SMF

Greatest I am:

I said nothing about solving the abuse. I just showed how it and cloning will meld.

 

The solution is simple to know. All we need do is venerate human life.

The how of getting that mind set is the hard part.

So, because producing a better form of transportation, or generating power, or communication would also enhance ("meld?") the illicit sex trade, they would all be the cause of a bad outcome. Your logic is specious. SM

Greatest I am says-

The present systems already abuses human bodies produced the normal way. Are you so dense that you cannot extrapolate from there?

But is unable to see that if this problem is already happening, without cloning, that cloning is not a cause of the problem. Solve the abuse problem. Who is dense? SM

Greatist I am:

Your response to me is specious. As was said by others, there is no relationship between clones and some sort of science fiction sex industry.

SM

Pippo, my estimation of your knowledge is based on the fact that you are repeating a denialist meme that has no basis in science. I recommend that you spend some time with the IPCC report, especially Working Group 1. This is an extensive literature review and, typical of this style of science writing, gives summaries and conclusions based on many studies and provides the references to the studies reviewed. This is unlike many lousy internet pop science sites that don't provide references so you can check the veracity of the review.

Gore's use of the Kilimanjaro glacier for his talk was a dramatic example of what science says is happening world wide to mountain galciers. Not all, but without a doubt, most. This fact is consistent with global warming. As for the other part, when the ocean warms this causes increased evaporation and the water has to go somewhere. Where it goes is greater precipitation in the form of rain and snow.

As I said, Gore ran his book and presentation by practicing climate scientists before he put it out, and the final version has been critiqued by practicing climate scientists. The conclusion is that it is pretty good, and the portions that are not exact are the result of the simplifications and compromises a teacher has to make to accommodate the scientific literacy of the audience one has. As a science teacher I am very familiar with this. SM

It takes a very long time for a trait to become vestigial and disappear. More often the trait is co-opted to be used for other related purposes. For example, we have canines that are still useful. In order to evaluate gorilla canine usefulness one would have to study all their habits to see how these teeth are useful for breaking up vegetable matter, killing prey, defense, as a tool, or for interactions with other gorillas. Maybe some scientists have already done this. Why don't you do a literature search and tell us. SM

Firehawk, 10K ft is not that high up. A small unpressurized aircraft can climb this high in a few minutes. During this period one would "pop" one's ears to equalize external with middle ear pressure via the Eustachian tube. Instantaneous transportation would require a slow (i.e., a few minutes) equalization of air pressure to avoid pain. SM

Ringer, you added assumptions are quite reasonable and not a stretch at all. I was just concerned that someone coming here to learn about evolutionary mechanisms might take away the idea that distinctly different species could merge if they were competing in the same ecology. SM

Ringer. You may wish to modify your, otherwise, helpful description a little. For example two species, redwood and Douglas fir, occupy the same region and compete but they would never merge into a single (S3) species because they are unable to interbreed. If two distinct groups interbreed naturally, they would usually be called variants of a single species. SM

Lemur. Recycling can be done with glass now. I think that the problem with reusing plastic containers is that, at least for food products, they are not as impervious as glass and it is difficult to get them clean after they have been used. I can certainly verify this with my trial of plastic containers for fermenters in my brewing hobby. I had major problems with bacterial infection after only a few uses, even with careful sterilization. Soft drink and beer manufacturers used to recycle bottles by collecting and washing them but this is no longer done, presumably because the expense of collection and the energy of washing the glass is greater than making it from scratch. What is even more amazing to me is that it is also apparently cheaper to make new glass from sand, and new plastic from oil, than it is to recycle the material that has already been made. Until I get an explanation for this, especially as energy costs increase, I remain very suspicious of the whole enterprise. SM

I don't recall any science that says that every generation is getting taller. In fact, what I remember is that height has only increased as nutrition improved late in the 1800s and stopped increasing in the US, for example, after WWII. Weight is increasing as the result of changes in diet and exercise habits and this is already causing many problems with hip and knee joints and also the increase in type 2 diabetes. Although you didn't specify what you mean by "man-made evolution" it is clear that these changes can not be explained by evolutionary theory. For this latter point see this short Scientific American piece- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller SM

