Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interesting Stuff Thread

Options
11718202223219

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    kiffer wrote: »
    Batfish are not good swimmers; they use their pectoral fins to "walk" on the ocean floor. When the batfish reaches adulthood, its dorsal fin becomes a single spine-like projection that lures prey.

    Here's a photo to show the colour details washed out in the video... it's large so I didn't embed it...
    http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/Content/rosy-lipped-batfish-wilms-1144526-xl.jpg

    Holy crap, that's Pete Burns!

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42553000/jpg/_42553983_pete_burns_getty_203long.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Wacker wrote: »

    If this isn't proof of evolution, I don't know what is!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Interesting how the fish has also evolved lipstick in order to make it more attractive to other fish. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Dades wrote: »
    Interesting how the fish has also evolved lipstick in order to make it more attractive to other fish. :)

    Deep sea prostitution was aggressively selected in the species gene pool over a period of approximately 800 centuries. Recipients would tend to exchange food in a symbiotic relationship.

    Unfortunately it wasn't long until the deep sea market became saturated. The species drifted towards an evolutionary stable balance and nowadays the prostitute fish are looked down upon in their community. True story.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭stimpson


    When some religiously devout people hear a charismatic healer speak the word of god , the regions of their brains involved in sceptical thinking and vigilance appear to shut down. Uffe Schjødt of Aarhus University in Denmark and his colleagues scanned the brains of Pentecostalists while they listened to recorded prayers from non-Christians, "ordinary" Christians, and a healer. The brain activity changed only in response to prayers they were told came from the healer. According to Schjødt, the same deactivation may occur in response to the words of physicians, parents, politicians, and other charismatic leaders.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627574.200-brain-shuts-off-in-response-to-healers-prayer.html


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Woman says she became pregnant after watching porn in 3D
    The most interesting thing about this, imo, is it seems the husband believes her:
    Her wife Jennifer told him the child was conceived whilst watching a porn movie in 3D.
    “I see it as suspicious. The films in 3-D are very real. With today’s technology, anything is possible “he said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Woman says she became pregnant after watching porn in 3D
    The most interesting thing about this, imo, is it seems the husband believes her:

    Sometimes you just have to facepalm at the human race. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,601 ✭✭✭token56


    Neanderthal Genome Complete; Provides Evidence of Evolution, Interbreeding

    http://www.dailytech.com/Neanderthal+Genome+Complete+Provides+Evidence+of+Evolution+Interbreeding/article18326.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    What do people think of this video?



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    kiffer wrote: »
    What do people think of this video?

    Problem is it says 'Think about it..' at the end, and that's bound to scare away creationists


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving




    The title is somewhat misleading, as he does not refer to creationists or religion once.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Last Friday, 255 members of the US's National Academy of Sciences delivered a bluntly-worded letter on the state of the current "debate" on climate change. The letter appeared in Science magazine, and reads as follows:
    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

    We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

    Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

    For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

    Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

    (i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

    (ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

    (iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

    (iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

    (v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

    Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.

    We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    kiffer wrote: »
    What do people think of this video?


    I really liked the experiment but I'd disagree with the statement that there was no goal imposed on the design (8:54). There was a very definite goal in mind, a clock, and it was imposed by making more clock like things succeed. I think the author took too much from it, its a great experiment but doesnt disprove ID on it own.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    eoin5 wrote: »
    I really liked the experiment but I'd disagree with the statement that there was no goal imposed on the design (8:54). There was a very definite goal in mind, a clock, and it was imposed by making more clock like things succeed. I think the author took too much from it, its a great experiment but doesnt disprove ID on it own.

    ... yeah... hmmm... I guess there sort of is a goal... but it's "some sort of reasonably functional clock"
    but there isn't a specific goal... "make THIS clock" which was one of the criticisms of Dawkin's Weasel ... which produced the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" ...

    J C over in the monster thread is always harping on about SPECIFIC COMPLEX INFORMATION!!!! :D :cool::cool::P

    claiming that the chances of creating a specific clotting agent or what ever is beyond possible probabilities... but the goal isn't make "Fibrinogen alpha chain" it's "survive longer, by avoiding bleeding to death, to breed more"


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    kiffer wrote: »
    J C over in the monster thread is always harping on about SPECIFIC COMPLEX INFORMATION!!!! :D :cool::cool::P

    claiming that the chances of creating a specific clotting agent or what ever is beyond possible probabilities... but the goal isn't make "Fibrinogen alpha chain" it's "survive longer, by avoiding bleeding to death, to breed more"

    Ah, reductionism at its finest. You could say the circumference of a pizza is "beyond possible" sizes as the smaller the units you use the larger it gets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    eoin5 wrote: »
    Ah, reductionism at its finest. You could say the circumference of a pizza is "beyond possible" sizes as the smaller the units you use the larger it gets.

