acid rain, ozone layer
Pollution controls drastically reduced the damage.
massive famine
Largely prevented by the green revolution.
extinction of 90% of all species
Still going on, they're just not species you care about.
san andreas fault
Still there, still going to be a problem at some point.
it would have ended many times already
None of these things would have 'ended the world', and most were prevented by human being choosing to change their behavior.
It's obviously a typo, dumbass.
Could be, but plenty of cultures reverse the period/comma usage.
That's not an American thing.
Writing numbers a certain way isn't necessarily an American thing, but thinking that there's only one 'right' way to do something is rather American.
If you'd have said "Mick" or "Spick" instead of "American" you'd be a bigot... no, wait, you ARE a bigot.
So I'm bigoted against myself? Observing my own culture's weak points is bigotry? Self-deprecating humor is a bad thing now?
Fuck off, dipshit.
Oh, looks like I hit a nerve. Poor baby, I'm sure momma can make it all better. Run along now.
So you are saying that it is okay to use human babies as fertilizer for your lawn and skin them to make lamp shades? After all, they are already dead.
Why not? That's not immoral, it's just gross. On the other hand, we would probably need to have a regulatory regime to make sure that they're from *already* dead babies, because killing babies for parts would be immoral.
Most human beings just get this and don't need to have it explained. That you do, says a lot about you.
That we're more rational? Thanks!
That you can't means you are an animal.
No, that means we have a better understanding of what 'moral' means that you do. If I were to die in some immoral experiment, I can't think of a better legacy than to have other people use that information to ease suffering, as long as they concede that what was done was wrong and they don't do that sort of thing themselves.
So hybridization, which is a thoroughly understood genetic process that has been in use for hundreds of years, has unexpectedly killed a bunch of cattle.
No. Some grass killed cattle, the same way grass has killed animals that eat it for millions of years.
And this should not increase my concern about genetic modification, for which the bio-engineers have a couple of decades of experience?
No. Because when someone chokes to death on an apple, only an idiot would start worrying about the 'dangers of irrigation'. There simply isn't a relationship between the two things.
It does not make anybody "nuts".
You're right, trying to malign an innocent party for political gain isn't nuts, it's immoral.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong.
This is not hybridization gone wrong, it's grass doing what grass sometimes does. Lots of perfectly normal, naturally-occurring species of grass will do that.
dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)
They use lots of containment. It's fine if you think they need more, but there are lots of regulations about handling experimental varieties.
dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)
It's the same protection that other kinds of plant varieties have, it's not GMO-specific.
using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)
Except that 'saturating' farms reduces the amount of fuel and pesticide used, because three large doses use less pesticide than a dozen half-doses; and makes it harder for resistance to develop, because being partially resistant doesn't help, and all-or-nothing resistance is a rare development (just like how we use antibiotics).
its affect (by use) on seed diversity
Only because right now there are few companies that are willing to risk public ire and a small number of GMOs have been wildly successful. As more varieties are developed, patents expire, etc diversity should go up.
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops.
That hasn't been a problem so far, except for a few people who tried to use patented varieties without paying. And just so you know, natural movement of genes won't get you sued.
Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
Are people still spreading those stories? Sad.
In the grand scheme of the universe, how long have we been able to notice these things?
Not for long, but they tend to be obvious. It would be like completely missing a small, dark galaxy that turns hydrogen into X and gamma-rays and distorts the image behind it.
And, in the grand scheme of the universe, how do we define a lot?
Well, since we were talking about them possibly being at least a significant part of the mass of dark matter, I'd say 'a lot' would be enough that they outweigh the visible mass of the universe.
They are finding additional %s. Brown dwarfs, extra H2 in the voids etc.
Right, but none of them have the right properties (no EM interactions, etc) to be dark matter, not to mention that their mass is trivial compared to the amount required.
Anything is possible, especially something based on 'finaglers constant' (FC=answerwant/answergot) like dark matter.
We're a little past that stage. For example, we have observed galaxies colliding in ways that separate the visible mass from the non-visible mass - i.e. the stars, gas etc, interact via EM and slow down, while the majority of the mass (inferred through gravitational lensing) continues on as if it's affected only by gravity. It's hard to ascribe that kind of behavior to dim stars or extra-galactic H2.
As a joke - albeit one that pointed out that H2 in voids, given our current understanding of course, isn't a candidate for dark matter. Not enough mass, not in the right place, and interacting using photons being three of the main problems with it.
The first one would be (10^6)*(10^9)*(10^12), which is a shitload of tons. The mass of the universe is roughly 3*10^52 to 3*10^54 kg given 1 ton is ~10^3 kilograms that would put that hydrogen as roughly half the mass of the observable universe.
