This guy has been at it for ages. He was my primary source of information for a research paper on the subject of hydrodynamics and energetics back in 2000 for a marine mammalogy class in my final year of university. Glad to see he is still at it, because his work is brilliant. There's some pretty high level physics involved (fluid mechanics is not for the faint of heart;) ), but still worth checking out.
Earth might be broken in some ways, but it is (most likely) a lot better environment than anything else out there. Earth is a far better starting position than Mars or whatever and fixing what's broken here would be far more achievable than trying to build a viable human-sustaining ecosystem on some other planet.
On the flip side, the spin-off technologies from making a sustainable habitat off planet would probably do wonders for improving the quality of life on planet. Everything from medical technology to air scrubbing and environmental cleanup, food and nutrition to understanding of local ecology and balancing it, energy technology to waste disposal and recycling, and probably much more.
Just out of curiosity, aren't there better things to look for than planets transiting the stars they orbit? I mean, obviously, since we have already observed it (right?), then it does happen, but how common can that be? I mean, what are the chances that the plane of the elliptic of a given star system will be edge on towards us? Just curious...
And a President's first responsibility is to the US Constitution. But that didn't stop Obama from voting yes on the FISA Reform Bill.
Does it surprise anyone that a politician willing to put politics above the constitution would choose as a DoJ appointee a lawyer who puts client above the court?
I'm still cautiously hopeful for the Obama presidency, but I do not have high expectations. I have yet to see a high level politician put the good of the people above the good of the government. I hope he surprises me, but I don't expect him to.
I know Marathon is out there with the Aleph One project, but I would LOVE to see a complete 3D remake of the Marathon Trilogy, maybe using the Halo Engine or something that would equally capture the amazing environments and atmosphere of those games.
Keep the original game play style (i.e. interacting with the AIs via terminals... give them voices if necessary, but don't let them talk to you while you are battling through until you reach a terminal) and keep the story, since it was one of the best, most intricate stories ever in a game. But revamp the graphics and make the environments completely 3D.
If people really voted like that the same party would be always in government.
Perhaps you would be willing to point out for us what the real differences in *actions* (not talking points) are between the Republican Party and the Democrat party in the USA?
Sure, they are two "different" parties, but they both pull the same bullshit on the public and only seem to be in it to line their pockets and consolidate their power. They are two sides of the same coin and they are a part of the same system that has been running countries into the ground throughout history.
I'm willing to bet that's part of what the GPP meant. No matter what, the same types of people always get voted into office and the system never changes for the better until it falls.
Just remember, the lines between species are completely arbitrary and defined by us as a matter of convenience; we like to be able to classify things into groups. Ma Nature will ignore our arbitrary classifications and do whatever the physical laws of the universe (in the case of your examples, in the form of biochemistry) allow. Personally, I think that is very cool and very humbling at the same time.:)
Anyway, just wanted to make that point on an otherwise very interesting post. Don't get too excited about species and speciation because we draw those lines, and Nature will always be free to ignore them.;)
Please clarify your definition of "natural", because your final point makes no sense.
scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
This is a complete contradiction in terms. By "natural" in science, we are referring to that which can be observed and independently corroborated. By definition, any evidence must be natural and not supernatural, as supernatural indicates unobservable or unable to be corroborated.
Science deals only with the natural because the natural is the only thing that can be observed and measured. And, guess what... Science works. And guess what else, the scientific method that gave you the computer that you are typing this on is exactly the same as the scientific method that has (and continues to) worked out the theory of evolution.
One last little note:
And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Not to get into an argument about it, but I just want to point out that WE define what species are, and our definitions are arbitrary. Nature doesn't really give a damn how we classify things. It will do its own thing independent of us. There is no difference, biologically speaking, between micro- and macro-evolution. The only real debate comes up when speaking about taxonomy.
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe". They disprove(refute) or they support.
There, fixed that for you. It's much more accurate this way. Science can never prove anything, because there will ALWAYS be factors that are not or cannot be observed.
I otherwise fully agree with you. I just wanted to clarify this, because people with little or no understanding of science or the scientific method (like the poster below) will jump on you for it.
This, of course, is why most things ending in *ology aren't real science.
I'd be very curious to know how you managed to decide that from an article and a comment about taxONOMY (i.e. the study and method of naming the taxa)...
A good read, if you are interested.
on
Evolving Rocks
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Here's a paper from 2003 that is an excellent read, if you are really interested in a very strong, coherent, and comprehensive hypothesis of the change from geochemistry to biochemistry, that is, abiogenesis:
In a nutshell, it offers a hypothesis of life having evolved in FeS and NiS deposits around ancient deep sea geothermal vents. The nature of such rocks is that they form small compartments which acted as "cell walls" to hold early biomolecules in such concentrations to be able to begin biochemistry. Over time, the biochemistry for lipid synthesis began, at which point eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged as they evolved very different mechanisms for making lipid membranes. This gave rise to the first free life forms, prokaryotic bacteria. It is then further hypothesized that Eukaryotes evolved from archaebacteria involved in a symbiotic relationship which became endosymbiotic with a eubacteria that eventually became mitochondria. And so on and so forth. Read the paper. It lays it all out very well and the hypothesis seems to fit very well with available data, both in the geologic record and the phylogenies of various modern archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes.
It is perhaps the most coherent, comprehensive, well-supported treatment of the idea of abiogenesis I have ever read.
So planets look a lot like noise. They really aren't all that much different than the expected noise levels on the images. Especially on the first one from Fomalhaut.
From far enough away, yes. Yes they do. For example, here's Earth from just outside the solar system, and the basis for Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.
Sorry... steers the organisms toward evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter? How the hell does an organism know what is going to be fitter?
It's called positive feedback, and in this case it seems to be working to the advantage of the organism rather than the disadvantage, unlike most positive feedback mechanisms. From what I can understand, it's basically a self-optimizing system able to self-correct for any errors, and select for any optimizations that occur in the process. Since this is happening at the molecular level where everything is following simple rules based on the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no conscious intervention required. There's no "knowing" required in a system evolved to make itself more efficient. It just follows the path of most gain for least effort. Any mutation that hinders that is corrected, and any mutation that enhances that is kept. THAT is why it is evolution (from what I understand. I haven't been able to read the actual paper. Someone more knowledgeable, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting things).
You know, considering this research has been published in a peer reviewed journal (10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.258103), you might want to give the researches the benefit of the doubt. Unless you are going to post credentials that match or beat theirs or their peer review board, I'm going to go ahead on the basis that their analysis is probably more correct than your kneejerk reaction.
The USA only has socialism for the rich, as they are the ones who need it the most. Us lower classes have to get by on hard work alone. I mean, you don't really expect the rich to lift a finger or have to take responsibility, do you? That would be the death of the American dream.
The American dream of course being to lie, cheat, steal, or do anything else it takes, possibly including work (THE HORROR!), to make it to the top where you can also completely ignore any and all responsibilities to society.
How many billions of Euros have been spent on this project already?
About 3.4 billion euros, and estimated to total around 6 billion euros in the end. Compared to a lot of other things, that isn't that much. Especially when you consider that several countries have been shouldering the cost together
As someone from the US who has been living outside of the US since July 2001, this is why I semi-jokingly say hello to the NSA whenever I'm on the phone with my family or friends stateside.
Yeah, there is no reason for them to be listening to my calls (though I have made and received calls from/in Morocco, a *dum Dum DUUUM* Muslim country), but, well, if they are listening, I wouldn't want to come across as impolite.:-/
I know, right? I realize some/.ers live under rocks, but seriously, I think I first learned about this in 6th or 7th grade science and had already been hearing about it on National Geographic specials and various PBS science shows for years before that. To see this story posted here as news made me, at first, think that something major had happened and the Great Rift Valley was finally filling with water.
It's interesting information and all, but not exactly news.:-/
The point is that they are building their space program. You have to consider Asian, and especially East Asian thinking. They aren't like the west with its "profit immediately or forget about it" thinking. When I see China putting men into space (the third country to do so after Soviet Russia and then the USA) and now doing space walks, that means they already have a long term plan to set up semi-permanent if not permanent colonies in orbit or on other celestial bodies.
See, they are not in a space race. They are doing this for their more distant future. When they do something like this, they aren't thinking of the next quarter's profits or even the next year's. They are thinking in terms of the next generation or the generation after.
And, I applaud them for it. It is nice to see homo sapiens thinking long term about getting off this pale blue dot of ours, and not only thinking about it but taking active steps towards such a goal. I couldn't care less what language they are speaking or what country they are from. They are humans and they are making the effort that others seem to have given up on. Power to them.
True, if time only exists within the universe as per the given definition. Point taken. Now tell me this, what lies outside the bounds of space and time?
Again, it's a meaningless question, because "outside" is a property of space. The simplest answer is "nothing". If there is "something" then it must, by definition, be part of the universe and it's just that the universe has a larger scope than we realize right now.
Look, I guess my belief is this: As far as everything that we have access to and everything that can affect us, all that must be "within" (for lack of a better word) the universe. If there is anything "beyond" the universe then it is as good as not existing because we could never know of its existence and its existence could never affect us. If we could or it could, then it would have to be, by definition, part of the universe.
