Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 33094

Directory

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
Contact:  Franklin O'Donnell
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         September 4, 1996
GALILEO TO MAKE SECOND PASS BY GANYMEDE
     NASA's Galileo spacecraft will snap three-dimensional
pictures of giant, icy fissures and look for further evidence of
a magnetic field when it dives past Jupiter's moon Ganymede on
Friday, September 6.
     Galileo will sail just 262 kilometers (163 miles) over the
frozen moon's north pole at 19:00 Universal Time (12 noon Pacific
time) Friday.  The flyby, Galileo's second encounter with
Ganymede since its arrival at Jupiter last December, will be the
spacecraft's closest swing by any of Jupiter's moons during its
two-year prime mission.
     During the flyby, Galileo will collect new pictures of two
regions on Ganymede, Uruk Sulcus and Galileo Regio, that were
imaged during the spacecraft's first flyby in late June.  This
will allow scientists to create stereo pairs offering a three-
dimensional view of Ganymede's icy terrain.
     "The areas on Ganymede that we saw during the first flyby
have huge contrasts of light and dark that fool the eye," said
Galileo Project Scientist Dr. Torrence Johnson of NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.  "What your eye interprets as a slope may
not really be one.  These 3-D views will give us a better idea of
what is 'paint' on Ganymede's surface, so to speak, vs. what is
real topography."  In particular, Johnson said scientists are
eager to understand better the patterns of fissures and cracks
that riddle the moon's surface.
     Scientists also hope that this week's flyby will settle a
current controversy -- whether or not Ganymede boasts an
internally generated magnetic field.  Data collected by Galileo's
space physics experiments during the first Ganymede flyby show
that the moon is interacting with Jupiter's enormous magnetic
field in some way, but scientists do not yet agree on whether
this means that Ganymede itself has a magnetic field.
     "The upcoming flyby should conclusively settle the question
of whether Ganymede has an internal magnetic field," said Dr.
Donald Gurnett of the University of Iowa, principal investigator
for Galileo's plasma wave spectrometer.  "Because the spacecraft
passes over a different region of Ganymede, there is a very
specific signature that we should see if one exists."
     Besides the imaging and space physics efforts, Galileo will
train other instruments including its near-infrared mapping
spectrometer and its ultraviolet spectrometer on Ganymede during
the flyby to study the moon's northern regions.  Throughout the
encounter period, Galileo's instruments studying magnetic fields
and charged particles will collect data on the environment near
Jupiter that will be sent to Earth as they are received.
     During Galileo's close-approach period throughout the week,
the spacecraft will also be making observations of the icy
surface of Jupiter's moon Europa, and will take global pictures
of the heavily cratered jovian moon Callisto.  As on other
flybys, Galileo will also keep watch on the volcanic moon Io to
look for active eruptions.  In addition, the spacecraft will take
a picture of Amalthea, one of Jupiter's handful of much smaller
moons measuring just 100 kilometers (60 miles) across.
     Data from most of the science instruments will be stored on
Galileo's onboard tape recorder and transmitted to Earth from
September 8 through November 2.  On November 4, Galileo will
carry out its third flyby of the Jupiter orbital tour, a close
approach to Callisto.
     With a 5,262-kilometer (3,269-mile) diameter, Ganymede is
the largest moon in the solar system -- bigger than Mercury and
about three-quarters the size of Mars.  It possesses a variety of
familiar Earthlike geologic features including craters, basins,
grooves and mountains.  The bulk of the moon is about half water
ice and half rock.
     The 2,223-kilogram (2-1/2-ton) Galileo orbiter spacecraft
was launched aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis on October 18, 1989.
JPL manages the Galileo Project for NASA's Office of Space
Science, Washington, D.C.
     Additional information on the Galileo mission and its
results can be found on the World Wide Web at
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo.
                          #####

