A monkey? Seriously?
Posted on 11/30/2013 3:12:24 AM PST by Eurotwit
Now we know what is meant by “Sons of Ham”.
same author as the link in 182:
Belated retraction of Seralini’s bad anti-GMO paper
Posted by PZ Myers on November 29, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/11/29/belated-retraction-of-seralinis-bad-anti-gmo-paper/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNY8eYmzdH4
New Lawsuit Seeks ‘Legal Personhood’ For a Chimpanzee
The Verge | December 2, 2013 | Katie Drummond
Posted on 12/2/2013 6:49:47 PM by lbryce
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097506/posts
“I think you do not understand the scientific process.”
The issue at hand is that this guy came up with a hypothesis, nothing more, and you and many others are treating it as if it is presented as a claim. It’s a common mistake. It’s also logical fallacy when done deliberately in debate.
“Let me first explain .....”
You don’t need to explain a scientific hypothesis to me. You may need to explain what sort of research you prefer be conducted and by whom. I think that is where the source of our discussion lies.
“Oh, please. This guy did *not* make a valid observational hypothesis, as I and several others have pointed out. It looks more like he came up with a ridiculous idea and then came up with “evidence” to support it. “
His hypothesis is that chimpanzee/pig hybridization is the reason why humans have certain biological characteristics of both chimps and pigs that are exclusive of either chimps or pigs. He proposes an analysis of genes to find evidence of hybridization. That I accept his hypothesis based on his observation does not mean I accept correlation equals causation. But he does make an argument about hybridization in general. It’s just a hypothesis, I don’t see him making the claims you say he is making. He does posit a reasonable, direction for investigation.
“When someone comes along (like this guy) and makes a claim that violates the laws of physics, it is pretty safe to dismiss him as a kook.”
Which law of physics does his hypothesis violate? All he says is that hybrids occur - not often, not likely, but that they do occur, and that there is a way to genetically backtrack the origins of some hybrids. He posits no proof. Its a hypothesis.
“What I find amusing is that you are actually trying to convince me that monkeys mating with pigs and producing not just offspring, but fertile offspring, is a completely believable premise. Why in the world would you believe such a thing?”
I’m doing no such thing. I’m not accepting any hypothesis as scientifically proven. I’m also not dismissing his hypothesis based on his documented observations.
“Most scientists get their funding from government, which means from taxpayers. As a taxpayer, do you seriously want your tax money going to research every single bogus claim made by every kook trying to get money without earning it honestly? “
Your argument seems to be “If the government funds it, it must be “honest money” and worthwhile research. I reject that hypothesis as invalid.
” biofuels are do-able. Please note how this hypothesis is completely plausible, breaks no laws of physics,”
No, biofuels only violate laws of thermodynamics - presently (and probably permanently) requiring more energy to create them than they contain. They are a rich source of funding for government grants though.
No, the issue at hand is that you are willing to call anything a hypothesis, including the lunatic claim of an utter kook. He did not formulate a hypothesis, period. He came up with a set of unrelated facts and tried to tie them together with an utterly implausible story that would fit right into the pages of Annals of Improbable Research (AIR), except that his writing skills need a lot of improvement before he can be published there. For all I know, this is a story he wrote that was rejected from AIR, but he is so enamored of it that he went the self-publishing route.
You don’t need to explain a scientific hypothesis to me. You may need to explain what sort of research you prefer be conducted and by whom. I think that is where the source of our discussion lies.
No, the source of the discussion is that you are willing to accept anything as a hypothesis just because someone calls it one. The type of research and who performs it is utterly irrelevant, as long as the people doing the research adhere to the scientific method.
His hypothesis is that chimpanzee/pig hybridization is the reason why humans have certain biological characteristics of both chimps and pigs that are exclusive of either chimps or pigs. He proposes an analysis of genes to find evidence of hybridization. That I accept his hypothesis based on his observation does not mean I accept correlation equals causation. But he does make an argument about hybridization in general. It’s just a hypothesis, I don’t see him making the claims you say he is making. He does posit a reasonable, direction for investigation.
Again, he does not have a hypothesis. He only has a wild claim that is not supported by any scientific evidence and is physically impossible. Although he claims to have a PhD in genetics, the nature of the monkey-pig claim puts the PhD claim into doubt. As for any "proposal" to analyze genes--such analyses have already been done, and are constantly being done. You can easily find the most common result of such analyses by Googling "phylogenetic tree"--in fact, you can do such analyses yourself with software available on the web.
