Understanding faith, teaching evolution not mutually exclusive

Discussing the relationship between science and faith, rather than avoiding the discussion, may better prepare future high school biology teachers for anticipating questions about evolution, according to Penn State political scientists.

In a series of focus group meetings with biology students at four Pennsylvania institutions—three universities and a college—students from a Catholic college appeared to be more reflective when talking about issues of faith and science.

"We suspect these students are somewhat less anxious around discussions of faith and science that come up in biology classes," said Michael Berkman, professor of political science and director of the Center for American Political Responsiveness.

Students at religious colleges often receive instruction in theology and attend lectures that integrate discussions about faith, Berkman said. While this may help ease anxiety if religious issues come up in class discussions and talks with concerned parents, it is ultimately knowledge of the science of evolution that will provide with the confidence for effective science instruction, he added.

"If you don't have confidence in your own self-knowledge, especially in a controversial topic, your tendency is going to be to shy away from it, to avoid controversy and to not really teach the subject," said Berkman.

Critics of evolution often take advantage of a teacher's limited understanding of evolution to foster doubt in the science and make the science seem less settled than it actually is, according to Berkman, who worked with Eric Plutzer, professor of and academic director at the Survey Research Center. These critics need only a slight opening to sow that doubt, he added.

"You don't have to necessarily prove an alternate theory, you just have to shed sufficient doubt on the prevailing scientific consensus," said Berkman. "This is not an original idea. A variety of people and groups use the strategy of enabling doubt, in terms of doubting evolution, or climate change, or even, in the past, with tobacco research."

Although many religious denominations now accept the compatibility between religious faith and the science of evolution, students from the non-religious schools often revealed that they experienced tension between the two, according to the researchers, who released their findings in the March issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, which is online now.

Students who have not considered the religious implications of evolution may not be prepared for questions from skeptical parents and students when they become teachers.

"Some of these students felt that they would be supplied with sufficient lesson plans and pedagogical skills when they become teachers, so that they could overcome what they don't quite understand now and answer the challenging questions that might come up," said Berkman.

Incorporating faith into discussions about evolution at Catholic and other religious institutions may be easier than at public institutions because the fields of science and religion are much more separate at the latter, he added.

In an earlier study, Berkman and his colleagues found that high school biology teachers play a critical role in forming public consensus about science. Denying evolution could, then, lead not just to doubts about evolution, but also to a broader misunderstanding of science in general, according to the researchers.

"Evolution is fundamental to biology, but more importantly we think that when you are communicating a skepticism about evolution you're communicating a skepticism about science generally," said Berkman.

The researchers conducted focus group sessions at a large research university, a medium-sized state-owned university, a historically black university and a Catholic four-year college, all in Pennsylvania. A total of 35 students took part in the focus group sessions that lasted 50 to 65 minutes.

Berkman said these focus group sessions could help lay the groundwork for more extensive follow-up surveys and studies in the future.


Explore further

Preparing local schools for teaching evolution in the classroom

Citation: Understanding faith, teaching evolution not mutually exclusive (2015, February 25) retrieved 27 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-faith-evolution-mutually-exclusive.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
20 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

JVK
Feb 25, 2015
Denying evolution could, then, lead not just to doubts about evolution, but also to a broader misunderstanding of science in general, according to the researchers.


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."

Including the ridiculous theories of neo-Darwinism is a way to teach the difference between pseudoscientific nonsense and biological facts that link ecological variation to ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from microbes to man.

Teaching students to believe in ridiculous theories helps to ensure they will believe in other pseudoscientific nonsense.

JVK
Feb 25, 2015
Malaria plays hide-and-seek with immune system by using long noncoding RNA to switch genes http://www.eureka...2515.php

Can anyone else imagine how many more people might have suffered or died of malaria if these researchers in Israel had been taught to believe that a mutated gene led to the hemoglobin S variant instead of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions?

If not, see Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

It is no longer enough to simply deny evolution. Combating ignorance is required to fight disease. Unfortunately, in some school systems, decades of ignorance continue to prevail.

Does anyone know of a university in the USA that teaches about RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that link what is known about physics and the chemistry of protein folding in the context of ecological adaptations?

Feb 26, 2015
Religion is not science and science is not religion. Science is based in facts that can be independently verified and religion is based in faith in things that cannot be proven.

While I respect the right of others to believe god, or whatever entity they prefer, it is insane to teach a belief based ideology in science.

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics http://www.nature...-1.16535

"The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

http://phys.org/n...ene.html -- breaks Gregor Mendel's century-old "law of segregation," which states that you have an equal probability of inheriting each of two copies of every gene from both parents.

there are many second laws of thermodynamics http://phys.org/n...ics.html

It's not science if the "Laws" change or additions must be made. That's pseudoscientific nonsense, and it is what is being taught in many school systems as if it were science.

Feynman on pseudoscience: https://www.youtu...X_0jDsrw

Feb 26, 2015
Understanding religion and evolution isn't exclusive of course. Pew studies show that atheists are best at that on average, with the exceptions of Mormons and Jews who know their culturally connected religions better.

But religious ideas and methods are inimical to science and education. That "many religious denominations now accept the compatibility between religious faith and the science of evolution" means they are creationists that hides their magic beneath a veneer of 'science'. And catholics are the worst offenders, which is why the researchers making such unsupportable theological claims instead of studying the cognitive dissonance that religious students live under is extra vile.

In Europe the problems with religion in education is solved by the study of comparative religion. Religious students discover that specific religions are not such a big deal.

Feb 26, 2015

Religion withstands the same standard of verification as science

That's news (and a laugh). Make a prediction based on religious ideas (preferrably one that is at odds with science). Please. Do. Then we'll test it and see.
R
eligion is just 'fitting a made-up story to everything'. While that is a feel-good way of living, the information content (and hence the utility) of such a 'theory' is zero. (and a theory without information content is NOT science)

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
I linked to the open access paper co-authored by George FR Ellis

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics http://www.nature...-1.16535

http://en.wikiped...R._Ellis

"He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology.[1] He is an active Quaker and in 2004 he won the Templeton Prize.[2] From 1989 to 1992 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation. He is a past President of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is an A-rated researcher with the NRF."

See also: Top-down causation: an integrating theme within and across the sciences? http://rsfs.royal...abstract

Stop the teaching of pseudoscientific nonsense before theorists kill us all!

cjn
Feb 26, 2015
FTA:
The researchers conducted focus group sessions at a large research university, a medium-sized state-owned university, a historically black university and a Catholic four-year college, all in Pennsylvania. A total of 35 students took part in the focus group sessions that lasted 50 to 65 minutes.


So the "researchers" made broad conclusions from 35 students? This isn't a study; this is barely anecdotal. If the author is so worried about people "doubting 'science' ", then he should make a stronger effort at demonstrating what good 'science' looks like. There are 12.8M residents of PA, and 392,000 students in a Baccalaureate or higher level institution; the authors sampled 0.008% of them.

cjn
Feb 26, 2015
FTA:
... it is ultimately knowledge of the science of evolution that will provide biology teachers with the confidence for effective science instruction, he added...."Evolution is fundamental to biology, but more importantly we think that when you are communicating a skepticism about evolution you're communicating a skepticism about science generally," said Berkman.

Evolution is an incredibly complex process, with factors which range from the molecular-level to the ecosystem. Your average biology teacher does not need to understand all of the nuances to be able to effectively convey the concept. In fact, I would wager that the Political Scientists which authored this piece don't actually "understand" evolution beyond the Peppered Moth and "survival of the fittest" trope... and yet, they claim that this understanding is "fundamental to biology".

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
Re: "... with factors which range from the molecular-level to the ecosystem."

Life is physics and chemistry and communication http://dx.doi.org...as.12570

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
http://figshare.c...s/994281

Feb 26, 2015
Religious and science ADEPTS verify predictions. Aunty Alias cannot falsify the location of Venus.

And that is a response exactly...how?

That the Messiah will come again cannot be falsified.

Sure. Give us a date. We'll see when he turns up (note that all religions have given such dates in the past - and they have failed 100% of the time. Does not inspire confidence in the predictive power of belief based system, now, does it?)

Fitting is modeling ad-hockery formalized.

Fitting without predictive power is pointless
1,2,3,4,5 - what's the next number? If there never is a next number to test then there are an infinite number of formulas that are a perfect fit. Which makes any kind of formula as an 'explanation' of the series as pointless as any other.
Or as the saying goes: If you understand why you reject a million other gods you will understand why I reject a million plus yours.

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
Does anyone else wonder why theorists never address the data from physics and chemistry that links the epigenetic effects of anti-entropic light to all biomass on this planet?

I think it's because they are pseudoscientists who know nothing about biologically-based cause and effect. If there is another reason for their displays of ignorance, please tell me what you think it is.

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
"...evolution beyond the Peppered Moth and "survival of the fittest" trope..."

Dobzhansky and I have one thing in common: We agree that amino acid substitutions differentiate all cell type in all individuals of all species from insects to primates.

