It is currently Fri Nov 29, 2024 1:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: How reliable is science?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:32 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
.


.




.



7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene
.
View gallery

An illustration of what the ancient hunter-gatherer may have looked like

.


An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed.





The analysis of the man, who lived in modern-day Spain only about 7,000 years ago, shows light-skin genes in Europeans evolved much more recently than previously thought.

The findings, which were detailed today (Jan. 26) in the journal Nature, also hint that light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution, said study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogenomics researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain.

Sunlight changes

Many scientists have believed that lighter skin gradually arose in Europeans starting around 40,000 years ago, soon after people left tropical Africa for Europe's higher latitudes. The hunter-gatherer's dark skin pushes this date forward to only 7,000 years ago, suggesting that at least some humans lived considerably longer than thought in Europe before losing the dark pigmentation that evolved under Africa's sun.

"It was assumed that the lighter skin was something needed in high latitudes, to synthesize vitamin D in places where UV light is lower than in the tropics," Lalueza-Fox told LiveScience.

Scientists had assumed this was true because people need vitamin D for healthy bones, and can synthesize it in the skin with energy from the sun's UV rays, but darker skin, like that of the hunter-gatherer man, prevents UV-ray absorption.

But the new discovery shows that latitude alone didn't drive the evolution of Europeans' light skin. If it had, light skin would have become widespread in Europeans millennia earlier, Lalueza-Fox said.

Mysterious find

In 2006, hikers discovered two male skeletons buried in a labyrinthine cave known as La Braña-Arintero, in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain.

At first, officials thought the skeletons may have been recent murder victims. But then, an analysis revealed the skeletons were about 7,000 years old, and had no signs of trauma. The bodies were covered with red soil, characteristic of Paleolithic burial sites, Lalueza-Fox said.

At the time of the discovery, genetic techniques weren't advanced enough to analyze the skeletons. Several years later, the team revisited the skeletons and extracted DNA from a molar tooth in one skeleton. (The other skeleton had been sitting in water for millennia, so his DNA was more degraded, Lalueza-Fox said.)

Blue eyes, dark skin

The new analysis of that DNA now shows the man had the gene mutation for blue eyes, but not the European mutations for lighter skin.

The DNA also shows that the man was more closely related to modern-day northern Europeans than to southern Europeans.

The discovery may explain why baby blues are more common in Scandinavia. It's been thought that poor conditions in northern Europe delayed the agricultural revolution there, so Scandinavians may have more genetic traces of their hunter-gatherer past — including a random blue-eye mutation that emerged in the small population of ancient hunter-gatherers, Lalueza-Fox said.

Skin changes

The finding implies that for most of their evolutionary history, Europeans were not what many people today would call 'Caucasian', said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

Instead, "what seems likely, then, is that the dietary changes accompanying the so-called Neolithic revolution, or the transition from food collection to food production, might have caused, or contributed to cause, this change," Barbujani said.

In the food-production theory, the cereal-rich diet of Neolithic farmers lacked vitamin D, so Europeans rapidly lost their dark-skin pigmentation only once they switched to agriculture, because it was only at that point that they had to synthesize vitamin D from the sun more readily

http://news.yahoo.com/7-000-old-human-b ... 22120.html

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Climate Scientists “turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend"
Written by John O'Sullivan
http://www.principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-climate-data-rigging-scandal-rocks-us-government.html

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
What's the alternative?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:02 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
What's the alternative?


There isn't one. So many things change so frequently. We aren't talking about minor changes either. It makes it difficult to use science when debating something.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
Nas wrote:
It makes it difficult to use science when debating something.


:( thats like saying "dont drink the only water on the planet because youll die."

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Al Gore wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:23 pm
Posts: 16779
pizza_Place: Little Caesar's
leashyourkids wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
leashyourkids wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


we should redistribute the wealth but not have any socialism.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
leashyourkids wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


Yes.

Image

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
pittmike wrote:
Al Gore wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


Wow. Dumbest post I've seen in some time. You are anti-science?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
leashyourkids wrote:
Wow. Dumbest post I've seen in some time. You are anti-science?


theres no time for 'fact checkers' we learned that during the romney campaign.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
What if the data is unreliable?

What then? WHAT DO WE DO?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
SomeGuy wrote:
What if the data is unreliable?

What then? WHAT DO WE DO?!


Then we don't draw any conclusions. This is literally a central tenet of Scientific Theory.

If your question was meant to be a joke, blink 15 times.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
SomeGuy wrote:
What if the data is unreliable?

What then? WHAT DO WE DO?!


im gonna call it everyone. someguy's age = <18 and public school = check.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
What if the data is unreliable?

What then? WHAT DO WE DO?!


Then we don't draw any conclusions. This is literally a central tenet of Scientific Theory.

If your question was meant to be a joke, blink 15 times.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:45 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


I know what it is. My point is when things change as rapidly as they do at times and to the degree we see in this article then science can be viewed as unreliable in some debates.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


I know what it is. My point is when things change as rapidly as they do at times and to the degree we see in this article then science can be viewed as unreliable in some debates.


No. The data behind it can absolutely be debated. The scientific method itself should be celebrated. You know better.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
leashyourkids wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Al Gore wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


Wow. Dumbest post I've seen in some time. You are anti-science?



You my friend are the idiot. My job is science fuck face.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92107
Location: To the left of my post
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


I know what it is. My point is when things change as rapidly as they do at times and to the degree we see in this article then science can be viewed as unreliable in some debates.
If science is too unreliable to use in a debate then there is nothing that is reliable to use in a debate.

Science isn't infallible. It's simply our best answer right now or there is no answer yet and science has mechanisms that basically determine it is not yet able to be determined.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Al Gore wrote:
Seriously? Science is the use of data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. There is no better evidence. Should we just make shit up instead?


Wow. Dumbest post I've seen in some time. You are anti-science?



You my friend are the idiot. My job is science fuck face.


So what are you trying to say? I find it odd that a career scientist bashes science.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
leashyourkids wrote:
So what are you trying to say? I find it odd that a career scientist bashes science.


i thinks hes getting the term chemical scientist confused with sandwich artist.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
I think the question is confusing scientific questioning/discovery with scientific conclusions. As someone else may have said, the method of questioning yields certain bits of information, but that information can change over time depending on new data, or data that is revisited in light of other findings. So while some results may be pending additional research, that is different than the method as it pertains to empirical hypotheses.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
The thing with science is nothing is absolute and is always questioning. The pols and media will take this paper or that study to try to make some grand pronouncement. Simultaneously the same scientists are already trying to prove it wrong.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Thank you Vegan, but the very essence of the question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Science is. There is no such thing as a Scientific conclusion.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
pittmike wrote:
The thing with science is nothing is absolute and is always questioning. The pols and media will take this paper or that study to try to make some grand pronouncement. Simultaneously the same scientists are already trying to prove it wrong.


:lol: Damn those scientists for trying to get it right.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
I guess that is why it works actually. What pisses me off is the Gore's or whatever advocate of whatever position try to take a snapshot in time and make a killing off of it. Fuck I just read this morning Stephen Hawking changed his mind about black holes for chrissake. Good thing the wasn't a blackhole inc.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
this is one of the dumbest threads on the internet

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
So you are discounting science because of Al Gore? Read a book or two please

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:56 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
The thing with science is nothing is absolute and is always questioning. The pols and media will take this paper or that study to try to make some grand pronouncement. Simultaneously the same scientists are already trying to prove it wrong.


This is basically what I was trying to say. I do it all the time while forgetting the data isn't conclusive. In 100 years they're going to laugh at the way we practiced medicine and at some of the beliefs we have.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group