Area54

Senior Members
  • Content count

    668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Area54 last won the day on October 9

Area54 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

1 Follower

About Area54

  • Rank
    Molecule

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Astrobiology, vulcanology

Recent Profile Visitors

1484 profile views
  1. This is more a matter of philology than science. It would have been better if the changes that occur over time in the universe, in planetary systems, in the interior of stars, in biospheres, etc. had been assigned a different word from that used to describe biological evolution. For want of a better word, let's suppose that generic change had been called development, then there would have been no conflict with evolution (where that term was used exclusively for biological evolution). Further consider that the changes in organic molecules during abiogenesis was called prebiosis, then sentences like this : The development of planetary systems set the scene for prebiosis to occur, which - in turn - provided the basis for subseqeunt evolution. would provide a welcome alternative to this: The evolution of planetary systems set the scene for organic evolution to occur, which - in turn - provided the basis for subseqeunt evolution.
  2. Undetected asteroids and Earth

    Try this article. Based ujpon observations made during the 2012 approach the authors conclude that the small diameter, elongate shape and fast rotation make it unlikely that the body is a "rubble pile". This narrows the compostional options. This paper notes the probability that the asteroid is tumbling, reinforcing the suspicion that it is not a "rubble pile".
  3. Our actions on future offspring

    The timing of coitus will absolutely influence which sperm "wins the race". However this will be the case if the timing was influenced by attending the award of the Nobel Peace Prize or exploding a bomb in a crowded marketplace. That is, the events influencing the timing have no effect on the "quality" of the outcome. This is down to the usual effects of chance. (The exception would be, for example, if you insist on exposing your testes to excessive radiation.) If you want to help future generations then educate yourself, follow the Golden Rule and respect the environment.
  4. I quit smoking .

    Keep at it. It will not be easy, but many people succeed. I wish you success.
  5. Kurzweil

    Then please stop spreading rumours. You are laying yourself open to a charge of libel. That can carry severe financial penalties. (Not to mention the fact that it is impolite and makes you look like a fool.) Thread reported to staff.
  6. Kurzweil

    On what sources are you basing this rumour? Remember the saying: If you base your work on one person's work you are a plagiariser. If you base your work on many people's work you are a researcher.
  7. Harvey Weinstein

    If it is accompanied by - implied or explicitly stated "And if you don't do this for me, I'll make certain that no one in this industry does anything for you again" then it would certainly be sexual assault.
  8. I have indicated, in red, which of those assertions you have made that are faulty. Obviously, this is not a rebuttal, simply a contrasting set of assertions. I shall deal with each of them in detail, with appropriate support, ASAP. Real world issues may delay this for up to one week. In the meantime thank you for your participation in this thread.
  9. Who are the "they" you refer to? Certainly not any responsible scientist documenting their work in a peer reviewed journal. Are you being misled by second rate science reporting?
  10. Animal civilazations

    Ankers suggestion is an unsupported assertion. However, you rebuttal contains three unsupported assertions. Do you wish to put any meat on the bones of those assertions?
  11. You noted that the word genus is a human invention. You overlooked the fact that the same is true of the word species. Classification systems are artificial throughout. They are there, as you noted, for our convenience, to aid understanding. Evolution is real: microevolution and macroevolution are in our heads. Macroevolution is a term used by many researchers whose skills and knowledge are way above my pay grade. I suspect they are well above yours also.
  12. My background would be geology rather than physics. I mention this because if you view geology with a degree of disdain as some physicists do this next argument will likely be irrelevant to you. Plate tectonics is an amazingly succesful model for the behaviour of the upper levels of the planet. It explains a great diversity of observations that previously were difficult to account for. This portion of the wikepedia article on plate tectonics summarises some of the highlights of the theory. Can you tell me at which point plate tectonics became something other than plate tectonics?
  13. Is it ethical to clone extinct animals back to life?

    Beavers have been reintroduced into Scotland. I believe a handful of bird species have also been reintroduced. There are moves to reintroduce wolves and lynx. These efforts to restore a recent, or damaged ecology are, I think, ethical. Attempts to restore damaged ecologies by cloning species that are now extinct would be analogous to this and would, therefore, be ethical. I am less certain about attempts to clone species whose environment is no longer extant and which would therefore be confined to laboratories, zoos or small nature reserves. That said, I really miss the ammonites!
  14. I didn't express any explicit view as to what you were here for. I was, initially, working on the presumption that, since this is a discussion forum, you were here to discuss ideas. This statement of yours certainly seems definitive: However, your definitive statement was strongly contradicted by multiple posts in which you explicitly criticised the philosophical positions of others. That implicitly revealed aspets of your own philosophy. By "like-minded souls" do you mean people who agree with you, or people who wish to discuss matters of philosophy? I had read all the posts in this thread. I believe I was following the multiple stringed discussions takin place. I chose to comment on some of your views. That's what happens on discussion forums. I had no idea you were on this forum previously. Frankly, that would have been of no interest to me, even if I had been aware of it. I thought some of your observations were ill founded and I disagreed with them. That's what happens on discussion forums. That kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion forum. I haven't made any personal attack. I have criticised several of the things you have said. That's what happens on discussion forums. The closest I have come to a personal attack is suggesting that your thinking seems to be muddled. If you have an alternative explanation for the ambiguity and misinterpretation in your posts you were and are free to present it. I think you have missed quite a bit here. I have criticised some of those comments and beliefs you have expressed here. (That's what happens on dicussion forums.) I have not attacked you personally. If you believe I have you should report it. I realise that when ones own ideas are attacked it can sometimes seem like a personal attack. That is not the case here. I went so far as to explain the friendly aspect of calling something someone said "bollocks". IF I had wanted to make a personal attack I would have written something more like "Nonsense, you are an arrogant pompous forum rat." For the record, you don't seem to be arrogant, or pompous, or a rat, but you get the idea. I think judging arguments and observations on a discussion forum is a very good idea. You may not have invited conflict, but you implicitly invited criticism of your ideas. (It's what happens on a discussion forum.) I criticised them. You decided, incorrectly, that I was attacking you. I don't know you. All I know are your idead. I repeat that those ideas appear to be the product of muddled thinking. That's not a personal attack. You accused me of being lazy. You didn't accuse me of appearing to be lazy. The first, accusing me of being lazy, is very close to a personal attack. The second is not: it invites an alternative explanation for observed behaviour, or comments, or position. The polite way for one to deal with either is to address the claim, which I did earlier in this post. At the moment we cannot do it because: You are unable to distinguish between an attack on ideas/comments and an attack on the person expressing those ideas/comments. You refuse to read the specifics of my attacks on your ideas/comments. You have gone off on a tangent of misinterpretation and personal attack. Edit: Who is the "Hyper" you refer to in the first quote in this thread? Are you confusing me with someone else? Surely not hypervalent_iodine? I would be honoured to be mistaken for she, but I am just plain Area54.
  15. It is a discussion forum, not a blog. You are probably infringing the spirit if not the letter of the forum rules. I didn't pounce. I commented on your posts in order to develop a discussion. If you don't want to discuss and are uncomfortable when challenged then this may not be the best home for you. (By the way, in the parts of the UK I circulate in, referring to something as "bollocks" is a friendly way of saying it strikes one as nonsense. I'll be more clinical in future criticisms.)