Preparing local schools for teaching evolution in the classroom

November 14, 2014

When did life first appear on Earth? What does evolution say about the existence of humans? The topic of evolution has been added to the Year Six primary school curriculum and will be mandatory in all schools across the UK from next year. But are schools adequately prepared for this controversial addition to the timetable?

The University of Reading's Institute of Education is running pioneering events for schoolchildren and teachers to progress current thinking on how 's learning about evolution, and their questions, can be effectively managed in the classroom.

On 12th November, over 300 ten-year old children from 11 different schools visited the Institute of Education for a jam-packed day of activities, experiments and talks exploring the big questions that bridge science and religion.

Children had the opportunity to put their questions to experts in biology, geology, theology, philosophy and more - and to hear from scientists and academics with religious and non-religious worldviews. Workshops included creating a "washing line of time"; discussing whether this is at odds with 'religious time' and the biblical explanation of how Earth developed, making rockets to explore the Big Bang theory and analysing fossils to ask whether, and how, science is compatible with creation and .

There was also a guest appearance by famous physicist Isaac Newton, together with a panel of eminent scholars who tackled questions such as whether a scientist can have religious faith.

The event formed part of the Learning about Science and Religion (LASAR) project which looks at how questions which bridge science and religion are handled in schools. Dr Berry Billingsley, Associate Professor of Science Education at the University of Reading's Institute of Education, is leading the project.

Dr Billingsley said: "It is fantastic that evolution is to be taught in primary education but many schools are anxious about the best way to teach these ideas. Primary school teachers know their children well and like to give children time to ask questions. Right now they are looking for help with getting to grips with the science and also how best to teach it."

Dr Billingsley: "Our research in secondary schools shows that not being prepared for questions about creation when teaching evolution means it becomes a 'squeezed out topic'. Children learn to avoid asking questions which they believe to be contentious and this can reinforce for them the myth that science and religion must be seen as opposite ideas. We hope that children and teachers who come to this event will take away an enthusiasm for finding out more about evolution together with the idea that and religion are mostly concerned with different types of : Science seeks to discover the mechanisms of how living things have developed whilst religion is concerned with why we exist at all. These kinds of ideas can help children appreciate that they don't need to choose between evolution and a religious faith and help them to see why numerous eminent scientists say they are comfortable with both."

The event was very successful and proved popular with both teachers and pupils alike.

Jo Davis, teacher at The Willows Primary School in Newbury said: "We are a multi-faith school so we have children from a range of different backgrounds, including Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics and atheists. When I'm teaching them Science, I am always conscious that I don't want to impinge on their religious beliefs because we do also teach them about the different creation stories, but it can be difficult at times.

"Coming to the event run by the University of Reading has been brilliant. The children have really enjoyed themselves and it has given them a good overview of the theories of Science and religion and how these ideas can come together, which will stand them in good stead at they move up into secondary education. From my point of view, I have got some good ideas that I can take back to the classroom about how to teach my pupils about from both a religious and a scientific perspective. As the new curriculum comes into place next year these types of events will be very valuable for both children and teachers."

Explore further: Study contrasts teaching preferences, training between educators in traditional, virtual settings

More information: www.lasarproject.com/

Related Stories

Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

February 16, 2014

The public's view that science and religion can't work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by ...

Non-English subjects can help migrant and refugee children

September 8, 2014

New research at the University of Adelaide recommends that migrant and refugee children be exposed to more non-English-based subjects - such as art and sport - to help them to make friends, transition into school education ...

Recommended for you

Metacognition training boosts gen chem exam scores

October 20, 2017

It's a lesson in scholastic humility: You waltz into an exam, confident that you've got a good enough grip on the class material to swing an 80 percent or so, maybe a 90 if some of the questions go your way.

Scientists see order in complex patterns of river deltas

October 19, 2017

River deltas, with their intricate networks of waterways, coastal barrier islands, wetlands and estuaries, often appear to have been formed by random processes, but scientists at the University of California, Irvine and other ...

Six degrees of separation: Why it is a small world after all

October 19, 2017

It's a small world after all - and now science has explained why. A study conducted by the University of Leicester and KU Leuven, Belgium, examined how small worlds emerge spontaneously in all kinds of networks, including ...

Ancient DNA offers new view on saber-toothed cats' past

October 19, 2017

Researchers who've analyzed the complete mitochondrial genomes from ancient samples representing two species of saber-toothed cats have a new take on the animals' history over the last 50,000 years. The data suggest that ...

133 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dan42day
5 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014
Great to hear that the UK is emerging from the dark ages, wish we would do the same here in the U.S.

Was a little surprised to read that the second coming of Newton has apparently occurred.
JVK
1 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
Israeli Middle Schools School to Include Theory of Evolution
http://www.educat...olution/

"...learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology."

Learning how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations without the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory has already benefited researchers in Israel.

They understand how physics and the chemistry of protein folding are linked to the conserved molecular mechanisms of biologically-based cause and effect via RNA-mediated events that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all species.

Sorry to hear that the UK schools are going to teach theory and population genetics even earlier. Evidently, they do not want to risk raising a generation of serious scientists.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2014
Sorry to hear that the UK schools are going to teach theory and population genetics even earlier. Evidently, they do not want to risk raising a generation of serious scientists.

Judging from your attitude, I have every confidence you'd be as successful as a teacher as you are as a scientist. Maybe you should just quit hanging out here. Otherwise you'll just keep hearing (reading) more news you don't like.
JVK
1 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based." (p 1014)
http://jp.physoc....abstract

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... No, it wasn't dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html

Why does any serious scientist want assumptions to be taught to another generation? Theory is just another brick in the wall.
dtxx
5 / 5 (13) Nov 15, 2014

The teaching of evolution or creation must be chosen by the student at older age when they are sufficiently conscious persons and can choose independantly. Small children can easily be deceived because they have not developed yet critical thinking and basically imitate the behavior the and the way of thinking of adults.


But it's OK to force them to go to church? None of what you just said applies in that situation? Or should we wait until they are older with the religion too? No you say?

While not categorically proven this theory should not be taught along with basic subjects


Well, just throw out all of the science then. Everything in there is literally a theory at best. If poor kids didn't get exposed to these harmful theories, you wouldn't have most of your modern luxuries. We even teach kids wrong models first because they are easier to understand. If you think of an electron as a ball going around in a circle, that's an example. But they still turn out OK.
dtxx
5 / 5 (14) Nov 15, 2014
JVK, you've recently become my favorite proselytizer. It used to be zephir, so you are in elite company I assure you. I notice you never say anything, except the exact same thing, which is also to say you never say anything. No one here cares. Maybe you're right. You're sure you're right. We've all heard your ideas. But why is it no one cares what you have to say?

I know why you stick here. There are plenty of other science boards. None of them I've seen put up with this shit.

Why do you keep posting this shit? You are having the opposite effect you intend. You are driving everyone away from your ideas. But you are batshit crazy, I suppose, and will prove so shortly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2014
Dan dennett feels that the teaching of religions - ALL religions together - should be mandatory in all schools.

He says that informed consent is the basis of democracy, and how can children make rational decisions regarding them if they are ever taught only one?
http://www.themus...-schools

-Interesting that his TED talk vid is posted on the Muslim Times page. I wonder how many death threats he and the other anti religionists get, and how they deal with them.

Of course when children can see how religions all teach the same things, they may be less apt to believe in any of them.
JVK
1 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2014
"There's a fine line between being hailed as a visionary and being denounced as a crank..."
http://discoverma...tum-life

It is crossed when anyone links physics, chemistry, and biology via conserved molecular mechanisms that are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the context of links from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via amino acid substitutions, which stabilize the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

Why do you keep posting...?


