Ringer

Not that I'm aware of, except using highly precise equipment for sensory neurons it would probably be nearly impossible. Most of the time neurons are packed together rather tightly, and, depending on the type of neuron, stimulation can cause a cascade of other neurons to fire.

First, cite the source that you are getting this from, because far from all Asian languages are tonal.

I think the heart of the men/masculinity thing is that a lot of people like defining feminine men as people who complain more on the onset. In the English language a man being called a 'bitch', 'pussy', 'girl', etc. is usually do to things such as complaining about something. In that context asking if feminine men complain more is like asking if sailing men are on the water more. You are asking a tautological question because the question is the, assumed, definition. Things like this are exactly why iNow is asking for a definition of these things. Even if you use a scalar model if the question is tautological it will always be assumed as yes, but since the way the question is phrased makes it seem as if you are asking a different question. If you are you are using a different definition of feminine than many people do. Also, I'm not sure about brain damage but LSD is known to cause chromosomal damage, especially in white blood cells [edit] Found a paper with some indications of brain impairment with higher usage of LSD, it's pretty old though so new data may be available (also I can't link it because it's through my University's library). Cohen, S., & Edwards, A.E. (1969 LSD and organic brain impairment

The only mention of it I have heard has to do with the amount of time and dedication one puts into a family member, excluding situations where there is no other mate choice. Meaning that if, say, a parent wasn't around during the developmental period of its child the brain never 'encoded' them as a family member so they are as viable a mate as any other member of a group. I don't know how much support that idea has though.

I would have to say a more accurate reason more children in the US are diagnosed with ADHD is the diagnostic criteria that is used.

No one has been saying that evolutionary ideas aren't being extended. You made the claims that old ideas are holding back new evidence and should be overthrown, with a new paradigm in their place. This claim is completely different from the one you are making now. You realize the more publications you cite the more evidence you give that these ideas are not new, are not ignored, or are seriously by many biologists.

I 100% agree. As with any survey there are a large amount of variables that are not taken into account. Since it is a self report, the problems discussed earlier are also a factor in the problem with this study on both the experiment and control groups. The study was just to point out that there are many factors to take into account when assuming it is specifically semen that is causing groups to be less depressed. Indeed, again this goes along with what I was saying about semen not necessarily being causally linked with being happier. The adult actress study also points out that the actresses are more likely than the normal population to experiment with drugs even though their proportion of experiences usually associated with drug abuse was no different than the normal population. It shouldn't. Everyone has a great many misunderstanding in many, if not all, areas of interest to them. To admit this is, in my opinion, on of the most important traits a scientist can have. I apologize if you believe my remark was insulting, but it truly does seem that you have a misunderstanding in those areas. This does not mean you are unintelligent, any number of things can cause a misunderstanding (and scientists don't tend to be very good at communicating science to a lay-man). My question about your scientific experience wasn't meant to be condescending, in was so I, and others, would know if these misunderstandings relate to inexperience in a certain subject, pop-science articles, or something else. I don't want you to think you hurt my feelings, it's just personal attacks don't help the discussion move in any progressive manner. That does not equal that you can replace the 'thrill of masturbation [with] runner's high'. Certain social activities do release endorphins such as gossiping and laughter, but this supports my assertion that endorphin highs aren't to difficult to get. Again, it wasn't meant as an insult. It was speculation based on some of the things you have written or linked to. Social activities are very common in life, we are a social animal. Also not that I retracted my statement that orgasms are equivalent after you gave evidence. Acupuncture isn't supposed to cause pain when the needle is inserted, nor does massage. The placebo release of endorphins was in reference to acupuncture causing placebo like effects, though admittedly it was written rather unclearly. That is not a question of common sense. If I recall correctly cocaine has a higher dependence/use correlation. I don't have time to look up any papers though. But saying something is too easy does not equate it with being bad for you. I don't have values either way. It may or may not have an effect, but until there is sufficient evidence it is necessary to go with the null hypothesis (no difference in treatment). Yes, but this is a science minded forum. There are places to casually talk about things, but in areas regarding science, especially when one is making a claim, it is important to discuss the topic in a scientific way. It can be very irritating, and often makes people feel as if they are being attacked, but that is the way science works.

