Dr. Dalek

Right, they should be more focused on replacing these aging space shuttles, not to mention that whole foam thing.

Then again if an asteriod were detected and predicted to hit earth within the month you would be unlikely to mine it away before it hit. You would still need a fast responce solution.

I don't know, but let me know when you publish.

You can't expect all experiments to yeild meaningful results. However simple and obviously flawed experiments can become the basis for future ones, as the scientists get a feel and understanding of what works and what dosn't. Forgive the cliche, but space is "A new fronteir." Untill the first launching of space craft almost half a century ago, experiments on biology have been limited to the ground. Observing the way normal phenominon and biological processes occure in space could be importent to the future of NASA. This experiment might seem alittle pointless, however in terms of science you always have to start somewhere. After all "heros" of science, such as Newton, and Darwin, were not actually scientists. They were natural philosophers. It wasn't untill they created a foundation of knowlage and understanding that science as we know it could be built up.

The experiment may just be for the purposes of pure knowlage. Knowlage of how, or if, body chemistry is effected by microgravity could be useful in the future. Wouldn't you agree?

The most obvious one would be the photosynthesis/respiration relationship. However it might be interesting to get into direct plant/animal symbiosis here is one about ants and a type of tree.

3.5 dimensions, we move through time, but unidirectionaly.

In greek, and possibly celtic myth, the moon was usualy depicted as a woman. Diana, would be a good example.

It would cost the Sunny Delight Company millions of customers.

How long from now is it believed that this "tidal locking" will happen?

It would be extreamly difficult to clone it either way, but not impossible,

I sure hope so!

I take this to mean that in the end it might be an unavoidable consequence of our technological society that a few species go extinct because of us, but we should try to minimize that number?

Here is an interesting article from the University of Maine website. It is about a reasearcher from Maine studying gene flow and microevolution in Trinidad. The subjects of his studies are guppies, small fish that live in the rivers. Apparently they show varyation among seperate populations. The guppies near areas with high numbers of preadators are all light colors, but ones further up the river and above the waterfalls, where predidation is light, are brighter colors. The article seems to indicate that microevolution can bring about large changes bringing about new speciation faster than normal. http://www.umaine.edu/features/archive/v11/evolving.htm

Hmm, I always asumed cellular aging implied physical maturation and visa versa, well, I guess I learned something new today.

Well if the impact is far enough in advance, you could drasticly change its course with something small. So yes it is feasible

Sure, culture a few cells, could lead to a method that prevents organs made through theraputic cloning not age!

I saw a program one on the discovery channel about a probe designed to deliver a projectile to a comet, the idea was that is an asteroid or comet were ever found to be on a colision course with earth its course could be altered slightly by a small impact decades before it would hit. Thus preventing any catastrophy.

Wow, nothing cute about this sucker. I understand that predatory animals generaly have larger brains than herbavores, I wonder how much smarter this creature was than the modern Kangaroo.

Wow Deja Vu, I'd like to point out that none of us got any where arguing In "Accuracy of an Inconvinent Truth", do you think this thred will be any different?

Your new to this website, but I can tell your going to fit right in! Seriously though, I read Tyco?'s posts, I didn't see him insult anyone untill after you said, I have found several examples of insults in your posts: You seem not to sight alot of your claims, for instance in one of your posts you said the sun was warming the Earth and provided a link, but the link said nothing about making the Earth uninhabiable. Tell me, do you compensate for a lack of information with rude behavior?

Technology itself isn't realy unnatural, it is just a result of tool use. Monkeys do that. The only thing unatural about technology is the way we use it. We take up a lot of reasources for our technological society, and produce waste that does not break down easily. I tend to think (somewhat philisophicaly) that the ultimate goal of our technological development should be to "naturalize" it. That is make everything part of the same type of self recycling, self sustaining, self advancing, systems we see in nature. However this is not a step that can occure over night, nor is it something we should jump to do too quickly, after all in nature, change usualy happens slowly.

That is not neccisarily true, http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/Content/ContentGroups/02_Articles/0ct-Dec02/How_Many_People_Have_Ever_Lived_on_Earth_.htm

What I was getting at is that if, and when the sun heats up and melts the ice caps, it is not neccisarily going to make the planet uninhabitable. You seem to assume that humans and animals will be the same as they are now in the next few thousand years. Since you seem indicate this process may take thousands of years; it is most likely that things will have gradualy evolved to the new conditions as they come to be. Humans could adapt physically, or technologically to survive changing condions such as tempeature rise and sea level rise. Animals could also adapt. Some animals, maybe humans, will likely go exticnct in this process, but just because the conditons change dosn't mean that the world will be uninhabitable. After all the Biosphere, and life in general has mutated and survived all the previous warming and cooling cycles, why not this one?

I'm going to stop you right there. Here goes . . . . The Earth has been "a few degree" hotter before now. Right now we are actualy in the low range acording to this chart from :http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm Ok, here are Scotese's credentials: http://www.uta.edu/geology/Geohomepage/Faculty%20Pages/scotese98.htm