In article <50ijsa$kcb@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU
(Chuck Karish) wrote:
> In article <322CB0FC.1D4B@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
> 
> >Its a good point that killfiles could be used, but
> >they are not universally available for all news
> >readers, and present another layer of difficulty
> >for newcomers.
> 
> Too bad for them.  The usenet custom has always been
> to be permissive when there's a technical solution.
> Let them get better news readers.  They're available.
> "Anyone" who is using a capable news reader would not
> see cross posted articles more than once.
Ah, could one more wise than I tell me how to set up a killfile in
Newswatcher for the Mac--my operation's institutional newsreader? Back in
the days when I had a Unix shell account, I had killfiles. With
Newswatcher, I'd love the same capability.
In the indomitable spirit of Usenet, this discourse is moving but going
nowhere. S.g.g's. situation is dire enough that drastic measures would be
in order, if there were any that would be effective. 
Many days I just skip the entire group; if the S:N ratio doesn't improve
soon, I'll stick it in the trash. That will be no loss to the group; I'm
not a geologist, just an editor, and haven't much to contribute. 
I fear, however, that many with more to contribute have already said
goodbye. Even a year ago, there were a half-dozen names I'd look for and
read their posts. Today, I can think of one, Richard Ottoloni (sp?), and
even he stays in the background most of the time. Worse, I've stopped
looking for new names to add to my read file because it's just too much
work to sift through the dreck.
Sci.geo.geology may be serving some people's needs, but it's not serving mine.
David Schoonmaker
davids@amsci.org
David Schoonmaker
davids@amsci.org

"CAREER DIRECTORY CANADA 1996"
It is said that more than 80% of jobs in Canada are never advertised but 
offered to job hunters who  are able to break into "the hidden" job market.
The Career Directory, 1996 Edition is the only comprehensive directory of 
Canada's employers. It contains details of over 600 companies so you can 
target those that best fit your experience and background. Companies' details 
include: type of business and its market place, positions they are usually 
hiring for, full address with postal code, tel. and fax Nos., names and titles 
of decision makers and short description of desirable qualifications and 
personal qualities. The Directory is available through Toronto-based Canada 
Information Services. Price is CAN$ 22 payable by money order or bank draft. 
Personal cheques accepted from the US buyers. Full refund offered if not 
satisfied.
Should you wish to place an order or have a question or comment, please 
contact gb@interlog.com

charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: In article <32232B57.5842@world.std.com>,
:    The ONE  wrote:
: >> Perhaps if everyone annoyed by junk postings were to send 
: back a reply
: >> via mail (not newsgroups) the offender might be 
: overwhelmed by the volume
: >> of replies and at least reduce the number of offending 
: postings.  Just a
: >> suggestion, not necessarily a good one.  What's your 
: thought on it?
: >> --
: >> Tim Blackmore    tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca
: >
: >My thought is that it's a great idea in theory, but in order 
: for it to
: >be an effective practice we'd need an email destination that 
: had a non-
: >artificial life-form at the console.
: >
: >> Plutonium:  useless as the fifth tit on a cow.
: >
: >
: >Cows have six tits don't they? And aren't they ALL equally 
: useful?
: >Please leave these innocent creatures out of this or I'm 
: gonna
: >have to get upset or something... 
: >
: >*
: I wonder if that poster knows how many "tits" a human has?
How about, "...As useless as tits on a Boar Hog." ?
Regards,
Bob Haley
NOTE:  In no way is my employer responsible for any information conveyed
       in THIS post.

Luciano d'Ilori wrote:
> 
> What you're not taking into account is that the DNA molecule is a
> digital, error-correcting code.
> 
> Because we can demonstrate that living things adapt to their
> surroundings, does not mean we've proved the neo-Darwinian theory of
> evolution.
What I like to know how DNA or RNA which is so complex came to be by 
mixture of amino acid and protiens? How does DNA multipled itself to be 
so many?