"...the so-called 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." http://www.jstor..../4444260

If he was not still dead, I think he would agree that theorists are not serious scientists because he also wrote: "...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!" http://icb.oxford...citation

Butterflies are like moths that never mutated into another species. Dinosaurs are large reptiles that did not become birds.


Feb 26, 2015
Butterflies are like moths that never mutated into another species. Dinosaurs are large reptiles that did not become birds.


And JVK-Skippy is a lab helper who never becomes the scientist.

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
Uncle Ira = another display of ignorance

http://www.scienc...4131.htm The greatest absence of evolution ever reported has been discovered by an international group of scientists: a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years.

http://phys.org/n...ene.html breaks Gregor Mendel's century-old "law of segregation," which states that you have an equal probability of inheriting each of two copies of every gene from both parents.

there are many second laws of thermodynamics http://phys.org/n...ics.html

There is one model of biologically-based cause and effect that links physics to the chemistry of protein folding and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation:

http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.

Feb 26, 2015
@JVK. Some time ago I marked you as ignored. But today, with a minute or two to waste, I took a little peek, to re-evaluate my bias.
Sadly, nothing has changed. You have said nothing new. Your grammar is atrocious. Your manner is loud bombast. You are flogging the same dead horse. All your posts are technobabble. So I am reinstating the flag to ignore you

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
Thanks. There is no point to following scientific progress if you choose to remain biologically uninformed and cannot comment on the experimental evidence.

As we've consistently seen here, science idiots hate experimental evidence and despise anyone who presents it for their consideration.

Feb 26, 2015
http://www.scienc...4131.htm The greatest absence of evolution ever reported has been discovered by an international group of scientists: a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years.


How does your model explain that? They didn't change because their environment/nutrients didn't change?

Feb 26, 2015
Uncle Ira = another display of ignorance


That's what I've been trying to tell you Cher. I'm not the scientist like you aren't either. We are on the same boat Skippy. Only difference between us is I know how to swim but still want to stay dry and you don't know how to swim but keep jumping overboard. Pretending to be the scientist I mean.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I also am smart enough not to put up the picture for my profile like somebody is tickling my toes while I'm getting my picture took. (But the picture does go right along with the silly stuffs you put up here.)

JVK
Feb 26, 2015
How does your model explain that?


Thanks for asking. My model explains that in the context of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. For example, see:

From 3-D to epigenetically-effected 4-D genome make-up
http://perfumingt...make-up/

Feb 26, 2015
Thanks for asking. My model explains that in the context of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.


That's not an explanation. That's just another vague catchphrase. The impression you give is that changes in nutrients drive changes in organisms. You believe that deep-sea microorganism hasn't changed because its environment and the nutrients it's exposed to haven't changed, yes?

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
My model explains that in the context of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.


https://www.googl...mediated

That's just another vague catchphrase.


Cell type differentiation is RNA-directed via DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in all cells of all individuals of all species. There is nothing vague about cause and effect in the context of the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated molecular mechanisms of protein folding.

Explanation is what the witch-doctor does as he embraces the unfalsifiable and the narrative fallacy.


Serious scientists detail results from experiments that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

http://perfumingt...mit.y=23

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
anonymous_9001 http://medicalxpr...ood.html
Feb 16, 2015
Edit: Oh yeah, and I contacted Vosshall. Guess what? You're misinterpreting.
Thanks for being our advocate! I now do remember glancing at some of [Kohl's claims] a few years ago, and it is ridiculous. My approach is just to ignore rather than engage pseudoscience.


anonymous_9001 http://medicalxpr...ene.html Feb 25, 2015

Statement from Bredy to me:
I'd just say that epigenetic mechanisms are part of the evolutionary process and that gene mutations aren't the whole story driving natural selection.


Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model June 4, 2014 http://www.socioa...ew/24367

James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
Re:
James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory


Nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation of all cell types in all individuals of all species is not an unsupported challenge.

It is an accurate representation of top-down causation that details this fact: "Life is physics and chemistry and communication" http://dx.doi.org...as.12570

anonymous_9001 claims:
It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published.


He supports his claims with quotes he elicited from researchers who have added partial details to the model of molecular epigenetics we published in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Vosshall, Bredy, and others have not commented on that model or cited it. Others have helped us to extend it across species from microbes to man.

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
"Bacteria and archaea defend themselves against invasive DNA using adaptive immune systems comprising CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) loci and CRISPR-associated (Cas) genes." http://www.scienc...abstract

Where does the invasive DNA come from?

http://www.nature...863.html "...co-transcriptional silencing mechanisms form powerful RNA surveillance systems that detect and silence inappropriate transcription events, and provide a memory of these events via self-reinforcing epigenetic loops."

How do RNA surveillance systems protect against invasive DNA?

I claim that RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to humans via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction that ensures biochemically stable epistasis that is biophysically constrained.

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
Others need only look at the first page from a google search on "RNA-mediated" to find that in 2003, Greg Bear made the claim I have continued to make for two decades.

From his presentation to the American Philosophical Society https://plus.goog...kYM7SC6U

From my 2013 presentation to the International Society for Human Ethology

"Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)"
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

From George F.R. Ellis: "...top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics. This is explored here: http://rsfs.royal.../2/1.toc

See his comments on: "Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience" http://www.ncbi.n...24723868

Feb 27, 2015
@JVK. Some time ago I marked you as ignored. But today, with a minute or two to waste, I took a little peek, to re-evaluate my bias.
Sadly, nothing has changed. You have said nothing new. Your grammar is atrocious. Your manner is loud bombast. You are flogging the same dead horse. All your posts are technobabble. So I am reinstating the flag to ignore you


Adding the crazies and trolls to your ignore list is the best option, particularly the spammers.

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
Advocating ignorance for the ignorant is always best. They accept it, without question, and always have.

Please help them avoid more embarrassment by telling them to block any information about this:

Bacteria 'hotwire their genes' to fix a faulty motor
http://phys.org/n...tor.html

Feb 27, 2015
@JVK

Advocating ignorance for the ignorant is always best. They accept it, without question, and always have.

Please help them avoid more embarrassment by telling them to block any information about this:

Bacteria 'hotwire their genes' to fix a faulty motor
http://phys.org/n...tor.html


If you're so upset over real scientists doing real science you need to write a paper refuting their findings and submit it to The Scientist. That is what real scientists do. Of course you're not a real scientist so maybe that's not such a good idea.

Feb 27, 2015
Religion withstands the same standard of verification as science
@Doug_Huffman
what delusional world are you living in?
1- most religions center around a faith, which is the belief in something without evidence
2- religions are the codification of a series of regulations/tenets that are used to supply the weak minded with a list of controlling rules for the judgement of others

This means, by definition, religions are divisive, regulatory and designed for the manipulation of those who are to weak to establish their own lifestyle

religions are only good for the manipulation of people, establishing prejudice, hiding truth/reality and for the glorification of a select few leadership types in said religion

There is nothing even capable of withstanding the same stringent verification and validation protocols as the scientific method

They are complete opposite extremes used for a complete different purpose

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
Hi Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet).

You know that I have published a series of works including two that won awards. What Lenski and others are still trying to do, is frame their works and the works of everyone else who has used examples of ecological adaptation in the context of their ridiculous mutagenesis experiments.

Lenski ignored that fact that the adaptations were nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, and science idiots believed they could be attributed to mutations.

All that pseudoscientific nonsense should have ended more than a decade ago. See:

Sinorhizobial chemotaxis: a departure from the enterobacterial paradigm http://mic.sgmjou...27.short

And yet, here you are -- ignoring what the latest research clearly shows, and hoping to cling to ridiculous theories taught to biologically uninformed science idiots!


JVK
Feb 27, 2015
Vietvet aka Steven Taylor wrote: ...you need to write a paper refuting their findings and submit it to The Scientist.

Like other anonymous participants, he pretends not to know who my supporters are, after contacting them. See for example:

http://www.gregbe...?id=8064

From: Steven Taylor
Location: United States
Date: 01/28/2015

James V. Kohl claims you incorporated his model of nutrient dependent, pheromone ecological adaptation in your Darwin novels. Any truth to that?

From: Greg Bear
Date: 01/29/2015

There's more than a hint of pheromone-HERV and cortico-steroid interaction in DARWIN'S RADIO. And James is certainly a pioneer in the pheromone world! We've corresponded for years on these subjects. I'm not sure about the nutrient angle, however. Interesting to follow that track as well!'

See: http://www.scienc...abstract It links the report on microbes to primate brain development.


Feb 27, 2015
Vietvet aka Steven Taylor wrote:
...you need to write a paper refuting their findings and submit it to The Scientist.

Like other anonymous participants, he pretends not to know who my supporters are, after contacting them. See for example:

http://www.gregbe...?id=8064 It links the report on microbes to primate brain development.



Feb 27, 2015
@JVK
It makes sense that a science fiction writer would be among your very few followers considering that your model is science fiction.

JVK
Feb 27, 2015
Greg Bear is not one of my few followers. Like others, he simply was not content to close the door on the origins of biodiversity based on de Vries definition of mutation and the assumptions of population geneticists.