    Yes but if you aren't using units at all and just making a pizza that fills most folks bellies you'll find it looks and acts very much like a normal pizza. Pizzas which are inedible or infinitely small have an extremely low memetic survival rate.

    Or to put it another way, what the frak have pizzas got to do with evolution? Just like you might say, what have watches got to do with evolution. And the answer keeps coming back to the same thing, the one that answers the question best gets to make more copies of itself.

    In the case of the video the question was artifically imposed to illustrate a point, it doesn't diminish the strength of the answer.

    The more usually imposed natural question is 'Can you make copies of yourself?'


  • Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    This might be of interest, given all the related threads here: a two parter Beeb R4 radio prog on scientific attempts to unpick the basis of religious belief, and what happens brainwise when people are having religious experiences.

    Listen to part 1 here.

    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Really not sure where to put this, as I don't know if it merits its own thread or not.

    But, anyway, hope is not lost.



    I love the look of satisfaction on his face at the end.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Really not sure where to put this, as I don't know if it merits its own thread or not.

    But, anyway, hope is not lost.



    I love the look of satisfaction on his face at the end.

    He tore him in two.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    He tore him in two.

    I'm sure JC would see it differently.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I'm sure JC would see it differently.

    Yeah, but who cares what she thinks, eh?

    Back to the clip, I love how he caught him on the Declaration quote.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    I can't remember if its mentioned in the video, it probably isn't, but he's the author of a book called "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists."

    EDIT: He's introduced simply as the author of "Godless." Fox used to be subtle.

    A high point of the creative arguments of the Fox side was the "You hate Christmas" line of questioning. Quality reporting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Little Facebook race going on at the moment. A Creationist page stated taht it would get a million members before June. It currently has over 200,000. A similar pro evolution one was made soon after, but it has nearly 500,000.
    Here it is here:
    http://www.facebook.com/galvasean?ref=profile#!/pages/Kent-BR6-UK/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743


  • Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Little Facebook race going on at the moment. A Creationist page stated taht it would get a million members before June. It currently has over 200,000. A similar pro evolution one was made soon after, but it has nearly 500,000.
    Here it is here:
    http://www.facebook.com/galvasean?ref=profile#!/pages/Kent-BR6-UK/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743

    Just wondering - 500,000 called Steve?


  • Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Mataguri


    Why do people see the Virgin Mary on cheese sandwiches or hear demonic lyrics in "Stairway to Heaven"? Using video, images and music, professional skeptic Michael Shermer explores these and other phenomena, including UFOs and alien sightings. He offers cognitive context: In the absence of sound science, incomplete information can combine with the power of suggestion (helping us hear those Satanic lyrics in Led Zeppelin). In fact, he says, humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We overvalue the "hits" that support our beliefs, and discount the more numerous "misses."



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Little Facebook race going on at the moment. A Creationist page stated taht it would get a million members before June. It currently has over 200,000. A similar pro evolution one was made soon after, but it has nearly 500,000.
    Here it is here:
    http://www.facebook.com/galvasean?ref=profile#!/pages/Kent-BR6-UK/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743

    I don't really like the "believe in evolution" phrase, as if its a belief on parity with magic and super invisible gods.

    The question should be do you accept the stance of the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community with regards a scientific theory, or do you know better than the method which brought you the vacine, computer, and space travel? Bit of a mouthful maybe!

    I hate the phrase also, 'pro evolution' or 'evolutionist', the correct terms are 'pro science' and 'scientist'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I don't really like the "believe in evolution" phrase, as if its a belief on parity with magic and super invisible gods.
    I also think even running with this type of campaign gives credibility to the suggestion that there is an alternative.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I don't really like the "believe in evolution" phrase, as if its a belief on parity with magic and super invisible gods.

    The page actually has a big disclaimer in the info section about this.

    And Dades, it was set up to rub in the noses of a similar Creationist page. Evolutionary penis waving if you will...


Advertisement