Although I am not an expert in this area I think I have pretty much made my assertions regarding behavior genetics as a discipline, and also how science progresses, very clear and will let this stand on its merits. I hope that others will add to the discussion of this fascinating area of research. As I mentioned above, there are two large databases that have studied both fraternal and identical twins reared both together and apart. Those interested can enter "Minnesota" or "Sweden" plus "twin" plus whatever you might think is interesting or appropriate into your favorite search engine, or especially in Google Scholar for just the scientific literature, to probe the science in this research area. There is much more than behavior and all kinds of diseases and other traits have been studied to determine what can be attributed to ones inheritance. SM

This scheme seems very complicated. I once saw a proposal to fly large kites up into a jet stream and use the kite as a platform for a wind generator. Because of the large and stable wind speeds this idea appeared to me to have potential. SM

JorgetLobo. You are making too much of a big deal out of a simple misunderstanding. I interpreted "crap" from cr++ because of the tone and wording of the post and because you all were having such a hard time with it. I thought it was an amusing observation. I would like to point out that it was you who started talking about scientific credentials. My background as a practicing research scientists gives me no garbage expertise, but it very definitely does give me the ability to look at some internet site and quickly determine if it is crap or not. I already mentioned this but it is quite simple- If the article gives the links and references to further study the phenomenon in question and verify the statements that have been made, then it is good popular science. This can be likened to the references cited in a peer reviewed research article. If you were unable to easily get to the, so called, "garbage patch" and the underlying research from my link, then I am amazed. SM

SamTheSkeptic:

I will try again. Please explain the following. I will try to make this as simple as possible:

Both genes and behaviors are measurable, quantifiable, and measurements are repeatable. They are both legitimate topics of scientific investigation. If one gets a repeatable correlation between a specific genetic background and a behavioral measure, then this is a legitimate scientific result. You might argue that the name of the behavioral construct isn't accurate, but you cannot deny the principle that genes have been shown to relate to complex behavior. When twins reared apart are compared to twins reared together then the comparison of these conditions rule out the criticism of "correlation does not equal causation" because, unless someone is invoking pseudoscience, genes and environment are pretty much the whole show.

You say-

For example, according to your claim that "genes partially influence human behavior," it should prove true that "two identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects. " If your claim was truly a scientific theory (and not just a speculation), then this single finding alone would be sufficient to falsify it.

The logic of what you say is very difficult to follow. In my statement my use of the word "partially" is clear and refers to the behavior genetics truism that Phenotype = genotype X environment (P = G X E) and it unequivocally does not follow, as you say, that identical twins should be identical when reared apart (or together, for that matter). Behavior genetics research specifically tries to partition effects into environment and genetic components. Your "identical" assertion is illogical and a strawman argument.

You have refused to answer the following. You have made the claim that complex human behaviors, such as personality, are totally due to experience with no genetic component and have stated that

The proponents of the "nurture" side don't need scientific evidence to validate their position because they are aware that personality and character cannot be explained scientifically!

This suggests the simple and straightforward question- How does your statement logically exclude genetics but not environment as a scientifically verifiable causative factor? In other words, if there is no way to define it, there is also no way to make a choice. Please respond to this.

SM

All hair has a growth phase, a resting phase (telogen mentioned by Swansont), and after resting the old hair falls out and a new one begins. The length of hair is determined by the period of the growth phase while the resting phase is more constant at around 3 to 4 months. Women with very long head hair just have a longer growth period (years). The growth period for eyebrow and, I think, eyelash hair is 6 to 8 weeks. Shaving hair normally wouldn't effect the hair follicle or the growth of a hair, but the problem for an eyebrow is that missing one or both eyebrows for up to, possibly, 5 or 6 months would be distressing for many people, and this is why emergency room, and other physicians learn to try to avoid shaving an eyebrow. Plucking and waxing, which rips the hair bulb out of the follicle, can damage follicles and repeating this over time will cause a gradual hair loss.