Which law of physics does his hypothesis violate? All he says is that hybrids occur - not often, not likely, but that they do occur, and that there is a way to genetically backtrack the origins of some hybrids. He posits no proof. Its a hypothesis.
A descriptive analogy is that a square peg with a 4 cm diagonal measurement will not fit into a round hole with a 2 cm diameter. The sperm has proteins on its head of very precise sizes and shapes that fit into corresponding proteins on the surface of the ovum. Tens of millions of years of evolution have changed the size and shapes of the sperm and ovum proteins of pigs and monkeys so that they cannot fit, any more than the big square peg will fit into the small round hole. Even if that hurdle could be overcome, the next hurdle is in the chromosomes. Pigs and humans do not have the same number of chromosomes, nor do the chromosomes have the same DNA arrangement. Since chromosomes must match up fairly precisely in order for an organism to develop, those mismatches pretty effectively negate any possibility of embryonic development from a pig-monkey sperm-ovum fusion.
I’m doing no such thing. I’m not accepting any hypothesis as scientifically proven. I’m also not dismissing his hypothesis based on his documented observations.
Don't conflate "proven" with "plausible." As I have said several times already, a hypothesis must be scientifically plausible. That does not mean it is proven, or even that it is correct.
Let me give another analogy to illustrate:
I want to bake a cake. I mix the batter according to the recipe, and the recipe tells me to put the cake into the oven at 350 degrees for one hour. However, I am impatient. I reason (and use some calculations about heat flow and so forth) that I can hasten the baking process by cooking the cake at 450 degrees for 40 minutes. My hypothesis is that the cake will turn out the same as if it were baked for one hour at 350. This is a perfectly plausible hypothesis, consistent with everything I know about cake baking. I also have at least a couple of null hypotheses, also consistent with my knowledge of cake baking. One is that the cake will burn on the outside and be raw on the inside, but there are other possibilities. Until I actually perform the experiment, I do not know which hypothesis will turn out correct.
Your argument seems to be “If the government funds it, it must be “honest money” and worthwhile research. I reject that hypothesis as invalid.
Actually, my statement that most scientists are funded by government is not a hypothesis. It is a fact, which I know because I am a working scientist and thus am very aware of how we get research funding. It also is not a statement of my opinion about government funding of research. Whether or not our research gets funded is up to the politicians in Congress who hold the purse strings--they, and ultimately, their constituents, decide which research is worth funding. So my question about whether you want your tax money to fund any kook who comes along with a ludicrous claim that he calls a "hypothesis" or whether you would rather it go to actual scientists is a serious question.
No, biofuels only violate laws of thermodynamics - presently (and probably permanently) requiring more energy to create them than they contain. They are a rich source of funding for government grants though.
You will need to demonstrate exactly how biofuels would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Of course they take more energy to create than they contain--that is true of any living organism. And, like any living organism, they get their energy from the sun, which is a huge, highly energetic furnace up there in the sky, pouring out countless watts of mostly wasted energy. Biofuels would harvest that energy and convert it to a usable form. They break no laws of physics and are completely plausible. The challenge is to develop or find organisms that expend a high proportion of their energy in making the long-chain carbons which are ideal for vehicle fuel. The limitations to biofuels are cost, not physics.
“you are willing to call anything a hypothesis”
No.
” you are willing to accept anything as a hypothesis just because someone calls it one.”
No.
” He only has a wild claim that is not supported by any scientific evidence and is physically impossible. “
He posits a hypothesis not a claim. You claim it’s a claim, which is different. According to you it’s easily refuted - so wait for the research, should it occur, and refute it....or not. It should be trivial for you, right?
“Don’t conflate “proven” with “plausible.””
That’s exactly what I was telling you, and here you shift and pretend that was my problem? That’s what you were doing, not me.
“Although he claims to have a PhD in genetics, the nature of the monkey-pig claim puts the PhD claim into doubt. “
You should be able to easily prove if he has a PhD in Genetics, instead of using your doubts to underpin you entire argument.
“A descriptive analogy is that a square peg with a 4 cm diagonal measurement will not fit into a round hole with a 2 cm diameter. “
Then conclusions, should research occur, should be easily disproven if claims of hybridization are made, right?
“Actually, my statement that most scientists are funded by government is not a hypothesis.”
