Talk:Astrobiology: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Weenerbunny (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is it worth pointing out that the vast majority of scientists now use the term '''Astrobiology'''? C.F. the two scientific journals dedicated to the topic are "Astrobiology" and "The International Journal of Astrobiology", respectively. As "Xenobiology" has fallen out of favor in the science community, I'd suggest a name change... [[User:IdahoEv|IdahoEv]] 07:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
Is it worth pointing out that the vast majority of scientists now use the term '''Astrobiology'''? C.F. the two scientific journals dedicated to the topic are "Astrobiology" and "The International Journal of Astrobiology", respectively. As "Xenobiology" has fallen out of favor in the science community, I'd suggest a name change... [[User:IdahoEv|IdahoEv]] 07:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
Proven communication from extraterrestrials, or proven samples of extraterrestrial life, would disprove the hypothesis that we are alone in the Universe. |
Proven communication from extraterrestrials, or proven samples of extraterrestrial life, would disprove the hypothesis that we are alone in the Universe. |
||
Isn't earth so unique? Everyone is striving so hard to find even a nonexistant grain of life on another planet, when the earth is teeming with life! Every single inch! |
|||
-- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] |
-- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] |
||
| Line 35: | Line 39: | ||
Hi! |
Hi! |
||
So... looking for Xenobiology on wikipedia, I have this file... good... but Google also comes up |
So... looking for Xenobiology on wikipedia, I have this file... good... but Google also comes up wit |
||
Gilles. |
|||
thefreedictionary copies wikipedia, and they do add the required credit to their rather sucky page layout. Just search for 'wikipedia' on that page and you'll find the small print. [[User:Martijn faassen|Martijn faassen]] 23:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
== Xenobiology is now moved to Astrobiology == |
|||
Hope this is what you guys wanted! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 06:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
== Hypothetical biosphere concepts of Astrobiology == |
|||
It seems hypothetical biosphere concepts of astrobiology such as Silicon based life, ammonia based life, ect are spread out through wikipedia, I feel such concepts should be unified under in single articule like astrobiology, including sections for non-carbon biology (link to the article specific for it), non-oxygen biochemistry (use of oxidizers other then oxygen or reduction based biosphere) and non-water medium biospheres. Perhaps all of these concepts could be place under a single article called "Extraterrestrial biospheres" |
|||
:I actually agree with you on that. They're all pretty related. Nonetheless, if someone is looking up silicon- or ammonia-based life, they're not going to know where to look. |
|||
== Criticism == |
|||
I think a criticisms section should be added here. First, that Astrobiology is more of an amalgam of speculative branches in established sciences rather than a true science. Second, that extrapolating from a single source is at best tautological ("Earth-like life will be Earth-like. Stars that have systems akin to the Sun's will be similar to the Sun") and at worst contrary to the scientific method. Not saying that I don't find the topic fascinating but you do see these criticisms pop up if you read around. Agreed? [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Go ahead and add a new section. In my view, Astrobiology is an emerging scientific discipline. I would like to see a definition of "a true science". My guess is that such a definition might involve tenured faculty, some already in their graves. Many sciences have started with a single example of a phenomenon. I think uranium was the first radioactive mineral that was identified. You start with what you have and keep your eyes open for other similar examples. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, done. Regarding the sciences starting "with a single example of a phenomenon," absolutely, but the problem with AstroBio is that we don't even have that. In so far as there are half-way research samples (exoplantets but no ETS) it can always be argued that an established science already has things covered. Supposing we do find microbes on Mars and the consensus is "this isn't ''Earth'' science anymore, it's not biology, we're probably not dealing with DNA etc." it doesn't automatically follow that we should term it astrobiology. A narrower definition--even just "Martian biology"--might be more appropriate. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 08:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Au contraire -- we have one good case study. We're living on it. Though I do agree that the "biology" bart might prove to be a misnomer, if we assume that life in other environments would be the same as on Earth. It would doubtless be very different. The key to astrobiology, IMHO, is identifying exactly what life is, and under which circumstances it might exist. And no, chances are it won't envolve DNA. but it's likely to concern a nucleic acid (or similar polymeric data storage medium) at some point. It cannot be argued, however, that "Astrobiology" as a discipline recieves funding and has at least a couple of journals dedicated to it. Just playing devil's advocate... =) --[[User:Xanthine|Xanthine]] 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Major changes == |
|||
I noticed that apart from the Criticism that astrobiologist look only for Earthlike lifeforms, the article assumes that it is so but never formally says it. |
|||
