The 'show why science is awesome' thread:


#901

An interesting ‘food science’ related article:

‘Official advice on low-fat diet and cholestrol is wrong, says health charity’:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/22/official-advice-to-eat-low-fat-diet-is-wrong-says-health-charity

Basically eat fat (as part of a balanced diet) to stay healthy! (but only natural fats, so those occurring naturally in things like avocados, fish etc)


#902

A report from a random group which is not peer reviewed is not really “science”.
This should be prefaced with something like, “One weird trick to…”


#903

Avocados hate him!


#904

What’s a non-natural fat?


#905

I’m assuming all the hydrogenated fats and trans fats and the like that goes in junk food or heavily processed food? In the 60s and 70s they were lauded for increasing shelf life of foods, but now it looks like they’re the only fats that can actually kill you.

haha, sorry to get all science downer in the mad about science thread, but that’s just how I roll.


#906

Heavily processed foods are mostly just bad for you (from the types of fats TimElhajj mentions, to added sugar and salt they nearly always contain etc). Not that long ago research showed that even lightly processed meat (like mince meat and sausages) gave higher risks of cancer, just because of the process of finely mincing the meat!


#907

I believe you are misremembering this IARC report. Here an explainer from Cancer Research UK:

‘Processed’ meat is meat that’s not sold fresh, but instead has been cured, salted, smoked, or otherwise preserved in some way (so things like bacon, sausages, hot dogs, ham, salami, and pepperoni). But this doesn’t include fresh burgers or mince.


#908

No comment.


#909

@ AWS260, yeah that was the kind of thing, and thanks for the link, lots of great ‘food science’ in it :)


#910

May have been posted before, but youtube channel shows how to mine platinum from the side of the road.

Some heavy chemistry in there.


#911

We now have definitive proof dinosaurs had feathers. A piece of amber was preserved and it is IMMACULATE. This is a once in a thousand year kind of find. Age data has also been definitively proven as mid-Cretaceous ~99 million years ago.

It was a super cute little therapod that could stand in your hand.

I think it’s about time a disclaimer was posted on Ken Hamm’s Ark exhibibit stating it is fantasy. Or they at least remove the word “museum”. Cause as bad as it was before they had a kid riding a dinosaur in an exhibit, it’s now anatomically incorrect as well since they don’t have feathers lol.

Getting back to the science, this is a real cutie of a dinosaur.


#912

Beat me to the punch. It’s still kind of amazing to think that when I was a kid we had no idea about this. A real lesson in having a humble epistemology.


#913

Shit, that is awesome!


#914

On the flip side, it’s pretty amazing that we had any idea at all what animals that lived a hundred million years ago looked like at all based on fossilized bone fragments.


#915

Some closeup photos of the feathers:

Photomicrographs of DIP-V-15103 Plumage (A) Pale ventral feather in transmitted light (arrow indicates rachis apex). (B) Dark-field image of (A), highlighting structure and visible color. © Dark dorsal feather in transmitted light, apex toward bottom of image. (D) Base of ventral feather (arrow) with weakly developed rachis. (E) Pigment distribution and microstructure of barbules in ©, with white lines pointing to pigmented regions of barbules. (F–H) Barbule structure variation and pigmentation, among barbs, and ‘rachis’ with rachidial barbules (near arrows); images from apical, mid-feather, and basal positions respectively. Scale bars, 1 mm in (A), 0.5 mm in (B)–(E), and 0.25 mm in (F)–(H). See also Figure S4.


#916

Nope.

It’s further proof that sinful science doesn’t know anything for certain and Satan’s “facts” change with supposedly new discoveries, also how can we take the word of these liar scientists when they claim something is millions of years old? The Bible clearly shows God created the Earth 6,000 years ago.


#917

Something I’ve wondered about. While I can understand the development of feathers as a mating primer or temperature regulator - it seems like any benefit would have been more than offset by the parasite problem. Thick alligator skin is not nearly as vulnerable to mosquitoes, lice, and ticks as a feathered creature. I wish we had a time machine, more-so than paleontology provides, to see what was going on influencing their evolution. Maybe temperature fluctuated way more than we thought so the positive of feathers was more beneficial than the negatives that go along with them.


#918

Ive just realised how little I know about feathers. Do we know if Dinos evolved from birds, or if all of today’s birds evolved from dinosaurs? Are feathers necessary for flight? Or are they just handy skin coverings as they are very light?


#919

Evolution is such a sacred cow.

But this guy is quite funny. I like the one where he fries stuff in wax and eats it.

Ive done a bit of chemistry, and I’m still not sure why he got a toilet to flush mercury.

‘Needs salt’. Probably a laxative too.


#920

Birds evolved from dinos. And, no, feathers aren’t necessary for flight, hence bats. But they are good for flight.