It is like a highschooler tried to makeup a convincing story. If they had DNA it would have been sequenced and the code shared the next couple days. It would have been THE BIGGEST find in molecular biology, ever.
All that happened is some idiot Senator invited some idiot scammer to give a talk about his scam. I don't think they really had to "entertain" it and it has no legitimacy.
There are (~conspiracy) theories out there for hybridized/synthetic human-alien biologies, so it's not completely unexpected or unprecedented discourse in the UFO world.
Humans share ~60% DNA with fruit flies, so the reported ~70% similarity seems quite low for such a "quasi-human" figure.
Perhaps you could make a case that DNA retrieval from such an old sample would be corrupted. It does seem more like the figure is tuned by the exigencies of pop-sci click bait.
Anyways they shared the full sample online, so legit geneticists could potentially weigh in.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that life on earth might have been seeded from other alien life either intentionally, or by viruses or bacteria hitching a ride on meteorites.
Not that this is really the core of your point at all - but I believe the state of the science currently suggests that pheromones in humans are a myth at worst, at best unproven. We only have a vestigial vomeronasal organ, which no longer functions - as I've understood it:
Do you think it's a coincidence that almost every perfume uses some pheromone-like ingredients?
Musk and civet are the most famous examples but also see hedione, a major ingredient in perfumes since the 1960s, because it enhances pretty much any floral smell. Hedione seems to directly stimulate the vomeronasal organ (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003193842...).
There's also the case of sandalwood, a perfume ingredient since antiquity. It just happens to smell almost like androstenol, an androgen believed to act as a pheromone, even though it's not really chemically related.
PS, fwiw my wife sometimes tells me she married me because of how I smell like. Apparenlty I smell like violets to her.
Another one would be a very popular taste/smell: Vanilla, chemically close to human pheromones as well. Never used perfume, but my Ex loved my smell too.
Well, do you know the experiment where women were asked to smell shirts worn by men overnight? When they were ready to conceive they liked the smell of male sweat, otherwise they'd say it stinks. When women get off the pill to have children, it happens that they don't like their partners smell anymore.
[edit]
Seems i expressed myself badly in my original comment. It quite possibly is my central point and i feel sorry for scientists believing this. I fear they have an antisexual religious upbringing like i had.
Why should the organ which tasked to find a mate, to have healthy children with, not work in us anymore? It can be damaged in people having their nose done, it gets broken in the process.
> Why should the organ which tasked to find a mate, to have healthy children with, not work in us anymore?
I can't member where I read this, but I have read that the human sense of smell stopped being hugely important for food when we developed three colour vision.
It's conceivable that vision enhancements also gave us a different path to mate-finding than smell; if so, the smell genes can randomise without much risk to reproductive success.
> The question is, can we do the same for humans? It seems highly unlikely. “In humans it would be pretty much impossible to do the classic isolation of a pheromone,” says Hurst.
Sounds like saying "i have no clue how to do it" and protecting the ego to me, could be wrong though.
Pheromone perfume feels like a scam to me. If they work, and a male succeded in having sex, she might notice she does not like his real smell later, that she got tricked.
How much is this like the "vestigal <appendix> which no longer functions" according to decades of scientific consensus until people discovered the gut microbiome?
It's not integrated into an IDE like GH co-pilot yet is it?
I only find I reach for it for stuff like navigating some curly regex or forgetting date time format syntax for the millionth time. But I would be very keen to understand if I'm missing out.
[2]: Mirkovic B, Gérardin P (April 2019). "Asperger's syndrome: What to consider?". L'Encéphale. 45 (2): 169–174. doi:10.1016/j.encep.2018.11.005. PMID 30736970. S2CID 73452546. "Asperger's syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is part of the large family of autism spectrum disorders."
It's now considered a autism spectrum disorder, but you could literally have received an "Asperger's Syndrome" diagnosis in the past 10 years.
It IS a "clinically recognized term" in the sense that if you went to a mental health professional and said "I have Asperger's Syndrome" they might say politely "we don't call it that anymore" but it is very unlikely they would rudely say "I don't know what that is, it is not a clinically recognized term."