That’s great, except that wasn’t my hypothesis. You made the claim that funded research, when funded by the government was “honest money”.
You are commenting on what you wish I said, and thus you are simply arguing with yourself. No need to include me in this.
“So my question about whether you want your tax money to fund any kook who comes along with a ludicrous claim that he calls a “hypothesis” or whether you would rather it go to actual scientists is a serious question.”
Like, say, global warming research, or cryptology research, both of which were deliberately perverted by politics with active government-funded scientist cooperation?
If this guy is able to perform research on the topic, provide conclusions and you are able to refute them, then that’s the way it goes. You, however, seem to want to control research at the funding level - sort of like a “Political Action Committee” does.
You simply seem to prefer a different sort of ridiculous research to this guys ridiculous research.
“You will need to demonstrate exactly how biofuels would violate the laws of thermodynamics. “
Let’s ignore solar input. The energy input required to create and maintain the environment for biofuel organisms to live plus the energy input required to extract and process the biofuel into a useable form for internal combustion is more than the amount of energy contained in the useable biofuel.
Of course you simply pretend to be confused about this issue. You know very well it doesn’t add up - thermodynamically, financially, or agriculturally. In fact, it’s a disaster and is worse than nothing, as it is applied in America today. But you knew this already.
Now we could simply cut down a tree and burn it in your fireplace, and you’d demonstrate a viable, renewable biofuel, but we don’t need government-funded researchers for that, do we?
Look, let’s just agree to disagree and move on.
Please don’t take this nut-case suggestion of ape/pig interbreeding seriously.
It is obviously intended as a politically motivated joke, sucking up to Islamist claims that Jews are descended from, yes, apes and pigs.
You might just as well credit ancient Greek myths which talk of interbreeding between humans & cows, or geese, iirc.
The last common ancestor between apes and pigs is thought to be circa 80 million years ago.
Given normal rates of genetic mutations that implies some interbreeding was increasingly difficult, but possible, for some millions of years afterwards — maybe five million tops.
After that it was physically impossible.
So the suggestion is not serious, it’s not a “hypothesis”, it’s just political sucking up.
A monkey? Seriously?
Hence the term, “monkey around”.
He posits a hypothesis not a claim. You claim it’s a claim, which is different. According to you it’s easily refuted - so wait for the research, should it occur, and refute it....or not. It should be trivial for you, right?
It is a claim, despite your obvious desire to credit a kook with actually sitting down, looking at evidence, and coming up with a list of reasonable hypotheses for it. There is no evidence that this kook did that, and every bit of evidence that he sat down, made a list of similarities between pigs and humans (some real, some not), and came up with a totally ludicrous story about it. Actual scientific thought that went into the process: zero!
You should be able to easily prove if he has a PhD in Genetics, instead of using your doubts to underpin you entire argument.
I actually cannot prove that. While there is a dissertation on file in the University of Georgia library, I have no way to prove that this is the person who wrote the dissertation.
As a side note, one of my colleagues at work found this piece of hooey yesterday, and showed it to me. One of his comments was that the genetics department over there at U of GA should rescind their decision to grant this guy a PhD.
“Don’t conflate “proven” with “plausible.””
That’s exactly what I was telling you, and here you shift and pretend that was my problem? That’s what you were doing, not me.
No, I have been absolutely consistent in describing "hypotheses" as having to be plausible. You are the one who has consistently claimed that I mean they have to be "proven" or have "pre-ordained conclusions." Do not confuse your lack of understanding with what I actually said, or try to back-track and insist that I was saying the words you put into my mouth all along.
Then conclusions, should research occur, should be easily disproven if claims of hybridization are made, right?
There is a huge body of research already in existence that show that such a hybrid is impossible. My explanation of why such a hybrid is impossible was not a hypothetical: it was a description of actual physical reality, expressed in terms that a layperson can understand. There is no need to waste money on researching a ridiculous claim that is completely contradictory to established fact. Although if you want to waste your own money on such an endeavor, feel free to do so.
That’s great, except that wasn’t my hypothesis. You made the claim that funded research, when funded by the government was “honest money”.
You are commenting on what you wish I said, and thus you are simply arguing with yourself. No need to include me in this.
No. You totally garbled something I said, and now you are trying to convince me that your mangling of my words is what I really said. Let me refer back to post 200, what I actually said:
Most scientists get their funding from government, which means from taxpayers. As a taxpayer, do you seriously want your tax money going to research every single bogus claim made by every kook trying to get money without earning it honestly?
