“Neat” and “Why”

Josh posted a link at the cedar room to a nifty little story on a scary little fish. And he makes a great point about NASA’s focus, and maybe where it ought to go. We don’t know our own planet yet. There are all sorts of things not yet discovered here. Not saying that some space exploration isn’t a good idea or profitable (particularly in the immediate vicinity of our atmosphere), but it seems that Mars expeditions should be lower on the priority list than our own oceans. I would think deep sea exploration would be cheaper (relatively) than space exploration, with a higher certainty of scientific and even economic profitability. Anyway, just thinking out loud.

Oh, and something else from that article. What evidence do ‘scientists’ have (are they part of the genus ‘most scholars’?) that this fish is a “living fossil”, as they call it? How do they know it hasn’t changed much since ‘prehistoric times’? How is it that all the animals on the ‘unchanged-since-prehistoric-times’ list look like creatures from a low-budget sci-fi movie? Is looking weird and sorta scaly-like all it takes? Why is nothing cute and cudly ever ‘pre-historic’?

This entry was posted in Dross.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s