Author Topic: Episode #255  (Read 7609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1618
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2010, 07:09:25 AM »
The soy comment was offhand and meant to be ironic - but it is based on real research and concerns.

At present the research is just at the "serious concerns" level, not proven harm. Lots of animal data, not much human data. There is probably a real hormonal effect, but net clinical effects still need to be worked out.

Probably worth a follow up next week.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Oolon Colluphid

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2010, 07:57:47 AM »
Somebody please animate a scaly hand reaching up out of that hell hole!


I knock up a quick pic


Offline Evil Eye

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13162
  • THINK!
    • http://www.evileyemonster.com
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2010, 08:16:27 AM »


WTN Theremin?


Pamelia Kurstin: Theremin, the untouchable music
"We'll get that information to you later" - Richard Feynman to Mr. Rodgers.

Offline mindme

  • Dapper Gent
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6482
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2010, 08:42:31 AM »
Regarding building your own genome and stripping out what we think is junk DNA to lend evidence to the notion that some or most of our genome is junk. It seems logical if you remove the junk and the organism gets on fine, that's evidence it was junk. For example, I remove the windshield wiper fluid reserve and my car seems to do quite fine when I take it out to a test track on a sunny day. But when I take my car out into the real world and it rains, I realize suddenly what I thought was junk isn't junk. So the argument goes, the junk DNA may have a function in the real world but we just haven't figure out what the real world situation is.

I'll grant you I think you could simulate bacteria in the real world pretty darn accurately.

"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Online seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 26518
  • My homunculus is firing rockets at Israel.
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2010, 09:05:16 AM »
Somebody please animate a scaly hand reaching up out of that hell hole!


I knock up a quick pic



Nice :dance:
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
  • mooh
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2010, 09:15:03 AM »
Regarding building your own genome and stripping out what we think is junk DNA to lend evidence to the notion that some or most of our genome is junk. It seems logical if you remove the junk and the organism gets on fine, that's evidence it was junk. For example, I remove the windshield wiper fluid reserve and my car seems to do quite fine when I take it out to a test track on a sunny day. But when I take my car out into the real world and it rains, I realize suddenly what I thought was junk isn't junk. So the argument goes, the junk DNA may have a function in the real world but we just haven't figure out what the real world situation is.

I'll grant you I think you could simulate bacteria in the real world pretty darn accurately.

Well, one thing you can do (with rapidly reproducing organisms like bacteria, anyway) is look at how well certain sequences are preserved in the population over the course of generations, which gives an indication of how important they are to successful reproduction (or, by extension, survival).
Mooohn!

Offline Evil Eye

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13162
  • THINK!
    • http://www.evileyemonster.com
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2010, 10:14:55 AM »
Regarding building your own genome and stripping out what we think is junk DNA to lend evidence to the notion that some or most of our genome is junk. It seems logical if you remove the junk and the organism gets on fine, that's evidence it was junk. For example, I remove the windshield wiper fluid reserve and my car seems to do quite fine when I take it out to a test track on a sunny day. But when I take my car out into the real world and it rains, I realize suddenly what I thought was junk isn't junk. So the argument goes, the junk DNA may have a function in the real world but we just haven't figure out what the real world situation is.

I'll grant you I think you could simulate bacteria in the real world pretty darn accurately.

While I agree with the fact that "junk" DNA is not in fact "junk"... I disagree that you find that when something is missing, the performance fails.

The blade from my windshield wiper rotted off, but the rubber that blade was part of remains, and my windshield wiper still works fine. As a matter of fact, having flat rubber on the glass instead of a blade works better with heavy rain than the blade did.
"We'll get that information to you later" - Richard Feynman to Mr. Rodgers.

Offline Jay

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2010, 10:17:21 AM »
Heh...nice photoshop :)
I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it. - Ford Prefect  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Offline Trinoc

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3975
  • Dumb, in a pocket, and proud of it.
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2010, 11:02:33 AM »
Did anyone understand the objection one of the rogues had to semi-skimmed milk? What is so difficult about the concept of whole milk (~4% fat), fully skimmed milk (as little fat as practicable), and semi-skimmed (~2% fat) for people who want to have less fat but don't want to lose the fat taste of milk completely? I can't see why anyone would regard that as deceptive.
I'm a skeptic. Not a "skepdude". Not a "man skeptic". Just a skeptic.

Offline Mr. Crowe

  • Resident Supergenius and Seaborne Pillager
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • Just zis guy, you know?
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2010, 11:24:03 AM »
Did anyone understand the objection one of the rogues had to semi-skimmed milk? What is so difficult about the concept of whole milk (~4% fat), fully skimmed milk (as little fat as practicable), and semi-skimmed (~2% fat) for people who want to have less fat but don't want to lose the fat taste of milk completely? I can't see why anyone would regard that as deceptive.

I totally got that, because it is deceptive. If you don't know better, you think 2% means 2% of the fat that's in whole milk. That would be something. But then you find out that it means 2% total fat, and that whole milk is only 3 or 4% to begin with. Big deal.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the Universe."
~Carl Sagan

Offline Lukas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3234
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #55 on: June 07, 2010, 11:28:12 AM »
Did anyone understand the objection one of the rogues had to semi-skimmed milk? What is so difficult about the concept of whole milk (~4% fat), fully skimmed milk (as little fat as practicable), and semi-skimmed (~2% fat) for people who want to have less fat but don't want to lose the fat taste of milk completely? I can't see why anyone would regard that as deceptive.

I totally got that, because it is deceptive. If you don't know better, you think 2% means 2% of the fat that's in whole milk. That would be something. But then you find out that it means 2% total fat, and that whole milk is only 3 or 4% to begin with. Big deal.

Really, people understand it that way? That just means that they don't know how to read labels. There is no deception involved in the advertising or labeling of 2% milk at all. But it is all moot, since the only real milk is whole, skim milk could just as well be colored water. I am always amazed by people who are so obsessed with fat and calories that they seem to abandon all matters of taste...

Offline whebden

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #56 on: June 07, 2010, 12:20:45 PM »
Who's that noisy:  Those are the sounds of hell that were uncovered by Siberian drillers who dug too deep.  Fitting, given the Guatemala sink hole "gates of hell" articles appearing everywhere.

HELLSOUND FROM SIBERIA DIGGINGS

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
  • mooh
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #57 on: June 07, 2010, 12:42:20 PM »
I was thinking the same thing at first since I'd never actually heard the hell-sound, but I don't think it sounds much like the noisy on the podcast.

Also: dammit, I just suggested that vid to Evan for a future WTN. }|:op
Mooohn!

Offline craig

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2800
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2010, 12:44:29 PM »
First, let me say that I can't believe that noboby mentioned the giant Horta theory for the Guatamalan sinkhole.  It seems obvious to me ;)

Second, after over 2,000 posts here I feel that it is time to make my first unreasonably pedantic rant post:

Stop saying a bacteria!!!!  The singular is bacterium dammit!

Thanks. I feel better now :)
"Why ya gotta act like you know when you don't know....It's okay if you don't know everything." --- Ben Folds

Offline Old Hoplite

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Molon Labe
Re: Episode #255
« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2010, 12:57:39 PM »
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I propose a simple plan to solve all the issues that arose in this episode.
Use the X-37b Space Plane to fly to Mars, fueled by artificial bacteria producing hydrogen, flown by fine young US Air Force pilots drinking WHOLE milk, collect Phobos, drag it to the Earth to plug the Guatemala sinkhole, thus preventing the invasion of the Mole men, or the Hortas.


 
Beer is proof God loves us. Ben Franklin

 

personate-rain
personate-rain