Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:24 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > Thanks for the article, it was interesting.
Dan: I thought so. >Mark: > My first thought was that the way the press presents this, seems to > say that what these researchers are conjecturing is fact. Often the > media designates truth to science despite the controversy surrounding > certain theories. In this sense, the article should be read as a > possibility that some scientists are considering. Dan: Well, yes. I didn't present the article as something written in stone, nor did the writer of the article, as far as I can see. Science writes in pencil, Mark. You should know that. That is a given. I am disappointed you even feel the need to bring that up. Mark: Once genes are > thought to be only in animals, then when they are found in other > species, the notion is that something has been discovered. More > likely, the hypothesis that certain genes are only found in animals is > incorrect. Take for example the case of the Black Swan (which Marsha > is now reading about). The accepted fact was that all swans were > white. But, somewhere in Australia (I think) a black swan was > discovered. There was great excitement in the scientific community > since this was so unusual, based on accepted theory at the time. In > actuality, there was nothing unusual about it at all, it was just that > the original theory was wrong. So, scientists set up theories, and > are then amazed when they find something outside of the theory. The > platypus used by Pirsig was a good example of this phenomenon in terms > of the rigidness of science. Dan: Well, not exactly. Again, science operates by being able to falsify a hypothesis, so while theories may be set up, it is a bit disingenuous to say scientists are surprised when they fail. Theories are meant to fail. Researchers have been working at proving Einstein's theories wrong for over a century. Again, this is a given. It is what science is all about. >Mark: > The other thought was that this is typical of scientists who only look > at one side of evolution, that is the genetic make-up. They > completely dismiss the process of natural selection, that is, the > environment. I liken this to a push-pull existence, genes push and > environment pulls. The reason a species expresses certain > characteristics is that the environment is letting it do so. In other > words, if the environment of earth was very different, animals would > look very different, but could have the same DNA. It is this complex > interplay of that within with that without that is not discussed. To > do so, would require us to understand why the environment changes in > the way that it does; this side of the equation is much more complex, > as we have seen from the global warming frenzy. Dan: I think you miss the point of the article. Whether or not the environment was different has no bearing on the argument presented therein. It is like saying if pigs could fly they'd make nests on top of telephone poles. So what? That isn't the point. Also, as a scientist you seem to have some quite derogatory things to say about your colleagues. >Mark: > As it turns out, over 95% of the human genome does not code for > proteins. That is, we do not know what that 95% is for. Dan: Well, I am just a layman but I know this just isn't right at all. Yes, at one time, a decade ago, it was thought a good part of the genome was "junk." But since then, in the last few years, there's been a real resurgence in discovering that the "junk" isn't junk at all. We simply didn't know what it did. We are starting to learn now. I could cite a dozen articles if need be. Of course I am sure you'd feel they were all tainted, so why bother. Mark: This means > that there is possibly an enormous reservoir for what the human can > evolve into. In other words, we have the potential to be very > different if the environment so dictates, without changing our DNA > sequence. The genetic sequence actually means very little. It would > be like knowing the sequence of all the letters of Lila, and nothing > more. Meaning is extracted from the DNA in a very complex way, in the > same way that meaning in Lila is extracted. It is actually worse in > the genome, since this would mean that the vast majority of Lila would > be indecipherable. This indecipherability is often called "nonsense > DNA". It may be nonsense to the scientist, but I am sure the species > does not think so. Dan: And how do you know that, Mark? Do you talk to species a lot about what they think? >Mark: > So, it is fun to read these science articles, but ascribing them as > fact may not be appropriate. Often I warn about Scientism as > presented by the press Why did the Times choose this particular > thing out of the millions of research topics going on? Who knows. Dan: I am guessing it might have something to do with selling newspapers. Just a guess though. It was an interesting article, was it not? Would you rather read a dull and boring article? Mark: > One final note: I used to have a side job as a gate keeper for > deciding which articles to include in certain sections of a database. > This database was then sold as a resource to researchers who would > assume that it was factual and complete. Sometimes I had days when I > was tired. My selection and population of the data base was different > on those days. Also, I had to do this very fast. What scientists > thought of as an important resource was derived from my subjectivity. Dan: In other words, you didn't care. Huh. Somehow, I don't find that surprising. Too bad. It sounds like an excellent opportunity to help others who were depending on you. And you didn't care. Good thing you weren't an airline pilot. Right? I have to say I find your attitude very disappointing for a trained scientist. You offer nothing of substance about the article. Why even bother writing if you have nothing constructive to add? Dan Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