Bernhard Schopper wrote:
> 
> tomitire@vegas.infi.net wrote:
> 
> 
> >Takes design, intelligent design.
> 
> And the designer "takes design, intelligent design."
> 
> Bernie
What does this mean? You are not making sens.

mccoy@sierra.net (John McCoy) writes:
>
>It is utter futility for atheists to argue with creationists, because 
>atheists are wrong. 
How about theists, Deists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, or Christians? 
I would be happy to find a creationist who will state what s/he thinks 
is the proper theory to explain the distribution of species and the 
fossil record.  Tried when this thread started and got the usual evasions. 
But I will settle for the creationist answer to this question: 
 What appeared first, cattle or man? 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Full proofs of 1996/1997 Universal Predictions and dates are to be 
found at   http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
For any of my services visit my page  - 
http://www.daw21.com/ads/DrTuri.html
Foreign affairs
The Middle East is directly affected by Neptune and religious 
fanaticism is the worse
trait of this planet and directly affects this specific part of the 
world.  Much of the
prominent religious variety and beliefs started and reside in this 
part of the world. 
Neptune rules oil and most of the world production is also from this 
area.  Thus, both an
oil and religious war is emminent from parts of this instable part of 
the globe. A religious
terrorist war against the West is in progress and will get worse. 
Extremist groups will
organize awful terrorists attacks on more government buildings in many 
European and
US cities.  This chain of destructive behavior will produce serious 
"secret" consideration
of retaliation by the Allied forces.  In the process, eminent Middle 
East Leaders will be
assassinated fueling more and more terrorist attacks on many foreign 
soils.  Along with
many natural disasters such as the 11/22/95 Egypt/Israel/Saudi Arabia 
7.2 quakes, the
Middle East will captivate much of the world's attention for the next 
few months in term
of natural and man made disasters.
Saddam Hussein and other Arabs Leaders will also have to pay an heavy 
price for some
of their political decisions, where a full embargo in oil sale will be 
imposed by other
countries.  A strong shortage of oil and its accompanying rising 
prices will have a
devastating impact on both the economy of many depending countries and 
the Middle 
East  itself. Note: This section was written long before the chain of 
bloody bombing
extremist terrorists attacks on the population of Israel.  
Religion
Death of the Pope, indeed a very negative year for any and all 
denominations.  A form of
a civil war between a defiant cong----
iF YOU NEED TO KNOW MORE GO TO ----Full proofs of 1996/1997 Universal 
Predictions and dates are to be found at
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
For any of my services visit my page  - 
http://www.daw21.com/ads/DrTuri.html
Dr. Turi

In article <50k9kn$fsf@grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net>,
T.Gerritsen@inter.nl.net wrote:
> ryans@info2000.net (Ryan Swift) wrote:
> 
> [some bombastic language snipped]
> 
> >   This proposed institution, to be organized and constructed before the
> >new millennium, would be the start to those wanting world peace, to those
> >wanting to share a common interest, and the strengthening of the human
> >exploratory spirit.  This article can be looked at as a mere suggestion of
> >collective opinions, or could be looked at as the keystone to a glorious
> >future.
> >The choice is open to the world.  I suggest it chooses wisely.  Those
> >interested in joining the future; let me know. Let the world know.
> 
> However strongly I favour international cooperation of any kind, I
> hate this kind of bombastic language. For people who don't use our
> Christian calender, there is no new milennium to come, so it's pretty
> arrogant to consider the year 2000 a milestone for all mankind. And
> I'm VERY suspicious indeed of anyone who thinks he is making history
> and preparing mankind for a glorious future. Please stop this crap and
> get to work.
The new millennium is in the mind.  It's arbitrary.  If Christians counted
in base 9, the millenium would be past.
For the prize behind curtain 2, when did the base 9 new millenium take
place, assuming all counting started at the present base 10 year 1? 
Anyone?
-- 
Louis M. Pecora
pecora@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil
/* My views and opinions are not those of the U.S. Navy.
   If you want those, you have to start a war.  */

