last song I listened to was Together Again by Janet Jackson
I'm listening to the radio. It's 970 the answer.
Now I am listening to Fight For Love by Babyface
Been listening to a lot of Figgs lately.
"NO" by Meghan Trainor. It plays all day on the radio station where I work. I love that it reminds me of old Britney pop from the late 90s/early 00s.
No Doubt's Rock Steady album
Veruca Salt- Eyes On You
Kanye West's Pablo (Album)
A radio show on 970 the Answer
David Bowie: Starman
Sojah/ So High by Irievibrations
Anggun - Snow on the Sahara
Heads High by Mr. Vegas
Brownstone feat Craig Mac- If You Love Me (Street Vibe Remix)
Tory Lanez - Say It
Light Flight by Pentangle
A lot of Merle Haggard. RIP
Tomorrow People by Ziggy Marley & The Melody Makers
No One Else Comes Close - Joe
1010 Wins on the radio.
Life Is A Long Song by Jethro Tull
Listening to the Little Shop of Horrors Movie Soundtrack (1986)
Rock N Groove by Bunny Wailer
New Order - Age of Consent. What a bass line!
Young Folks- Peter Bjorn And John
The Clash- The Singles CD
Stay The Night- Zedd
I've been listening to Girlpool a lot.
Heroes(We Could Be)- Alesso
Blondie-- Parallel Lines (Deluxe Collector's Edition)
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on April 25, 2016, 01:30:00 PM
Blondie-- Parallel Lines (Deluxe Collector's Edition)
CLASSIC!
Boomerang- The Summer Set
Leave Me Behind- Bauer & Lanford
Got my ear buds in at the school cafeteria listening to:
The Longest Road- Morgan Page(Featuring Lissie on Vocals)
Demons by Imagine Dragons.
:smitten:
When you feel my heat
Look into my eyes
It's where my demons hide
It's where my demons hide
Don't get too close
It's dark inside
It's where my demons hide
It's where my demons hide
Bahari "Wild Ones"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrl4hvgqMLo
very chill California hippie music
Shaggy - Oh Carolina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtLqmWt2h2g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtLqmWt2h2g)
Some Jamaican ska from 1993. If you can figure out the words you're better than me.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/If_you_love_me.jpg)
(https://images.rapgenius.com/cadfecaeeb003a10248c8526c624b8e6.400x400x1.jpg)
(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F71tzJO2WT-L._SL1113_.jpg&hash=7b680466fdcbe404152286a5821821d68271602b)
(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Flist%2Ff4449616e18127542ce4b5534585068d30a10201.JPG&hash=5a56c04850612c9cf151df5f93f1a5a972431258)
Quote from: Mazz on May 20, 2016, 10:49:17 PM
(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Flist%2Ff4449616e18127542ce4b5534585068d30a10201.JPG&hash=5a56c04850612c9cf151df5f93f1a5a972431258)
(https://www.archiefans.com/index.php?media/file/thumbs-up.533/) but "Dark Side of the Moon" was their best (and then "Wish You Were Here") :)
From my own MP3 album collection (mostly found and downloaded from blogs here'n'there), for the last couple of days/nights I've been listening to my own self-defined genre of "Saturday Morning Bubblegum Rock" that includes albums by:
Alvin and the Chipmunks
The Archies
The Banana Splits
The Groovie Goolies
The Hardy Boys
The Impossibles
Josie and the Pussycats
Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution
The Monkees
The Partridge Family
The Sugar Bears
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 21, 2016, 06:47:34 AM
From my own MP3 album collection (mostly found and downloaded from blogs here'n'there), for the last couple of days/nights I've been listening to my own self-defined genre of "Saturday Morning Bubblegum Rock" that includes albums by:
Alvin and the Chipmunks
The Archies
The Banana Splits
The Groovie Goolies
The Hardy Boys
The Impossibles
Josie and the Pussycats
Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution
The Monkees
The Partridge Family
The Sugar Bears
Some great stuff but I have to say I don't consider The Monkees bubblegum. In my opinion, they are one of the greatest bands ever, and I love the fact they were put together kind of as a bubblegum group but then asserted control and made their own kind of records.
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 07:22:06 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 21, 2016, 06:47:34 AM
From my own MP3 album collection (mostly found and downloaded from blogs here'n'there), for the last couple of days/nights I've been listening to my own self-defined genre of "Saturday Morning Bubblegum Rock" that includes albums by:
Alvin and the Chipmunks
The Archies
The Banana Splits
The Groovie Goolies
The Hardy Boys
The Impossibles
Josie and the Pussycats
Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution
The Monkees
The Partridge Family
The Sugar Bears
Some great stuff but I have to say I don't consider The Monkees bubblegum. In my opinion, they are one of the greatest bands ever, and I love the fact they were put together kind of as a bubblegum group but then asserted control and made their own kind of records.
I don't consider the term "bubblegum" derogative or any kind of judgment on the quality of the music. These are all "prefabricated" or fictional bands, dreamed up by record executives or television producers in an attempt to market to a demographic of young viewers/record consumers. Because these producers were well-connected they were able to recruit some extremely talented studio musicians or discover new talent.
The Monkees are great!
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 21, 2016, 07:30:16 AM
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 07:22:06 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 21, 2016, 06:47:34 AM
From my own MP3 album collection (mostly found and downloaded from blogs here'n'there), for the last couple of days/nights I've been listening to my own self-defined genre of "Saturday Morning Bubblegum Rock" that includes albums by:
Alvin and the Chipmunks
The Archies
The Banana Splits
The Groovie Goolies
The Hardy Boys
The Impossibles
Josie and the Pussycats
Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution
The Monkees
The Partridge Family
The Sugar Bears
Some great stuff but I have to say I don't consider The Monkees bubblegum. In my opinion, they are one of the greatest bands ever, and I love the fact they were put together kind of as a bubblegum group but then asserted control and made their own kind of records.
I don't consider the term "bubblegum" derogative or any kind of judgment on the quality of the music. These are all "prefabricated" or fictional bands, dreamed up by record executives or television producers in an attempt to market to a demographic of young viewers/record consumers. Because these producers were well-connected they were able to recruit some extremely talented studio musicians or discover new talent.
The Monkees are great!
I agree with that. I guess I just think of bubblegum as bands that were studio musicians that didn't really play live or have personnel that everyone would recognize. The Monkees just seemed out of place in this list. But the way you explain it, it makes sense.
A little morning music.
(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Falbum_review%2F2e0cf839231a3b966d9b6370d310d4ecd7208907.jpeg&hash=d80da2645af49719143a6c6ffcdca129d461eb83)
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 07:51:30 AM
I agree with that. I guess I just think of bubblegum as bands that were studio musicians that didn't really play live or have personnel that everyone would recognize. The Monkees just seemed out of place in this list. But the way you explain it, it makes sense.
We must acknowledge that there are really TWO groups of "The Monkees". Davy Jones, Mickey Dolenz, Peter Tork, and Mike Nesmith were four out of 437 young, photogenic, musical hopefuls who auditioned for parts in a television series about a fictional band named "The Monkees" that was produced by Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider. During the active production of the series, they never played instruments on, or wrote any of the songs that actually appeared on the show's soundtrack (and the initial record releases of those songs). That task was given over to record producer Don Kirshner to handle, and he assembled a team of key studio musicians and his trusted team of songwriters, Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart. So it IS true that The Monkees that people saw on television were merely aspiring musicians working as actors. The REAL "Monkees" who made the music for television were unseen and unknown to the general public. The "actor Monkees" (meaning Jones, Dolenz, Tork and Nesmith) had no experience together as a band or as songwriters, and the demands of television production to produce pre-packaged songtracks on a regular weekly basis precluded the producers trusting them with this important musical aspect of the show. Later, as they were allowed to tour together and promote the show, they did gain experience together as an actual band, and were eventually allowed to contribute their own original songs to later album releases, beyond just playing the "sure fire winners" penned by Boyce and Hart.
Speaking of bubblegum music, last night I was listening to some songs from 1910 Fruitgum Company. Talk about bubble gum music! But the songs are great, and super catchy.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 21, 2016, 10:01:52 AM
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 07:51:30 AM
I agree with that. I guess I just think of bubblegum as bands that were studio musicians that didn't really play live or have personnel that everyone would recognize. The Monkees just seemed out of place in this list. But the way you explain it, it makes sense.
