the asinine cretin

I've watched the video, sammy.

SPECIATION IS NOT MACRO EVOLUTION, THERE IS LIMITS TO HOW FAR WE HAVE OBSERVED THINGS GET. that talk origins page is thick thick evolutionary propoganda (no offense)

 

If (no offense) comments are allowed I've just got to say that your demonstrated level of expertise on the subject of evolutionary biology does not instill much confidence in your judgments about what is or isn't reliable science vs. propaganda. I'm sure an actual evolutionary biologist would be even more dazzled than I am.

 

ok i will just ask once-are both you guys actually interested in where im going with this? if the answer is 'no' i will stop posting on this forum....

 

As far as I'm concerned, post on. I'm interested in your sources as well. The E. coli claims you were making before were somewhat interesting.

The video mentioned by sammy

 

 

A related video for context

 

 

A page of possible interest

 

http://www.skeptics....tion-challenge/

just my point though-no matter how many details you fit into a story, it is still just that.. a story (abiogenesis,molecule to amphibian to reptile etc) no one has ever observed some helium or carbon atoms or whatever turning them selves into "life"...nor has any observation been made of MACRO-evolution (yes you are right i dont know how this would be defined exactly but an attempt at explaining something usually comes after it has actually been OBSERVED) therefore both of the above-have no place in science, they have never been observed so they are stories/speculations/belief systems/religions (like creation events in other religions wernt observed either so no one calls them science)

 

...

 

macro evolution is the story i guess (i guess it doesnt even have a proper definiton as its never been observed) that a fish became a reptile which became an amphibian which became a human being or something (this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, francis collins and dawkins both take this official stance ok? i have to take their word for it) so therefore this has no place in science/is speculation etc so it is a religious belief system like christianity is hindu is etc etc....

...

 

I must introduce a distinction: 1. Evolution in the sense of common descent; 2. The mechanism of evolution, e.g., natural selection. By "macro-evolution" I'll take you to simply mean common descent - for the sake of unmuddled discussion. So, the question is, what reason is there to think that common descent is a fact? How conclusive is the evidence?

 

Okay, so, your straw man is that immediate observation alone is what constitutes science and that anything else is mere "stories/speculations/belief systems/religions." First, you seem to be effectively admitting that religions are just stories and specious speculations. For an evidently religious person you seem to have little regard for faith. (I'm teasing btw.) Second, this is mere argument by definitions. Weak sauce.

 

Evolutionary theory is more than mere observation of facts; it is an explanatory framework. An explanation that brings together independent lines of evidence and that makes testable predictions is a true scientific theory.

 

What are the observations and how does evolutionary theory explain these data? The following pages contain a great deal of information along these lines.

 

1. Evidence of Common Descent

2. TalkOrigins Evidence Page

 

One could literally go on all day elucidating the data behind evolution ("macroevolution" if you prefer) and the myriad of things that are explained by common descent as well as natural selection. The record of biological history that we possess is an observational fact. Life is extant and evolving and we have made mountains of observations regarding it. The successful scientific theory that explains these data is evolution. This is putting it mildly.

 

So, do you not consider the data of DNA sequencing to be empirical? And if not evolution, what explains the many observations?

 

Some of the innumerable things that common descent helps to explain: Why does the mammalian recurrent laryngeal nerve take such an extreme detour? Why do hoofed animals have an extra toe that doesn't even reach the ground? Why do chickens have the ability to grow alligator-like teeth? Why can humans grow tails? And snakes limbs? Why do flightless birds have wings? Why do whales have pelvic girdles? Why does the human eye have a blind spot? Why does the vas deferens take such a circuitous route? What explains what we see in the genome (e.g., endogenous retroviruses)? And of course there are innumerable features of the paleontological record that evolution (i.e., "macroevolution," common descent, and the like) explains. E.g., Horse fossil series, flatfish, cetaceans, hominini, bats, sirenia, et cetera. And more encompassing questions such as the branching of life that we see in the phylogenies yielded by various independent means. Why is this so? Et cetera. Ad nauseum... The icing on the cake? Testable predictions. I think the old "God did it; end of discussion" approach isn't so robust.

 

macro evolution is the story i guess (i guess it doesnt even have a proper definiton as its never been observed) that a fish became a reptile which became an amphibian which became a human being or something (this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, francis collins and dawkins both take this official stance ok? i have to take their word for it) so therefore this has no place in science/is speculation etc so it is a religious belief system like christianity is hindu is etc etc....

