Cap'n Refsmmat

Do you have citations or evidence for these claims? After all, psychiatry is a large field, and much research is done on schizophrenia. You've got to have more than "someone told me" if you want to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

That is not true. There are many kinds of antipsychotics and they each have different side effects. However, they're not just sedatives to slow the person down, and they do not turn patients into vegetables, With treatment, including both medication and other therapies, many people can actually recover from schizophrenia: lose their schizophrenic symptoms and be able to gradually stop taking medications. That is, treatment programs in about a third of cases lead to patients not taking medication and not having symptoms schizophrenia. Another third of cases lead to significant improvements in status, but no "cure." It's true that medications are not always appropriate, but they're also not the only method used for treatment, and treatment programs can be successful.

I think you will find that medication will not make her into a vegetable. In many cases it helps people incredibly. You should examine your options before dismissing treatment so quickly. Knee-jerk "MEDICATION IS BAD" reactions only keep people from getting treatment that could improve their lives.

This has been split to its own thread for sanity.

Here's the "someone": http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/ Plenty of credentials. Now, how do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

This despite the fact that someone at the Molecular Information Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health (i.e. someone who actually uses information theory in biology) thinks he's full of crap? http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/gitt/ I'm curious, though. How do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

An engineer is a credible source on evolutionary theory? Interesting.

Many people will "seed" a pseudorandom number generator with the current time as the initial value. This is because some generators would otherwise use the same seed with each use, causing the sequence of random numbers they generate to be the same each time. It's not an optimal solution, but it's better than what it was designed to fix. There are better options, like gathering randomness from system events. Look into how /dev/random works on Linux and BSD systems.

So why did the bacteria not exhibit the ability at all before the change occurred? Let's quote the original paper by Lenski: You can see that while citrate could be used internally, the cells had not been able to use outside citrate as an energy source before. Also note: This was not just the cell having a small mutation and suddenly using its existing mechanisms to metabolize outside citrate. It was a complex development. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

If he's not a scientist, why does he pretend to know so much about evolution and why it's wrong? He develops entire hypotheses about the flood, evolution, geology and so on, trying to explain how it could work with Young Earth Creationism. He does this while having no credentials and no credibility.

I attended a lecture just a few weeks ago on observed speciation in mosquitoes, from a team at the University of Texas at Austin. A graduate student took a trek through part of Africa, capturing mosquito samples every few dozen miles. These mosquitoes were all part of one particular species, but of course there were mutations between particular mosquitoes. Specifically, some mosquitoes had part of their DNA "inverted" -- it was in the chromosome backwards. It was a common mutation. Next, they observed the mosquitoes mating between each other. Somehow, that mutation expressed something that the mosquitoes could notice: the vast majority of the time, those with the inversion mated with each other and not other mosquitoes. Now, a few mated with other mosquitoes, but most didn't. What will this lead to? In perhaps just a few hundred more generations, those mosquitoes won't be mating with the other groups at all. They'll only mate with ones sharing their own mutations -- and the group will have developed its own specific mutations and characteristics as well. As we watch, they're becoming a new species. Now, this isn't published yet: when I attended the lecture, the data was just a few weeks old. As for interesting published material, try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability they did not have at all before. A new ability developed in the lab, under our noses.

Well, if you were able to communicate your ideas in enlightened and intelligent ways, perhaps we might do otherwise. At the moment you just spout gibberish.

It apparently gives you a free list of sites highly ranked in Google that you can spam your links on to get high Google rankings. Interesting that the OP says he's interested in buying a free list. Blogging to the bank will eat your mother.

Perhaps we can help Google fight your scam efforts by altering links a bit.

Yes. So when the elevator is going up at a constant speed, nothing changes in your body. But when it's accelerating, the reaction force is larger than your weight. (You can't accelerate unless there's a net force on you.)

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf In Washington state, the recidivism (re-offense) rate was highest, at 66%, for property-related felonies, and lowest, between 26% and 35%, for sex- and violence-related charges of murder, manslaughter, and rape. (Although assault was higher, I'm not sure what constitutes assault in Washington. Punching someone in the face may count.) Not every murderer will murder more people when released. In fact, only a minority will. But we should kill all of them? If a third of murderers re-offend, they'd have to kill more than two people each to outweigh the number of deaths from a kill-everyone system.

You said it's stupid because you can't keep CO2 in without a lid. Everyone's talking about keeping CO2 in a beverage while they're stored with a lid. After an initial use, perhaps, but with a lid nevertheless.

If you had read, you would see that most here are discussing keeping carbonated drinks stored in bottles. Please read before you choose to insult.

Or, better yet, improved.

So is trying to pull over the Enterprise. Seriously, though, that sounds really cool. Now, would there be ways of making, say, whiskey that tastes right but has no actual alcohol? It seems like alcohol is a key part of making it, after all...

What do you mean by accuracy rate? Are you looking for how often something safe in animals turns out to be unsafe in humans, or something to that effect?

There goes the world of ancient Egyptian romance novels.