We must acknowledge that there are really TWO groups of "The Monkees". Davy Jones, Mickey Dolenz, Peter Tork, and Mike Nesmith were four out of 437 young, photogenic, musical hopefuls who auditioned for parts in a television series about a fictional band named "The Monkees" that was produced by Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider. During the active production of the series, they never played instruments on, or wrote any of the songs that actually appeared on the show's soundtrack (and the initial record releases of those songs). That task was given over to record producer Don Kirshner to handle, and he assembled a team of key studio musicians and his trusted team of songwriters, Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart. So it IS true that The Monkees that people saw on television were merely aspiring musicians working as actors. The REAL "Monkees" who made the music for television were unseen and unknown to the general public. The "actor Monkees" (meaning Jones, Dolenz, Tork and Nesmith) had no experience together as a band or as songwriters, and the demands of television production to produce pre-packaged songtracks on a regular weekly basis precluded the producers trusting them with this important musical aspect of the show. Later, as they were allowed to tour together and promote the show, they did gain experience together as an actual band, and were eventually allowed to contribute their own original songs to later album releases, beyond just playing the "sure fire winners" penned by Boyce and Hart.
Not completely true. Nesmith had written songs, including "Different Drum" that was a hit for Linda Ronstadt. Also, even the first two Monkees albums had some original songs. Nesmith wrote Papa Gene's Blues for the first and Mary Mary and The Kind of Girl I Could Love for the second. In general, though, I get your point. Throughout their career, some of my very favorite Monkees songs were originals, mostly by Nesmith but even Micky wrote a couple of good ones and so did Peter.
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 07:51:30 AM
I agree with that. I guess I just think of bubblegum as bands that were studio musicians that didn't really play live or have personnel that everyone would recognize. The Monkees just seemed out of place in this list. But the way you explain it, it makes sense.
The number that had "names that you'd recognize" is far more extensive than most people realize :o
Often the studio musicians were future superstars who hadn't hit the big time yet (and this was part of their path to recognition) or even mid-level talent who moonlighting, with song from major players who wrote for the studios behind the scenes for years before going solo and producing their own material ...
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 11:53:16 AM
Nesmith had written songs, including "Different Drum" that was a hit for Linda Ronstadt. Also, even the first two Monkees albums had some original songs. Nesmith wrote Papa Gene's Blues for the first and Mary Mary and The Kind of Girl I Could Love for the second. In general, though, I get your point. Throughout their career, some of my very favorite Monkees songs were originals, mostly by Nesmith but even Micky wrote a couple of good ones and so did Peter.
Nesmith's
Elephant Parts conceptual music film was a big favorite of mine. In particular "Lucy & Ramona & Sunset Sam" (which received heavy rotation on the early MTV) and the lesser-known self-parody music video "Rodan" (satirizing his own song "Rosanne").
Quote from: invisifan on May 21, 2016, 12:18:33 PM
Quote from: spazaru on May 21, 2016, 07:51:30 AM
I agree with that. I guess I just think of bubblegum as bands that were studio musicians that didn't really play live or have personnel that everyone would recognize. The Monkees just seemed out of place in this list. But the way you explain it, it makes sense.
The number that had "names that you'd recognize" is far more extensive than most people realize :o
Often the studio musicians were future superstars who hadn't hit the big time yet (and this was part of their path to recognition) or even mid-level talent who moonlighting, with song from major players who wrote for the studios behind the scenes for years before going solo and producing their own material ...
Well, he did say "have personnel that everyone would recognize" (if they saw them). In the context of nobody knew who did the songs THEN. They still mostly don't NOW. But in retrospect, people would recognize the NAMES after the passage of time has made them famous... followed immediately by "HE did that? I never even knew...!" Point to spazaru.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 21, 2016, 06:47:34 AM
From my own MP3 album collection (mostly found and downloaded from blogs here'n'there), for the last couple of days/nights I've been listening to my own self-defined genre of "Saturday Morning Bubblegum Rock" that includes albums by:
Alvin and the Chipmunks
The Archies
The Banana Splits
The Groovie Goolies
The Hardy Boys
The Impossibles
Josie and the Pussycats
Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution
The Monkees
The Partridge Family
The Sugar Bears
My favorite Partridge Family/David Cassidy songs are "Brand New Me" and "Summer Days."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um7H4MG3lEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGRuBYSGniE
I'm listening to the radio. The station is 970 The Answer.