What about a section on "What astrobiologists are looking for and why" or "The Astrobiologists' Methods" which would say that they're looking for Earthlike life because it is the only one we know anything much about so researching the others is unpractical. Plus, there are so many planets to look at, they have to have some criteria to choose which ones to investigate. |
|||
Then, we can list what signs they're looking for, like presence of liquid water in the present or the past, planets being generally Earthlike, presence of unexplained amount of certain gases, fossils or other signs of life on planets closeby and in meteorites, and any other means possible. |
|||
I'd add a last part on the means we have and might have in the future to look for these: telescope observations, direct exploration, examination of evidence on Earth... |
|||
I don't have the sources but I think all this is about right. You tell me. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 18:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I found some interesting material on the [[SETI]] article and I've begun working on it to make new sections in this article. Look [[User:jules.lt/Astrobiology|here]] and post me your comments. |
|||
In fact, I don't like the current categorization of the article much, so I'll work to get something clearer and more complete. I must confess I'm not ''that'' experienced with wikipedia, so could someone please tell me how things usually happen when one thinks an entire article should be reorganized? I'm guessing it should be made into a subpage to be reviewed by others before doing anything, but meanwhile the article is bound to get at least some minor corrections which wouldn't be on the new page, so should I "be bold in editing" and change it directly? |
|||
I haven't given much thought to it yet, but I'd rather have something like: |
|||
*Introduction |
|||
*History |
|||
*Methodology |
|||
*Criticism |
|||
Also, it seems just plain wrong to me that "Astrobiology studies the origin of life on Earth", or at least that's not the main focus so it shouldn't be in the introduction: Astro- means "in the space"[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-24,GGLG:en&q=define%3A+astrobiology], Exo- means "outside" (ie. somewhere else)... and I'll grant you Xenobiology can work on strange Earth lifeforms, which is why the mistake passed unnoticed I guess, since this was the former name of the article. |
|||
So what do you think?[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 20:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
I have compiled what I think is a much better [[User:jules.lt/Astrobiology|page]] from what I found here, in the [[SETI]] article and some short but seemingly relevant definitions of Astrobiology[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-24,GGLG:en&q=define%3Aastrobiology] on the internet and changed nothing that I haven't mentionned above (except adding a mention of SETI in the "Astrology" section). Please tell me what you think so I can replace the current article before people make changes that might get lost, make the necessary changes before doing that or trash it all if I see nobody agrees with me. |
|||
I also plan to look into astrobiology's origins to split the "Researh outcomes" from the overview and expand it into a history section between overview and methodology. |
|||
[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 21:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I do think your page is broadly organized better. You're shifting things around as much as changing them so why not just go ahead and edit the page as it stands rather than replacing the whole thing. The major edition seems to be "Narrowing the task" which reads fine. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 17:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, I guess moving things around is what reorganizing is. Anyway, I like it better that way and I don't think I made changes anyone would strongly object to. If so, they can re-edit it, anyway... Still, note that the first line are quite different, following what I said about it above.[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 23:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Just wondering, since English is not my first language: did you mean broadly as ''loosely'' or ''largely''? I'm guessing the first, but I guess it doesn't matter; even the slightest ameliorations are welcome around here, aren't they?[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 23:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::I meant largely. Adverbs are always tough to nail down in a second language I think... The page is better and I didn't mean to belittle your efforts. What I meant was [[wikipedia:be bold|be bold]]--you have changes, make changes. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 08:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks ;) [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 06:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== See also == |
|||
Do people think we should have all of those neologisms in the see also section? I don't want to arbitrarly remove links that could become articles but we also shouldn't arbitrarly come up with terms that aren't in currency. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 13:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:'''proposal''': replace all those red links with a single link to [[Talk:Astrobiology|this talk page]] and a new section for a new "Astrobiology page development project" aimed at creating new pages for those red links. List all those red links on this "talk" page and request that people think about starting articles on those topics. As new articles are constructed, move the links back to the Astrobiology "see also" section. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Red removed. When you write the article, re-add the link - that's quite simple. For now, these are science fiction topics without articles, maybe one article could be written summarizing all of these rather than a dozen or so sci-fi stubs. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Superstition doesn't belong here == |