This is where the ignorance is. It does no good to post facts about biologically-based cause and effect for discussion by serious scientists. They know the facts. I'm here for the anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers.

See: http://freethough...s-place/

Watch for more news about chromosomal rearrangements and biodiversity on Nov. 19.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2014
Great to hear that the UK is emerging from the dark ages, wish we would do the same here in the U.S.

Was a little surprised to read that the second coming of Newton has apparently occurred.
ben Franklin also shows up from time to time.
http://youtu.be/sEu8rspNXvI
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2014
Meanwhile, look back a few short months to comments from this article:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

The article states:

"They found that in two species a genetic mutation has led to the insertion of an extra amino acid that changes the structure of the protein complex, disrupting coherence."

Light is the energy source linked via the amino acid to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species.

Students are taught that biodiversity somehow evolved (e.g., in the light of evolution via mutations and natural selection). Those who believe that nonsense can never become serious scientists.

Serious scientists base their beliefs on experimental evidence that links physics, chemistry, and biology rather than on evolutionary inferences that link all genera including plants and animals.

PZ Myers teaches theory.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
Science has no place for superstition.
gkam
4.2 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
Uh, . . . okay.

Now, what? You going to invent a new science?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2014
This is where the ignorance is
stupidity is:
-ignoring empirical evidence that proves you are wrong, like this: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html
-claiming your model somehow refutes evolution when it uses the SAME methods for biodiversity (AKA- mutations) while you admit that with your own words
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
-making fallacious claims about self to bolster an argument and appealing to self-authority (decades of experience in diagnostic medicine? really?)
- lying about the claims of other scientists, then being proven in their own words that you are wrong
IOW - jk is where stupidity is
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Kohl-slaw word salad is blatant stupidity, jk
jk=TROLL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2014
and again we see blatant stupidity running rampant along the pseudoscience crowd like jk

lets examine this: what is the difference between Evolutions "mutations" and jk's model, which also causes mutations?
nothing

therefore, when jk pushes his model, and then denigrates mutations, he is saying, and i will use his own words for clarity
Students are taught that biodiversity somehow evolved (e.g., in the light of evolution via mutations and natural selection). Those who believe that nonsense can never become serious scientists.
so, according to jk,

NO ONE, should accept his model as a viable mechanism for biodiversity etc because... also in his words, it causes mutations[
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking


jk = PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2014
I do not like speculative science which hypotheses and assumptions differ from the facts of observations and experiments
@dumb&dumber-ren
you also have shown that you do not like actual science which explains reality and you hold your stupidity up proud and hide behind a faith which uses NO science
Who educates children? School or parents?
this SHOULD be both
in reality, it can be neither, especially when acolytes of faith overwhelm the youth with idiocy and unproven conjecture while stating it as fact, which is what faith does, and what religion tells us is the only way to believe unless you want to lose everything close to you (IOW - threaten your children is no different than threatening them with beatings and death, which is what religion offers in hell, etc)
There are many areas of science that are successfully validated by facts and are useful to people
and evolution is one of them
some others are physics, biology, A&P, p[physics etc

quit TROLLING
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2014
One experiment from Vosshall's lab linked a mutated olfactory receptor gene to loss of function. Another linked amino acid substitutions to gain of function via de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. The two experiments show exactly what is predicted in my model with its detailed examples, which are linked from nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events to cell type differentiation. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

"If it disagrees with the experiment, it's wrong!" — Richard Feynman (1964)
https://www.youtu...0PGCMwV0

"...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology..." -- Dobzhansky (1964)
http://icb.oxford...citation

"...alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla." --Dobzhansky (1973)

Human pheromones and food odors http://www.ncbi.n...24693349
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2014
Ren, you get five.

While in tech services at PG&E we found the last living lab assistant of Townsend Brown and paid him to build a working "electrokinetic device", something Brown never successfully did. It had no moving parts, but moved air controllably. It also did things I do not want to bring up here.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck http://en.wikiquo...x_Planck

Molecular Vibration-Sensing Component in Human Olfaction http://dx.doi.org....0055780 links quantum physics via the chemistry of quantum smell to quantum biology via conserved molecular mechanisms that link atoms to ecosystems.

Stop teaching children to be science idiots!
See: Are evolutionary theorists 'nob ends'? http://perfumingt...ob-ends/
gkam
4 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2014
"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
-----------------------------------------------

Didn't he get that from Reverend Pat?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2014
> Captain Stumpy
You would accept more easily different opinion and way of thinking, if you had the consolation that the fallacies are temporary, while the truth is eternal
@ren
personal conjecture without evidence

you do not know me nor are you capable of determining state of mind from the posts given unless taking all posts as a whole and considering the implications of what is said as well as what is being promoted and produced as evidence

considering that you ignore empirical evidence for the sake of a faith/religion:

then you would have far more success standing in a garage trying to convince other people you are a Mercedes than you would by giving a psyche profile based upon posts while supporting delusional beliefs

gkam
4.3 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2014
When I see a phrase such as "while the truth is eternal.", I know science is out the window, and faith decides.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
"Another perplexing oddity is known as quantum tunneling: In the microscopic realm, particles can travel across barriers that, in theory, they should not have the energy to get through."
http://discoverma...tum-life

https://www.youtu...Z0a3UH4c
gkam
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2014
Perhaps tunneling has more to do with field effects and probabilities at that scale.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
-----------------------------------------------
Didn't he get that from Reverend Pat?


Thanks for asking.

I doubt it; he might have collaborated with Einstein to arrive at that conclusion.

Max Planck also said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." http://en.wikiquo...x_Planck

That was a polite way to say that evolutionary theorists are science idiots (or "nob ends"). Most serious scientists try to be polite, despite the rudeness of pseudoscientists. I have good days and bad days, which are largely determined by the amount of pseudoscience I am subjected to by anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
Another perplexing oddity is known as quantum tunneling: In the microscopic realm, particles can travel across barriers that, in theory, they should not have the energy to get through.
http://discoverma...tum-life
there is no supporting evidence linking your perpetually stupid campaign against mutations, your mutation-model which you give in place of mutations, and quantum tunneling

you are not a physicist and are likely reaching for what you believe is an explanation supporting your failed conjecture

but in reality, the physics literate can see that you are basing your beliefs upon a failed creationist dogma which has been refuted already, making you a pseudoscience acolyte attempting to denigrate proven science with pseudoscience

you are TROLLING
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
What the UK school system ensures that a new generation will not grow up that is familiar with scientific facts.

They will learn theory and be as ignorant as their teachers, but claim that they are not because they were taught to believe their teachers were intelligent enough to understand scientific facts.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
evolutionary theorists are science idiots
considering you have no scientific evidence refuting evolution, and that you continually misinterpret known science as well as most studies you post that you think support your conclusions, then the only idiot here is you
Most serious scientists try to be polite, despite the rudeness of pseudoscientists
until those PSEUDOSCIENCE acolytes (like yourself) become stupid and abusive, and make blatantly fallacious claims, like you continue to do to this day

the only reason you hate Myers is because he is everything you cannot be
he PASSED college, is successful, is literate, comprehends his field, and is teaching others REAL SCIENCE with evidence

whereas you are pushing a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE, you ignore empirical evidence for your faith, you promote your perfume and you blatantly lie in order to bolster your claims

you hate Myers because he is a man you will never be

JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
there is no supporting evidence..."

Vosshall, Leslie B. (see anything published by anyone associated with her lab).
http://vosshall.r...ications

https://www.youtu...tailpage

Intelligent people realize that ignorance is killing other people. Evolutionary theorists want to continue to teach the ignorance that kills.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
there is no supporting evidence..."