> Second, I do not disaggrey totally with what you are saying, I am only 
> pointing that although such mechanisms play a role they do not provide 
> for a complete explanation.  If you argument was bullet proof, life 
> would indeed be involving in the direction of increase stability. 
  Who said life was evolving toward some sort of imagined stability? 
That's your assumption.  Life is only evolving toward greater complexity
and divesity, which isn't even close to the same thing.
> They 
> might be a need for a bacteria to mutate to survive in its environment, 
> but stretching this argument to make the simples life form evolve toward 
> such complexe biological form as mammals, for exemple, is quite a 
> gigantic extrapolation (one of the good way to screw up in science, 
> another good one, which relates her, is to apply a theory tested on 
> subset of phenomenon to superset of phenomenon.  Like applying Newton 
> laws to the very tiny ... quantum mechanics is a living proof of that 
> this kind of approach is dangerous.  By the way, don't flame me on this 
> one, I took a course in quantum mecanics.)
> 
   You took quantum mechanic...wow, I'm impressed.
   The fact that you can't understand how primitive lifeforms evolved
into complex ones doesn't change the fact that they did, and I'm not
here to explain the process.  If I could, I'd write a paper on it and
wait for my Nobel Prize in whatever, because (to my knowledge) no one
has discribed the exact process.
   We know that process took place because its evidence in the fossil
record is irrefutable and overwhelming.  We can argue just how and why
it happened, but NOT that it did.  The two arguements aren't the same
thing.
> If my argument is so simlistic and based on ignorance, than it should be 
> easy to demolish (I am looking forward to it).  I am still waiting and 
> not satisfied with your reply.  
> 
   No, your argument isn't simplistic, it's just wrong.  That is to say,
your arguing about oranges, but we're talking about apples.  You're
trying to say that, since we can't describe the process by which
evolution took place, then evolution didn't happen.  This is not so.
                              Bill
> Pascal

In article <9I5MpbAK6gLyEwuZ@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy  writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>writes
>>This really brings up the issue of "how do we define the nationality 
>>of a person?".  Is it where he/she was born?  Or maybe educated?  Is 
>>it the nationality of the parents that matters?  Current place of 
>>residence?  Maybe permanent place of residence (though, how do you 
>>distinguish current from permanent)?
>>
>Why, aren't the rules of the IOC, FIFA and other international &
>sporting bodies sufficiently well defined?  I think that according to
>the IOC, you can represent any country provided that you have not
>represented another country in the same sport and you were born in your
>chosen country, one of your parents were born there, one of your
>grandparents were born there, or you have been granted citizenship of
>the country.
>
That's true for areas of interest where you appear as a representative 
ofa nation.  But, consider that you're doing something as a private 
citizen, not representing anybody and happen to do something 
important.  All of a sudden various nations, ethnic groups etc. claim 
you as "our own".  Don't you think that you may resentit a bit, under 
some circumstances.
>
>Of course, having gone through the process of immigration to the US from
>another country Mr Meron, you may be able to shed more light on this
>subject from a personal viewpoint.  What problems, if any, did you
>encounter?
Oh, none that time and patience cannot solve.  The process here isn't 
hostile, it is just about as slow and ineficient as any bureaocracy 
(whose clients aren't in a position to complain) can manage to get.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article ,
david ford   wrote:
>Alan Scott on Tue, 27 Aug 1996:
>
>[snip]
>> Alan S.: No. Scientists will make new theories to describe the
>> observations. As long as the observations are of changes however,
>> the theory will likely be termed the theory of *evolution*. If
>> stasis were observed then it would be termed the theory of stasis
>> or some other such qualifier.
>
>"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly
>inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_.  Most species exhibit no
>directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the
>fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
>morphological change is usually limited and directionless."  Do you wish
>to still stand by your statement "If stasis were observed then it would
>be termed the theory of stasis or some other such qualifier"?
Yes, of course. Are you being intentionally dense? Tell me again how
appearing and then disappearing is stasis. I have never disputed the
fact that various species exhibit gross morphological stasis for
extended periods. 
The fossil record as a whole shows change. Species appear and disappear,
some undergoing smooth gradualistic change, others not.
Do you wish to hold to the position that no evolution is documented in
the fossil record?
>There's more: "2. _Sudden appearance_.  In any local area, a species
>does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
>it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  Sounds to me like the
>things were created.  Otherwise, we're talking about genetic miracles
>happening quickly, as opposed to gradualism's having genetic miracles
>occurring slowly.[Gould's _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 182.]
Sounds to me like you didn't read the entire article where Gould talks
about finding the correct locale where the speciation event actually
occurred. Perhaps if one were trying to win rhetorical points by
selectively quoting out of context one might say that it sounds like
the "things were created".

