Amazon Vehicles Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Shop now Book House Cleaning MeBeforeYou MeBeforeYou MeBeforeYou  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $129.99 Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Spring Savings Event on Amazon.com Ellen
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Do Conservatives Really Hate Science?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 618 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2012, 6:25:13 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
OK, sorry, I wanted to senf it to one thread then started my own si I did not get tons of mail.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2012, 6:22:36 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
Very entertaining, specially the Mad Scientist clip after, lol.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2012, 5:23:32 AM PDT
noman says:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2703

Posted on Aug 14, 2012, 4:54:30 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Spamming across multiple threads is not allowed, Mystic.

Posted on Aug 14, 2012, 12:06:05 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 25, 2012, 3:52:37 AM PDT
Ehkzu says:
Going back to the original question, the answer is: both conservatives and liberals see science instrumentally. They both love it when it conforms to their ideological positions and hate/deny it when it doesn't.

Thus conservatives hate evolution because it means the Bible isn't false--just not literal, and to the literal-minded that means false, which is itself actually false.
Conservatives hate climate science because they've been bamboozled by a lavishly funded propaganda campaign from the petrochemical industry that panders to their fears of losing what they've got if they have to conserve. Like ride to work on a bicycle. Quelle domage.

Liberals hate biology when it talks about race, which they want to deny the existence of. They also appear to hate evolution in the sense that people are born with differential skills and beauty--they want us to believe that if we weren't conditioned to prefer women who look like Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover girls to women who are fat and assymetrical with bad complexions, we'd only look for "inner beauty." As if.

And both liberals and conservatives scoff at the idea that our species is currently in the middle of an overpopulation crisis, though they deny it for different but equally unscientific reasons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012, 11:53:39 AM PDT
Yes, transcription is highly regulated. Not sure to what extent diet or stress affects it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012, 9:11:08 AM PDT
Del Amore says:
So in Laymans terms, are you saying that Transcription is determined by the current reading health of certain Enzymes (not per say) that perform this function - The state of which could also be affected by certain environmental variables, Diet changes, Stress, etc?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012, 9:00:25 AM PDT
One of the biggest advances in the whole field has to do with microRNAs, short sequences of DNA transcribed into RNA which acts to regulate gene expression rather than being translated into protein. This is related to RNA interference, where it is possible to selectively shut down the translation of any desired gene by introducing a certain kind of RNA into the cell.

Nobel Prize in Medicine 2006.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012, 8:56:00 AM PDT
arpard fazakas,

Wow. For not being sure of reference, you certainly answered my question. I now have a basic understanding of (1) transcription is not all-inclusive; some things don't get copied and (2) the biochemistry (i.e., how those molecules interact) is a process responsive to many conditions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012, 8:29:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 13, 2012, 8:29:44 AM PDT
I'm not sure what you're referring to. In order for a segment of DNA to be transcribed into RNA, there has to be one or more sequences upstream from the transcribed region where the RNA polymerase can attach ("promoter regions"). In regions where such sequences are not present, or have been mutated such that they are no longer functional, there can't be any transcription because the RNA polymerase can't attach. Many pseudogenes are not transcribed because the various mutations that were acquired to make them pseudogenes included ones which eliminated or mutated the promoter regions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012, 8:25:33 AM PDT
arpard fazakas,

That's distinctly interesting. It seems to indicate a mechanism for stabilizing the genetic endowment to the succeeding generation, reducing the transcription of "dubious" qualities. Is that how the researches seem to see this "sorting" function? Any idea how it's done?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012, 8:16:54 AM PDT
Depends what is meant by "nonfunctional" code. If you mean introns, then you are correct, the intron sequences are transcribed into RNA which is then processed to remove the intron sequences. If you mean regulatory DNA like promoter regions, then Tero is correct. If you mean junk DNA, then you might both be correct, depending on what kind of junk is in the trunk. For example, pseudogenes may not be transcribed, but sequences for microRNA, (which is not really "junk", but traditionally included as part of "junk") obviously are.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 10:57:19 PM PDT
Mr. Christenson,

I bow to your superior knowledge of biochemistry and thank you for the accurate information.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 10:54:50 PM PDT
Tero,

If no one has already noted this, I'll say you're wrong. RNA is used to copy everything in the DNA, "functional" and "nonfunctional" alike.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 2:05:07 PM PDT
I suspect that migration plays a bigger part than drift in the distribution of all genetic variation in humans.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 12:42:57 PM PDT
Good question.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 12:39:53 PM PDT
No data, but common sense would seem to indicate that a younger (based on appearance) mate would tend to be healthier, have a greater chance of surviving giving birth, have a longer reproductive timeline, etc.

Basically all the same reasons middle aged people leave their significant others for younger, more attractive replacements today ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 12:34:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012, 12:35:59 PM PDT
Bubba says:
The original article I read said that there is a genetic reason to choose a mate with a more symmetrical face, it is an indication of "better" genes. The photo morphing process makes the generated average face ultra-symmetrical, which is likely to cause a bias in people choosing the morphed face. I wonder why juvenile features in women's faces makes them more attractive.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 12:08:21 PM PDT
I seem to recall reading that people also find symmetrical faces beautiful. And they like juvenile features in women's faces.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 12:07:26 PM PDT
I had a cousin who was a Mongoloid.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 10:36:35 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Well, it depends where on the body you find them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 10:24:38 AM PDT
Del Amore says:
Yes, Because epicanthic Folds are just O SOOOO Sexy! ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 10:10:08 AM PDT
Bubba says:
Somebody did some research that showed that most people chose a morphed average of a large number faces to be the most beautiful face. I couldn't find the study I had seen, but this article mentions that this happens.

http://www.psychworld.com/psychology-of-beauty-2011-06

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012, 10:02:56 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
True.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Expanding universe question. 6 8 hours ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 2274 11 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9675 15 hours ago
If you buy a Refurbished electronics item should you be required to be informed what was done to Refurbished it, IF anything? 13 1 day ago
Is this common knowledge? 1 1 day ago
Solar Panels from China too cheap, tariffs needed? 3 1 day ago
Zero waste amazon 21 1 day ago
She went to the hospital, and they sent her home! 10 2 days ago
California Braces for Unending Drought 183 2 days ago
Sounds good, but where's the beef? (Too good to be true?) 0 3 days ago
Right, got to get to Mars! More waste of taxpayer monies. 33 3 days ago
there are only 2 genders 14 4 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  618
Initial post:  Jun 26, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers