Last Universal Common Ancestor

Phantasmal said:
Good grief, everyone is a sock to you.
Click to expand...
You aren’t. TOW isn’t. Cypress isn’t. Even TOP isn’t.

Despite the use of VPNs, you’re in a better position to identify socks than I am. I simply go by behavioral characteristics. The same way I identify Moon, LV426 and Biden President as having feminine personalities. They may or may not actually have female genitalia, but their behavior indicates to me they are more feminine that masculine.

Same goes for identifying those who have mental issues. Notice that, as much as I disagree with Fat Boy Stone, I’ve never labeled him as being mentally ill like I’ve done with Mason and Sybil. Most of the geezers like Truth Detector, Grok (who may have switched accounts or died) and TDAK are just angry old men in fear of their own demise.

Could I be wrong? Of course. Could I be right? I think so. There’s no way to know for sure so I go with my operating theory. Might others believe I’m a wackadoodle? Certainly and that’s their choice to believe.
 
Cypress said:
You might actually have a promising career writing for The Onion.
Click to expand...

You'll probably make some peanuts shilling for Climate Scientists and Democrats on internet bulletin boards.

I got a real job, though. :cool:

I don't really think you're a paid shill..much. Well 20% maybe. :dunno:

Not like guno or Margot or midcan5 who I KNOW are paid shills. Nah, this is you, posting about stuff you feel is relevant.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
You definitely don't have to be an astronomer or geneticist to discuss those very interesting scientific topics.

Science is so specialized that anyone outside their area of specialized expertise is going to have to rely on science journalism to keep abreast of scientific developments. As a general rule, nobody except those engaged in active research or in grad school are reading research papers in a academic journals
Click to expand...
I’ve enjoyed these conversations and often learned from them. If not directly from you and others then by researching on my own to clarify thoughts or relearn past subjects.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Is that the reason we have "Fact-Checkers", too?

Is everyone fucking intellectually lazy now?
Click to expand...
You would barely understand a word written in a high end genetics research paper published in an academic scientific journal. And neither would I.

Academic research papers are written for highly specialized groups of scientists who know the jargon, the math, the methods, the scope and depth of current research questions.

Albert Einstein's landmark 1905 paper on special relativity was read and understood probably by less than 100 people at the time.

That's why we have science journalism. Its the only feasible way for educated people to keep abreast of scientific research
 
NovoJank said:
And you are still woefully mistaken. There's as many folks suggesting Perry Phimosis is YOUR sock as there are people suggesting he's my sock. I don't know why that would be. Maybe it's because his posting style is far more like yours. Aggressive, angry often. Rude. You know the drill.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. Many folks? I’d ask you to name three, but it would be a waste of time.

Perry is a Putz. Do you agree?
 
Cypress said:
You would barely understand a word written in a high end genetics research paper published in an academic scientific journal. And neither would I.

Academic research papers are written for highly specialized groups of scientists who know the jargon, the math, the methods, the scope and depth of current research questions.

Albert Einstein's landmark 1905 paper on special relativity was read and understood probably by less than 100 people at the time.

That's why we have science journalism. Its the only feasible way for educated people to keep abreast of scientific research
Click to expand...

Gonna have to disagree there, but thank you for your opinion.
 
Doc Dutch said:
More likely the “fact checker” for Newsmax or OANN. :thup:
Click to expand...

I could be a "fact-checker" for anyone, Dutchess.

kennypower-FU.gif


Benefits of a Liberal Education via The Socratic method, brah.

think-emoji.gif
 
Cypress said:
You definitely don't have to be an astronomer or geneticist to discuss those very interesting scientific topics.

Science is so specialized that anyone outside their area of specialized expertise is going to have to rely on science journalism to keep abreast of scientific developments. As a general rule, nobody except those engaged in active research or in grad school are reading research papers in a academic journals
Click to expand...

Why do you not want to discuss the science of Si and C chemistry then? You brought up the topic and the minute someone came along with a few points about the common chemistry (that's why they are in the same group on the Periodic Table) you run away and discuss anything but that.
 
NovoJank said:
I have no area of expertise. I just appear to know more than Cypress does. This is not uncommon. It explains why he won't actually discuss any chemical science in detail. It isn't his area either.
Click to expand...
There’s only two accounts on this forum that ever used the term “geochem” (or geochemistry); you and Perry the Putz.

Why do you think that is true, Jank?
 
Doc Dutch said:
There’s only two accounts on this forum that ever used the term “geochem” (or geochemistry); you and Perry the Putz.

Why do you think that is true, Jank?
Click to expand...

It is an EXTREMELY common designation.

Is this as close to any actual chemical discussion we are going to get from you?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Maybe it’s because I’m a violent agnostic who thinks antisemites are silly, spineless simpletons. In short, because you’re here.
Click to expand...

Let me help you then. Try this: "Novo, what about the difference in bond enthalpies between C-C bonds and Si-O bonds? Won't that be a problem for making life out of Si-O molecules?"

Or, how about,

"Novo, what about borane based life forms? Or S based biochem?"

ANYTHING related to science might be valuable at the point. Care to give it a go?
 
NovoJank said:
It is an EXTREMELY common designation.

Is this as close to any actual chemical discussion we are going to get from you?
Click to expand...
Only in your narrow field of science.

Aside from drugs and explosives? Yes. Note that this is primarily a biology discussion, not your geochem one no matter how much you’d love it to become about your field of expertise.
 
Cypress said:
There are no elements, even silicon, that have the properties of carbon in being able to covalently bond large, complex chains of polymers together.

It really just makes sense, in the absence of additional information, to search for carbon based life by looking for biosignatures of carbon life
Click to expand...

"Indeed, not even silicon—though it is at the center of an enormous range of inorganic compounds—can compete with carbon in its ability to form arrangements of atoms in various shapes and sizes, and hence to participate in an almost limitless array of compounds. The reason, in large part, is that carbon atoms are much smaller than those of silicon, and thus can bond to one another and still leave room for other bonds."

http://www.scienceclarified.com/eve...ol-1/Polymers-How-it-works.html#ixzz7ttDQepuI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top