Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home

Message boards : Number crunching : Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 . . . 278 · Next

AuthorMessage
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108224 - Posted: 29 Mar 2023, 2:28:19 UTC - in response to Message 108223.  

What next, 2+2 is really 5?

I Try that one when working out my productivity/bonus payments ,
The accounts department just won`t have it , hmff
But with government mish maths its `just another day at the office`
I wonder if anyone actually understands tax. I just make stuff up if I'm asked to fill in taxes.
ID: 108224 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Stevie G

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 18
Posts: 106
Credit: 581,631
RAC: 1,731
Message 108228 - Posted: 29 Mar 2023, 22:31:25 UTC - in response to Message 108221.  
Last modified: 29 Mar 2023, 23:13:58 UTC

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.
Wrong.
It's the whole basis of the concept. If 50% of people die in contact with a certain virus, the next generation is made up of the offspring of the other 50%. I can't believe you're denying something this well known. What next, 2+2 is really 5?


You are wrong on several counts.
1. I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle. You either misquoted me or misunderstood me.
2. Your rigid, simplistic description is insufficient to explain what evolution is, how it works and what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest." Kindly allow me to enlighten you.

Evolution is not a battle between the strong and the weak. You misunderstand "Survival of the fittest."

Survival means living long enough to pass your genes onto the next generation (although in 1859, Darwin didn't know about genes). The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means those indiividuals who are best adapted to the environmental condiitions at the time and place where they live. Those adaptions give them a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on their genes than those who lack those traits. When the envronment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong. New mutations occur more or less randomly over many generations.The changes need not be physically or statistically large. But iver a long time, and multiple generations, small survival advantages have large repurcussions. Some mutations will be beneficial and make indiividuals more fit for a new environment. Some species develop mutations that are too specialized and those will be evolutionary dead ends.

And that, in a nutshell, is how evolution works. In evolutionary terms, there is no reason for 80 year-old men like me to exist. We do not partiicipate in the gene pool. (Although some studies indicate that grandparents enhance the survival of the species by looking after the young long enough for them to enter the gene pool.)

If it were simply the strongest vs. the weakest, the dinosaurs would still be alive and small proto-rodents would not have proliiferated. But environmental conditions changed and the dinosaurs were not fit for the new conditions. The small rodents were ideally fit.

Generalists are species that can eat many foods or survive in a variety of conditions,. They have beter chances of survival than specialists, who depend on a certain plant, animal or environmental niche to survive. That is why rats, roaches and flies are found almost everywhere in the world (assisted by the presence of humans, who are also found almost everywhere in the world.)

Humans are generalists. We can eat almost anything organic and can live almostt anywhere, assisted by technology. The main survival adaptation that allows us to live anywhere in the world is CULTURE. which is learned behavior passed along to successive generations but not by genetics. Culture is the primary human adaption which allows us to develop the technology to survive in the arctic, tropics and desert regions of the world, occupying them very quickly in historical terms.

Darwin studied finches in the Galapagos Islands. Through close observation, he noticed that finches on each island differed slightly from those on other islands. Those with big and strong beaks were better adapted to eat nuts and seeds. If an island is dominated by bushes and trees that produce seeds and nuts, big-beaked birds will have a survival advantage over small-beaked birds. If an island has mostly plants that produce berries, birds witrh thinner beaks are better adapted to eat berries and insects. The giant Galapagos tortoises were also unique to each island. Isolation results in speciation over many generations. Environmental change also results in speciation over many generations. But environmental change usually takes over thousands or millions of years, The massive envirnmental changes that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were probably the result of the Chixilub meteor impact. That caused very quick change, relelasing huge amounts of debris and ash in the atmospherre, restructing sunlight, causuing unending global winter and the extnction of many plants and animals, ioncluding the dinosaurs.