|||
The intro mentions that Christian Fundamentalists would disagree with the precepts of astrobiology such as evolution. It is inappropriate and off-topic to mention on this page what a bunch of superstitious Christian Fundies agree or disagree with, since they have no facts to back up their so-called opinions. If those are the rules by which we are playing, then we scientific-minded people should be allowed to go over to the religion pages and point out how utterly ridiculous their stories are, and how there is no scientific basis for them. Otherwise the sentence regarding what unqualified minds """think""" of the topic should be deleted. [[User:GreatAlfredini|GreatAlfredini]] |
|||
: It might be worth putting in the "criticisms" section, some info about religious criticisms. I'm neutral about it though. --[[User:Zandperl|zandperl]] 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::[+] Yes, except criticism implies a reasoned response backed up by facts. Even in an emotional climate like politics, Bush bashers or Clinton bashers can list their reasons for disliking the man, based on facts about him. In contrast, religious people just don't like science simply because it destroys their superstition. Theirs is purely an emotional response without facts and does not deserve the name "criticism". [[User:GreatAlfredini|GreatAlfredini]] Tue 08/30/05 10:18 Pacific Time |
|||
:::They can criticize it as immorally depriving them of their meaning of life; remember that some people don't hold rationality as the one and only criteria. They can consider that science is a system of belief too and that freedom of religion entitles them not to have scientific dogmas imposed upon them. Remember that evolution, although extremely likely, is still a theory and should be mentionned as such ("precept" fits perfectly, in my opinion). Remember also that this is an Encyclopediae, so every notable point of view (even solely from sheer numbers) is entitled to be mentionned here and then duly criticized.[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 20:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::[+] Yes, they can try to play the victim that way, but they would be factually incorrect. And as you say, this is an encyclopedia, which means we dispense facts whether they hurt the weak feelings of someone who chose mythology over the facts we dispense. It is not our mission to protect feelings, but to educate those willing to learn. If they don't hold rationality as their criterion then they should not be editing an encyclopedia, but a comic book. Hurt feelings are not enough to enter a criticism, the feelings should be backed up by facts, which facts they don't have. Your use of the term "scientific dogma" is oxymoronic. We don't do dogmas. That's <i>their</i> specialty. In short, yes they may have feelings about science because science proves their superstition incorrect, but because they are incorrect they are doubly unequipped and doubly unqualified to comment. [[User:GreatAlfredini|GreatAlfredini]] Tue 08/30/05 13:16 Pacific Time |
|||
:::: ''They can consider that science is a system of belief too'' ([[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]]) |
|||
::::: [+] But they would be wrong. Therefore their opinion doesn't count. Science is a system where anyone can check for themselves, so it is NOT a system of belief. [[User:GreatAlfredini|GreatAlfredini]] Thu 09/01/05 08:49 AM |
|||
::::::What scientific thesis did you check for yourself, lately? Plz don't answer that, I'm done arguing here.[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 15:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I agree. For example, the concepts of [[Induction (philosophy)|induction]] and the [[scientific method]] are self-consistent, but they are essentially [[axiom]]s and cannot be proven externally as valid things to do/believe. However, I'm still not sure if we should put religious criticisms here. Is there a page discussing the many things in science that various religions criticise? If so, we could put a link to that in the "criticisms" section and satisfy both sides of the argument. --[[User:Zandperl|zandperl]] 20:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Well, I didn't say such criticisms should be a big thing here. They certainly shouldn't be in the intro or overview, that's for sure. My point is just that wherever evolution is mentionned as a prerequisite you'll find fundamentalists opposing it, and that should be noted. [[The relationship between religion and science]] does, in fact, exist, and is IMHO surprisingly small for a subject so much talked about. I put in the link. |
|||
As for scientific dogmas, here's the definition from wikipedia:"[[Dogma]] is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative. Evidence, analysis, or established fact may or may not be adduced, depending upon usage". As long as you haven't done the proof yourself, you're essentially believing (yes, [[belief]]) what the scientists say, as others believe what priests say; that you and I, for various reasons, have more confidence in scientist does not make it universal truth. |
|||
