Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. What's this?

What's this?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comdata-structuresquestionlearning
26 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • I Ilion

    Rob Graham wrote:

    Certainly that is a poorly named specialty - WTF is the "biology" of stars? Seems like exobiology would be closer to what was intended.

    Indeed, and that term is sometimes used. But, the fact remains: Whether one calls it 'astrobiology' or 'exobiology' or 'xenobiology' or something else, it is a "science" without subject-matter. It is a "specialty" with nothing to specialize about.

    Rob Graham wrote:

    And Green Alien will be upset with you.

    Have I ever given any indication of that really bothering me?

    modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:36 PM

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Rob Graham
    wrote on last edited by
    #17

    Ilíon wrote:

    science" without subject-matter. It is a "specialty" with nothing to specialize

    I disagree. The part of that specialization that deals with the study of how conditions in outer space affect terrestrial biology has a very broad and barely scratched area of study. Much work of the kind has benn and contiues to be under way on the ISS (and on samples returned to earth from ISS after a stay of some duration) . You are perhaps thinking that the specialty is limited to life from elsewhere, which we indeed have no proven samples of (the only possible exception being a meteorite fragment thought to be from mars with what appears to be fossilized bacteria - but that remains in debate). That does not, however mean that ther is no life elsewhere than earth, just that we haven't encountered it yet (and I admit that makes it a bit hard to study). That does still leave the study of the effect of extraterrestrial conditions on terrestrial life as a valid area of subject matter. Some of that work will have a profound impact on whether or not humans can undertake significant extraterrestrial exploration. We will, for instance, need to know how those conditions impact the ability to grow food for the explorers.

    B 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • I Ilion

      ScienceDaily (reporting on a recent paper in Science): Billions Of Years Ago, Microbes Were Key In Developing Modern Nitrogen Cycle[^]

      ... But new research shows that for the countless billions of tiniest creatures – microbes – large-scale evolution was completed 2.5 billion years ago. "For microbes, it appears that almost all of their major evolution took place before we have any record of them, way back in the dark mists of prehistory," said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. All living organisms need nitrogen, a basic component of amino acids and proteins. But for atmospheric nitrogen to be usable, it must be "fixed," or converted to a biologically useful form. Some microbes turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a form in which the nitrogen can be easily absorbed by other organisms. But the new research shows that about 2.5 billion years ago some microbes evolved that could carry the process a step further, adding oxygen to the ammonia to produce nitrate, which also can be used by organisms. That was the beginning of what today is known as the aerobic nitrogen cycle. The microbes that accomplished that feat are on the last, or terminal, branches of the bacteria and archaea domains of the so-called tree of life, and they are the only microbes capable of carrying out the step of adding oxygen to ammonia. The fact that they are on those terminal branches indicates that large-scale evolution of bacteria and archaea was complete about 2.5 billion years ago, Buick said. ...

      Now, of course, I fully realize that few, if any, of you 'modern evolutionary theorists' (aka "DarwiniDefenders") are going to be able to understand that the conclusion presented here is a denial of 'modern evolutionary theory,' and on multiple levels. Rather, you'll latch onto the first clause of the next sentence, ignoring everything else:

      ... "Countless bacteria and archaea species have evolved since then, but the major branches have held," said Buick, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. ...

      =====================

      ... said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. ...

      :laugh: Astrobiology: the "science" without subject-matter. Is it any wonder that John Barrow fa

      B Offline
      B Offline
      bulg
      wrote on last edited by
      #18

      what is your profession, again?

