Civilization Among The Other Planets
- Thread starter LightningMcGreen
- Start date
LightningMcGreen
Active Member
Haha l was wondering the same thing lol
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Statistically improbable things happen all of the time but that doesn't change scientific theories. You don't prove your hypothesis, only disprove it. The more it stands up to testing, the more likely it is probably true.
There are no theorems in science, only math.
Science doesn't prove anything. A theory is still a theory even with observational evidence. Einstein had a lot of acceptence prior to observational support. Pictures of starlight bending did not prove Einstein correct, what it did was offer a way to test whether he could be right or wrong. It was as much a way to prove his theory incorrect as it was to support it. However, the status of the theory did not change, it still is to this day a theory, one we know is not completely right because it is in conflict with another very successful theory, the standard model.
It is not even close to how science is done, let alone exactly.
We accept there is such a thing as a force we call gravity because things fall all of the time. This in no way has anything to do with Newton's law of gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity, both give mathematical models of gravity.
Yes, statistics is math, not science.
Only you seem to want to narrow it down to our solar system. We know about many extra-solar planets and it is changing our idea of the statistical probability that a star has planets and which kind.
Go smoke some more.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Quoted for truth
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
i would have to disagree with you on that mp, there are common link's within a family tree that ties obesity.
Excess body fat or body mass relative to height aggregates in families. It is commonly recognized that this familial aggregation of human obesity is accounted for in part by a significant genetic component. Thus the genetic heritability of the obesity phenotypes accounts for ∼2540% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variances. There is also growing evidence that single-gene effects can be detected under appropriate conditions. The focus of research has now shifted to candidate genes and DNA markers of various obesity phenotypes. To date, linkage results have been published from the Pima Indian Study, the San Antonio Family Heart or Diabetes Studies, the Paris Cohort of Obese Siblings, the University of Pennsylvania Family Obesity Study and the Quebec Family Study. The only genomic scan (with ∼600 markers) reported to date is that from the Pima Indian sibling study. In that study, the strongest evidence for linkage with body fat was with markers on chromosome 11q, 6p and 3p. Evidence for linkage with markers on 7q was obtained in all family studies with the only apparent exception being the Pima Indians. Our own results from the Quebec Family Study suggest that there are linkages between body fat, as assessed from hydrodensitometry, and markers on 1p32p22. Other linkages have been reported in the past but they are generally based on smaller sample size and weaker evidence. © 1997 American Society for Nutritional Services Genetics of Human Obesity: Recent Results from Linkage Studies
I know its a bit old, but nevertheless, it is evidence that there is a correlation between the two. More recent studies are more inconclusive do to some variable, either not replicating the tests properly or human error. They do however agree that there is a strong relation between one's genes and hereditary traits and one's likely hood to be obese. Most of these tests are done within families to see if there is a link and i would say after seeing the evidence and several studies, i would say that obesity will soon be linked to several or just one chromosome within our DNA.
is that "quite fucking true"?
yes, like the people who get sickle cell and become immune to malaria. I remember discussing that in my anatomy and physiology class with my professor, i think that shows a common trait within the two diseases and i think a lot of research should be done on smallpox and its interaction with HIV if it hasnt been done already. Although i dont think that is possible since smallpox has been pretty much eradicated off the planet and is probably only owned by the government.
LightningMcGreen
Active Member
Ok, sooo...if l have a child now, being a tall and slender 6'4", and 150lbs, and have a child with a woman of an average body type (we'll say 5'8" and 140lbs)...then, we both exercise, gain weight at least in muscle mass, and become the peak of physical perfection, and we have another child, that their two body types will be different?
If so, could the same principal apply to IQ levels?
If so, could the same principal apply to IQ levels?
Luger187
Well-Known Member
it would depend on the planet. hearing may be different based on atmosphere density and composition. sight may be different because of distance from their sun, atmospheric conditions, whether theyre prey or predator. smell may be different because of different substances being smelled, how they use smells to communicate(we use pheromones, they might use smell to talk or something). taste would most likely be different because it is specialized to the type of food one eats. sense of touch would be the same, but may work differently i think.
i dont think they would necessarily be human shaped, but it is a possibility. the location of our eyes, ears, nose, limbs, etc. are basically the same in most animals. we have most of our sensory organs(except touch) close to our brain. this is important because the senses can send massive amounts of information(especially sight), and the shortest route is the best. of course touch cannot be placed in one area, so its the only sense thats not 'close' like the others are. so for these reasons, i think their senses(whatever they may be) will be close to their processor(brain). this location could theoretically be where our stomach is, to protect it from injury(think of how many head injuries happen to humans). there are many factors that could make up this puzzle haha
they could also be more advanced than us, with different specialties. maybe they have a better arm/hand system. maybe they have two opposable thumbs on each hand or something. maybe their brain can calculate information in a different way that we cant even imagine. just look at what the octopus' brain can do with its skin. unexpected things like that are sure to pop up.