What do you mean "a fish became a reptile.."? There is absolutely no reason, based on evolution, to suppose that we should ever observe a fish becoming a reptile, or any other such nonsense. When fish reproduce the offspring are more fish. Were a fish to bring forth a non-fish this would require an explanation that evolution cannot provide. Life forms descend with modification and diversify. As populations do their thing over time we end up with a branching bush of gene pools variously related by common ancestry. At no point along the way does one species suddenly "turn into" another species in some metamorphosis event that we could observe. Even the creationist's beloved Cambrian "explosion" was not something so dramatic but rather was a radiation that occurred over millions and tens of millions of years and there are fossils documenting the gradualism of this "event."

And again, macroevolution is the sense of common descent is based on mountains of empirical evidence. Macroevolution as in speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. See the links posted above for more information.

"What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Evolution on the level of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on observation and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying."

 

lol ok sorry, umm the last few pages of this thread will have some interesting points between me and ringer (although there not to clear cut i guess) macro-evolution=molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria (i dont even know the official story lol) to a human being. micro-evolution (this is a shit name for it because it is confusing) =speciation, variation within a kind, CHANGE OF ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME, mutations etc etc..these are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory (other than people like richard dawkins get on tv and confuse absolutely everyone that they ARE the same thing and that because we observe micro-evolution today well...that somehow PROVES that a cell (or something) once somehow turned into a human being...(so the macro-evolution part has never been observed and the official story from dakwins etc is it happened in the past unobserved-not science etc etc)...so yeh ..please ask more questions if you want... just a quote from richard dawkins too lol -(if you dont belive me please google it you will find it somewhere i guess)- evolution has been observed.....it just hasnt been observed while its happening......... OH OK THEN THANKS FOR THAT RICHARD! lol so this is the kind of deception/switching and swapping of terms etc etc that is necessary to get us people to believe it... thanks for your time

 

 

I. "macro-evolution = molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria to a human being."

 

 

1. Molecules to man: Again, the topic of abiogenesis is distinct from evolutionary theory. I must insist.

 

2. Bacteria to man: The origin of the eukaryotic cell is a fascinating discussion, as is the thread in the history of life that leads from primitive eukaryotes to Homo sapiens. Ironic that one of the few books I've read by Richard Dawkins is called The Ancestor's Tale, and I would recommend it if you hadn't just expressed your distaste for the man.

 

3. Macroevolution: While I don't really find myself using those terms, I think of macroevolution as having two senses (disclaimer: I'm not a scientist and have no training in this subject):

a. The first sense being paleontological and referring to evolution as it occurs over large timescales.

b. The second sense would be more in the context of something like population genetics; namely, evolutionary changes looked at between different populations.

 

In both senses I simply understand macroevolution to be microevolution at a bigger scale. It is a quantitative term, not qualitative; and I don't think it's rigorously defined. It's a loose term. And in my layman's experience it is most often encountered on the lips of creationists. Hopefully if I'm wrong a biologist will notice this and correct me.

 

 

II. "micro-evolution = speciation, variation within a kind, change in allele frequency over time, mutations etc etc.."

 

1. Speciation: If we must use the macro/micro prefixes I tend to see speciation as being on the side of macroevolution, but upon reflection I don't think this is necessarily so. I mean, a speciation event can occur on a short timescale and such events have been observed. Speciation is not the same as significant morphological change (what I suppose most creationists have in mind when they speak of "kinds" becoming other "kinds." No?)

 

(As a non-biologist here ranting and sharing my armchair ideas about biology I feel like kind of an ass - hence the screen name, I suppose. But anyway...)

 

2. Variation within a kind: What is a kind? I'd rather not comment until I'm clear on what you mean. I have an idea of what Kent Hovind means by "kind," but I don't want to assume you agree.

 

3. Change in allele frequencies in a population over time: Yes. This is a part of microevolution as I understand it. But I think one might drop the "micro-" and simply say evolution. Changes in allele frequencies in a population as a function of differential survival and reproduction. It's kind of a dry description of evolution, but I guess it's a good one. The shorthand might be evolution by natural selection.

 

 

III. "these [micro-evolution things] are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory."

 

Based on the above I think that you basically accept biological evolution. You seem to object to the plausibility of abiogenesis (which isn't evolutionary theory), and have questions about the history of life (i.e., bacteria to man). The things that you accept as "micro-evolution" are essentially the basic ingredients of evolution. What do you think?