Notice that I did not say anywhere that money received through government funding is honest (or dishonest, for that matter). Try reading very carefully, for comprehension: the honest money was specifically referring to kooks, in that they avoid earning money honestly, without specifying how money can be earned honestly (honest forms of employment are countless). The unstated corollary is that kooks trying to scam people out of their money by snowing them with pseudoscience are dishonest.
BTW, your use of the word "hypothesis" is completely incorrect here.
Like, say, global warming research, or cryptology research, both of which were deliberately perverted by politics with active government-funded scientist cooperation?
The "global warming" research is a completely different topic, with completely different driving factors. I have discussed it many times: feel free to peruse my thousands of posts to find my opinion on that. Cryptology, the study of codes and ciphers, is not a physical science. It may receive government funding, but not through the agencies like NIH, NIEHS, NIMH, etc., that fund physical sciences.
Let’s ignore solar input. The energy input required to create and maintain the environment for biofuel organisms to live plus the energy input required to extract and process the biofuel into a useable form for internal combustion is more than the amount of energy contained in the useable biofuel.
Um... how can we ignore solar input, since the sun is the ultimate source of all energy except nuclear? The issues are cost and efficiency, and those factors will shrink as the technology advances.
Look, let’s just agree to disagree and move on.
Oh, good. Because this process of having you put words into my mouth, and then claiming I said the words you put into my mouth when I point out that I didn't say them is rather tedious.
In closing, I will suggest that you stop watching those pseudoscience shows on the history channel and frequenting pseudoscience websites--they teach nothing about hypothesis formulation or the scientific method in general, but use the scientific language to make themselves look like legitimate science shows. Plus, work on your reading comprehension.
hypothesis, he said she said.....yawn. Like I said, we disagree. I’m allowing the scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw.
“Um... how can we ignore solar input, since the sun is the ultimate source of all energy except nuclear? The issues are cost and efficiency, and those factors will shrink as the technology advances.”
I’m granting you, for arguments sake, all the solar input you want, just to keep you from whining about it. Make up your mind....if you want to include solar input the energy equation just works in favor of my argument.
The process still requires more energy than it produces -AFTER ignoring solar input.
” The issues are cost and efficiency, and those factors will shrink as the technology advances.”
It’s the negative efficiency that is the real issue, and one that all the government money, and all the algae in obama’s dreams is not going to overcome. In the meantime, let’s keep forcing government agencies to by $10/gal biofuel just to pretend we’re doing something useful.
“Oh, good. Because this process of having you put words into my mouth, and then claiming I said the words you put into my mouth when I point out that I didn’t say them is rather tedious.”
I’m glad you find it tedious as I do, because you are pretty good at it yourself.
“In closing, I will suggest that you stop watching those pseudoscience shows on the history channel and frequenting pseudoscience websites—they teach nothing about hypothesis formulation or the scientific method in general, but use the scientific language to make themselves look like legitimate science shows. Plus, work on your reading comprehension.”
Thank you for closing this tome. And thank you for patronizing me, as amusing as it is - you are well armed and engined for the task.
There is not much a government scientist can’t tell the rest of the world, apparently, no matter how much money and energy it costs those who must pay.
Now, Lady Astor, I bid you ‘good day’ so I can enjoy my coffee.
“Um... how can we ignore solar input, since the sun is the ultimate source of all energy except nuclear? The issues are cost and efficiency, and those factors will shrink as the technology advances.”
I’m granting you, for arguments sake, all the solar input you want, just to keep you from whining about it. Make up your mind....if you want to include solar input the energy equation just works in favor of my argument.
The process still requires more energy than it produces -AFTER ignoring solar input.
Process efficiency is always improved as a technology matures. I have every confidence that the process efficiency of producing biofuels (whether from algae or something else) will continue to improve.
Unlike hydrogen cells or other energy schemes, biofuels violate no known laws of physics.
P.S. I hope you have learned the difference between "hypothesis" and "wild baseless speculation" by now.
“P.S. I hope you have learned the difference between “hypothesis” and “wild baseless speculation” by now. “
Hypothesis = basis for inquiry
“Wild Baseless Speculation” = Government research grant application
So, according to you, the vast majority of scientists do nothing but engage in wild speculation. But the crackpots who can't even find a job in a profession with less than 2% unemployment and who sit around in their basements making ludicrous claims that aren't even good science fiction, much less good science, those are the only ones engaged in "real" science.