Instead, his research on biologically-based cause and effect linked to viruses and cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated events (e.g., in my model) stands as a testament to what someone with no scientific background can do if they simply do not believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

https://www.youtu...NcMR_-RU

https://www.youtu...youtu.be

anonymous_9001 writes:
The impression you give is that changes in nutrients drive changes in organisms.


That's what I modeled. What model would you like to compare to mine?

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Feb 28, 2015
The impression you give is that changes in nutrients drive changes in organisms.


That's what I modeled.


Alright, we're making some progress. That's one of your clearest answers so far. Let's keep it up. If nutrients cause specific changes in organisms that are exposed to them, then why didn't all of Lenski's populations undergo the same changes? They all originated with the same lineage of bacteria and they all had the same environmental conditions.

JVK
Feb 28, 2015
why didn't all of Lenski's populations undergo the same changes?


I asked "What model would you like to compare to mine?"

...we're making some progress.


No, WE are not. YOU are still trying to find what is wrong with MY model.

nutrients drive changes in organisms.

That's one of your clearest answers so far.


What do you think that this title tells you? "Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model." http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction enables the fixation of those changes via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.

Feb 28, 2015
No, WE are not. YOU are still trying to find what is wrong with MY model


A counterexample exists that goes against what your model seemingly states. You have to reconcile that. You say that nutrients lead to deterministic changes to genes, but Lenski saw different changes in identical trials.

Feb 28, 2015
Here's a simple example of what you're doing:

Let's say I have a box in front of me with 2 lights and a button on it. I press the button 3 times and the leftt light lights up all 3 times. I write a model that states button pressing (cause) activates the left light (effect). On the 4th attempt, the right light lights up. My model's not worth a damn now, is it?

You say that in Lenski's experiment, the presence of citrate caused the translocation of the promoter, right? Well, that only occurred in 2 out of 12 identical populations. See the issue here?

Feb 28, 2015
Religion is not science and science is not religion. Science is based in facts that can be independently verified and religion is based in faith in things that cannot be proven
It can certainly be proven, and has indeed been proven by a century of archeological exploration in the Middle East, that the bible stories never happened. Therefore we can conclude with confidence that the God who wrote the books is either an incompetent, a liar, or a fantasy.

The typical reaction of faithers? Well right now in Mosul they are fervently trying to destroy the past. They would dismantle the pyramids if they had the chance. Out of 10k Mayan books originally discovered only 3 remain.
While I respect the right of others to believe god, or whatever entity they prefer, it is insane
"The comfort and solace [casual believers] find in god comes at a terrible price" -maher

-How can you respect a belief which thrives on enforced ignorance and bigotry?

Feb 28, 2015
[ ... ] Science is based in facts that can be independently verified and religion is based in faith in things that cannot be proven
Religion withstands the same standard of verification as science (adepts' assurance). Science fails the same standard of falsifiability as religion (standard models are not falsifiable)
AGAIN - the bible stories have been proven FALSE. No first people, no flood, no 2M jews in goshen, no exodus through lands occupied by garrisoned Egyptian troops, no genocidal Joshuan rampage through these same lands, no great Solomonic/davidic kingdoms, and no messianic love/hate God who wasn't an obvious iteration of a dozen earlier such gods.

The ONLY WAY you godders can maintain the illusion is to ignore these FACTS. Which is why you always refuse to address them in these threads. But then faith is belief despite evidence isn't it? "Reason is a whore" said Martin Luther, "and the enemy of faith."

-Faith is not an explanation it is an excuse.

Feb 28, 2015
[ ... ]But religious ideas and methods are inimical to science and education. [ ... ]
A counter-example: The Reverend Doctor John Charlton Polkinghorne, MA, PhD, KBE, FRS, ten years president of Queen's College, Cambridge. Accomplished physicist, churchman and educator
Idiot savant. The profession is full of them. The compulsion to believe that there must be some way of escaping death can cause even the most rational of us to abandon our common sense.

JVK
Feb 28, 2015
You say that in Lenski's experiment, the presence of citrate caused the translocation of the promoter, right? Well, that only occurred in 2 out of 12 identical populations. See the issue here?


NO. Obviously, I cannot see the issue here because this has nothing to do with any model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in any species, like the Pseudomonas that evolved and re-evolved their flagellum, which re-evolved over the weekend.

This is a great summary of what is currently known about nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation.

http://www.scienc...rc=email

Excerpt: "During RNA editing, specific enzymes alter nucleotides in mRNA transcripts so that the resulting protein differs in amino acid sequence from what was encoded by the original DNA. Such RNA editing is a means to generate greater protein diversity..."

Feb 28, 2015
We will not survive as a species unless we outgrow our pathetic need for an Imaginary Being to love us, punish us severely, and promise us we really won't die.

Of course, we will all die and return to the nothingness from which we sprung.

It is as if all groups independently got together, invented Imaginary Beings, endowed them with ridiculous powers, created entire legends around them, then needed to kill each other over whose Imaginary Being was the "real"one.

Feb 28, 2015
If your model leads to the conclusion that the presence of citrate causes the cit+ phenotype, but only 2/12 acquire that adaptation, then your model is wrong. 2 of 12 does not indicate a causal link between citrate presence and the translocation.

Feb 28, 2015
Feeding the trolls is a pointless exercise and trying to have any sort of reasonable debate with delusional individuals could be just a bit crazy.

Expecting a rational response from people that live in a fantasy world of magic and fairies ignores a mountain of data disproving the approach. The ignore list is a great tool to remove the noise. Let them believe in whatever fictional beings they like and try to get back to discussing real science.

Feb 28, 2015
It can certainly be proven,
@Otto
i agree that a religious stories and books can be proven

but a faith cannot be proven, and that was the point of my statement
(unless, of course, that it is specific enough and based upon some type of science like the 7th day adventist/creationists which try to state the world is 6-10K years old, only then can a FAITH be debunked with science)

@stupid creationists
and for the idiots in the creationist movement like jk and ren
if you don't believe that your idiot faith is based upon 7th day adventist, watch this from a REAL scientist: https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo

you can also read it it Myers detailed studies and publications
deal with it, psycho prophesy lovers

Feb 28, 2015
We will not survive as a species unless we outgrow our pathetic need for an Imaginary Being to love us, punish us severely, and promise us we really won't die
Well gee gkam you yourself are an imaginary Being of your own Creation, arent you? You claim to have done things you obviously havent, and then you claim to know things that you obviously dont because of this ersatz experience.

"I am that I am because I say that I am because I must be - isnt it obvious?" -says the great and terrible gkam. Maybe youre this guy - Lord of the Gap
http://en.wikiped...elphegor

Feb 28, 2015
a faith cannot be proven, and that was the point of my statement
Theist gods write books. Faithers base their beliefs on the promises found in these books; that the god who deivered israel out of bondage and who raised himself from the dead, will grant everlasting life based on the efficacy of these miracles. As described in the books.

If these miracles can be proven false then with a high degree of confidence we can dismiss all the other promises found in the books. There is no mt sinai so where do the 10 commandments come from? There was no flood so what is the basis for gods last covenant? Resurrections were happening to godmen long before jesus gave up the ghost so how can we believe he was died and was raised just for our benefit?

The evidence is clear. This god is an incompetent or a liar. Or, which is most likely, he is the invention of incompetents and liars. But hey - people tend to put their faith and trust in these sorts of people all the time.

Feb 28, 2015
... that it is specific enough and based upon some type of science like the 7th day adventist/creationists which try to state the world is 6-10K years old, only then can a FAITH be debunked with science)

..if you don't believe that your idiot faith is based upon 7th day adventist, watch this from a REAL scientist: https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo

Stump,
was raised SDA - outgrew it by 10. The SDA's take their belief from the Jewish faith's beliefs, as interpreted by Ellen G White in the late 1900's. They are the 4th richest church organization in America.
I stand by my previous statement that the Bible (and therefore, Torah) is a modified codex of accounting principles, meant to document the basic compounding principles of the Universe (prob'ly stolen from the Egyptians, who prob'ly stole it from someone else...)
It's a glorified, coded accounting manual...
1 + 1 = a new 1.
Spin, repeat and watch the patterns develop...

Feb 28, 2015
"Well gee gkam you yourself are an imaginary Being of your own Creation, arent you?"

This is hilarious. otto dreams of me. He wakes up fearing he will find out about another of my experiences, which he did not have.

Why is he so fearful of telling us what he did for a living? I suspect it is something like working at Fort Detrick. I offered to prove my CV, but he is scared to follow up.

And do not ask him where he was hiding in 1968. He's sensitive about it.

Feb 28, 2015
Theist gods write books...

Technically, theist men write the books... and then claim it to be in god's hand/name...

