Scientists. PAH!
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
Only if you have sufficient information on a subject to base such an opinion on. As was advised to me by my Law Tutor many years ago.
Fair point. I do have a fair bit of knowledge of this subject area as I do similar research but with fossil plants. I have read this paper and it is pretty good. No holes in the methodology and everything they say is very reasonable. Although the Metro is making it seem significantly more important than it is.XJSsometimeSoon said:
Eric Mc said:
Aye.
The Glorification of Dumbness has done more damage to this country than possibly any other single factor.
In that case is about time there was a state funded purge then cull of the proletariatThe Glorification of Dumbness has done more damage to this country than possibly any other single factor.
911newbie said:
All such people should immediately go live their lives without the benefits of science, incl antibiotics, cars or other mechanised transport, computers etc.
Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
Sort of like The Amish do?Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
The tone of your response implies Science is king above all else and without it we are somehow doomed.
Jetl3on said:
911newbie said:
All such people should immediately go live their lives without the benefits of science, incl antibiotics, cars or other mechanised transport, computers etc.
Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
Sort of like The Amish do?Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
The tone of your response implies Science is king above all else and without it we are somehow doomed.
Jetl3on said:
911newbie said:
All such people should immediately go live their lives without the benefits of science, incl antibiotics, cars or other mechanised transport, computers etc.
Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
Sort of like The Amish do?Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
Jetl3on said:
Indeed, my original thoughts or comment had nothing to do with Technology, but the thread has morphed, as I found that quite a bold statement to make.
Ok, I'll bite! Let's start with a single gene. A gene is a length of DNA that encodes the information to produce a peptide chain of amino acids arranged in an order particular to that gene. The peptide chain is able to fold into complex 3 dimensional shapes, that give the resulting protein a unique set of properties. These properties, in concert with thousands of other gene-derived proteins, carry out complex biochemical interactions. The ultimate result in these complex biochemical interactions is to a) ensure that more copies of the DNA molecule are produced and b) that the DNA molecule survives in the environment long enough for A to take place.
To differentiate an early chordate from a modern human (or an insect or a bacterial cell) makes no sense; they are both vehicles, whose purpose is to produce more DNA molecules. Assigning species names is a useful human filing system to help us understand the world we live in. However, evolution has no such concerns. Species do not "appear", merely the gene's vehicles slowly alters down the generations as external pressure select for those genes - who share gene-pools with other "useful" cooperative genes - that help their vehicle survive to make more DNA. Humans have copies of a family of genes called Hox genes that have remained virtually unchanged for at least 600 million years, the Hox genes you carry are the same as the those found in the earliest metazoan sponges, the gene doesn't "care" what organism or "species" it is in.
The time axis in this process is only important when you wish to measure rate of change, as far as the genes are concerned time is inconsequential. To have a problem with the term "descends" displays a lack of understanding or, possibly, perspective.
Jetl3on said:
911newbie said:
All such people should immediately go live their lives without the benefits of science, incl antibiotics, cars or other mechanised transport, computers etc.
Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
Sort of like The Amish do?Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
The tone of your response implies Science is king above all else and without it we are somehow doomed.
hairykrishna said:
Jetl3on said:
911newbie said:
All such people should immediately go live their lives without the benefits of science, incl antibiotics, cars or other mechanised transport, computers etc.
Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
Sort of like The Amish do?Really, we should stop them at airports etc, identify them with a simple questionaire and refuse them entry.
- If you don't belive in modern science then you cannot believe in aeroplanes which stay up in the sky, so you can't travel on them. Have a wooden broom instead.
The tone of your response implies Science is king above all else and without it we are somehow doomed.
Jetl3on said:
andy_s said:
I think you're mixing up science and the application of the technology it derives from.
Indeed, my original thoughts or comment had nothing to do with Technology, but the thread has morphed, as I found that quite a bold statement to make.There's a massive list of things that you can now take advantage of for which the initial discovery was due to purely conducting science for the sake of learning, or as a byproduct of research into something else.
Without that curiosity driving discoveries like that then yes, we would all be worse off. Science, and the pursuit of advancing that knowledge, the experiments, the disproving of theories with better evidence is the driving force behind our species advancement.