During the last Ice Age, the Pleistocene, North America had camels, mammoths, mastodons, horses, saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, There werre giant sloth bears 13 feet tall, turtles 6 feet in diameter and armadillos the size of Volkswagens. All very strong animanls well-adapted to ice age conditions. Then condiitions changed. The earth grew warmer and wetter. The plants that the herbivores depended on were replaced by new plants to which the herbivores were not adapted. They were less fit for the new circumstances and they all became extinct. The carnivores (dire wolves and saber-toothed cats) that depended on the herbivores for food also became extinct. Small mammals survived. Some anthropologists belive that the newly-arrived humans kiled off all the large boreal animals, but that is not likely. There weren't enough of them here to do that. By 10,000 BC, humans may have killed off the last of the sick and starving mammoths and mastodons that were left in North Ameriica.

Human activities have changed the atmosphere in only 200 years and those changes are accelerating rapidly. Glaciers are melting and deserts are expanding worldwide. Sea levels are rising, killing the wetlands and mangroves that are the breeding grounds for thousands of species of fish Plants and animals cannot adapt to these climate changes quickly enough. We are witnessing -- causing-- the greatest extinction event in millions of years. In nature, everything is connected to everything else -- the main principle of ecology. Humans do not live isoloated from nature. We are part of nature. We do not live in a vacuum. The Technologies that to a large extent caused these changes enable us tio insulate ourselves from the immediate impacts of these environmental changes. But snimals and plants do not have these technologies. We can't kill off most of the plants, animals, fish, birds, whales in the world without some effects. This will catch up to us eventually.

I predict that you will dismiss all this and claim it is a girly outlook. But you may live long enough for it to affect you personally.

Your 2+2=5 line is bullshit and insulting.

I recommend that you read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." It is one of the most influential books of all time.
ID: 108228 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108229 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 2:13:53 UTC - in response to Message 108228.  

You are wrong on several counts.
1. I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle. You either misquoted me or misunderstood me.
Only religious nuts dismiss evolution.

2. Your rigid, simplistic description is insufficient to explain what evolution is, how it works and what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest." Kindly allow me to enlighten you.

Evolution is not a battle between the strong and the weak. You misunderstand "Survival of the fittest."

Survival means living long enough to pass your genes onto the next generation (although in 1859, Darwin didn't know about genes). The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means those indiividuals who are best adapted to the environmental condiitions at the time and place where they live. Those adaptions give them a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on their genes than those who lack those traits.
Which is precisely what I said, but more longwinded.

When the environment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong.
But they will maintain their improvement should the environment change back.

New mutations occur more or less randomly over many generations.The changes need not be physically or statistically large. But iver a long time, and multiple generations, small survival advantages have large repurcussions. Some mutations will be beneficial and make indiividuals more fit for a new environment.
You're still agreeing with me. Those of us with an unusual immunity to a nasty virus are the ones who survive. Thereby the virus dies out.

Some species develop mutations that are too specialized and those will be evolutionary dead ends.
Gotta try everything.

And that, in a nutshell, is how evolution works. In evolutionary terms, there is no reason for 80 year-old men like me to exist. We do not partiicipate in the gene pool. (Although some studies indicate that grandparents enhance the survival of the species by looking after the young long enough for them to enter the gene pool.)
There you go then, the longer you live, the better off your kids and grandkids will be, financially for example.

If it were simply the strongest vs. the weakest, the dinosaurs would still be alive and small proto-rodents would not have proliiferated. But environmental conditions changed and the dinosaurs were not fit for the new conditions. The small rodents were ideally fit.
I never said strongest, I said fittest.

Generalists are species that can eat many foods or survive in a variety of conditions,. They have beter chances of survival than specialists, who depend on a certain plant, animal or environmental niche to survive. That is why rats, roaches and flies are found almost everywhere in the world (assisted by the presence of humans, who are also found almost everywhere in the world.)

[quote]Humans are generalists. We can eat almost anything organic and can live almostt anywhere, assisted by technology. The main survival adaptation that allows us to live anywhere in the world is CULTURE. which is learned behavior passed along to successive generations but not by genetics. Culture is the primary human adaption which allows us to develop the technology to survive in the arctic, tropics and desert regions of the world, occupying them very quickly in historical terms.
We would be doing just fine without any technology, probably better. We would have lost all the weak we currently protect.