Feb 28, 2015
...10 commandments come from?
@otto
again, my point is that the faith is not provable, the stories, legends, histories and myths are readily debunked (and have been)

as you already know, the "10 commandments" are based upon simple moral rules that almost all societies and cultures adopt (with exceptions regarding the "god" references, etc and cultural differences with things like marriage, polygamy, etc) and are also widespread within our species: don't kill within the tribe, don't steal, don't covet and cause jealous rivalries, etc

the Bible (and therefore, Torah) is a modified codex
@WGyre
your info is also in that video... thanks for sharing it

IMHO - the bible is also more a guideline of rules for cultural interaction and development
the religious codification of rules set up for the spread of the religion (notice i left out faith in that)
like otto says- it's made up & served the purpose of getting rid of the competition
making babies and war, etc

JVK
Feb 28, 2015
Published on 26 Jan 2013
https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo
PZ Myers addresses Lake Superior Freethinkers. PZ is recipient of the International Humanist Award of 2011. He is a Professor of Evolutionary Biology. He is author of "Pharyngula", the most popular Science Blog.

These "Freethinkers" have been taught to believe in definitions and asssumptions. With PZ Myers as their leader, they may never need to think about how the flagellum re-evolved over the weekend in Pseudomonas, or how it evolved in the first place outside the context of what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms that link RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.

Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

JVK
Feb 28, 2015
"Amazingly, we found that just a single tiny change to one of these genetic switches was enough to convert it from being a switch that would normally turn on the genes for using nitrogen into a switch that now turns on the genes to build the flagella. The result is that the bacterium had, in effect, evolved a way to hotwire its motor practically overnight."
http://phys.org/n...tor.html

"ARHGAP11B is the first human-specific gene where we could show that it contributes to the pool of basal brain stem cells and can trigger a folding of the neocortex. In that way, we managed to take the next step in tracing evolution", summarizes Wieland Huttner.
http://medicalxpr...ans.html

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted..."

JVK
Feb 28, 2015
I quote from a linked article: "During RNA editing, specific enzymes alter nucleotides in mRNA transcripts so that the resulting protein differs in amino acid sequence from what was encoded by the original DNA. Such RNA editing is a means to generate greater protein diversity..."

anonymous_9001 responds:
If your model leads to the conclusion that the presence of citrate causes the cit+ phenotype, but only 2/12 acquire that adaptation, then your model is wrong. 2 of 12 does not indicate a causal link between citrate presence and the translocation.


He makes no claims about RNA editing, specific enzymes, nucleotides, mRNA transcripts, differences in amino acid sequences and proteins or how anything except nutrient-dependent RNA editing might be a means to generate greater protein diversity.

He claims that James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory... http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

What modern theory?

Feb 28, 2015
These "Freethinkers" have been taught to believe in definitions and asssumptions
no, the freethinkers are taught to understand SCIENCE
it is you who not only don't understand what you are talking about, but who've been DEBUNKED and proven to be a pseudoscience creationist poster of intentional lies: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

you've been shown to be a prejudiced idiot too: http://freethough...s-place/

AND you've been shown to intentionally lie about your "interpretations" of studies
Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution
So what do you have other than your false interpretations and inability to comprehend QM, physics and biology?

nothing but your creationist/7th day adventist rhetoric

Feb 28, 2015
He claims that James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory... http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

What modern theory?
and this is just more proof that you don't know what you are talking about

you can't even take the time to do basic research about the theory that you are trying to refute... which you unintentionally continue to SUPPORT with your own model and claims because you don't understand the lexicon/nomenclature of the biological field

and you don't understand because you failed out of college during the basics

if you can't learn the basics, you are destined to epically fail
especially with your intentional blatant lies regarding mutations etc
which, of course, is a major component of your own model, as it causes mutations
and even YOU agreed that it did
(do i really need to point that out AGAIN?)

Feb 28, 2015
He makes no claims about RNA editing, specific enzymes, nucleotides, mRNA transcripts, differences in amino acid sequences and proteins or how anything except nutrient-dependent RNA editing might be a means to generate greater protein diversity.


None of that is in conflict with anything I've said. RNA editing is fine and dandy, but it doesn't make changes to the DNA.

Feb 28, 2015
" . . they may never need to think about how the flagellum re-evolved over the weekend in Pseudomonas, or how it evolved in the first place outside the context of what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms that link RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man."
----------------------------------------

Looks like religion to me.

My world is bigger than that.

Feb 28, 2015
Why do I get the feeling JVK has a bumper sticker which reads:

GOD IS AN ANCIENT ALIEN

Feb 28, 2015
Why do I get the feeling JVK has a bumper sticker which reads:

GOD IS AN ANCIENT ALIEN
Actually, he is a self confessed creationist

and the creationist movement is nothing more than a rebirth of the 7th day adventist nutters that were actually looked down upon by MOST christians and religions
https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo

he is looking for his cherry picked data that his delusions are real
but he can't comprehend the studies that he reads (mostly because he failed out of college and couldn't learn the basics... the nomenclature/lexicon is normally learned in this first 4 years, which is why he cannot comprehend the physics/biology behind Lenski and Extavour's studies and how they debunk his assertions)

meh


Mar 01, 2015
again... faith is not provable
Perhaps that is because your statement is meaningless. What do you mean 'not provable'? Not falsifiable? Not definable? Not rational?

Religionist faith originates in the books. The core concepts of the soul, immortality, absolution, holy retribution, preferred status, can be found nowhere else but in the books.

There is nothing in the natural world which hints of them. Without the books people would have no notion of these things. Therefore if the books can be discredited then the faith in them can be diminished. If the god who guarantees them can be debunked then theist faith has lost its basis.

The god who issues these promises has lost his authority. Science has taken it from him and exposed him as either a liar, an incompetent, or a fake. As a result, faith for most becomes more difficult and we can hope that it eventually disappears altogether. Indeed, the last 500 years has been the gradual replacement of faith with reason.

Mar 01, 2015
"Well gee gkam you yourself are an imaginary Being of your own Creation, arent you?"

This is hilarious. otto dreams of me. He wakes up fearing he will find out about another of my experiences, which he did not have.

Why is he so fearful of telling us what he did for a living? I suspect it is something like working at Fort Detrick. I offered to prove my CV, but he is scared to follow up
Your CV says that you are an engineer. Which is a lie by your own admission. What is the rest of it worth?

Post more outrageous lies and ignorance and you will keep hearing from me. Guaranteed.
And do not ask him where he was hiding in 1968. He's sensitive about it.
Well I wasn't in nam. And neither were you. But I know that either way it's irrelevant. You're still full of shit aren't you? You're still a compulsive liar and a bullshit artist aren't you gkam?

Mar 01, 2015
Religionist faith originates in the books. The core concepts of the soul, immortality, absolution, holy retribution, preferred status, can be found nowhere else but in the books.

There is nothing in the natural world which hints of them. Without the books people would have no notion of these things.

Somebody did. Otherwise, why bother to write them down (when humans developed writing)?

JVK
Mar 01, 2015
Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life http://arxiv.org/...02.06880

Abstract excerpt: "...we show that molecules taking part in biochemical processes from small molecules to proteins are critical quantum mechanically. ...biomolecules are tuned exactly to the critical point. ...we confirm that the energy level statistics of these biomolecules show the universal transitional distribution of the metal-insulator critical point and the wave functions are multifractals.... The findings point to the existence of a universal mechanism of charge transport in living matter. The revealed bio-conductor material is ... a new quantum critical material which can exist only in highly evolved systems and has unique material properties."

My comment: The findings appear to attest to the fact that amino acid substitutions link the physics, chemistry, and RNA-mediated communication required for life because the number of proteins grows exponentially with the number of amino acids.

Mar 01, 2015
JVK is still trying to tie science to superstition?

Mar 01, 2015
What do you mean 'not provable'? Not falsifiable? Not definable? Not rational?
@Otto
all of the above
and i am not arguing that you are wrong, moron
i am just saying there is a huge difference between a "faith" and a "religion"... one is the belief in something without evidence, the other is the codification of rules, normally surrounding a faith, that are used to control others
religion is like politics. it is NOT the law itself, but used to create laws and control others who are weak or incapable of fighting back
...you are an engineer. Which is a lie ...
not necessarily
if a person works in an engineering dept in the position of an engineer, he can assign the name to himself

it happens all the time, from people calling themselves managers when only asst's to more...

Mar 01, 2015
There is nothing in the natural world which hints of them. Without the books people would have no notion of these things.
@otto
misleading and not entirely true
the human brain is designed to recognize patterns
even when there isn't one there, it will try to find one

this is how optical illusions screw the brain... it isn't an optical illusion so much as it is a serious brain-fart or misinterpretation of the data

so it is the unknown and the search for knowledge that creates perceived patterns

when a person who is trained in the scientific method does it, they look for ...blah blah blah... you already know that part...

when the "religious" people do it, they are simply looking for justification for their belief system in any way that makes them feel good

which is where we get pseudoscience from
a good study you might like: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 01, 2015
Therefore if the books can be discredited then the faith in them can be diminished. If the god who guarantees them can be debunked then theist faith has lost its basis.