>> The big creationist mistake is that they have nothing better to offer,
>> but must be content with taking potshots at a straw-man theory which
>> they attempt to foist on the unsuspecting public.
>
>I offer you a theory that made predictions about what future scientific
>discoveries would reveal (and which thus is falsifiable).  The theory is
>called special creation, and you can find the predictions in the first
>chapter of Genesis.
Sure. Your predictions are as follows then:
1)All species were created in a 7 day span at some indeterminate time in
the past. 
Status: falsified
Oops, that's it then! Care to try again? Maybe you have a better 
interpretation that relies more on your imagination, and less on
what is written.
>> >If a statue were to wave at us, Dawkins would not consider that a
>> >miracle.  If "scientifically sound observation of special creation of a
>> >new kind" took place, with a mindset such as this, neither would he
>> >consider such a creation a miracle.  He would call such an event merely
>> >improbable, and say that though highly improbable, the improbable
>> >happened.  Thus, a supposed observation of special creation would not
>> >constitute a falsification of the theory of evolution.
> 
>> Sure it would. None of the main mechanisms in the TOE are spontaneous
>> generation. The new TOE which would replace the old falsified TOE would
>> likely have a much larger portion devoted to explaining the new process.
>
>"The new TOE... would replace the old falsified TOE."  As I was saying,
>the valitity of the preconceived notion that evolution had occurred
>would not be altered in the least in such a scenario.  Unfalsifiable.
The fact that change has occurred in the life on Earth is an observation.
Have you ever heard of dinosaurs? Have you ever seen one? Unless you can
find us a specimen of living T Rex, you must concede that change has
occurred. This observation is called the observation of evolution. It is
explained by scientific theories like natural selection and punctuated
equilibrium. Collectively, they are referred to as the theory of
evolution. Therefore, by falsifying the 'theory of evolution' you do
not falsify the observations upon which it is based. Thus, the new
theory would likely be termed the new 'theory of evolution' and it would
still be falsifiable and scientific. (we would hope)
Up till now I've given you credit for being more intelligent than you
have portrayed yourself on this forum.
Do you really cling to the amazingly uninformed opinion that life has
not changed on Earth? Are you actually attempting to challenge this
observation? Just how dark are those ideological blinders? 
>> >Also, in the theory of evolution, nowhere does it say that such an event
>> >cannot occur.  If you disagree with this statement, point me in the
>> >direction of where, using just the theory's theoretical framework, one
>> >can predict that special creation of a new kind cannot occur.  Since the
>> >theory does not say that the event cannot occur, the event's occurrence
>> >would not constitute a falsification of the theory.
> 
>> Could you explain such an event in the context of natural selection,
>> genetic drift and founder effect? I doubt it. You do sound confident,
>> however, so why don't you give it a go.
>
>"Could you explain such an event."  Science is not about explanation. 
>It is about describing.
Science would be a bizarre creature indeed if it offered no explanations.
Your caricature of science would more resemble stamp collecting than
the thriving explanatory assemblage which it actually is.
>"So why don't you give it a go."  I would like
>to avoid stooping to the evolutionist's predilictions for explaining
>things as much as possible and calling it science, if you don't mind. 
>Consider this example where something is explained and not described:

Plausible just-so stories are not meant to be taken as the be all and 
end all. They are merely an effective counter argument to the stubbornly
ignorant who continually parrot "I cannot imagine how *insert favourite
no-brainer here* ever came about through evolution!"
They are not proof, or even evidence. They are merely hypotheses which,
hopefully, are consistent with the available evidence. These can
produce logical predictions to be checked against new evidence. If they
pass such a test, they can be fleshed out into further theories of
evolution.
It is an observation that change has occurred in the forms of life which
occupy the planet. 
The fact remains that evolutionary theory has successfully predicted the 
existance, gross form and placement of intermediates. 
Please make it clear in your next post just what it is which you 
refuse to believe. Is it the observations or the theories of evolution?
-- 
Al Scott....Creationist Quote of the Month--David Ford again!!--
..the electron has a classical radius of 2.8x10^-15 meters, which would be
within your stated upper bound of 10^-18 meters.