Fine, consider this part of the discussion dropped. 2 things 1.) Please, I thought you would be done with personal attacks by now. It's truly unbecoming if you really want to have progress in a discussion. 2.) You weren't agreeing with me. What you said was in response to Moon's comment and the format made it difficult to follow which parts you were addressing when you posted. In the future when you attempt to insult someone's intelligence, at least make sure your insult has some grain of truth. Please show me where you said that, because I went back through the thread and couldn't find it anywhere. Accessibility has a lot to do with your environment. Masturbation in many places is less accessible than the other things due to taboos, religion, privacy, etc. The opiate release from acupuncture is usually associated with the relaxing effects it is said to have, on the same vein placebos release endorphins as well. Massage also releases endorphins, so the extension that relaxation causes release of endorphins is by no means a stretch. http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2526775 Indeed, I agree I should have been more specific and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But again, these statements weren't only about opiate receptors, but the dopamine reward pathways as well. You directly quoted the passage from the site that made the fallacy. Our bodies are incredibly wasteful, only 25% efficient, and we lose minerals and vitamins uselessly all the time through sweating unnecessarily, growing our nails, growing hair, inefficient digestion, etc. It's still not significant enough to cause problems. It's inaccurate because of a wild variety of reasons. Number of sexual partners is known to be correlated with more happiness (including adult actresses interestingly enough) and self esteem. There are a variety of problems with self reports, Here is a pretty good little blog post about it, because of problems with memory, self-esteem issues, etc. It would not be at all difficult to have directly measured the amount of seminal by products in the blood stream to actually quantify the effects. But until then it's kind of a moot point because there are too many confounding variables. Insulting people doesn't tend to be the mark of a modest person. We would all be very thankful if you started with the best points and evidence. Nor do the majority of us care what people on the site think of us. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a science forum. Therefore, we attempt to make our points and use evidence and refrain from extraneous things that don't need to be discussed. Even if the stereotypes aren't necessarily wrong a lot of the time doesn't mean you should begin with the assumption it is true for this sample. If I went through life treating all black people as if they're thieves because it's a racial stereotype I probably wouldn't be a very pleasant person.

Yes it does. If something is undefined it is meaningless. I could say blork happens when you masturbate, but since blork doesn't mean anything I'm not saying anything. So how would abstinence cause less aggression? Wouldn't abstinence be part of a more sexually repressed country? Also, I'm only replying to things you introduce, if you believe them to be irrelevant don't introduce them into the discussion. I said you have a misunderstanding because you make assumptions that are inaccurate as well as citing sources that have inaccuracies throughout. Endorphins are released when eating spicy foods, and eating in general activates dopamine through the use of leptin. http://www.dana.org/...l.aspx?id=23536 They are also released when running, when relaxed, with acupuncture, excitement, etc. So yes, endorphines are released pretty commonly. Great, I'm glad they cite their sources. I retract the claim masturbation and intercourse are equal, I was mistaken On the downside, I'm unsure of how the excess release of prolactin has to do with masturbation being bad. All that means is that you will be more sexually satisfied after intercourse in comparison to masturbation. Interestingly enough, excessive prolactin tends to coincide with ED. The false equivalence fallacy of blood and semen for example. Not that I've ever seen, hypothalamus means under the thalamus. I have never seen hipo used in it's place. Especially since they spell it correctly two paragraphs later. They're not selling things? What's this then? http://cure-erectile...on.org/products Spicy foods,, as well as relaxing after the act of eating, cause the release of endorphines, so you could say, 'You are correct, good sir. I wish you a merry day'. You know what you forgot to mention, the amount of semen was measured as a survey of how often women used condoms. This could be wildly inaccurate. Also, the increase in depressive symptoms correlated with the length of time since one's last intercourse. Finally, those who never used condoms and that were less depressed had significantly more sex than those who used condoms often. So it could just as easily be that the amount of sex is what is being measured, not the amount semen. [edit] Here's the study if anyone's curious http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2011/4/Gordon_2002.pdf [/edit]

AKA there is no reason to bring it up in scientific discussions. How does it demonstrably reduce aggression against non-consenting females? Rape doesn't tend to be an act of sex, but an act of aggression. May I ask what your background in science is? I don't mean this to sound like I'm being demeaning, but you seem to have large misunderstandings of psychology, evolution, pharmacology, neuroscience, etc. Can you cite sources that there is a difference in reaction to orgasm when one has one with or without a partner? [quote[ This link is evidence that opiates are released following ejaculation. (Parallels between ejaculation and heroin rush) http://www.jneurosci...3/27/9185.short This is one of the key points I want to stress of the possible reduction in motivation of a person due to the release of opiates. No one has disagreed that ejaculation causes those chemicals to be released. As I've said (three times I believe) the argument is meaningless because it extends to virtually everything people do that feels good (including eating). And that link was riddled with inaccuracies and fallacies. Cite your sources to show it is the semen, not the act of sex. Note that having chemicals that have anti-depressant properties doesn't work unless you have an efficient method to absorb those chemicals. I could point out quite a few errors in that page (spelling hypothylamus as 'hipothylamus' . . . really?) but just from your snippet I could tell you that that 'vagal nerves' is the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X) which is not involved in ejaculation, unless you ejaculate when eating, the hormones mentioned do not interact with those nerves, etc. Actually cite papers, not crap websites that are trying to sell products. Again, this is not part of a scientific discussion. Leave the preaching and appeals to authority at the door.

