1
Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Is groaning aloud here?
« on: 05/09/2016 06:04:43 »
Keep at it, my man. You will root out the right (or left) of it!
The following users thanked this post: demografx
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Science Experiments / Re: Can a scientist research on himself?
« on: 06/07/2016 04:38:28 »
from a philosophical point of view, a scientist MUST research on themselves. R ember the Greeks? Socrates admonishes us with these:
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.
and last but not least:
The unexamined life is not worth living.
And finally (off topic):
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.
and last but not least:
The unexamined life is not worth living.
And finally (off topic):
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
The following users thanked this post: smart
3
General Science / Re: Is introspection a reliable scientific method?
« on: 05/07/2016 21:41:40 »
My original post was somehow deleted.
I am for "YES"
To be scientifically objective, a scientist must have a completely open mind, especially if his belief system is inimical to the question.
I then suggested a position held by Alexander Pope in "Essay on Man"
"Know then thyself
Presume not God to scan
The proper study of mankind is man."
I am for "YES"
To be scientifically objective, a scientist must have a completely open mind, especially if his belief system is inimical to the question.
I then suggested a position held by Alexander Pope in "Essay on Man"
"Know then thyself
Presume not God to scan
The proper study of mankind is man."
The following users thanked this post: smart
4
Just Chat! / Re: Please comment on my near death episode, due to total AV heart block in 2011?
« on: 05/07/2016 04:51:04 »
It is not a figment of imagination nor is Alan "crazy" or damaged (brain death.) Hundreds of thousands of people alive today, millions in history, have had similar experiences. These can also be produced through meditation.
SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Consciousness
The book is over 125 years old and i still in print. Why would this be if not for an astounding interest for the subject? Or a whole lot of people experiencing i, including myself.
I'm not by any means crazy and put my faith in Shakespeare: "There is more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in our Philosophy, Horatio." - aprox quote.
SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Consciousness
The book is over 125 years old and i still in print. Why would this be if not for an astounding interest for the subject? Or a whole lot of people experiencing i, including myself.
I'm not by any means crazy and put my faith in Shakespeare: "There is more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in our Philosophy, Horatio." - aprox quote.
The following users thanked this post: Alan McDougall
5
General Science / Re: Why does unhealthy food taste so good?
« on: 29/06/2016 04:49:39 »
Don't ask - ENJOY
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH
6
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / MId-life crisis and Geology
« on: 16/04/2011 23:59:14 »
Welcome!
I cannot tel you how happy I am to see your interest in the oil business. You have a great future - working a couple of years as a geologist, then going into management
EVERY geology deal with the history of the earth - in at lease one area of the earth - the one they are currently working on.
I can only encourage you. My biggest obstacle in all my working carrier in the oil business has been the bean counters in management that have no concept of what finding oil & gas is all about. Arbitrary limits on projects, unrealistic demands and expectations - you name the problem, ALL occur from an uneducated management.
ALL major companies are hampered by this as are most medium to smaller oil companies. No matter who you begin work for, plan on moving to another in mid-management at your earliest opportunity.
If you are good, there is always a job. And if you love what you are doing you can always find a way of making a buck. Yes, there are up and downs in the business. Those who have access to small amounts of ventrue capital can always survive.
JUMP IN, THE WATER'S FINE!
I cannot tel you how happy I am to see your interest in the oil business. You have a great future - working a couple of years as a geologist, then going into management
EVERY geology deal with the history of the earth - in at lease one area of the earth - the one they are currently working on.
I can only encourage you. My biggest obstacle in all my working carrier in the oil business has been the bean counters in management that have no concept of what finding oil & gas is all about. Arbitrary limits on projects, unrealistic demands and expectations - you name the problem, ALL occur from an uneducated management.
ALL major companies are hampered by this as are most medium to smaller oil companies. No matter who you begin work for, plan on moving to another in mid-management at your earliest opportunity.
If you are good, there is always a job. And if you love what you are doing you can always find a way of making a buck. Yes, there are up and downs in the business. Those who have access to small amounts of ventrue capital can always survive.
JUMP IN, THE WATER'S FINE!
The following users thanked this post: LauraG
7
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why is natural selection so much slower than human-led selection?