The god who issues these promises has lost his authority. Science has taken it from him and exposed him as either a liar, an incompetent, or a fake. As a result, faith for most becomes more difficult and we can hope that it eventually disappears altogether. Indeed, the last 500 years has been the gradual replacement of faith with reason.
I completely AGREE

science has replaced the need for religion or a faith

the problem is that humans are inherently stupid
PLUS we are teaching our children horrible patterns of behavior

children aren't taught to search for evidence, think critically or to challenge authority by requesting validation of claims

so we get religious folk who are only looking to extend their power & spread their lies
see jk above for details

Mar 01, 2015
My comment: The findings appear to attest to...
@jk
i didn't even bother to read any further... mostly because your track record for interpreting results of scientific studies is not only POOR, it is completely WRONG

you have YET to produce legitimate interpretations of ANY study, to date
case in point, your attempts to use Dr. Extavour to support your own fallacious model, until she completely debunked you and said you were WRONG
in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.

So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution.
So, should we forward your above interpretation to the author and get clarification?

rhetorical
you already know i will

Mar 01, 2015
Gkam has presented himself as a professional engineer as evidence that he has sufficient knowledge to be an authority on reactor design and fallout proliferation, among other things. It's a lie.

He has subsequently admitted to having no formal engineering training, no degree, and no licence to practice. He only cites positions called 'engineer' or 'utility engineer' which I showed are typical job shop categories, NOT indications of professional status nor of level of acumen.

Gkam apparently never held any of them for very long. Anyone holding these positions and claiming to be an engineer would be laughed at and subject to liability if he were to claim as such on a job application.

The human brain is not 'designed' to do anything. And there are no 'patterns' in the natural world which suggest a soul or immortality. They're an entirely human invention and can ONLY be found described in the books, which guarantee them on the ultimate authority.

Mar 01, 2015
@Otto
and jk regularly tries to convince us that he is a legitimate scientist... he may have publications, but he is also pushing creationist ideology, not science, and he doesn't even comprehend the studies he most often links as evidence
he even claimed to have "decades of experience in diagnostic medicine", something punishable under the law given that he is not licensed

then we have the repeated claims of ALCHE/waterprofit of being a chemist.engineer and many more

benni claims to be a nuclear engineer and amateur cosmologist but can't get Milankovitch cycles right (or remember basic terms like Chandler wobbles) and claims M-cycles to be equal to a galactic year
he even screws up his much-commented on "differential equations" he always says he knows

then there are others claiming to be "atmospheric scientists" making proclamations that are easily refuted by a 3 second google search

so why aren't you attacking THOSE people?

fear?
what?
let me know something

JVK
Mar 01, 2015
so we get religious folk who are only looking to extend their power & spread their lies
see jk above for details


The senior author of this article is Stuart A. Kaufmann.
Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life http://arxiv.org/...02.06880

The article links top-down causation to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species via amino acid substitutions. See also: Top-down causation: an integrating theme within and across the sciences? http://rsfs.royal...abstract

George F.R. Ellis is a Quaker who won the 2004 Templeton Prize. Stuart A. Kaufmann is an atheist.

Which of them are you claiming is lying? What is it that either of them is lying about?

My model links the claims of Stuart A. Kaufmann to the claims of George F.R. Ellis via experimental evidence that links physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in all individuals of all species.

JVK
Mar 01, 2015
So, should we forward your above interpretation to the author and get clarification?

rhetorical
you already know i will


Great. What response did you get from the 100 others you supposedly approached? Andrew Jones got responses from Bredy and from Vosshall. Who are the others who make claims against me to biologically uninformed science idiots, rather than commenting on my publications in scientific forums or at conferences where I have presented?

Serious scientists have pushed beyond the pseudoscientific nonsense of theorists with no regard for beliefs -- just the experimental evidence. Why haven't people like Bredy and Vosshall done that?

Extavour and Lenski don't count. Clearly they don't know enough about physics, chemistry, or molecular biology to integrate their findings into a model that makes sense, which explains why they may continue to tout pseudoscientific nonsense.

Mar 01, 2015
Like I say stump I will criticize whomever I want. Certainly I wont refrain from criticizing those who agree with you. If they lie they lie. If they bullshit they bullshit.

Gkam uses false credentials to assert for instance that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer. I'm sorry but crap like that will not be left unattended.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you want to be helpful why don't you try to defend gkams crap for him? After all I don't care who he is, I only care that he posts outrageous... crap.

I would think you'd be especially offended by people like Gkam lying and fabricating facts in support of your favorite positions on this or that.

Ditto for antialias.

Mar 01, 2015
" After all I don't care who he is, I only care that he posts outrageous... crap."
------------------------------------

Yes, you do, otto. You repeatedly called me a liar because of it. This started with your attack on me long ago, when you were unable to act like a grownup. then, it was a mad fury of "ones", as you followed me around the site, thinking that hurt me some way.

Anyway, it is bright and sunny and nearing 70 F, so I am going back outside to check out the blossoms already on the Cherry, Nectarine, Fig, and peach trees in the yard. You are not worth the trouble. Sorry to get suckered into your hateful little screamfest.

You're back on ignore.

Mar 01, 2015
Which of them are you claiming is lying? What is it that either of them is lying about?
@jk
that's easy
YOU ARE
My model links the claims of
your model causes mutations and has been thoroughly debunked here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367
it isn't debunked with "claims" like you give, or "misinterpretations" like you continue to share... it is debunked with SCIENCE and biology

Like I say stump I will criticize whomever I want. Certainly I wont refrain from criticizing those who agree with you
@OTTO
and i care about who agrees with me?
i care about who agrees with the SCIENCE

MY POINT was that your considerable talents would be better served attacking those who are the most prolific pseudoscience posters on the PO site

you attack whomever you wish
i am just pointing out your hypocrisy in selection:

you are bullying one while ignoring the WORST posters here

why would that be?

Mar 01, 2015
post script @ OTTO
Ditto for antialias.
i don't downvote AA_P's speculations because i know that is exactly what he is doing
speculating

thinking out loud

I also happen to know AA_P personally and i know that he is far more educated than you have demonstrated

in fact, feel free to send me your degree's when you want
I'll compare them to AA_P and tell you how close you are with regard to education

as for the rest of your diatribe:
considering your past history and your attempts to bully ME as well ...
this is just a matter of you making a decision to bully someone you feel is weak
nothing more

you are trying to establish yourself as "cock of the walk" by making the argument that you are performing a "public service"
except that would include attacking ALL pseudoscience

you keep doing what you want
i will continue to do what i do

Mar 01, 2015
also happen to know AA_P personally and i know that he is far more educated than you have demonstrated
I ONLY have to demonstrate that what he says in a specific post is ill-conceived, unresearched, and wrong. Which is what I do.

Or are you saying that aa is so educated that he should be allowed to post crap? That he's so informed that you wouldn't dare question what he posts?

When I address aa's laziness and errancy it's because he's WRONG, which anyone, including you, can confirm by simply reading my posts and reviewing the refs i provide. And he's so unwilling to admit this that he's turned me off rather than admit he's wrong.

I certainly don't see anything admirable in that. Do you?
bully me
Ahaahaaa bully you mr fireman? You posted crap and I taught you to be more diligent. You didn't know that fire was exothermic. You were criticizing a subject, aping your fellow gang members, without knowing anything about it.

Now I just mostly ignore you.

Mar 01, 2015
Yes, you do, otto. You repeatedly called me a liar because of it. This started with your attack on me long ago
Here you're nothing. You're nobody just like every other anonymous poster here. Nobody CARES what you've done in your life. Has anyone ever asked you about it? No. It's because nobody gives a shit. You only think they do because you're seriously self-absorbed.

Your status depends entirely on what you post. And if you post easily-discountable lies about your past, and rubbish you make up yourself about science, then your status drops, whether or not scads of clueless mutual buttrubbers uprate you or not.

What's your MS in gkam? And how is it at all relevant? Provide one answer that isn't a lie.

Mar 01, 2015
Stumpy, otto does not bully me. He is just a pathetic character assassin, ranting and screaming, . . tuned out like a crying baby.

I do not see his silly hateful stuff anymore, he's on Ignore again.

And you be sure to stay off his lawn.

Mar 01, 2015
That he's so informed that you wouldn't dare question what he posts?
@Otto
no, i said i don't mind him speculating, and i don't CARE if he googles it first or not
problems with literacy today otto?
You posted crap and I taught you to be more diligent
if i remember correctly, you were the one who got caught being stupid
and the only thing i did was referred to a paper when it was an article...

your hypocrisy about aping something you don't understand is actually funny considering your love of the e-cat even though the scientific foundation is based upon a known fallacy and debunked study

your responses usually are about watching the con-man's video
whereas i pointed out the study created a perpetual motion machine... and that was supported by the INVESTIGATION

mostly i ignore you as well

but your bullying is tiresome
especially considering your failure to target the worst stupids

Mar 01, 2015
So here you go stump. Why don't you help your buddy resolve these sticky issues he's having trouble with...
Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin
-Take the fallout/lung cancer one. Any idea how to make that one right? And clue as to why YOU THINK that shouldn't be questioned?

Come on tough guy. Prove me wrong and gkam right. Try google.

Mar 01, 2015
"especially considering your failure to target the worst stupids"
----------------------------------------

That would be suicide for otto.

JVK
Mar 01, 2015
Which of them are you claiming is lying? What is it that either of them is lying about?

@jk
that's easy
YOU ARE


Either George FR Ellis AND Stuart A. Kaufmann are both lying or Captain Stumpy is a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Epigenetic Landscape Models: The Post-Genomic Era http://biorxiv.or...8/004192

Why some junk DNA is selfish, but selfish genes are junk http://philipball...but.html

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors http://www.ncbi.n...24693349

"...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731

Mar 01, 2015
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. DEBUNKED
http://www.socioa...ew/24367

Either George FR Ellis AND Stuart A. Kaufmann are both lying or Captain Stumpy is a biologically uninformed science idiot.
lets see... considering your track record when you go to "interpreting" the results of a scientific paper... it is FAR more likely that the liar and "biologically uninformed science idiot" is you, jk

shall i show you again how you screwed up "interpreting" Dr. Extavour's work?
or how you can't comprehend the nomenclature/lexicon of biology?
maybe how you screwed up all those other studies that the authors state you are wrong about?


JVK
Mar 01, 2015
shall i show you again how you screwed up "interpreting" Dr. Extavour's work?
or how you can't comprehend the nomenclature/lexicon of biology?


No. Thanks for asking. As I indicated, you should tell others to support any of their claims that disagree with my accurate representations with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. That is what serious scientists, like Ellis and Kaufmann do. They don't bother interpreting works or using the definitions or assumptions of others. Only biologically uninformed science idiots do that, and I suspect Extavour is getting tired of your portrayals of her as a science idiot.

Your claims that Andrew Jones "debunked" my model are ridiculous. He evaluated it in the context of his mutagenesis experiments, and decided he didn't like my model of biologically-based cause and effect because it made him look like the science idiot he is.

Mar 01, 2015
Still talking about Ellis as though he supports you?

My correspondence with Ellis:

Me: "He has also claimed that your recent work with the emergence of complexity and top down causation is evidence that you deny the contribution of mutation and selection to evolution."

Ellis: Certainly not. Natural selection as usually envisaged is a form of top down causation (because the environment is a major causal factor in the outcomes). Selection is a key process in the rise of complexity. That is quite clear in what I have written. Indeed I claim that multilevel selection is a key to complexity

Mar 01, 2015
any of their claims that disagree with my accurate representations with experimental evidence
@jk
but you were promoting Dr. Extavour and some others as supporting and corroborating evidence which agreed with your "model" and "claims" UNTIL she outright debunked your BS crap about mutations...
so my point is STILL valid... you are not capable of correctly interpreting scientific studies or evidence because you are selectively choosing to "read into" a study something that it doesn't say... which is why you are continually debunked with regard to your own model and your claims.... like this
Your claims that Andrew Jones "debunked" my model are ridiculous
after reading the link from Jones, it is CLEAR that you have not only overstepped your bounds, but that you are factually incorrect with regard to your "interpretation" of the scientific evidence...

again, this is painfully clear with your choice of wording and disregard for mutations, regardless of the evidence

Mar 01, 2015
and I suspect Extavour is getting tired of your portrayals of her as a science idiot.
How about i simply ASK her?
then i could share some more revealing idiocy of the infamous creationist/7th day adventist kohl and his kohlslaw word salad stupidity

i never misrepresent Dr. Extavour. Her study was interesting, insightful and relevant, and made a few very important discoveries... but more importantly, it PROVES YOU TO BE VERY WRONG with regard to Mutations as well as your belief that there are NO beneficial mutations... and her study shows exactly that

just like those other SciMag links you tried to use the other day!

they prove you wrong about mutations as well as beneficial mutations!
heck... even a troll like YOU should be able to read THAT part!
http://www.scienc...014.full

WHOOPSIE again, eh?

Mar 02, 2015
a perpetual motion machine
No, both rossis ecat and mills hydrino machine run on fuel. When the fuel runs out, they stop.

"Perpetual motion - The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source." -Energy ie fuel

But you didn't even get that far. Your Scooby team jumped on the issue as usual and you pulled an old worn out term from your butt to dismiss something you didn't understand, to the delight of all mutual upraters.

There are plenty of ways to discount these reactors but you didn't learn about any of them because you were too interested in impressing your buds, which is why you're willing to support people like gkam and antialias even when they post obvious crap.

Which is why I ignore you. You aren't here for the science. You're here for the comraderie.

Mar 02, 2015
both rossis ecat and mills hydrino machine run on fuel. When the fuel runs out, they stop.
@Otto
i was specifically referring to mills hydrino theory , not to the machine, and you know it

http://www.gizmod...-fusion/
http://www.scotta...ino.html

i will believe they have something impressive when they demonstrate a working product on time per their claims that is not proven to be a hoax and can be validated through independent sources...

i don't believe in con-men, like you otto
i believe in science

and when they show some that as legit (not personal video's on their personal site, but actual papers that aren't debunked like their hydrino BS was)
perhaps i will take them more seriously
and you more seriously... mr public service troll


Mar 02, 2015
i was specifically referring to mills hydrino theory
Right. Which runs on fuel, in this case the H2 in water which it purportedly drops to a fractional ground state. When the fuel runs out, it stops.
i don't believe in con-men, like you otto
i believe in science
-So stump concludes that theyre con men before he says
when they show some that as legit
-which is 'guilty until proven innocent' which is a very unscientific posture indeed.
mr public service troll
Well, since gkam apparently is wimpering in a corner somewhere and you have graciously offered to defend him, these are yours now:
Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin
Please provide references for this bilge.

Mar 02, 2015
but actual papers that aren't debunked
BTW

"The article in the Current Science special issue on LENR titled "Lattice-enabled nuclear reactions in the nickel and hydrogen gas system" by David J. Nagel is probably the first article to be published in a widely recognized peer review journal to provide a detailed description of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat invention... "Last year, the editors of the section solicited papers from researchers in the field of LENR. These papers went through two reviews, first by the special section editors and then, if the editors decided to forward the paper, by a normal peer reviewer assigned by Current Science"
http://www.e-catw...journal/

-IknowIknow you wont be convinced until you got one under the hood of your f250.

BTW your mills link is 15 years old. Hes accomplished quite a lot since then, like for instance securing some $20M in funding.

Mar 02, 2015
Religionist faith originates in the books. The core concepts of the soul, immortality, absolution, holy retribution, preferred status, can be found nowhere else but in the books.

There is nothing in the natural world which hints of them. Without the books people would have no notion of these things.

Somebody did. Otherwise, why bother to write them down (when humans developed writing)?

RP142 - an explanation of your disagreement with this statement would be in order...

JVK
Mar 02, 2015
Still talking about Ellis as though he supports you?


You anonymous fools elicit the answers you want by asking questions as if I were misrepresenting the works of others.

See, instead: my comments, followed by those of Ellis at http://journal.fr...127/full

This exemplifies how serious scientists interact, and it also attests to the fact that only the biologically uninformed can be found here.

I wrote: "New data on how genetic predispositions are epigenetically linked to phenotypically distinct neuroanatomy and behaviors is provided in the honeybee model...

George Ellis: This is absolutely correct and forms part of the larger concept that top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics. This is explored here: http://rsfs.royal.../2/1.toc
--
Conclusion:Natural selection is for food and pheromones control reproduction.

Mar 03, 2015
What I asked Ellis was very clear and very direct. I did not coerce him into disagreeing with you. I, plain as day, asked him if what he's said about top down causation meant he denied mutation and selection. He responded "certainly not".

There was no obfuscation or coercion there.

Just because he agrees with one thing you say doesn't mean he agrees with everything you say.

JVK
Mar 03, 2015
... doesn't mean he agrees with everything you say.


That's correct. So why do you present his comments out of context in attempts to make it appear that he does not agree with my claims that everything known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of light-induced amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation supports my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man?

See for example: Particle physics and the cosmic microwave background http://dx.doi.org...T.3.2718 Ask George FR Ellis if he thinks top-down causation is linked via the speed of light to its anti-entropic effects on entropic elasticity and to epistasis.

Alternatively, tell him how you think mutations lead from epigenesis to epistasis and ask if he agrees with me that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Mar 03, 2015
why do you present his comments out of context


I provided the full context by also posting what I told him. It's an outright lie to say I didn't give context.

JVK
Mar 03, 2015
Still talking about Ellis as though he supports you?


I wrote: Ask George FR Ellis if he thinks top-down causation is linked via the speed of light to its anti-entropic effects on entropic elasticity and to epistasis.

Alternatively, tell him how you think mutations lead from epigenesis to epistasis and ask if he agrees with me that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot."

Your options are clear. If you continue to make ridiculous claims, you need to support them with something more meaningful to serious scientists than what you learned about from your simple-minded mutagenesis experiments.

You told Ellis that I claimed his
...recent work with the emergence of complexity and top down causation is evidence that you deny the contribution of mutation and selection to evolution.


That was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I have detailed in the context of links from physics and chemistry to molecular biology. You disgust me!

Mar 03, 2015
You told Ellis that I claimed his

...recent work with the emergence of complexity and top down causation is evidence that you deny the contribution of mutation and selection to evolution.

That was a ridiculous misrepresentation


How is that a misrepresentation of what you said? That's precisely why you began citing him. You think is work is evidence against mutation and selection.


JVK
Mar 03, 2015
You think is work is evidence against mutation and selection.


Stop making claims about what I think! You do not understand anything about cell type differentiation and have misrepresented his works and mine because you are a biologically uninformed science idiot.

You have no model of how mutations and natural selection are linked to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity and will not accept any of the factual representations of top-down causation and control detailed by Ellis or others, including me.

Instead, you claim that Lenski's experiments prove something about mutations despite the fact that his works explain nothing about how physics and chemistry are linked to the conserved molecular mechanisms of biodiversity in species from microbes to man.

You continue to contribute to deaths by evolutionary theory as others are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

I repeat, you disgust me!

Mar 03, 2015
You wouldn't cite him if you didn't think he supported your claims.

Mar 04, 2015
'guilty until proven innocent'
@otto
no- been conning for years with unverified physics and got caught conning too: case in point
it purportedly drops to a fractional ground state
their claim about "the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations that have been experimentally verified many times." https://en.wikipe...ht_Power
you can continue to believe in your perpetual motion machine sucking energy out of a "ground state" that has never been verified in the most studied element of the periodic table... i will stick with the physicists
http://arxiv.org/.../0608095
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0631
one of the biggest tests of science is the ability to replicate the experiments and findings... funny how NO ONE can do that
especially considering H is the most studied element of any other...

keep your faith, otto
in this case it is no different than xtianity

Mar 04, 2015
You anonymous fools elicit the answers you want by asking questions as if I were misrepresenting the works of others
@jk
normally you ARE misrepresenting the works of others... and we can bring up a fw dozen easily quoted and verified PO threads proving that, if you like, starting with your misrepresentation of Dr. Extavour and Lenski's work, and ending in the latest SciMag study dealing with Mutations and flagella...
Stop making claims about what I think!
it's not making a CLAIM if you are quoted verbatim
it is not making a claim when you outright state that someone's work "is evidence against mutation and selection" like you did with Dr. Extavour

shall i QUOTE YOU AGAIN?
maybe i will stick with just her feedback
Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution.
and i quoted you VERBATIM as well as left links to verify the quote

care to continue lying, kohl?

Mar 04, 2015
perpetual motion
Read it more carefully this time.

"Perpetual motion - The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source." -Energy ie fuel"

-Mills is not claiming that his fractional ground state provides unlimited energy. The fuel must be replenished or the machine stops. You can't debunk something by using the wrong terms you know.
been conning for years
-So you're saying that if someone cons at one point in his life then he will continue to con in everything he does? This is guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure there is an appropriate Latin term for this. Will it make you feel better if I post it for you?
unverified physics
Lots of physics is unverified. Doesn't mean it's not real.

JVK
Mar 04, 2015
Amino acid coevolution induces an evolutionary Stokes shift http://www.ncbi.n...3361410/

The link from physics to chemistry and molecular epigenetics via amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation has been verified and exemplified.

Non-Adaptive Amino Acid Convergence Rates Decrease over Time http://mbe.oxford...abstract

Only biologically uniformed science idiots think they can get away with making their ridiculous claims about mutations and evolution.

Mar 04, 2015
Only biologically uniformed science idiots think they can get away with making their ridiculous claims about mutations and evolution.
@jk
well then you really should stop because you are making yourself look really stupid
case in point: your own model
you seem to think that it "explains" how there are no beneficial mutations while then demonstrating 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
then there is your inability to comprehend biology
any study you get tends to be badly MANGLED with your interpretation...

care to continue lying?

Mar 04, 2015
You can't debunk something by using the wrong terms you know
@otto
at this point, it is like the astrophysics you are always talking to others about... or other subjects...
i am not using the term, but passing on what other physicists have found

you can continue to live i your dreamland... don't care
you are the one trying to say the bulk of physicists (everyone but mills) are wrong, not i (Dunning-Kruger?)
So you're saying that if someone cons at one point in his life then he will continue to con in everything he does?
just like the rest of the career criminals... most cannot be rehabilitated
it's too easy to con stupid people
Lots of physics is unverified
like i said... considering this is the most heavily studied element in existence and they have tried and tried to replicate his findings... in real science, when you cannot replicate the results, it is usually considered a fail
(see Fleischmann & Pons)

cont'd

Mar 04, 2015
@otto cont'd
Mills is not claiming that his fractional ground state provides unlimited energy
Mills paper about hydrino's creates a new ground state using lower energy into the hydrogen atom than is put out when the "Hydrino" state jumps back to the ground state... IOW- his claim is that the lowest ground state is not the lowest ground state, and that the lowest ground state is unstable and thus produces more energy than is put into it when jumping back to the known ground state... this defines how a perpetual motion machine works because it allows the creation of more energy than what is put into the system

in this case, i would use your OWN words and advice that you've shared with others
"go ask the PRO's"
that would necessitate you talking to people other than mills

http://arxiv.org/.../0608095
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0631

NO ONE has replicated the "hydrino" state
this despite H being the most studied element in history

Mar 04, 2015
oh, and for the record: perhaps mills has found a means to generate electricity cheaper than coal... maybe cleaner...
but it is NOT by utilising the hydrino theory

and as for this comment:
Read it more carefully this time
with regard to the hydrino paper he published...

sorry, as soon as i saw it i recognized the problem with the lower ground state and the introduction of low energy to somehow miraculously get large amounts of energy...

and i am not going by my "gut", or by a "hunch" when i made the comments above

those comments are also mirrored by almost every physicist out there
far too many have debunked "hydrino" states (my specific position)

and (again) NO ONE has ever been able to replicate it and validate it

so you are saying you have a "faith" in mills and his insistence that his hydrino's are automagically creating power
that's mills Dunning-Kruger, but your "faith" in him is just that, a faith


JVK
Mar 04, 2015
What makes anyone think there are two sides to scientific progress?

See Christ et al (2013) The Pharmacology of Regenerative Medicine http://www.ncbi.n...3698935/

"... attempted to unite, in a single report, the salient features of diverse fields of research—ranging from materials chemistry and functionalized biomaterials to stem cells, organ/tissue regeneration, wound healing, and development biology—in the hope that providing all of this information at this time would provide the foundation for future interactions and discussions."

See: Making sense of amino acid sensing http://www.scienc...28.short

See: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

Only one side has a model of ecological adaptation that can be used to fight diseases linked to mutations.
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Mar 04, 2015
What makes anyone think there are two sides to scientific progress?

See Christ et al (2013) The Pharmacology of Regenerative Medicine http://www.ncbi.n...3698935/


Only one side has a model of ecological adaptation that can be used to fight diseases linked to mutations.
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

That's not one side, that's just you.

Mar 05, 2015
What makes anyone think there are two sides to scientific progress?
@jk
well, anyone reading YOUR posts will
and this is how it goes:
there is ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS as demonstrated by Dr. Extavour, Lenski, and so many more... which is based upon EVIDENCE, KNOWLEDGE and physics, etc

then there is PSEUDOSCIENCE like this
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
which is based upon your perceptions of reality through your religious perspective of creationism, which is itself based upon the rantings of a known madman prophet of the 7th day adventist who everyone shunned due to his outrageous claims which were completely DEBUNKED by science
Only one side has
let me fix that comment

only ONE SIDE has evidence supported by science which is not distorted by religion
EVOLUTION theory

the rest is religious bullsnot
especially the jk claims

JVK
Mar 05, 2015
That's not one side, that's just you.


No. It is everyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot. That's why I provide links to experimental evidence, and anonymous fools attack me personally. If they could provide links to experimental evidence to support their claims, there would be no reason to attack, and discussion of biologically-based cause and effect might result.

Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages http://rspb.royal...81.short
"Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4]."

Life is physics and chemistry and communication http://dx.doi.org...as.12570

Clearly, the facts are behind those who are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short and pseudoscientific nonsense is behind the attacks that led serious scientists into combat.

Mar 05, 2015
No. It is everyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot
@jk
nice Dunning-Kruger assumption from a sociopathic chronic liar
That's why I provide links to experimental evidence
you DO provide links, but your "evidence" that you think is valid is normally based upon your delusional INTERPRETATIONS of said linked evidence, which is NOT normally what is being said... case in point: Dr. Extavour's studies which at one time you used to say supported your conclusions UNTIL she said you were wrong
attack me personally
it is not a personal attack to point out that you are lying and then demonstrate it with empirical evidence
in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.

So Kohl is mistaken ...
IOW - pointing out your fails is a statement of FACT
not a personal attack

Mar 05, 2015
If they could provide links to experimental evidence to support their claims
@jk
another demonstration of how you cannot even comprehend the scientific method
YOU provided the LINKS
YOU provided the EVIDENCE
you ALSO PROVIDED the FAILED INTERPRETATION of the evidence, which is where i come in with ACTUAL knowledge shared with regard to the study findings
just because we provide evidence that nutritional conditions play a role, this does not negate a role for mutations. Indeed, in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.

So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution.
Therefore, it is NOT an attack
it is CLARIFICATION

AND it is empirically proving you don't know what you are talking about

Mar 05, 2015
and that the lowest ground state is unstable
And you can't win arguments by making shit up either. The hydrogen gives up energy by transitioning to a lower state. The resulting hydrino is stable. According to mills.
but it is NOT NOT NOT by hydrino theory
How would you know? You don't even know what is. See the first part of this post.
Sorry as soon as I saw it I saw the problem with low energy/lower ground state
ok let's back up a bit. Say HS physics. When an electron transitions to a lower orbit, it gives off a photon. Hydrogen consists of one electron orbiting a nucleus, supposedly at the ground state.

Mills says he can induce that electron into an even lower orbit, giving up even more energy.

We could go back even farther, to chucky cheese physics if you like.

Mar 05, 2015
Here's a link for you
http://en.wikiped...nd_state

-you will notice in the picture at the top with the pretty-colored lines that each successive excited state requires less energy to achieve than the one below it. Obviously if there is an orbital below the traditional ground state, an electron transitioning to it would give up a great deal of energy indeed. More than any of the orbitals above it. More than it takes to burn down a whole house I bet.

Got any more inventions of your imagination that you think are real?

Mar 05, 2015
the introduction of low energy to somehow miraculously get large amounts of energy... and I am not thinking with my gut when I came up with this
"Simply stated, after an exothermic reaction, more energy has been released to the surroundings than was absorbed to initiate and maintain the reaction."

-This would be pretty funny if it weren't so sad.

JVK
Mar 05, 2015
Dynamic Transcription of Distinct Classes of Endogenous Retroviral Elements Marks Specific Populations of Early Human Embryonic Cells http://www.cell.c...)00006-5

See for comparison the accurate representation of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation of a new human species in Greg Bear's presentation:
https://www.youtu...NcMR_-RU When Genes Go Walkabout

Or, see the more technical representation from my 2013 poster session
Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation) https://www.youtu...youtu.be

Mar 05, 2015
making shit up
@otto
didn't: http://arxiv.org/.../0608095
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0631
The hydrogen gives up energy by transitioning to a lower state.
nope again
but don't take MY word... take Mills
Methods and apparatus for releasing energy from hydrogen atoms (molecules) by stimulating their electrons to relax to quantized lower energy levels and smaller radii (smaller semimajor and semiminor axes) than the "ground state" by providing energy sinks or means to remove energy resonant with the hydrogen energy released to stimulate these transitions.
http://worldwide....mp;KC=A2
he says there that he ADDS energy by "stimulating their electrons" while at the SAME TIME saying it takes energy away by providing energy sinks...
confusing?
in his paper: http://www.blackl...aper.pdf

Mar 05, 2015
@otto cont'd in his own paper: http://www.blackl...aper.pdf he states
a H atom can act as a catalyst for another H by accepting 27.2 eV from it via through -space energy transfer such as by magnetic or induced electric dipole-dipole coupling to form an intermediate that decays with the emission of continuum bands with short wavelength cutoffs and energie
IOW - accepts energy to drop to a stable (according to him) hydrino state
what happens when this is run through actual physics and tested?
funny enough, no one
NO ONE
can experimentally verify and validate the claims of Mills (imagine that)
http://iopscience..._127.pdf

even NASA couldn't validate his claims
http://www.grc.na...7167.pdf

but i digress... you claimed i make shit up...
so we get back to the topic of HYDRINO's

Mar 05, 2015
The resulting hydrino is stable
@otto
except that it is a state that has NEVER been verified experimentally to date
which makes it a mysterious magic pill in the sly workings of mills toy...
again, read those Arxive papers above
or this one: http://www.esa.in...rino.pdf
or this one: A. J. Marchese, P. Jansson, J. L. Schmalzel, \The blacklight rocket engine, a
phase I study funded by the NIAC CP 01-02 advanced aeronautical/space concept,"
http://www.niac.u...hese.pdf

but you claim i am making stuff up, whereas i've just shown that the only one making anything up is mills and you

like i said: given that the hydrogen atom is the most widely known and experimented on atomic particle in history, physics and QM... then there should have been buttloads of validation of Mills from the physics community instead of scorn and ridicule

you believe what you want
i will side with the physicists

Mar 05, 2015
Obviously if there is an orbital below the traditional ground state, an electron transitioning to it would give up a great deal of energy indeed
@otto
ok, about your HS physics here http://en.wikiped...nd_state
where does it give up the energy? when it drops to the lower state or when it returns to the ground state?
The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system
also note, per your definition of ground state, that there is NO lower ground state (hence the term GS or zero-point energy)
MILLS states that he adds energy to the ground state with UV and then it jumps to a lower state, which he calls a ground state (if it is a stable ground state, there is NO reason for it to jump back to the ground state)

Mar 05, 2015
cont'd @otto
mills claims he is getting energy from BOTH
Methods and apparatus for releasing energy from hydrogen atoms (molecules) by stimulating their electrons to relax to quantized lower energy levels
proof he ADDS energy to produce the "hydrino state"
by providing energy sinks or means to remove energy resonant with the hydrogen energy released to stimulate these transitions
proof he states he gets energy FROM the hydrino ground state transmission
now, considering physics: IF he is adding energy to get it to move, then where is the energy transfer comming from? when it returns to the ground state? or the original jump to hydrino ground? mills is claiming BOTH in his papers (linked above) which means he is getting DOUBLE energy out of a single transition (perpetual motion) as well as means he is trying to violate physics by getting more energy out of what he put into it (again, perpetual motion)


Mar 05, 2015
@otto cont'd
so going back to your "high school physics" explanation, Mills is attempting to pull a fast one with fast talk as well as blatantly false claims

which, again, have never been experimentally or otherwise validated except thru mills team or his paid shills... IOW it is MILLS claim, not physics

that is the reason his patent was pulled
you already know about that as i linked it before, but you can read about it here too
https://en.wikipe...t_issues

and you already have been told this above as well on other posts where you ignored the STUDIES from physicists making the claims
your thing was to link BLP video's as though they trumped the physics which (AGAIN) has never once experimentally validated the hydrino claims

i will continue to follow the PHYSICS
and that is not "making shit up"
it is following the advice and knowledge of professionals looking into it
they are more educated/capable than I

your own advice, remember?

Mar 05, 2015
@otto
i forgot to add something: Mills claims to get energy from the lower state as well as the return to the ground state (that last part is the OOPS)
why would it return to the original ground state if it is stable in the lower state?
if, according to "chucky cheese" the ground state is the lowest state and the zero-point energy state, where it is stable, then IOT drop to hydrino it MUST have energy stimulate it http://www.setter...ior.html
maybe this is more your speed? http://www.colora...hr2.html or here: http://www.dummie...del.html
but why the energy from the RETURN to ground state
and why is there NO ability to show stable hydrino's if the state is stable & below 0-point?

Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution:
@jk
DEBUNKED
http://www.socioa...ew/24367


Mar 06, 2015
adds energy while at the same time taking it away

"Simply stated, after an exothermic reaction, more energy has been released to the surroundings than was absorbed to initiate and maintain the reaction."

-I'm sorry. I explained it to you as plainly as I could and I don't give a shit whether you still don't understand it or not, or don't have the guts to admit you're wrong.
hasnt been verified experimentally
Neither was the Higgs until last year. Neither has a lot of things. So fucking what?

I'll leave you here to play with yourself in private.

Mar 06, 2015
or don't have the guts to admit you're wrong
@otto
this applies to you, definitely
i CAN admit when i am wrong
but i've been vindicated by physicists and scientists from all over the world WRT - mills

the problem is not MY understanding the situation, but YOURS
again, you've showed that you are willing to take the comments of one debunked scientists "on faith"
(IOW - you got conned)
you are ignoring the bulk of the scientists which are showing you wrong, then when it is explained to you, you get defensive

so you got schooled
so you are wrong
so what.. it happens to everyone

and as for the verification: i will point out YET AGAIN
the hydrogen atom is one of the most highly experimented on elements of all time

AND
there are those who tried to replicate his physics and failed

perhaps you should take your own advice and trust the overwhelming number of professionals who are educated & experienced in this subject debunking mills?

its up to you

JVK
Mar 06, 2015
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
Views Regarding Role Of Non-Coding DNA Evolving Among Scientists.

"In... the New York Times (3/8, MM60, Zimmer, ...) reports on the developing view among scientists about the status of "junk" DNA, also known as non-coding DNA. Though previously it was thought to be nonessential, in January, Dr. Francis Collins... made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved." Asked about junk DNA at a healthcare conference..., Collins said, "We don't use that term anymore. It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn't functional." He added that "most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome...'turns out to be doing stuff.'" The Times notes that some biologists reject this hypothesis."

Some of the uninformed biologists are interviewed by Zimmer.

Mar 06, 2015
Some of the uninformed biologists are interviewed by Zimmer.
@jk
your Dunning-Kruger is showing AGAIN
Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution
a demonstration of your inability to comprehend BIOLOGY
because you are giving a MODEL that promotes MUTATIONS
while denigrating MUTATIONS
even though your model causes them
which proves you are ignorant of far more than just the semantics of Biology, especially considering you've been DEBUNKED here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

you should have stayed in college and learned the basics
instead of failing out and running away to try and promote creationist dogma

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