In article <322CA7D4.66A@wam.umd.edu>, Wayne Shanks  writes:
> 
> I find it more satifying to think that GOD simply said "let there be 
> light", or maby just "let there be", and the rest is ...
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
  [start music]
  As I move upon the face of darkness,
  There is Nothing, only Me;
  I stretch out My Hand now,
  "Let there Be."
  And there comes a burst of light and power;
  Clearly, it is good, I see.
  An evening and a morning,
  "Let there Be."
  Let there Be, let there Be,
  Let there Be, let there Be;
  That's enough for one day,
  "Let there Be."
  [Rest of Genesis as told by John Lennon left as an exercise for 
    the reader.]
  *TO DEFLECT FLAMES IN ADVANCE...*
  John Lennon is *NOT* God.
  The Beatles are *NOT* and never were "bigger than God".
  God does not have Lennon's autograph; Lennon has God's.
  God *does*, however, have all the albums (except the Anthologies).
(-: (-: closed captioned for the humor impaired :-) :-)
-- 
Edward Gedeon, Delco Electronics          |   Member DNRC O-
The above message is a random collection  |
of photons. Any opinion inferred is your  |  "Do you mind if I smoke?"
own problem, bud.                         |           -- Joan of Arc

sorry, but I missed the # of the posting where this was raised.
wouldn't you suppose that the thinness of the Martian atmosphere
would make for a rather tenuous erosional regime?...  obviously,
when there was water, it was a lot thicker, if we can't just say that
water = life (or greatly implies it .-)
	I'd never heard that, about the dimorphism of the poles,
one being CO2 and the other, H2O; when was that dyscovered?
does anyone have an opinion about the "face" on Mars?...
I think, Totally bogus, but I'mn always open to fresh arguments
(unlike those of the Hoagy Land Rush;
Buy a Home in Cydonia -- the Earthviews are fabulous and
it's cheaper than Sedona !-)
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

sorry, but I missed the # of the posting where this was raised.
wouldn't you suppose that the thinness of the Martian atmosphere
would make for a rather tenuous erosional regime?...  obviously,
when there was water, it was a lot thicker, if we can't just say that
water = life (or greatly implies it .-)
	I'd never heard that, about the dimorphism of the poles,
one being CO2 and the other, H2O; when was that dyscovered?
does anyone have an opinion about the "face" on Mars?...
I think, Totally bogus, but I'mn always open to fresh arguments
(unlike those of the Hoagy Land Rush;
Buy a Home in Cydonia -- the Earthviews are fabulous and
it's cheaper than Sedona !-)
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

Depending on the type of bad guy involved ie Alien or earth scientist 
you might considers his being able to get a small chunk of a white 
dwarf star whose mass and gravitational attraction palced in a 
retrograde orbit around the earth would be able to slow down the 
rotation gradually (depending on the size of the chunk). (Get an 
episode of Cosmos or a book by Asimov called the collapsing universe 
which explains black holes and other phenomena quite well.)
Brian Reed
Vista, CA

Unfortunatly the sun is due to go into the red giant phase in 5 
billion years. So we wont have to worry about those really long work 
days.
Brian Reed
Vista, CA

All I have been able to find in my apparently lousy mineralogy texts 
is corundom at a mohs scale of 9 and diamond at 10.
"It was nessesary"
Kosh telling Captain Sinclair why he saved his life.
"Matters of Honor"

> 
> Pascal Tremblay wrote:
> >
> 
>  Furthermore, those theories do not
> > provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
> > which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a
> > complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
> >
     Genetic codes have a strange kind of intelligence within
them. This might cause changes that are not strictly due to mutation.
How is this so? Stop for a minute and think about your own genetic code.
How old do you think that information is? Some may be sort of new(old!)
but there
is some information that is unbelievably old. Plenty of time for an
intelligent
algorythm to develop.
     Does anybody know how far back in time portions of human DNA
have been estimated? And just what sort of creatures we share DNA with?
Insects?!?! 
Thanks,
Jim
> 
>

Louis M. Pecora wrote:
>  when did the base 9 new millenium take
> place, assuming all counting started at the present base 10 year 1?
> Anyone?
Jan 1st 1459
(In base-9 notation, that's 2001.)

