Last Universal Common Ancestor

NovoJank said:
Please please please can we discuss science and stop insulting me? Just would feel a bit more interesting. I know attacking is more fun that thinking, but let's try the second for a bit, shall we?
Click to expand...
Anyone who lies to me is not to be trusted, Jank.
 
Matt Dillon said:
5ahtr.jpg
Click to expand...
I know why your head hurts, Matt.

7bup1n.jpg
 
NovoJank said:
You don't have to trust me. We’re talking science. You can verify everything I say.

Now, try posting some science instead of non-stop trolling attacks.
Click to expand...
First, people who use the Royal We on forums are almost always liars. You know I don’t trust liars.

Second, you’re lying about “talking science” as the quotes below from today prove:

NovoJank said:
Cypress defended God elsewhere. He even called me an antisemite for attempting to discuss the theological difficulties in the Old Testament around God's behavior there.
Click to expand...
NovoJank said:
It was several posts over in the middle of the "Religious Typology" thread in Off Topic. Sorry I am far too lazy to go find specific posts but it was a whole "thing" over there. Both Cypress and Doc Dutch got very worked up when I, in an attempt to make a larger point about religion, spent some time attempting to talk about the various "bad" things like God-ordained genocides and murder in the Old Testament and Cypress decided I was an antisemite and Doc Dutch decided I was a "violent atheist" and compared me to a "Nazi".

It was clear I had stepped on some closely held religious feelings for them.
Click to expand...
NovoJank said:
Well, it made me feel bad. I didn't realize that both of them would respond so negatively. As an atheist sometimes it is possible to accidentally step on sacred toes and tip some sacred cows, but I certainly didn't want to so egregiously insult them. Cypress still won't engage with me. I guess he felt he had said all he needed to by suggesting I was an antisemite.

Doc Dutch I don't pay much attention to, his game is clearly to annoy people. But it was a bit of a surprise to see how seriously he takes faith.
Click to expand...
NovoJank said:
When one calls suggests that someone is an "antisemite" when they talk about the theologically difficult issues in the Old Testament I think we can agree there's a bit more than "agnosticism" going on.
Click to expand...

In addition to being a liar, you are also a hypocrite, Jank. You go off-topic whenever you like than then castigate others for doing the same. If you are not a hypocrite, then what would you call it?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Which goes to prove you know more about chemistry than I do….at least the legal side of chemistry. LOL

Did your dad teach you any chemistry or was that the day when girls were expected to play with dolls?
Click to expand...

No, he didn't and you're right. Neither of my brothers were interested in his workshop, which had a ton of tools, a table saw, drills, and lots of other cool stuff that he used to build things, like the large hutch for our guinea pigs. I was interested in learning how to do that but mom said nope, not for girls, too dangerous. *sigh* He did explain stuff like how they get the different colors in fireworks, why mixing vinegar with baking soda is really cool as long as you do it when your mom's not home, and things like that.

I do know how to make extracts from botanicals, esp. the holy weed. And that Krebs cycle. lol
 
Doc Dutch said:
First, people who use the Royal We on forums are almost always liars. You know I don’t trust liars.

Second, you’re lying about “talking science” as the quotes below from today prove:






In addition to being a liar, you are also a hypocrite, Jank. You go off-topic whenever you like than then castigate others for doing the same. If you are not a hypocrite, then what would you call it?
Click to expand...

OK, so no science here. Just more attacks. It just never stops.

Too bad.
 
NovoJank said:
I generally disagree. Since biology is driven by chemistry I tend to think it impossible to discuss biology in any meaningful fashion without some reliance on chemistry. I see your point, though, it is possible to discuss the life cycle of a living thing without reliance on chemistry but often it is the result of chemistry.

When discussing the ORIGINS of life and the earliest life I find this topic EXTREMELY fascinating because the chemistry is no longer as simple as "living" vs "non-living". You are probably familiar with the "homochirality" of life here on earth. Basically many of the chemicals our bodies use (and that life across the spectrum on earth) relies on one enantiomer of chemical compounds. Some organic chemicals have "handedness", basically how functional groups are arranged around a C-center and one is like a right handed molecule and the other is the exact same chemicals just arranged in a "left handed" manner. But almost all life on earth prefers one chirality over another.

Some scientists think this could mean that the earliest life may have been using mineral surfaces like clays (phyllosilicates) or carbonates which preferentially adsorb some chiralities over others. At some point the whole concept of what is "living" breaks down. Early life shows a nice relationship with the inorganic world.



Krebs cycle is 100% chemistry. Painfully so.
Click to expand...

Which is why chemistry is required for most health care degrees, along with A&P.
 
Cypress said:
Nursing education, especially at the BsN and RN level seems to me to basically be a type of science education.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of science, and also psychology, gerontology, sociology, and the study of human lifespan and its mental/emotional/psychological changes from birth to death.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
No, he didn't and you're right. Neither of my brothers were interested in his workshop, which had a ton of tools, a table saw, drills, and lots of other cool stuff that he used to build things, like the large hutch for our guinea pigs. I was interested in learning how to do that but mom said nope, not for girls, too dangerous. *sigh* He did explain stuff like how they get the different colors in fireworks, why mixing vinegar with baking soda is really cool as long as you do it when your mom's not home, and things like that.

I do know how to make extracts from botanicals, esp. the holy weed. And that Krebs cycle. lol
Click to expand...
A lot of women of our generation are highly undereducated starting in their youth. My wife and mother had the same problem.

I had to look up Krebs cycle thus proving JPP can help educate its members. LOL

Yes, science can be dangerous.

3otl4r.gif
 
Doc Dutch said:
A lot of women of our generation are highly undereducated starting in their youth. My wife and mother had the same problem.

I had to look up Krebs cycle thus proving JPP can help educate its members. LOL

Yes, science can be dangerous.
Click to expand...

I bet you loved the Mythbusters too, didn't you?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
There is a lot of science, and also psychology, gerontology, sociology, and the study of human lifespan and its mental/emotional/psychological changes from birth to death.
Click to expand...

Education doesn't stop after college, which at least a dozen people on this board can attest to. :good4u:
 
Doc Dutch said:
Yes. While they knew more about the theoretical aspect, I loved the applied science aspect.
Click to expand...

They combined the two most excellently, didn't they? You weren't just entertained, you learned something! What a great show. And what a tragedy when Grant died, too. :(
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
They combined the two most excellently, didn't they? You weren't just entertained, you learned something! What a great show. And what a tragedy when Grant died, too. :(
Click to expand...
Excellent job and very inspirational for young and old alike to take an interest in science.

Agreed on Grant. His sudden passing reminded many that life is short so live every day like it’s your last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top