      I 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • I Ilion

        Riiiight. :laugh: A few months ago: "I'm not going to use Diego's script, for two main reasons: 1) I'm mature enough to ignore Ilíon's posts, 2) I can't try to bait Ilíon and/or misrepresent him if I don't see his posts. But, Ilíon should be banned from CP!" Last week and previous recent months: "Chris has given me not only the ability to yell STFU at Ilíon, but also the ability to silence him so that even those who might be interested in his posts cannot read them. Also, Ilíon should be banned from CP!" Saturday and Sunday: "Chris! Chris! Chris! Ilíon is somehow vanishing our posts like we do his (and it's just not fair)! I just know that he's done some ilicit programming (even though he's the epitome of stupidity) to hack the site! See! You should ban him from CP!" Sunday and Monday: "Chris! Chris! Chris! Yeah, that's what we need -- one or two persons with the ability to delete Ilíon's posts. But, you should ban him from CP!" == "Evolution" in action! :laugh:

        modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:42 PM

        O Offline
        O Offline
        Oakman
        wrote on last edited by
        #19

        You really shouldn't tell so many fibs all at once. Your nose will grow so long you'll scare all of the children. Anyone here already knows that if I had posted any of those things you'd be providing links, not creating words out of thin air and then putting doublequotes around them as if I'd written them. However, there is no doubt that I have found many of your posts to be childish, unthinking, and irritating, as well as racist, and nasty. I have many times voted you down and with some frequency voted to have your messages removed from my sight, while that was an option. I have also appealed to you more than once to change your ways and to take part in this forum rather than using it as your personal links page to whichever blogger has attracted your attention on this day. It should be no secret that I have held you in great contempt. However, for you to continue to whine about my attitude towards you simply brings us to: Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. That I have been so succesful at getting your goat, I have regarded as a small reward for having to put up with your posts. However, that was then and this is now. As I have said, I like the way the Soapbox is working just fine. And try as you might, you will find that Chris has taken away from you, far more than he has taken away from the rest of us. By the way, in case you have forgotten, I have always been complimentary about your programming skills and have given you 5's on a couple of your articles. :) Enough. Too much time spent on you is an act celebrated for its stupidity.

        Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R Rob Graham

          Ilíon wrote:

          science" without subject-matter. It is a "specialty" with nothing to specialize

          I disagree. The part of that specialization that deals with the study of how conditions in outer space affect terrestrial biology has a very broad and barely scratched area of study. Much work of the kind has benn and contiues to be under way on the ISS (and on samples returned to earth from ISS after a stay of some duration) . You are perhaps thinking that the specialty is limited to life from elsewhere, which we indeed have no proven samples of (the only possible exception being a meteorite fragment thought to be from mars with what appears to be fossilized bacteria - but that remains in debate). That does not, however mean that ther is no life elsewhere than earth, just that we haven't encountered it yet (and I admit that makes it a bit hard to study). That does still leave the study of the effect of extraterrestrial conditions on terrestrial life as a valid area of subject matter. Some of that work will have a profound impact on whether or not humans can undertake significant extraterrestrial exploration. We will, for instance, need to know how those conditions impact the ability to grow food for the explorers.

          B Offline
          B Offline
          bulg
          wrote on last edited by
          #20

          Exactly. The study of space on life. Also included is analyzing the IMMENSE amount of data about astronomical bodies for biological significance. Probably lots more

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B bulg

            what is your profession, again?

            I Offline
            I Offline
            Ilion
            wrote on last edited by
            #21

            bulg wrote:

            what is your profession, again?

            Are you even capable of making a worthwhile comment?

            O 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • I Ilion

              bulg wrote:

              what is your profession, again?

              Are you even capable of making a worthwhile comment?

              O Offline
              O Offline
              Oakman
              wrote on last edited by
              #22

              Ilíon wrote:

              Are you even capable of making a worthwhile comment?

              Is that what Walmart is calling a greeter these days?

              Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

              F 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • E Ed Gadziemski

                Ilion. If he/she/it is the top of the evolutionary ladder, the ladder is defective and the theory is kaput.

