How sticky toepads evolved in geckos


most commonly accepted time scale


Download 501 b.
bet14/55
Sana21.08.2018
Hajmi501 b.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   55

“The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions,” said study co-author Inseok Song, assistant professor of physics and astronomy in the UGA Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.



There were even appeals to magic.  “Now you see it, now you don’t,” quipped lead author Carl Melin of UC San Diego, describing the classic magician’s line.  “Only in this case we’re talking about enough dust to fill an inner solar system, and it really is gone.”  (See before-and-after artwork in the PhysOrg coverage).   Ben Zuckerman of UCLA added his own analogy: ““It’s as if you took a conventional picture of the planet Saturn today and then came back two years later and found that its rings had disappeared.

  • There were even appeals to magic.  “Now you see it, now you don’t,” quipped lead author Carl Melin of UC San Diego, describing the classic magician’s line.  “Only in this case we’re talking about enough dust to fill an inner solar system, and it really is gone.”  (See before-and-after artwork in the PhysOrg coverage).   Ben Zuckerman of UCLA added his own analogy: ““It’s as if you took a conventional picture of the planet Saturn today and then came back two years later and found that its rings had disappeared.



Readers of the headline and not the fine print in the innards of the press release might miss this confession: “The researchers explored several different explanations for how such a large quantity of dust could disappear so rapidly, and each of their explanations challenges conventional thinking about planet formation… Like many important discoveries, the scientists’ finding raises more questions than it answers.”  Song added that each one of the “uncomfortable” proposals to explain the phenomenon “has non-traditional implications.”  Any answers are in the future: “my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form.”

  • Readers of the headline and not the fine print in the innards of the press release might miss this confession: “The researchers explored several different explanations for how such a large quantity of dust could disappear so rapidly, and each of their explanations challenges conventional thinking about planet formation… Like many important discoveries, the scientists’ finding raises more questions than it answers.”  Song added that each one of the “uncomfortable” proposals to explain the phenomenon “has non-traditional implications.”  Any answers are in the future: “my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form.”



Here’s a non-traditional proposal that was actually traditional before secular evolutionists reclassified it as non-traditional: stars and planets were created, and because of the laws of thermodynamics, they are breaking up, not building up.  Unfortunately, Song’s chosen “line of research” will never take him there, because that route has been ruled out of bounds by a certain minority of human beings with a lot of power.

  • Here’s a non-traditional proposal that was actually traditional before secular evolutionists reclassified it as non-traditional: stars and planets were created, and because of the laws of thermodynamics, they are breaking up, not building up.  Unfortunately, Song’s chosen “line of research” will never take him there, because that route has been ruled out of bounds by a certain minority of human beings with a lot of power.



Well, isn’t this a fine situation we find science in today.  We have “conventional thinking” that is dead wrong, findings that raise more questions than answers (as with “many important discoveries”), and non-traditional proposals that make people “uncomfortable”.  Since when was comfort a requirement of truth?  As they say, the truth hurts.

  • Well, isn’t this a fine situation we find science in today.  We have “conventional thinking” that is dead wrong, findings that raise more questions than answers (as with “many important discoveries”), and non-traditional proposals that make people “uncomfortable”.  Since when was comfort a requirement of truth?  As they say, the truth hurts.



Suppose you had left your house to the care of a steward, and returned to find all your possessions gone.  Would you laugh if he gave you a sheepish grin and said, “Now you see it, now you don’t”?  After pressing him for answers, would you be satisfied if he tossed out some possibilities, but said each of them has “unresolved issues”?  Suppose he said he had developed an answer, but could redevelop it.  Suppose he tried to cheer you up by saying that the unexpected disappearance was “sure to provoke further discussion.”  Suppose he tried to impress you with the “exciting possibility” that the spontaneous disappearance of the material was so quick, we were never lucky enough to glimpse it until now!  No; if you were too gracious to fire him on the spot, you would certainly demand a credible answer and give him a time limit to produce it.

  • Suppose you had left your house to the care of a steward, and returned to find all your possessions gone.  Would you laugh if he gave you a sheepish grin and said, “Now you see it, now you don’t”?  After pressing him for answers, would you be satisfied if he tossed out some possibilities, but said each of them has “unresolved issues”?  Suppose he said he had developed an answer, but could redevelop it.  Suppose he tried to cheer you up by saying that the unexpected disappearance was “sure to provoke further discussion.”  Suppose he tried to impress you with the “exciting possibility” that the spontaneous disappearance of the material was so quick, we were never lucky enough to glimpse it until now!  No; if you were too gracious to fire him on the spot, you would certainly demand a credible answer and give him a time limit to produce it.





Download 501 b.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   55




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling