It activates the same chemicals in your brain as cocaine! not-built-for-this

Well, yeah, there are only three[1] a few neurotransmitters. That’s not saying much.

You know what else activates those chemicals? Practically everything. When scientists breed “knockout” mice without dopamine, the mice just stand there until they die of thirst, because there is no reward for… living.

It contains more germs than a toilet seat! NOOOOO

Germs like moist surfaces. We don’t want germs on our toilets, which is why we make them out of porcelain, which is hard, dry, non-porous, and easy to clean.

If it had more germs than your colon, then I would be concerned.

  1. @Neuromancer49@midwest.social corrected me ↩︎

          • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            6·
            1 month ago

            Not exactly, the only thing that he was correct about in that regard was the existence of a material carrier of heritable information. Literally everything else he conjectured about it was wrong like thinking that it would be continuous rather than discrete and so on.

          • WrongOnTheInternet [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            6·
            1 month ago

            No comrade, Lamarck predicted epigenetics! /s

            In reality they were all wrong to a significant degree and also usually contributed significantly to some aspect of what is taken for granted as the ‘correct’ scientific knowledge

            For example, it’s been known Mendel must have faked his data for almost a hundred years, but that doesn’t make Mendelism wrong (after you strip out the stuff that is wrong)

            • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              2·
              1 month ago

              For example, it’s been known Mendel must have faked his data for almost a hundred years, but that doesn’t make Mendelism wrong (after you strip out the stuff that is wrong)

              “Fisher’s analysis gave rise to the Mendelian paradox: Mendel’s reported data are, statistically speaking, too good to be true, yet “everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely to engage in either deliberate fraud or in an unconscious adjustment of his observations”.[71] Several writers have attempted to resolve this paradox.”

              Does Wikipedia have a license to peddle copium of this purity?

          • WrongOnTheInternet [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            1 month ago

            Very briefly, you’ll often see references to

            • Vavilov being pushed out because of Lysenko
            • Lysenko being responsible for the 1930-33 famine, despite not being responsible for leading agricultural research like Vavilov actually was at the time
            • Stalin supporting the ideological aspects of Lysenkoism, even though there is a draft copy of the speech that Stalin cut to bits (including something mocking like “haha, and what is the class character of Darwinism??”)
            • zero reference to all the racist eugenists whose work was underpinned by genetics of the day
            • Lysenkoism being described as pseudoscientific even though, from what I have read it is not a radical interpretation of some of the experimental findings
            • aspects of it are quite correct (like young crops responding better to winter by exposing them to colder environments - which increased expression of a few genes that influence cold adaptions)

            Don’t get me started on the claims about the Lysenko influence on China’s great famine

            You read something simple that says China banned the use of chemical fertiliser following Lysenkoism, then read an article from 1958 that suggests China was pretty keen on fertiliser