When you get a mouth ulcer, it makes sense that spicy and acidic foods
and drinks will hurt like there's no tomorrow.

However, one of life's little mysteries is that chocolate does that too.
It stings like hell. But why? Chocolate doesn't immediately come to mind
when I try to think of foods that would be especially irritating to a
mouth ulcer. What is it in there that causes so much irritation? Normally
chocolate feels so smooth and soothing, like silk. But to a mouth ulcer
it feels like sulfuric acid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I'm guessing it could partially be the theobromine, which acts as a vasodilator.

It might open up the blood vessels and cause swelling and irritation - the
opposite effect that caffeine has - which is a vasoconstrictor and reduces the
swelling in the brain so it's not grinding up against the inside of your skull
when you have a throbbing headache.

Chocolate is also known to contain oxalic acid, which I'm guessing is the main
culprit.  It will instantly combine with calcium in your blood to form
needle-shaped calcium oxalate crystals which produce an intense burning
sensation in the mouth.

Get some Anbesol, or see if some tea or coffee (tannins) will form a protective
coating over the affected area.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2013 11:04 PM, Warp wrote:
> However, one of life's little mysteries is that chocolate does that too.
> It stings like hell. But why? Chocolate doesn't immediately come to mind
> when I try to think of foods that would be especially irritating to a
> mouth ulcer. What is it in there that causes so much irritation? Normally
> chocolate feels so smooth and soothing, like silk. But to a mouth ulcer
> it feels like sulfuric acid.

Almost *any* substance will have the wrong osmolarity compared to body 
tissues, so almost any substance hurts when poured into an open wound. 
(About the only exception is suitably concentrated saline.)

The thing about chocolate is that it's very sticky; it coats things, and 
clings to them. So once you get it into the wound, it's quite hard to 
get out again.

(Fun fact: The bodily fluids of almost every large land animal have 
almost exactly the same salinity as sea water.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 10:02, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

> (Fun fact: The bodily fluids of almost every large land animal have
> almost exactly the same salinity as sea water.)

Fun fact #2: The above "fact" is anything but.

The origin of this popular myth is probably that it has been suggested 
that the salinity of mammalian bodily fluids resembles that of the 
/primordial/ oceans, back when life first evolved.

Today's sea water is about 4 times more saline than human blood.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/08/2013 11:55 AM, clipka wrote:
> Today's sea water is about 4 times more saline than human blood.

This claim is surprisingly hard to confirm or refute. The trouble is, 
there are many, many different ways to measure how salty something is. 
Consequently, I'm struggling to find anything that quotes the two 
measurements in the same units, or even using the same dimensions.

Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any* 
salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 20:01, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 24/08/2013 11:55 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Today's sea water is about 4 times more saline than human blood.
>
> This claim is surprisingly hard to confirm or refute. The trouble is,
> there are many, many different ways to measure how salty something is.
> Consequently, I'm struggling to find anything that quotes the two
> measurements in the same units, or even using the same dimensions.

A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis

See table 1 there.

Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a 
creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're 
quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from 
Wikipedia:

(1) The salinity of blood can be inferred from that of medical "normal 
saline" solution:

"The solution is 9 grams of sodium chloridre (NaCl) dissolved in water, 
to a total volume of 1000 ml. [...]. It has a slightly higher degree of 
osmolarity (i.e. more solute per litre) than blood [...]."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotonic_saline#Normal)

(2) The salinity of salt water is given expressively:

"Seawater has a salinity of roughly 35,000 ppm, equivalent to 35 grams 
of salt per one liter (or kilogram) of water."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_water)


> Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any*
> salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.

Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis

> See table 1 there.

> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a 
> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're 
> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from 
> Wikipedia:

Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
they write, even if they are just quoting facts.

I would avoid quoting even facts from that source, and instead quote them
from a more reputable one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a
> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're
> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from
> Wikipedia:
>
> (1) The salinity of blood can be inferred from that of medical "normal
> saline" solution:
>
> "The solution is 9 grams of sodium chloridre (NaCl) dissolved in water,
> to a total volume of 1000 ml. [...]. It has a slightly higher degree of
> osmolarity (i.e. more solute per litre) than blood [...]."
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotonic_saline#Normal)
>
> (2) The salinity of salt water is given expressively:
>
> "Seawater has a salinity of roughly 35,000 ppm, equivalent to 35 grams
> of salt per one liter (or kilogram) of water."
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_water)

So 35 g/L verses 9 g/L, basically.

[You see what I did there? Because blood is mildly basic, right? Right??]

>> Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any*
>> salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.
>
> Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?

I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on 
Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:29:46 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?
> 
> I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on
> Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...

Um what?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/acidsbases/a/aa110204a.htm

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 21:52, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:
>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis
>
>> See table 1 there.
>
>> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a
>> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're
>> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from
>> Wikipedia:
>
> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.

The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except 
that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's 
interests).

As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be 
wary of creationists than of anyone else (as long as it's not the type 
relying primarily on populism, but rather the one trying to give 
themselves an air of serious science). After all, they have no interest 
in making themselves too easily refutable.

