Green Baron

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Artificial evolution through active management as a result of technology and scientific insight to achieve a planned goal (well, the first farmers / household animal breeders didn't plan, it was an automatic outcome) versus evolution through natural mechanisms alone. Artificial evolution uses natural mechanisms. Artificial selection is the older part in this, artificial variation was (and is) for example done through the application of radiation, and in the future will (probably) be achieved through specifically aimed laboratory-actions (i am no specialist). Again: artificial evolution uses the natural mechanisms. That's by no means a negation or misunderstanding of natural evolution as @Sigma88 seems to assume, but it is human interference. Here's the catch: It allows a lot of individuals to live a happy life that would "naturally" (read: when unattended by a specialist) have died. The cultural and technological achievements allow that. Artificial evolution will stop when abandoned for whatever reason. Many artificial species from aquarium fish to wheat spp. will disappear because they can't multiply without human help. One day, humans might loose the ability to interfere because the prerequisites get lost (brain, immune system, global war, idk). Until then they interfere. @Sigma88 accused me of putting humans "above nature" and in that course of religious viewpoints: absolute nonsense ! Hough ! Edit: for the Fermi paradox, idk, but we can assume that an evolution elsewhere, based on the same elements, would follow the same rules if it had long enough time to develop. Then the elsewhereans will probably discuss similar things ... ? /joke

Hypothesis from the linked article: a protoplanetary disc edge-on towards us. http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07291 Yet unpublished.

Attitude ... i spoke with Jeb. With his grin he said "You've seen it. It exploded. So ?" :-) I know no technical details, but i think they will find the problem, elimination it and/or redefine the procedures.

I'm trying to explain human interference with natural evolution and you're making a world-view thing out of that. That's not "above nature" that's working with the stuff at hand. Since our hands and brains allow we can work with the evolutionary processes. Where's the problem in understanding that ? An asteroid doesn't CRISPR nor breed cute kittens. Well, it does kill, but that's not even an argument. Edit: you have the last word cause this probably leads to nothing and after all it's a game forum :-)

Nope, humans have broken out of the parasite-existence and form their genome and that of others. That's interference. I'm not valuating that, but the process of genetic variation and natural selection is not valid any more or i couldn't write this. I won't discuss (dis-)advantages but that's a simple fact. I'm astonished that this is a case of debate here ;-) Basics of Evolution: genetic variation - natural selection. Selection these days is partly an artificial thing, the variation thing will soon(tm) be as well. Ok ? :-) Maybe, after a hearty war over ressources, i'll change my view again ... Edit: of course, humans evolve if that was your misunderstanding, just with artificial interference.

If that was the case in a strict sense then i would have died at age 7 and many others here likewise weren't alive any more. We heftily interfere in spreading into/destroying niches in all areas, in breeding household animals and crops and for that to be successfull had to remove the origin species or restrict them to areas, cause they would interfere with the genes of the household species, destroying the efforts of breeding. More examples necessary ? Climate, pollution ? Our actions change everything, if that's not interference ... ? In the long run our species will go the way all species have gone before (yeah yeah, predictions are difficult), but i read some try to change the genes actively. Is *that* interference ? (No valuation here, just statement) Peace :-) Edit: to put it in simple words: in a lot of areas, artificial selection has replaced natural selection. I tend to call that interference :-)

Thanks @Shpaget. Yeah, I had to update my understanding of mass/energy conversion ...

Thanks, there seems to be a lot of interesting reading in the reference list ...

You're right. Misunderstanding from my side. School was long ago :-)

Different thing, the mass (fat) isn't converted into energy (radiation). It's sweated out, breathed out, formed into muscles. The overall number of particles after the bicycle trip is the same as before, though a few parts and some skin may have been lost on the slope of the Cumbre Vieja down to the sea ... :-) Nuclear fusion on the other hand really converts mass into energy at the rate of the cited formula e=m*c*c. The overall mass of the newly formed atoms is less than the mass of the atoms before the fusion. It's not much, but enough to set free a lot (!) of energy. :-)

True. Though it takes time ...

:-) Be it the ultimate fuel-saving-solution (noone else has discovered), the ultimate battery-life-prolonging solution (no charger can provide) or the ultimate cleaning-chemistry (you can't buy in a store) ... if it serves you and you're happy than use it :-) Says a friendly Green Baron

The reverse, matter into energy is what fusion is about. In bombs and hopefully in power plants one day. Edit: nevermind ... i probably misunderstood KSK's "equivalence in reverse" ... ?

