Here
Okay, so the drake equation.
Lets talk about why this, astrobiology and theoretical physics piss me off beyond all belief.
So the article I linked basically says that bully planets (see: jupiter/ shit ruining gravity wells on neighboring planets) as well as non circular orbits in many of the recognized exo planets means that the drake equation takes a smack to the balls once again. My opinion? Big freaking deal. The drake equation is overrated.
Firstly, exo planets are found by the light blinking from a star and they are only able to find certain ones at certain distances and blah blah, SOMEHOW they figure out orbits of these planets using 50 million year old light (no chance of distortion in there, right?) but the best pictures of Pluto are, to be honest, exceptionally shitty to date. Something doesn't add up in my mind- there HAS to be a huge margin of error, so to say things as definitively as I am reading them seems a bit extreme.
So lets discuss the impact on the Drake Equation. Yes, the Drake Equation gets kicked in the head. It basically calculates life = liquid water. Yep, that's pretty much it. I understand it's important, but what happens when/if they find life on Mars (which seems likely at this point) or, further to the point, life as we DON'T know it? I'm certain there's a reason we are carbon based and using DNA, but it's equally plausible to use the more volatile RNA and perhaps some other carbon-like base. Life would evolve faster, like viruses, which is always a bonus (but there are some other drawbacks from the less stable RNA).
So is the Drake Equation really reasonable to base all extraterrestrial life probability calculations on? I doubt it. Does it mean it's without use? It helps for liquid water, sure, and this discovery/assertion/whatever you wanna call it means that it's less likely liquid water is as pervasive as we'd hoped or thought.
So I guess an interesting article makes me pissed off because the science behind it is a little retarded. Much like theoretical physics- Einstein makes some assertions, right or wrong, and apparently it's taken at face value. Many hypothesis' have apparently found contradictory evidence to some of Einsteins ideas but had to ditch their hypothesis or alter it to dance around it. Well, suck on this, relativity. So basically theoretical physics makes assumptions on assumptions. GOOD WORK, jackasses. It's like a black hole of stupidity.
How about Astrobiology, the BEST field of science EVER. Basically they say "well, there could be life here but we can't check right now." From here, it's completely scientifically reasonable to make assumptions about how the life is, looks and survives. What a fantastic field, total real life applications and completely testable, if you have several billion dollars and like 20 years of space flight to kill. I can't believe people make a living with this crap, it's like people shitting right in the bed and then having sex with it.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
The cell's synth band
I think more hype was needed for the synthetic DNA in the bacterium reproducing to make another one of itself. It's a big deal and you can find info about it, but what SHOULD have been said was that it provides a great push forward on the front line in eradicating anyone who subscribes to "God of the Gaps" mentality. Yes, I am aware it's not creation from nothing, yet. It's part of the process, a stepwise march towards creating life from non life. It means there isn't one less refuge for GotG's, but certainly one of their larger ones has had the century long entrenchment stormed and then raped: after all, this is the production of the first fully synthetic life form, even if we did hijack a non synthetic to do it.
It's not something that astonishing or surprising to me. The species, Mycoplasma genitalium, only has about 480 genes. Things are explained nicely in this short essay. I mean, yes it was expensive and took a shitload of effort and time, but it's not as if it was done with a more complex organism (infact, it was done with the least complex bacterium). The only thing it really shows is that it's possible to synthesize a functional genome, most likely made up primarily of genes that were ripped off from other places. To me, it's like an infant taking its first step and then looking confusedly at the reaction. Still, if I were a creationist, I'd be terrified. It means the ignorance is in its twilight, unless people are truly this horrible. Wait, what am I saying, I know this is exactly the case- indoctrination can be so extreme you can SHOW them evolution and they'll still disbelieve.
okay, other exciting news in Paleo!
Narrowing down the scope and cause of the Devonian extinction.
Kind of important, considering the observed bottleneck of vertebrate evolution at this time. I've heard something similar for the end Cretaceous extinction, lower species diversification means you're basically up shit creek with a phobia of shit.
Early birds couldn't fly.