> I would avoid quoting even facts from that source, and instead quote them
> from a more reputable one.

I'd have prefered some other source myself, but either there aren't any, 
or they're drowning in an overabundance of creationist sources. (Or I 
just used the wrong search terms on Google.)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on 
> Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...

The Earth's crust has 2.6% sodium by weight, making it the sixth most
abundant element on Earth.

There's a relative abundance of chlorine in the seas because of how the
seas were formed and due to things like underwater volcanoes, which
release quite large amounts of chlorine.

Sodium chloride is soluble in water, unlike most other minerals, which
makes it significantly more prevalent in seawater than other minerals.
There are also complex phenomena happening that keep the balance of
seawater salinity.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
> > order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
> > they write, even if they are just quoting facts.

> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except 
> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's 
> interests).

*sigh*

That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
position.)

Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
any sense.)

The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
Christianity: Honesty.

> As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be 
> wary of creationists than of anyone else

I do because creationists are infamous for constantly cherry-picking,
distorting, quote-mining and outright fabricating data. If you want any
credibility for your data, don't take it from creationists. Take it from
a reputable source. It doesn't even matter if the data is identical; just
the fact that you are linking to a creationist website decreases the
credibility and trustworthiness. Link to some better place.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 22:29, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

>>> Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any*
>>> salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.
>>
>> Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?
>
> I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on
> Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater#Origin

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> *sigh*

> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)

I apologize for snapping like that. It's just that creationists irk me
to no end. I have had lengthy conversations with young earth creationists
both online and in real life, and their insincerity and stubborness just
drives me crazy. They are exactly in the same league as the worst
conspiracy theorists.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.08.2013 00:18, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
>>> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
>>> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
>
>> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
>> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
>> interests).
>
> *sigh*
>
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)

I don't consider it a lie, nor is it a position I have taken on from 
creationists. Normally I don't believe shit of what they say.

> Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
> fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
> interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
> conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
> possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
> that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
> any sense.)

I'm not specifically talking about scientific studies related to the 
creationism-vs-science debate, but generic stuff like whether iodine is 
good for your health, whether the global warming is due to the decline 
of piracy in the caribbeans, and other some such.

Of all those studies, I'm not necessarily buying their results, but I 
see no general reason to distrust the numbers they present, as long as 
they can easily be verified.


> The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
> while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
> Christianity: Honesty.

Ho - stop right there! To say that "creationists lie all the time" is an 
oversimplification or, to put it differently, an outright lie.

/Never/ believe /anyone/ who oversimplifies things. (*)


>> As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be
>> wary of creationists than of anyone else
>
> I do because creationists are infamous for constantly cherry-picking,
> distorting, quote-mining and outright fabricating data. If you want any
> credibility for your data, don't take it from creationists. Take it from
> a reputable source. It doesn't even matter if the data is identical; just
> the fact that you are linking to a creationist website decreases the
> credibility and trustworthiness. Link to some better place.
>

Any suggestion in particular? Because if you don't have a better source 
for the particular topic at hand, I'll stick to what people have come up 
who happen to be creationists.

That applies to the numbers, mind you - not their conclusions.







(* To be applied recursively ;-))

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.08.2013 00:24, schrieb Warp:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> *sigh*
>
>> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
>> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
>> position.)
>
> I apologize for snapping like that. It's just that creationists irk me
> to no end. I have had lengthy conversations with young earth creationists
> both online and in real life, and their insincerity and stubborness just
> drives me crazy. They are exactly in the same league as the worst
> conspiracy theorists.

One simple recommendation:

Don't.

I mean, have lengthy conversations with them.

Their model of the world differs from any scientific model by the 
inclusion of the fundamental axiom that their model is built on 
irrefutable axioms (vs. the scientific fundamental axiom that /any/ 
model is inherently wrong, as it is just a model), so you simply 
/cannot/ convice them, nor can they convince you (or so I hope ;-)), so 
what's the point?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
> > while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
> > Christianity: Honesty.

> Ho - stop right there! To say that "creationists lie all the time" is an 
> oversimplification or, to put it differently, an outright lie.

> /Never/ believe /anyone/ who oversimplifies things. (*)

I'd say that "creationists lie all the time" is more accurate of an
assessment than anything that creationists say about scientists, much
of natural sciences, and atheists.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8/24/2013 3:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
>>> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
>>> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
>
>> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
>> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
>> interests).
>
> *sigh*
>
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)
>
> Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
> fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
> interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
> conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
> possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
> that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
> any sense.)
>
The problem here is that there "are" now paid shills (lots and lots more 
of them than back when the people paying them thought science would 
vindicate their ideas, not disembowel them), like Cato, and those 
working for certain corporations/interests, who do both cherry pick 
their data, and lie, to promote the positions they are *paid* to. 
Unfortunately, unlike doctors, you can't pull a scientists license to do 
research, even blatantly bad, or false, research. All you can do is 
refuse to hire them at reputable institutions. The problem being, the 
public isn't stupid, and they know they people exist, but they don't 
know enough to tell which ones are presenting facts, and real evidence, 
and which ones where paid to muck up the details, then present gibberish 
to policy makers, or anyone else that decides to listen. And, the direct 
result of this is that you are as likely to find people believing the 
"experts" who are paid to push bullshit, as they are to believe the real 
science. And, this is *especially* true when the bullshit a) will 
protect their job, b) makes false, but, to them, believable, promises, 
or c) is made out to be, by various similarly paid shill news agencies, 
to be one of two options, and the difference between those a "controversy".

Just look at things like Dr. Oz, and Dr. Phil. Both are obvious quacks, 
both promote things that are just plain nuts, Phil had his medical 
license taken away, and I can't imagine that Oz will last either, given 
his insane tendency to use aroma therapy, and who the hell knows what 
else, as "part" of his surgeries. Not only is at least one of them still 
working in his field, both have prominent jobs as spokesmen for things 
that imho, should get both of them permanently banned from even 
suggesting they know anything about medicine. And, neither even works 
for a so called "think tank". Those, can also promote any bullshit they 
want, but they *must* do so in a way that is actually believable, to 
people that should know better.

Sometimes they are doing "applied science". And, here is the thing - 
that doesn't generate new information, since its directed at getting a 
specific result, and producing a specific end product, and they only 
give a damn whether it works, or it doesn't, not what gets "learned" 
from it. They also, in such cases, all sign NDEs, and rarely, if ever, 
will the public ever hear "anything" from them.

So, yeah, if some scientist has a "sponsor", you might want to question 
what they are doing, especially if they spend like 90% of their time 
writing papers about other people's work, and not doing any actual 
research. Such people are not, however, conducting science, they are 
"marketing", while presenting the sale, to the buyer, as though it was 
science. Creationists are only notable in that they do this, with a 
absurd purpose of, on one hand, trying to use as much real information 
as they can, without undermining their argument, they think, all so they 
can prove that the universe was created by a being that, by definition, 
didn't need to use science to do any damn bit of it. Of course, they 
can't manage it without claiming that he did such and such X way, but 
didn't do it Y way, and did so in a way we can't detect, even though we 
detected it, and on, and on, while often claiming two contradictory 
things in the same sentence..

Most real scientists never so much as speak to the public, even if they 
work for some "sponsor" company, are more often than not pissed when 
they find out how their results got misused (or just misinterpreted), 
and/or are doing their research on the government dime, not on the 
behest of private companies/interests. At most, some of them might work 
for colleges, who got some money, from some private source, but.. those 
people are not looking to "make up" results, they expect to actually do 
the research, find a real result, and only report on the details, when 
they actually know what the hell is going on, whether its "useful" for 
someone or otherwise. They are most certainly not expect to "produce" 
such results. The very idea presumes they already know enough about what 
they are experimenting on to know the outcome, or how to believably fake 
one. Which makes, logically, about as much sense as an explorer thinking 
they can get by with "describing" a location no one has been to, without 
bothering to actually go there and look, because, of course.. no one 
else is going to either, right? lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/24/2013 3:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
>> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
>> position.)
>
> I don't consider it a lie, nor is it a position I have taken on from
> creationists. Normally I don't believe shit of what they say.
>
The man Paulin, who came up with the idea of "megavitamins" was Nobel 
prize winner, at one point, but was considered, by the scientific 
community to have become a complete bloody nut, by the time of his 
death. In 1994 the bloody congress decided they would rather believe 
him, than the FDA, about the possible dangers of massive doses of 
chemicals being added to people's diets, purely due to them being "natural".

In the same time frame, another scientist put out "preliminary" results 
studying anti-oxidants, which was, in part, touted by Paulin as a great 
discovery, and helped him push his ideas. This was a "preliminary" 
study, which every idiot from the press, to the new-age/altie-med 
community took off with. A year or two back he released new results - 
animals that had their own natural anti-oxidant production disabled 
lived 25% "longer" than the ones who had it, and given them supplements 
reduced there life spans back to normal. The conclusion - taking more of 
them might actually kill you faster. Might, that is. Its still 
"incomplete", but.. since all the idiots ran with it the last time... 
Oh, wait, no.. they didn't run with it this time. Why? Could it be 
because they are making more money selling crap, on the idea that it 
will make you live forever, than they can by telling you to not buy it? 
Nah...

You will note that Paulin was not a biologist, nor made any pretense at 
it. He was a physicist and mathematician (sort of the engineer effect - 
i.e, if your are an engineer, or physicist, you are like twice as likely 
to be a total idiot about biology, biochemistry, or any other less 
mathematical/well understood, and messy, science). He never did any 
research, at all, just read a bunch of (and misunderstood) preliminary 
studies, and took one bbbiiiiggggg leap with it. The guy who actually is 
a scientist, never fell for the vitamin craze, and waited for the actual 
results, and is still working on understanding what is going on. He 
probably only released his second "preliminary" study on anti-oxidant 
disabling to make some limited attempt to stop the madness already 
generated by Paulin, and his absurdities.

There is a lot of total BS out there. And, the general public often 
can't, especially when news programs, magazines, etc. refuse to fact 
check their own reporting, which of it comes for people guessing, making 
things up, misunderstanding the details of real studies, and writing up 
total gibberish about it, or actually reporting real information. Worse, 
the real information is often behind pay walls, or inaccessible to the 
public, even if they could understand the studies any better than the 
news people, or magazine writers.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-24 04:02, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> (Fun fact: The bodily fluids of almost every large land animal have
> almost exactly the same salinity as sea water.)

Does this mean that the salinity of a Finn's tears will be less than 
that of a colombian, since the salinity of sea water changes between the 
equator and the 60th parallel?

;)

Fun fact #2: We've all evolved from sea-dwelling animals who had to deal 
with sea water's osmotic pressure for millennia, so there's nothing 
really surprising about fun fact #1.

Fun fact #3:  It's also why you should boil seafood in salt water.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Fun fact #2: We've all evolved from sea-dwelling animals who had to deal 
> with sea water's osmotic pressure for millennia, so there's nothing 
> really surprising about fun fact #1.

It's actually quite interesting to study what kinds of morphological and
biological similarities we still have compared to our amazingly distant
fish ancestors from hundreds of millions of years ago.

For example, all terrestrial tetrapods (which includes us) have the
same basic limb bone structure: One bone (upper arm) -> two bones (lower
arm) -> a bunch of small bones (wrist) -> a group of long thin bones
(palm/fingers).

(In some animals the limb's end may have changed so that eg. a toe has
grown into a hoof, but the basic structure is still discernible.)

This basic limb structure can be traced all the way back to the fish from
which all tetrapods evolved from. (Our fingers used to be the bones in
the pectoral fins of that fish.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The problem here is that there "are" now paid shills (lots and lots more 
> of them than back when the people paying them thought science would 
> vindicate their ideas, not disembowel them), like Cato, and those 
> working for certain corporations/interests, who do both cherry pick 
> their data, and lie, to promote the positions they are *paid* to. 

There's a good reason why science does not rely on individual scientists
and individual experiments, but everything must be peer-reviewed and
tested again and again by numerous independent parties (preferably from
different countries and cultures) before such studies are even considered.

Creationists (as well as many other pseudoscientists) promote the notion
that the entire scientific community is in a huge conspiracy to endorse
certain views. Naturally they never go to specifics (because those could
be easily verified), but the way they talk it sounds like they think that
"science" consists of a secret core group of people who decide what the
current "scientific truth" is, and then everyone else just abides by their
rulings.

This is a physical impossibility. You just can't make the entire scientific
community believe in the same thing that's contrary to facts. Said
community consists of thousands and thousans of people from different
countries and cultures. Most of them do it because of personal interest
and passion, and nothing would be more rewarding then making a new
discovery or coming up with a valid objection to a claim. There's just no
way to control all the scientists of the entire world and make them keep
quiet about problems in current scientific theories and not publish those
objections.

For example, let's assume that there are indeed big problems with
radioactive dating methods. Why would, for example, scientists from
India or Japan keep quiet about them, and moreover perpetuate the alleged
lies? What possible motivation could there be (especially since there is
a lot more motivation to raise objections when they are found)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2013 03:49 PM, Warp wrote:
> For example, all terrestrial tetrapods (which includes us) have the
> same basic limb bone structure: One bone (upper arm) ->  two bones (lower
> arm) ->  a bunch of small bones (wrist) ->  a group of long thin bones
> (palm/fingers).

In a way, that's pretty amazing. But in a way, it would be far more 
amazing if all these animals did *not* have the same bone structure - 
that would imply a sudden change in skeletal design, which is quite 
unlikely.

> (In some animals the limb's end may have changed so that eg. a toe has
> grown into a hoof, but the basic structure is still discernible.)

Take a dog, for example. The part of a dog's leg that *looks* like an 
elbow is actually homologous to the human wrist joint. The *actual* 
elbow is hidden inside the dog's body where you can't see it. And the 
thing that looks like an angle is actually our finger joint. It's whacky 
stuff...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/26/2013 9:50 AM, Warp wrote:
> This is a physical impossibility. You just can't make the entire scientific
> community believe in the same thing that's contrary to facts. Said
> community consists of thousands and thousans of people from different
> countries and cultures. Most of them do it because of personal interest
> and passion, and nothing would be more rewarding then making a new
> discovery or coming up with a valid objection to a claim. There's just no
> way to control all the scientists of the entire world and make them keep
> quiet about problems in current scientific theories and not publish those
> objections.
>
Of course, this is exactly what they often claim, that "their" 
scientists, who never seem to actually, you know, do research, instead 
of just comment on their misreading of everyone else's, are the ones 
"speaking out" against the vast conspiracy that all the other ones (who 
outnumber them like 100:1) are "in on".

They are, often, also believers in the "Main Stream Media", which is 
just incompetent and unwilling to check their facts, but fans of "FOX", 
which has actually admitted to paying people to make shit up, and only 
put out biased news, according to what their companies CEO wants them to 
say (which just happens, right now, to coincide heavily with the 
pro-corporation, anti-regulation, small government, pseudo-libertarian, 
"Tea Party"...), as well as the truly loony one, which is that energy 
companies, which, just in the last few decades have a) sat in rooms to 
fix oil prices, while claiming that its pure coincidence they all meet 
together, not intentional price fixing, didn't so much as speak up 
about, and probably just figured on waiting to see what happened, during 
the Enron, "Gosh, we have an electricity shortage, so lets kill people 
by shutting down their 'heating/air conditioning/who the fuck knows what 
else', during rolling blackouts, and have shown, twice that they can't 
prevent spills, or clean them up, or even stop their pipelines from 
leaking. Oh, no, those people we are supposed to believe, but not the 
"scientific community", which is somehow looking to make "big money" by 
promoting alternatives, thanks to global warming.

Its never entirely clear how *all* of those people, never mind any but 
perhaps a small fraction, are supposed to get money from doing this, 
but.. hell, its how their side does things, so, I am guessing that at 
least some of the idiots on the denialism side actually believe its not 
happening, and that everyone else, just like them, pays people with 
degrees to make shit up, and lie, to promote some sort of business 
interests, what ever the hell those might be. Looks at in that sense, 
presuming they truly believe someone, some place, is making money off 
it, and that all the experts on their side are getting kickbacks, just 
like they do for their "own" experts.. Its perfectly logical. Its should 
also imho, be a sign that every damn one of them needs to be 
investigated for ethics violations, and their paid shills, for some sort 
of clear conflict of interest issues (not that you could, since they 
would just admit they where paid to make shit up, so.. no conflict, then 
accuse everyone else of doing the same thing).

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.08.2013 23:16, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 26/08/2013 03:49 PM, Warp wrote:
>> For example, all terrestrial tetrapods (which includes us) have the
>> same basic limb bone structure: One bone (upper arm) ->  two bones (lower
>> arm) ->  a bunch of small bones (wrist) ->  a group of long thin bones
>> (palm/fingers).
>
> In a way, that's pretty amazing. But in a way, it would be far more
> amazing if all these animals did *not* have the same bone structure -
> that would imply a sudden change in skeletal design, which is quite
> unlikely.

You mean, like the disconnection of the collarbone from the sternum in 
felids, or the disconnection of the pelvis and complete disappearance of 
hind limbs in cetaceans?

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 12:07 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.08.2013 23:16, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> On 26/08/2013 03:49 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> For example, all terrestrial tetrapods (which includes us) have the
>>> same basic limb bone structure: One bone (upper arm) -> two bones (lower
>>> arm) -> a bunch of small bones (wrist) -> a group of long thin bones
>>> (palm/fingers).
>>
>> In a way, that's pretty amazing. But in a way, it would be far more
>> amazing if all these animals did *not* have the same bone structure -
>> that would imply a sudden change in skeletal design, which is quite
>> unlikely.
>
> You mean, like the disconnection of the collarbone from the sternum in
> felids, or the disconnection of the pelvis and complete disappearance of
> hind limbs in cetaceans?

I was thinking more like if there was one member of the frog family 
which has five legs instead of the usual four, or something. THAT would 
be weird...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/26/2013 4:07 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.08.2013 23:16, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> On 26/08/2013 03:49 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> For example, all terrestrial tetrapods (which includes us) have the
>>> same basic limb bone structure: One bone (upper arm) ->  two bones
>>> (lower
>>> arm) ->  a bunch of small bones (wrist) ->  a group of long thin bones
>>> (palm/fingers).
>>
>> In a way, that's pretty amazing. But in a way, it would be far more
>> amazing if all these animals did *not* have the same bone structure -
>> that would imply a sudden change in skeletal design, which is quite
>> unlikely.
>
> You mean, like the disconnection of the collarbone from the sternum in
> felids, or the disconnection of the pelvis and complete disappearance of
> hind limbs in cetaceans?
>
In most of those cases the genes are still there, or the bones "grow 
together", such that they seem to have disappeared, but haven't, or they 
are in fact there, in some limited form, but just not obvious on first 
appearance. Deletion of entire sets of genes, for a limb, and their 
replacement with something else, instead of just adjusting the size and 
shape, doesn't happen much.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2013 10:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 27/08/2013 12:07 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 26.08.2013 23:16, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> On 26/08/2013 03:49 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> For example, all terrestrial tetrapods (which includes us) have the
>>>> same basic limb bone structure: One bone (upper arm) -> two bones
>>>> (lower
>>>> arm) -> a bunch of small bones (wrist) -> a group of long thin bones
>>>> (palm/fingers).
>>>
>>> In a way, that's pretty amazing. But in a way, it would be far more
>>> amazing if all these animals did *not* have the same bone structure -
>>> that would imply a sudden change in skeletal design, which is quite
>>> unlikely.
>>
>> You mean, like the disconnection of the collarbone from the sternum in
>> felids, or the disconnection of the pelvis and complete disappearance of
>> hind limbs in cetaceans?
>
> I was thinking more like if there was one member of the frog family
> which has five legs instead of the usual four, or something. THAT would
> be weird...
Yeah, well.. That isn't likely to happen, six maybe, since you have the 
whole bi-lateral symmetry thing going on, but then, you would find that, 
much like "missing" ones, the extras are either a) caused by 
environmental toxins (common issue with frogs in fact), or b) a copying 
on the genes needed to produce the limbs. Whether or not, without other 
regulatory changes, you can get "functional" ones is another matter.

Now.. toes/fingers are a different oddity. Their genetics function like 
this: Start growing the index finger, then add another, and another, 
until you hit a stop number, *then* grow a thumb. This means you can get 
one less, or one more, finger, or even several more, if the timing got 
way off (and it will end up next to the "pinky" when it forms), but its 
not going to be common, since you would have to nuke "all" of the 
fingers for the process to be interrupted. The thumb on the other hand 
is a separate process, but dependent on the first set being formed, so 
you could, in principle, have it be knocked out all by itself, by, in 
effect, having the genes just "skip over" the code for it. But, it isn't 
formed in the same stage in the process as the rest of the fingers.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In most of those cases the genes are still there, or the bones "grow 
> together", such that they seem to have disappeared, but haven't, or they 
> are in fact there, in some limited form, but just not obvious on first 
> appearance. Deletion of entire sets of genes, for a limb, and their 
> replacement with something else, instead of just adjusting the size and 
> shape, doesn't happen much.

Genes are, ultimately, rather inefficient at "optimizing" an organism
to adapt to new or changed environments. Parts that are no longer needed
can linger on for thousands, if not even millions of generations.
Structures that still have important functions, but are quite inefficient
at doing those functions (when there would be much better structures that
could do the same job a lot better), may be retained likewise for millions
of generations, for the simple reason that they were there to begin with,
and a complete replacement by slow modification would require changes with
so astronomically low probabilities of happening, that they just don't
happen. Sometimes the vestiges of old organs may happen to be adapted for
new functions, but they will almost invariably be very inefficient at
those functions (which makes sense; they didn't exist for those functions
to begin with, and thus it's no wonder they are not optimal for a
completely different task.)

Evolution is all about compromises. The genetic code is very slow to
change in the right way to do something efficiently. It's more like a
hack job than anything else (it's like there's a "if it works, don't fix
it" principle constantly going on), and remnants of obsolete parts will
linger on, just because genetics can't just get rid of them that easily.
There's no guiding process to drop those off, and thus they will be built
because the genes say they should. There's nothing stopping them, even
after those parts become useless. Thus you get things like blind eyes
that are physically unable to see (in many species that live their whole
lives in darkness) and thus serve no useful purpose whatsoever. But the
useless eyes are still there because the genes say so, even if part of
the resources used to build them have been turned off or allocated somewhere
else.

When you really start to study how genes work, you start seeing that
there is, in fact, no intelligent design behind it. No intelligent
designer, no matter how incompetent, would be so sloppy and so lazy.
A mindless process that's simply the by-product of natural laws is.

On the positive side, genes are a marvelous example of emergent behavior
in nature. Complexity arising from simple rules.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27-8-2013 23:09, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/27/2013 10:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I was thinking more like if there was one member of the frog family
>> which has five legs instead of the usual four, or something. THAT would
>> be weird...
> Yeah, well.. That isn't likely to happen, six maybe, since you have the
> whole bi-lateral symmetry thing going on, but then, you would find that,
> much like "missing" ones, the extras are either a) caused by
> environmental toxins (common issue with frogs in fact), or b) a copying
> on the genes needed to produce the limbs. Whether or not, without other
> regulatory changes, you can get "functional" ones is another matter.

During evolution, Nature does it the other way round. During the 
Devonian when lobe-finned bony fishes appeared and evolved into 
amphibians, Nature experimented with different possibilities. There were 
animals with 7 or more numbers of digits on their legs. Eventually, only 
the animals with 5 digits made it. All the others became extinct.

Search for Acanthostega, Ventastega and Tiktaalik.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 10:28 PM, Warp wrote:
> When you really start to study how genes work, you start seeing that
> there is, in fact, no intelligent design behind it. No intelligent
> designer, no matter how incompetent, would be so sloppy and so lazy.
> A mindless process that's simply the by-product of natural laws is.
>
> On the positive side, genes are a marvelous example of emergent behavior
> in nature. Complexity arising from simple rules.

I'm sure a lot of people actually think that somewhere in your DNA is an 
encoded number that says how long your femur should be, what speed your 
heart should beat at, and various other technical data - you know, like 
a man-made blueprint would have on it. If only scientists could work out 
how do "decode" this information, we would then know everything there is 
to know about the human body. (Or, indeed, any other organism...)

What *actually* happens is that DNA encodes the instructions for 
building various different proteins, which - by a MIND-NUMBINGLY 
INDIRECT series of steps - results in something that has a recognisable 
form.

I guess it's a bit like an IFS. Take, for example, this famous example:

w 	a 	b 	c 	d 	e 	f 	p
ƒ1 	0 	0 	0 	0.16 	0 	0 	0.01
ƒ2 	0.85 	0.04 	−0.04 	0.85 	0 	1.6 	0.85
ƒ3 	0.2 	−0.26 	0.23 	0.22 	0 	1.6 	0.07
ƒ4 	−0.15 	0.28 	0.26 	0.24 	0 	0.44 	0.07

This doesn't describe any geometric shapes at all. It merely defines 
four spatial transformations. And yet, iteratively applying these 
transforms yields a strange attractor which looks strikingly like a fern 
leaf... even though there's no fern coordinates here.

It seems likely that an *actual* fern probably works the same way...

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 10:28 PM, Warp wrote:
> Genes are, ultimately, rather inefficient at "optimizing" an organism
> Evolution is all about compromises. The genetic code is very slow to
> change in the right way to do something efficiently.

I love the suggestion some people are making that maybe humans will 
"evolve" to be less fat.

This makes it sound as if "evolution" is some magical process whereby 
each time we reproduce, our DNA gets optimised to our situation, so that 
as generations pass, everybody slowly improves...

No, this is not how evolution works. When you say "humans will evolve to 
be less fat", what you're actually saying is "all the fat people will 
die". Because THAT has how evolution changes stuff.

Of course, we have all sorts of government institutions set up 
explicitly to PREVENT this mass death happening. Thus, humans will NOT 
in fact "evolve to be less fat". Because there's no selection pressure. 
Organisms only evolve to avoid stuff that kills them. If it's not fatal, 
it doesn't get fixed. And since humans no longer live in an environment 
where the weak perish and only the strong survive, evolution has little 
or nothing to do with it.

(OK, correction: It doesn't matter if it kills you or not. It matters if 
it stops you reproducing. Killing you is just the most obvious way to do 
that...)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I love the suggestion some people are making that maybe humans will 
> "evolve" to be less fat.

> This makes it sound as if "evolution" is some magical process whereby 
> each time we reproduce, our DNA gets optimised to our situation, so that 
> as generations pass, everybody slowly improves...

Indeed, genes do not "try" to do anything. They just change slightly with
each individual that's born. Whether those changes will be retained and
widespread throughout the population (during the next few thousands of
generations) depends on lots of things, but mostly on whether it helps the
individuals with that particular change to have a slight edge over those
who don't. (Although sometimes a change can be retained even if it's not
particularly beneficial, as long as it doesn't decrease survival rates.)

Another thing that many people don't understand is that a change in a
gene can have several consequences. The one and same mutation can cause
several effects, some of them can be beneficial and others neutral or
even detrimental. However, it sometimes happens that the benefit is greater
than the harm, in which case the change may get preserved and spread to
future generations. This is often the source of genetic mutations that
seem detrimental and hinder survival rates. On their own they may seem
contrary to natural selection, but more often than not, it's simply a case
of the same mutation causing both beneficial and detrimental changes at
the same time.

I have been thinking that humans have evolved to a point where rather
than becoming better, we may in fact be becoming worse. Because of
progress in healthcare, nutrition, and all other kinds of things that
help people survive, all kinds of detrimental changes to our genes are
not being removed from the gene pool, which means that over time our
genes will become more and more trash. I'm expecting that as further
thousands and thousands of generations pass, the number of genetic
disorders and diseases will only increase in prevalence, simply because
there's nothing removing them from the gene pool.

Basically the only hope we have is if medical science advances to the
point that we can fix those genetic disorders, and our moral philosophy
advances to the point where we allow ourselves to do so.

> No, this is not how evolution works. When you say "humans will evolve to 
> be less fat", what you're actually saying is "all the fat people will 
> die". Because THAT has how evolution changes stuff.

Actually, for humans to evolve to be less fat would require

1) for obesity to be an inherited trait (that can change without causing
   ancillary side-effects that are worse), and
2) for people with this trait to never reach a reproductive age.

Not very likely to happen.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> This makes it sound as if "evolution" is some magical process whereby
>> each time we reproduce, our DNA gets optimised to our situation, so that
>> as generations pass, everybody slowly improves...
>
> Indeed, genes do not "try" to do anything. They just change slightly with
> each individual that's born.

If anything, the only thing "deciding" what genes will go into the next 
generation is YOU - when you decide who to **** with. ;-)

> Another thing that many people don't understand is that a change in a
> gene can have several consequences.

Again, just like a fractal. But then, if you look at molecular biology, 
you discover that cortisol is a hormone, and also just happens to be a 
neurotransmitter too - how random is that? That's like making a 
telephone that's also a video camera - oh, wait...

> I have been thinking that humans have evolved to a point where rather
> than becoming better, we may in fact be becoming worse. Because of
> progress in healthcare, nutrition, and all other kinds of things that
> help people survive, all kinds of detrimental changes to our genes are
> not being removed from the gene pool, which means that over time our
> genes will become more and more trash. I'm expecting that as further
> thousands and thousands of generations pass, the number of genetic
> disorders and diseases will only increase in prevalence, simply because
> there's nothing removing them from the gene pool.