Well if we're going on subjective experience I'll give it a go. I masturbate fairly regularly, am married, am double majoring in college, work as a lab tech, am a wrestling instructor, train in muay thai and jiu jitsu, currently researching lamprey photoreceptor development, and currently researching effects on the opacity of language in reading comprehension. I would say that masturbation isn't detrimental in me being productive. Unnecessary habit, yes, but so are the thousands of other things people do every day (like visiting a web forum). Like I said, your argument extends to any activity that makes you feel good. The general consensus of why cocaine and heroin are bad has nothing to do with the biochemical pathways it works on. Since morphine and other opiates are still legal as a prescription and it has the same biochemical pathways there is obviously more to it. So your argument falls flat at its face. Again, this is a problem with addiction, not masturbation in itself. The arguments 'masturbation is bad' and 'excessive masturbation is bad' are completely different. Also, I know what it means when it says rewire, but it's an overhyped term. It's not a daunting task to rewire the brain, it happens everyday. No one is saying to neglect the emotional side of life, it's just that it shouldn't be part of an objective (i.e. scientific) argument. Those who have moral or religious problems with masturbation.

That's why I said good statistic. The percent they found was from face to face interviews. They'll teach you in virtually any research class that when asking very personal questions it should be done anonymously and without an interviewer. How much energy do you think is expended. You could do rough calculations fairly easily, though it would be a bit time consuming. Why would pornographic abstinence be coupled with masturbation?

If it's unexplored then we don't know if it will provide for that animal. Hence, every animal that has ever existed still exists. But if we follow that logic there would not be enough resources in unexplored areas to support everything that has ever lived, so we would have to pick and choose what we 'assume' is still alive. How would we do that? We don't, we say they're extinct until more are found Yes, we have neanderthal DNA, so what? What does that have to do with anything, and the wild man myth is moving the goalposts. Why would Bigfoot be a wild man myth, he would be too big and distinct to be considered a man. Why would our knowledge of them mean death, it hasn't been that way for many decades. If they are that intelligent they would probably know that.

I may have highballed a bit, but I've almost never seen a good statistic that low for masturbation. http://www.kinseyins...ml#masturbation No, this is called someone with an addiction problem. If someone has a tendency toward addiction it doesn't matter if it's work, masturbation, heroin, exercise, etc they will be obsessive about it. It's not the masturbation itself.

So, I'm beginning to feel like this entire thread is just trying to get people on board to come up with a new name for evolutionary processes. In which case this entire thread is pure idiocy, not that much of it wouldn't be if this isn't the case. Honestly I don't even know what is being argued anymore. Is it semantics of names, that some ignorant people online spout non-sense, biologists don't believe in common evolutionary mechanisms, etc? Please let me know because this is getting so damn pointless.

So everything that has ever existed should be assumed to still exist?<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252);"> So you believe the simplest answer is that a separate group of hominids has lived with humans without ever making true contact with us throughout recorded history? Not only that, but they have successfully hidden all evidence of life or society and are able to live comfortably in an area filled with other major predators. <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252);"> So why have we found so many Neanderthal remains? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/28/nation/la-na-nn-bigfoot-sasquatch-hoax-20120828

Seeing that over 90% of people masturbate and many people still succeed in life, the idea that people who seek intelligence and contribute to society don't masturbate is pretty ridiculous. Your main argument can be extended to ANYTHING that makes you feel happy. How do you know these people are dependent on masturbation? Did they fill out a survey? How do you know that they are the only ones that do it, maybe they are just the only ones you notice. Does that mean you know you insulted the rest of us in your earlier comment? Why would you use the lack of specific research to give ridiculous ideas? Done that, nothing changed other than achieving orgasm faster than usual when I resumed.

So you mean that something can't be proven to be gone or not. That sounds a lot like (read:exactly) what a wise man once said in post #2. We have to go with what the evidence says. If every known population of a species is gone, we can comfortably say that species is probably extinct. If a new population is found we will then say that species is not extinct. Your absence of evidence is not evidence can not be taken at face value. If something has been thoroughly studied and no evidence has been found there is evidence of absence. Take your Bigfoot example, gigantolopithicus is not believed to be bipedal nor is it probable that it would have many of the strictly hominid traits Bigfoot is said to have. Now if it was a neanderthal that would explain the hominid traits. The problem is that remains of those hominids have not been found in the America, nor any species that could be Bigfoot. There have been scientific inquiries to try to find Bigfoot but none have been successful. Many species may be difficult to find, but seeing the intensity those who search for Bigfoot in the siting areas, and taking into account the population size needed to sustain a large biped, it would be extremely difficult for them to remain hidden. As for LNM BBC does a better job than I would http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3096839.stm . You can't prove something doesn't exist, but when there is no evidence of it there is no reason to assume it exists.

Cryptozoology tends to looks for animals that have never had evidence, or the evidence has been debunked. When a field tries to prove the existence of an animal that was invented for fraudulent purposes, such as the Loch Ness Monster, after it is an admitted fraud it tends to lose respect. IMO it's about as bad as para-psychology in this, meaning it's a joke. For your non-extinction question, you can't really prove if a species is gone or not. You have to give it a best guess, but if something is considered extinct there isn't really a strong argument for it being extant.

I don't even know where to begin on that paper. Besides not citing any sources, quote mining, appeals to authority, etc it's not a scientific paper. The quote you have tries to create a ridiculous false equivalence and is extremely vague. If it means the entirety of plasma, all it's saying is that a fluid that is ~80% water (IIRC) and major cell concentration lacks nuclei has less proteins than a fluid with self propelled cell that specializes in reproduction. Big shocker there. There is absolutely no evidence in this article.

Here's a question I hope you can answer, how much can a troll eat? Because it has been fed quite a lot.

Yes, the same way the evidence is uncertain between evolution and creationism. Meaning yours has no evidence and is a ridiculously convoluted story, while the other is an explanation of what is seen. If you really dislike your life so much as to become desperate and a feeling of void in the absence of frilly mysticism, I feel really bad for you.

First the reply you are referring to was not mine, it was overtone's. Second, I saw no sources cited in that table showing that those 'central tenets' are anything other than the author's view of neo Darwinian theory. So let's take a look at the paper that table is based on, more specifically this snippet: Again, not overthrown, just added to.

Not really. The only mention of controversial is genetic assimilation, not epigenetics. Though they could be considered similar, as I understand them, they are not the same. More strictly, it's a review of two books that talks about what later editions should include, mention or change. You say the second part is about the books, but the only part that's not is the introduction. The introduction, in any paper, states what is already known. This goes against your entire idea that the ideas are unknown/ignored. In short, you have not at all shown how this paper supports your idea. Yes, they say it doesn't come to terms with specific mutation to phenotype relationship, but as far as I know the answer is not yet known. It does not at all support the assertion that these ideas are controversial, being fought, or discredit decades of evidence. The closest it gets is saying things are more complex than early models indicate. As you say yourself, this is an old way of thinking. Evolutionary biology has assimilated fairly well, though as with any science, it's still working out kinks. All you are saying is that things are more complex than a simple explanation. Darwinian theory, neo or otherwise, is not simple, but it does take a simplistic view of certain things. It still works and is correct at various levels, but is less so in other areas. What you are stating is equivalent to me saying that Newtonian ideas are invalid because some things behave in a non-Newtonian manner. There is always new data, and frameworks are always being revised. This is not an overthrow by any stretch of the word. Again, this doesn't make it incorrect, not that it uses pure Mendelian genetics but that's beside the point. This is not an overthrow, it's an incorporation. I'm not going through point by point because it's more of the same. The evidence you describe is being incorporated to evolutionary frameworks, not being ignored. You have not even begun to sufficiently show that any of these things are pointing towards an overthrow, not incorporation, or how they otherwise show Darwinian theory incorrect. Not explaining everything is part of science, but it does not mean the theory is incorrect. The ideas and views are still valid. Yes, there is new evidence that new-Darwinian theory does not fully explain. Again, this goes back to saying Newtonian mechanics is void because of things like Relativity. I don't see why it matters that some people on the internet are not up to date on scientific ideas. If this is your entire argument, it's a pointless argument. Some people are not up to date on evolution is like being upset that people on the internet don't understand Calculus. Many people are dumb and ignorant and trying to give them information is great, but acting like it's some huge deal that people are ignorant is kind of ignorant in itself. Again, you have been arguing for an overthrow of theories, not a merging. So no, you have still not argued the case that the new ideas overthrow the old one. You have supplied evidence that new data comes out and Biologists are working to incorporate the data in various ways to show which way is the best. This is, as I said before, what science does. [edit] I felt the last paragraph should be addressed and I skipped it before[/edit]

You are not welcome to your own evidence, evidence is not a matter of opinion.