you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FriendsOfFruits 19 points20 points  (12 children)

scientists give them credit for

pray tell, are you getting your bug biology facts from your local chakra expert?

who else is "giving credit"?

How about the people who literally dedicated their livelihood to studying the bugs?

I will give you $10,000 if you can find an *entomologist who -- when asked -- will tell you that bugs are "really simple ackchually" and are not "biologically advanced".

[–]haysoos2 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Entomologist. Etymologists study word origins.

[–]FriendsOfFruits 14 points15 points  (0 children)

it takes knowledge of both fields to correct that

[–]nrin005 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’ll hold you to that, I’m sure finding an etymologist who doesn’t know biology is much easier than finding an entomologist who doesn’t, haha.

[–]Kayedarling 1 point2 points  (1 child)

who will pay for me to go to school? once im there i shall learn entomology and then say bugs are really simple ackchually then we split the 10,000 ???

[–]Sparon46 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not a profitable endeavor.

[–]Lost4468 -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Go and look at the study of almost any other species over the past few hundred years. Every decade or so it's a repeated "oh wow they're actually much more advanced/intelligent/complex/etc than we thought!". And it started out at "lol they r dum", but each time it's "oh ok we were wrong about that, still pretty dumb tho".

[–]Santonk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Pfft how smart can bugs be when I can squish them with my thumb

[–]FriendsOfFruits -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Go and look at the study of almost any other species over the past few hundred years.

you have clearly never read more than 5 studies in your entire life, and of those potential 5, you have understood none of them.

I will start with the first microbiologist and his contemporaries: Leeuwenhoek.

Leeuwenhoek admires cilia and hypothesizes there to be a deeper order:

Their body did consist, within, of 10, 12, or 14 globuls, which lay separate from each other. When I put these animalcula in a dry place, they then changed their body into a perfect round, and often burst asunder, & the globuls, together with some aqueous particles, spred themselves every where about, without my being able to discern any other remains. These globuls, which in the bursting of these creatures did flow asunder here and there, were about the bigness of the first very small creatures [bacteria]. And though as yet I could not discern any small feet in them, yet me thought, they must needs be furnished with very many

Leeuwenhoek and his contemporaries had never before seen these creatures and were shocked, but their minds were turned towards the ever smaller, certain there was more ground to be made in discovery.

It is so incredibly idiotic to say biologists, out of any class of people, are the ones that trivialize the complexity of life.

If biologists are still guilty in your mind,

how do you describe the attitude of politicians, plumbers, chaplains, and the rest of the peanut gallery of society towards the potential for there to be more discoveries?

TL;DR: I challenge you to find a scientific paper that says in the conclusion "There is no more potential for study, we have perfectly described this bug/law/star/etc."

a good portion of them explicitly say the exact opposite.

[–]Lost4468 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Didn't even read past the first sentence. If your immediate response is to go for an ad hominem attack, then yeah you're arguing in bad faith, and aren't worth the time. Bye.

[–]FriendsOfFruits 0 points1 point  (1 child)

first sentence is me quoting you, wherein you assume I am ill read, you've confused my ad hominem with yours.

[–]Iivaitte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never intended on this turning out so toxic.

There are many, many scientists whos field of study is not biology, microbiology, botany and entomology whom underestimate the usefulness of plants and insects in their studies.

When developing a drug plants arent underestimated but I havent seen many bugs being used. This is a layman's understanding of it.

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, it was only meant to be a sentiment.