deleted for boring the op..
Last edited:
All plants are chimeras?
- Thread starter mad librettist
- Start date
What a disappointing hijack!
Lost in a sea, the real tragedy is how fucking boring you are.
Lost in a sea, the real tragedy is how fucking boring you are.
great!
for what its worth im sorry i took your thread off in a tangent,, i learnt all that stuff about prokaryotes and eukaryotes (to multicellular life) evolving so long ago that it bores me now,, and i was well caned,,
i could never hope to really explain what i mean here so im sorry i tried,, ill make sure i dont bore you again fella
ill even clear it up for ya..
for what its worth im sorry i took your thread off in a tangent,, i learnt all that stuff about prokaryotes and eukaryotes (to multicellular life) evolving so long ago that it bores me now,, and i was well caned,,
i could never hope to really explain what i mean here so im sorry i tried,, ill make sure i dont bore you again fella
ill even clear it up for ya..
Last edited:
great!
for what its worth im sorry i took your thread off in a tangent,, i learnt all that stuff about prokaryotes and eukaryotes (to multicellular life) evolving so long ago that it bores me now,, and i was well caned,,
i could never hope to really explain what i mean here so im sorry i tried,, ill make sure i dont bore you again fella
ill even clear it up for ya..
You didn't bother even reading the article, or you would have known we are talking about new research. perhaps since you long ago made up your mind about these things, you are likely unable to absorb the new information. The rest of us though, find this latest research to be fascinating.
YOU are talking about your very typical, very uninteresting personal sense of epistemology and metaphysics. I wish I had a dollar for everytime I heard an uninspired, closed minded, faith based jackass repeat your reasoning. Its not new, creative, or particularly intriguing. Its just boring.
This is the advanced botany forum. You are in the wrong place. You should go talk about this stuff with people who are interested. Here, we care about EVIDENCE, and we discuss the scientific topics related to botany and cultivation.
Can´t we all talk giraffe for a moment?
Can´t we all talk giraffe for a moment?
It´s Sunday so let´s all talk giraffe
[YOUTUBEIF]XBGlF7-MPFI[/YOUTUBEIF]
Again Mad Librettist many of us read the article and found it interesting and me personally i thank you for that
Lost in a Sea if you haven´t read the article yet you should, it might have something new in there, if not at least you got your gut feeling put to test
All the best for both of you and Happy Sunday to us all
Can´t we all talk giraffe for a moment?
It´s Sunday so let´s all talk giraffe
[YOUTUBEIF]XBGlF7-MPFI[/YOUTUBEIF]
Again Mad Librettist many of us read the article and found it interesting and me personally i thank you for that
Lost in a Sea if you haven´t read the article yet you should, it might have something new in there, if not at least you got your gut feeling put to test
All the best for both of you and Happy Sunday to us all
yes i really did read the article honestly,, its a piece of piss to understand because i was tought it and had to do work on the subject when i was learning about it,,,
really is facinating when you first consider this aspect of rapid evolution through mutation which is more responsible for the new life forms that have occurred on this planet than through darwins "survival of the fittest" model,,
im just sorry i went off on one without adding something relevent,, i didnt do it to piss anyone off i was really stoned,, and im better at talking about subjects like this than typing,,
this is early "evolutionary" stuff of plants/membrane bound organelles of course,, but there are other examples of this like near hydrothermal vents for example where many different species contain hydrogen sulphide fixing bacteria to remove electrons for their sustenance,,
how could so many different species evolve this ability(relationship) if it wasnt a similar symbiotic mutation or invasion by the hydrogen sulphide bacteria ?
but even this is off topic in a botany forum,,
judging from your words mad you have really got the complete wrong idea of me,, because you dont know the first thing about me, just making assumptions,,
again im sorry,,
really is facinating when you first consider this aspect of rapid evolution through mutation which is more responsible for the new life forms that have occurred on this planet than through darwins "survival of the fittest" model,,
im just sorry i went off on one without adding something relevent,, i didnt do it to piss anyone off i was really stoned,, and im better at talking about subjects like this than typing,,
this is early "evolutionary" stuff of plants/membrane bound organelles of course,, but there are other examples of this like near hydrothermal vents for example where many different species contain hydrogen sulphide fixing bacteria to remove electrons for their sustenance,,
how could so many different species evolve this ability(relationship) if it wasnt a similar symbiotic mutation or invasion by the hydrogen sulphide bacteria ?
but even this is off topic in a botany forum,,
judging from your words mad you have really got the complete wrong idea of me,, because you dont know the first thing about me, just making assumptions,,
again im sorry,,
Don´t beat yourself my dear off topics are a essential part of Life.
Can you imagine a Life made only of straight&paved paths?
One question comes to my mind from time to time...what was the trigger that starts most symbiotic relations? Does communication has a role on it?
Two questions after all
Can you imagine a Life made only of straight&paved paths?
One question comes to my mind from time to time...what was the trigger that starts most symbiotic relations? Does communication has a role on it?
Two questions after all
i just feel sleezy lol,,
i didnt think i was "closed minded" or "faith based",, that was actually the opposite of what i was trying(badly failing obviously) to say,,
so ill just continue to say sorry lol
i didnt think i was "closed minded" or "faith based",, that was actually the opposite of what i was trying(badly failing obviously) to say,,
so ill just continue to say sorry lol
One question comes to my mind from time to time...what was the trigger that starts most symbiotic relations? Does communication has a role on it?
Two questions after all
that is one of the biggest questions in science,,
it obviously has to be rapid, because it isnt a selection process per se,, though instantly that individual can survive and pass on their genes,,
i would imagine quick changes in environmental conditions create the right situation,,
DNAs response to these changes must play a huge part in how the relationship starts,,
a few other examples in the same field would be corals which are both animal and plant in nature through a relationship with algae (which has been done with species of many types),, also interesting things like puffer fish that arent poisonous until they eat the bacteria that produces the poison then it lives in them,,
and many organisms can eat another that has cells such as nematocytes and simply use that cell for its own self defence,,
Not to mention the human body, which depends on bacteria from before birth.
Babies actually have special bacteria to help them eat milk, which are absent in adults. No one has figured out how they get in the babies in the first place.
There are even documented cases of reversing obesity by transplanting fecal matter from a healthy person into a patient's intestine.
Re: going on tangents - that depends on the tangent.
Babies actually have special bacteria to help them eat milk, which are absent in adults. No one has figured out how they get in the babies in the first place.
There are even documented cases of reversing obesity by transplanting fecal matter from a healthy person into a patient's intestine.
Re: going on tangents - that depends on the tangent.
yeah just forget it, i said im sorry ok,, and to be honest a great many scientists would get what i was saying,, and it isnt an old arguement at all, as you put it, because it wasnt even really a reality until the last 50-100 years,,
anyway remember this is a stoner site and i have alot of knowledge into many fields, its hard to control what my brain wants to do, but i will try harder to not screw a thread up like this again,,
anyway remember this is a stoner site and i have alot of knowledge into many fields, its hard to control what my brain wants to do, but i will try harder to not screw a thread up like this again,,
about what science being a cult? or pointless to waste time on something that we will not be able to prove for a very very long time?
shhhh!
the op will kill you!! (sorry mad
)
tangent thread,,
most bacteria that we kill off our bodies and from our guts have spent millions of years in a symbiotic relationship with us,,
now we are tilting the scales more towards exotic diseases that would normally be out competed by our natural micro fauna,, meaning future epidemics are more likely to be caused by over the top hygiene than the other way round,,
doesnt have anything to do with botany again but its science,,
the op will kill you!! (sorry mad
)tangent thread,,
most bacteria that we kill off our bodies and from our guts have spent millions of years in a symbiotic relationship with us,,
now we are tilting the scales more towards exotic diseases that would normally be out competed by our natural micro fauna,, meaning future epidemics are more likely to be caused by over the top hygiene than the other way round,,
doesnt have anything to do with botany again but its science,,
S
SeaMaiden
Punctuated equilibrium is what you're describing, and it fits into Darwin's theory very well. Evolution isn't always or necessarily a geologically slow process.
Also, regarding science and scientists, I'll simply say that denigration of them as a whole bothers me, and I'll explain why. I was raised by scientists, a radiologist (medical doctor) and a dietitian (food and human nutrition sciences). I was raised to have an inquiring mind and to use critical thinking skills, and those who've gotten to know me well at all know well that I question EVERYTHING. If it's dogmatic, I question it. If my questions are well answered, the dogma remains.
I also happen to have several friends who are scientists, and one of them is searching for the origins of life using hammerhead shark RNA. If you knew this man, if you knew his family history, if you knew anything about him at all, you wouldn't say or even suggest the things that I've been reading you saying. I have another acquaintance who is a paleoclimatologist, both met through another hobby that requires a heavy understanding of science to do well--reefkeeping.
And so, I find it difficult not to take umbrage when you decry an entire school of thought simply because some of them are bought and paid for by business interests. Not all are, and there are still plenty in this world who have this thing called integrity. I can assure you my parents absolutely have maintained their integrity, though I know it matters not, and I believe that my acquaintances also have well demonstrated their integrity, so your words cause me some degree of chagrin.
it (obviously) wasnt aimed at you nor the entire scientific community 
i explained my position and that it was a mistake to go about what i said the way i did,, and in this thread, that was wrong as well,,
i never speak in generalisations even when it seems that way,,
i explained my position and that it was a mistake to go about what i said the way i did,, and in this thread, that was wrong as well,,
i never speak in generalisations even when it seems that way,,
S
SeaMaiden
Ok, LiS, I appreciate those words. However, what you wrote does read as an indictment upon the entire scientific community as a whole. Just sayin'.
There are also major differences between science and scientific thought vs religion, the most important being that religion requires faith to believe something unprovable and entirely subjective, whereas science is malleable and provable and via instruments can be made entirely objective, and there is no requirement to believe.
All of it! I disagree with all of that. I have an idea of how many people within given sciences can be, for instance, archaeologists. Come up with a theory that can be torn apart and that IS what they'll do. To the point almost of fisticuffs (perhaps even to that point). This behavior is seen in many other sciences, and it makes sense to me because we are all still emotional beings and so I can understand how a scientist (person) can become absorbed and involved and truly invested in an idea.
There are also major differences between science and scientific thought vs religion, the most important being that religion requires faith to believe something unprovable and entirely subjective, whereas science is malleable and provable and via instruments can be made entirely objective, and there is no requirement to believe.
have to agree to disagree there though,,
i dont like how many unproven notions are taken as gospel by the scientific community as a whole though that doesnt include a great many people,,, it has its (current) curriculum and people blindly follow it..
emotional beings or not, science is supposed to be objective.
you hit something there,,, "religion requires faith"
that is exactly my point,,, science has begun (a little while ago) to require faith in unprovable dogma..
scientists are struck off and discredited everyday for proposing very important alternative arguements..
^^ that is a crime and for me signals the death of it as an open minded search for truth.
i dont like how many unproven notions are taken as gospel by the scientific community as a whole though that doesnt include a great many people,,, it has its (current) curriculum and people blindly follow it..
emotional beings or not, science is supposed to be objective.
you hit something there,,, "religion requires faith"
that is exactly my point,,, science has begun (a little while ago) to require faith in unprovable dogma..
scientists are struck off and discredited everyday for proposing very important alternative arguements..
^^ that is a crime and for me signals the death of it as an open minded search for truth.
dizzlekush
Member
Science only accepts "unproven notions" as theories, are not stated as facts, and such theories are only taught when it is necessary to further improve science. Would you have the Wright Brothers hold off on aviation since gravity is still just a theory? Tesla to hold off on electricity/magnetism since all Leptons were just theories?
The one area of science where you opinion is actually somewhat correct is archeology, but that has nothing to do with growing cannabis so there is no reason to waste a perfectly good thread on your debate on the 'quackery of science'.
S
SeaMaiden
Read my above (edited) article, lost. The concept that life began NOT in the seas, but in pools of freshwater, is another dogma-smashing idea. Yet the researchers have presented a very cogent argument in favor of the idea.
S
SeaMaiden
Unproven ideas in science are called 'hypothesis', whereas proven ones are 'theory'. This is the linguistic disconnect between the scientific community and laypeople.
THIS is why creationists love to say, "Oh! But if evolution were proven why is it still called a THEORY?? Huh?"
"Well, ya moron, that's because calling it a theory means that it's been proven to a large extent, and the theory will always be malleable."
It's exactly like legal language. Legally, in a court, to make an argument is to make a point, irrespective of whether or not you're being 'argumentative'. Disconnect between the legally accepted definition of the word vs the layperson's definition of the word.
Being a lay-archaeology buff, I would suggest that it's as scientific a method as could be devised considering the subjects being studied. There are certainly more objective methods and methodology coming out in the field every day and about the only thing we can't yet do is get inside the heads of our ancestors.
Semantics--I haz 'em.
