Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Space Science

2005 Scientific Highlights 113

Posted by CowboyNeal from the where-we're-at dept.
Nomad37 writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has a great wrap-up of the great moments in 2005 for science. The story covers everything from evolution to space exploration, the role of genetics in brain disorder to nuclear fusion. The story provides a neat overview for those of us who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2005 Scientific Highlights More

2005 Scientific Highlights

Comments Filter:

  • Why check? (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:06PM (#14332563) Homepage Journal

    The story provides a neat overview for those of us who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!

    The dupes make it so we don't have to check regularly, silly.

    • Re:Why check? (Score:4, Informative)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:42PM (#14332683)
      The dupes make it so we don't have to check regularly, silly.

      Yes, since Zonk posted the same story yesterday. That referenced the BBC, this the SMH. A moment's searching brings you to the original story at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science magazine. [sciencemag.org]

  • 2005 isn't finished yet (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frequency Domain ( 601421 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:07PM (#14332567)
    The authors of the article are really going to have egg on their face when the aliens land next week.

  • Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Starker_Kull ( 896770 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:14PM (#14332589)
    Sometimes, it's easy to forget that science is alive, well, and thriving when reading all the ID and creationist nonsense that is circulating throught the media today - it's a nice reminder that while ID is getting some press, REAL science is getting money, time, top-notch researchers, and revealing ever more about how our amazing Universe works. Happy New Year!!!
    • ...from the article: "Not even the US President, George Bush, could ignore the historic hurricane season in the north Atlantic this year." - heh, heh, heh....

      [Ducks and applies SPF50 flame-block]

    • Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Stan Vassilev ( 939229 )
      Well ID is also getting money and research you know.

      Or you missed that CNN report where they shot that "ID museum", with Adam and Eve petting their home pets (I think it was an animatronic T-Rex and Raptor: man that's a lot of ... grass to feed such pets).

      ID has scientific prove that it all started 6000 years ago.

      God bless ignorance. Amen.

      • Re:Nice. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Starker_Kull ( 896770 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:39PM (#14332667)
        True - but all the money it gets and the research it does result in the same thing - nothing. There are no new compelling theories of ID (it really *IS* the Flying Spaghetti Monster who did it! Rivers are really the fossilized remains of his noodly apendages, filled up with rainwater! The evidence is the higher than normal quanities of starch found in riverbanks!), no large numbers of Ph.D. grads flocking to the exciting research area of ID, etc. So while ID'ers squawk on about the weaknesses of evolution, the real scientists go on discovering what makes live tick. I guess I find it inspiring and amazing to watch.

        But your point is taken - we can't let our guard down either.
        • > True - but all the money it gets and the research it does result in the same thing - nothing.

          Oh, the money produces lots of stuff, such as a continuous stream of new books rehashing the same nonsense and speaking tours where these scientists explain their latest research to church groups.

      • Re:Nice. (Score:4, Funny)

        by jdbartlett ( 941012 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:43PM (#14332687)
        It was a T-Rex and a domestic cat, actually.

        Eventually, dogs replaced the T-Rex as the most popular non-feline household pet, but the name "Rex" was still kept for the sake of nostalgia.

        The cat's name was Tiddles.
      • Well ID is also getting money and research you know.

        Yeah sure, when they are able to put together a scientific theory, which they with impressive consistency fail to do. We all know that we have a reborn former alcoholic in charge of the pushing the Button, and not even the Stalinist was that proficient in lies that the current administration is. Sad to say, Stalin was an amateur......

      • Re:Nice. (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm pretty sure God condemns ignorance. i mean really, if the whole point of existance is so intelligent beings would someday develop, ignorance is the antithesis of that. it's ungodly

        • Re:Nice. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Floody ( 153869 )

          I'm pretty sure God condemns ignorance. i mean really, if the whole point of existance is so intelligent beings would someday develop, ignorance is the antithesis of that. it's ungodly

          Subjectively, to any being capable of single-handedly designing everything from the fine-scale structure of the universe up to and including mitochondria and T-cells, I'm willing to bet we'd all pretty much be right around the same point at the bottom of the ignorance graph. Sorta like mold. Do you think some mold is i

        • It's my opinion that this alleged God figure condemns ID. They are doing a disservice to the religion by trying to make it jump through hoops to make it science-like to the unbelievers. You could probably use the bible to as a basis for that opinion.
      • Yes, the ID folk are getting money, from the same people who sent Oral Roberts money back in the 80's when he said god threatened to kill him if he didn't come up with eight million bucks. Or was it 10?

