Posted on 04/25/2016 9:28:28 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
“”Another example of a finding that even if true, has no practical value other than satisfying someone’s idle curiosity.””
“Yeah, why would one want to know his own origin?”
Did you read the article? It provides evidence that not all plankton, algae and bacteria were killed by the asteroid impact. First off it has never been proposed that they were all killed. Such an assertion would be preposterous since these organisms are extremely hardy, numerous and widely distributed. If the impact was powerful enough to kill all of them all animals and other aquatic life would have also been killed. So the paper is attacking a straw man argument. Second, what practical information does this work provide? How can it be used? Why spend money on this? What are the benefits other than to satisfy someones curiosity?
I’m a little confused. They talk as though the deep ocean was the only place anything survived, then they say only 45 percent of species went extinct.
If it is truly new data based upon new technology and real developments great. And if they are really analyzing it with a clear and unbiased mind that is great.
My point is that many scientists want to prove their personal theory and try to make as much money as possible and they bend or mislead the truth. And yes some scientists even falsify their data in order to ptove their theoy and are unwilling to let anybody else look at the data because it wil be “misinterpreted”. Shocking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.