Granted, this belief is somewhat based on faith, but I feel that is more of just going with the null hypothesis. A hypothesis with no supporting evidence is, for all intents and purposes, false. If something is out there that cannot ever be measured or known, then, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. That is how I see the universe. I keep an open mind and will happily examine any available evidence, but God is very persistent in not supplying any evidence at all.
What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.
No, it is not. It is literally a meaningless question. Time is a characteristic of the universe. Without the universe the idea of time is meaningless. Literally. It has no meaning. Only within the confines of the universe does time have meaning. Asking "what happened before the start of the universe?" is like asking "what time was it before there was such a thing as time?". They are words. They do form questions. But those questions are without meaning. They don't make sense.
That word "infinite". I do not think it means what you think it means. Your post is made of words forming sentences that appear to have meaning, but which in the end are as meaningless as the question "What came before the big bang?" or "What is north of the north pole?".
Those questions are meaningless. The first question is meaningless because time is a property of the universe and concepts like "before" and "after" can only apply inside of it. The second question is meaningless because the North Pole is the limit of that way of thinking about the world and trying to go north of it is beyond the scope of the definition of the word. Saying "outside of the infinite" is just as inherently meaningless.
But I digress. Back to the topic at hand. Yes, I see the word and. Read my post again. The only difference between the two possibilities is that the second has God. Is that not what you were saying/asking in your previous post? My point is that any discussion of God in a science class as an explanation for the science is COMPLETELY unscientific. I don't know what you were suggesting in your post if you weren't suggesting that bringing God into it in a science class is acceptable. It is not. For the reasons I stated: given a complete lack of evidence the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until evidence is available with which to re-evaluate the hypothesis.
If you want to believe that there is God behind it all, that's fine. That's you. But, understand that it is irrational, and irrationality has no place being taught in a science class, or even really discussed beyond explaining why it doesn't belong in a science class.
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:
1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.
2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.
As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evidence, the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until such a time when evidence is available and the hypothesis can be re-evaluated.
Slashdot Mirror
And what is condensed water vapor? I thought so.
Melted ice?
If you want to know about marine mammal hydrodynamics, Dr. Frank E. Fish is the guy to go to. Take a look at some of his papers available for free download from Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.th/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=FE+Fish&btnG=Search
This guy has been at it for ages. He was my primary source of information for a research paper on the subject of hydrodynamics and energetics back in 2000 for a marine mammalogy class in my final year of university. Glad to see he is still at it, because his work is brilliant. There's some pretty high level physics involved (fluid mechanics is not for the faint of heart ;) ), but still worth checking out.
Earth might be broken in some ways, but it is (most likely) a lot better environment than anything else out there. Earth is a far better starting position than Mars or whatever and fixing what's broken here would be far more achievable than trying to build a viable human-sustaining ecosystem on some other planet.
On the flip side, the spin-off technologies from making a sustainable habitat off planet would probably do wonders for improving the quality of life on planet. Everything from medical technology to air scrubbing and environmental cleanup, food and nutrition to understanding of local ecology and balancing it, energy technology to waste disposal and recycling, and probably much more.
Just out of curiosity, aren't there better things to look for than planets transiting the stars they orbit? I mean, obviously, since we have already observed it (right?), then it does happen, but how common can that be? I mean, what are the chances that the plane of the elliptic of a given star system will be edge on towards us? Just curious...
And a President's first responsibility is to the US Constitution. But that didn't stop Obama from voting yes on the FISA Reform Bill.
Does it surprise anyone that a politician willing to put politics above the constitution would choose as a DoJ appointee a lawyer who puts client above the court?
I'm still cautiously hopeful for the Obama presidency, but I do not have high expectations. I have yet to see a high level politician put the good of the people above the good of the government. I hope he surprises me, but I don't expect him to.
I know Marathon is out there with the Aleph One project, but I would LOVE to see a complete 3D remake of the Marathon Trilogy, maybe using the Halo Engine or something that would equally capture the amazing environments and atmosphere of those games.
Keep the original game play style (i.e. interacting with the AIs via terminals... give them voices if necessary, but don't let them talk to you while you are battling through until you reach a terminal) and keep the story, since it was one of the best, most intricate stories ever in a game. But revamp the graphics and make the environments completely 3D.
If people really voted like that the same party would be always in government.
Perhaps you would be willing to point out for us what the real differences in *actions* (not talking points) are between the Republican Party and the Democrat party in the USA?
Sure, they are two "different" parties, but they both pull the same bullshit on the public and only seem to be in it to line their pockets and consolidate their power. They are two sides of the same coin and they are a part of the same system that has been running countries into the ground throughout history.
I'm willing to bet that's part of what the GPP meant. No matter what, the same types of people always get voted into office and the system never changes for the better until it falls.
Just remember, the lines between species are completely arbitrary and defined by us as a matter of convenience; we like to be able to classify things into groups. Ma Nature will ignore our arbitrary classifications and do whatever the physical laws of the universe (in the case of your examples, in the form of biochemistry) allow. Personally, I think that is very cool and very humbling at the same time. :)
Anyway, just wanted to make that point on an otherwise very interesting post. Don't get too excited about species and speciation because we draw those lines, and Nature will always be free to ignore them. ;)
Please clarify your definition of "natural", because your final point makes no sense.
scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
This is a complete contradiction in terms. By "natural" in science, we are referring to that which can be observed and independently corroborated. By definition, any evidence must be natural and not supernatural, as supernatural indicates unobservable or unable to be corroborated.
Science deals only with the natural because the natural is the only thing that can be observed and measured. And, guess what... Science works. And guess what else, the scientific method that gave you the computer that you are typing this on is exactly the same as the scientific method that has (and continues to) worked out the theory of evolution.
One last little note:
And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Not to get into an argument about it, but I just want to point out that WE define what species are, and our definitions are arbitrary. Nature doesn't really give a damn how we classify things. It will do its own thing independent of us. There is no difference, biologically speaking, between micro- and macro-evolution. The only real debate comes up when speaking about taxonomy.
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe". They disprove(refute) or they support .
There, fixed that for you. It's much more accurate this way. Science can never prove anything, because there will ALWAYS be factors that are not or cannot be observed.
I otherwise fully agree with you. I just wanted to clarify this, because people with little or no understanding of science or the scientific method (like the poster below) will jump on you for it.
AC cowardly says...
This, of course, is why most things ending in *ology aren't real science.
I'd be very curious to know how you managed to decide that from an article and a comment about taxONOMY (i.e. the study and method of naming the taxa)...
Now, that wasn't very gneiss.
Here's a paper from 2003 that is an excellent read, if you are really interested in a very strong, coherent, and comprehensive hypothesis of the change from geochemistry to biochemistry, that is, abiogenesis:
In a nutshell, it offers a hypothesis of life having evolved in FeS and NiS deposits around ancient deep sea geothermal vents. The nature of such rocks is that they form small compartments which acted as "cell walls" to hold early biomolecules in such concentrations to be able to begin biochemistry. Over time, the biochemistry for lipid synthesis began, at which point eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged as they evolved very different mechanisms for making lipid membranes. This gave rise to the first free life forms, prokaryotic bacteria. It is then further hypothesized that Eukaryotes evolved from archaebacteria involved in a symbiotic relationship which became endosymbiotic with a eubacteria that eventually became mitochondria. And so on and so forth. Read the paper. It lays it all out very well and the hypothesis seems to fit very well with available data, both in the geologic record and the phylogenies of various modern archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes.
It is perhaps the most coherent, comprehensive, well-supported treatment of the idea of abiogenesis I have ever read.
So planets look a lot like noise. They really aren't all that much different than the expected noise levels on the images. Especially on the first one from Fomalhaut.
From far enough away, yes. Yes they do. For example, here's Earth from just outside the solar system, and the basis for Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/601/PIA00452.tif (TIFF image)
That light blue pixel on the right is us. All of us. Taken from 6.4 billion kilometers away.
Deadpixel, indeed.
Sorry ... steers the organisms toward evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter? How the hell does an organism know what is going to be fitter?
It's called positive feedback, and in this case it seems to be working to the advantage of the organism rather than the disadvantage, unlike most positive feedback mechanisms. From what I can understand, it's basically a self-optimizing system able to self-correct for any errors, and select for any optimizations that occur in the process. Since this is happening at the molecular level where everything is following simple rules based on the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no conscious intervention required. There's no "knowing" required in a system evolved to make itself more efficient. It just follows the path of most gain for least effort. Any mutation that hinders that is corrected, and any mutation that enhances that is kept. THAT is why it is evolution (from what I understand. I haven't been able to read the actual paper. Someone more knowledgeable, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting things).
You know, considering this research has been published in a peer reviewed journal (10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.258103), you might want to give the researches the benefit of the doubt. Unless you are going to post credentials that match or beat theirs or their peer review board, I'm going to go ahead on the basis that their analysis is probably more correct than your kneejerk reaction.
The USA only has socialism for the rich, as they are the ones who need it the most. Us lower classes have to get by on hard work alone. I mean, you don't really expect the rich to lift a finger or have to take responsibility, do you? That would be the death of the American dream.
