? So for example, schools should not teach spelling, because some people happen to believe in free-spelling, phonetic spelling, the Shavian alphabet, Glossic, Romic, or other spelling reforms? It is, after all, a subject in which you in particular might have an interest.
[B][QUOTE]Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway? Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.[/B][/QUOTE]

I suspect the growth of the entire biotechnology industry has passed unnoticed by you.
[B][QUOTE]No random mutation can be positive. I'm a programmer. If someone who doesn't know a thing about computer languages come and randomly change something in my code, the chance is 99.999999999999999999999% that it will case an error.[/B][/QUOTE]

You wouldn't get a job with me, then. Your code should expect errors. What happens when a byte is randomly corrupted on your hard disk, or in a stream? I strongly recommend Steve MacGuire's "Writing Solid Code" from Microsoft Press if you need help in this area.

Perhaps you were thinking about the precompiled code itself? That if someone made a change in that it would not even compile? Not sure how that relates to biology - in fact I have little time for the whole genome/ information metaphor. But your example depends entirely on which programming language you use. Perhaps you should explore logic-based, prototype-based, reflective, self-descriptive,
policy-specification or formal-specification languages.

For an example from the logical programming paradigm, take a legal line of Prolog describing an imaginary bird's reflex:

avoid(bat,near).

Of these 16 characters only 25% would cause an error if mutated: the parentheses, the comma and the stop. Some of the mutations could be beneficial:

avoid(cat,near).
avoid(bat,hear).
void(cat,near). /*in this case one would not wish to be standing under the bird */

Other mutations would be neutral in that they would not be understood or would not "do anything" because their conditions would never be met. In a real genome many millions of mutations lead to inviable errors - huge numbers of such mutations result in miscarriages, pregnancies which never really get started etc. Many other mutations would be neutral and others beneficial. It's not so very difficult to grasp.[B][QUOTE]Why is there not a single shred of evidence of a transitional form, both today or in the fossil records? I know that the newest theory says that evolution happens in leaps, but surely not within a single generation? Then with all the millions of changes there was in animals, surely some of those must have been preserved? Surely, at the very least there sould be one?[/B][/QUOTE]

What kind of transitional form do you think should exist. For example, if mammals evolved from reptiles what kind of transitional would you expect to find?[B][QUOTE]Let us discuss how the creatures with two sexes evolved from something that can procreate on its own. What does a creature look like with one and a halve sex? Surely this transition must have been a long process. But then why would creatures have developed two sexes in the first place, if the original form could've procreated on its own? And why two sexes, and not more? [/B][/QUOTE]

The evolution is sex is a topic of great interest to biologists (as you can guess, anything touching upon sex generates interest in any field of study) and a simple google search for "evolution of sex" will give you much information. Mushrooms, by the way, have over 36000 sexes. Slime moulds (just about my favourite life form after my immediate family) have 13 sexes. This makes slime mould porn extremely difficult to follow, but very entertaining once you get the hang of it.[B][QUOTE]Lets talk about that one thing many people that believe only in the laws of science want to avoid. Your self conciousness.[/B][/QUOTE]

Many people want to avoid? Its just one of the hottest topics in science, philosophy and computing. However, you appear to have little knowledge of these areas, so I should not be surprised it has passed you by. Perhaps you should read some of the links at http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Mind/Consciousness_Studies/?tc=1 For articifial consciousness, have a look at http://www.mindpixel.com/
There is a vast amount of research and interest in this field. It is highly complex and intellectually taxing - but Daniel Dennett and John Searle write with considerable clarity and insight on this subject: try getting some of their work from the library. Whatever your viewpoint, I am sure you will find it fascinating.
[B][QUOTE]If you could make atoms self aware, why am I, I?[/B][/QUOTE]

But if I am not part and parcel of the atoms of my body, why do I have a sense that my body is part of what makes me, me.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:45 PM compmage has not replied

frank
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 33 (17116)
09-10-2002 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by compmage
09-10-2002 1:45 PM


Hanno,

Some of your points have already been addressed by others and I will attempt not to repeat them.

quote:

Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not,

Care to cite some examples ? Have you been threatened to be sent to a gulag ?

quote:

Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.

I think astronomy has been *very* useful for quite a long time. Do you disagree ?

quote:

I'm a programmer. If someone who doesn't know a thing about computer languages come and randomly change something in my code, the chance is 99.999999999999999999999% that it will case an error. Now the human gene is a billion times more complex than my computer programs. What is more, unlike my program, each gene control many parts of the body. So in the very rare occurance that a gene has a positive change, it will also have quite a few negative effects. The overall efect will be negative.

I work with computers too. I can see a very big difference between computer code and living organisms. I think you compare apples to oranges.

quote:

Why is there not a single shred of evidence of a transitional form, both today or in the fossil records? I know that the newest theory says that evolution happens in leaps, but surely not within a single generation? Then with all the millions of changes there was in animals, surely some of those must have been preserved? Surely, at the very least there sould be one?

Archaeopteryx for one. What qualities must a "transitional" have and why ?

Gotta run now.

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:45 PM compmage has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3138 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 28 of 33 (17131)
09-10-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by compmage
09-10-2002 3:13 AM


[QUOTE][B]Well, actually, all my sources are secondary. Unfortunatly, I do not have the time to do the thorough research, because I'm not a scientist. [/QUOTE]

[/B]

Secondary sources are convenient but it helps to check. I don't have time to do really thorough research either but I might check that ref next time I'm in the library. I think Joe Meert goes on to point out that the reference is probably either (1) a commentary on why K/Ar didn't work on that particular flow because of some unusual circumstances or, (2) the possibility I find likely, the sample was a xenolith in the lava, that is, a piece of rock much older than the flow itself that broke off into the lava and was carried to the surface. One has to be careful in interpreting the conclusion of a source without actually reading it.

[QUOTE][B]But wouldn't It then show an infinite reading, instead of 36000 years?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

An infinite age result just doesn't happen because as you increase sensitivity of the instrument you will even begin to detect some source of carbon, even if that carbon is just from CO2 in the atmosphere or some microbes living in the sample. Also no machine is perfect and some noise in the data is likely to be detected. In order to get an infinite reading you would have to detect a perfect zero and that isn't to be expected. Some contamination and some instrument error is going to prevent it.

[QUOTE][B]I'll be doing some more reading. I'll be comming back later for more questions.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Sure. I'm not the one with all the credentials around here but I'll help you if I can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM compmage has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 33 (17134)
09-11-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by compmage
09-10-2002 1:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway? Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.

Just a quick point, astronomy per se isn`t essential to colonisation of other planets, you could for example build a large number of craft and send them off "towards that bit of light over there" it is of course helpfull in choosing destinations that are not too distant and are likely to have suitable real estate, but not essential....

Now when you get there and the planet isn`t quite suitable the ability to terraform would be real handy, I`m thinking a good understanding of evolution and those areas of biology it informs would come in very usefull just then.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 1:45 PM compmage has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 30 of 33 (17145)
09-11-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
09-09-2002 9:58 PM


Hi, me again

You've all been great sports. thanks. Unfortunatly, I've got a deadline for Friday, so I won't be able to respond this week. Hopefully, next week I won't be so bussy, and then I can upset you guys again.

Cheers.

Hanno


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-09-2002 9:58 PM gene90 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022