Poll: Scientific consensus

[Kiyoat Husker]

8 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Aren't species essentially just made up human labels of categorization? 

 

Sure, but you could say that about almost anything in science.  Like math.  

 

Besides, it's not just an arbitrary definition.  Typically species breed with each other under natural conditions, and separate species either don't (geographic/physical/behavioral separation) or can't produce viable offspring.  There is some grey area there, of course.  Scientists are continually argue about whether certain populations should be considered races of the same species, or just closely related, but separate species.

 

Hybridization is the breeding of two closely-related but separate species.  Some hybrids are sterile, like Mules.  Some are viable, like wolf/coyote/dog hybrids.  This brings in to question whether wolves coyotes and dogs should be considered races of one species instead of separate species.  The argument with Canids is that they don't hybridize regularly in the wild, under normal conditions.  The problem with that argument is that they have shown some hybridization in the wild, although one could argue that this only happens regularly in the atypical environments we humans have created. (see the Northeast US Coy-Wolf)

 

Wait, What were we talking about, again?  I think I just confused myself....

 

[Huskerzoo]

On 2/14/2018 at 9:54 PM, Making Chimichangas said:

I want to start out by saying that I do believe our climate is changing.  However...

 

Is it caused by humans?

 

Skeptical that there is global warming on Mars?

 

I do believe our climate is changing.  Are humans a (or the sole) cause?    

 

As for genetically modified food, I don't necessarily have a problem with it and can see the benefits of it.  Imagine crops that are resistant to drought, bugs, etc.  Seems like there's a lot of potential there.  And plus, anyone want to go back to seeds in grapes?  Or has anyone seen a non-GMO tomato?  It seriously looks nothing like the perfectly round, and bright red we're so used to seeing.

 

 

 

 

2

 

Re: climate change, I think this is part of the problem. Many people take the notion of man made climate change to think that humans are the only variable in play. No scientist is ever going to say that because by definition the natural laws that govern properties of the universe are in play. There are an inconceivable number of variables that are changing at any given point in time and frankly, we do not have the technology to capture these variables, the computing power to factor them in, or a model that would do them justice.  However, we have a pretty good understanding that the stuff that we're doing does contribute. 

 

To take a parallel from my field. There is much debate in the lay public about if "mental illness" or even simply human behavior is a nature or nurture issue. Turns out we know the answer and we've known for quite awhile. Human behavior consists of: Genes, biology, learning history, and current environment. Now there are different behaviors that have different contributions from each of these. If you look at DSM disorders, the only one that is accounted for by over 50% biological/genetic factors is alcohol use disorders. Schizophrenia is in the 40s, everything else below that. That doesn't mean that we should stop investigating how genetics contribute to behavior that interferes with a person's life, it simply means that none of these solutions are the end all be all of mental health. 

 

Climate change is undoubtedly going to be similar. At this time, the intervention point is going to be on man-made factors. This will remain true until we can do things like creating a Dyson sphere and frankly that is significantly down the road. 

[Moiraine]

12 hours ago, Landlord said:

Aren't species essentially just made up human labels of categorization? 

 

 

I mean... we're talking animal DNA inserted into plants in some cases.  I suppose a venus fly trap could impregnant a cat or something. Right?

[The Dude]

"Almost all" is the correct answer to all 3 questions.

 

[BigRedBuster]

21 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

because virtually ALL pesticides are carcinogenic at some level of exposure.

 

I forgot I wanted to comment on this.

 

This sentence is really not true.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I mean... we're talking animal DNA inserted into plants in some cases.  I suppose a venus fly trap could impregnant a cat or something. Right?

 

 

Oh yeah well a chihuahua is a wolf 

[Kiyoat Husker]

52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I forgot I wanted to comment on this.

 

This sentence is really not true.

 

Yes, I agree.  It was a blanket statement, and not accurate.  Many chemicals are carcinogenic at some level of exposure, even some that people assume to be safe, and consume on a regular basis.  Many chemicals likely are carcinogenic,  but no causal relationship has yet been proven, so it is disingenuous to make that claim.

 

I think the statement that all pesticides are TOXIC would be more accurate.  If they weren't toxic, they wouldn't be effective as a pesticide, since the purpose is to kill stuff (insects, plants, fungi, rodents, etc.).  The level of toxicity to humans for different pesticides is the question, I guess.  Chronic exposure to any pesticide is something that should be avoided or limited if possible, IMO.

 

Yes, I know that pesticides have to go through rigorous testing before they are allowed to be used in this country, but I'll still buy organic strawberries lettuce and celery for my kids, just in case. (and thoroughly wash apples).