I don't see how that would happen. This forum is paged text only. 9gag is images and infinite scroll. Joke subissions on the HN frontpage almost always has some intresting merit other than the joke.
He used to be a Democrat - one of the excuses people had for voting for him was that he would really govern from the left. There are (probably authentic) photos of him palling around with the Clintons. He praised Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
I don't think you can deepfake Donald Trump. The man is a recursive deepfake of himself.
Keep in mind the only people using LinkedIn as anything other than "resume holder" or "mediocre job board" are also the type of people to think "Agree?" is some sort of enlightening prompt.
it's a marketing hack, LinkedIn's algorithm boosts posts with lots of comments and engagement. So people post those artificial questions at the end which are basically preaching to the choir
the fact people actually fall for it is depressing
It happened. I assure you. Debate, healthy skepticism, questioning... It was all completely shut down. You were not allowed to discuss anything but The Science. I've been yelled at by people I know in real life for discussing T-Cell immunity. Some of the smartest people I know completely lost their minds. They'll never be the same and I'll never have the relationship with them I had pre-pandemic.
The story of the last 2 years is 10% disease mitigation, 20% intellectual error, 30% media fear-mongering and 40% politics & tribalism.
The fact that I can find articles discussing T-cell response all the way through the pandemic with a simple Google search seems to indicate that people were talking about it. Maybe you shouldn't let the people in your social circle dictate what you think is happening in the broader world? And I don't mean that to snarky, but I feel like I see a lot of this type of generalizing.
The entire debate about natural immunity was shut down. No, you need the vaccine, was the argument for a long time. It was also ignored in mandates in many countries.
The entire basis of this is that T-cell immunity is ignored, and only sky high antibodies caused by the vaccine offer any protection for future infection.
You do realize the media can say whatever they want? MSNBC can go one way and Fox News can go the other way. Their audiences don't shut down the other...
> You do realize the media can say whatever they want?
Ultimately all of what these "experts" say is distilled by people in the media and shared through twitter, HN, reddit, FB and more.
During this madness, all the biggest doomsday people in my circle of "real" humans would feed me reams of NYT and Atlantic articles as their "sources". If I fed them some academic article that goes against the media narrative they'd dismiss it as "not peer reviewed" or "publishers were doing a flawed study". Ironic considering almost all of their sources had all the same major flaws as whatever I provided.
But more importantly they "assert" natural immunity is being ignored by scientific journals, but provide no evidence. Even worse, they then go on to cite studies from prestigious scientific journals that discuss natural immunity! What is it, are they ignoring it or are they publishing well cited papers on it?
Lastly, they conflate science with policy. As they even note, the scientific community has long known that there is some immunity with surviving infection. But policy has to take more than that into account.
If you aren't aware of these discussions it's not because of lies of omission, gas lighting, or a vast conspiracy theory. It's because you buried your own head and then said someone is holding your head down.
Isn't Joe Rogan one of the most popular podcasts in the world and when Neil Young said "him or me", Spotify said him. Is that your definition of "shut down"?
That hasn't completely played out yet. Spotify also lost a lot of share value over this stunt. Organizations certainly are trying to shut him down, which is scary in and of itself, regardless of the outcome. CNN is talking endlessly about this.
If Joe Rogan was a smaller fish, it would have been easier.
I don't watch Joe Rogan. I've seen one clip where he talks about myocarditis in children and he seems like he is just making things up. And when the data is presented to him, in real time on the show -- its like he doesn't want to believe it. He doesn't seem like a good faith actor. You can probably find the clip.
I haven't seen CNN make any call to have him removed. Although they do call out that he says things that are factually incorrect -- that seems in-scope for a new organization. They did the same thing to Sotomayor when she made false statements about Covid and kids too. Are they trying to cancel her?
No one would care about them being shut down, or no one would care what they said? Small people get de-platformed quite often from both political tribes, including shadow bans.
>I don't watch Joe Rogan.
Most people who are criticizing him, calling him racist and all that business don't watch him either I don't think. They just watch curated clips. I watch some of his episodes, some are certainly thought provoking. The general rule of thumb is if a clip cuts off mid-sentence or abruptly, it's probably intentionally misleading.
>I've seen one clip where he talks about myocarditis in children and he seems like he is just making things up.
Is it the one where he was with the Australian journalists where Rogan was saying there is a higher chance of kids getting myocarditis from the vaccine than from Covid? Did you watch the whole thing where the journalist disagreed, then they looked it up and Rogan corrected himself? If not, you watched a specifically curated clip probably designed to push a misinformation narrative.
>They did the same thing to Sotomayor when she made false statements about Covid and kids too. Are they trying to cancel her?
Did they do it for going on a week now? How many anchors covered it? Sotomayor isn't competition for CNN.
If you are interested, I suggest you watch some counter arguments to this whole facade to get a better picture. Right now I think you are just listening to the prosecutor and not the defendant, so to speak. Some interesting things I noticed is when the news would do a segment on a Trump speech and how outlandish it was, then I watched the actual speech, it was pretty obvious the news was being disingenuous. Seems like this happens on all corporate news, not just CNN, MSNBC, etc. It seems like CNN is getting gutted right now, so hopefully it will improve.
> No one would care about them being shut down, or no one would care what they said? Small people get de-platformed quite often from both political tribes, including shadow bans.
No one would care what they said. There are a lot of smaller fish saying things much worse, and they largely do so with no consequence.
> Is it the one where he was with the Australian journalists where Rogan was saying...
Yes, that one. Rogan never really corrects himself. He starts pushing back on the data source and then they just transition on to something else. I did see that later on Twitter he did seemingly admit to being fact checked. And blames it on it being a long form show where the topics aren't disclosed up front. In those cases why do you submit a thesis, rather than simply stating, "I don't really know the facts here"? That's what reasonable people do all the time. Rather he is counting on you to not know the facts or be able to fact check him in real time. He just steam rolls you.
> Some interesting things I noticed is when the news would do a segment on a Trump speech and how outlandish it was, then I watched the actual speech, it was pretty obvious the news was being disingenuous.
With Trump in particular I felt that the "mainstream" media largely gave him a pass on most of his speeches unless they were nationally televised. Some of his worst comments were stump speeches that never were aired nationally, but could be found on YouTube and other sites. I think he was much worse than most America believes.
>Yes, that one. Rogan never really corrects himself. He starts pushing back on the data source and then they just transition on to something else. I did see that later on Twitter he did seemingly admit to being fact checked. And blames it on it being a long form show where the topics aren't disclosed up front.
Ya that's fair. He does seem surprised when they fact-checked the data during the conversation.
>In those cases why do you submit a thesis, rather than simply stating, "I don't really know the facts here"? That's what reasonable people do all the time. Rather he is counting on you to not know the facts or be able to fact check him in real time. He just steam rolls you.
I don't think that's fair. They fact check real-time constantly. There is a guy in the room who's job it is to fact check real time. They would start a conversation then discuss aspects of it, and the person would look up what they are discussing and show the results. This fact checker was the person who brought up refuting evidence to the myocarditis claim.
His show reminds me of the old Dick Cavett or Phil Donahue type long form shows, except it's 3 hours long. A conversational show like that is different from a show where you have a set agenda with strict talking points you don't deviate from, like a newscast would have.
Also to be fair, he has a lot of people on who are professionals in their relevant fields. One of the guys the media is currently lambasting as a covid "misinformationalist" is an MD that helped create the technology used by the covid vaccine.
>With Trump in particular I felt that the "mainstream" media largely gave him a pass on most of his speeches unless they were nationally televised. Some of his worst comments were stump speeches that never were aired nationally, but could be found on YouTube and other sites. I think he was much worse than most America believes.
It seems to me the news blew things he said out of proportion that they didn't need to. As someone who looked at some of the source material, what the news said he said and what he actually said didn't match up. It definitely hurt their credibility, IMO. Perhaps they ignored the more egregious things you are mentioning in stump speeches, which seems like an odd tactic.
I don't think carbon dating can be used to extract DNA.
I also would have thought DNA would have degraded significantly over that period of time.
There are probably a thousand more reasons this is blatantly false, to those with scientific knowledge beyond my early highschool experiences.
It's bizarre and fascinating the Mexican government has entertained this.