Gotcha.
You really dislike/distrust the scientific method, don't you? (Don't answer, that is a rhetorical question.)
“You really dislike/distrust the scientific method, don’t you? (Don’t answer, that is a rhetorical question.) “
Put in a report with the “Scientific Method” police.
You know that I am not in favor of you being the arbiter of the worth of all research - so we are in fundamental disagreement - you think you should be in charge, I disagree.
Now if you want to keep stomping your feet and holding your breath over the point, I think it’s adorable, but you’re still fundamentally misguided.
Embrace our differences - which aren’t quite the ones you keep complaining about.
Merry Christmas, and don’t kiss any pigs, or chimps, for that matter.
- a better explanation? :
- another tale from Bud Garner -
Subject: Porkey Pig of Pompano
Date: May 6, 2014 9:25:43 AM EDT
Pompano porker puzzles pooch and police
as told by Arthur (Pooch) Payne
Arthur (Pooch) Payne, retired lawyer and Judge, now living on NE 2nd St in old Pompano with his wife Grace, was recovering from major vascular surgery in December 1996 and was doing minor repairs to his home getting exercise and to gain strength.
Pooch says, “I was on a ladder about the third rung painting the facia board on the side of my house when suddenly the ladder was jostled and something big and heavy bumped my leg. Looking down and being mindful of my position above the ground, I nearly fell off the ladder at what I saw standing at the base of the ladder and making strange guttural noises.”
There on the ground below me stood this huge, at least two hundred fifty pound pig. This was a real pig, not one of those “Pot belly pigs” you see people parading around on a leash.
I was born and raised on a farm in the hills of Kentucky and I knew a pig of this size could be big trouble if he was aggressive. I stepped down gingerly from the ladder and the pig rubbed up quite hard against my leg, apparently, he was used to being around people. I went into my back yard followed by the pig. I picked-up the garden hose, turned it on and squirted him to send him on his way. This was something he obviously enjoyed.
I went around to the front of my house and sat down on a bench and this big, now wet, pig followed me, sidled up to the bench beside me and began rubbing against me.
I called my wife Grace to come out and upon seeing the pig, and he seeing her he left me and went to her, which scared her back into the house..
Our next door neighbor heard us talking, she came over to see if anything was wrong and upon seeing the pig she said it might be best to get the pig tied-up or fenced in.
She was eating an apple and fed it to the pig and it followed her into her fenced-in back yard and there, she put a dog leash on him. She had two dogs in her yard and her beagle and the pig got into a “fight” and the pig received a cut on its snout.
She went into the house to get something to stop the pigs bleeding nose and he followed her into the house. She, not wanting a wet, bleeding pig in her house picked-up another apple and led him outside.
At this point seeing the pig might get the upper hand, the neighbor did the correct thing, she called animal control. After explaining the problem with this animal being loose and in a residential area of Pompano, she was told that animal control “Did not do pigs,” only wild animals, dogs or cats. No further advice from them so she called the Pompano Police Dept.
They responded with three units and then there became the problem of placing a huge, wet, bleeding pig in the back seat of a patrol car for transport, and to, where?
After much pushing, shoving lifting, grunting and probable some choice words (under their breath, no doubt) The realization that this might be a job for “Superman.”
No, it was a job for the neighbor who had already found the pigs’ weakness, she placed an apple on the back seat of the Police car and Porkey just climbed in and there he was, as the old saying goes, “As happy as a dead pig in the sunshine” (or in this case, the back seat of a Police car.)
What ever happened to the “Pompano porker?”
Pooch Payne said that about a week later, one of the officers involved in this “caper” stopped by to report that the owner had been identified but not yet located.” No mention as to where the pig was now staying.
I am not going to speculate on that, will you?
(’Pooch Payne’ passed away in 2001)
A science(?) belly laugh to start the new year right.
So I guess this is why cannibals in New Guinea call people “long pig.”
An “astonishing hypothesis” is referred to as “total bullsh!+” in layman’s terms.
Unfortunately, the darn pig valves only last for about ten years. My mom got one at age 78 and died at age 89 from congestive heart failure as the valve failed. She was too frail for a second operation. [1985 to 1996, maybe there have been improvements since then?]
The figures I read were 2% difference from chimps, and 1.6% difference from bonobos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.