 

....they both fall into the same category- in the past never observed-not science (see definition of science in the post 2 above) therefore if someone believes it, it is taken by faith that it happened....so evolutionism is a world religion just like all the others (obv they all have different beliefs though).....

 

I think what you're doing here is just evasive incredulity. I think if you apply your principles consistently you'll face a reductio ad absurdum. Rather than bicker with you I'd just presume to encourage you to think about this a little more deeply and honestly.

"What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Evolution on the level of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on observation and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying."

 

lol ok sorry, umm the last few pages of this thread will have some interesting points between me and ringer (although there not to clear cut i guess) macro-evolution=molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria (i dont even know the official story lol) to a human being. micro-evolution (this is a shit name for it because it is confusing) =speciation, variation within a kind, CHANGE OF ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME, mutations etc etc..these are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory (other than people like richard dawkins get on tv and confuse absolutely everyone that they ARE the same thing and that because we observe micro-evolution today well...that somehow PROVES that a cell (or something) once somehow turned into a human being...(so the macro-evolution part has never been observed and the official story from dakwins etc is it happened in the past unobserved-not science etc etc)...so yeh ..please ask more questions if you want... just a quote from richard dawkins too lol -(if you dont belive me please google it you will find it somewhere i guess)- evolution has been observed.....it just hasnt been observed while its happening......... OH OK THEN THANKS FOR THAT RICHARD! lol so this is the kind of deception/switching and swapping of terms etc etc that is necessary to get us people to believe it... thanks for your time

 

Okay, so you find abiogenesis (the chemical origins of life) and our common ancestry with modern bacteria to be unbelievable? I will grant that these are indeed big claims that go against common sense. I don't know very much about Richard Dawkins and don't think I have much to offer on that. I would like to point out that abiogenesis (e.g., prebiotic chemistry to metabolic networks & rudimentary biology capable of evolution) is distinct from evolutionary theory. I consider this to be an important distinction to make in a discussion of this kind. I would also mention that there is no theory of abiogenesis, only provisional hypotheses. They are very interesting and suggestive though. It kind of rubs me the wrong way how people often say "we don't know anything about the origins of life" and so on. Okay, sure, we've not explored it enough to have more than a vague idea about it, but I want to talk about how excellent and intriguing are the things that we do know. But that is a rant.

 

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is a mature scientific theory that's been confirmed in many ways and that has a vast body of evidence related to it. I'm sure you can see why including abiogenesis in the definition of macroevolution is problematic to me.

 

More later...

i dont know how to say it more clearly... (i dont care what you believe) THE THEORY OF MACRO EVOLUTION ISNT SCIENCE. (unless you dont believe richard dawkins and francis collins statements/views on it) therefore because this "process" was never observed if one wants to believe it (and i coulndt care less what you believe) it has TO BE TAKEN BY FAITH that it happened. IT IS A RELIGION JUST LIKE HINDU BUDDHISM CHRISTIANITY ETC ETC... i dont know how to put it more clearly thanks for your time...

 

What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Biodiversification across large time scales? Evolution on the scale of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on strong physical evidence, observation, and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying.

atoms are OBSERVABLE (we both know that m8) they are here right now today (NOTICE THE WORD OBSERVE NOT LIMITED TO JUST SEEING WITH EYES)) so they are observable..ie-science.... so the official story for macro evolution is...we dont observe it today (richard dawkins and francis collins both say this, im happy to take there word for it) because it both started and stopped happening long ago in the past WITHOUT OBSERVATION..so evolution=religion it is taken by faith that this process once happened (as is creation event of any other religion christianity hindu whatever other ones there are...) once the laymen understands this they realise why they had such a problem with such statements as "evolution is a scientific fact". please ask my anything you want about biblical creation if you want )i dont believe any of the other creation stories i take by faith genesis 1.1. is true (as evolutionists take by faith their "process" once happened) thanks for reading... (n.b. mods yes religion is mentioned in this post but as we know from dawkins and francis collins statements evolution is a religion so.....)

 

No. Religious creation myths are based on traditions and sacred texts. Evolution is based on multiple independent lines of physical evidence that corroborate to form a rich and substantial forensic record of the history of life. You can scoop up a text, such as Futuyma's Evolution, for yourself and learn a little something about the facts of evolution. Heck, you could even visit a museum and see examples of the physical evidence for yourself. Religion requires faith in unsubstantiated supernatural doctrines; science does not. Common descent is a demonstrable fact. Genesis 1 is an ancient myth written by primitive people who "weren't there" and did not observe the creation of the universe or of life, et cetera. Apparently they weren't concerned with building a factual understanding either. Comparing this with the tools, methods, and standards of evidence of modern science is mind-boggling to me.