The massive envirnmental changes that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were probably the result of the Chixilub meteor impact. That caused very quick change, relelasing huge amounts of debris and ash in the atmospherre, restructing sunlight, causuing unending global winter and the extnction of many plants and animals, ioncluding the dinosaurs.
And many species did survive.

Human activities have changed the atmosphere in only 200 years and those changes are accelerating rapidly.
An ice age is pretty rapid. Our so called global warming may well abate the next one. Whatever happens, we'll adapt, and it'll be fun.

Glaciers are melting and deserts are expanding worldwide. Sea levels are rising, killing the wetlands and mangroves that are the breeding grounds for thousands of species of fish
The sea level rose long before we did anything, the English Channel, you could walk across it!

Plants and animals cannot adapt to these climate changes quickly enough.
They don't have to, some will survive, some won't. Or they'll migrate. Humans and bird do this easily. Plants can also do it from seeds moving in birds's guts or by the wind.

We are witnessing -- causing-- the greatest extinction event in millions of years.
I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.

I predict that you will dismiss all this and claim it is a girly outlook. But you may live long enough for it to affect you personally.
I look forward to the fun. The UK is an average climate, we'll be fine here, any change will be within acceptable limits for humans. Places which are already hot, just move north. The Russians will love all the extra crop growth.
ID: 108229 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Stevie G

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 18
Posts: 106
Credit: 581,631
RAC: 1,731
Message 108231 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 4:34:46 UTC - in response to Message 108229.  

You are wrong on several counts.
1. I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle. You either misquoted me or misunderstood me.
Only religious nuts dismiss evolution.

2. Your rigid, simplistic description is insufficient to explain what evolution is, how it works and what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest." Kindly allow me to enlighten you.

Evolution is not a battle between the strong and the weak. You misunderstand "Survival of the fittest."

Survival means living long enough to pass your genes onto the next generation (although in 1859, Darwin didn't know about genes). The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means those indiividuals who are best adapted to the environmental condiitions at the time and place where they live. Those adaptions give them a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on their genes than those who lack those traits.
Which is precisely what I said, but more longwinded.

When the environment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong.
But they will maintain their improvement should the environment change back.

New mutations occur more or less randomly over many generations.The changes need not be physically or statistically large. But iver a long time, and multiple generations, small survival advantages have large repurcussions. Some mutations will be beneficial and make indiividuals more fit for a new environment.
You're still agreeing with me. Those of us with an unusual immunity to a nasty virus are the ones who survive. Thereby the virus dies out.

Some species develop mutations that are too specialized and those will be evolutionary dead ends.
Gotta try everything.

And that, in a nutshell, is how evolution works. In evolutionary terms, there is no reason for 80 year-old men like me to exist. We do not partiicipate in the gene pool. (Although some studies indicate that grandparents enhance the survival of the species by looking after the young long enough for them to enter the gene pool.)
There you go then, the longer you live, the better off your kids and grandkids will be, financially for example.

If it were simply the strongest vs. the weakest, the dinosaurs would still be alive and small proto-rodents would not have proliiferated. But environmental conditions changed and the dinosaurs were not fit for the new conditions. The small rodents were ideally fit.
I never said strongest, I said fittest.

Generalists are species that can eat many foods or survive in a variety of conditions,. They have beter chances of survival than specialists, who depend on a certain plant, animal or environmental niche to survive. That is why rats, roaches and flies are found almost everywhere in the world (assisted by the presence of humans, who are also found almost everywhere in the world.)

[quote]Humans are generalists. We can eat almost anything organic and can live almostt anywhere, assisted by technology. The main survival adaptation that allows us to live anywhere in the world is CULTURE. which is learned behavior passed along to successive generations but not by genetics. Culture is the primary human adaption which allows us to develop the technology to survive in the arctic, tropics and desert regions of the world, occupying them very quickly in historical terms.
We would be doing just fine without any technology, probably better. We would have lost all the weak we currently protect.