Vosshall, Leslie B. (see anything published by anyone associated with her lab).
http://vosshall.r...ications
ROTFLMFAO
did you bother to read any of those studies?

you do know that the entire page and all those studies actually REFUTE your stupidity?
you continually claim mutations are bad, etc etc etc
you claim mutations are not viable and that all mutations perturb proteins and cannot be beneficial.. and then you quote as supporting evidence, a site that directly refutes you

unbelievably funny, actually!
Intelligent people realize that ignorance is killing other people
i suggest you pull your head out of your buttocks and open your eyes then, because you are stupidly implying that mutations can never be beneficial, but then promoting mutations in a model

moron

QUIT TROLLING
ekim
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2014
There is only one theory of evolution.
There are multiple theories of religion.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2014
LOL xtians are the world's most influential spammers
JVK
1 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2014
Two experiments are among others from the Vosshall lab that show how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations.

1) This experiment links induced mutations in olfactory receptor genes to the inability to find a source of nutrients. orco mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans and are not repelled by volatile DEET http://www.ncbi.n...3696029/

The source is a human, and the presence of humans is a recent addition to the ecological variation associated with the experience-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in experiment 2 (below).

2) This experiment links ecological variation to nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions and the experience-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor. http://www.nature...964.html

The amino acid differences are not linked to an inferred ancestor.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
[q} you continually claim mutations are bad... you claim mutations are not viable and that all mutations perturb proteins and cannot be beneficial.

I claim that mutations, which perturb protein folding, cannot lead to increasing organismal complexity given what is currently known about the physics, chemistry, and molecular biology of ecological speciation. See my model: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Vosshall's lab has shown that mutations to olfactory receptor genes do not lead to ecological adaptations but amino acid substitutions do.

Like me, others have addressed the issue of mutations compared to amino acid substitutions:

"We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments." http://www.nature...306.html
JVK
1 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2014
Excerpt: "Workshops included creating a "washing line of time"; discussing whether this is at odds with 'religious time' and the biblical explanation of how Earth developed, making rockets to explore the Big Bang theory and analysing fossils to ask whether, and how, science is compatible with creation and religious faith."

This infers they will be teaching how foolish it is to believe that random mutations lead to the evolution of biodiversity, so that -- like the Israeli schools -- their students can learn about ecology without the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory to confuse them.

Israeli Middle Schools School to Include Theory of Evolution

"...learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology."

http://www.educat...olution/
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
If these children were in the US, they could learn some of the same things about ecology by visiting The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. http://creationmuseum.org/

Depending on the age of the child, some of the representations at the museum might be confusing. Despite the age of the child or adult who accompanies one, thoughts about how random mutations might lead to the evolution of biodiversity can be compared to the fast-paced changes that have occurred in the human genome during the past 5,000–10,000 years. http://www.nature...690.html

Arguably, evolutionary theorists may think that scientific facts are pitted against their ridiculous theories during their visit to the museum. But, they can always go to a Museum of Natural History or the Scopes Museum in Dayton, TN before deciding what to believe.

Anything is better than being taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense that bastardized Darwin's theory.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2014
Ren, you get five.

While in tech services at PG&E we found the last living lab assistant of Townsend Brown and paid him to build a working "electrokinetic device", something Brown never successfully did. It had no moving parts, but moved air controllably. It also did things I do not want to bring up here.
Man you're full of all kinds of voodoo bullshit aren't you?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
you can't see how stupid you look when you say
I claim that mutations, which perturb protein folding, cannot lead to increasing organismal complexity given what is currently known about the physics, chemistry, and molecular biology of ecological speciation
but then end it with
See my model
let me refresh your memory
remember when i asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
so when you post ANYTHING that states mutations "cannot lead to increasing organismal complexity" [sic] then you are saying (and i will put it in CAPS so that you can maybe read it with your bad eyesight):

YOUR OWN MODEL CANNOT LEAD TO COMPLEXITY

yet you continue to promote your model over mutations

WTF?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
and again, i reiterate
when you post
how foolish it is to believe that random mutations lead to the evolution of biodiversity
then you are saying it is foolish to believe in your own model of biodiversity because your model CAUSES MUTATIONS
remember when i asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
PROTIP - if you denigrate mutations
and you say mutations "cannot lead to increasing organismal complexity"
and then you promote your model... which CAUSES mutations
then, by logic AND by YOUR definition
YOUR MODEL CANNOT LEAD TO INCREASING ORGANISMAL COMPLEXITY

another protip for jk- learn the lexicon or be forever considered a stupid pseudoscience hack
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2014
The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky
KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE and TROLL COMMENT
reported

there is NO science in that creation museum
not ONE BIT... in fact, they IGNORE science and make sh*t up at random for the sake of a religion
your tenets are NOT reliable, nor are they based upon logic, science or reality
Anything is better than being taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense that bastardized Darwin's theory.
and if you knew HALF of what you thought you knew
OR your model was half as important as what you think, you would have won a Nobel by now

the reason you have not?
1- you lie
2- you misrepresent reality for your religion
3- you promote pseudoscience for the sake of your religion

the fact that you would post a link to the creation museum only solidifies the fact that you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL without a firm grounding in science OR reality
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2014
"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based." (p 1014) http://jp.physoc....abstract

"...argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, form barriers to the integration of physiological science with evolutionary theory. A gene-centred approach analyses the relationships between genotypes and phenotypes in terms of differences (change the genotype and observe changes in phenotype). We now know that, most frequently, this does not correctly reveal the relationships because of extensive buffering by robust networks of interactions. By contrast, understanding biological function through physiological analysis requires an integrative approach in which the activity of the proteins and RNAs..." [in my model]
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL without a firm grounding in science OR reality


You are an anonymous fool who would probably say the same thing about the president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences quoted above.http://www.iups.org/

"We define physiology very liberally, just like the Nobel Prize Committee with its prize for "Medicine and Physiology". The winner of one of those prizes, Paul Nurse, put the matter very succinctly at our 2013 World Congress when he claimed to be a physiologist himself. His prize was for work on the cell cycle, which is one of the most important functions in any organism. 'Function' is the key. That is what physiology is about. The word means the logic of living systems. Working that out is what we do."

Life, logic and information by Sir Paul Nurse: http://www.nature...24a.html
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
Dan dennett feels that the teaching of religions - ALL religions together - should be mandatory in all schools.

He says that informed consent is the basis of democracy, and how can children make rational decisions regarding them if they are ever taught only one? - Otto


What has 'consent' to do with 'mandatory' teaching of all religions in school?

Clearly Dennett's motive is in the promotion of anti-religion,... and such a debate has NO place in public schools.....

Public schools should only present theories that one would be naturally inclined to upon examining observable facts, "as if" that person held no religious/anti-religious convictions as an a-priori motive in interpreting those facts.

Why a 'god' would deliberately leave such evidence to 'mislead' such an unbiased person is a question that respective religious should address, not the education system.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2014
There was also a guest appearance by famous physicist Isaac Newton ....


Bringing Isaac Newton back from the dead is not helping and will confuse children over the merits of science over religion, lol.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
Well sorry nou you didn't actually watch the vid. But evidence for you is always optional is it not?

Dennett the philosopher asserts that religion is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. It is much a part of history and culture as is science. Children should be given the proper perspective on exactly what religion is and how it has affected history and culture.

Certainly dennett is anti religion. But the idea still makes a lot of sense. Religion is a significant part of the lives of many children, who are taught that only people who believe what they do can be good. This sort of bigotry injures them and society as a whole. Knowledge of other religions can only help to mitigate this abuse.

And hopefully it would be taught without the use of such idiot words as 'a priori' which nobody but pompous and pretentious philos ever use.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2014
what does consent have to do with mandatory teachings
?? What does consent have to do with mandatory teachings of history, civics, literature, or sex ed? Some times you make even less sense than usual.

