this is an interesting idea but thatās just how feasible is it really? Iād reckon, it would be a great investment if it was done on city limits only, and they paved large sections of major streets, freeways.
Probably 11 or 26 based on String Theory, which, if you are a fan of the scientific method, you might find fits more into the colloquial definition of a theory and not the scientific one (not unlike others paraded about everyday).
Also, any talk about ET science that SETI is doing is kinda silly. The Drake equation is about as pseudoey as pseudoscience gets.
Concerning the Fermi Paradox- Our species gives ourselves way to much credit for the paltry 100 years weāve spent in the āmodern eraā. The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years, what we perceive as intelligent lifeforms and what more advanced beings with civilizations millions or billions of years old might consider as intelligent could never be fathomed. Not to mention, these extraterrestrials would have the technological convenience of being found at their own choosing, or not really consider us in their league.
Using rudimentary radio signals to contact a super-advanced alien civilization is probably akin to using smoke signals to communicate with the Voyager I probe.
We have a hard time cataloging all the species that exists on our own planet; 80 years ago we thought all life needed the sun to survive until we discovered creatures feeding on hydrogen sulfide near deep sea vents. So it doesnāt surprise me if we canāt spot something that from a slightly different perspective is actually staring us in the face.
You are right and also bring up a very important point. I donāt believe in using any scientific theory or belief as a final conclusion. Science changes so much over time and completely invalidates common held beliefs periodically. As you mentioned with the sun example. I donāt know if that is even 80 years, Iām fairly sure Iāve heard that even as a kid.
That is why I donāt like to just cite āscienceā and leave it at that. For a great number of things science has no real answer or is probably wrong anyway. I use science as more something Iām interested in and build off what I can apply practically. hubcap also mentions the same point about String theory. He is right, what I mentioned is part of String theory, and he is also right in that itās not strictly scientific method. But Iād go a step further and state the scientific method also clearly is not a guarantee. It can only be correct in the context of the information and tools we have available at the time.
Part of this may be the nebulous *scientific *definition of the term species. Sometimes the line is drawn at whether or not the members can physically interbreed (I would say that this is the colliquial definition and should be the scientific one - reproductive isolation). Sometimes the line is extended to geographical isolation or animal preference. And sometimes species are simply delineated based on phenotype/morphology. This facilitates alot of things that scientists and other may think is cool (such as finding new species, doing cladistics on extinct animals, etcā¦), but it obviously muddies the waters in any conversation about speciation and experiments into testability of Darwinism (ie: the assertion that natural selection is the driving force behind speciation) in multicellular animals. Whenever a scietist finds some animal in the jungle with a new spot, or some fossil tooth, he wants to name it after his girlfriend or something and the whole world is like, āoh snap more animalsinside!ā. Nobody thinks about the repercussions on science that necessarily result from loosening/changing the definitions of scientific terms (which functionally must be precise and rigid). I think psycholgists still use the terms caucasoid/negroid/mongoloid to describe races for this exact reason. What world do we live in where psycologists hold themselves to higher standards than taxonomists.
hahaa
Mutation, literally. hahaa
The crickets with the mute allele need the crickets with the singing allele to propegate the mutation. Intraspecies symbiosis. hahaa
Deleterious mutations (redundancy?) are usually only preferred under unusual stresses. Are the crickets or the flies invasive species? Will this cricket species make it in the long run? Sickle cell crickets, sounds like an Emo band name.
It said the flies are North American and the crickets were from Australia. I donāt know if that means both are invasive to the islands or just the crickets, even though theyāre the ones under pressure to adapt. To do it in less than 20 generations though is pretty impressive. I wonder what the flies will do if thereās no longer any sound to track from those crickets.
