Update

It has now been too long since I wrote that last entry. I meant to do some quick research and pump out a buffed up version of it in less than a week, but, of course, after doing some research, that lead to more, which lead to more things that I wanted to mention, which lead to more things I had to read...

Etcetera, etcetera, I think you get it. If you don't, welcome to the scientific process. Even Einstein was wrong sometimes. Even Tesla was wrong sometimes. Feynman called light a particle in some of his lectures.

Hell, Plato tried to write about chemistry in Timaeus, but the book was published and he turned out to be wrong, too (at least based on the audio translation that I listened to). Then I tried to act smart in front of my chemistry 1320 classes and I taught the story of Plato being wrong wrong.

This doesn't make these people bad -- on the contrary, it makes them a little bit better when they correct the mistake.

(For those interested, in Timaeus, Plato groups all things into one or more of the four "original" elements: Fire, Water, Earth and Air, then attempts to explain chemistry by describing the interactions among each of the 'Platonic solids', named after him, associated with each element. In Timaeus, he groups oil with the water element, which would be inaccurate as we know today. The tetrahedron was predicted to represent fire, which is coincident with the shape of white phosphorus.)

(*long breath* ...)

Anyway, the research on DNA is still ongoing, and I will post a link to the product when it's finished. So far I'm at 8 pages (including references). It turns out my original hunch was probably right, but the way that I tried to rationalize it was probably wrong.

Either way, it will be a pretty good read when it's done. The progress has slowed a bit because I'm trying to get involved in stuff to keep myself out of trouble (most of the time, at least).

And I think I'll leave you with a bane of metaphysical quacks out there because even they have been known to prey on the innocent at times...

How can you tell the difference between a real scientist and a phony sell-out? Sometimes it's not so simple...

Since most everyone that you'll ever come in contact with wants to make a little cash, most to be comfortable, but the best of which just to stay alive, you can't assume that someone is trying to cheat you just because they want to sell you something. Unfortunately, you often need to be somewhat fluent in science to tell the difference between hogwash and genuine good faith, but at the heart of it, what you're looking for is:

Less speculation, more science!

You can tell almost immediately if someone is genuine by whether or not they want to make you pay for knowledge. If they use fuzzy language and don't lay anything on you before the check-out screen, you don't even want to make it that far.

On the other hand, if they provide you with valuable personal experience, chemical names/structures, and/or referenced facts, they are almost certainly good, and you can probably feel okay about paying them for their services if you feel so inclined.

On the other other hand, though, fuck money and technology (in modern-day practice, not in theory). What we all really need is a solid chunk of life minus material distractions. When that day comes, we should evolve by ourselves.

Here's hoping it does.



Stay fresh, yo.