Author Topic: Episode #603  (Read 2333 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sawyer

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2017, 10:37:21 PM »
[Trump] should be your number one priority. Dedicate your entire show to attacking him if necessary!

Please don't. Can we have somewhere that is Trump free or at least Trump lite. One (or at worst 2) segment(s) a month will do.

I know it is easy for me to ignore him (and I do), from the opposite side of the world, but there is other stuff happening in the world. Good and bad.

Of course there is, but acupuncture and homeopathy studies are low-hanging fruit and pale in importance in comparison to the damage that Trump is doing. Trying to cure colic with acupuncture may be dumb, but it's also relatively harmless.

Trump is an inconvenient truth, as it were. Better get used to it.

I'm having a hard time believing the SGU has a single listener that doesn't already know Donald Trump's abysmal record on science, rationalism, and basic human dignity.  I seriously doubt expanding a 10 minute segment to 90 minutes is going to tell us anything we don't already know.

I think I complained during the dry spell from November to December when there was zero discussion of Trump.  I'm quite happy with the balance they've arrived at now.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9696
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2017, 12:18:34 AM »
WTN: Is that a pulsar?

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5164
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2017, 09:25:43 AM »
[Trump] should be your number one priority. Dedicate your entire show to attacking him if necessary!

Please don't. Can we have somewhere that is Trump free or at least Trump lite. One (or at worst 2) segment(s) a month will do.

I know it is easy for me to ignore him (and I do), from the opposite side of the world, but there is other stuff happening in the world. Good and bad.

Of course there is, but acupuncture and homeopathy studies are low-hanging fruit and pale in importance in comparison to the damage that Trump is doing. Trying to cure colic with acupuncture may be dumb, but it's also relatively harmless.

Trump is an inconvenient truth, as it were. Better get used to it.

I'm having a hard time believing the SGU has a single listener that doesn't already know Donald Trump's abysmal record on science, rationalism, and basic human dignity.  I seriously doubt expanding a 10 minute segment to 90 minutes is going to tell us anything we don't already know.

I think I complained during the dry spell from November to December when there was zero discussion of Trump.  I'm quite happy with the balance they've arrived at now.

Agree 100%. They should have discussed him during the election. This episode they did an excellent job. I would not be able to continue listening if the show was 90 minutes of Trump, Trump, Trump.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4307
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2017, 11:57:07 AM »

 I would not be able to continue listening if the show was 90 minutes of Trump, Trump, Trump.

There are much better informed and incisive podcasts by people that know what they are talking about for that.  Same goes for most of the science subjects they talk about, though.
"Our minds are not quite designed to understand how the world works, but, rather, to get out of trouble rapidly an have progeny."  Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Offline AmericanMustache

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2017, 07:36:33 PM »
Steve, where did you get the data that says 1911 was the last coldest year on record? I am having trouble verifying a consensus on this information. Thank you.

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2017, 08:49:21 PM »
Steve, where did you get the data that says 1911 was the last coldest year on record? I am having trouble verifying a consensus on this information. Thank you.

NASA's records puts 1911 as the 2nd coldest since 1880. They have 1909 as the coldest in that period.

Raw data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/




Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2017, 08:54:29 PM »
I agree with Daniel and Sawyer-- the last episode seemed like a very good balance. Acknowledge the travesties that are happening for 5-10 minutes. Then move on, and let us all cherish an hour or so of thinking of something else. Ignoring the consequences of the administration's actions would be unconscionable, but talking about them for an hour and a half would be rough.

Offline AtheistApotheosis

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2017, 04:09:25 AM »
You only need to look at Australian wildlife extinctions since European settlement to see how bad this Human caused mass extinction event is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia

My own small state has lost several large species and we could lose our most iconic. The Tasmanian Devil is on the endangered list because of facial cancer.

The rogues mentioned the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) and how it has been claimed to have been sighted many times since the last recorded one in the 1930s.
I do think it could have survived for a few decades after that. Most of the southwest of Tasmania is thick rainforest that is hard country to explore.

But with the searches that have gone on since the 70s and the building of roads into that area since, I think we would have found them, or evidence, by now, if they were still around.

The Thylacine is one of the few extinct animals where there is enough preserved DNA for it to be resurrected. The DNA is complete but fragmented. Geneticists can study the genomes of these animals now in the lab though they a long way of from producing a living animal. There has been an on and off cloning project since 1999, it's currently on hold. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/02/15/1302459.htm The technology isn't there yet but who knows what will be possible in the next decade. But to be honest I really want to see a mammoth, or an eight foot tall carnivorous kangaroo with fangs. http://www.aussiebushadventures.com.au/blog.php?id=40 Or even one of these. http://www.snopes.com/2016/03/28/new-fossils-found-unicorns/ And people think that drop bears were just something we made up. http://thagomizers.tumblr.com/post/36276781471/thylacoleo-carnifex-pouch-lion check out thumbs in the second picture, these predators were serious tree climbers. I grew up in central NSW where there were regular Thylacine sightings in the area up to the 1970's. Mind you there are still the odd reports of tiger sightings allong with yowies, panthers, UFO's and giant opals. Actually the yowie is described by some Aboriginal elders to be a tribe of people covered with hair, similar to people with hypertrichosis. Rather than the popular image of hairy giant humanoids like sasquatch or yeti. It was probably a genetic disorder that ran in one particular family that died out before or not long after the first settlers arrived. The hairy people from TV series Cleverman are based on the yowie. Of course the real ones if they existed, probably didn't have superhuman strength and weird eyes. http://www.oddee.com/item_97812.aspx. I have always suspected most myths have a greater basis in truth than we realise, due to the fact that most human beings suffer from a severe lack of imagination or original thought. Just take a good look at what comes out of Hollywood these days.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 05:27:45 AM by AtheistApotheosis »

Offline 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2017, 08:59:40 AM »
It seems pointless to bring back any extinct species in the next few decades, maybe centuries, until we can provide a stable climate and an environment close to what they're adapted to, and can prevent humans from messing it up in the foreseeable future.

I'm glad we have breeding programs for siberian tigers and such, as long as we can keep a viable population of them we're ready for when/if we do become able to leave them alone in the wild. But if we have to start entirely from scratch, I don't see that we have anything to gain by doing it before we have somewhere for them to thrive. Other than developing the technology and the process, which we can do with extant species too.

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2017, 10:00:05 AM »
It seems pointless to bring back any extinct species in the next few decades, maybe centuries, until we can provide a stable climate and an environment close to what they're adapted to, and can prevent humans from messing it up in the foreseeable future.

The habitat of the Tasmanian Tiger is now a World Heritage protected area with very little access. Almost a quarter of the whole state.
I live just north of this area and even our non-protected area is sparsely populated and suitable for them as well.

We could fit 1000s of them there easily. There is plenty of wildlife for them to hunt and eat. We are not short on wallabies and other smaller mammals they eat.

Offline 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2017, 11:28:44 AM »
Maybe I was little too sweeping in my statement. The more recent extinctions in the areas with the least explosive human populations are probably the ones to go for undoing first.

Though at twice the population density of Tasmania, here in Norway we appear to be above the threshold of tolerating predator species, and can't have even tens of wolves without movements of people calling for them to be killed.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 11:31:46 AM by 2397 »

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5164
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2017, 11:50:36 AM »
The Thylacine is one of the few extinct animals where there is enough preserved DNA for it to be resurrected. The DNA is complete but fragmented. ...

Would it really be the same species if the mitochondrial DNA comes from the animal that donated the egg cell? Presumably, with different kinds of mitochondria in a cell (?) it would be a daunting task to substitute original DNA into all the egg's mitochondria, even assuming they have it.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11433
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2017, 11:56:04 AM »
The Thylacine is one of the few extinct animals where there is enough preserved DNA for it to be resurrected. The DNA is complete but fragmented. ...

Would it really be the same species if the mitochondrial DNA comes from the animal that donated the egg cell? Presumably, with different kinds of mitochondria in a cell (?) it would be a daunting task to substitute original DNA into all the egg's mitochondria, even assuming they have it.
IMHO, the answer to this is an unequivocal yes, given that our cellular DNA is more closely related to chimps DNA than it is to our own mitochondrial DNA. 

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5730
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2017, 02:43:35 AM »


Scale armour is ancient. The Romans called it lorica squamata.

Offline RWFarley

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #603
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2017, 07:12:38 PM »
Pedantic niggle -  The predecessor to NASA {NAH Suh} was the NACA {En Ay See Ay} not NAH-Kuh. Good teaching point in the grammar of indefinite articles.  It's not the letter it's the pronunciation. "A NASA report was a reprint of AN NACA report"


 

personate-rain