WhyFi

wut

spelger

have you never heard of the Darwin award?

https://darwinawards.com/

WhyFi

Uh, yeah, I have, but there has always been the implication that these were people (thankfully) not making any further contributions to the gene pool.

Seattle Forrest

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...20all%20cases.

genejockey 

Indeed. One winner did not in fact die as a result of his own stupidity, but did manage to make any further contribution to the gene pool impossible.

WhyFi

Well, remind me not to watch that one.

genejockey 

There was a written description, no video.

alcjphil

I read that one. Description was gruesome enough

Polaris OBark

Wut?

Is this like Newton's controversial views on kinematics?

(I just noticed they used a photo of John Sulston.)

genejockey 

Yeah.

genejockey 

I first read that as "cinematics", which made for a delightful diversion.

Koyote

Aside from a few crackpots, there is nothing "controversial" about the theory of natural selection. It's long-established science.

Seattle Forrest

And for the record, Darwin didn't understand how heredity worked, his theory was about what happens as a result of variation being hereditary. At the time, there were other theories of evolution - Lamarck thought ancestral giraffes stretched their necks to reach high trees and passed the result down. Darwin's insight, and Wallace's, was how nature "guided" the process of change.

Maelochs

And still, there are holes in our understanding .... for instance, if long-necked giraffes got more food more often, were thus healthier and bred more often, we should see slow but steady neck increases, but apparently giraffes went from horse-necks to giraffe necks.

I have a friend (one of the world's foremost experts on lemurs, among other things) who got degrees in evolutionary biology or some such .... he admits readily that Darwin;'s ideas, and later ideas, don't explain everything, from rates of change to sudden changes and other stuff which you could argue with him .... and lose, because he spent years studying the stuff. He is not saying organisms do not evolve .... we can literally see that in quick-breeding species. he is saying that there are a lot of holes and gaps and mysteries which existing science cannot explain .... which is okay. All true science is mostly about investigating the unknown. Go get me a bag full of dark matter please ......

Anyway, if you don't think Darwin's theory is controversial .... not so impressed by your science.

Look, I don't argue with Flat Earthers, but i don't deny they exist.

Science begins with observation .... and anyone who likes facts can observe that a lot of people outright deny evolution. Doesn't mean they are right, or even rational, but it is pretty clear they are there.

So yeah ... I meant it as a joke---i mean we are on BF right?---but it is indeed a theory which a lot of people argue about ... which is the definition of controversial, last time I checked.

And Newton ... yeah, he did okay with calculus, but Einstein wiped the floor with Newton's lame gravitational theory.

Which is another excellent example ... we have at least a couple very applicable theories of gravitation, can do the measurements and all that .... but scientists have no real clue what gravity is. Why does mass distort space-time? How many dimensions are there and are they all distorted by matter? Why .... Anything?

The best part of science, to me, is the unknowns. Does a Goth kid dancing to really fast punk have a lot of Dark Energy?

Darwin wasn't all that ... he didn't invent the bicycle or anything bicycle-related. Isaac Newton never even Saw a bike. Just lame.

Polaris OBark

oh

Branko D

As controversial as clipless?

Bogey Speedwell

I read somewhere on Facebook he used dry lube on a waxed chain used tubes cargo shorts & Cotton t shirts.

Bogey Speedwell

Also I’m selling my clipless shoes too, after reading this thread.

While I’ve only ridden 100-150 mile in my new SPD’s apparently they don’t work, since I haven’t fallen at all yet. They seem to feel so much better for me and seem to reduce fatigue Thats the problem, after reading the OP’s complaint, I realized my clipless shoes are liars. Longest ride in them so far was just over 57 miles, and apparently they falsely make me feel like I’m more efficient.

I feel so duped by my SPD’s……. Thanks Jen for setting me straight and saving me!

znomit

It's right there in the name. Clipless they call themselves. BUT THEY HAVE CLIPS!

Bogey Speedwell

😂😂

The irony has gone numb on me thanks for the reminder!

Koyote

One of the fun things about bf is that, occasionally, a post sends me scurrying off into the internet -- where I find out that I was wrong about something.

Here are the results of a study from the Pew Research Center which confirms that Maelochs is correct: the theory of evolution is indeed more controversial than I imagined.

Since I mostly hang out with very intelligent people, I sometimes forget how many morons are out there.

Maelochs

And .... interesting link. The depth of nonsense beneath which we find ourselves submerged begins to make sense when you see information like that.

I hang out with a mix of hippies and far-right extremists .... Most of them are quite smart, some are very intelligent, some are very educated .... and each of them possessed of world views that the rest cannot find reasonable or rational.

I am exposed to every possible theory and most impossible theories ....

Someday I will tell everyone the real truth .....

cyclezen

I scurried after you scurried. Mainly because in the abstract/summary to have some obvious ?marks / holes... like when it came to religious groups comparisons, there were quite a few Christian Groupings with 'respondents', but the 'Other' group has zero, nada, ziltch... strange...
So I went a bit deeper (especially since PEW Research studies seem to conclude many things from a minutiae of data...)
from the actual full published report... quotes
"The bulk of the analysis relies on data from a representative sample of 2,002 adults nationwide surveyed by landline and cellular telephone in August 2014. Some analysis from other Pew Research Center surveys is included where there is relevant data."
Not what I would call overpowering survey numbers... In fact, would this qualify for signifcance from even one city, like NYC, SFO, or even St Louis ?
Then the method...
Actual numbers on the 'evolution Qs...:

PEW Research excerpt - 2015 Science & Politics study

stop right after seeing this, given the numbers, I'm not surprised there were no 'Other'...
Amazing how we can influence and be influenced by something with no substantive foundation.
... If they had sampled a few dozen people at LAX, they could have called and sold this as a 'Worldwide' study...
Keep scratchin my head...
Yuri
EDIT: The total number of respondents = 2002 is for the number of respondents for the ENTIRE survey, done over a number of years, periods for many other topics, other than evolution. The Total respondents for the evolution Question was 247, over the periods from 2009 thru 2015...so NOT 2002...
and I don;t know what the AAAS Scientists survey is: numbers would indicate a survey of scientists... ?

_ForceD_

This just in…

https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plu...-clipless.html


Dan

LarrySellerz

Calling BS on this