I am preparing a little presentation and came across two strikingly similar images. One involves the % of coding versus non-coding DNA. The other involves a fairly recent estimation of the % of the universe that is standard matter (like atoms as we know them... humans, dogs, stars, and rocks) versus this theoretical "dark energy" (vacuum energy, causing the expansion of the universe) and "dark matter" (we can't see it, but we need it to explain how galaxies move, etc). So we have a lot to learn for two of the most significant (pure science) topics of our times. I think people have made a lot of progress on the non-coding DNA questions. I'm more familiar with the astrophysics stuff. If this turns into a debate, please move the thread. I just thought these images were eerily similar and inspiring. I like that we live in such a ripe time for making progress on some enormous questions.
We're on the verge of several technological and social revolutions. Pretty awesome and frightening at the same time.
I'd like to think that somewhere in that Dark Energy there lies an explanation of why the freaking Utah Jazz always seem to have a good team and the Rockets can't get out of the 1st round.
Interesting. If you track the % of dark energy in the universe, it had a lull during 1994 and 1995, and it momentarily dropped to ZERO when Karla retired. Does make you think...
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. But that doesn't mean we can't genetically modify our soldiers to travel to parts of the universe where the evil doers are possibly hiding. We will flush them out of their black holes.
"Recently, scientists discovered that the universe is in fact all black with no stars... kinda like the UPN and the WB..." - Jay Leno Like... the difference between "lots" and "lot's"... ...
Ooooh... well this site will blow away your mind... Design and the Elastic Mind If you're a tech or art geek and have 5 solid minutes to stay in their website to get used to the navigation, take a look around. Ironically, an exhibit about design doesn't have the most friendly interface... You'll have to click on the exhibit once and the popup circle to get the detail. Once in detail, a wrong click will move back to the main page. Brief overview Summary: New advances are flooding in every year, but the challenge is how a normal person will use them. Imagine an elderly person trying to fiddle around with an Xbox controller. MP3 players existed well before iPods, but the iPod's simplicity made it mainstream. Philosophically, the designer's imagination transformed reality and public perceptions. The world is truly a blank canvas. Some favorites: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2008/elasticmind/#/280/ http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2008/elasticmind/#/67/ This one shows the craziness of the cellular world. http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2008/elasticmind/#/118/ There's a video link on the top middle of the page. There's an exhibit in there with a girlfriend's nipple growing on a person's abdomen like a form of tatoo or piercing. Lots of different box opening looks into our future...
*snicker* Sounds to me . . . like Science is taking something on . . uhm .. . Faith *grin* ROcket River
One possible explanation I've heard for the large percentage of non-coding DNA is that it is important for structural reasons. I do not know if this is widely accepted, discredited, etc, as I heard this several years ago but I could certainly believe that the secondary structure effect might be important.
The important distinction is scientists beg to be proven wrong to expand our body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking, not a set of facts. One day we'll have a better explanation. I wouldn't go knocking/misunderstanding the scientific method. The first step is to hypothesize (well second, after naming the problem or question). We just don't have the tools to run tests yet. It was a funny play on words you made though, but that's all it was.