The American dream of course being to lie, cheat, steal, or do anything else it takes, possibly including work (THE HORROR!), to make it to the top where you can also completely ignore any and all responsibilities to society.
How many billions of Euros have been spent on this project already?
About 3.4 billion euros, and estimated to total around 6 billion euros in the end. Compared to a lot of other things, that isn't that much. Especially when you consider that several countries have been shouldering the cost together
As someone from the US who has been living outside of the US since July 2001, this is why I semi-jokingly say hello to the NSA whenever I'm on the phone with my family or friends stateside.
Yeah, there is no reason for them to be listening to my calls (though I have made and received calls from/in Morocco, a *dum Dum DUUUM* Muslim country), but, well, if they are listening, I wouldn't want to come across as impolite. :-/
I know, right? I realize some /.ers live under rocks, but seriously, I think I first learned about this in 6th or 7th grade science and had already been hearing about it on National Geographic specials and various PBS science shows for years before that. To see this story posted here as news made me, at first, think that something major had happened and the Great Rift Valley was finally filling with water.
It's interesting information and all, but not exactly news. :-/
The point is that they are building their space program. You have to consider Asian, and especially East Asian thinking. They aren't like the west with its "profit immediately or forget about it" thinking. When I see China putting men into space (the third country to do so after Soviet Russia and then the USA) and now doing space walks, that means they already have a long term plan to set up semi-permanent if not permanent colonies in orbit or on other celestial bodies.
See, they are not in a space race. They are doing this for their more distant future. When they do something like this, they aren't thinking of the next quarter's profits or even the next year's. They are thinking in terms of the next generation or the generation after.
And, I applaud them for it. It is nice to see homo sapiens thinking long term about getting off this pale blue dot of ours, and not only thinking about it but taking active steps towards such a goal. I couldn't care less what language they are speaking or what country they are from. They are humans and they are making the effort that others seem to have given up on. Power to them.
True, if time only exists within the universe as per the given definition. Point taken. Now tell me this, what lies outside the bounds of space and time?
Again, it's a meaningless question, because "outside" is a property of space. The simplest answer is "nothing". If there is "something" then it must, by definition, be part of the universe and it's just that the universe has a larger scope than we realize right now.
Look, I guess my belief is this: As far as everything that we have access to and everything that can affect us, all that must be "within" (for lack of a better word) the universe. If there is anything "beyond" the universe then it is as good as not existing because we could never know of its existence and its existence could never affect us. If we could or it could, then it would have to be, by definition, part of the universe.
Granted, this belief is somewhat based on faith, but I feel that is more of just going with the null hypothesis. A hypothesis with no supporting evidence is, for all intents and purposes, false. If something is out there that cannot ever be measured or known, then, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. That is how I see the universe. I keep an open mind and will happily examine any available evidence, but God is very persistent in not supplying any evidence at all.
What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.
No, it is not. It is literally a meaningless question. Time is a characteristic of the universe. Without the universe the idea of time is meaningless. Literally. It has no meaning. Only within the confines of the universe does time have meaning. Asking "what happened before the start of the universe?" is like asking "what time was it before there was such a thing as time?". They are words. They do form questions. But those questions are without meaning. They don't make sense.
Gods Creation. The Universe.
I find it interesting that the actual answer to the riddle is "a shadow".
That word "infinite". I do not think it means what you think it means. Your post is made of words forming sentences that appear to have meaning, but which in the end are as meaningless as the question "What came before the big bang?" or "What is north of the north pole?".
Those questions are meaningless. The first question is meaningless because time is a property of the universe and concepts like "before" and "after" can only apply inside of it. The second question is meaningless because the North Pole is the limit of that way of thinking about the world and trying to go north of it is beyond the scope of the definition of the word. Saying "outside of the infinite" is just as inherently meaningless.
But I digress. Back to the topic at hand. Yes, I see the word and. Read my post again. The only difference between the two possibilities is that the second has God. Is that not what you were saying/asking in your previous post? My point is that any discussion of God in a science class as an explanation for the science is COMPLETELY unscientific. I don't know what you were suggesting in your post if you weren't suggesting that bringing God into it in a science class is acceptable. It is not. For the reasons I stated: given a complete lack of evidence the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until evidence is available with which to re-evaluate the hypothesis.
If you want to believe that there is God behind it all, that's fine. That's you. But, understand that it is irrational, and irrationality has no place being taught in a science class, or even really discussed beyond explaining why it doesn't belong in a science class.
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:
1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.
2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.
As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evidence, the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until such a time when evidence is available and the hypothesis can be re-evaluated.
*sits back and enjoys his smoke*