In principle, a new phenomenon might emerge without reflecting destructively upon any part of scientific practice. A new theory does not have to conflict with any of its predecessors. It might deal exclusively with phenomena not previously known. Or again, the new theory might be simply a higher-level theory than those known before; one that linked together a whole group of lower level theories can be conceived. Any and all of them might be exemplified by the historical process through which science has developed. If they were, scientific development would be genuinely cumulative. New sorts of phenomena would simply disclose order in an aspect of nature where none had been seen before. In the evolution of science new knowledge would replace ignorance rather than replace knowledge of another and incompatible sort.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The central dogma states that DNA is the sole carrier of inheritor information, and the fact that additional cell proteins are necessary in the inheritance process clearly means that DNA is NOT the sole carrier of inheritary information. your argument that the proteins are not 'modifying DNA' and just 'fixing it' does not make any sense, these proteins are not modifying or 'fixing' DNA, they are a necessary component in the inheritance mechanisms in the cell: they modify the protein production.
To be successful at all costs, however, should not be the leading goal in life. Do not sacrifice the virtues that you have been brought up with. Do not scheme, lie, betray confidence, abandon friends, or plot. Even if any of it results in acceleration of career triumphs, you may regret the lack of respect resulting from your behavior. Remember that everything eventually leaks and becomes public. You also have to face yourself in the mirror every morning as you shave or apply makeup – and you want to have respect for the individual you see in the mirror.
Well, for starters to me, fantasy usually always takes place in a secondary world during (preferably) the medieval period where a systematized supernatural tie occurs. There are exceptions to this, obviously, and borderline cases such as Sandman and The Dark Tower, but to me this is usually the criteria. As for Sandman, it mostly takes place in our world (various centuries even), in dreams, Faerie, Hell, The Dreaming, you name it. But all those planes are still centered on our world. It doesn't focus on the organized otherness of the secondary worlds in the way fantasy usually does. Most of the inner workings of the odd stuff is never really explained (or sometimes it’s just borrowed from various mythologies). The strangeness is chaotic, as it would be in an absurdist play or maybe a David Lynch movie. Is Lynch a fantasy film maker then? Gaiman is just a talented author who uses the various troupes that are present in most fantasy and sci-fi stories for his own ends and in doing so, creates a nice illusion of familiarity while serving us something fresh. But I don't think that it makes him a fantasy author in the traditional sense.
So I guess what I am saying is, that to me, fantasy has to have at least some swords and sorcery. But it doesn't have to be a bad thing. Have you read George R. R. Martin? I mean, in the end, all that matters are the story-telling and the plausibility of the situations and characters. It can be a parody, a coming of age tale (which is the most command and also the most boring formula) an apocalypse tale, I do not care. All that matters are whether it's good. And that is a totally different story.