Ringer

It's very unlikely learned behavior is passed down genetically, but certain genetic predispositions will be passed down to offspring. One hypothesis about music is that those who enjoyed melodic tones of birds survived better, because if birds were around there usually weren't predators in the area. I personally think that idea is incorrect, but Evo-Psych is extremely speculative and has so many crap ideas it's hard to find the good ones.

Yes, it is life, but what it's not is any way scientific. That would involve attempting to explain your meaning in an ubiquitous manner and use standard definitions. It's not that *I find* your definitions different, they are different. That's the magic of ubiquity, strict definitions are used so they're the same for everyone. So you're fighting windmills you imagine to be giants. That does sound like a very good description of your plight.

Usually I have found when I have this kind of problem I can find the answer in prior research. I can't give a specific answer because I don't work with that stuff, I would just glance through the methods section of papers that have used HapMap to see if they use other programs for data analysis.

My response is twofold, first I will now have nightmares for months due to the fancy beers shown on this thread. Two, it is Top hat, it's not in one. But, maybe we could put a very tiny top hat in it, close the bottle, put a larger (but still fairly small) top hat on the bottle. Then we put the triple top hat into a small barrel of top hat an seal it, placing a normal sized top hat on the barrel. We then take that top hat to a Top Hat Hamburger's so we can eat while top-hat transformation. If anyone says anything we can hit them with a top hat (steel batten). The recursion helps me sleep. A side note, is it odd I felt the need to clarify that a steel batten is called a top hat, but I thought it would be unnecessary for the top-hat transformation?

Yeah, sadly only one bar serves it here and they only serve it a couple months out of the year. Great, now I'll have nightmares for weeks!

after about 10 minutes of searching for beers wearing a top hat this is the best I could do: But the fanciest beer I've ever really drank was probably Narwhal Imperial Stout. Not really sure if it's fancy, but it's not Bud so it's different than what everyone around here drinks. [edit] Also, Hypervalent_iodine I need your image finding skills. I really want to see a beer in a top hat now and I don't have any top hats small enough [/edit]

And then take care of the guy who talked about the other plan.

I am also afraid of fancy beers, pears, tears. . . really just anything fancy except bears.

But seriously guys, my theory makes so much more sense than <insert theory of choice>. You just refuse to actually think about what you've been taught.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Well, since by their definition they only apply to biological things they can only be attributed to life. So unless you wish to make up definitions you're wrong. How so? And what of the evolutionary processes that are not natural selection? Are they not life now? NS already has a definition and this isn't it. Again, more to it than NS. Also, if something is selecting things it isn't NS it's artificial selection. Genome is the full complement of an organisms genes. Seriously, if you want to make up definitions do it for words that don't already have strict definitions.

With that logic non-theists who do equal good would be 'better' people would they not? Which I would think a just being would reward those who do good to do good instead of doing good because they are under pressure from another being. Therefore wouldn't being non-theist be the better option if one wants to be as good a person as they can be.

Unless your relationship is carnal two and three are still there.

I started a Twitter account to see how it is. So far, I'm uncertain how I feel. Plus side, following all the science related blogs and such instead of real friends I get links to a lot of interesting papers and news stories.

There are multiple connotations of faith. Just because the one being used in the discussion is one you personally don't like doesn't change the argument. Being faithful to someone and having faith in the supernatural are two separate definitions of something. Also, IIRC, being faithful came from being full of faith, i.e. to trust them unconditionally. Languages and definitions change all the time. Terrible right? I mean what has science ever done successfully. I would totally be having a discussion on an online forum without it. A lot of people get a lot of things wrong. One example is obfuscating a point based on an outdated definition and not actually addressing any points. On the topic of the OP, if one takes out the religious people when talking about faith it's pretty obvious how weak faithful thinking tends to be. If you were to use homeopathy or ghosts most will say the faith people have in that is ludicrous. Yet it is a necessity in anything where objective measurements cannot, or flat out prove the faith wrong, be made. I have mixed feelings on the issue, I sometimes envy people's ability to trust in things unconditionally. I wouldn't say faith is a strength in any way, in fact I would argue it is the cause that makes groups that purposefully cause harm due to ideologies. I would also say that, in regular life at least, faith can be useful for people in certain scenarios.

The question isn't if we can actually slow down time, it was about the perception of time. Perception of time can be altered in subjects with reasonable predictability.

. . . That was not the post you were looking for.

Gone forever I'm afraid. At least until the Revolution. But we can't let the moderators know about that.

?

Your response doesn't really make sense. It doesn't act like a human, but it wants to know more about the universe and forms opinions about the knowledge of others. Also, you said you hadn't even started the program two days ago. You mean to say that you outlined, programmed, debugged, etc. an extremely complex program in a couple of hours. Personally I find that highly unbelievable.

The best thing is that Clinical is a very small field when looking at all of psychology. It would be like me posting in the Biology forum about how I biologists are evil because I had a bad experience with a doctor. Also, do you actually know the practices of Clinical psychologists, the medications, etc. or are you just making judgments based on anecdotal evidence?

So will you be entering your program for a Turing test?

His question is a using a weird definition of efficient. If something that helped us survive is efficient, anything that allows for survival can be efficient. Our metabolism helps us survive so in that definition it could be considered efficient, but it only uses about 25% of the energy intake so it's not really very efficient. It sounds like a set up to make a convoluted, and ultimately pointless, point. Personally, I'd want him to strictly define efficiency before continuing.

Reminds me of this:

Then it seems there is no disagreement about the main topic, the point of this thread seems to have ended.

Please point out where you said you couldn't control it and where I made my mistake.