The massive envirnmental changes that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were probably the result of the Chixilub meteor impact. That caused very quick change, relelasing huge amounts of debris and ash in the atmospherre, restructing sunlight, causuing unending global winter and the extnction of many plants and animals, ioncluding the dinosaurs.
And many species did survive.

Human activities have changed the atmosphere in only 200 years and those changes are accelerating rapidly.
An ice age is pretty rapid. Our so called global warming may well abate the next one. Whatever happens, we'll adapt, and it'll be fun.

Glaciers are melting and deserts are expanding worldwide. Sea levels are rising, killing the wetlands and mangroves that are the breeding grounds for thousands of species of fish
The sea level rose long before we did anything, the English Channel, you could walk across it!

Plants and animals cannot adapt to these climate changes quickly enough.
They don't have to, some will survive, some won't. Or they'll migrate. Humans and bird do this easily. Plants can also do it from seeds moving in birds's guts or by the wind.

We are witnessing -- causing-- the greatest extinction event in millions of years.
I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.

I predict that you will dismiss all this and claim it is a girly outlook. But you may live long enough for it to affect you personally.
I look forward to the fun. The UK is an average climate, we'll be fine here, any change will be within acceptable limits for humans. Places which are already hot, just move north. The Russians will love all the extra crop growth.
ID: 108231 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108232 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 7:10:22 UTC - in response to Message 108231.  

You have quoted my post in it's entirety and not replied.
ID: 108232 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [VENETO] boboviz

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 1866
Credit: 8,186,159
RAC: 7,029
Message 108233 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 8:07:27 UTC - in response to Message 108228.  

I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle.

??
Maybe creationists or Intelligent Design's followers think this.


I recommend that you read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." It is one of the most influential books of all time.

I read it. But i also read "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". I reccomend you.

Or, if you prefer, a good book from a my compatriot, Telmo Pievani, "Imperfection"
ID: 108233 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [VENETO] boboviz

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 1866
Credit: 8,186,159
RAC: 7,029
Message 108234 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 8:12:26 UTC - in response to Message 108229.  

I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.

45 ys are nothing.
And yes, climate change is a SCIENTIFIC fact.
Only Donald Trump think is not.
ID: 108234 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Stevie G

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 18
Posts: 106
Credit: 581,631
RAC: 1,731
Message 108235 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 8:44:31 UTC - in response to Message 108231.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2023, 9:29:18 UTC

I made a terrible typo. What I meant was I would NEVER deny that evolution was accepted science. I'm an anthropologist ferchrissake. I used to teach this stuff.

I am certainly no reliigous nut. I have no religion at all.

[quote]When the environment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong.[quote]
[quoteBut they will maintain their improvement should the environment change back.[quote]
No, they won't. By the time the climate changes again, they will be extinct or in such low numbers as not to have a suficient gene pool for a viable population. They will soon be extinct. I believe that's what happened to the mammoths and mastodons in North America. Also, note that there are no mammoths or mastodons alive even in Siberia, where they thrived. There have been attempts to re-constitute mammoths from recovered mammoth DNA. But that would be stupid and cruel, even if successful. The environment that they evolved in no longe exists.

What is now England was once a part of Europe. Sea level then was 300 feet lower than it is today (The Florida coastline then extended 80 miles further out into the Gulf of Mexico.) England used to be connected to Europe, butwater built up by glacial ice melt caused a flood that washed away the land bridge that connected England to Europe and resulted in the English Channel. England was inhabited 40,000 years ago That's why Neanderthal remains have been found in England.

[quoteWhich is precisely what I said, but more longwinded.]
That is not what you said. What you said was there was nothing complicated about evolution. But the reality of it is much more nuanced. You don't believe in nuance.

