As an Anonymous Coward mentioned down below, the chemistry of oxidising pyrimidine to uracil is utterly trivial. No chemist would be even slightly surprised that it happens after illumination by UV light. This brings us no closer to understanding the origins of life than we were 100 years ago.

Protein kinase C is one of the most important intracellular signalling enzymes. If you block it in the whole organism you die pretty quickly. I.e. the trick is in blocking it selectively only in dopaminergic neurons. Let's say it's not trivial.

completely offtopic but `hoi' in `hoi polloi' is an article, therefore adding `the' is somewhat redundant :-)

The most relevant is T.S.Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution. The most interesting (and with a much larger scope) is Paul Feyerabend's Against Method.

This seems like the only bit of discussion where people actually know something about the history of science and know that things weren't as clear cut then as we seem to think now. Anyway, I guess you're suggesting that Copernicus was the third case, i.e. he proposed a theory that could be empirically validated/falsified and was (presumably) better than the previous model. Well, in fact Copernicus' system was significantly worse in empirical adequacy (correspondence to observation) than Ptolemy's (at that time), wasn't really all that simpler (Copernicus assumed, with Aristotle, that planets have circular orbits and therefore needed epicycles too). Copernicus' system only received `real scientific' support much later from Newton's mechanics (but that was based on Copernicus so it's a bit circular). From several historical studies (Kuhn's for one) it seems that Copernicus' motivation for a heliocentric theory was a) that Ptolemaic system verged too far from Aristotle (orbits of planets weren't circular any more with all those epicycles) and b) the worship of the Sun in the renaissance period. Doesn't sound like `science' (as you define it) to me...