Science is agnostic. It makes no statements about God, gods or Non-gods. Science doesn't need to place value on anything.
Add to that, if a god were ever discovered, or gods, science would handle that perfectly well.
Some scientists perhaps not. But science? No problem.
One grammatical error I always hear goes as follows: "I would have went there..." Another one, "I have already ate..." I am no expert but this doesn't sound right.
To people who grew up in that dialect, it sounds great. To me it makes me want to code switch to the style of speaking that I grew up in. I ain't jokin.
There was no danger to surroundings since the house wasn't anywhere close by, so I figured I could just cut it down myself.
Sometimes lumberjacks cut down trees and it lands on themselves, so that is the primary danger.
Anyway, sounds like you did it, so good job.
All three nutrients are essential? Great. What is the amount at which they are effective? No one knows.
No, we actually do know. There have been plenty of studies on this topic. It's only controversial to crazy people who follow fad diets.
If anyone is making decisions based on the results of one paper, they're idiots.
Thus, if you've been trying the low-fat diet for a while, then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough fat.
If you've been on a low-protein diet (yes, it existed for a while), then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough protein.
If you've been on a low-carb diet for a while, then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough carbohydrates.
I read some scientists a few years back who suggested instead of looking at whether we should cut back on particular nutrients, we should instead look at the quality of the nutrients we are getting. Because all three nutrients are essential.
I feel like this would be the ideal work for grad students during their first few years, before they're deep in their own research
That is a good idea.
So in the end the editors seemed to just want the sensational paper published and let the community sort it out later.
I subscribed to Science for a while, and that more-or-less matches the quality of article I found there.
Maybe collectively they have an effect that can't be detected statistically.
If it can't be detected statistically, how can it be detected?
In other words, other effects are drastically more important in determining a person's IQ (because IQ varies so dramatically). These genes are like a rounding error, and it's not likely that we'll find genes that have a greater effect.
An effect of half an IQ point is not sufficient to explain the huge variance in IQ among the population, so there is something much more important than genetics in determining IQ.
But what of this story? http://science.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]
The scientists in that story also failed to find specific genes affecting the skill levels (they looked). In other words, they found a correlation, but not a causation.