All plants are chimeras?

[lost in a sea]

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'.

its not my debate i buried the hatchet and apologised,, but here we are,, and no it is not just archeology, paleontology and geology that has gone down the road i am describing at all.. but im not opening new doors in this off course thread..

i agree with you there seamaiden,, and on many other points you have made i really do,, but this is not the subject to be discussing here or on the internet in general really,,

if people want this thread to go back on course then i had better end this with your help of course,,

and also its not like i want people to agree with me that is fine,, that is science..

 

[dizzlekush]

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.

Notice my word "accepts" and once its proven, isn't it no longer a theory, since theory is by definition unproven?... semantics, whats the f***ing point?

My apologies to Mad for my part in ruining this very interesting thread.

 

[lost in a sea]

if this is such an interesting subject then would someone post something relevent so the thread can supposedly be useful.

or when grumpy gus appears again ill get the blame lol (suppose it is my fault)

 

[SeaMaiden]

Not your fault, people have their moods irrespective of what you may or may not say, LiS. At least, that's my opinion on the matter.

Notice my word "accepts" and once its proven, isn't it no longer a theory, since theory is by definition unproven?... semantics, whats the f***ing point?

My apologies to Mad for my part in ruining this very interesting thread.

Whoa. I didn't intend for my post to become an indictment against you personally, it was an attempt, however lame, to educate any and every one reading this thread. However, it looks to me as though you're making the exact mistake I'm trying to point out should not be made--misinterpretation or mis-definition of a given term, in this case the word "theory". And, as evidenced by this post I think it's obvious that these types of issues in effective communication are very real.

I used a legal example, and a pertinent scientific example in my previous post in an attempt to illustrate my point. If you're in a court of law (or involved with some sort of legal issue), it's important to understand and fully grasp what's being said, the instructions given by the presiding judge, etc. If that gets you upset, I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

Laypeople often have a different understanding of a given word than the actual definition of that word within a particular context. It is true in the legal world, and it is true in the scientific world. That is a feature of semantics, and again, if that bothers you, I'm sorry, but that's not going to prevent me from pointing it out.

This post that you've made actually highlights my point better than I could have done on my own, so I thank you for that. Once a scientific principle, idea, concept, is proven through repeatable experiments, it is no longer a hypothesis, it is a theory.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html

http://ie499.yeralan.org/index.php?...e-difference-&catid=50:assignment-3&Itemid=56

In other words, in the scientific world, "theory", by definition, means exactly the opposite of what you're declaring it to be. You are making the exact mistake I say creationists make when discussing many aspects of science, especially as it may relate to religion. And that is part and parcel of semantics.

Those are the correct scientific terms that even laypeople should be using so that all understand precisely (or more precisely at least) what is being communicated. Again, that's semantics and it's yet another highlight of its importance in language and communication. Thus my previous comment about creationists and their misunderstanding of the scientific meaning of the word "theory" when they trot that out as good reason for discounting a well-proven theory.

Science would be much, much less a body of knowledge if precision in language and terminology weren't emphasized as they are, and should be, IMO.

 

[dizzlekush]

Seems like you dont understand the semantics of the word theory. A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena using more than just logical assumptions, as your links state. A thoery is also by definition, not a proven fact, again as your links state.

From your second link
"Unlike this, theory can be "false", and observations should be made".

So to further this discussion we would have to delve into the semantics of the work "proven". i consider something proven to be a fact, where theory again is not a fact, and therefore not proven. so what i originally stated was correct, and this 'argument' has been a waste of time and space.

this is a stupid discussion in an interesting thread. lets end it, shall we? I will not respond to any more silly responses, this whole page should be deleted.

 

[Nunsacred]

Inspiring stuff.
From time to time i end up in this pipe dream, what if animals, human race included, managed to upgrade their photosynthesis processes?!
Can you guys imagine the range of possibilities?!
Thanks for sharing the article Mad Librettist

Yeh I wonder about this too.
I suspect that there are alternatives out there, and that the current hybrid fusion(s) prevails here simply because it arrived here first......and so any alternatives would have to outcompete it to get established, which is prohibitively difficult to do.

Question I ponder is whether an alien-evolved alternative could arrive and thrive? Or arrive and merge.

I fear that if this were to happen it would reduce diversity and be very traumatic until equilibrium gets reached with it at last....

The appearance of plants with improved chloroplasts would probably be labelled 'invasive'.
Gymnosperms, angiosperms, pan micto sperms?

 

[headband 707]

Yeah but what about the part that the water came from space??? Now thats even weirder imho when you think of extremophiles. Yeah were here on this planet and boy did we screw it up lol peace out headband 707

 

[mad librettist]

The appearance of plants with improved chloroplasts would probably be labelled 'invasive'.

that would depend on how it affects those applying the label. recently introduced and naturalized organisms detrimental to the ecosystems that support me are called "invasive" -- by ME.