Slashdot Mirror

Panspermia is the concept of taking one in a trillion odds of a shot hitting the target and firing that shot a trillion times. I'm not particularly advocating for it, but it has at least some basis in plausibility.

We know that rocks from others planets can and do get shot out by meteor impacts on a routine basis as some have landed on Earth. We know that these impacts shoot out large quantities of rocks at a time into space at random directions. We also know that gravitational currents can help objects naturally move between planets.

We also know that bacteria can survive being left in outer space for years at a time. We know that the interior of a meteorite does not particularly heat up upon re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. We know that bacteria are found inside of rocks inside the Earth when we look for them.

Now I'm not going to get into life (bacteria etc) evolving and everything that goes with it. I'm certainly not saying that Panspermia has any evidence of having ever occurred. I'm simply saying that the idea of Panspermia has at least some plausibility as a delivery mechanism for bacteria like life that had already evolved on it's own.

I could see how you'd have a point if the film in question was the only material available about climate change, or even the best material available. As it stands the people who run the museum think that the film is needlessly provocative and does not further the debate. The museum does address climate change. Those 3 links are what I found from a single search, I'm not sure how much you'd see if you actually visited the museum.

I could see how you'd have a point if the film in question was the only material available about climate change, or even the best material available. As it stands the people who run the museum think that the film is needlessly provocative and does not further the debate. The museum does address climate change. Those 3 links are what I found from a single search, I'm not sure how much you'd see if you actually visited the museum.

I could see how you'd have a point if the film in question was the only material available about climate change, or even the best material available. As it stands the people who run the museum think that the film is needlessly provocative and does not further the debate. The museum does address climate change. Those 3 links are what I found from a single search, I'm not sure how much you'd see if you actually visited the museum.

Humanity is embedded within nature and we are at a critical moment in the continuity of time. Our collections are the direct scientific evidence for evolution and the ecological interdependence of all living things. The human species is actively altering the Earth's natural processes and reducing its biodiversity. As the sentient cause of these impacts, we have the urgent responsibility to give voice to the Earth's immense story and to secure its sustainable future.

Raleigh's NC Museum of Natural Sciences has the most complete (by far) Acrocanthosaurus skeleton on display. The quality of exhibits, in my opinion, rivals that of many I've seen. It's worth a visit to their website: http://naturalsciences.org/exhibits

> In a report titled "Scientists Discover T. Rex. Soft Tissue" distributed by NBC on its website, scientists have actually obtained the blood samples of the most famous dinosaur: Tyrannosaurus Rex.

No, just "blood vessels", and even that is controversial. The apparently solid result is the discovery of medullary bone in the leg. Notice the abstract of the paper at the bottom of the link: no mention of blood, or even vessels.

I think the claims about finding vessels is just a misunderstanding of the fact that bones have holes where the blood vessels run, and the medullary bone was found in those holes.