# Will YOU be around in 1,500 yrs- NO, but this living organism is !!!



## viper69 (Mar 18, 2014)

Multicelluar- not bacteria PFFT!

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/the-moss-is-still-alive/

http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982214000864.pdf?intermediate=true


----------



## MarkmD (Mar 18, 2014)

Cool link.


----------



## Galapoheros (Mar 18, 2014)

That is interesting!  I'm going to play devil's-advocate for a moment though.  How do they know the sample wasn't contaminated by fresh spores that might be floating around practically everywhere and the new growth is from fresh spores and not the old material?  I know, they should know the proper methods and I might assume they do but assuming is not a good habit, we've prob all been there before.  They would have to examine growth from under a microscope to confirm it yet the article doesn't give any details about that.  I guess they expect us to "just trust them".  Over the years I've come to see that is not a good idea either.  But even if they grew from spores that old, that would be just as cool.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Mar 18, 2014)

Galapoheros said:


> That is interesting!  I'm going to play devil's-advocate for a moment though.  How do they know the sample wasn't contaminated by fresh spores that might be floating around practically everywhere and the new growth is from fresh spores and not the old material?  I know, they should know the proper methods and I might assume they do but assuming is not a good habit, we've prob all been there before.  They would have to examine growth from under a microscope to confirm it yet the article doesn't give any details about that.  I guess they expect us to "just trust them".  Over the years I've come to see that is not a good idea either.  But even if they grew from spores that old, that would be just as cool.


Email the scientists, they will likely respond. I email scientists all the time about their research. They have a picture of new growth too I believe as well.

From the link below addressing your question

"...growth taking place on the fresh-cut surfaces of the core sections, and that sporophytes of C. aciphyllum are unknown in the maritime Antarctic."


http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982214000864.pdf?intermediate=true


So if you want to be a Doubting Thomas..go for it, but you'll likely be the only member of your "genius club"


----------



## Galapoheros (Mar 18, 2014)

OK, those are the kind of details I was looking for, good to read, very healthy these days to question claims like this imo and I encourage everybody to do so, join that "geniues club" look deeper, don't take it as fact so fast.  One example out of many is that "they" used to say the universe was slowing down and would contract, but now "they" say the universe is accelerating it's expansion.  There is now the "global warming" issue, each think they are correct based on data they choose to believe.  I could dig up so many more examples.  So where was that link, it's on that site?


----------



## viper69 (Mar 19, 2014)

Galapoheros said:


> There is now the "global warming" issue, each think they are correct based on data they choose to believe.  I could dig up so many more examples.  So where was that link, it's on that site?


Not one country's National Academy of Science denies there is global climate change. The only people that deny it think the Earth is flat and only 5,000 yrs old.

I found the info in 1 min from Wired not everything is spoon fed even on the net


----------



## Galapoheros (Mar 19, 2014)

It went from global warming to "global change", some scientists argue over the reasons for it, who to believe, I just don't worry much about it anymore but it's interesting to hear the agruments.  All I'm saying is I think a lot of people, including myself, often accept what we are told too fast and I took the opportunity to point it out.  You put up the info, that's the kind of thing I was pointing out that is good for us to do more of before we just accept claims.  If you're in the fast habit of double checking, it didn't apply.  I'm just not going to go back and forth about it.


----------



## viper69 (Mar 19, 2014)

Galapoheros said:


> It went from global warming to "global change",... If you're in the fast habit of double checking, it didn't apply.


You are right, it's 'change' now, I think that's for several reasons. I think in part because some aspects of global change don't connect as well to the common person when said in context with global warming (like extremely cold winters for one hah) and other not so obvious temperature related weather.  For example, it's not obvious to the lay person that increases in the ocean's temperature can lead to much stronger hurricanes. Most people just think "storms ooo bad" haha, and not what causes them.


As for double checking, I only look up stuff I'm curious about. While there is fraud conducted by scientists, the overwhelming majority of scientists do not commit fraud. I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy skepticism/questions, after all, that is part of the scientific process. More than one scientist was thought to be incredibly wrong at the time they presented their research for publication and only years later won a Nobel Prize for the very research their peers thought was "crazy". I know one such individual.

But there is a distinction between that, and those that just doubt science and question it because there's not "enough proof, scientists don't know everything, they've been wrong before....and thus they are probably wrong now too" type of attitudes so very prevalent among people who are 1. Not knowledgeable in research in the slightest and 2. Tend to be highly conservative in their personal philosophies.

In short, there's a difference between healthy questioning and those that don't believe in science.

Personally, I think everyone who doesn't believe that science seeks truth in answering questions (basically all the Flat Earth "genius candidates") should be denied any and all medical care that came about from medical/biological research. After all, they shouldn't believe any of that voodoo science would or should be helpful, hypocrites they are! And, they should be denied any and all electronic communication technologies too.


----------



## The Snark (Mar 20, 2014)

viper69 said:


> As for double checking, I only look up stuff I'm curious about. While there is fraud conducted by scientists, the overwhelming majority of scientists do not commit fraud. I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy skepticism/questions, after all, that is part of the scientific process. More than one scientist was thought to be incredibly wrong at the time they presented their research for publication and only years later won a Nobel Prize for the very research their peers thought was "crazy". I know one such individual.


There is a checks and balances system in place with scientists. A funny foofy called funding and potentially starving to death. Scientists get funding from all sorts of sources but when they publish their findings etiquette demands the funding sources be declared. There is no requirement for declaring the sources but that brands the scientific investigation as suspect. It becomes a pretty rigorous gauntlet to run to produce a fully credible white paper AFTER the peer review has determined proper methodology has been observed. And then, the peer review gets scrutinized for possible private agendas. What helps keep the scientists honest is all this stuff goes on a permanent record and can forever taint the work of that scientist for the rest of their career. Where that really hurts is working at institutions or with other scientists as their fundings are jeopardized by the scientist with a questionable venue.

This checks and balances in the scientific community was really brought home to me while I was bobbling around Cal Tech. That place mows through money at an incredible rate. In the astrofizzies department the old codgers had a couple of unwritten laws. Never mention UFOs and never grandstand or showboat. All data produced must go through proper peer review and released in accepted white paper format. At one time or another, the CT/JPL/Hale core clique had ostracized notables as Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan.

And so, cranking out flakey anti global warming noise is a sure fire way for a scientist to end up forever tied to some private agenda funding circle and often, loss of credibility and major funding in the greater scientific circles.

And of course, there is the flip side of the coin. Albert is the best possible example of that. Scientific genius but severely ostracized when he joined and was an active participant in the anti war and nuclear proliferation movement. Fortunately, as Sagan and Hawking, his acumen and scope vindicated him, though quite some time down the road.


But back to the topic of this thread. Has DNA analysis been ran on the  goop?


----------