 

Having said that, I must add that I don't think your doubts and skepticism about evolution are uncalled for. By all means ask questions, and look into the evidence, and get a handle on how secure or provisional various scientific ideas may be. That is learning. But if you've pre-decided that evolution must be wrong because a creation myth of some sort is "absolute truth" then I'll talk to you... never. Good luck with that.

3-with fossils, no one was around to observe them dying and being fossilised or whatever, thats what im saying-it was never observed, anyone can make up a "story" about something that is claimed to have happened in the past without observation....and thats exactly what it is....a story (not science) yes i know its a fancy story x million years environment ecosystems etc etc , sorry mate its still just a story (see above definition for science)

 

Fossils are tangible physical remains of living creatures and yield a great deal of data about organisms and about the history of life. This is real data. Because none of us were around to observe them dying and being fossilized it didn't happen? It's just a pretend story? Get real, pal.

im starting with the presupposition no macro-evolutionary changes have been observed -yes no one doubts mutations obv, but lenskis experiments/ecoli/bacteria "gaining" antiobiotic resistance, trisomy 21 etc,- i dont count as the type necessary for the n-d-t theory to be possible, ie lenksis, they found that within only 9 days some of them were able to use/digest nylon , i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth, so it can be explained by a "swapping" of genes with other bacteria that did have the ability to digest nylon/had nylonase, so the information was already present in some of them, it didnt have to "evolve" or gain new functional infromation from anywhere...and if it was a mutation i will propose something for the ecoli experiments below...

 

ecoli experiments-same thing (not saying no mutations were involved) mutation-loss of specificity of an enzyme-enzyme can now accept new substrate(s) (citrate) but i presume it started with a DOWNHILL trend of "information" (the catalytic activity across all the "new" different types of substrates is less than that compared to the wild type on the original substrate), so again this is a loss of information. (or again they just "swapped" genes around that were pre -existing.)

 

bacteria "gaining" resistance, same thing i guess? swapping of genes, mutation changes structure of ribosome, antibiotics cant attach to it, it survives, natural selection kicks in etc etc. but again this starts with a "loss" of information (the ribosome has been degraded a little) this is a downhill trend...

 

also im not here just to "debate" and i think you get that, im putting ideas forward and getting rebutted and thank you for that.

 

"To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. "

 

hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific")

 

"Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history."

 

no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not...

 

thanks for any constructive thoughts again...

 

What are you trying to say exactly? Could you clarify? What about sources? I won't bitch if it's Discovery Institute stuff. I'm just curious to fully identify what you're on about.

Well, that would be a pretty silly use of the "design inference." I read a chapter from an ID book that was supposed to address instances of suboptimal design in nature and all it really did was weakly criticize a couple examples that were the easiest targets and then act like it had refuted to whole idea. Pull a silly "purpose" out of one's ass (e.g., the crappy design of the human eye keeps the retina warm), make some specious and/or trivial claims (e.g., junk DNA isn't really junk!); therefore, suboptimal design isn't a problem.

 

I once wrote out a detailed compilation of evidence for evolution at the request of a creationist friend of mine and the response consisted of a bullshit "rebuttal" of one or two of the arguments (there were dozens) and then a "and the rest are similarly fallacious" dismissal. GTFO.

Darwinism can't overcome the information problem! The cell is too complex. It had to be designed. Bacterial flagella of the world, unite!

People who believe in God are broken!? We're all broken. The difference? People who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior are wicked and destined to hell fire. So there.

 

 

 

I've been on a kick lately with the books of Erik Seedhouse and figured I'd throw this out there.

Ocean Outpost: The Future of Humans Living Underwater

 

P.S. (If I may be allowed a sci-fi indulgence.) Maybe the aquatic ape concept will become true after all. I think it would be neat. A bit of allopatric speciation leading to Homo aquaticus. Well, not really. I imagine there would be a subspecies of cyborg human capable of living underwater. Ideally it would be reversible. If not, still cool, but not exactly evolution by natural selection. hehe.

