h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I love science, as if you say nice things about science, and buy it drinks all night, you know you will NOT be going home alone. Science will stay with you, and cook you breakfast.

Hang. Isn't that girls?

Nah, I'm sure its science.

I welcome any intelligent thought as to how things work. This is the purest form of science, excluding mathematics.

I would actually agree that it is everyones best intererests to educate in all theories.

I would agree that only teaching creationism (which I happen to believe in) is as narrow minded as only teaching evolution.

When I went to school we were only taught evolution, just as some schools are only teaching creationism. Teach both, allow the student to make their own judgements. God is bigger than both issues, anyway!

I Think , therefore I am!!!

I'm Pink, therefoe I'm Spam!!!

Oh, you wanted intelligent... sorry!!!!

Well, yes, but that's only if you bring non-Euclidean geometry into the mix, and that's not taught until the college level so it really doesn't have much bearing on the school board ruling.

No, while I have objections to spam (meat product and junk mail). Intelligence is for sometimes, but the good use of utter riduclousness is oft demonstrated. Often by the good people at Monty Python, for instance.

> most, if not all ages of the remains are "estimates"

Research the dating methods used and think about the meaning of the word estimate.

> there seem to be certain 'species' found in each locality ie: one species comes from Africa, one from France,
> one from China...

That's a very interesting observation. Plot the specimens on a world map and connect all points of equal age and you'll see a radiating pattern suggesting a gradual migratory spread with an African epicentre.

> Just my .05c worth.

Don't forget your change

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam,












Bloody Vikings

>Research the dating methods
>used and think about the meaning
>of the word estimate.

It's not the usage of the word that I questioned. Rather, it is that science is asking me to accept the 'fact' of evolution based on estimates and guesses. I find it pretty flimsy, myself.

One thing I couldn't find on that site was where it said that all the fragments had been DNA tested and were found to be genetically 'human'. Or at least, 'human' enough to be my direct ancestor...

The .05c is a locality thing. Downunder they did away with copper coins and .05c is the lowest amount one can spend. Inflation, or something, I guess.

You could look at the DNA of a chimp to realise there are enough similarities to show it as a human ancester.

The fact remains that creationism is based only on belief, there is no evidence of ANY kind that supports such as ludicrous concept. However evolution is supported by a great deal of convincing evidence, and this proof makes it a branch of science.

Creationism should be covered in religious education while evolution should be taught in science lessons.

Ok,

I'm not a geneticist; most of this is based on my own scanty knowledge and subsequent mental ramblings so please do correct me if I err...

Given that genes give us our basic characteristics, ie how many legs we walk on and do we have hooves, then there would be genes that are common to all species of a similar subtype - eg, mammals/quadrupeds/bipeds will have genes in common according to their type.

In the animal kingdom chimps look most like us. I'd be surprised if their DNA wasn't similar to mine.

I suppose what I'm really wondering is whether there has been a discernable increase in the 'human' component over time and if so, when did we become 'pure' human?

Most genes are actually for how things work (proteins etc) and not how things look. The DNA of a human is only about 10% different from that of an african violet, as the basic processes that keep it alive are much the same. Or so my mate who does biology tells me.

Then there's the fact that it's hard enough to extract DNA from bone, particularly old bones. I think it's probably impossible to extract it from fossils, otherwise Jurassic Park would have been made years ago (DNA was 'discovered' in the '50s) based on extracting dino-DNA from fossils.

All we can go on is the way the fossils look. Something with massive canines won't be a human ancestor, something roughly bipedal and apelike could be.

You have trouble with science being 'estimates and guesses', at least the science of evolution. (Other branches of science, in my experience, can and do state things with a fair degree of certainty) I have trouble believing that people like Nebuchadnezzar lived for hundreds of years, that the world and everything on it was created in 6 days, and that God looks human.

I'm more agnostic than atheist, but largely because I feel that it will be a long time before everything in our universe can be explained, and some kind of 'God' is the only way to cope with the unexplainable.

Some
Photons
Are
Massive


(true or false?)

Agreed.

False, unless there's an exception I don't know about, which is quite possible.

In my junior high science class we created a colony out near Neptune called Space Patrol And Militia, for want of a better name. Then we went crazy with the SPAM theme, especially in the amusement park section.

Yeah, false, as photons aren't actually a 'thing', they're just a distortion in the magnetic/electromagnetic fields.

Correct Lupa M and Tech Y. Photons have no mass. Unless all the stuff I've read has got it wrong or those pesky phyicists have changed their minds again. Are they still looking for gravitons?

I'm not sure...either they are or they were until recently, I think.