their communications systems may not even use radio waves. maybe they can see in the radio frequency and prefer to use the visible light spectrum for communication, because visible light doesnt harm them. it would also depend on the composition of the atmosphere and what materials they have readily available. maybe they have a shitload of gold there and use that for circuits. gold is the best conductor, so it would probably work better than ours(if they had equal designs).
what if their atmosphere is made of methane instead of oxygen? then oxygen would be the explosive gas. things like this would change the way they use and make fuels and machines. i cant really comment on the car thing since cars are specifically designed for humans. even our pet dogs dont really fit right lol. we cant expect something from another planet to be able to sit in a chair or turn a steering wheel like we do. it could be like a podracer where you just have two thrust levers, one for each side. also they may not use rubber tires because their roads may be made of different materials, and they are using what is available on their planet. maybe the rubber molecule doesnt exist there.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Mindphuk:But it is still true, even if you have had an experiment prove your hypothesis false. In the end, whatever happened the most times, or every time. Is what makes it true or false.
I was wrong about the scientific theorem. Scientific Theory I meant, where you test your hypothesis. That is how science is tested and things are found true.
NOOO a theory becomes fact once you have proven it.
Again NOOO, He was seeking a picture to prove his math RIGHT not wrong. It makes 0 sense that he would be so adamant to find out if he was wrong, he was convinced he had the equation that solved the universe. Not that he "might", that he DID.
And the starlight did prove him correct. That is the one thing every one was waiting on, and once provided it changed everything. The physicists in the room even looked up to the picture of Newton and apologized, for flipping his world upside down. And that was the place where those things are decided. He may not be accepted by everyone, but he is accepted by science as correct.
It is EXACTLY how science is handled. Explain to me why the theory of gravity was accepted, please explain it to me. And Newtons idea of Gravity is the same as the widespread accepted one. Do not separate the two.
We teach children about gravity, and accept that gravity has a speed. Even though Einstein changed all that.
I was talking about statistics the whole time that I was mentioning statistics. I'm sorry if you were looking for science, but I was talking math and how probable this is.
Exactly my point. IT IS CHANGING our idea of the statistic probability, not HAS CHANGED. Which is why I decided not to include it.
I will go smoke more. You too. Were on Roll it up.
I was wrong about the scientific theorem. Scientific Theory I meant, where you test your hypothesis. That is how science is tested and things are found true.
NOOO a theory becomes fact once you have proven it.
Again NOOO, He was seeking a picture to prove his math RIGHT not wrong. It makes 0 sense that he would be so adamant to find out if he was wrong, he was convinced he had the equation that solved the universe. Not that he "might", that he DID.
And the starlight did prove him correct. That is the one thing every one was waiting on, and once provided it changed everything. The physicists in the room even looked up to the picture of Newton and apologized, for flipping his world upside down. And that was the place where those things are decided. He may not be accepted by everyone, but he is accepted by science as correct.
It is EXACTLY how science is handled. Explain to me why the theory of gravity was accepted, please explain it to me. And Newtons idea of Gravity is the same as the widespread accepted one. Do not separate the two.
We teach children about gravity, and accept that gravity has a speed. Even though Einstein changed all that.
I was talking about statistics the whole time that I was mentioning statistics. I'm sorry if you were looking for science, but I was talking math and how probable this is.
Exactly my point. IT IS CHANGING our idea of the statistic probability, not HAS CHANGED. Which is why I decided not to include it.
I will go smoke more. You too. Were on Roll it up.
LightningMcGreen
Active Member
Man, you have really put some thought into this one...haha much appreciated, and amazing points! Whatever it is you're smokin on, THAT'S the shit l want LOL
Luger187
Well-Known Member
ive been smoking meth for the past four days. you definitely dont want any.
(jk) and thanks
Luger187
Well-Known Member
actually theyve been seeing recently that the way you live can affect your genes. mutation can occur for a variety of reasons. like radiation(not really sure if just the DNA causes this though). i think there was an article i read on sciencedaily.com. im too lazy to search for it
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
this could be true, but there are many variables. ie., your grandparents, greatgrandparents, aunts uncles. it all depends really,
no, IQ is dependent upon the person and their mental capacity. Just look at some types of savants... some are mentally retarded, yet can play a piece by mozart or Beethoven after only hearing it once... a person with a high IQ to me would not be able to replicate that no matter how high their IQ was.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
look at birds... they have adapted their breast muscles to become more aerobic in order to maintain those great migrations they have each year... I think if flying were in our past evolutionary history, we would be well adapted by now for far flight.
LightningMcGreen
Active Member
All l wana know is, with all the hype of technological advances in the 90's, we should've all had jet packs by now...where the fuck is mine??!