3+6+9+12=30 - so 10^30 kg of H2, or about half of the sun's mass. That's 22 orders of magnitude short, given your own numbers, of being 'half the observable universe' - i.e. not even a rounding error.
It makes me wonder how much of the 'missing mass' that we lump into the dark matter bucket is actually contained in bodies like this; bodies so massive that we can barely fathom their 'size'.
I'm gonna guess 'not much'. If there were a lot of them, every once in a while something would run into one, and believe me, we'd notice.
Take a look at the disconnect between mutation as presented by the chapter on Evolution in a biology textbook and how mutation is presented in a genetics textbook.
I've heard this charge before, but never with any detail. I'm afraid you're going to need to be more specific if you want a meaningful response.
Anything from Wikipedia to any good, in-depth news coverage of the Dover trial will explain what science is, and why the ideas offered by ID don't meet those standards.
Why do I feel hunger? I don't think Occam's razor would ever favor "Spontaneous hunger".
I don't know. For a newborn it might literally be the only explanation that exits.
spontaneous action is not an explanation
Spontaneous pair creation is a basic part of quantum mechanics. You could argue that they're created by the laws of physics, but that's a cop out, since those laws are merely our description of what 'just happens'.
The reason it is flawed is because the original poster asserted that not do you have to believe in a creator, but you also need to explain where they came from and you are back to spontaneous creation... hence 2x as silly.
They shouldn't have said that the cause for the creator would have to be spontaneous creation, but adding a creator does take you from having a big problem to having a big problem and a big messy assumption. In a certain sense, you really do have twice as much of a mess.
Slashdot Mirror
-...things get much more awkward when you want to build a giant tube across an ocean.
Yep. *cough* tectonic plates *cough* vacuum tunnels *cough*
And we couldn't possibly put the tube under water?
Unless you *find* the energy source, all you have is DREAMS. ... our energy base for the entire planet is decayed plant matter
Wait, where did all the nuclear reactors go?
acid rain, ozone layer
Pollution controls drastically reduced the damage.
massive famine
Largely prevented by the green revolution.
extinction of 90% of all species
Still going on, they're just not species you care about.
san andreas fault
Still there, still going to be a problem at some point.
it would have ended many times already
None of these things would have 'ended the world', and most were prevented by human being choosing to change their behavior.
It's obviously a typo, dumbass.
Could be, but plenty of cultures reverse the period/comma usage.
That's not an American thing.
Writing numbers a certain way isn't necessarily an American thing, but thinking that there's only one 'right' way to do something is rather American.
If you'd have said "Mick" or "Spick" instead of "American" you'd be a bigot... no, wait, you ARE a bigot.
So I'm bigoted against myself? Observing my own culture's weak points is bigotry? Self-deprecating humor is a bad thing now?
Fuck off, dipshit.
Oh, looks like I hit a nerve. Poor baby, I'm sure momma can make it all better. Run along now.
how do we interpret that result, non-American?
I am American.
Interesting way interpret "ten thousand percent", American.
Not yet.
One again Steve is having masturbation fantasies about fucking elven girls with big tits.
And thanks to you now everybody's doing that. Next time keep your big mouth shut, and maybe we can get some work done.
So you are saying that it is okay to use human babies as fertilizer for your lawn and skin them to make lamp shades? After all, they are already dead.
Why not? That's not immoral, it's just gross. On the other hand, we would probably need to have a regulatory regime to make sure that they're from *already* dead babies, because killing babies for parts would be immoral.
Most human beings just get this and don't need to have it explained. That you do, says a lot about you.
That we're more rational? Thanks!
That you can't means you are an animal.
No, that means we have a better understanding of what 'moral' means that you do. If I were to die in some immoral experiment, I can't think of a better legacy than to have other people use that information to ease suffering, as long as they concede that what was done was wrong and they don't do that sort of thing themselves.
"Follow the money" is good in business, but in politics, do that and also "follow the power".
"Cui bono?"
So hybridization, which is a thoroughly understood genetic process that has been in use for hundreds of years, has unexpectedly killed a bunch of cattle.
No. Some grass killed cattle, the same way grass has killed animals that eat it for millions of years.
And this should not increase my concern about genetic modification, for which the bio-engineers have a couple of decades of experience?
No. Because when someone chokes to death on an apple, only an idiot would start worrying about the 'dangers of irrigation'. There simply isn't a relationship between the two things.
It does not make anybody "nuts".
You're right, trying to malign an innocent party for political gain isn't nuts, it's immoral.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong.