That's the idea I get too.

> Actually, for humans to evolve to be less fat would require
>
> 1) for obesity to be an inherited trait (that can change without causing
>     ancillary side-effects that are worse), and

I think it already is.

It is obvious that how fat you are depends on what you eat. But it is 
equally obvious that some people have more of a tendency to retain fat 
than others, or more of a drive to eat more. As with most things, it's 
partly genetic and partly environmental.

> 2) for people with this trait to never reach a reproductive age.

Well, technically we just need them to not reproduce - either by dying, 
or by failing to find a mate, or whatever.

But yes, I share your conclusion. Not likely.

Post a reply to this message

> (OK, correction: It doesn't matter if it kills you or not. It matters if
> it stops you reproducing. Killing you is just the most obvious way to do
> that...)

It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that fat people have fewer 
babies (for medical and social reasons).

Post a reply to this message

> It is obvious that how fat you are depends on what you eat.

And how active you are. Which both probably are linked to how your 
parents behave. Does an "inherited behaviour" count as evolution of the 
mind?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:21:50 +0100, scott wrote:

>> It is obvious that how fat you are depends on what you eat.
> 
> And how active you are. Which both probably are linked to how your
> parents behave. Does an "inherited behaviour" count as evolution of the
> mind?

There also is, from what I've read, a genetic component to it.  How the 
body processes nutrients can vary from person to person - otherwise 
there'd be a "perfect" diet that everyone could use (beyond "be 
sensible", that is).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> It is obvious that how fat you are depends on what you eat.
>>
>> And how active you are. Which both probably are linked to how your
>> parents behave. Does an "inherited behaviour" count as evolution of the
>> mind?
>
> There also is, from what I've read, a genetic component to it.  How the
> body processes nutrients can vary from person to person - otherwise
> there'd be a "perfect" diet that everyone could use (beyond "be
> sensible", that is).

I've read stories about how lab rats injected with certain hormones 
gorge themselves on fat, while if you inject them with different ones 
they prefer to feast on protein. It's entirely possible that there's a 
genetic component to your dietary preferences - and maybe even your 
level of physical activity. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that it's 
ALL genetics; the environmental factors are obvious for all to see. But 
I think there's certainly a genetic component to all of this.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I've read stories about how lab rats injected with certain hormones 
> gorge themselves on fat, while if you inject them with different ones 
> they prefer to feast on protein. It's entirely possible that there's a 
> genetic component to your dietary preferences - and maybe even your 
> level of physical activity. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that it's 
> ALL genetics; the environmental factors are obvious for all to see. But 
> I think there's certainly a genetic component to all of this.

And let's not forget, once again, that genes very seldom affect only one
thing. Most often they affect several things. People tend to think that
genes encode individual aspects of the human biology, and that you can
just "fine-tune" each individual aspect by tinkering with its correspondent
gene. But that's not how it usually works.

It's not impossible that the fact that our bodies tend to store all the
extra fat they can get rather than being "moderate" about it may be the
result of a gene that, if modified, would affect something else much more
negatively.

(Although it's also not impossible that "fixing" the obesity problem by
tinkering with the necessary gene could also have other beneficial
ancillary consequences. However, I would guess this to be unlikely
because if it were the case, it would have probably happened on its own
a long time ago.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8/28/2013 12:35 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-8-2013 23:09, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 8/27/2013 10:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> I was thinking more like if there was one member of the frog family
>>> which has five legs instead of the usual four, or something. THAT would
>>> be weird...
>> Yeah, well.. That isn't likely to happen, six maybe, since you have the
>> whole bi-lateral symmetry thing going on, but then, you would find that,
>> much like "missing" ones, the extras are either a) caused by
>> environmental toxins (common issue with frogs in fact), or b) a copying
>> on the genes needed to produce the limbs. Whether or not, without other
>> regulatory changes, you can get "functional" ones is another matter.
>
> During evolution, Nature does it the other way round. During the
> Devonian when lobe-finned bony fishes appeared and evolved into
> amphibians, Nature experimented with different possibilities. There were
> animals with 7 or more numbers of digits on their legs. Eventually, only
> the animals with 5 digits made it. All the others became extinct.
>
> Search for Acanthostega, Ventastega and Tiktaalik.
>
> Thomas
>
Think I covered that. You are talking about "digits", not "limbs". And, 
yeah, you can change the number of digits trivially, due to, as I said, 
them being coded so that you get, starting with the "thumb" as 0: build 
1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then... either stop and build 0, or keep 
adding on digits, until the "kill point", when the process stops making 
new digits, and goes back to finish with what, for us, is the "fifth", 
i.e., the thumb. The same code that allowed for 7 or more back then, 
still works the same now. It just hits the "stop" point in the cycle 
sooner. But, you can see from, for example, some cats, a case where you 
get 6 toes. Same thing, it start with 1, then goes up to 5, before going 
back to make '0', i.e., the analogous "thumb".

Post a reply to this message