Plankton: Evil genius, or idiot scientist?
466828
Idiot scientist. If he were a genius he would have figured out the crabby paddy ingredients by now.\n\nI'd say he ranks at the bottom of the nemesis list being that he can't seem to go through with his plans to get a crabby patty. He's more of an nuisance than a villan.
1126336
phytoplankton produce oxygen, not breathe it (A & B wrong)\nnekton are bigger than plankton so i don't think they feed off of them (C wrong)\nzooplankton feed on other plankton, which is technically what nekton is (by my guess D is right)
186914
Ugh, Why do so many creationists answer questions in the science section when they don't know what they're talking about?\n\nYou will find an excellent explaination of this in "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Also look at his homepage.\n\nThis idea of irreducible complexity from Michael Behe has been thorughly debunked.  The ones that have been illustrated are either not IC or could have resulted from a REDUCTION of redundant systems.  Or have resulted by using parts adapted for OTHER functions.\n\nRead what Calimecita wrote, at least she bothered to understand what she's talking about.  I am so worried about the education system in this country.
180432
I find it interesting that the individual producing the time cube theory claims that mathematics (and by implication, all science other than what he/she approves) is nonsense has declared that set of opinions on a medium that required the mathematical and scientific work that the individual curses...  The internet, and its support technology, has been built and supported by the stuff this fellow decries.\n\nFrom my standpoint, that's like someone cursing farmers and cooks while eating...\n\nJust my opinion, of course.  I'm the embodiment of all that he or she anathematizes: so is modern medicine.  I wonder what the person would do if he/she got pneumonia or a nasty case of malaria?\n\nTo move into new territory, of course, you have to find new thoughts to think--I think it's one of Fudd's Laws: to find what no one else has found, you have to look where no one else has looked.\n\nWith that said, I have to disagree with the content of the site, and wonder about what there is in the author's background that causes such an attitude.  Certainly, there is a strong element of lack of knowledge: math and science, as they exist at this point in time, certainly embrace both singularity and plurality, and a great deal of other things.  They're not nearly so limited as the individual in that site seems to feel they are.\n\nOh, well...  Time to move on, or I shall ramble.
894861
There is a saying that goes like this:\n\nPERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF GOOD.\n\nI agree with your basic premise that these fellows would have a tough time at my alma mater pursuing an engineering degree.  However, consider what else is on television these days!  As critical as one could be about Mythbusters at least they think a little bit about the science before they try something.  \n\nI'll take Mythbuster's science any day of the week over the CSI Miami, CSI Houston, CSI New York, CSI Cleveland, CSI Missoula and other "scientific" based shows of their ilk.
1145099
Fish are extremely stupid and many are afraid of everything. Seems your technique is just bad.
996254
If you think science is so flawed why are you using a computer on the Internet?  You are using the machines created by the same scientists that you have so little respect for.  Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
1048996
Hey Bud, have you ever taken a class in evolution?\n\n"You're logic is flawed. There is plenty of evidence to show small adaptations within a species. These small variations enable animals to adapt to their environments.\n\nBut to go from that to changes from one species to another is quite a blind leap of faith and poor science as well. " Poor science according to who?\n\nHow many small variations does it take to turn one species into another?  A few small genetic variations make slight changes in organisms.... a few more make more changes... a few more make even more changes, and eventually enough of these little changes of added up so that the 2 groups of organisms are no longer able to interbreed. Thus, a new species - evolution at work.\n\nPoor science is when people who have not studied evolution try to disprove it. You come up with some pretty wacky ideas. Evolution is not something that animals do on purpose to improve. There is no plan, purpose, or goal to evolution. An animal that adapts to his environment (after he is already born) like your example is NOT evolution. Evolution affects populations, not individuals, and it does not 'occur' after an organism is born. Evolution only occurs when the gene frequency in the population is changed, through natural selection, random mutation, drift, etc.
750034
from a moron ar the bottom of the food chain that's pretty funny.  they do three things and they do them better than anybody else.  they eat, and make baby sharks, the third is a by product of the eating thing.  BTW they've been around-unchanged-for somewhere around 70 million years.  not bad for a retard, huh.