Curricula are chosen based on what children will need to make informed decisions about their futures. They learn how to think in school and how to make decisions for themselves. Religion teaches them how not to think and how to let others make decisions for them.

Obviously this is something the public needs to address, and this is best done in schools. It is probably too much to hope that hitchens and Harris and dennett and ehrman would be required reading.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2014
Children should be given the proper perspective on exactly what religion is and how it has affected history and culture


Some would argue it has had a positive effect, ....like their religious minded parents.

There is already enough basic facts for children to learn without opening the floodgates to all manner of indoctrinations, given the impossibility of unbiased presentation of such an emotionally charged anti-belief system or belief system.

Religion is a significant part of the lives of many children, who are taught that only people who believe what they do can be good. This sort of bigotry injures them and society as a whole. Knowledge of other religions can only help to mitigate this abuse.


There are many things that harm society; freedom of thought wrt beliefs are a cost of free society worth every penny.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2014
Dan dennett feels that the teaching of religions - ALL religions together - should be mandatory in all schools. He says that informed consent is the basis of democracy, ...

what does consent have to do with mandatory teachings

?? What does consent have to do with mandatory teachings of history, civics, literature, or sex ed?


Well nothing, ...but I never attempted to use the words 'consent' and 'mandatory', in the same point, ....you did.

And do not dishonestly modify my statements unless you include editing brackets [...].

I did not make the above quoted comment,... "what does consent have to do with mandatory teachings".

I stated this -> "What has 'consent' to do with 'mandatory' teaching of all religions in school?"
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
some would argue that it has had a positive effect like their parents
No they wouldn't argue it they would assert it based on what they have been taught about their religion since they were kids. They would assert that their religion alone has had a positive effect while all the others have been nothing but harmful, and would be oblivious to any evidence which would indicate otherwise. And they would punish their kids one way or another for disagreeing with them.

Meanwhile all the other religions are teaching their kids the same things. This bigotry needs to stop. And schools are the places where this can best be done.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2014
some would argue that it has had a positive effect like their parents
No they wouldn't argue it they would assert it based on what they have been taught about their religion since they were kids. They would assert that their religion alone has had a positive effect while all the others have been nothing but harmful, and would be oblivious to any evidence which would indicate otherwise. And they would punish their kids one way or another for disagreeing with them.


Probably,..... but they have the freedom to do that, and no one would want to live in a society who's government 'mandated' the undermining of that freedom, including atheists.

It is a logical fallacy to teach equivalency of all religions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
i never attempted to use consent and mandatory
Ahaahaaaa do you read what you write mr spaghetti bender? I was only repeating what you said, which is only honest. Sorry if I forgot the ' ' '.

Do the ' ' ' mean you were ascribing some other meaning to those words than the commonly accepted usage? Kant often did this which does incense randites and dennett.
They have the freedom to do that
So did hitlerjugend. So do jihadis when they seek to inculcate impressionable youth to don IED belts.

No, we do not allow anything to be taught in schools. Especially rejection of groups who do not believe in specific forms of superstition.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
such a debate has no place in public schools
Again, watch the vid. Dennett was not talking about any debate. He is saying only the facts about religions, where they come from, what they teach, what are their rituals, etc. No value judgments.

Watch the vid. Be an informed dissenter.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2014
Dan dennett feels that the teaching of religions - ALL religions together - should be mandatory in all schools. He says that informed consent is the basis of democracy
What has 'consent' to do with 'mandatory' teaching of all religions in school?

?? What does consent have to do with mandatory teachings of history, civics, literature, or sex ed?

Well nothing, ...but I never attempted to use the words 'consent' and 'mandatory', in the same point, ....you did.

Ahaahaaaa do you read what you write mr spaghetti bender? I was only repeating what you said, which is only honest. Sorry if I forgot the ' ' '.


It was not a point, it was a question.

Since you're an expert at copy/paste, I must assume your inaccurate quoting was deliberate and for your benefit and not mine. I corrected this above.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2014
such a debate has no place in public schools

Again, watch the vid. Dennett was not talking about any debate. He is saying only the facts about religions, where they come from, what they teach, what are their rituals, etc. No value judgments.


As I already pointed out and you confirmed, Dennett's motivation is anti-religion,..... and is deliberately using a lion to incite a bear.

The education system is not the place to shop for or against a religion. All that can be done is to present individual facts,... age of earth, evolution. Beyond that you can't make it mandatory to not later reject those facts on account of religion.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
@ JVK

I know how you feel. But then again, you should know how the rest of us feel.

Both are incorporated in this quote by Carl Sagan:

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2014
hopefully it would be taught without the use of such idiot words as 'a priori


"I've learned we are superior, above all you dumb brainy smarties" - Peter Griffin
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
I know how you feel. But then again, you should know how the rest of us feel.


Feelings have nothing to do with it! They laughed at Bozo, because most people laugh at clowns. They should also laugh at most theorists because the key to science is experimental evidence! How can anyone since Feynman not realize that? Why haven't evolutionary theorists stop being like Bozo.

https://www.youtu...0PGCMwV0

http://perfumingt...vidence/
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
http://www.scienc...3334.htm

This report takes everything currently known about experience-dependent amino acid substitutions, receptor-mediated behaviors and ecological adaptations in all organisms and summarizes it in the context of evolution:

Excerpt: "This work provides insight into how the domestic form of the yellow fever mosquito evolved from its animal-loving ancestor into a human-biting specialist, McBride said. "At least one of the things that happened is a retuning of the ways odors are detected by the antennae," she said. "We don't yet know whether there are also differences in how odor information is interpreted by the brain."

We know the domestic form of the yellow fever mosquito did not 'evolve' from its animal-loving ancestor into a human-biting specialist because mutations perturb protein folding.
http://www.ncbi.n...3696029/ "orco mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans..."
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
Two of the posters that will be presented at the SFN annual meeting this week address the extension of the RNA-mediated epigenetic effects on behaviors via single amino acid substitutions in DNA of cell types in 1) birds and 2) hamsters.

This published work extended epigenetic effects to cephalopods http://www.scienc...14004006 "The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000)."

See (Kohl, 2013) for other examples: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
As I already pointed out and you confirmed, Dennett's motivation is anti-religion,..... and is deliberately using a lion to incite a bear
Did you watch the vid? ALL of it? If not then you have no idea what dennetts motivation is, do you?

But we do teach the history and structure of other credos and pseudoreligions such as nazism and communism, and make value judgments for students. But dennett isnt even suggesting that.

An important aspect of the judeo/xian religions is that archeology has proven that the bible stories are fables. Where else are students going to learn these facts? Seminary school, where bart ehrman learned them? Thats a little late dont you think?
It was not a point, it was a question.
-And Im sorry for your poor command of the language. I think this is the result of learning how to redefine words as you go (ad hoc)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2014
As I already pointed out and you confirmed, Dennett's motivation is anti-religion,..... and is deliberately using a lion to incite a bear

Did you watch the vid? ALL of it? If not then you have no idea what dennetts motivation is, do you?


No, I did not watch the vid,.... just relied on your comment,....

Certainly dennett is anti religion. But the idea still makes a lot of sense. Religion is a significant part of the lives of many children, who are taught that only people who believe what they do can be good. This sort of bigotry injures them and society as a whole. Knowledge of other religions can only help to mitigate this abuse.


But we do teach the history and structure of other credos and pseudoreligions such as nazism and communism, and make value judgments for students. But dennett isnt even suggesting that.


Those are political ideologies.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2014
An important aspect of the judeo/xian religions is that archeology has proven that the bible stories are fables. Where else are students going to learn these facts?


School's should be teaching those facts, ....not because they prove that religion is false, ...but because they are scientific findings of independent importance. In other words leave out the context of religion altogether. School's should only focus on what is presently known to be correct, not what is wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
No, I did not watch the vid,.... just relied on your comment,....
So how about now? Did you watch the vid yet? Why would you rely on me to speak for dennett???
Those are political ideologies
They are pseudoreligions, replete with references to a divine mandate, infallible saviors, demonstrable miracles such as the conquest of western europe and the existence of a chosen people, whether by class or race.
https://www.youtu...6szFBb4A

-And what makes you think that the state-sponsored religions arent political in nature? There is little difference between europe during the dark ages and the soviet union.
School's should be teaching those facts, ....not because they prove that religion is false, ...but because they are scientific findings of independent importance
-which is what dennett SAID. So stay stupid.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
Why do those who rely on religion assume we are all alike? That idea infects all conservatives, and makes them trust nobody.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
SCIENCE:
Epigenetic changes in the estrogen receptor α gene promoter: implications in sociosexual behaviors http://journal.fr...344/full

"These findings provide insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the developmental consequences of sexually dimorphic ERα expression mediated by epigenetic modifications in the MPOA."

PSEUDOSCIENCE: We are all mutants
http://discoverma...volution

Note: Pseudoscience changes (natural selection was removed). Facts based on experimental evidence of cause and effect don't change. Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation continues to be supported by all experimental evidence published since our 1996 review linked cell type differentiation to RNA-mediated events instead of mutations.

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
http://www.hawaii...ion.html
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
Why are those touting pseudoscientific nonsense always the same anonymous participants who refuse to address the science when they criticize religion?

If mutations have not perturbed the protein folding required for their nutrient-dependent intelligent thought processes, and these participants are not starving to death, why can't they think about anything but automagically evolved biodiversity?

Oh, look over there.... another fossil. Maybe this new one will tell us how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man in the context of everything currently currently known about physics, chemistry, and molecular biology.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2014
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation continues to be supported by all experimental evidence published since our 1996 review linked cell type differentiation to RNA-mediated events
perhaps you forgot something?

remember when i I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
that means YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS
therefore, in YOUR OWN WORDS
your model MUST BE PSEUDOSCIENCE
PSEUDOSCIENCE: We are all mutants
so we can only conclude that if you argue AGAINST MUTATIONS, then you argue against your own model, therefore you are pushing KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE

you only continue to dig yourself deeper into your hole
STUPID people ignore reality and evidence for the sake of a faith/religion with NO evidence
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2014
Why do those who rely on religion assume we are all alike? That idea infects all conservatives, and makes them trust nobody.


I'm a conservative and an atheist, and know many like minded, so you're generalization is at best faulty.

No, I did not watch the vid,.... just relied on your comment,....

So how about now? Did you watch the vid yet? Why would you rely on me to speak for dennett???


Because I don't have time to debate the internet, and you're the one who referenced Dennett.

School's should be teaching those facts, ....not because they prove that religion is false, ...but because they are scientific findings of independent importance

-which is what dennett SAID. So stay stupid.

Did you not say he proposes teaching religions? I say just teach facts independently of religions.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
"Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation continues to be supported by all experimental evidence, . . . . . "
-------------------------------------------------

Okay, okay. What do you want from us?

JVK
1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
that means YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS


Why don't the moderators remove this participant, who is not capable of intelligent discussion?

Would they rather that I remove myself?

On the difficulty in getting out of historical ruts: Waddington and an argument for behavioral epigenetics http://www.scienc...12000347

Highlights: ► Discussions of genetic effects in psychology often ignore developmental processes. ► This is a historical artifact of the separation of epigenesis from genetics. ► C. H. Waddington's concepts of epigenetic landscape and epigenome avoided the split. ► Studies show different reaction norms in attachment under varied rearing environments. ► Plastic canalized ontogenetic pathways should replace a nature-nurture dichotomy.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
Okay, okay. What do you want from us?


Thanks for asking.

A group effort to remove people like Captain Stumpy from participation, or a group effort to remove me.

The Phys.org moderators could thereby clarify the type of discussions they wish to promote -- if that is not already what they are doing.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
Extensive pathogenicity of mitochondrial heteroplasmy in healthy human individuals
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

"On average it only takes ∼70 generations of cell divisions to reach homoplasmy from a new mutation; that is only ∼25 y for epithelial cells, which experience three cell turnovers per year (34). In postmitotic tissues, such as skeletal muscle and neurons, the mean time to homoplasmy is ∼40 y (35, 36). Besides random genetic drift during intracellular mitochondrial turnover and cell divisions (34, 35, 37), natural selection with replicative or survival advantage has also been proposed to either accelerate or decelerate the spread of pathogenic mutations (38–40)."

In my model, perturbed protein folding and associated mutations are typically eliminated by nutrient-dependent DNA repair mechanisms until the repair mechanisms are overwhelmed by nutrient-stress and/or social stress. The mutations do not lead to increasing organismal complexity.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2014
JVK, why are you posting here? Shouldn't you be in a thread regarding your topics?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2014
jvk
In my model, perturbed protein folding and associated mutations are typically eliminated by nutrient-dependent DNA repair mechanisms until the repair mechanisms are overwhelmed by nutrient-stress and/or social stress. The mutations do not lead to increasing organismal complexity.

Yeah, but....
what if they lead to organismal SIMplification...?
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
JVK, why are you posting here? Shouldn't you be in a thread regarding your topics?


Thanks for asking.

Teaching evolutionary theory to younger students who are even less likely to question what they are taught is the topic of this thread.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
Yeah, but....what if they lead to organismal SIMplification...?


Thanks for asking. If so, that is the opposite of mutations that lead to increasing organismal complexity. Isn't it?

"...chromosomal rearrangements can be fixed even in a randomly mating population if it goes through bottlenecks multiple times. In fact, recent studies of speciation suggest that this form of speciation is quite common in plants."

http://gbe.oxford...abstract

"This type of speciation by chromosomal rearrangements is also known to occur in yeasts and mammals..." -- which we linked in

http://www.hawaii...ion.html
A potential ramification of epigenetic imprinting and [nutrient-dependent] alternative splicing may be occurring in Xq28, a chromosomal region implicated in homosexual orientation (Brook, 1993; Hu, Pattatucci, Patterson, Li, Fulker, Cherny, Kruglyak, and Hamer, 1995; Turner, 1995).
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
I reiterate: "Teaching evolutionary theory to younger students who are even less likely to question what they are taught is the topic of this thread."

It's what happened in the US after the Modern Synthesis was invented by population geneticists who knew nothing about physics, chemistry, or molecular biology.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... No, it wasn't dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."

http://www.huffin...211.html

Shall UK students be taught to believe in the same assumptions?
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
Bringing Isaac Newton back from the dead is not helping...


If Dobzhansky was not still dead, he would be teaching creation, since his theories about mutations can now be compared to experimental evidence that links amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species.

1973: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist." http://www.jstor..../4444260

2014: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short
"... but perhaps, too, "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology." ... an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the ability to evolve."

Nutrient uptake confers the ability to ecologically adapt via pheromone-controlled chromosomal rearrangements. Species cannot evolve via mutations in the context of the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding and de novo gene creation.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2014
@jvk

"If Dobzhansky was not still dead, he would be teaching creation,---"

There is abolutly no empirical evidence supporting creationism.

You are a troll mainly interested in selling your stink juice.

gkam
4 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2014
Which creation myth is under discussion?
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2014
imido's reference was to a political site which supports superstition and beliefs from the Age of Ignorance.

This is a science forum.
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2014
So, you think science protects itself? Every field does that, but less in science. If you have the "truth", there are folk who will listen and pay. But all kinds of folk have all kinds of ideas.