(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51h3Lf%252BcaiL.jpg&hash=aafe1fae40318d3054823ae342339e1db324460a)
I'm listening to 970 The Answer. At 4:00 am Frank Morano is on the same station.
Rosanna-Toto
Born To Be Wild- Steppenwolf
I recently picked up and have been listening to the soundtrack for Hamilton (a little late to the party).
Suite: Judy Blue Eyes- Crosby, Stills, & Nash
Quote from: Betty Girl on June 25, 2016, 02:34:31 PM
I recently picked up and have been listening to the soundtrack for Hamilton (a little late to the party).
Love this soundtrack! It's so emotional to listen to. The opening track 'Alexander Hamilton' made me tear up.
Lately a lot of Young Fresh Fellows
The radio, 970-The Answer. At 4:00 am Frank Morano is on & that's from 4:00-9:00 am. My mom & I always listen to him.
White Rabbit- The Jefferson Airplane
Quote from: irishmoxie on June 25, 2016, 05:16:16 PM
Quote from: Betty Girl on June 25, 2016, 02:34:31 PM
I recently picked up and have been listening to the soundtrack for Hamilton (a little late to the party).
Love this soundtrack! It's so emotional to listen to. The opening track 'Alexander Hamilton' made me tear up.
It really is great. The only "complaint" I have about it is that I got an earworm of "You'll Be Back" for the last couple of days. ;D I think my favorite is "Dear Theodosia".
Us And Them- Pink Floyd
The air conditioner.
Uncle John's Band- The Grateful Dead
London Girl - The Pogues
See Emily Play- Pink Floyd
Nights In White Satin- The Moody Blues
Game of Thrones in the background. My sister is watching it
The John & Leah Show on 970 The Answer.
Sounds Of Silence- Simon and Garfunkel
I've got a Big Brother fan podcast happening right now.
The original soundtrack to Space Channel 5, which was a sci-fi/dance themed game from 1999 for the Sega Dreamcast. Not what I expected (J-pop). It's more like a retro jazz-funk/movie score thing, which could easily have come from some early '70s Euro cult cinema action movie. Pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7f4y8AQ294 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7f4y8AQ294)
"Just Because I'm Irish" by Jonathan Richman and Julia Sweeney
I just got my DNA test back and after my whole life thinking I was mostly French, I find that I'm more Irish than French!
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 19, 2017, 08:51:51 AM
"Just Because I'm Irish" by Jonathan Richman and Julia Sweeney
I just got my DNA test back and after my whole life thinking I was mostly French, I find that I'm more Irish than French!
They can tell what nationality your ancestors were by a DNA test? How does
that work, exactly? ???
It's not like DNA testing has been around that long, so what's their basis for sorting genomes based on geographical residence? I mean, how many people ever even get a DNA test that's looking at region-specific factors? Especially when you consider that people do tend to move around, ever since things like horses, boats, and even feet became all the rage for the mobility thing.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 19, 2017, 10:26:28 AM
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 19, 2017, 08:51:51 AM
"Just Because I'm Irish" by Jonathan Richman and Julia Sweeney
I just got my DNA test back and after my whole life thinking I was mostly French, I find that I'm more Irish than French!
They can tell what nationality your ancestors were by a DNA test? How does that work, exactly? ???
It's not like DNA testing has been around that long, so what's their basis for sorting genomes based on geographical residence? I mean, how many people ever even get a DNA test that's looking at region-specific factors? Especially when you consider that people do tend to move around, ever since things like horses, boats, and even feet became all the rage for the mobility thing.
I know it's not an exact science, DCR, but yes, you can tell that from a DNA test. My name is Rene Maurice Passarieu, which is about as French as you can get and my father was born in New Orleans in 1912 and his father was born in France in the 1800s. I have always been told I was 80 percent French but my test came back 29 percent Irleand and 24 percent Iberian peninsula (south of France). I'm actually relieved because I'm not a big fan of the French accent or language, and I love The Pogues.
