John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by John Cuthber

  1. What is it with physics and barbecues? Back in 1957 some physicists discovered that red hot carbon burns if you blow air through it It seems that not everyone is aware of this fact "The carbon nano tubes would form the leading edges and be heated by the lasers, to a very high temperature" Woosh! (once)
  2. What might be considered "practical" would be the idea that, if we could work out which young people were going to continue in their medical careers for longest, we could focus training on them. But choosing sex as a proxy for that "career length" is discriminatory. Also, as has been pointed out, there's an aging population. That gives people longer careers. So the "time out" raising a family becomes less significant as a fraction of the whole career. Parents can return to medical practice after raising kids. So, the given "reason" for the biassed choice doesn't actually make sense. The only way that prejudicing the system against women can be made to look "sensible" is to distort the effects of an aging population.
  3. Slavery was practical... As far as I can tell, the students pay the university.
  4. I'm trying to get back to the topic; specifically the bit that you posted and which is missing. What did it say?
  5. What did anyone delete? It's extraordinary for this site to delete stuff.
  6. OK, let's try again. Now, given that StringJunky's comment "Confucius says: "Man with watch always knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure." wasn't made because he lacks the intellect to recognise that Confucius didn't have a watch, it can't be intellect shaming to comment on it. SJ's intellect was never in dispute here. So, perhaps, Allthechemist could ignore the bit that's explicitly OT, and address the other point which Swansont and I raised. It's not an issue of practicality.
  7. No, it's attributed to Jesus, but it's a quote from Matthew. Chapter 4i
  8. Not that I'm aware of. This is apparently his idea of an opening gambit. Two of us disputed it... The contention was made that the behaviour was simply "practical". and
  9. I can see why you have an issue with It's not an "excuse", it's reality. It really was a pretty obvious (if poor) joke. Anyone who did any research and looked at my previous posts would see that my humour is often a bit obscure and/ or blunt. That's a dreadful misrepresentation. Gandhi would have used the proper plural; "fora". I may have underestimated your potential with respect to irony. No, it really is called irony.
  10. I made a joke about a joke. What I am having trouble with is you not recognising that. Aha! You don't understand irony. OK, go + look it up. No, you plainly do not, or you would be able to make the distinction. My word! How did that happen? Could it be because someone ignored the meat of a post and decided to go on a crusade about a trivial joke about a joke?
  11. What's that meant to mean?
  12. That's two different things. Yes, people who talk about "a gene for whatever", unless they are using it as shorthand, or where "whatever" is a single protein are wrong. But, as I keep asking, if the "design" isn't in the genome, where is it? The link's indirect, but the genes really do make pretty much everything.
  13. The OP's contention is And, for that to be true the information has to be stored somewhere else. Where is it? It's tautological to say it's in the proteins etc because the proteins are made according to the DNA blueprint. Some proteins fold themselves into vitally important configurations- they do that because the sequence - lain down in the DNA means that's the lowest energy state and they "fall" into it. Some proteins need accessory molecules to fold them. Well guess where the instructions for those accessories are... Saying "There needs to be protein (etc) infrastructure to read the DNA" is true, but irrelevant. I need eyes to read a book, but it doesn't make them part of the story. And once we have addressed this one we can go on to the second thing the OP said which isn't much better. (So called "reason 2" was a repeat of 1)
  14. I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question. If the data's not in the DNA, where is it? (for extra credit, how is it encoded and transmitted to the next generation?) The OP claimed that
  15. So is ονοματοποιημένος Any particular reason?
  16. How long would they need to jail you for (in spite of your having done nothing wrong) before you came to respect them?
  17. And, every time the cell reproduces, more of those proteins are made, following instructions coded in DNA. There might be a problem here for abiogenesis, but it's not a problem for evolution and, more importantly, it's not support for the OP's claim that there's not enough information stored in the genome. The red flag was posting lots of things that you can't show are true. Asking us to take them all on faith is equivalent to starting your own religion (regardless of what your intention may have been). You may like it, but it's wrong. As I said, you can watch a frog egg construct a frog without needing to search wiki for the instructions. If you say the information isn't in the DNA, you need to say why you think that, and you need to explain where you think it is.
  18. I am reminded of the most telling question asked of Fleishman and Pons: "Why are you not dead?". They had no answer. If they really had nuclear fusion happening as they had claimed, the neutron flux would have killed them.
  19. No. Aluminium is capable of extracting oxygen from carbon dioxide (in much the same way that it removes the oxygen from iron oxide). "Is aluminum oxide combined with iron oxide reactive thermite?" No.
  20. Is it onomatopoeic?
  21. Please indicate the parts of the apparatus of the cell that are reproduced, but for which there is no corresponding DNA. Now, I accept that, for example, water is a major part of cells, and there's no DNA which (meaningfully) makes water, but it's also hard to see that as the "information" needed to make a cell.
  22. You didn't. It's a quote glitch That's what authority is for. It's to save you the trouble of regurgitating all the stuff you learned during the course of training. It's so that when the doctor says "take these pills" you don't waste his time asking why.
  23. Perhaps Jan Shyla was planning to add some later. It took me 14 hours or so to get round to it. Also, re. Well, that's what authority is for.