[quote]You're still agreeing with me. Those of us with an unusual immunity to a nasty virus are the ones who survive. Thereby the virus dies out.[quote]
I did not agree with you. In evolutionary terms, it doesn't matter whether you survive the virus or not if your genes are not passed to the next generation. From an evolutionary standpoint, you might as well never have existed. And the virus probably does not die out. It mutates to different strains, as was observed in the past several years. The fact that you so far have not contracted the virus could just be a matte of luck or non-exposure. You may get it yet.

Contrary to your belief, the vaccines are proven to be effective. True, some people got the vaccine and got COVID anyway. But it is proven that those who get the virus after being vaccinated are less likely to require hospitalization, are much less sick and recover faster. Those who do not get the vaccine have a much greater chance of dying.
Look at the stats from the USA in 2020. Most of those who died were Trump-following Republicans.

[quote] We would be doing just fine without any technology, probably better. We would have lost all the weak we currently protect.[quote]
There yoiu go again with the strong vs. the weak theme.
By technology, I mean the ability to make stone tools with which to hunt prey and make clothing from their skins to protect us from cold, the ability to make fire, build homes, grow crops. Those are technologies enabled by culture that have allowed humans to inhabit every place on earth, even to survive the arctic at the end of the ice age.

I'm getting tired of this discussion.

It's obvious that no amount of reason, logic or data will convince you that your limited, nihilistic and self-absorbed perspective does not reflect the real world. Your view is more narrow and limited than nature, evolution, science and humanity. Your are already convinced that you know more than anybody else, that no other possibilities exist and that other points of view are worthless.
ID: 108235 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [VENETO] boboviz

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 1866
Credit: 8,186,159
RAC: 7,029
Message 108236 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:17:11 UTC - in response to Message 108235.  

I made a terrible typo. What I meant was I would NEVER deny that evolution was accepted science. I'm an anthropologist ferchrissake. I used to teach this stuff.

It's obvious that no amount of reason, logic or data will convince you that your limited, nihilistic and self-absorbed perspective does not reflect the real world. Your view is more narrow and limited than nature, evolution, science and humanity. Your are already convinced that you know more than anybody else, that no other possibilities exist and that other points of view are worthless.


Ok, now i understand and i agreed with you
ID: 108236 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Stevie G

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 18
Posts: 106
Credit: 581,631
RAC: 1,731
Message 108237 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:18:40 UTC - in response to Message 108234.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2023, 9:20:01 UTC

I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.

45 ys are nothing.
And yes, climate change is a SCIENTIFIC fact.
Only Donald Trump think is not.

Well, Donald Trump is not the only one who rejects the idea of climate chane. . Don't forget all the oil, gas and coal corporations, the entire Repubican party in the USA and evangelical religious fanatics.

quote]I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.[/quote]

Do you think looking out your window and seeing the same thing you saw 45 years ago will give you a true picture of what is happening in the wider world? Maybe your window is not near an ocean where it would be threatened by rising seawater. Maybe it's not in a hurricane-prone area. Maybe it's not in an area that has had no rain in two years.

Maybe you should consider looking beyond your window.
ID: 108237 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Stevie G

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 18
Posts: 106
Credit: 581,631
RAC: 1,731
Message 108238 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:25:11 UTC - in response to Message 108233.  

I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle.

??
Maybe creationists or Intelligent Design's followers think this.


I recommend that you read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." It is one of the most influential books of all time.

I read it. But i also read "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". I

I belong to the Flying Spaghetti Monster FB group.

Or, if you prefer, a good book from a my compatriot, Telmo Pievani, "Imperfection"


Haven't read that one yet.
ID: 108238 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108239 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:30:34 UTC - in response to Message 108234.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2023, 9:31:44 UTC

45 ys are nothing.
45 years is the industrial era. The same 45 years the loonies think we broke the climate. The point is we haven't changed it one bit in that time.

And yes, climate change is a SCIENTIFIC fact.
I prefer reality to what others tell me. I've looked at the actual stats. I've walked outside. Nothing's changed.

Even if we had changed it, it would be for the better, what do you think plants breathe? What do you think humans eat?