While my mom & I were cleaning the living room. We had Q 104.3 on the radio on.
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 19, 2017, 12:37:44 PM
I know it's not an exact science, DCR, but yes, you can tell that from a DNA test.
But HOW can they tell by your genes? Given that even a generation ago such tests didn't exist? Even now the sampling of people that ever take such a DNA test has to be a minuscule fractional percentage of the overall population. So how do they know some specific gene is traceable back in time over many generations to populations from a specific geographic locale? Even if they are able to access every single DNA test result ever given, the sampling has to be far too small to be definitive, but more importantly, there's no data going back in time for decades for comparative purposes. I find the concept somewhat baffling. It almost sounds like "Well, it's pretty simple -- all French people have the French Gene, and all Irish people have the Irish Gene", which sounds like some nutty "racial science" kind of crap.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 19, 2017, 12:59:04 PM
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 19, 2017, 12:37:44 PM
I know it's not an exact science, DCR, but yes, you can tell that from a DNA test.
But HOW can they tell by your genes? Given that even a generation ago such tests didn't exist? Even now the sampling of people that ever take such a DNA test has to be a minuscule fractional percentage of the overall population. So how do they know some specific gene is traceable back in time over many generations to populations from a specific geographic locale? Even if they are able to access every single DNA test result ever given, the sampling has to be far too small to be definitive, but more importantly, there's no data going back in time for decades for comparative purposes. I find the concept somewhat baffling. It almost sounds like "Well, it's pretty simple -- all French people have the French Gene, and all Irish people have the Irish Gene", which sounds like some nutty "racial science" kind of crap.
I'm not a scientist. I don't know how they can tell, but it's a huge business and if it was a total scam I'm pretty sure we'd know that by now. This isn't Tarot card reading. As I say, it's not an exact science, but it evidently can give you an idea.
At 4 am. Frank Merano is on 970 The Answer.
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 19, 2017, 07:28:03 PM
I'm not a scientist. I don't know how they can tell, but it's a huge business and if it was a total scam I'm pretty sure we'd know that by now. This isn't Tarot card reading. As I say, it's not an exact science, but it evidently can give you an idea.
I'm surprised you're not even curious about how it supposedly works, given that you felt it was important enough to be tested for. Or that no basic layman's information explaining how DNA testing works (for your purposes) was provided by the lab doing the testing. Blind faith?
Which raises questions about who and what we are to begin with... biological machines bound to our DNA "Operating Systems"? The sum of two merged sets of accumulated "program code" encoded over millennia (some lines of code of which are dominant, and some recessive), running a "Software Application" program (determined by the accumulated information, bit by bit, of our life experiences)?
Or if not, then how important is it, given that you thought it was relevant in some way to who you are? It has to be admitted that we are limited in some ways by our DNA Operating System, which we can never change no matter what we do, but it does make me wonder, in this specific example, what is it about the "lines of code" (genes) in our DNA O/Ss that are specific to people historically inhabiting particular geographic locations on earth that is important in some way -- i.e., what sort of important code is conferred upon individuals with "Irish genes" as opposed to "French genes", or vice-versa, quantitatively or qualitatively speaking? I guess you can point to some observable physical characteristics endemic to either group, but what does it all mean to the individual?
Michelle Branch live in concert!
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 20, 2017, 12:26:51 AM
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 19, 2017, 07:28:03 PM
I'm not a scientist. I don't know how they can tell, but it's a huge business and if it was a total scam I'm pretty sure we'd know that by now. This isn't Tarot card reading. As I say, it's not an exact science, but it evidently can give you an idea.
I'm surprised you're not even curious about how it supposedly works, given that you felt it was important enough to be tested for. Or that no basic layman's information explaining how DNA testing works (for your purposes) was provided by the lab doing the testing. Blind faith?
Which raises questions about who and what we are to begin with... biological machines bound to our DNA "Operating Systems"? The sum of two merged sets of accumulated "program code" encoded over millennia (some lines of code of which are dominant, and some recessive), running a "Software Application" program (determined by the accumulated information, bit by bit, of our life experiences)?