        Did they ever pick up the perp? I've been watching america's most wanted, but it would seem they never picked up the case. My neighbour looks kind of shifty.
      • ID has scientific prove that it all started 6000 years ago.

        You're confusing ID with Young Earth Creationism. ID accepts an old universe as defined by Cosmology but thinks that a supernatural intelligence guided evolution.
        • I know they are officially separate, but this is just a trick for the lawyers... Several prominent ID supporters have slipped the word "creationism" few times during interviews and such.

          Also we know that lots of Christian-related foundations and institutions are those that back up ID (and in the long term they'll try to push their complete 'theory' even if they don't attempt it now).

          Divide and conquer.
    • Except in Kansas, an evolutionist has to travel pretty far to become an underdog. More and more, creationists are becoming the underdogs, ridiculed and chastised for daring to challenge the scientific community.

      That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.

      • Re:Nice. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by castoridae ( 453809 )
        That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.

        How about a strong lobby with the party in power, and a well-organized, strongly coherent, and rather vocal voting bloc?
        • Touché.

          Many folks I know lean towards evolution simply because they feel that scientists are more intelligent folk, though. Rather than having researched and understood the process of evolution, they felt it was scientist's job to do this for them, just as it was once thought a clergyman's job to oversee religious matters. Evolution, as it's taught in the classroom, is as explanatory and does as much service to the subject as a single Sunday sermon can do to the subject of religion.

          Also, "Because

          • Re:Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bloodredsun ( 826017 ) <martin@nosPam.bloodredsun.com> on Saturday December 24, 2005 @05:09PM (#14333389) Journal

            I agree with you to a certain extent in that people take knowledge for granted but that is understandable. Knowledge at a certain level does become, for want of a better word, "magic".

            I have a PhD in Neuroscience and while I could tell you a load of info on biological sciences and basic science in general, I am no more able to tell you of quantum physics than anyone else. This means that I must take this information on trust from people who I know more than I do: teachers or scientists. On the surface this trust is based on faith, and is the same as listening to the Clergy, but there is a major difference.

            Newtons's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was reference to the fact that all science can trace it's roots back to basic experiments that we can all do at home. This is where science differs from religion. The ability to go back to founding principles and show your proof rather than telling people that the answer is "because God said so".

            Treating subjects such as evolution as a fact is more a reflection of certainty than being closed minded. As our body of knowledge increases, patterns of data become more and more certain and we start to regard these patterns as absolute facts. It's then only natural to spend our time questioning other areas of knowledge, but in the knowledge that we can go back and re-examine our data and assumptions. This differs hugely from the average creationist where facts are given with no proof (other than "the Bible says so") and to try to question them is heresy.

            And as for the media being focused on the youth, will they are the focus of the media, the hands that hold the reins are definitely not youths.

            • "I have a PhD in Neuroscience and while I could tell you a load of info on biological sciences and basic science in general, I am no more able to tell you of quantum physics than anyone else. This means that I must take this information on trust from people who I know more than I do: teachers or scientists. On the surface this trust is based on faith, and is the same as listening to the Clergy, but there is a major difference."

              I take your point, but it's dangerous (and IMO foolish) to conflate trust with

              • You're absolutely correct on my choice of words, trust would be far better with no religious implications or justifications of a priori beliefs. I also only mention Newtons usage of the phrase as it's the most well known, the most appropriate and I think the most elegant version. All omissions are of course mine :-)
      • More and more, creationists are becoming the underdogs, ridiculed and chastised for daring to challenge the scientific community.