Not surprisingly, the feathers preserved in Archaeopteryx and Confuiciousornis aren't just impressions. Hell, this here should tidy things up in your mind. Anyways, it shows that they weren't strong enough for flight. This gives more evidence, in my mind, that it was for display purposes. Keep in mind this doesn't do anything for the ancestry of birds, just honing in a little more on where/when they flew first.
Humans and Neanderthals interbred.
If you still disagree with this, all I can suggest is that you stop being a fucking idiot. The neanderthal genome was cracked a while back, the writing is in the genes (and on the wall).
Burgess Shale in morocco
This is important as it shows that many of the lineages made it into the Ordovician and should highlight to everyone that there is still a strong bias in the fossil record (as if the Coelacanth didn't already do that).
No fucking kidding.
To test the fundamental ideas, or at least reconsider them, basic to the most pervasive theory in biological sciences. Yep, that's science at work! Pretty much uses parsimony, occam's razor and a computer to point out rather convincingly that, statistically and speaking in terms of probability, creationists are and always will be completely retarded.
More evidence for microevolution, this time in gods perfect creation!
BUT GOD MADE THEM THAT WAY
Yeah mudskippers too, but science PREDICTS these things (as well as the age and location of Tiktaalik roseae) whereas creation goes "well they are here, lets just say god did it." A PERFECT example of using observation and prediction to accurately make a hypothesis/theory where something like this doesn't gum up the works versus knowing the answer to everything ever before the question is even asked.
phew, exhaustive and bitter, that's how I like my science.
It's not something that astonishing or surprising to me. The species, Mycoplasma genitalium, only has about 480 genes. Things are explained nicely in this short essay. I mean, yes it was expensive and took a shitload of effort and time, but it's not as if it was done with a more complex organism (infact, it was done with the least complex bacterium). The only thing it really shows is that it's possible to synthesize a functional genome, most likely made up primarily of genes that were ripped off from other places. To me, it's like an infant taking its first step and then looking confusedly at the reaction. Still, if I were a creationist, I'd be terrified. It means the ignorance is in its twilight, unless people are truly this horrible. Wait, what am I saying, I know this is exactly the case- indoctrination can be so extreme you can SHOW them evolution and they'll still disbelieve.
okay, other exciting news in Paleo!
Narrowing down the scope and cause of the Devonian extinction.
Kind of important, considering the observed bottleneck of vertebrate evolution at this time. I've heard something similar for the end Cretaceous extinction, lower species diversification means you're basically up shit creek with a phobia of shit.
Early birds couldn't fly.
Not surprisingly, the feathers preserved in Archaeopteryx and Confuiciousornis aren't just impressions. Hell, this here should tidy things up in your mind. Anyways, it shows that they weren't strong enough for flight. This gives more evidence, in my mind, that it was for display purposes. Keep in mind this doesn't do anything for the ancestry of birds, just honing in a little more on where/when they flew first.
Humans and Neanderthals interbred.
If you still disagree with this, all I can suggest is that you stop being a fucking idiot. The neanderthal genome was cracked a while back, the writing is in the genes (and on the wall).
Burgess Shale in morocco
This is important as it shows that many of the lineages made it into the Ordovician and should highlight to everyone that there is still a strong bias in the fossil record (as if the Coelacanth didn't already do that).
No fucking kidding.
To test the fundamental ideas, or at least reconsider them, basic to the most pervasive theory in biological sciences. Yep, that's science at work! Pretty much uses parsimony, occam's razor and a computer to point out rather convincingly that, statistically and speaking in terms of probability, creationists are and always will be completely retarded.
More evidence for microevolution, this time in gods perfect creation!
BUT GOD MADE THEM THAT WAY
Yeah mudskippers too, but science PREDICTS these things (as well as the age and location of Tiktaalik roseae) whereas creation goes "well they are here, lets just say god did it." A PERFECT example of using observation and prediction to accurately make a hypothesis/theory where something like this doesn't gum up the works versus knowing the answer to everything ever before the question is even asked.
phew, exhaustive and bitter, that's how I like my science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)