By the way, I agree that hurt feelings aren't an argument for removing anything from an encyclopedia, it's the first criticism (of several) that I could think of because it reworded your "because it destroys their superstitions"; sorry about that. Still, whatever the grounds,.still counts as ''[[criticism]]''. But evolution is still a theory, and wikipedia still holds it that all notable POVs should be mentionned in order to reach NPOV.[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 17:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::No real comment on the larger issues, just a note that I removed the comment myself. It really did arrive out of nowhere and I'd looked at it before and thought it doesn't belong. I don't think religious criticisms belong here. [[Exotheology]] is a small page that could accomodate such stuff. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 22:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have to disagree with you on that, Marskell: Xenotheology tries to derive theological conclusions under the assumption that Extraterrestrials exist or very likely do. The fundamentalists we're talking about here would probably strongly disagree. This is more about mentionning (no more than that) that a significant amount of people strongly disagree with the very basis of this science (and wouldn't call it a science at all anyway).[[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 17:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The religious or more specifically creationist objection is simply out of place and has no reason for being in the article. The article is about a developing field of science - and says nothing about religion. If you insist on such a qualifier to the creationists objections here, then every religious article that mentions ''revealed wisdom'' in whatever wording, or ''miracles'' will need a scientific qualifier or some such. I don't noemally read the relig articles (maybe the scientific criticism is there already - I would be surprised). [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 22:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I do still think it's out of place even at the end. Perhaps a general para stating "some people will just never believe in ETs or life evolving elsewhere" and include christian fundamentalists there. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 19:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: [+] Only credible objections should be noted. To have credibility, an objection should be backed up by something solid, not just hurt feelings. [[User:GreatAlfredini|GreatAlfredini]] Thu 09/01/05 08:59 AM |
|||
:::Please stop selective argumentation, I already admitted that hurt feelings are not relevant here and I had other arguments you didn't answer. I'm quitting pointless talk, I don't care that much about it, but it's just so ''me'', speaking of pretty ideas and principles. I thought the talk you deleted was quite funny, though, so if you would like to post it back on my talk page we can discuss it without bothering anyone :-) [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 15:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I know it's a while since this was last edited but I have noticed that one poitn people keep making is "evolution is just a theory". Please remember that the sicentific definition of "theory" is different to the laymens' definition. Science admits that nothing can be 100% proven so there is no such thing as a scientific "fact". For this reason, it actually takes a large amount of rigorous testing for a hypothesis to become a recognised theory. I agree that religious criticism doesn't belong here, not because I see it as invalid, but because we would need it on virtually every scientific page we had, and visa versa on religious pages. Isn't that what we have the discussion pages for? Please see the wikipedia article [[scientific theory]] for more details. [[User:Weenerbunny|Weenerbunny]] 12:55, 29 June 2006 |
|||
== New stuff == |
|||
Check it out: [[Planetary habitability]] [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 19:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Beagle 2== |
|||
"Beagle 2 failed to reach the surface of Mars" I thought the consensus was that Beagle 2's actual reaching of the surface far exceeded all expectations. Hence the mission failure.--[[User:Pypex|Pypex]] 22:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Fixed. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 08:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Help Wanted == |
|||
I'm working on an article about extraterrestrial life in the solar system. I figured this was a good page to get some people to help me on it. It is currently on a sandbox/test page in my user space: [[User:Mred64/sandbox]]. My main question is, is this even worth expanding and making it into an actual article? [[User:Mred64|Mred64]] 05:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Extraterrestrials]] has a section exactly titled "Extraterrestrial life in the Solar System" toward the bottom. You should start there, expanding where you see gaps. The page you're suggesting may be redundant however, as we also have [[Life on Mars]]. As a compliment to that page you might start [[Life in the outer Solar System ]]. Also see [[Planetary habitability]] (it's my baby :). [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, the Life on Mars article was my inspiration, ironically. I figured that although each planet or moon on its own doesn't justify an article, a more broad entry encompassing all of them would make more sense. But first, I'll work on the extraterrestrial life article. And I'll check out [[planetary habitability]], but based on just skimming the article, it looks like what I have (each specific world and its hypothesized life) I would need to alter my information a lot more than if I just put into ET life. [[User:Mred64|Mred64]] 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd be happy to help you write an article, including references, concerning Venus. I've been reading a lot about it recently. Alternatively, if you'd like to read up more about it yourself, Google for a man named "David Grinspoon" -- his name is in most about all the most interesting papers, either as an author or a citation. Typing "Life Venus" into a search on newscientist.com -- find a few more useful links. |
|||
