Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

[Schneibster]

So, Seth's point is a hard vacuum is a great place for life? I didn't expect less from him.

Well, maybe the vacuum is a great place for Seth... outside like inside the head and all that....

Maybe we should send him there and see how he adapts?

NASA has a BIG vacuum chamber. Just sayin'.

They'd have to clean it afterward.

[mistermack]

Define "human."

Oh for fuck's sake !!! Is this a primary school?
Do you need someone to blow your nose and wipe your ass as well?
I'm not your mother.

Sorry, if you're going to claim that adaptations or genetic changes that might occur that would allow humans to live in zero-gee environments makes them "not human," you're going to have to first define what you mean by "human" if you expect your asinine claim to survive.

The point being, mom, that you're evidently ignorant of the nature of evolution and how organisms adapt to new environments. There's absolutely nothing in science that precludes humans from evolving and adapting to zero-gee, high-rad environments.

Here endeth the lesson. Now go wipe your own ass.

There is sooooooooo much wrong there, I don't know where to start.
So I'll try to make it simple.
Firstly, for evolution to happen, humans would have to survive long enough to reproduce, and bring up the children.
That couldn't happen without effective radiation shielding and some way of counteracting zero g.
And if you do that, you're not going to get adaptive evolution.
So unless you're speculating that they would deliberately allow a bit of radiation through, and deliberately take no action to get over the zero g health problems, then they aren't going to evolve as you suggest.

Evolution happens when creatures react to environmental pressures by some dying, some surviving.
Humans now react by solving the environmental problems. We've moved on.

[Seth]

Define "human."

Oh for fuck's sake !!! Is this a primary school?
Do you need someone to blow your nose and wipe your ass as well?
I'm not your mother.

Sorry, if you're going to claim that adaptations or genetic changes that might occur that would allow humans to live in zero-gee environments makes them "not human," you're going to have to first define what you mean by "human" if you expect your asinine claim to survive.

The point being, mom, that you're evidently ignorant of the nature of evolution and how organisms adapt to new environments. There's absolutely nothing in science that precludes humans from evolving and adapting to zero-gee, high-rad environments.

Here endeth the lesson. Now go wipe your own ass.

There is sooooooooo much wrong there, I don't know where to start.
So I'll try to make it simple.
Firstly, for evolution to happen, humans would have to survive long enough to reproduce, and bring up the children.
That couldn't happen without effective radiation shielding and some way of counteracting zero g.

Let's see, how long has the International Space Station been occupied...a decade is it? Where's your robust scientific evidence that women can't have babies in zero-gee?

And if you do that, you're not going to get adaptive evolution.
So unless you're speculating that they would deliberately allow a bit of radiation through, and deliberately take no action to get over the zero g health problems, then they aren't going to evolve as you suggest.

And you know this how, exactly? Where's your data, and I mean something other than the brown smelly stuff you're alluding to right now that you pulled out of your ass.

Evolution happens when creatures react to environmental pressures by some dying, some surviving.
Humans now react by solving the environmental problems. We've moved on.

Again, you sound remarkably like a Young Earth Creationist right now. Richard Dawkins would be ashamed of you.

[Schneibster]

Errr, he's got a point, Seth. Remember genetic engineering? We're already looking to do it on animals. Before long we'll be doing it on humans, to reduce medical costs if nothing else.

That's gene alteration, and the products eventually will be new species. And that's evolution.

[Seth]

No, I think he split. I think his bit about the night not being dark kinda conflicts with Olbers' Paradox and he can't figure out what to say to it, so every time I mention it he splits.

The fact that there are light years of dark in between the points of light don't bother him none atall, do it?

The universe is a big place. That means that there can be lots of space between things like planets and galaxies and still there is a tremendous amount of matter out there that we know very little about, certainly not enough to say with any sort of accuracy that "almost every bit of it is Deadly to Life" (sic).

Oh, and they aren't "points of light," actually they are these things called "stars" and "galaxies," which are comprised of billions up on billions of those "star" thingies, around which other things called "planets" sometimes orbit.

