Ringer

The only way these things can be linked together is if the babies couldn't process the mercury in the first place. Can you guess what that means? They had symptoms correlated to autism before they had the vaccine. Not to mention that since 2001, when thimersol was taken out of childhood vaccines, autism rates have kept going up. Why would the rates not go down since thimersol isn't in the vaccinations anymore? http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#6 More to read:http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/MMR/MMR.html#Research http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Thimerosal/QA_Pediatrics-thimerosal-autism.html

Other disciplines must rebel. No more publications until proper pick-up lines are made!

I always thought it was because biologists smelled of death and disease while chemists just smell of crazy. Physicists don't have the smell so they can be hidden.

To add on to the above, because I didn't see it directly stated, a natural scientific explanation will try to use the least amount, or the most credible, assumptions. Since adding something supernatural is a huge non-credible assumption it tends to be excluded because it is unnecessary and only adds baggage without better explaining anything. Also, since science deals with the natural the super-natural is mostly agreed to be outside of empirical observation so you probably won't find any real high quality publication with discussion of the supernatural. What you can find in some instances is Creationist or Intelligent Design hypothesis being tested under good scientific control and methodology. When that has happened, or when results are independently tested, the ideas behind these things are grossly inaccurate. Add to that the constant misrepresentation and ignoring evidence of ID proponents and it makes their ideas even harder to take seriously, much less care about.

Because it has nothing to do with the overall poor medical and psychiatric care in those areas.

Any crop that's not a fruit.

So is that a no on actual evidence? So losing sexual organs through disuse is not Lamarckian? The problem with this explanation is both of these parties have their genes passed on and both of the sets have the instinct for dominance. Since both parties have the traits for aggression and dominance there is no explanation as to why the other party became submissive. I'm really not sure how this explains anything having to do with becoming female, why these traits would develop, why the desire would develop, or the idea that females are drawn to be dominated. Isn't this just a circular argument though? A female wants a dominant partner, but a dominant partner is whatever the female wants. Plenty of animals reproduce fine through what would pretty much be considered rape as well as many other forms of sexual selection. Can you also cite any evidence showing that the 'primal female brain', whatever that may be, has the desire to sexually dominate or that women in general want to be dominated?

Any evidence for this seemingly Larmarckian evolution or why the female would not develop a defense mechanism to the alpha?

So let's follow up on this train of thought. You say I should believe you over my educators who have spent decades studying and working in their respective fields as well, as the evidence and ideas that hold together throughout the toughest tests of science, because you think you are correct without evidence. That is clearly scientific thinking at its best. . . But really, you are claiming that other people don't make sense and have bad writing and you can't even capitalize the beginning of your sentences ? Does that make sense to you. And if you really would like me to I can go through your OP and step by step point out what is wrong/doesn't make sense.

I do study Biology as well as Psychology with emphasis on behavioral neuroscience. Nothing you have written makes the slightest bit of sense regarding evolution or neuroscience, and only the barest bit of what you have attributed to scientists believing has any amount of truth to it. [edit] Seeing the post above mine makes me believe my comment will soon be moot [/edit]

No you have an accent, I am seem to be the only one without one though.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say. Realize that we don't know what you mean when you use your personal terms for consciousness. Natural selection started when life did, it's emergence was after abiogenesis. If they don't realize they are born why do they do things?

It explains how speciation occurs. A speciation event is when an ancestral species becomes a single, or multiple, new species. Ways this can happen are very numerous, but basically two groups of the same species are isolated, geographically or because of niche, and no longer interbreed. Since they no longer interbreed each population will end up generating different mutations throughout generations. When enough of these mutations compound the two populations can no longer interbreed to produce viable offspring. There are also different meanings for species that work for some organisms and don't work for others. Biology likes to make a crap-shoot of trying to categorize things, so most of the time there will be an example that gets brought up that won't work for things like my explanation, like those damn asexual organisms.

And further stuff on internet addiction: http://mindhacks.com...rnet-addiction/ http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19072075 [edit] Just realized second one is behind a pay wall [/edit]

We should be ashamed for saying he should seek medical attention. . . Exactly what you say he should do 3 sentences later? Who said he was crazy, or even used the word or a synonym for it, before you brought it up?

A lot of people have terrible experiences in childhood and a few may have been avoided if anger didn't was gone, but there are plenty that wouldn't be as well. It's not so much just anger so much as people just being @ssholes. It's your thread I was just trying to take a guess at what kind of discussion you were wanting. If you mean my point in the last comment, starry eyed was used to mean ridiculously optimistic.

I think you going for a bit of a starry eyed scenario with this.

This honestly made me laugh. The 'case studies' it uses have almost nothing to do with internet addiction, only addiction in general. I don't even see how the brain clot one could be associated with playing the game. Everything you do causes morphological changes in the brain. Start wiggling your toes every day and you will see morphological changes in the brain. Of the social and memory effects, they said the same thing about writing and books in Socrates time. Well, the basis they use for internet addiction is pretty ridiculous IMO. The questions were: Answer at least 5 yes and you are an addict. I feel this is a pretty poor way to pick subjects, considering the questionnaire's vague wording and lack sound basis for internet addiction, instead of just addiction in general. Another problem, that you find way to often with these types of studies, is that they used so many different criteria, tests, and brain regions it would be nearly impossible for them not to get a positive result. Yeah walking on two legs is bad for you, and how we sit makes it worse.

So, just to be devil's advocate, why should we move on from things such as greed and anger? They can be pretty useful at times for motivation, protection, etc. even if it has negative after effects.

But with that logic Moses would be more influential due to being such a large part of Judaism (is that the right term? I can never remember). It just seems you are not putting Jesus as the most influential person in history, but the most influential person for you. Not that it's a bad thing whatsoever, but the influence of a person for the human race, as the question is framed, and the influence for certain people are vastly different topics. I would feel dishonest if I made a list because there isn't such a person, or persons, in my opinion. But I suppose just for arguments sake: 1.) The person who had the idea to first migrate out of Africa (beginning human expansion) 2.) The people who started selectively breeding plants for agriculture (presumably multiple people on different continents) 3.) Anyone who teaches the ability to think, criticize, and reason instead of teaching only information. Mars is the god of war, the planet was named after him.

How does that follow?

Not at all, because many of the ones about about Jesus are also negative. Also by that criteria, a Google search of Muhammed gives 261,000,000 (.17 sec) so he is more important. [edit] Just to point out that I was using the Muhammed point to refute the other one and not to say Muhammed actually is more important. So another example: Mars gives 159,000,000 in .20 sec and Hitler gives 136,000,000 [/edit]

Well, there are quite a few black holes we know of, large and small, so wouldn't this white hole have to be ridiculously huge. That's what I mean by negating the white hole.

Then shouldn't black holes be sucking in space-time instead of matter thus negating the effects of the white hole? [edit] if you meant the opposite of what this question responds to refer to this question cause I can't tell what you are saying: shouldn't space expand in a manner consistent with visible black holes and push things out instead of pulling them in? [/edit]

Wouldn't that mean that A.) black holes would constantly lose mass and B.) the amount of mass and energy in the universe should be increasing?