        And thank God for that! Those idiots give Christianity a bad name.

      • More and more, creationists are becoming the underdogs, ridiculed and chastised for daring to challenge the scientific community.

        Where does the 'daring' come from? Anyone can challenge the scientific community - science thrives on challenge. I don't see why it is daring - after all, challenging science does not lead to persecution, excommunication or physical punishment, in the way that challenges to the 'religious community' did in the past.

        Creationists aren't being 'daring', unlike Galileo and Copernic
        • The word "dare" implies boldness. To "dare" is to face any persecution, including ridicule. Darwin, for example, was a daring man. So, it seems, is a Dr. Richard Sternberg, who tried to do just as you suggested and challenge the scientific community:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg [wikipedia.org]

          "The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply t
          • The word "dare" implies boldness. To "dare" is to face any persecution, including ridicule.

            The true definition of "daring" usually implies that someone is courageous and is facing danger. To equate such ridicule with the true danger that has often been faced by those to truly dare to challenge religious institutions is truly to invite ridicule. ....Sounds awfully like persecution to me.

            Your definition of 'persecution' is obviously not mine.

            Let me repeat - anyone can challenge the scientific consensus. Bu
            • Below from Merriam-Webster's definition of " daring [m-w.com]":

              1 a : to challenge to perform an action especially as a proof of courage <dared him to jump> b : to confront boldly : DEFY <dared the anger of his family>
              2 : to have the courage to contend against, venture, or try <the actress dared a new interpretation of this classic role>

              "persecuting [m-w.com]":

              1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
              2 : to annoy with persist
              • The moon/cheese theory has been disproved, as have many other silly theories. Neither evolution nor creation can be disproved, and evidence of one does not disprove the other.

                Nonsense. They are very similar situations!

                No matter how much evidence there is for evolution (and there is a phenomenal amount), the creationists can always say 'well, we don't know how that happened, so God or Aliens must have designed it'.

                No matter how much evidence there is for the moon being rock (and there is a phenomenal amount
                • Interesting comparison to mooncheese. It seems you accept that recognition of the process evolution need not conflict with or compromise religious belief. Creationists are indeed free to accept speciation without accepting universal common descent. In this way, it's quite possible for a religious person to accept evolution without compromising belief in a god or in the origin of life. After all, free will means nothing unless we execute it.

                  I don't believe there is ever a good (justifiable) cause for ridi
                  • Interesting comparison to mooncheese.

                    I tried to make a humorous comparison interesting at the same time!

                    Creationists are indeed free to accept speciation without accepting universal common descent.

                    Not really, as it makes no sense. It is about as sensible as imagining that, for example, the Earth does not orbit the Sun, but simply happens to find itself in a series of positions on certain days. It is about as sensible as not believing that your motor car has an engine and the 'magic gas' you put in moves i
                    • Thanks for the link!

                      I still believe that a creationist can accept evolutionary process. Evolution is a process that applies to living things; everything dead is incapable of reproduction and therefore incapable of demonstrating evolutionary change. Creation is one approach at explaining the source of life in this universe. To put things another way, someone who believes things were created doesn't necessarily believe they were created as they now are. Creation is a one-time act, evolution is an ongoing p
                    • Creation is one approach at explaining the source of life in this universe.

                      I think there are problems with this idea. Life is just a particularly complicated set of chemical and physical reactions, and such complexity can arise spontaneously (some wonderful examples of life-like behaviour - including evolution with selection - has been recently seen in very simple molecules (short RNA strands) in the 'test tube').

                      I really think that Creationists (at least as I understand the term) are thinking on too narro
    • science is surely alive, and along with the good you must remember all the bad, like all the wasteful projects being done right now. the projects leading nowhere, the projects with no other purpose than to keep a tenured professor in a nice home, regardless of how relevant or promising his actual research is. science produces good results as often as politics produces good policy.

  • Actually (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hey Pope Felcher . . ( 921019 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:17PM (#14332597)
    I feel the unmasking of the fake results posted by Woo Suk Hwang could be a blessing for science, and one of the years highlights. It could be portrayed as why science works, although the community requires a basis of trust, eventually frauds will be revealed, hopefully creating more trust in the system.

