Ophiolite

I know you did not mean it this way, but recall that the Voyagers, the Pioneers and the New Horizons probes are all on interstellar trajectories, as well as the boosters of several of them. You have already lived to see interstellar travel.

Evolution may be defined as the change in allele frequency in a population. By changing the environment in such a way that individuals with previously disadvatageous genes may survive and procreate is, ipso facto, generating evolution of the species. For the more 'conventional', layperson's view of evolution, I take it you have not viewed any of the heart rending images put out by charities to raise money for relief in parts of Africa, or considered the selection mechanisms at work in the favelas of Rio. Be assured, the species is evolving.

Here's a thought for you. I have never once expressed wish to be a moderator on a forum. I have, however, been invited to become a moderator on five different occassions on different forums and was appointed administrator on one, for a time. The application form, if you wish, is exactly what inow pointed out - the qualityof your posts from this point forward. ~It may, however, take the team here some time to overlook the fact that you actually want the position.

Agreed.

Hi Tim, welcome to the forum. You might like to start with finding out a little more about members with in excess of 9,000 forum posts (and a tally of Likes over 1,000) before you give them educational recommendations. YdoaP's has had rather a few physics courses. I'm still laughing and I imagine several other members are too. But fear not, an opening gaffe is almost de rigueur for forum neophytes. Welcome again.

Coincidentally I just purchased a copy of 'What if the Earth Had Two Moons' (St. Martins Press 2010 ISBN:978-0-312-59892-1). The author explores the effects of ten physically different Earths, introducing a variety of scientific principles along the way. In the opening piece, from which the title is derived, he explains how such a capture could take place.

Yes, but not this one in the forseeable future.

Seconded. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

To lurkers and casual readers of this thread, here is an executive summary. In conflating assertion of opinions with proof by evidence, Kristalris has abused one key element of scientific procedure: the need to talk sense.

I've been there. They have eleven members.

These are the Laws of Thought. Wikipedia has articles on non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity. A google search on the three together returns many links - almost half a million. You may find something more relevant to your questions there. As someone struggling to be considered even a neophyte in the field I find the Standford Exncyclopedia of Philosophy invaluable for both overview and quite detailed exposition on matters philosophical.

Do you have comprehension difficulties? Unless you have problems with memory recall you should be able to come up with an estimate of how many people with an IQ 0f 170 or greater you have met. If I were in the habit of meeting persons with high IQ and being aware of it, as you claim to be, then I should take only a few minutes to arrive at a reasonable estimate. I should expect with your considerably superior computational powers derived from your elevated IQ that this should be the work of only a few moments. Would you please now provide this number, without ridiiculous and irrelevant sidetracks. Thank you.

So, to repeat my question, how many people, to a close order of magnitude, with IQs in excess of 170 have you met? I was hoping for an objective, technical response, not a rambling, subjective anecdote. This is meant to be a science forum after all.

Approximately how many people, to a close order of magnitude, with IQs in excess of 170 have you met?

Laurie, I would still appreciate an answer to my question in post #4. Doubtless I am being real dumb and missing the obvious, but is that a reason to avoid answering? I suppose it must be.

I am confused. 1. None of your plots show it going around. 2. You do not explain why you think the simulation is apparently incorrect. 3. There is no possibility that it could be captured by the Earth on this path. Please clarify your thinking.

This is wholly incorrect. There is a case to be made that our evolution has accelerated since the introduction of agriculture and it is certainly ongoing at the present day. I am surprised you have arrived at this startlingly wrong conclusion.

The only reason I can see for not consigning this thread to the Trash Can are the many excellent rebuttal posts, of which post #29 by menagerimanor is head and shoulders above the rest. Welcome to the forum, menagerie. Nice work. @ Consistency. Since you've decried every element of evolution that has been mentioned, yet you still seem to say that some form of evolution takes place, will you share with us what form this takes?

Universal Theory has been given ample time to make his case. Several posters have tried to direct his attention to serious flaws in his argument that he has then either ignored or failed to understand. A single question remains: can this disjointed concatenation of errors be considered a speculation?

Although Antarctica has been hovering over the poles pretty much since the break up of Pangea. So that's a couple of hundredmillion years of partial isolation.

A personal add with a contact phone number?

Here are three disparate points: 1. Please follow your own rules and conside that your use of the phrase 'word salad' is incorrect and is leading you to make nonsensical statements when using it. 2. You continue to assert that the character of the name is an integral part of the definition. You have never done anything other than assert this. You have not demonstrated it to be true. It isn't. Since you are intransigent upon this point I see no value in discussing it further with you. 3. As one who is aware of some of the principles of psychology you will be undersstand that your repeated reference to focus following my suggestion that your response were unfocused reveals a great deal about you. Thank you for that useful insight. And finally, for me this exchange is no longer productive. Your premises, logic flow and conclusions are flawed. You persistently fail to justify your assertions. Good luck.

Yes, I can see how that confusion could easily arise.

OK, I know everyone is thinking this, so I'll be bastard who asks it. @Pollito110, if your IQ is so amazingly high, why is your English (grammar, spelling, logical flow) so deplorable? Perhaps English is not your native language, which would wholly explain the problem. I'm just curious.

@Alyaarn Since the current human population is evolving there will come a time when future humans would no longer be fertile were they able to mate with modern humans. By definition they would then be a new species. Of course, you could argue that they were separated by time rather than distance and I wouldn't disagree with you.