I went to your conservapedia and read the first four of the objections. All were sophomoric misunderstandings of science. Perhaps you are trying to find justifications for your own need to believe in the unprovable thoughts and fears left over from the Age of Ignorance.

That is okay if this were a site for religion or other non-scientific topics.
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2014
http://www.scienc...88.short
2014: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease

is a link to

Science 7 March 2014:
Vol. 343 no. 6175 pp. 1088-1089
DOI: 10.1126/science.1247472

cited in The History of Ecoimmunology and Its Integration with Disease Ecology Integr. Comp. Biol. 1 September 2014: 353-362. http://icb.oxford...abstract

"As ecoimmunology moves forward, it will no doubt continue to contribute to the unraveling of the complex workings of the immune system, and to the discussion and understanding of fundamental biological processes."

and in

Evolution evolves: physiology returns to centre stage J. Physiol. 1 June 2014: 2237-2244.
http://onlinelibr...151/full

" Evolutionary theory requires extension or even replacement..."

See my comments to Science: http://comments.s....1247472

Continue to display your ignorance if you must.
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2014
"I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four
stages:
1. This is worthless nonsense,
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view,
3. This is true, but quite unimportant,
4. I always said so."
(Review of The Truth About Death, in: Journal of Genetics 1963, Vol. 58, p.464)"
― J.B.S. Haldane

See (above) "[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent...."
http://www.huffin...211.html

JBS Haldane was among those who invented the ridiculous theory that is still touted by the ignorant who want it taught to others so that they can also learn to believe what the ignorant believe in.

Serious scientists do not believe in ridiculous theories and they are not ignorant enough to let others tout them, except when the ignorance overwhelms them -- as it has done here.

You are a troll mainly interested in selling your stink juice.


Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
Why don't the moderators remove this participant, who is not capable of intelligent discussion?
because my post is 100% factually correct and it even quotes your own words back at you
not MY words, idiot boy, YOUR words
Would they rather that I remove myself?
that would be best
there is no room for PSEUDOSCIENCE on a science site
and you promote faith based pseudoscience and delusional misrepresentations continually with regard to your interpretations of other people's work
And you are the one who admitted to failing college (i have 2 degree's), and you are the one who tried to claim decades of practicing without a license (diagnostic medicine) which is punishable by the state board & more
Why the group effort to remove a FACTUALLY CORRECT ARGUMENT?

what is to fear from it, unless it undermines your ability to push your pseudoscience?

you want me removed so that you can say you are correct, but this will NOT change the FACTS

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
A group effort to remove people like Captain Stumpy from participation, or a group effort to remove me
The Phys.org moderators could thereby clarify the type of discussions they wish to promote -- if that is not already what they are doing
-you cannot refute Anonymous or the other posters with scientific data because you continually CONFUSE the terms and refuse to accept the definitions used in the field (called the Lexicon)
- you cannot define why your own method of mutation is not a mutation although you admit it is a mutation
- you cannot comprehend why your own model is already considered a small part of evolution theory

then why the targeted attack?

your attention and focus on me is because you are consistently irritated by, and you cannot refute, the known reality nor the facts
& because i continually remind you of your failure to comprehend basic English that is easily available/free/accessible & of your past failures, you target me
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
the biggest reason you would want to drive competition from the comments comes from your own mouth
Serious scientists do not believe in ridiculous theories
you know that your science is being affected by your religion, and as such it is not serious, and it is also being pointed out by people like me who repeatedly remind you of your inability to comprehend simple basics

another point is that you are jealous of ANYONE who is educated and has a degree, especially if it in any way includes those classes you failed from

this is why you continually still attack and libel Myers as well as anyone who doesn't agree with you
prejudice much?

your support comes from the trolls of PO... and you are upset that it is so very apparent to anyone who reads the comments

remember: i use YOUR OWN WORDS against you because you stupidly ignore the lexicon of your own field of choice and because you choose FAITH over science

you are angry because i am correct
PERIOD
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
you fail to interpret your own links/supporting evidence with objective views and look at them through the eyes of a faith blind idiot
case in point: your link http://www.scienc...88.short
states
Even the assumption that mutations are random, constant, and gradual has been
revised on the basis of molecular mechanisms of mutagenesis. For example, in bacteria,
responses to environmental stress can activate mutagenesis mechanisms that increase
mutation rate, which can potentially increase the ability of a cell to evolve, specifically
when it is poorly adapted to its environment (when stressed)
it is listed under opinion pieces AND it contradicts your interpretation of anti-mutation etc

you want people to take you seriously but you try to link obscure text and hidden studies so that you cannot be called out on it

you assume that your model supplants evolution
IT DOESN'T... it SUPPORTS IT
and it does it with MUTATIONS
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
See my comments to Science: http://comments.s....1247472
and just because you can TROLL science magazine as well as PO, doesn't mean you are in ANY way correct

you STILL confuse epigenetics
you STILL lie and blatantly ignore the facts of subjects while interpreting them in your own faith based religions fervor as something that supports you
EPIC FAILURE

at least you have Zephir/imido to support you

IMO the only scientific way, how to teach some theory is by pointing to evidence, which contradicts it
@ZEPHIR
then why do you not use evidence normally?
and why do you IGNORE the evidence that you don't like? like: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

you make grand claims but you ignore ANY evidence you don't like, just like jk above... you have a faith (daw/aw) just like jk and it affects your ability to comprehend science
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
http://www.scienc...88.short
last little dig
your own link undermines your argument by PROVING my own argument against you
The long-standing assumption of random, constant, and gradual mutagenesis is refuted by observations that mutations occur more frequently when cells are maladapted to their environments, together with the discoveries of mechanisms by which mutations are targeted to specific genomic structures. These modifi cations of the modern synthesis assumptions could not have been predicted or found without exploration of molecular mechanisms
the article is not about what you even think
Molecular mechanisms that generate biological diversity are rewriting ideas about how evolution proceeds, with implications for treating disease
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures
it is about COMBINING areas of research for relevant factual conclusions
NOT about refuting mutations, etc
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
@kohl
you wonder why people don't trust you? because you intentionally lie and misrepresent the truth with your skewed faith based stupidity, like i pointed out about your links above

here is a few articles that are relevant to the topic of anti-science posters and why they believe... and perhaps might explain why jk TROLLS the site with anti-evolution posts

the first are articles with links and references:
http://www.washin...eligion/
http://www.cultur...y-o.html
This is a study about attitudes towards science policy
http://sgo.sagepu...full.pdf

note that jk is a "skeptical issue specialists" [see also: Lockett (2010)]
like all faith based skeptics, you are blinded by your faith and cannot accept reality or SCIENCE that refutes you
CIP- see also:Zephir
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2014
Creationist cults seem to be far more a feature of the US. The report says evolution is a controversial addition, but it will cause zero stir here in the UK, maybe that was put in for US readers. The great majority of folk here grow out of Santa, fairies and other fantasies like creationism, by the time they leave primary school at eleven.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
Great to hear that the UK is emerging from the dark ages, wish we would do the same here in the U.S.

Yes. It's sort of bizarre to see a developed nation catching on to stuff in their basic education systems that has been taught in schools elsewhere for the better part of a century. (Even more bizarre since Charles Darwin as well as Crick and Watson were/are English)

LOL xtians are the world's most influential spammers

...and the next 4 posts are by an xtian spammer. Damn. Sometimes it's just too easy to prove what they are.
imido
Nov 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014


Why don't the moderators remove this participant, who is not capable of intelligent discussion?

Would they rather that I remove myself?