I really do echo the cave comment made earlier, because there's an all too apparent readiness now to think it's almost cool to question science, as though somehow your opinion is equal. Look at the t
ts who think homeopathy is credible, who think people talk to the dead, who believe the now misaligned stars have some effect on their life and when confronted with the question of evidence brush it off with some bullst about 'oh that's just your opinion'. It's hard not to answer that with 'Well not really, but if you must know my opinion is you're a fking nugget' because that's almost all it deserves.As to the point of this thread..... I'm not really sure what you were driving at with the original post about Evolution. It's as true as anything else that's known in science, and for what it's worth, creationists or those who deny it are now on the same playing field as people who still think the earth is flat, or advocate teaching the stork theory of reproduction. Just because you may not understand it, or don't like the implications... that you share a common ancestor with not only apes, but lots of other strange creatures, doesn't mean they just 'make it up'.
hairykrishna said:
The Amish use modern medicine. In reality, they use lots of other modern technology too. Diesel engines to drive all kinds of stuff in their workshops being one important example. Their society is also reliant on the outside world to a large extent.
The point being we do not NEED many of these things to survive. 911newbie mentioned Aeroplanes, they save time yes, can we survive without them, yes. Jetl3on said:
hairykrishna said:
The Amish use modern medicine. In reality, they use lots of other modern technology too. Diesel engines to drive all kinds of stuff in their workshops being one important example. Their society is also reliant on the outside world to a large extent.
The point being we do not NEED many of these things to survive. 911newbie mentioned Aeroplanes, they save time yes, can we survive without them, yes. Being able to cite recent stuff doesn't mean that the method by which past discoveries were made is any less 'science' just because it happened then and you now think it trivial.
S13_Alan said:
As to the point of this thread..... I'm not really sure what you were driving at with the original post about Evolution. It's as true as anything else that's known in science, and for what it's worth, creationists or those who deny it are now on the same playing field as people who still think the earth is flat, or advocate teaching the stork theory of reproduction. Just because you may not understand it, or don't like the implications... that you share a common ancestor with not only apes, but lots of other strange creatures, doesn't mean they just 'make it up'.
Actually there was no point, my comment was clearly not meant seriously, but was blown way out of proportion. I found the article mildly amusing as the uninitiated such as myself have read countless studies by various universities all coming to different conclusions, and this one tickled me.I posted it in The Lounge for a little lighthearted humour, something lacking in this section. You should poke fun at yourselves once in a while as there are some mad scientists out there and your not always right.
Edited by Jetl3on on Friday 9th March 01:39
Edited by Jetl3on on Friday 9th March 01:41
Jetl3on said:
S13_Alan said:
As to the point of this thread..... I'm not really sure what you were driving at with the original post about Evolution. It's as true as anything else that's known in science, and for what it's worth, creationists or those who deny it are now on the same playing field as people who still think the earth is flat, or advocate teaching the stork theory of reproduction. Just because you may not understand it, or don't like the implications... that you share a common ancestor with not only apes, but lots of other strange creatures, doesn't mean they just 'make it up'.
Actually there was no point, my comment was clearly not meant seriously, but was blown way out of proportion. I found the article mildly amusing as the uninitiated such as myself have read countless studies by various universities all coming to different conclusions, and this one tickled me.I posted it in The Lounge for a little lighthearted humour, something lacking in this section. You should poke fun at yourselves once in a while as there are some mad scientists out there and your not always right.
Jetl3on said:
You should poke fun at yourselves once in a while as there are some mad scientists out there and your not always right.
I'd put it that those who state things such as 'science isn't always right' or 'science doesn't know everything' are of course not stating anything that scientists don't know but instead just advertising their general ignorance of the subject. Ignorance which it appears is held in high regard by others who would share it.Jetl3on said:
Actually there was no point, my comment was clearly not meant seriously, but was blown way out of proportion. I found the article mildly amusing as the uninitiated such as myself have read countless studies by various universities all coming to different conclusions, and this one tickled me.I posted it in The Lounge for a little lighthearted humour, something lacking in this section.
You should poke fun at yourselves once in a while as there are some mad scientists out there and your not always right.
Clearly if your comment was not to be taken seriously then it was very badly put forward as you are the only person to extract that point of view from it. You have just come across as a bit of an ignorant arse who now seems to be back tracking.You should poke fun at yourselves once in a while as there are some mad scientists out there and your not always right.
Edited by Jetl3on on Friday 9th March 01:39
Edited by Jetl3on on Friday 9th March 01:41
MilnerR said:
Humans have copies of a family of genes called Hox genes that have remained virtually unchanged for at least 600 million years, the Hox genes you carry are the same as the those found in the earliest metazoan sponges, the gene doesn't "care" what organism or "species" it is in.
Well that explains the welfare state........Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff