I don't know what that first show was, nor the scientist, but our analysis of the platypus genome doesn't lead to any mysteries. It doesn't lead to "we have no idea how this evolved"; on the contrary, it helped us figure out just that. See here for more info: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/0…

That's...not how the evidence comes about. I mean, firstly, your banana example is inherently flawed. That result comes from the base-by-base comparison. Since there are only 4 possible bases, even two completely random samples of DNA would be expected to have about a 25% similarity. But that's not how comparative…

I think you may have read some incorrect information both about evolution and its history. For one thing, Darwin was not an atheist. In fact, he often had discomfort trying to reconcile the things he observed while formulating his theories with his belief in a god, and wasn't going to publish because of this until a…

Well, if you're going to try and live by that epistemological ideal, then EVERYTHING we could possibly ever think is equally likely to be true or not. In which case, we can't know anything. In which case, we don't know anything, and shouldn't make any claims because they're all wrong. Which, philosophically,…

Confirmation bias isn't specific to science. It's rampant EVERYWHERE, in EVERYONE. Hence why I didn't say "eliminating psychological bias", I said "reducing it as much as possible". You can't eliminate cognitive biases no matter where you look; if there's a brain, there's a bias. It's a matter of extent: if hypothesis…

...neutrinos do exist. and they don't move faster than light. I'm guessing you meant tachyons? Hypothetically, tachyons (almost by definition) would move faster than light, but that doesn't mean "you" (or anything besides tachyons) could. Not to mention, the idea of FTL tachyons is a bit...wibbly-wobbly, and most…

"...a naturalist bias". Also known as the scientific method, which is the only systematic way of interpreting data while reducing psychological bias and subjectivity as much as possible? Unless you have another systematic method that does this, which I would be extremely interested in hearing about.

Man. My campus's WiFi has been incredibly slow today, so I did this to test its speed....it's at about 130K on average. So...just above twice dial-up speeds, in 2014, on a huge campus network at a tech school. WTF? If someone in my dorm is killing the bandwidth for the rest of us, how would I find them (to talk…

So I plugged in my external HDD and turned on Windows 8's File History. It says "saving copies of your files for the first time," and I can see the files being added to the HDD...but there's no progress bar. Is it going to let me know when it's done? I have over 30GB of files in my libraries, so...should I just leave…

Can't tell if sarcasm or agreement...

House is not on Netflix? Man...even more reason for me to torrent things instead of using Netflix :P

I think that hashtag applies to this entire article.

The first clause of that last sentence accidentally no verb. Shameful.

At the cafes on my school campus, they always pile the cream cheese onto my bagels, and so I have the same problem of squishing the cream cheese out while trying to eat it, making a mess. Now I know how to fix that! THANKS, JAPAN :)

Maybe finish reading the article?

It could, but as far as I know, "avi" is not a word. And my spellchecker's red lines agree with me now.

You say you want the truth unfiltered through any accepted knowledge. Tell me: what's your method for finding that? You think peer review is biased almost to the point of conspiracy. You think a handful of books more geared toward history than science, and written by a single author each, is "proof" that an accepted…

My main reason for valuing scientific publications over random books isn't because of the author. He could be the discoverer of a cure for cancer for all it matters, but if he's presenting evidence for something new, I still wouldn't just believe him because he's him. That's an ad hominem defense, and it's fallacious…

Um... I'm going to quote something you yourself wrote: "Not simple articles in some discovery magazine, but the boring stuff that the academics actually write themselves." And the two things you linked to were not academic publications, so... odd.

Anyway, I'm not dismissing your sources. But I am a broke college…

Um... when I was looking into the skulls, I didn't find anything about modern skulls found alongside it. So in the interest of proving me wrong (or you right), I'm going to have to once again question what your sources are? You seem so sure, I figure you must have gotten this information from somewhere; why not let us…