Even if your charge was correct, yes; I'd prefer a participant not capable of intelligent discussion than a spammer.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
I see no problem here. Just allow the teaching of all mythology in a comparative mythology class. Let classes compare Jesus with Thor and Mercury. Let Mohamed be compared with Mary. Let Hercules be compared with Jove. Compare Odin with Allah. I think this is a good forum for students to look critically at the various myths. As a youth I had a guide to mythology that was great for me to understand the ways that humans rationalize the natural world we live in. I see no problem with laying it out as it is. This is not science, this is culture. This should be taught as such. If parents want to bring up magic and witchcraft, let them, but make it clear this is a class on mythology, not science.

If you think your religion is any more real than the other mythologies, you need to try to convince your kids why Jesus is any more substantial than Mars (when Mars has his own planet).
gkam
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2014
I went the Huff'N'Puff post JVK sent us, and found all the quotations he has used for the past several days. It is interesting, and may have truth to it, but to base an opinion on the theory of a few which takes some time to prove is not Absolute Truth, either.

Thermo (above) is correct in all respects.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Hmmmm....this is kind of a sticky issue with me. I think in public schools it's not even worth debating whether or not we teach evolution...might as well ask if we're going to teach the Earth is flat. That being said, parents do have a right and a responsibility to help filter what their children are exposed to. Just because I know their beliefs are not factual doesn't mean that I get the right to tell them how to raise their kids....

OTOH I'm of the firm belief that people have a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts. I'd find it hard to defend teaching kids that Abraham Lincoln discovered America...

So, I don't see it as black and white as a lot of people do.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
What bothers you so much in the idea for intelligent almighty Creator who created the universe, the planet Earth, the living world and man?
@ren
absolutely nothing
i've never had issue with letting someone believe what they want

but this is a SCIENCE site, not a religious forum
it doesn't matter what i like or dislike... the only thing that matters is the evidence
and faith has NONE

Who doesn't use evidence normally here?
@Zephir
where is your "evidence" supporting your daw/aw? you've never given anything but links to spam/pseudoscience sites
why?
because it has been falsified and is NOT a theory, it is a philosophy/faith http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

you are no better than jk in that you choose what to believe: when something has been proven not to exist and you still believe, it is a FAITH
not science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2014
OTOH I'm of the firm belief that people have a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts
@MM
actually, this is the core problem IMHO
the xtians want their faith taught as fact

when it comes to a belief, then everyone should be entitled to their own, as long as they do not try to force those beliefs onto another
The xtians are trying to force their creationist myths onto the public because they fear being exposed as charlatans (although they already have been: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas )

the core problem that creationists have is that they are so firmly entrenched in their belief that they cannot see reality for what it is, and therefore ignore refuting evidence when presented

case in point: ren above quoted in another comment thread that there is NO evidence for Evolution, and I've already linked well over 20 studies with empirical evidence proving him wrong

there are none so blind as those who refuse to see (right Zephir?)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
I see no problem here. Just allow the teaching of all mythology in a comparative mythology class... own planet).
@Thermo
VERY well said... but it will really tick off the creationists, especially the hard line xtians who refuse to see evidence, like jk and ren

This is where they feel we are trampling their religion, but they cannot see that their faith has NO evidence supporting it and as such belongs in the realm of things which are also beliefs without evidence, like myths

xtians and especially creationists want everyone to IGNORE science and the evidence that we have already acquired for their VERSION of reality
this is no better than a faith in itself

like MM says above
people have a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts
and creationists are making stuff up in the hopes that it conforms to a FAITH
not REALITY

One day i hope humans can look on these times and wonder why we ever argued faith over science
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
OTOH I'm of the firm belief that people have a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts.


In a free country one has the right to their own facts,.... to be wrong is not a crime. In a free country one has the right to be an incompetent parent.

One day i hope humans can look on these times and wonder why we ever argued faith over science


Even if humanity intellectually evolves off of religion in the future, ....ignorance of science will always remain among those who choose not to have interest in it. So what is the difference?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
In a free country one has the right to their own facts,.... to be wrong is not a crime. In a free country one has the right to be an incompetent parent.


Whether or not we agree on this reality doesn't allow people to their own "facts". Them's the brakes of the universe. Reality doesn't dispense different versions of itself to accommodate one's notions of freedom or rights. I agree it isn't a crime (well in some circumstances it can be), but neither is it an entitlement. If you're in a court of law and someone gives a fact contra an opinion the judge and jury are going to go with the fact...

I'd have to disagree that being an incompetent parent is a right, in quite a few instances it's actually a crime. I don't think this is one of them, but let's be clear...YOU don't get to decide what's right or wrong in any given society, and neither do I.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
sort of bizarre to see a developed nation catching on to stuff in their basic education systems that has been taught in schools elsewhere for the better part of a century
Germans teach religion in public schools. This is not done in the US.

"Most of the federal states of Germany, which has a long history of almost even division between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, have an arrangement where the religious bodies oversee the training of mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious education teachers. In one of the federal states this includes Orthodox Christian teachers as well. The training is supposed to be conducted according to modern standards of the humanities, at mostly state-run colleges and universities. Those teachers teach religion in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, are paid by the state but answerable to the churches for the content of their teaching; however they must not teach behaviour widely considered to be against the law [well except bigotry]"

-Hypocrite.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
What bothers you so much in the idea for intelligent almighty Creator who created the universe, the planet Earth, the living world and man?
Nothing. What does bother me is the belief in a god that insists that people who dont believe in him cant be good.
There is cause and effect relationship, a purpose, direction, there is a universal law, and condition for all people
See, now this is exactly the duplicitous talk from believers which also bothers me a great deal. This universal law DOES NOT APPLY to unbelievers.
cont>
saposjoint
5 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Ren, you get five.

While in tech services at PG&E we found the last living lab assistant of Townsend Brown and paid him to build a working "electrokinetic device", something Brown never successfully did. It had no moving parts, but moved air controllably. It also did things I do not want to bring up here.
Man you're full of all kinds of voodoo bullshit aren't you?


No voodoo, just science. http://en.wikiped...n_effect
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
"20 And God spoke all these words:

2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

-God even got his credentials wrong. There never were any 2M jews in egypt back then. And they never left to through regions thoroughly occupied by the egyptian army. And they never rampaged through palestine, killing every goy they could find.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
No voodoo, just science
Oh so sorry, I meant implied voodoo bullshit...
It also did things I do not want to bring up here
This guy has a real problem with the need to impress at all costs.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2014
@Noumenon I'm a conservative and an atheist, and know many like minded, so you're generalization is at best faulty.
Such a schism is only possible in someone with a mental illness or severe brain damage
imido
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2014
Would they rather that I remove myself?

That is a pathetic bluff on multiple levels. you know you have nothing better to do than spam this site all the time like you do (prove me wrong and leave if you disagree with my assessment of this statement)and second do you really think the staff on this site or anyone else here for that matter is going to miss you if you leave or that anyone here supports you or believes the crap you spout over and over again? you are both deluding and thinking too highly of yourself if you think that.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2014
@Noumenon I'm a conservative and an atheist, and know many like minded, so you're generalization is at best faulty.
Such a schism is only possible in someone with a mental illness or severe brain damage


You're ad hominem is the result of your childish caricature of conservatives.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
someone with a mental illness or severe brain damage
You're ad hominem is the result of your childish caricature of conservatives.
But philosophy is much like religion is it not? It seeks answers to ultimate questions in inaccessible realms. It has little regard for evidence or experimentation, relying rather on deep concentration and reciting mantras.

It's comprised of sects, each of which believes that it alone can answer these ultimate questions.

All religionists are atheists to every other religion besides their own. Philos can profess to be atheists while citing their priests and pundits who talk about veiled realities where hypergods live, and 'things in themselves' which only these gods can ever experience.