1000733
he was a univeristy proffessor, and harvard graduate. \n\noh i get it opposite day.........so yes,  yes he is stupid.\n\nand you are not stupid.\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\n\nSucka!
41546
I think most scientists believe what they are doing is true, but there is a lot of pressure to succeed and come up with something to please the stock holders.\n\n    It has been learned recently that Darwin, who came up with the theory of evolution, was actually lying to us all.   Did you know that he knew that what he was writing was all a lie?   The reason  we know this is that it made him physically sick because he had a vomit basin in his study and he vomitted twice a day into it.
526369
science and the holocaust? \n\nno.  The holocaust was a direct result of a madman and his philosophies.
960612
Um, no that's real... that's a serious video that was made for "Way of the Master," and there's a whole series of them. Scary, isn't it?\n\nHere's a user's list that has all kinds of entertaining tidbits, including some other way of the master stuff.\n\nhttp://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=zonkas\n\nAnd the site from which they spawn...\n\nhttp://www.wayofthemaster.com/\n\nThe funniest thing about this video? Bananas did NOT look like to begin with. People farmed them and bred them to get better and better results.\n\nIf anything, it's proof of intelligent design - so long as the "designer" is humans.\n\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo
570282
Gotta be one of the weirdest phenomona in the world.\nDefies logic, but the answer is yes.\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html has some info on the oddity!\n\nWish you well,\nGod bless,\nShane
481417
I could see 99%+.  I expect that they're doing a bit of statistical extrapolation (can't test everybody) and taking the upper range on their margin-of-error for journalistic sensationalism.  So, overall, probably.  \n\nConsider: DNA is DNA for every living thing (except perhaps a virus), so variations outside of a certain threshhold result in a different creature -- like aardvarks and komodo dragons.  Considering the diversity of life on earth, it should come as little surprise that the threshhold on DNA between one species and another is rather small (at least in comparison to the whole).
974903
People like my Mom think that either 1) scientists are mistaken or 2) there's a giant conspiracy that all of the scientists are in on to try to disprove God.  It's ridiculous if you ask me, and I'm a Christian who totally supports the notion of evolution.  One doesn't exclude the other, but watch, all of the Christians who have never studied evolution and merely taken their pastor's word will give me a thumbs down.
72549
I too am shocked at the amount of misunderstanding and especially the amount of animosity. I know many esteemed scientists (including anthropologists and geologists) that have no problem being religious and believing in evolution. If you search the internet you will find many websites giving completely non-factual descriptions of how istopic dating works and using the small amount of uncertainty to claim it refutes all sorts of science. I have even seen attempts at disproving the sedimentary record of the Grand Canyon using this. Never mind that these self-described experts have no qualifications to evaluate these things. In my opinion they are motivated by greed and not altruism. Debunking science seems to have become a cottage industry for what I consider pseudo-religious crackpots. \n\nI think the source is a recent trend as I don't remember this hostility in the 1970's or 1980's. There are now television programs that are done professionally and broadcast daily (TBS) that try to refute all sorts of science using PhD's of theology to describe why carbon dating doesn't work, and even to refute things like dinosaur trace fossils by citing the rate of diagenesis in carbonate rocks. There is a constant problem in Texas where the creationists try to remove and destroy fossils whenever a new location is found. \n\nThe mainstream media doesn't help because the reporters and editors appear to be poorly educated in science. I recently watched a CBS Sunday Morning news piece comparing evolution and intelligent design and to my horror they constantly referred to both as scientific theory- effectively equating them as equal in status to millions of viewers. They hardly even mentioned that ID is not science and that it will never qualify as scientific theory. \n\nThere seem to be so many people who never learned the scientific definition of a theory that it becomes easy to confuse the public by implying that anything labeled as a theory is only a conjecture, and I think with this weakness that far too many people decide evolution can be dismissed as unreliable and unproven. I almost wish science would create a new terminology to replace the word 'theory' in order to clear up this semantic confusion. \n\nI have been very impressed by the magnitude of this problem by watching Yahoo Answers. As a former science teacher I am very disappointed that at least part of it seems to come from many young participants. I had hoped they were getting a better education in science, and at the very least had learned better reasoning skills.