Vexer

Are you in any sense satisfied with those responses SkepticLance

Sorry to burden you with this, and feel free to label me a Creationist (I'm not), start a hate thread, and issue me warnings every time I post for next the five years, but, I have a science question regardless: I’ve always been mystified with theories about multiple “human” origins. There’s been a tension between the single genesis idea and the multiple origins idea. I understand the single, out-of-Africa, is back ‘in’. Which I can understand. Indeed have studied. But I never understood what was meant by “several human races” existing at one time. I’ve heard this, many times. Talk of several species emerging around the world, all being ‘human’? When they say human, what do they mean? Isn’t your DNA the definition of human? Are they making a relative call and saying these other species are ‘near enough’? Based on? Genuine question, Try not to burn me. (This time)

I think the probability clouds are (have been shown to be) weirder than are shown.

hehe, I started to go for my references, but really, 'String Theory' (in all 20 guises) is far less accepted than the general media proposes. It's not dead. It was just never as alive as has been reported. (You're gunna make me go for my references, are't you...)

No,hermanntrude "No thing is impossible." With the knowledge that we are talking about human technological advancement, what thing is impossible?

Klaynos Incomplete not wrong. I think it is. 2 +2 = 5 is ‘incomplete’? 50 years of over-confident cosmological models that (it now turns out) didn’t account for 90% of the universe. If that’s just "incomplete".. then, ok.

Dr. Dalek, I'd like to know if oil is non (ex) organic too.

Like I said, predicable, 90 %.... But you should read it anyway. There's even some good stuff (which I just read) about How Evolution Could Be Wrong. Would have come in handy in the thread I was just abused (and blocked) in. (Also some good stuff about ants, which are more philosophically disturbing than you are likely to realize).

It's all Science. Obviously, some are harder sciences than others. Not obvious to me. Perhaps you mean some 'sciences' are simpler than others. Like physics is simpler than psychology, or chemistry is simpler than economics. In an important way, physics, chemistry, or any other of the turf-protecting lab-coated tribes, are the Soft, Easy Ones.

SkepticLance Yes, but I am right: as long as A and B *can* breed, they are the same species. (Actually, my earlier comment meant more than perhaps I'm permitted to say here)

That's for concealment, Norman. "Inconclusive", at best, IMO.

A Dummy wouldn't know that. I'm interested in the Big Picture, and this seems relevant.

Cap'n Refsmmat, not to mention the more fundamental ‘Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem’. Mr Skeptic’s is concerned that any fundamental “randomness” basically undermines Science, and hence, his own world-view. Therefore, it cannot be “true”. Because his world-view is True. Understandable. (I have the same problem, but for different reasons). Mr. Skeptic should take comfort in the inducted knowledge that all of Science has been shown to be Wrong. And he’ll only need to wait a few years for the tide to turn back to his shore. (Which will also be Wrong, as will be shown, some years later).

Arthur Clarke once wrote what I think is the definitive essay on this subject. He listed the things that were logically impossible from those that were technologically difficult. I think ‘time travel’ was the most contentious. But I think that what is technologically possible is limited mostly by the time humans have to achieve it. That is, I agree, pretty much anything is possible, if ‘we’ ‘live’ long enough. If we can ‘smoothly’ continue for 200 years… I think we’ll, well, be in another world. Fusion. Quantum mechanics, zero-point energy, bio-you-name it…. But will we. (YT2095, I'll just assume there's an infraction in there somewhere. You don't have to bother issuing me a private, secret "don't say what I don't like" notice. Again. (Oh, but wait, me, saying this, is an infraction (which of course it is)).

I feel insulted that anyone assumes I'm gunna want to post more to get a "higher" name. Crusader has posted (he says) 13 000 times. That means... what?