There is rarely "hype" in scientific journals. The "hype" is exported to Speigel, BBC, and so on :-) If findings start a discussion that means progress is likely to be at hand. Many ideas prove wrong, that is a natural outcome of the process of publishing and open discussion and the way it is meant to be. Journals are the base for serious discussions and presentation of the outcome of people's work. Of course you can question anything, degrading it to politics or scoffing at the review process or other's reputation, but that isn't helpful. The established processes secure that we don't end up with everything being on a level of colorful magazines full of speculation, aliens, massless drives, energyshields, replicators and so on. If noone in the community cares about a new idea then that probably means that nobody has understood it (usually the view of the ignored) or it is bogus (the view of the ignorants). But these cases are rare and don't usually find their way in the journals, or maybe as a sidenote or a letter. The process is meant to prevent it, to part the stuff from the serious things. Discussing the possibility of arsenic as a base element of life could have been fruitful even if the outcome is "no". Being open for the negation of a hypothesis is absolutely part of the game. I could repeat that 3 times just to have it securely installed. Following those discussions one can learn a lot.

I tried to search but couldn't find any information. I would actually think that they are tied together in order to keep them from going in opposition. I remember from my paraglider license looong ago (we have a parachute as a reserve just in case) that this is what multiple parachutes do cause it's the most stable state. But that is bad cause then they expose the side to the airflow instead of the hollow bell, resulting in less projected surface and a higher sinkrate. Maybe there's a better photo somewhere ... or a military man/woman can shed some light on this ? Edit: opposition called a downplane in english. I'm not sure whether that applies only to airfoils or to round parachutes as well ...

Bad luck of early birth ? (very freely citated after H. Kohl, former German Bundeskanzler) :-)

Refreshing thought. Ok, my lifetime could be around 40 years. 20 years there, 20 years back, that's an average speed of c/5. Only a direct transfer comes into account. That means accelerating to c/2,5 and breaking (2 times, there and back again, a probe's tale). I leave the landing and restart in 1.4g for sampling away cause that's just peanuts. That's ... let's see... 480.000km/s dV. Pls. tell me how ? With our technology we can dream of maybe one hundred km/s dV ... Edit: or if the probe (Hail !) shoots through the distant system @0.2c - that's 60.000km/s dV, still 3 magnitudes off and beyond "moar boosters" :-) - it must be very well timed to get a short glimps of a planet ...

Hello, just a question, pls.: was the thread on climate change things removed ? Even in my profile there's no trace of the nonsense i gave away. Reminds me of one of the Star-Trek movies where they realize they are missing something and turn back just to find out about a deadly encounter .... i think the cortical node of 7of9 had a diffe ... ah forget it. Just a question, no criticism :-) Edit: no, it was Data's internal clock !

Matter van tire watched remove holiday inventions, spiritual punches insurance ruled broken maniac, wiry tongue unpacked please.

Say, would beans laugh but go home to screech heavens foot mat while lasers cat lollops ocean floors ? Until midnight ?

Of course, you can call it as you like, no problem ... buuuut, the discoverer(s) have to right to name an object and they sticked to the usual nomenclature. Just sayin' :-)

@Shpaget: Too strong fixing and there's no evolution ... which means a simple change in the environment kills them all. Evolution is about variation (and selection). @ProtoJeb21: A planetary magnetic field is not correlated with rotation or the amount of iron in a core. See the gas giants. From the paper: Proxima B ist probably locked. Also the 0,35 ecc. is a statistical figure, no fixed measurement, it may be less. Inventing life forms on paper is surely fun but science fiction. From the paper: Equilibrium temp. of Proxima B is -39° Celsius. It would need a special greenhouse atmosphere (stronger than earth) to keep liquid water. But atmospheric gases are probably gone. Water, if it was present at all, was probably lost during the first few hundred million years. I'd suggest we (or whoever feels entitled) take a look at Mars and Europa first ...

According to the paper the planet is most likely dry and exposed to X-rays 400 times the strength of earth. Particles from the star would probably have blown any atmospheric gases away. Interesting is that the planet could not have formed from a planetary disc, its mass is too high, there wasn't enough material so close to the star. Could be a caught traveller or formed from planetesimals farther out and moved in. Also i have to ask how they inferred the mass of the planet as they cannot know the tilt of the ecliptic plane. But maybe i just haven't understood the method. New instruments might reveal more in the future. I must add: i am in no social network and not as exposed to the "hype" and speculation and thus may seem a little "behind the moon" to those who mainly rely on social networks and online-magazines. I have to live with that :-) Edit: nevermind, i got that mass thing.

Maybe. Mercury has a very week magnetic field. Earths magnetic field is s result of complex convection and differentiation, currents in the solid/ductile parts of core and mantel. It's yet not totally understood, and it changes, can even have mutliple poles. Was a joke at university to blame the quadrupole for all kinds of mishaps ...

It's on the ESO page, together with the submitted Nature-paper and the abstracts of two papers that deal with the probability of liquid water and an atmosphere :-)