I had found the research paper on HOPE, but only the abstract is freely available, so I didn't bother referencing it. If you are interested it is available here. There are, however, a handful of papers somewhat related to the HOPE mission that are available in their entirety:

 

Selection of an Effective Architecture for A Precursor Mission to Callisto

High Power Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) for Cargo and Propellant Transfer Missions in Cislunar Space

High Power MPD Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) for Artificial Gravity HOPE Missions to Callisto

Human Hypometabolism for Long Duration Spaceflight: Motivation, Possibilities and Consequences

Spaceship Discovery – NTR Vehicle Architecture for Human Exploration of the Solar System

 

I just found this book, published in February of this year. It looks pretty awesome.

 

Interplanetary Outpost: The Human and Technological Challenges of Exploring the Outer Planets

 

P.S. I dig the Nautilus-X on the cover. \m/,

Ophiolite, Those documents have consumed my morning. Thanks. I love it. :-D

The point of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide.

 

Me make joke. Source.

The point of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide.

Good points. I was vaguely aware that the radiation might only be a concern for the closer of the large satellites, but confess I was too lazy to do any checking. I have found a NASA presentation on the proposed mission here. Thanks for making me aware of this.

That's the thing I was thinking of. Thanks! There is a report for HOPE out there somewhere as well, but I don't think it contains much that isn't captured in those slides. What I wouldn't give to see missions of that sort in my lifetime...

the moons of Jupiter (if the radiation levels could be dealt with)...

The radiation on Callisto isn't bad. About 0.01 rem/day. There was a NASA report years back about manned missions to the outer solar system and Callisto was chosen as the location for a base for various reasons, including the relatively low radiation.

But seriously, I'm surprised this vid hasn't been mentioned.

7.4 x 10^6 views is pretty good for any video. Democracy?

I think LED lighting in the wavelengths actually used by a given crop, which varies with its stage of development, would be the ideal assuming only current tech. Example:

You wouldn't be wasting such a big chunk of your energy on photons that the plant doesn't need. Also a good system wouldn't run them beyond the optimal time requirements for each crop. I know that a lot of this research has already been done and is even implemented by commercial hydroponics operations and NASA experiments. I'm quite sure that adequate power systems could be designed. I don't know much about spacecraft power generators but as one example I seem to recall the Soviets putting a spy satellite in orbit back in the '80s that had a radioisotope thermoelectric generator that could generate 6 kilowatts of electricity for a number of years. I'm guessing you could power a lot of LEDs on 6 kilowatts and I also suppose that we could do much better than an '80s era Soviet contraption if we really wanted to.

 

Some of my previous post assumed the existence of fusion reactors. That could surely solve the power problem for a hydroponics bay.

 

P.S. I remember a Google Tech Talk, or some such thing, in which a fellow explained how the world's nuclear weapons stockpiles could be dismantled and used to create electrical generators for spacecraft. I quite like that idea.

 

 

P.P.S. If the light requirement were costly the on-board diet could be engineered such that these food sources are minimized. Fungi are excellent and can be processed in a variety of ways. I know of a commercial meat substitute made from mycoprotein cultured in fermentation vats. Even less appetizing, but perhaps worthwhile, would be in virto meat, which I believe is cultured from animal stem cells. I don't know what the input requirements are like though and it may not be worth it. Fortunately there are many other possibilities for spaceborne food production. If it were more pertinent to this thread I'd further indulge myself on the topic.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is a talk related to some of the above, although not the talk I was thinking of.

 

 

 

There are many more interesting talks related to this on the Google Tech Talks youtube channel.

 

 

One last thing.

 

 

 

We'll need these incredible velocities because of the distances involved (it would take us something near to 20 years just to reach pluto).

When New Horizons reaches Pluto only about nine years will have passed since its launch. The speed of New Horizons is about 58,536 km/h. The current speed record, Helios 2, has a speed of 252,800 km/h. (I have some understanding of the difficulties involved in space launch, and the specific requirements of manned launch, but all I'm saying is that it need not take twenty years.) Even with current propulsion technology, using gravity assists, I suspect we could develop a launch system and design a manned mission that could reach the Pluto-Charon system in considerably less than 20 years, if we really wanted to (leaving aside every other problem involved in such a mission, as well as economics).

 

And what about more or less plausible near-future tech? I've only glanced at the report (I plan on reading it soon), but I imagine something like the "Discovery II" concept could reach Pluto in under a year. The purported Jupiter in four months is pretty darn good. (Yes, I realize the much greater distance of Pluto but I'm guessing it would be under acceleration for a longer period.)

 

NASA Report: Realizing "2001: A Space Odyssey": Piloted Spherical Torus Nuclear Fusion Propulsion (PDF)

 

I'd be curious to know the theoretical limit on the specific impulse of fusion propulsion. I imagine the possibilities for interplanetary travel are very good even being pretty conservative about future propulsion.

 

And what about somewhat possible far-future tech? I think that under 0.01g constant acceleration you could reach Pluto-Charon (at perihelion) in about four months. Let's pretend that we'll have ships capable of 0.1g constant acceleration in the not-too-distant future. If you spend half your trip accelerating and the other half decelerating I think you could reach Pluto in a few weeks. This all assumes that the code I just threw together is correct. lol. Either way, I think it is safe to say that with the 0.1g ship interplanetary travel would be easy - at least as far as time is concerned - and going from planet to planet would take days, not months or years.

 

Throw in suspended animation tech (which is very plausible) and interstellar travel in our neighborhood might be doable. I would still imagine a gradual radiation from nearest stars to nearest stars. And as I said before, there are probably hundreds of Earth-like worlds within 30 ly (meaning ESI > 0.8). While a breathable atmosphere is super unlikely, I think that planets with comfortable atmospheric pressure and large regions of habitable temperatures are out there. Now that I think about it, that movie Avatar was pretty good in these respects. Also, there is reason to think that Earth-like moons are considerably more common than Earth-like planets. Oh, and even if we don't find a perfect Earth-analog nearby (major problem being the requirement of a specific geochemical-biological-ecological history) I think we'll surely find candidates for terraforming that are highly superior to any worlds in our solar system. In the more ideal circumstances terraforming may simply be a matter of establishing the biome and waiting for time to take its course (with tuning and pruning to finagle the desired result). The other side of the coin is that our descendants will be much more plastic than we are - in the sense that it might be much easier for them to adapt to the environment than to adapt the environment to their needs. The obvious tools are genetic engineering, bionic implants, and all that good stuff. Spinning off of a post I made in a different thread, maybe the inhabitants of planet such-and-such will have colonies of nanites in their lungs and skin that harvest normally unavailable oxygen from compounds in the environment; or whatever. This would follow the general pattern of our expansion on this planet to different environments via the progressive augmentation of technology.

 

In the gradual expansion scenario (see my post on page 1) Earth-like worlds aren't as relevant since most people - or whatever they are - will live in non-planetary habitats. There may be an overwhelming majority of comet dwellers vs. planet dwellers. A recent paper suggests that rogue planets are far more abundant than star-bound planets; perhaps by several orders of magnitude. The distribution of civilization may be first among the comets, rogue planets, planetary systems (including moons) bound to red dwarfs, and maybe brown dwarfs, and finally planets/moons around FGK-type stars. Being from an Earth-like planet orbiting a G-type star would be an oddity indeed.

I've not caught up on the recent posts in this thread but I just wanted to make a quick comment.

This seems somewhat plausible but where would they build it? How would they keep the plants from dying out after draining the soil of nutrients, or some other method? Nonetheless, this is a very cool idea and I hope for it to be constructed one day.

I imagine something like an artificial biosphere with feedbacks and such. This is possible to a large extent with current science and technology. So long as the system is as closed as possible (e.g., don't discard human excrement) you wouldn't need much in the way of inputs. The system could provide many benefits beyond food production as well.

 

P.S. For examples go here: Wikipedia: Closed ecological system, and for more info consider the "See also" section of that page.

I see several issues with that. Disregarding the enjoyment of food (and I mean food, not the processed crap), in many cases the precise nutrient requirements are actually not that well known. I remember reading a few studies suggesting that health outcomes were better when fulfilling vitamin C requirement with fruits rather than pills, indicating that there is quite a lot of micronutrients that we would miss out on. Also there is the question of adsorption. We have during the course of our evolution adapted to certain nutrient forms, a powder may have quite different uptake rates than we would have from real food. As such the concentration requirements are not clear. Also I wonder what it would do to our bacterial systems.

Simply put, we do not know enough about the precise requirements we actually have to be certain that a totally artificial food would satisfy all of them.

 

I'm aware of those types of issues, but my thing is pure fantasy and assumes super futuristic nanotech and a substantially re-engineered humanity. It's not supposed to be feasible any time soon. The network of nanobots would know the body's requirements and they would be capable of interfacing directly with cellular metabolism and wouldn't be remotely comparable to a present day vitamin supplement. Wait.. I guess this isn't the Speculations board. My bad.

 

Ponies brought me here.

 

/wordsalad