Or if not, then how important is it, given that you thought it was relevant in some way to who you are? It has to be admitted that we are limited in some ways by our DNA Operating System, which we can never change no matter what we do, but it does make me wonder, in this specific example, what is it about the "lines of code" (genes) in our DNA O/Ss that are specific to people historically inhabiting particular geographic locations on earth that is important in some way -- i.e., what sort of important code is conferred upon individuals with "Irish genes" as opposed to "French genes", or vice-versa, quantitatively or qualitatively speaking? I guess you can point to some observable physical characteristics endemic to either group, but what does it all mean to the individual?
DeCarlo, I doubt I'd understand how it works even if it was explained. I'm not educated in science. I'm not into genealogy but I have a friend who is way into her family tree and has been around this stuff for years. She seems to think it's legit. I'm not saying that means it is. Have you not seen the commercials for ancestry.com, 23andme.com, or My Heritage just to name a few? These companies have been around for awhile now and I'd think if it wasn't on the level, it would have been exposed.
I'm really just doing this for fun. I'm not a person who cares much about what my ancestors were. I AM annoyed by French people (not all of course, again, I'm just having fun) so I thought it was funny that after 48 years of thinking I was 60-80 percent French that I came back as more Irish than French, especially since my name is Rene' Maurice Passarieu, which is about the most French name you'll see in the US. Ha ha.
Even if it's all BS and I really am more French than Irish, this just gave me something to kid around about with people at work. My wife came back as 60 percent British. We had no idea what she was. So we went to a British pub to celebrate and had baked beans on toast, chips (fries), and Fullers ESB. It's just something meaningless to celebrate.
Sorry if I came off as this all meaning something important!
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 20, 2017, 07:16:03 AM
I'm really just doing this for fun.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. But isn't that what people say about tarot or psychic readings, palmistry, numerology, or astrology, which they also claim not to understand? Not saying it has to be important, just wondering if there's any real significance.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 20, 2017, 07:24:39 AM
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 20, 2017, 07:16:03 AM
I'm really just doing this for fun.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. But isn't that what people say about tarot or psychic readings, palmistry, numerology, or astrology, which they also claim not to understand? Not saying it has to be important, just wondering if there's any real significance.
I don't know if there's any significance, but I would definitely put it above all those things you list. At least this is based on science. I don't think you can say that about those other things.
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 20, 2017, 09:15:33 AM
I don't know if there's any significance, but I would definitely put it above all those things you list. At least this is based on science. I don't think you can say that about those other things.
All I'm saying is that your approach to it is no different than people who believe in those other things. Yours is a faith-based belief in science. It's kind of like when Arthur C. Clarke said "Any science sufficiently advanced beyond our understanding is indistinguishable from magic." I'm more of a "question everything, and believe only half of what they tell you" kind of guy. I don't believe in any science that I can't understand the basic underlying principles behind how it works, whether I fully grasp all the details or not. The exact connection between how biology relates to geography seems a little too vague to me. At what point when you're looking at the DNA test results does a bit of it jump up and wave its national flag? How does a complex carbohydrate protein molecule like Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid even have a claim to national origin? Do North Americans have different DNA than South Americans, and how can you tell the difference?
I'm sure that if I can suss out who random anonymous people are that visit this forum with new usernames that a DNA test must have way more substance and validity to determine someone's background than whatever I'm able to glean from some typed words on a screen.
;)
Quote from: steveinthecity on August 20, 2017, 04:34:44 PM
I'm sure that if I can suss out who random anonymous people are that visit this forum with new usernames that a DNA test must have way more substance and validity to determine someone's background than whatever I'm able to glean from some typed words on a screen.
Mmmaaaybe. But I doubt any scientist can look at someone random's DNA test results and then tell me everything important there is to know about that person. My guess is that they'd be completely clueless regarding the most relevant information about who that person is. When someone informs me that their ancestry is French or Irish or Italian, it pretty much tells me nothing about who they really are.
Tom Petty on my IPod Classic
I'm listening to The Riverdale Podcast now.
I'm listening to the Hamilton soundtrack.
I helped chaperone a 3 day field trip to Chicago last week where we took 15 of our best students to participate in a workshop with students from other schools and actors from Hamilton and then watch the matinee performance. It was a lot of fun and a great experience for all involved.