« on: 14/09/2009 20:44:06 »
The reasoning of the last post is flawed due to lack of facts. As described below, evolution is an ongoing process in all organisms, including sharks and related fish.
The fact that "new" species are found on the Great Barrier Reef is not due to survival of the fittest but to the lack of study and classification of the numerous species that exist. Until deep submersible vehicles came along the existence of the plethora of life in the deep ocean was unknown. It is discovery, not differentiation due to selection that is driving the discovery of new species around and in the Great Barrier Reef. New investigations usually find new species.
____________________
The larger problem with this discussion it that abominable misuse of the word "theory" to represent what in science is a "hypothesis." A theory has withstood the test of time and independent investigation. A hypothesis is one of many ideas as to how observable phenomena came to be. A theory is much more than this. It is proven.
T. C. Chamberlain in his work "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses" explains the differences in meaning and the problems that have been caused due to the flippant misuse of "theory," as in this discussion
His original paper, an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1890. This is the text of that address: http://arti.vub.ac.be/cursus/2005-2006/mwo/chamberlin1890science.pdf
I would suggest that this reprise of the work (next) be read. It is very good.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_chamberlin.html
I am proposing that should there be any discussion of the theory of science that the history of scientific though should first be considered - and understood. In this discussion it has obviously been neglected.
"It is not the slowness with which conclusions are arrived at that should give satisfaction to the moral sense, but the thoroughness, the completeness, the all-sidedness, the impartiality, of the investigation." Chamberlin
See epically the part entitled "Premature Theories" as this is what is expounded in the third post to this subject. It is a pet hypotheses, very loved by the person posting it.
"Love was long since represented as blind, and what is true in the personal realm is measurably true in the intellectual realm. Important as the intellectual affections are as stimuli and as rewards , they are nevertheless dangerous factors, which menace the integrity of the intellectual processes. The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual brain child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, this parental affections cluster about his intellectual offspring, and it grows more and more dear to him, so that, while he holds it seemingly tentative, it is still lovingly tentative, and not impartially tentative. So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory."
Darwinian evolution is much more than a lingering fancy. It has passed the test of critical examination thousands and thousands of time. The evidence for anything contrary does not seem to exist, otherwise it would not be so well respected in legitimate scientific circles.
To the two original questions:
YES - One of the workhorses of evolutionary research is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster because this fly reproduces so quickly and numerous generations can be raised very quickly in laboratory setting. This fly has been artificially speciated. New species, incapable of interbreeding, have been developed in just a few years.
The misuse of antibiotics has also developed separate strains, although since they do not reproduce sexually, they cannot be considered species in the sense this word is commonly used.
Yes and no. These examples are so well adapted to their specific ecological niche that they can remain distinct species for extremely long periods of time. HOWEVER - this does NOT mean that the Chondrichthyes and Crocodilians we have today are the same sharks and crocks that existed 60 million years ago. In fact, they are NOT. It is the familial phenotype that has survived the test of eons. Today's species have evolved over time out different conditions, the largest ones being temperature and oxygen saturation of the atmosphere and the waters. They are not at all that old. They didn't exist 20 million years ago. At present hammer-head sharks are differentiating themselves in Brazil, if my memory serves me right. The bays they inhabit and in which they place their encapsulated young to mature are very turbid, loaded with yellow silt. As an adaptive mechanism to avoid predation of the young that are born in these bays, particular sharks have developed a yellow color to their skin that makes them less attractive to other hammer-heads so they are much less likely to interbreed with gray hammer-heads. A new species is developing.
The statement that "So, even after a zillion years, [conditions] will remain for the [same] but not as much." is just plain uniformed about the science of historical biology and ecosystems. It is a deceptively possible argument, but totally without any scientific foundation and without merit and mostly, without the backing of empirical data. It is intellectualism resulting in the scientific vacillation Chamberlain warns against. The hypothesis has become too well loved by the author. Evolution just does not happen that way.
In summary, the positions held by some in this discussion are pseudo-science, not capable of being born out by rigorous scientific examination.
The fact that "new" species are found on the Great Barrier Reef is not due to survival of the fittest but to the lack of study and classification of the numerous species that exist. Until deep submersible vehicles came along the existence of the plethora of life in the deep ocean was unknown. It is discovery, not differentiation due to selection that is driving the discovery of new species around and in the Great Barrier Reef. New investigations usually find new species.
____________________
The larger problem with this discussion it that abominable misuse of the word "theory" to represent what in science is a "hypothesis." A theory has withstood the test of time and independent investigation. A hypothesis is one of many ideas as to how observable phenomena came to be. A theory is much more than this. It is proven.
T. C. Chamberlain in his work "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses" explains the differences in meaning and the problems that have been caused due to the flippant misuse of "theory," as in this discussion
His original paper, an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1890. This is the text of that address: http://arti.vub.ac.be/cursus/2005-2006/mwo/chamberlin1890science.pdf
I would suggest that this reprise of the work (next) be read. It is very good.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_chamberlin.html
I am proposing that should there be any discussion of the theory of science that the history of scientific though should first be considered - and understood. In this discussion it has obviously been neglected.
"It is not the slowness with which conclusions are arrived at that should give satisfaction to the moral sense, but the thoroughness, the completeness, the all-sidedness, the impartiality, of the investigation." Chamberlin
See epically the part entitled "Premature Theories" as this is what is expounded in the third post to this subject. It is a pet hypotheses, very loved by the person posting it.
"Love was long since represented as blind, and what is true in the personal realm is measurably true in the intellectual realm. Important as the intellectual affections are as stimuli and as rewards , they are nevertheless dangerous factors, which menace the integrity of the intellectual processes. The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual brain child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, this parental affections cluster about his intellectual offspring, and it grows more and more dear to him, so that, while he holds it seemingly tentative, it is still lovingly tentative, and not impartially tentative. So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory."
Darwinian evolution is much more than a lingering fancy. It has passed the test of critical examination thousands and thousands of time. The evidence for anything contrary does not seem to exist, otherwise it would not be so well respected in legitimate scientific circles.
To the two original questions:
Quote
1. How is that natural selection takes millions of years to change a species or create a sub-species, yet domestication of plants and animals only takes thousands or tens of thousands of years? Is mankind that good?
YES - One of the workhorses of evolutionary research is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster because this fly reproduces so quickly and numerous generations can be raised very quickly in laboratory setting. This fly has been artificially speciated. New species, incapable of interbreeding, have been developed in just a few years.
The misuse of antibiotics has also developed separate strains, although since they do not reproduce sexually, they cannot be considered species in the sense this word is commonly used.
Quote
2. Some species such as sharks and crocodiles are said to be millions of years old, which implies a) they are older than many other species and b) have changed little by way of comparison. Does natural selection address why the rate of change varies from one species to the next?
Yes and no. These examples are so well adapted to their specific ecological niche that they can remain distinct species for extremely long periods of time. HOWEVER - this does NOT mean that the Chondrichthyes and Crocodilians we have today are the same sharks and crocks that existed 60 million years ago. In fact, they are NOT. It is the familial phenotype that has survived the test of eons. Today's species have evolved over time out different conditions, the largest ones being temperature and oxygen saturation of the atmosphere and the waters. They are not at all that old. They didn't exist 20 million years ago. At present hammer-head sharks are differentiating themselves in Brazil, if my memory serves me right. The bays they inhabit and in which they place their encapsulated young to mature are very turbid, loaded with yellow silt. As an adaptive mechanism to avoid predation of the young that are born in these bays, particular sharks have developed a yellow color to their skin that makes them less attractive to other hammer-heads so they are much less likely to interbreed with gray hammer-heads. A new species is developing.
The statement that "So, even after a zillion years, [conditions] will remain for the [same] but not as much." is just plain uniformed about the science of historical biology and ecosystems. It is a deceptively possible argument, but totally without any scientific foundation and without merit and mostly, without the backing of empirical data. It is intellectualism resulting in the scientific vacillation Chamberlain warns against. The hypothesis has become too well loved by the author. Evolution just does not happen that way.
In summary, the positions held by some in this discussion are pseudo-science, not capable of being born out by rigorous scientific examination.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0
Pages: [1]