Intrigued

William of Ockham would be cheered, but the simplest answer is not always correct. For matters as esoteric as this one seems to me, I prefer the even simpler answer: I have no idea. Not only no idea, but no vestige of an idea, nor even a shadow. I am not opposed to the question being asked, I merely doubt the value of giving a confident answer with our present state of knowledge. (But it should be noted that I also doubt the value of string theory for anything other than exercising the imaginations of mathematicians, so my views shouldn't be taken too seriously.)

Off the top of my head (with no assurance of accuracy) Broaden our knowledge of soft bodied phyla in the Cambrian Refine our understanding of evolutionary trajectories within the Cambrian explosion Enlarge the number of known Cambrian families and genera Identify developmental stages for some organisms Deepen our understanding of Cambrian ecology Better recognise the conditions necessary for the formation of lagerstatte deposits with a view to locating further examples And I imagine the experts in the field have further, better examples.

While I agree completely with your first sentence, I also acknowledge it is essentially an Argument from Incredulity and as such carries no weight. Just because "nothing" is beyond our capacity to imagine does not preculude its existence.

I am an omnivore, because that's what homo sapiens evolved as. Ethically I am opposed to meat eating, but some meats taste too good, so I succumb. That said, I eat little beef, no pork and focus on fish and chicken. Most days I meet or exceed the target of five portions of fruit and vegetables per day.

"Scientists say they have discovered a "stunning" trove of thousands of fossils on a river bank in China. The fossils are estimated to be about 518 million years old, and are particularly unusual because the soft body tissue of many creatures, including their skin, eyes, and internal organs, have been "exquisitely" well preserved." From this BBC news item. The find is within a lagerstatte, a fine grained sediment in which fine detail, especially of soft tissue, is preserved. (Other famous examples include the Burgess Shale and the Solnhofen limestone.) We can reasonably expect signifcant understanding to emerge from further study of the find, and for more samples to be recovered in future.

That is a confident assertion, but can you justify it without resorting to metaphysics or some other branch of philosophy? However, don't waste time trying to answer that question: the subtext of my post was "Let's not waste time considering nothing, let's just think about something." There you go! Sometimes all it takes is putting the word nothing in a sentence and I am immediately lost.

Thank you Iotero for an interesting link. I'm not sure why Koti and Externet have chosen to misunderstand its significance, but I appreciated it. Based on general reading in anthropology texts I too had the idea that religion that stipulated moral gods provided much of the social coherence to enable the emergence of complex societies. It's intriguing (see what I did there?) that this research turns the idea on its head.

Intelligent Design is a brilliant marketing concept developed as a back door method of getting creationism into school science curricula in the USA. This was clearly and publicly demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case over a decade ago. Michael Behe's book is part of that attempt to bamboozle the public. A far better read for "the scientist looking at science for answers" in this field would be something like Kenneth Brown's "Only a Theory" which systematically dismantles the nonsense of Intelligent Design. Darwin formulated his ideas over a century and a half ago - there are bound to be errors and ovesights in his work. Breaking news, in the century and a half since he published his works tens of thousands of scientists have conducted research that has developed his remarkable insight into arguably the most solidly established theory in science. That said, I would be interested to know which particular ideas of his you consider to be "bad science". Perhaps I could then either agree with you that those ideas are outmoded, or show how you have misinterpreted their intent from the few excerpts you have read. (Warning: creationists routinely quote Darwin out of context in order to suggest he claimed something that supports their argument. When such excerpts are read in context their assertions are contradicted.) Note to moderators - I'm not sure if we are even meant to give breathing space to pseudoscientific nonsense by taking the time to denounce it. Please remove this post if it is counter to forum policies.

Molybdenite is a possibility. If it feels soft and greasy and leaves a blue grey streak on a white ceramic surface that's it. Galena, as swansont suggested, is possible, except that doesn't look like a cubic crystal structre.

Isn't it the case that classifying of species is just a way of organising knowledge? It is convenient to group organisms together in order to study their common features and behaviour, which in turn may contribute to a new (improved?) classification. Classification is artificial and is a simplification of nature. As long as this aspect it recognised the simplifcation is a strength, not a weakness. If it is agreed that classifications are for convenience, then as CharonY suggests the appropriate rules for defining species depend on viewpoint and will be the ones most convenient for the intended purpose.

I understand the thread is addressing evaporation, but on the more general topic of atmospheric loss the solar wind is a major factor for the terrestrial planets. I was curious as to how important this might be for Jupiter and beyond, given that the greater distance (presumably reduced impact of the wind). the larger gravity and the magnetic fields of the gas and ice giants should all make for a significant reduction. There are quite a few references to sputtering erosion on the satellites of the outer planets, but nothing on the planets themselves. Does anyone here have any info on that?

When I attempt to contemplate "nothing" I get trapped in an endless spiral of confusion and chaos. I infer from this that I am not intelligent enough to understand "nothing". I don't know if any human is intelligent enough for that, but if they are I am reasonably sure I not even intelligent enough to understand any simplified explanation they would be inclinded to give. Consequently I have found it a sensible policy to focus on what appears to be real. That seems to be sufficient to be going on with.

Re your questions, or at any rate, some of them. 1) Why would such microquakes indicate plate tectonics? I don't know of any such association, but that may well be ignorance on my part. Perhaps you have read of such a connection, or have inferred a logical relationship. Yes? 2) "Full blown Mars quakes" would simply demonstrate that Mars is seismically active. Such quakes could originate from events like isostatic adjustment, caldera collapse, asteroid impact and probably other sources. Sure, plate tectonics could be another source, but the consensus view as I understand it is that plate tectonics is not active on Mars, and most experts do not believe it ever has been. 3) I don't know enough about the specific instrumentation to give an assured answer, but common sense suggests that if they designed the probe to take readings from a greater depth that's because they felt it would give superior results. I guess the question you are really asking is, how much of a difference would it make? I don't know. 4) No idea. Sorry. ?) The signature of quakes generated by internal stresses should be sufficiently distinct from those initiated by impact.