Only Donald Trump think is not.
You say that like he's a minority. Half of Americans voted for him.
ID: 108239 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108240 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:34:18 UTC - in response to Message 108237.  

Do you think looking out your window and seeing the same thing you saw 45 years ago will give you a true picture of what is happening in the wider world? Maybe your window is not near an ocean where it would be threatened by rising seawater.
The sea rose a lot before manmade "climate change". You could walk across the English Channel.

Maybe it's not in a hurricane-prone area.
We've always had hurricanes.

Maybe it's not in an area that has had no rain in two years.
A warmer climate would mean Russia could grow crops like Spain. Russia is a big land mass. So much food, we would flourish.
ID: 108240 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
kotenok2000
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Feb 11
Posts: 230
Credit: 328,505
RAC: 2,016
Message 108241 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:40:42 UTC - in response to Message 108240.  

Then spain wouldn't be able to grow food.
ID: 108241 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108245 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 9:55:32 UTC - in response to Message 108241.  

Then Spain wouldn't be able to grow food.
So people move around a bit, who cares? We already import food from Spain to the UK, instead we'd get it from Russia. You're Russian, you should want climate change. New commodity for when the gas runs out.
ID: 108245 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [VENETO] boboviz

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 1866
Credit: 8,186,159
RAC: 7,029
Message 108246 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 14:04:09 UTC - in response to Message 108239.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2023, 14:04:32 UTC

I prefer reality to what others tell me. I've looked at the actual stats. I've walked outside. Nothing's changed.

I also prefer reality.
Every day i walk outside and see the sun running trought the sky and all thing stable on the earth.
So, the earth is at rest and the sun revolves around it. And Copernicus was wrong!!

Half of Americans voted for him.

Wow, that's science!!!

P.S. A lot of people vote for Barabbas.
ID: 108246 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [VENETO] boboviz

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 1866
Credit: 8,186,159
RAC: 7,029
Message 108247 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 14:07:17 UTC - in response to Message 108237.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2023, 14:07:41 UTC

Only Donald Trump think is not.

Well, Donald Trump is not the only one who rejects the idea of climate change. Don't forget all the oil, gas and coal corporations, the entire Repubican party in the USA and evangelical religious fanatics.


Strange. In this list there aren't scientists.
Oh, no, it's not strange.
ID: 108247 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108248 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 14:09:19 UTC - in response to Message 108246.  

I prefer reality to what others tell me. I've looked at the actual stats. I've walked outside. Nothing's changed.

I also prefer reality.
Every day i walk outside and see the sun running trought the sky and all thing stable on the earth.
So, the earth is at rest and the sun revolves around it. And Copernicus was wrong!!
Bad analogy. You cannot tell what the frame of reference is. But you can tell what the weather is like.

Half of Americans voted for him.

Wow, that's science!!!
It shows you have a 50% chance of being wrong.
ID: 108248 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mr P Hucker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 06
Posts: 1600
Credit: 9,740,862
RAC: 7,353
Message 108249 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 14:09:59 UTC - in response to Message 108247.  

Only Donald Trump think is not.

Well, Donald Trump is not the only one who rejects the idea of climate change. Don't forget all the oil, gas and coal corporations, the entire Repubican party in the USA and evangelical religious fanatics.


Strange. In this list there aren't scientists.
Oh, no, it's not strange.
Scientists are also biassed. By the gun pointed at them by the US government.
ID: 108249 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [VENETO] boboviz

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 1866
Credit: 8,186,159
RAC: 7,029
Message 108250 - Posted: 30 Mar 2023, 14:19:14 UTC - in response to Message 108248.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2023, 14:22:42 UTC

Bad analogy. You cannot tell what the frame of reference is. But you can tell what the weather is like.

The analogy is perfect. You use your senses and your intuition.
And it's WRONG.

(And you don't understand the difference between weather and clime).


It shows you have a 50% chance of being wrong.

It shows you have no idea of what science is
ID: 108250 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 . . . 278 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home



©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org