                T Offline
                T Offline
                Tim Craig
                wrote on last edited by
                #23

                :thumbsup:

                "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • I Ilion

                  ScienceDaily (reporting on a recent paper in Science): Billions Of Years Ago, Microbes Were Key In Developing Modern Nitrogen Cycle[^]

                  ... But new research shows that for the countless billions of tiniest creatures – microbes – large-scale evolution was completed 2.5 billion years ago. "For microbes, it appears that almost all of their major evolution took place before we have any record of them, way back in the dark mists of prehistory," said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. All living organisms need nitrogen, a basic component of amino acids and proteins. But for atmospheric nitrogen to be usable, it must be "fixed," or converted to a biologically useful form. Some microbes turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a form in which the nitrogen can be easily absorbed by other organisms. But the new research shows that about 2.5 billion years ago some microbes evolved that could carry the process a step further, adding oxygen to the ammonia to produce nitrate, which also can be used by organisms. That was the beginning of what today is known as the aerobic nitrogen cycle. The microbes that accomplished that feat are on the last, or terminal, branches of the bacteria and archaea domains of the so-called tree of life, and they are the only microbes capable of carrying out the step of adding oxygen to ammonia. The fact that they are on those terminal branches indicates that large-scale evolution of bacteria and archaea was complete about 2.5 billion years ago, Buick said. ...

                  Now, of course, I fully realize that few, if any, of you 'modern evolutionary theorists' (aka "DarwiniDefenders") are going to be able to understand that the conclusion presented here is a denial of 'modern evolutionary theory,' and on multiple levels. Rather, you'll latch onto the first clause of the next sentence, ignoring everything else:

                  ... "Countless bacteria and archaea species have evolved since then, but the major branches have held," said Buick, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. ...

                  =====================

                  ... said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. ...

                  :laugh: Astrobiology: the "science" without subject-matter. Is it any wonder that John Barrow fa

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #24

                  Ilíon wrote:

                  the conclusion presented here is a denial of 'modern evolutionary theory,' and on multiple levels

                  Can you explain to me why you think this is so, please?

                  Bob Emmett

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • I Ilion

                    ScienceDaily (reporting on a recent paper in Science): Billions Of Years Ago, Microbes Were Key In Developing Modern Nitrogen Cycle[^]

                    ... But new research shows that for the countless billions of tiniest creatures – microbes – large-scale evolution was completed 2.5 billion years ago. "For microbes, it appears that almost all of their major evolution took place before we have any record of them, way back in the dark mists of prehistory," said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. All living organisms need nitrogen, a basic component of amino acids and proteins. But for atmospheric nitrogen to be usable, it must be "fixed," or converted to a biologically useful form. Some microbes turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a form in which the nitrogen can be easily absorbed by other organisms. But the new research shows that about 2.5 billion years ago some microbes evolved that could carry the process a step further, adding oxygen to the ammonia to produce nitrate, which also can be used by organisms. That was the beginning of what today is known as the aerobic nitrogen cycle. The microbes that accomplished that feat are on the last, or terminal, branches of the bacteria and archaea domains of the so-called tree of life, and they are the only microbes capable of carrying out the step of adding oxygen to ammonia. The fact that they are on those terminal branches indicates that large-scale evolution of bacteria and archaea was complete about 2.5 billion years ago, Buick said. ...

                    Now, of course, I fully realize that few, if any, of you 'modern evolutionary theorists' (aka "DarwiniDefenders") are going to be able to understand that the conclusion presented here is a denial of 'modern evolutionary theory,' and on multiple levels. Rather, you'll latch onto the first clause of the next sentence, ignoring everything else:

                    ... "Countless bacteria and archaea species have evolved since then, but the major branches have held," said Buick, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. ...

                    =====================

                    ... said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. ...

                    :laugh: Astrobiology: the "science" without subject-matter. Is it any wonder that John Barrow fa

                    L Offline
                    L Offline
                    Lost User
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #25

                    Ilíon wrote:

                    the conclusion presented here is a denial of 'modern evolutionary theory,' and on multiple levels

                    Bob Emmett wrote:

                    Can you explain to me why you think this is so, please?

                    No explanation? Enough unsaid.

                    Bob Emmett

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • O Oakman

                      Ilíon wrote:

                      Are you even capable of making a worthwhile comment?

                      Is that what Walmart is calling a greeter these days?

                      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                      F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fred_
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #26

                      naw who you kidding Walmart has a strict policy requiring a personality for all greeters :|

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes

                      • Login
                      • Don't have an account? Register
                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups