Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Chris <chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 15, 9:46 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:16 pm, Fiery <ognje...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:07 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In messageOf course, this was a question for Nashton. I'm fairly sure both of
<ffdb8603-a803-456e-a33e-39a53c104...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Chris <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Aug 13, 4:11 pm, Fiery <ognje...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Quantum mechanics is involved in the understanding of semiconductors and
snip
Care to demonstrate in what life-saving ways is the Theory ofGot a GPS? Do you support the space program? I was at the Kennedy
Relativity useful, for example?
Space Center the other day, and according to NASA, the technology that
supports GPS has been used to find over 12,000 people who were lost in
mountains, at sea, or in other bad circumstances.
Or how about the Quantum mechanics?Hmm. Radiation exposure estimates? Might be a stretch.
superconductors, not to mention chemistry (the valence theory of
chemical bonds is inadequate, and to understand what's going on requires
quantum chemistry).
Quantum mechanics also underlies radioactive decay and radio-dating. But
if Nicola/s is consistent he will claim that you can perform C-14 dating
without quantum mechanics.
--
alias Ernest Major
you could give examples of life-saving usefulness the Theory of
Evolution.
Sorry.
But honestly, I do not think that there is an example of that kind of
benefit to evolutionary biology.
As I've said before, theories like abiogenesis and even the broad sweep
of the ToE across genera can't really start producing practical results,
so long as we're limited to observing just the evolution of life on
Earth. All these theories have done so far is explain the development
of Earthly life--but we have no other type of life to calibrate our
theories against. So with just one example to study, there is an
element of "Just So Stories" with them--they explain the life around us,
but that life is already here for us to deal with. (There are only a
few exceptions, such as the emergence of the HIV virus.)
Why is not the creation of "artificial" life by humans a valid way tot
test your ideas? And how is the emergence of HIV an exception?
Chris
The "killer app" that will make those theories fully practical, is
discovery of extraterrestrial life. Then we can use those theories to
know just what we're up against, out there. I'm thinking of the
"Andromeda Strain" scenario, for example. Or even the "War of the
Worlds" scenario, in which the aliens' biochemistry is sufficiently
similar to ours that Earth bacteria killed them.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
- References:
- The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Nashton
- Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Fiery
- Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Chris
- Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Fiery
- Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Chris
- Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- From: Steven L.
- The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- Prev by Date: Re: US health care reform re: semi-ot: they're insane.
- Next by Date: Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- Previous by thread: Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- Next by thread: Re: The ToE is not dying, it was never really "alive."
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