[Seth]

Errr, he's got a point, Seth. Remember genetic engineering? We're already looking to do it on animals. Before long we'll be doing it on humans, to reduce medical costs if nothing else.

That's gene alteration, and the products eventually will be new species. And that's evolution.

Will it be a "new species" or merely an advance sub-species of Homo Sapien?

But you make an excellent point supporting my argument, which is that we don't necessarily have to wait for nature to evolve humans to live under different environmental conditions, we will likely be able to engineer them to that end in the not too distant future, which means the ability to survive in other environments in a single generation.

[Schneibster]

Errr, he's got a point, Seth. Remember genetic engineering? We're already looking to do it on animals. Before long we'll be doing it on humans, to reduce medical costs if nothing else.

That's gene alteration, and the products eventually will be new species. And that's evolution.

Will it be a "new species" or merely an advance sub-species of Homo Sapien?

"It?" You're kinda shaky on this whole molecular biology thing, right?

But you make an excellent point supporting my argument, which is that we don't necessarily have to wait for nature to evolve humans to live under different environmental conditions, we will likely be able to engineer them to that end in the not too distant future, which means the ability to survive in other environments in a single generation.

Your point was that 99.9999+% of space is not "empty."

You're changing the subject again. Either that or shifting the goalposts so you can claim "victory."

It's not a zero-sum game. It's a conversation. Maybe you forgot.

[Feck]

The universe is a big place. That means that there can be lots of space between things like planets and galaxies and still there is a tremendous amount of matter out there that we know very little about, certainly not enough to say with any sort of accuracy that "almost every bit of it is Deadly to Life" (sic).

No I think you can say between the hard empty cold bits and the Really fucking hot bits that there are almost no bits that are not deadly to life .

My statement is actually almost totally accurate . There is a wider range of places where some life is viable ,but places humans can conceivably evolve to live in.... needles in a vast haystack .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, Seth's point is a hard vacuum is a great place for life? I didn't expect less from him.

Well, maybe the vacuum is a great place for Seth... outside like inside the head and all that....

Maybe we should send him there and see how he adapts?

NASA has a BIG vacuum chamber. Just sayin'.

They'd have to clean it afterward.

We could sell Freeze-dried Seth for catfish bait.

[Schneibster]

Well, maybe the vacuum is a great place for Seth... outside like inside the head and all that....

Maybe we should send him there and see how he adapts?

NASA has a BIG vacuum chamber. Just sayin'.

They'd have to clean it afterward.

We could sell Freeze-dried Seth for catfish bait.

Not sure catfish'd go for that.

[mistermack]

Let's see, how long has the International Space Station been occupied...a decade is it? Where's your robust scientific evidence that women can't have babies in zero-gee?

The ignorance you display there is amazing.
Firstly, the space station's orbit is INSIDE the magnetic shielding that the Earth gets from the most harmful radiation.
It's no model at all for survival away from Earth.
Also, having a baby isn't the point.

Having a HEALTHY baby, which can survive and reproduce, is the point. Where is YOUR evidence that humans can do that in zero g and high radiation levels? What kind of growth and bone development would you expect in children? And all the other organs.

And you accuse ME of talking shit?

[Schneibster]

That's a pretty good point. Some of the processes that occur in child growth won't work in zero g; we already know that. The most likely to be disturbed are processes to do with bone formation.

Shall we experiment on babies to find out? What a great idea!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's a pretty good point. Some of the processes that occur in child growth won't work in zero g; we already know that. The most likely to be disturbed are processes to do with bone formation.

This. Rigorous scientific proof has been provided by Skylab, Mir, the ISS, various shuttle flights.

Shall we experiment on babies to find out? What a great idea!

Hey, what good are welfare babies anyway?

[Tero]

But the got fundies in Canada too. It spreads.
http://ronbc.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/t ... ngelicals/

[MrJonno]

The problem with having children in space is its completely unethical to even experiment, probably no issues up to 14 days the usual time for embryo research but after that no Western country would permit it to even be investigated.

Guess we will have to leave it to the chinese