On 26/01/2009, at 2:13 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> I was getting at another point entirely. For evolution to make
> sense, you
> have to have millions of years of time over which it occured.
For the history of life on earth to make sense, yes. For evolution,
no. We've seen specia
Original Message:
-
From: Wayne Eddy we...@bigpond.net.au
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:10:41 +1000
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On
Original Message:
-
From: Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:15:44 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Dan wrote:
If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
> theory out, beause we'
On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope
>> can
>> shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.
>
> If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
> theory out, beause
On 26 Jan 2009, at 00:20, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope
>>> can
>>> shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.
>>
>> If you really believe that, then you
On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope
>> can
>> shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.
>
> If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
> theory out, beause w
Dan wrote:
If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
> theory out, beause we've only been making good scientific measurements over
> a very limited scope of time, say the last 150-200 years.
The difference in limits of scope between evolution on earth and universal
ev
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
> Finally, I assume that modern physics (say from SR on) is correct, and we
> do not live in a Newtonian/Maxwellian universe. If you give me that much,
> I can
>I didn't read about it before last night but this summary of the problem of
>induction from the Wikipedia article on the Cosmological Principal
describes
>my feelings rather well:
>Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope can
>shed no light on the state of things outs
Dan wrote:
Sorry, I made my last post prior to reading this one.
>
> The actual process of nucleosynthesis is though to have stopped 20 minutes
> after the big bang. We know that the inflationary period had to end after
> densities were below those sufficient to produce magnetic monopoles.
>
> S
Dan M wrote:
>
> Which scientists? Are they the same ones who are skeptical about
> evolution?
> :-)
I don't believe that The Big Bang Theory is on as sound a footing as
evolution do you?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:36 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
>
&g
> It is exceedingly difficult to judge exactly what the rest of the world
> thinks about the election of Obama
I'll tell you what the populace of New Zealand I live among thinks (and
I suspect a considerable many more nations)...
It's nice to see an adult get elected. Someone who thinks rationa
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
>
> Yea, god forbid scientists that are skeptical about the bing bang!
Not to mention the badda boom.
Nick
(rim shot, please)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ronn! wrote:
>
> Seen the back cover of the latest (Feb.) issue of _Astronomy_?
>
> (There's at least one more ad inside.)
>
>
Null Physics?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 10:36 PM Friday 1/23/2009, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are
> > written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in
> > question. That drives me crazy in the same way.
>
>
>Yea, god forbid scient
On 1/24/2009 3:07:57 AM, Charlie Bell (char...@culturelist.org) wrote:
> On 24/01/2009, at 10:53 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charlie Bell
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but
> >> it's
> >> part of a general
On 24/01/2009, at 8:56 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
> Charlie said:
>
>> It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but
>> it's
>> part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
>> every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory
>> that is
Charlie said:
> It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but it's
> part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
> every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory
> that is really starting to wind me up.
The "Physics Revolutionised F
On 24/01/2009, at 10:53 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charlie Bell
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but
>> it's
>> part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
>> every new minor spin on science as
> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:36 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
>
&g
Dan wrote:
Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are
> written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in
> question. That drives me crazy in the same way.
Yea, god forbid scientists that are skeptical about the bing bang!
Doug
> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 5:16 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
>
>
&g
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>
> It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but it's
> part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
> every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory
> that is really starting to
On 24/01/2009, at 2:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charlie Bell
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It's interesting, but I'm really sick of the "evolution can't explain
>> this" schtick. Evolution explains how diversity occurs. Extinction
>> events are known, some are understood.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>
> It's interesting, but I'm really sick of the "evolution can't explain
> this" schtick. Evolution explains how diversity occurs. Extinction
> events are known, some are understood. That we don't know the specific
> causes of certain extinct
On 23/01/2009, at 11:07 AM, Rceeberger quoted:
> Earlier this year, research revealed that the rise and fall of
> species on
> Earth seems to be driven by the undulating motions of our solar
> system as it
> travels through the Milky Way. Some scientists believe that this
> cosmic
> force ma
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/07/the-milky-way-c.html
Horoscope enthusiasts will be happy to hear that a grand cosmic force does
indeed seem to be responsible for controlling the direction of all life on
Earth. However, this grand cosmic cycle has more to do with extinction than
fi
28 matches
Mail list logo
