Hey Dan, On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
> 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] Dan, my comment was not directed at you, by any means, it was directed at the reporter. It presented things as fact. As you know, I have a problem with Scientism. That is the belief that science depicts reality better than anything else. Perhaps I needn't have brought it up, OK. > > 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] Unfortunately I do not have this altruistic sense of science. It is a cutthroat business down in the trenches. There are a lot of underhanded things going on. I suppose in a perfect world where politicians really did care about serving the people, and priests honestly believed in God, then perhaps science would be a little more humble. I could say that philosophy is all about finding the truth, so one cannot fault any philosophy. Unfortunately there are conflicting arenas in this world, where one philosophy is anti-theist and another is against Plato. Same for camps in science. As you say, both science and philosophy will get it right with their theories in the end since we are tending that way. > > > 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] I don't think I missed the point of the article, but perhaps I interpreted it differently from you. You asked the group to respond to the article, so I did. Perhaps that was a mistake. > >>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] Actually this is right, Google it if you want. Perhaps even Wikipedia has the right answer, but I wouldn't depend on it. As you know, the average age for contribution on Wiki is 26. This means that every contribution by a 40 year old has to be offset by a 12 year old. Many times it seems as if someone is contributing an essay they wrote in high school. Also, the contributors are 80% male, which makes a lot of the articles suspect. But I digress, enough of my ranting about this Wiki phenomenon, what a sham! The idiots encyclopedia. > > Dan: > And how do you know that, Mark? Do you talk to species a lot about > what they think? [Mark] I am beginning to take your response personally rather than on the topic, but maybe that is just me. What I am saying is that this DNA which has no known function is very important for the evolution of the species. Did you know that we are 98% homologous with monkeys and not very much more different from rats, as far as the DNA sequence is concerned. Whether the 2% makes us special or not is up to interpretation I guess. > > > 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] Yes, I enjoyed it, I like to read science more than philosophy. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. I apologize for my rant, it was not appropriate. > > 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? [Mark] Yeah, I would never make a good airline pilot, or a surgeon for that matter. My point here was what is found in the scientific literature is often very subjective. I used to review and reject publications for some of the scientific journals from the American Chemical Society. You would be surprised what some people try to publish. > > 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? [Mark] You are right, next time I will put on the scientist hat, and critique it that way. I did not know that people in the forum were interested in the details of evolution. I talk science all day long, and come here for a welcome rest. > Cheers, Mark > 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 > 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