The Charlesworth Group of Huddersfield, UK is pleased to announce the
inauguration of a new Award for online journals, The Charlesworth Group Award
for Electronic Journals. The new Award will be run independently from the
prestigious Charlesworth Group Awards for Typographical Excellence in Journal
and Serial Publishing and aims to recognise excellent overall design,
functionality and innovation in online and parallel online journals.
The new Award is organised by the Charlesworth Group and will be run in
association with The British Library, The Association of Learned and
Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), The Electronic Libraries Programme
(e-Lib) and The Serial Publishers Executive of the Council of Academic and
Professional Publishers of The Publishers Association.
The winner of the Award in 1996 will receive £500 in addition to a handsome
silver trophy which will be presented on the occasion of the joint ALPSP/FIGIT
meeting on electronic publishing experiments being supported by the Joint
Information Systems Committee. The meeting will be held at the R.I.C.S., 2,
Great George Street, London SW1 on December 12th 1996.
Any journal which is available online to subscribers is eligible to enter the
new Award. Entries will be judged on screen by a distinguished panel of judges
to be announced shortly. Entry forms are available now from the organisers
either as a paper version or electronically from the address below. There is no
cost to enter the Award. The closing date for entries is October 14th 1996.
The main judging criteria will be accessibility, overall design and
presentation, functionality, innovation and navigation through the publication.
Full details of eligibility and judging criteria will be available with the
entry forms which can be obtained electronically here or from: The Charlesworth
Award for Electronic Journals, 254 Deighton Road, Huddersfield, West Yorks HD2
1JJ, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1484 517077. Fax: +44(0)1484 517068.
Email: ElectronicAward@Charlesworth.com
World Wide Web: http://www.Charlesworth.com

In article <322E36BB.60BF@probe.net>, Frank  wrote:
> Luciano d'Ilori wrote:
> > 
> > What you're not taking into account is that the DNA molecule is a
> > digital, error-correcting code.
> > 
> > Because we can demonstrate that living things adapt to their
> > surroundings, does not mean we've proved the neo-Darwinian theory of
> > evolution.
> 
> 
> What I like to know how DNA or RNA which is so complex came to be by 
> mixture of amino acid and protiens? How does DNA multipled itself to be 
> so many?
DNA and RNA are neither amino acids nor proteins. Before you start raising
big questions, you better learn the basic details.
-- 
Paul Myers                               Department of Biology
myers@netaxs.com                         Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/           Philadelphia, PA 19122

GEOCHEM GROUP LIMITED
require a Senior Laboratory Technician
BASED IN ABERDEEN
In order to meet the increased demand for our onshore
and offshore services we are seeking a
Palynological/Micropalaeontological Preparer for our
laboratory operation in Aberdeen.
Suitable applicants should have a good educational
background in a science discipline, preferably in the
Earth Sciences.  Experience preparing slide material
would be an advantage.  Good organisational,
communication skills and previous laboratory
experience is essential.  As offshore working will be a
key feature of this position, applicants must be
medically fit.
The position attracts a competitive salary.  Benefits
include Non-Contributory Pension, Permanent and
Private Health Care schemes, subject to eligibility. 
Successful applicants will be entitled to 20 days holiday
per annum, and will work 37« hours per week.
Interested applicants should telephone Linda Neville-
Jackson in the first instance for an application form on
(01244)-671121.