    What science requires are better media relations to portray this way of viewing the discipline.

    • What science requires are better media relations

      I'd disagree that science needs better, or any, media relations. After all, there wouldn't be a media without science. Or, for that matter, a civilisation.

      • I'd disagree that science needs better, or any, media relations. After all, there wouldn't be a media without science. Or, for that matter, a civilisation.

        Media relations = $. $ = more research. More research = more scientific results. More scientific results = improvements in people's quality of life. Improvements in QOL = better media relations.

        What kind of science are you going to do without research funding?

        • If that were truly the case, the only kind of research that would ever get any money would be high profile shiny laser guns and wannabe cures for cancer, which is obviously not the case. There are many sources of funding for research, both the immediately useful kind and research which has no particular application nor is ever likely to have (various branches of pure maths?). Unlike just about everything else, science has the privelege that by its very nature, it is not dependant on public opinion as massa

          • The public doesn't line-item vote on each science experiment. Science funding lives or dies as a whole. And the public's general attitude towards science influences the politicians who write the budgets. Incremental improvements in, say, microbiology happen because those improvements came from the public's general desire to push towards cancer & AIDS cures. Not because the public wanted one particular genetic structure examined and sequenced.

            Or we could talk about private funding - say a private univer

            • As a general rule in terms of publicly funded research, politicians don't make a great deal of decisions at that level in any case, a bit like the military. Budgets are assigned to universities, and academic leaders assign those budgets as they see fit. If a researcher has a good idea, and the university thinks its a good idea, he or she will get the funding to at least begin to investigate. Should it continue to prove interesting, more funding is assigned, and then one day we have a headline. However the

              • Hmmm... I think your point is that certain powerful institutions (such as corporations and universities) implicitly know the value of science and will fund it, regardless of the prevailing public sentiment at the time. You may be correct. On the other hand, Universities were in existence when Bruno was burned at the stake for the heresy of declaring the stars as being distant suns rather than holes in the firmament revealing the light of heaven (admittely, he seemed rather a loudmouth), when Galileo wrote

                • I don't think it is going to vanish any time soon

                  With the advent of blogging, maligned as it is, and the essentially cost free mass publishing brought about by the internet, not to mentions slashdot itself, we may be seeing that decline already beginning. I know I get most or all of my news online by this stage. Likewise thanks for the debate, have a happy christmas!

          • Be careful when you mention branches of pure mathematics as an example of something that will never have any practical application - as has been noted by various high-profile authors, mathematics is unreasonably effective in the sciences. Remeber number theory? It was seen as the "Queen of Mathematics, unsullied by practical applications" - (trying to find the author of the quote, I believe it was Gauss) - until the advent of the computer and the need for encryption.

            Perhaps the greatest social advance of

            • Be careful when you mention branches of pure mathematics as an example of something that will never have any practical application

              Well I should point out that I said nor is ever likely to have as it the case with more than a few branches of science currently being researched. Never say never...

              You have some interesting points there, but the manhattan project is a case in point. Science drives the media, not the other way around. I have no figures on how many research projects ultimately reach the pres

            • Sounds like Hardy to me, certainly he had such sentiments. I could of course be wrong.
      • Indeed - but I do think people need to be reminded of that. We may think it glaringly obvious, but a large number of people just assume internal combustion engines, computers, power grids, antibiotics, plastics, air conditioning, etc. are just manna from heaven or naturally just grow out of the earth or something. An occasional reminder that when you touch a computer, you are touching the result of literally millions of man-years of design, science and research wouldn't hurt.

        Cheers!
        • This is something I bring up to Fundies[1] quite often -- you know, the people who claim that evolution doesn't happen, that pray to be cured from diseases, and whom believe that the moon landing was a hoax.

          These people have cell phones, computers, cars; they live in air-conditioned houses with electric lights. I say, if you are going to discount the workings of science, you should be willing to give up its benefits -- no power, no emergency rooms, no iPods. Live as God intended, in a field or in a cave.

          T
      • After all, there wouldn't be a media without science. Or, for that matter, a civilisation.

        The scientific method is only a few centuries old.

        Civilization is around 9,000 years old; the first examples of writing, if we count the inscriptions on early counting tokens, are about as old, and certainly the medium of oral storytelling long predates that.

        • The scientific method is only a few centuries old.

          Yes, the official scientific method and philosophy of same are in fact only a few centuries old. Prior to that, there were few appreciable differences (besides obvious cultural ones) between Medieval, ancient Greek, Sumerian, Incan, or Roman lifestyles and technological capabilities. Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying "civilisation as we know it", as in the same civilisation that has put men on the moon and produced computers since the advent

          • Prior to that, there were few appreciable differences (besides obvious cultural ones) between Medieval, ancient Greek, Sumerian, Incan, or Roman lifestyles and technological capabilities.

            IIRC the Sumerians and Inca were neolithic. The ancient Greeks were Bronze Age, the Romans and Medieval Europe were Iron Age societies. There were very large differences in technology and lifestyle between the neolithic villages of Sumer, the city-states of Ancient Greece, and the Empire of Rome.

            Science is good and g

            • Eh what does any of that have to do with science vs or in conjunction with the media? Stop being pedantic and keep it on topic.

              • what does any of that have to do with science vs or in conjunction with the media?

                You made the claim that without science there would be neither media nor civilization. Certainly such historically inaccurate claims do nothing to advance the cause of science.

                Stop being pedantic and keep it on topic.

                There's nothing pedantic about pointing out the fact that mankind actually made progress before the scientific method was discovered.

                Stop being defensive and keep it accurate. You made a misstatement,

                • You made the claim that without science there would be neither media nor civilization

                  Okay lets get this straight. What you call science is apparently only limited to discoveries made after the widespread use of the scientific method became the de facto standard. That is extremely arrogant and denigrates all the work that lead up to that process. Or do you have visions of iconic figures making leaps and bounds by themselves in a vacuum? Historical inaccuracies ha... Of course the work of Leonardo and Arc

    • Re: Actually (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) *
      > I feel the unmasking of the fake results posted by Woo Suk Hwang could be a blessing for science, and one of the years highlights. It could be portrayed as why science works, although the community requires a basis of trust, eventually frauds will be revealed, hopefully creating more trust in the system.

      The response of scientists to the revelation of this liar among their number certainly makes an interesting contrast to the response of proponents of Intelligent Design to the the revelation of liars am

  • 2005 Scientific Highlights (Score:5, Funny)

    by Forget4it ( 530598 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:23PM (#14332628) Homepage
    2005 Scientific Highlights That's whole lot of highlights!

  • Wait a minute, wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:25PM (#14332630)
    "...who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!"

    What, you mean BSD isn't dead?
  • I thought the real breakthrough was when they cracked Mickey's genetic code and found out that while man shares 96% DNA with chimps, he also shares 90% DNA with mice, his other cousin. Woman refuses to share DNA.

  • Just go home if you're going to post dupes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:31PM (#14332645)
    This article is from the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Top 10". Yesterday the Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 [slashdot.org] story was the BBC reporting the same fucking list. By cleverly putting "evolution" in the title then Zonk got the standard 800 posts you always get when you wave that red flag.

  • A great but sad evolution achievement this year (Score:3, Insightful)

    by surfingmarmot ( 858550 ) on Saturday December 24, 2005 @01:33PM (#14332656)
    A federal court ruling quashing the teaching of the religiously-motivated pseudo-science of intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ [msn.com]). Its great to have fought off this challenge to science and education in America (yet again), but sad that we are still having these challenges after all science has accomplished since Western mankind threw off the yoke theocracy first put on science in the Middle Ages.
    • #include "IANAL.h"

      Sadder yet, an asterisk should be attached to the Dover event. Since the Dover voters have already thrown out the school board that started the issue, and the new board is quite happy with the decision, there will be no appeal. That means it will not go to a higher court, which in turn means the decision will have little or no precedential effect outside its jurisdiction.

      rj
      • > Sadder yet, an asterisk should be attached to the Dover event. Since the Dover voters have already thrown out the school board that started the issue, and the new board is quite happy with the decision, there will be no appeal. That means it will not go to a higher court, which in turn means the decision will have little or no precedential effect outside its jurisdiction.

        But the exhaustive findings of fact will be available to the next court that has to waste time on the subject.
      • That means it will not go to a higher court, which in turn means the decision will have little or no precedential effect outside its jurisdiction.

        While it does not set a binding legal precedent that other courts are compelled to follow, you can bet your ass that it will be referred to and cited in any similar future cases.

        A lot of legwork has been done, and other courts will certainly look at the reasoning and conclusions drawn in this case.

    • It has been proven clearly and thoroughly that high-ranking ID proponents lie. Behe claimed that his work was thoroughly peer-reviewed when it was not, he claimed that there was no scientific progress made when dozens of books and journal articles were written (of which he has read none). All of them try to hide the link to creationism, when ID is clearly just a reformulation. They hide religious motivation when there clearly is one. And so on, and so on. Either they are ignorant and thus not credible or in

  • Mentifex Mind.Forth 2005: AI Has Been Solved (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Mind.Forth artificial intelligence [sourceforge.net] came of age in 2005.

  • Dupe dupe dupe dupe of url
    dupe dupe dupe of url
    dupe dupe dupe of url

    As I walk through this world
    Nothing can stop the dupe of url
    And you, you are my girl
    No one can hurt you, oh, no

  • Haahaa (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BlackShirt ( 690851 )
    I guess this is the best metaphor that has ever been used in a science article.

    >>Neutron stars are the *city-sized*, collapsed cores of massive stars.
  • Went to Slashdot, for transporting stories out of the past onto the front page.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "Religios people" say that the world was created by god and jesus was his son, yet religious people say that jesus was only a prophet. Religious people also say that Brahma created the universe. Religious people say that you go to heaven when you die, religious people say that you are reborn in another shape.

      That is approximately the quality of your argument about "scientists" saying that a water moleculs is life and an unborn child isn't.

      What I'm trying to illustrate is that you are lumping together concep
    • Sorry, but you're really using a big strawman here regarding scientists, as if they are the ones who uncritically and ignorantly make blind non-falsifiable assumptions. I guess you've never witnessed a real scientific debate. The existence or non-existence of a deity falls outside the scope of science as it cannot be proven nor disproven. It can be said that no falsifiable claims exist by which to measure whether the deity exists (or interacts with) the physical world. Emperical evidence shows that this dei
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • The question was "what is ID?". The best people to answer those questions are the inventors of the concept, the people who wrote the textbooks, and principal proponents and the financial backers. During the proceding of the court case, Behe and others were found to be mistelling the truth. For example, he claimed there was no scientific research being done on e.g. the flagellum when there was. Thus, he was claiming non-existence of something when the existence is easily proven. What more proof do you need
    • I though this post looked familiar.

      So if this [slashdot.org] post is a troll, does the addition of a paragraph to an otherwise identical post make this one not a troll?

    • 2005 has been characterised by more blown sub-theories (e.g. string cosmology) and raise-eyebrows-and-shrug data (e.g. the Fountains of Enceladus) than any other year I can remember.

      At long last, it's becoming socially acceptable to admit that a popular theory is more or less complete bollocks. It's difficult to overstate how valuable that is to the progress of science.

      ID has brought this about in a way that Creationism couldn't, because ID is more "moderate" and reasonable, less polarised. Careless detract
  • Scanned it. Page one had conventional false hood. The polar ice caps are not at a record low. Only 50-100 million years ago they were completely gone.
    • Scanned it. Page one had conventional false hood. The polar ice caps are not at a record low. Only 50-100 million years ago they were completely gone.

      'record low' means 'lowest on record'. Unless I am mistaken we have no human records from 50-200 million years ago.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close