Specusci

Why not hydrogen power rather then nucleur? with 70% of the universe being hydrogen... Anyways, I hear the magnetic poles are switching soon. Maybe thats starting up now? I've heard estimates that the process could take centuries. Perhaps it has already begun unbeknownst to us.

Here, in Canada, we seem to have winter delayed for a month or two longer then usual, then followed by about 4-6 months of on and off temperatures that dip to severely cold for this time of year (-40 celsius, also -40 in farenheit) to unseasonably warm (sometimes 2 degrees celsius when it should be -20 degrees celsius) Summers have been unseasonably warm, too, with 40 celsius last year during normaly 30 celsius weather.

I have been reading up on global warming recently, and other then the rising temperatures and depleting ozone, it seems rather silly. Almost 1960's science fiction silly. Rising oceans? What about them? Humans have lived on an Earth with small ice caps and larger oceans then are present now. I'm pretty sure that with our modern technology, this does not pose as serious a threat as people imagine. Maybe we'll lose a few cities. Big deal. Move inland. Mass exctinctions? Maybe if the temperature was increasing even faster then it is now. Sure, whole new species take millenia to evolve, but heat tolerence is not a new species. A century is plenty of time, especially for a measly degree (which would be pretty small a change; higher temperatures have been encountered in Earths past. With life thriving at these moments. No reason for it to flounder now). And yes, it is an "extreme temperature change that is not good for current ecological systems". Pfft. If beavers can thrive in South America as pests, I'm pretty sure creatures can adapt to rapid heat changes. There was certainly less then a century for those beavers to go from the dry cold to the moist heat. Now, there are more pressing problems on the horizon. Even if we reduce emissions enough to replenish the earths atmosphere, the scheduled super-nova of betelgeuse could wipe us out anyways. And it is scheduled to happen within our lifetimes. Why not prepare for this first? Nuclear war would most certainly bring the whole effort into ruins. Yet, I fail to see anyone doing anything about the blatant threats of attack launched by India and Pakistan and North Korea, and about the threatening wars going on. Meteors might crash into us. A solar flare might burn us all. A mutant virus is on the verge of becoming the next bubonic plague in a world where you can be on the other side of the world in mere hours. Yet our biggest concern is global warming, which holds the threat of *possibly*, *probably*, *might* cause mass exctinctions. Which may or may not effect us badly enough to limit our food supplies or technological abilites to protect ourselves. I mean, hey, if we can protect astronauts from radiation in space, I'm sure we can do the same on an atmospherless planet (which would have somewhat less radiation anyways). In a few decades, we might even be able to make food from previously inedible materials. Global warming is certainly NOT the most threatening threat to humanity, since most estimates give us a century or two anyways, as opposed to the 12-40 year figures of some other scheduled disasters (Mt. Rabaul shall blow within the next 40 years. It'll be the largest eruption in 4000 years, bigger then pompeii. Imagine the global warming caused by that!) I apologize if I sound naive and stupid, which I am most of the time anyways, but it just bugs me when these obviously more dangerous events loom on our horizons and people try to put up the facade of caring about the well-being of the planet. Well, global warming will certainly be small potatoes to an atmosphere-stripping event that could take place in a matter of hours Would appreciate feedback, flaming and all.

I didn't bother reading the entire of the posts (bad habit, I know, I sincerely apologize to those offended ) But this seems a somewhat obvious question. The idea that we became fisherman is, to me at least, a very ridiculous notion that needs to stay in the 19th century, regardless of when it was theorized. I highly doubt humans came even close to becoming even semi-aquatic, simply because they could fish for food (tribes that exist today practice primitive fishing methods that would have existed in primitive Africa, but I don't see them with webbed feet or gills ). Anyways, I think the current and most acceptable theory on this would be that, in the African plains, a hairless body constituted as a better coolant and heater then a hairy one. Indeed, Lions and Gazelles both have very thin coatings of hair compared to more northern relatives. As a sexual development, chances are that was a side effect or a co-evolutionary development. More contact with the skin is, undoubtably, more sensual then having to deal with a thick coating of hair. Indeed, the complexity of human emotions compared to more simplistic creatures demanded added qualities to previously methodical and mechanical tasks, tasks such as sexual reproduction. With greater skin contact, hairless bodies where most likely genetically preferable at the time. Or maybe the heightened sexual pleasure was a failsafe for the emergence of hairless apes (if hairy bodies had been more kinky, chances are we'd all be running around with ape fur). In any case, sexual sensuality could very well have been a major contributor. Anyways, discard the fisherman theory, it is complete rubbish. I think the major theory is social habits. A major relationship solidifier amongst primitive humans (before language) would have been grooming, and hairless bodies aren't as easy to groom. This is evident with children (especially girls) having a tendency to play with one anothers hair. The taboo of exposed genitals is a purely religious thing. Loincloths probably first arose when humans wandered into the frigid Europe and needed to protect thier naked genitals from the elements. Mainly because we are intelligent enough that age doesn't really discriminate against (useful) knowledge. IE, a first time mother could perform like a many time mother now because we can share information at a MUCH more efficient rate.

Do you got a public/non-specialized highschool? IE, is your highschool part of a catholic school board or something straying from the norm? If not, I say ID should definitly stay away from the classroom...it is unproven, untestable, and takes a definitive religious standpoint (to my understanding, at least for Canadian public boards, public schools are not allowed to teach material that leans to one religion. I do not know about Kansas, though), at least in a direction that supports the idea of a Christian/Catholic/Polytheist idealism. I say go ahead if it is a Private school or a Catholic school, but if it is a government funded public school, I would be apalled if it was to be taught. Maybe in a world religions course or a political/ethical studies course, but definitly not in a science course. Its just wrong.

Sorry to interrupt again...perhaps another thread could be made elsewhere for this...but when people say "Maths", it sounds somewhat...erm...simple. Simple, as in, "Look pa! I gots a fifties in my maths work!". No offense. Its just that I've never seen "maths" used in formal english...math maybe, but the extra S? C'mon...

I'm apathetic. Does that count?

"maths", lol, I'm only 16 and I'm pretty sure its "mathematics", and not just "maths" IE, "You do not understand the mathematics of it", rather then, "You do not understand the maths of it" Anyways, I think the real question is, at what point do these atomic interactions become complex enough to become intelligence? Can any interaction be a viable observer? I say Humans and similar intelligences shouldn't be the only ones who can access/influence the behaviour of Quantum Mechanics. To me, it just seems so dangerously primitive a concept.

Wouldn't light-speed and a light particle be two different things? If so, couldn't you then somehow accelerate the light particle to such a point that it is faster then the speed of light?

It sounds to me that everyone is basing the life off of "us" and "if we where/did this...". Isn't there a possibility that life could evolve to cope with the gravity, pretty much anywhere, so long as the life could evolve there in the first place?

Just a highschool student, but I might not even finish that if I get any more bored or disappointed with the public education system. They seriously need some kind of program here to teach students at a more personalized rate (IE, slower for the less intelligent and faster for the easier learned). I find it kind of stupid that some kids can't get through highschool either because they are "Too smart", or others because the courses go by too quickly in Academic and Applied but too slowly in Remedial. Heavily flawed, and there are some completely braindead teachers up here too

Wouldn't Mitochondria have come first? I thought that plant structures are more advanced then unicellular organisms or whatnot, and the basic units didn't have any cholorplast. Also, I'm sure it requires alot more energy to have to produce your own food then to get an outside source; all you'd have to do is eat the amoeba next to you if all you had was mitochondria.