:It's certainly worth consideration. As well as the planets you've mentioned, deep hot biospheres and/or endolithic life have been hypothesised to exist in rocky planets including Mercury and the Moon. Further, it's also been hypothesised that habitable zones could conceivably exist in the atmospheric strata of Jupiter and the gas giants. Just to give you a few ideas. |
|||
--[[User:Xanthine|Xanthine]] 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Funny you should mention him. I'm using a book of his ("Lonely Planets: The Natural Philosophy of Alien Life"; it's a must-read in my mind for anyone wanting to learn more about astrobiology) as the main source for what I have so far. [[User:Mred64|Mred64]] 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Chemistry == |
|||
May I put in a suggestion? Shouldn't chemistry be included in the "sciences of astrobiology" section? Surely the chemistry of planetary (or extraplanetary) environments is a major consideration in whether or not biomolecules can exist? |
|||
Just a thought. |
|||
(Because I'm a chemist.) |
|||
--[[User:Xanthine|Xanthine]] 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:That may not be a bad idea, since chemistry is important in astronomy, biology, and geology. As far as I know though, very little astrobiological research is done in chemistry. I think most of the concern with biomolecues probably lies in biology, particularly with studies about the origin of life, so right now I would recommend against adding it. [[User:Mred64|Mred64]] 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmmm... Do I detect an interesting little academic niche? Maybe I should draft some research proposals... :) --[[User:Xanthine|Xanthine]] 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Telescope eating flu exobacteria and other looney ideas == |
|||
The venusian spanish flu link in the article is total bullshit. It is now firmly established that the first lethal flu cases occured in british army barracks in mid-1916 (sixteen!) and spread from there gradually all over the world. Venus is the last place for life to occur, on the surface you are both baked and crushed (450 degrees Celsius and 90bar pressure) and you get radiated to death in the upper atmosphere (twice as close to the Sun than Earth). [[User:195.70.32.136|195.70.32.136]] 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:15, 17 August 2006
Is it worth pointing out that the vast majority of scientists now use the term Astrobiology? C.F. the two scientific journals dedicated to the topic are "Astrobiology" and "The International Journal of Astrobiology", respectively. As "Xenobiology" has fallen out of favor in the science community, I'd suggest a name change... IdahoEv 07:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree we should move to astrobiology, and google does too: Google:astrobiology (743,000 hits) vs. Google:xenobiology (9,430 hits many of which are Wikipedia or it's mirrors). Also there are journals and funding sources for astrobiology and it has become a more respectable enterprise. Xenobiology is not currently used. If there are no objections, I'll do the move soon. --Lexor|Talk 03:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Lexor, you are correct. The page needs to be moved. It was originally named "astrobiology", but someone moved it in September. I have never understood the reasoning behind such a move, and it has bothered me for months. Since Astrobiology already exists as a redirect (after it was moved), I believe that the easiest way to preserve the history of Xenobiology is to temporarily delete the Astrobiology page, and then move Xenobiology to Astrobiology. --Viriditas | Talk 04:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- the absence of life in the rest of the Universe is a falsifiable hypothesis
In what way is it falsifiable ? --Taw
Proven communication from extraterrestrials, or proven samples of extraterrestrial life, would disprove the hypothesis that we are alone in the Universe.
Isn't earth so unique? Everyone is striving so hard to find even a nonexistant grain of life on another planet, when the earth is teeming with life! Every single inch! -- The Anome
- Try a thought experiment. G. W. Bush says US telescopes have picked up signals from aliens telling us to stop using drugs. Do you believe him? If not, do you have equal access to the telescopes to listen to them yourself? The hypothesis is probably NOT falsifiable in the strict sense, as the validation of where the 'living' material came from isn't going to determine if (a) the few scientists who can touch it weren't duped (b) it really came from space or (c) it's out of a military lab.
- The motivations for such games are extreme, BTW, if it CAN be done it WILL be done, faking it I mean: 'Oops the alien thing got out of the lab and killed all the people who can't digest lactose, not our fault, just how it evolved, oops'. Of course only white folk digest lactose.
The Drake Equation doesn't provide any compelling reason to assume that extraterrestrial life exists, as it may be that some of the other fractions are so low we're the only planet that's ever had life on it. Hence, that argument is flawed, isn't it? --anon
- Statement qualified - it should work for you now. --maveric149
Xenobiology should rightfully include speculation about, and modelling of, and attempting even to try to CREATE, alternate life forms, and that is a bit different than the existing xenobiology/artificial-life distinction.
Intangible evidence?
"There is no current tangible evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life"
What kind of evidence falls outside of the heading of "tangible evidence"? JWSchmidt 16:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Psychic communication, teleportation, astral projection, crop circles, abductions... See pseudoscience. --zandperl 23:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is this page copied... from... or to somwhere?
Hi!
So... looking for Xenobiology on wikipedia, I have this file... good... but Google also comes up wit