Philosophy was used to wean the intelligencia off religion during the enlightenment. It was a place-holder while science could catch up. It enabled authorities to avoid saying 'I don't know'.

Doesn't mean it was ever right, only useful.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
I'm a conservative and an atheist, and know many like minded, so [your] generalization is at best faulty.

Such a schism is only possible in someone with a mental illness or severe brain damage

Your ad hominem is the result of your childish caricature of conservatives.

But philosophy is much like religion is it not? It seeks answers to ultimate questions in inaccessible realms. It has little regard for evidence or experimentation, ..


Yet another generalized ignorant caricature. Philosophy of physics is all about interpreting experiment, and then there is philosophy of mathematics, epistemology, logic, etc.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2014
...... Myself and DaSchnieb debated Realism/Anti-realism in this thread in both physics and mathematics. My argument, sources, and quotes used, maintained that Realism in either physics or mathematic is akin to metaphysics. Therefore any use of philosophical argument by me opposed "inaccessible realms" in science.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
Video Excerpt: Richard Feynman and Pseudoscience
https://www.youtu...X_0jDsrw

Richard P. Feynman - The Pleasure of finding things out [national bestseller]
https://www.youtu...ymBSCM4Q
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
Philosophy of physics is all about interpreting experiment
You always leave out the caveat 'according to the philos'. According to the scientists who design the experiments and interpret the results, sciphilos are irrelevant.
opposed "inaccessible realms" in science
Wasnt it you who claimed that computer scientists will never be able to mimic the workings of the 'mind'? This would make the function of the 'mind', whatever the 'mind' might be, inaccessible wouldnt it? You also claimed that ideas were metaphysical.

It is clear that you as well as despaganat and the other philos you reference, do assert the existence of inaccessible realms. So stop denying it.
Realism/Anti-realism
Working scientists dont give 2 shits about these words. Dont you understand that? They dont listen to what you have to say and they dont read what you write. They do science while you feverishly await the publication of it in the hopes of having something relevant to say.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
Electron spin changes during general anesthesia in Drosophila
http://www.ncbi.n...4151765/

"One hundred sixty years after its discovery, the molecular mechanism of general anesthesia remains a notable mystery. A very wide range of agents ranging from the element xenon to steroids can act as general anesthetics on all animals from protozoa to man, suggesting that a basic cellular mechanism is involved. In this paper, we show that volatile general anesthetics cause large changes in electron spin in Drosophila fruit flies and that the spin responses are different in anesthesia-resistant mutants. We propose that anesthetics perturb electron currents in cells and describe electronic structure calculations on anesthetic–protein interactions that are consistent with this mechanism and account for hitherto unexplained features of general anesthetic pharmacology."

See also: http://www.ncbi.n...25369208
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2014
Philosophy of physics is all about interpreting experiment

According to the scientists who design the experiments and interpret the results, sciphilos are irrelevant.

I have referenced Physicists who write on philosophy of physics, so you're factually incorrect.

Wasnt it you who claimed that computer scientists will never be able to mimic the workings of the 'mind'?


Never said that, you dishonest twit. I stated "How the mind works won't be discovered by computer dorks" and "it will require neuroscience, psychology, medical, and cognitive science", but even allowed for the possibility of computer sim,.... " step two is to then simulate it,.... if it is even algorithmic or requires a physical foundation is an open question"

Stop spamming every thread with dishonest representations of your past defeats.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2014

...This would make the function of the 'mind', whatever the 'mind' might be, inaccessible wouldnt it?


Nope, never implied that, you dishonest twit.

In fact I stated the exact opposite ..."The mind and consciousness, has only a purely physical basis, ...the bio-mechanism, the brain, ......and can be studied and eventually understood fully."

You also claimed that ideas were metaphysical.


Never said that, and corrected your dopy misapprehension in the above link.

It is clear that you as well as despaganat and the other philos you reference.....


d'Espagnat is a physicist whom I have referenced w.r.t. quantum mechanics....

do assert the existence of inaccessible realms


Only in the pejorative and as a limiting concept. This has been explained to you.

It is remarkable how blatantly dishonest you are.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2014
physicists who write on the philo of physics
The article above cites a similar phenomenon of scientists who do pseudoscience. Same difference. Look up the scientist who invented orgone.
only in a perjorative and limited way
Right. Look up the word noumenon.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
I have referenced Physicists who write on philosophy of physics, so you're factually incorrect.
The article above cites a similar phenomenon of scientists who do pseudoscience. Same difference. Look up the scientist who invented orgone.


Interpretations of QM is not pseudoscience. I have referenced only specific physicists about specific points,.... why do you interject other irrelevancies ?

only in the perjorative and as a limiting concept
Right. Look up the word noumenon.


I don't need to look it up, .....you need to work on understanding ones posts rather than inventing arguments that never existed. Your problem is that even after I correct your misapprehensions of my comments, you refuse to update your understanding. This is the behaviour of someone who thinks they're entitled to decide what other posters mean.

How about answering the numbered questions I posed to Stumpy in the above link, since he is still hiding under his desk?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
Interpretations of QM is not pseudoscience
Many interpretations of qm are indeed pseudoscience, and legitimate scientists can be accused of this, including despaganat. These include notions that human consciousness alone is able to collapse the waveform, and that some 'veiled reality' is really a hypergod. These are popularly referred to as mystical in nature.
I don't need to look it up, .....
Well let me help......

"Kant's
philosophy establishes a two-fold distinction between things-as-they-appear
and things-as-they-are-in-themselves. Some things—the ding an sich, freedom,
God, the soul—are noumenal and some things—particular manifestations of
chocolate cake and sub-Saharan snakes—are phenomenal. With the possible
exception of freedom, the noumenal constitutes a REALM of things that cannot be
known and the phenomenal constitutes a REALM of things that can be known."

-And unknowable realms are by definition mystical in nature.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
And back to the topic at hand...
IMHO, Music and Art are just as relevant to understanding the Universe around us, as Science is.
Knowing the "beat" of reality is almost a precursor to knowledge of it's actual facts.
Religiousity just clouds things up and get's in the way...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
Electron spin changes during general anesthesia in Drosophila
http://www.ncbi.n...4151765/

Actually, JVK...
That might be the ONE interesting post you've had all year....
mooster75
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
.

Wasnt it you who claimed that computer scientists will never be able to mimic the workings of the 'mind'?


Never said that, you dishonest twit. I stated "How the mind works won't be discovered by computer dorks" and "it will require neuroscience, psychology, medical, and cognitive science", but even allowed for the possibility of computer sim,.... " step two is to then simulate it,.... if it is even algorithmic or requires a physical foundation is an open question"

Stop spamming every thread with dishonest representations of your past defeats.

I feel like I'm stepping between two semi-trucks here, but once you talk about studying "the mind", haven't you pretty much left the science realm anyway?
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
.

Wasnt it you who claimed that computer scientists will never be able to mimic the workings of the 'mind'?


Never said that, you dishonest twit. I stated "How the mind works won't be discovered by computer dorks" and "it will require neuroscience, psychology, medical, and cognitive science", but even allowed for the possibility of computer sim,.... " step two is to then simulate it,.... if it is even algorithmic or requires a physical foundation is an open question"

Stop spamming every thread with dishonest representations of your past defeats.

I feel like I'm stepping between two semi-trucks here, but once you talk about studying "the mind", haven't you pretty much left the science realm anyway?


LOL, no. I just listed the the science involved.
mooster75
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
Sorry; I was traumatized by an intro psych instructor as a freshman...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
Sorry; I was traumatized by an intro psych instructor as a freshman...

Got laid by mine - no trauma involved...
mooster75
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
Thinking about the instructor for a moment, I think that would have been even worse!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.