Richard Adams  writes:
H>Many people feel that the personal attacks are
 >are a leading cause of the erosion.  Some people
No, the leading problem is the far-too-extreme overuse of cross-posting.
If every message that had more than three newsgroup cross-posts was
eliminated, everything would be cool on sci.geo.geology.
H>We are all aware of the posts which do not belong
 >here.  The issue is whether the users can take
 >their group back and make it vibrant, meaningful,
 >and worth contributing to again.
As long as ISPs like the idiot-savant Dartmouth University allow their
employees with Napoleanic complexes to abuse the tools (e.g.
crossposting) that e-mail makes available, there is no defense against
these wild threads and extreme egos.  One twit brings out the rest,
and more and more infest the group, and finally when the mass of twits
reaches some threshold, we lose the newsgroup. Punctuated catastrophism
in action... see it happen before your eyes.
H>Looking to life and nature as an example, when
 >living things become old and eroded they renew
 >themselves to carry on a species through the
 >birth of new organisms that are young and vibrant.
 >Young living things also adapt to changes better.
Excellent metaphor! The net is an organic ecosystem in more ways than
just the literary. We have a real blight loose here. There ARE cases in
nature where whole species were wiped out by a lone marauder from outer
space. Archemedies Plutonium is the comet from God (don't believe it?
Just ask him!) that will wipe homo sapiens off the usenet map.  The
lizard brains are ready to take over, and we are powerless to resist!
 >harvest.  Often, those that erode the group will not
 >stop.  The group lacks the tools to prune, and the
 >branches die, dragging the whole tree down.
Right. Because usenet is a free and public medium, with the only right
to entry being access to an internet connection, we hear from fools and
sages alike without discrimination. Those who have been repressed in all
other social media (for obvious reasons) just explode with growth in
this digital ecosystem.  We set it up that way in the beginning and if
the gatekeepers let these clowns in, then there will be more clowns.
It's an ideal breeding ground for them. Asking them to be reasonable is
like telling mold to stay off the open dish of agar.
Sometimes you just have to admit that not all people are created equal,
and that some need to be controlled or excluded for the peace of mind of
the rest. (and boy, would that comment get bounced out of the US
supreme court in a hurry... but what do you do with a society and an
infrastructure that spawns extremists that wish to dominate?) A smart
parasite will bleed its victims only so much (so as to leave them with
something to live on, so it can feed again), but these destructive pests
are not smart, and will be satisfied with nothing short of anihilation.
Then when they win, they will die too (nothing to feed on) until the
cyberspace winds blow the sands of the usenet deserts into a Mars scape
that even Heinlein wouldn't recognize.
H>Then there are times when you need to plant a new young
 >tree, and prune it correctly as it grows.  The new
 >groups proposed are like that, and automatic moderation
 >by group vote is the pruning tool to keep the tree
 >fruitful through its entire life.
There's nothing wrong with this group that a little common sense
wouldn't cure. If we can't get the barking mad clique to limit their
crossposts, and we can't shut them down, then we have to either move
elsewhere (and they will follow), or adapt to the new order.
I'm for adapting. It's Nature's way anyhow, and since I believe the
forces that are at work here are very much like natural evolutionary
forces, I think it's going to be the only solution. We need to evolve a
tree that can stand these diseases... not chop it down and plant a new
orchard that is just as vulnerable as the first.  We need to evolve
techniques and software that can allow us to totally ignore outbursts of
madness and filter unwanted mail.
_   /|   Bill Thoen 
\'o.O'   --------------------------------------------------------------
=(___)=  GISnet BBS - GIS & Desktop Mapping 303-447-0927 (data line)
   U     GIS & Mapping Web  http://www.gisnet.com/gis/index.html
         GISnet BBS                       303-786-9961 (voice)
         1401 Walnut St., suite C         303-443-4856 (fax)
         Boulder, Colorado  80302

In article <322CB0FC.1D4B@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>Its a good point that killfiles could be used, but
>they are not universally available for all news
>readers, and present another layer of difficulty
>for newcomers.  Anyone who was dropping by at
>s.g.g. would just see that more than 50% of the
>stuff was the same off topic discussion which is
>permeating the most of the net.
>
Does anybody know of a platform that doesn't have at least one newsreader 
that can handle killfiles? If not, then there's no excuse not to use them. 
I'd much rather be allowed to make up my own mind as to who I listen to, 
rather than a bunch of people making that decision for me.
If you really can't handle skipping off-topic messages then create 
sci.geo.geology.moderated.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opionions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
  team. So there's no way they are the opinions of my employer.