This is not hybridization gone wrong, it's grass doing what grass sometimes does. Lots of perfectly normal, naturally-occurring species of grass will do that.
dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)
They use lots of containment. It's fine if you think they need more, but there are lots of regulations about handling experimental varieties.
dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)
It's the same protection that other kinds of plant varieties have, it's not GMO-specific.
using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)
Except that 'saturating' farms reduces the amount of fuel and pesticide used, because three large doses use less pesticide than a dozen half-doses; and makes it harder for resistance to develop, because being partially resistant doesn't help, and all-or-nothing resistance is a rare development (just like how we use antibiotics).
its affect (by use) on seed diversity
Only because right now there are few companies that are willing to risk public ire and a small number of GMOs have been wildly successful. As more varieties are developed, patents expire, etc diversity should go up.
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops.
That hasn't been a problem so far, except for a few people who tried to use patented varieties without paying. And just so you know, natural movement of genes won't get you sued.
Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
Are people still spreading those stories? Sad.
GM, in effect, is this process on steroids. - "BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GM!!!!111" exit is just grasping for straws.
What about the "lots of naturally occurring grasses do this, it just doesn't make the news" argument?
--Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.
-Monsanto's team of hired spin doctors are working some overtime this weekend.
How is correcting a major factual mistake in a story "spinning" anything?
Ah, so this is why Monstersanto doesn't want GMO's labeled... Pride in what one produces be damned.
1. It isn't from Monsanto.
2. It isn't GM.
You're commenting on a story about a widely distributed GM grass unintentionally producing cyanide yet still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?
Since the grass in question isn't genetically modified, yes - some of the anti-GM people are nuts enough to try to use this to slam GM.
In the grand scheme of the universe, how long have we been able to notice these things?
Not for long, but they tend to be obvious. It would be like completely missing a small, dark galaxy that turns hydrogen into X and gamma-rays and distorts the image behind it.
And, in the grand scheme of the universe, how do we define a lot?
Well, since we were talking about them possibly being at least a significant part of the mass of dark matter, I'd say 'a lot' would be enough that they outweigh the visible mass of the universe.
They are finding additional %s. Brown dwarfs, extra H2 in the voids etc.
Right, but none of them have the right properties (no EM interactions, etc) to be dark matter, not to mention that their mass is trivial compared to the amount required.
Anything is possible, especially something based on 'finaglers constant' (FC=answerwant/answergot) like dark matter.
We're a little past that stage. For example, we have observed galaxies colliding in ways that separate the visible mass from the non-visible mass - i.e. the stars, gas etc, interact via EM and slow down, while the majority of the mass (inferred through gravitational lensing) continues on as if it's affected only by gravity. It's hard to ascribe that kind of behavior to dim stars or extra-galactic H2.
how am I supposed to parse that?
As a joke - albeit one that pointed out that H2 in voids, given our current understanding of course, isn't a candidate for dark matter. Not enough mass, not in the right place, and interacting using photons being three of the main problems with it.
The first one would be (10^6)*(10^9)*(10^12), which is a shitload of tons. The mass of the universe is roughly 3*10^52 to 3*10^54 kg given 1 ton is ~10^3 kilograms that would put that hydrogen as roughly half the mass of the observable universe.
3+6+9+12=30 - so 10^30 kg of H2, or about half of the sun's mass. That's 22 orders of magnitude short, given your own numbers, of being 'half the observable universe' - i.e. not even a rounding error.
It makes me wonder how much of the 'missing mass' that we lump into the dark matter bucket is actually contained in bodies like this; bodies so massive that we can barely fathom their 'size'.
I'm gonna guess 'not much'. If there were a lot of them, every once in a while something would run into one, and believe me, we'd notice.
turns out tons of hydrogen gas not previously observed in voids ... the mysterious dark matter might just have to go away
Put your toys away, son. A million, billion, trillion tons wouldn't even show up as a rounding error when it comes to dark matter.
So - you give up and admit the validity of my counterargument?
You don't have a counterargument, you have a straw man.
Take a look at the disconnect between mutation as presented by the chapter on Evolution in a biology textbook and how mutation is presented in a genetics textbook.
I've heard this charge before, but never with any detail. I'm afraid you're going to need to be more specific if you want a meaningful response.
Anything from Wikipedia to any good, in-depth news coverage of the Dover trial will explain what science is, and why the ideas offered by ID don't meet those standards.
Why do I feel hunger? I don't think Occam's razor would ever favor "Spontaneous hunger".
I don't know. For a newborn it might literally be the only explanation that exits.
spontaneous action is not an explanation
Spontaneous pair creation is a basic part of quantum mechanics. You could argue that they're created by the laws of physics, but that's a cop out, since those laws are merely our description of what 'just happens'.
The reason it is flawed is because the original poster asserted that not do you have to believe in a creator, but you also need to explain where they came from and you are back to spontaneous creation... hence 2x as silly.
They shouldn't have said that the cause for the creator would have to be spontaneous creation, but adding a creator does take you from having a big problem to having a big problem and a big messy assumption. In a certain sense, you really do have twice as much of a mess.