Sayonara

How so?

There's a reason why most races in Star Trek are humanoid. See TNG: "The Chase". Most races' languages can be translated by a starship's (or a hand-held) universal translator (later incorporated into com-badges). Sometimes they have problems, see TNG: "Darmok". It wasn't always so easy to figure out what people were saying, see ENT: "Fight or Flight".

It's "off topic". If Cap'n Refsmmat wants to believe there's no variation in technology across the planet, I say we let him.

I assume you mean the inner belt. What about the objects in the Kuiper belt? Mostly rock and ice (iirc)?

I'm not entirely sure what the best source for metals would be to an extrasolar station. Even if you found a big pile of iron on Pluto, it'd be far out of reach for most of the time. Hmmm.

I'm ready for it! http://quizilla.com/users/SeanT/quizzes/Which%20Class%20of%20Federation%20Starship%20are%20you%3F/

Well, she's right that there are organisms that survive (and thrive in) extremes of temperature. Cap'n is a little off-base as to how they come about though.

If you're talking about reply #2, look more closely. He said "it's not impossible that life existed on mars".

Who is talking about books? What hasn't happened? Sorry I am losing track - so very tired

lol

Do you see the bit that says THEORY? Don't reply.

Temporary closure.

Not for long. /me goes to delete some pointless posts, as promised on several occasions.

Just "no", OK?

This is true. Same for sharks iirc. That's why I chose them you see, to demonstrate that it's easy enough to come up with a new theory as to why X happens, but it also needs to explain Y and Z if it is supposed to supercede theory A which currently explains them all. Fun eh?

Having studied this sort of thing in great depth, and at great expense, and having put it a damned large amount of effort and time to earn my degree, and having gone out of my way to review the background information that consideration of your theory needs despite my fears that it's a house of cards, and considering your obvious lack of knowledge in the area of basic Mendelian genetics, your unwillingness to apply simple scientific methods, and the fact that you can't even be bothered to glance at an evolutionary chart of the animalia, I find the accusation "I don't have to prove it, you just have a bad attitude" to be really quite offensive. That should give you some perspective on why your theories aren't being terribly well-received.

While this is true (kind of) it would definitely help Pinch if he were to start of by researching what is already known (IE - not assumed or guessed) before he starts coming up with theories. It would really help.

That's not evidence - that's you misunderstanding genetics. If that's your theory you are going to have to also explain things like the fact that sharks and crocodiles outlasted the dinosaurs by millions of years, and why life persists at all, because your hypothesis has to take related obervable effects into account.

Why were you trying to PM a banned user?

IT'S NOT UP TO US TO PROVE YOU WRONG - IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE YOU RIGHT, AND SO FAR YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE OR ACTUAL LOGIC. 'scuse caps. Been working with capslock on and I'm not typing all that again. You might want to do more reading on this, seeing as the scientists behind the challenge to the asteroid extinction theory said that "one impact is too simple [referring to a specific event]... two or more impacts caused the extinction". I'm not sure what you mean by "ahead of science" - that's something of a contradiction in terms.

Yes, your interpretation is wrong. And seeing as the article concludes blonde numbers will fall but blondes will not become "extinct", the conclusions are not the same. And even if the conclusions were the same, the one you are comparing it with is still wrong, because a trend in the prevalence of a single dominant gene isn't going to wipe out hundreds and hundreds of species, all at the same time. Search for related articles, and you'll find how transient the whole blonde thing is. Also try looking at some actual science journals, instead of the pop-sci alarmist interpretations trotted across the media.

Here's a better idea: why don't you read it?

If you like, yeah. If that's the bit of reply #17 you want to focus on, it really won't make much difference to me.

No. Oh god, on so many levels NO. You don't understand what dominance is at all.

No, that's not what I am saying.