Here is a site that talks about some of these issues. The specific linked page has a chart of regeneration after plucking. Caution, the time for regeneration is for single follicles, but an eyebrow requires many hairs in which the follicles are out of sync on their cycles- http://www.keratin.com/aa/aa011.shtml

Here is a research article on the Human hair cycle. It isn't specifically about eyebrows, but it reviews eyebrow literature. I picked it because the full text is not behind a paywall- http://www.nature.co...df/5618241a.pdf

I find shaving someones eyelashes or eyebrows for a joke to be a disgusting idea. Not only is this facial hair a part of face recognition, which is particularly important to humans and it is even an innate (e.g. partially genetically controlled) part of perception, but they have important functions. Eyebrow hairs are spaced and oriented to shed water laterally so that it doesn't run into the eyes and eyelashes make a, sort of, window grating that is strong enough to fend off airborne debris. SM

Damage to the frontal lobe has been shown to alter personality to an extent, but this is hard to gauge considering the only way we can get that information is asking the people around them. The most famous example of this is a man who had a steel pipe shoot through his head during work and survived. Friends and family said he was different than before the accident. I can't remember the guy's name or anything and I'm too lazy to look it up, any intro psych book will have it though.

Ringer, you must have remembered the famous case of the railroad worker who had an explosive tamping rod driven through his head at some level because his name was Phineas Gage. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Phineas_Gage

SM

If the condition, with which I agree, that Blackadder09 identified was satisfied, I would like to hear what positive and negative outcomes of human cloning are perceived by others. SM

SamTheSkeptic:

You are at least consistent. You refuse to bring any science to the conversation. You refuse to answer questions. You only offer negative opinions to the conversation. You can’t support anything you assert. Your way of looking at science has little relationship with reality. You are trashing a lively and legitimate area of research with your uninformed opinion. In short, you are trolling.

I highly recommend that others here don’t engage SamThe (Pseudo) Skeptic on this topic. His disruptive intrusion here is a shame because there is a lot of interesting research regarding heritability of behavioral traits in both humans and other creatures. SM

SamTheSkeptic:

My statement makes perfect sense, you are just failing to understand it. As I said before, show me a falsifiable theory that fully explains how genetics exactly predetermine one's personality, and I will accept your claims. But the truth is that you can't. . .none of the studies you have provided (and there are indeed none out there at all) provide conclusive evidence for this.

The obvious falsifiable theory that is being tested is- Heritability can explain some percentage of the variance of some specific complex human behaviors. This theory has been verified repeatedly and is being refined. The more comprehensive theory that involves the specific underlying genetic and brain mechanisms is currently being researched. If science progressed in the manner you think it should then we would not have evolutionary theory, modern physics, modern neuroscience, and who knows what else because the researchers didn't have a complete theory at the beginning.

Just for accuracy, no scientists are claiming that "genetics exactly predetermines one's personality" and this is a straw man argument.

Okay. I have created a scientifically valid statistical result in astrology, and the study turns out to have practical value in the daily activities of astrologers. Does this scientifically valid result make astrology itself scientific? No, of course not. Why? Because, regardless of its practical significance, my research doesn't address or potentially falsify the core theories of astrology."

 

Please drive this principle into you head. These studies you are citing do not make your argument scientific!

Descriptive statistics of human behavior is quite valuable both in and of itself and because they can be related to some other variable, such as genetics. This is science. Behavior geneticists have demonstrated a relationship and, along with neuroscientists, are looking for biological mechanisms. Astrologers have not demonstrated a relationship between astrological sign and behavior and are not looking for a mechanism, and scientists can't even think of a research direction for this. This is another straw man argument.

Funny that even after I have explained (and pointed out that it is often overlooked) the fact that you are the one who is making the claim and you are the one who needs evidence, you still overlook it. You asking me for evidence is like asking an atheist for proof that god doesn't exist...it is a fallacious argument.

 

You make a claim, I am skeptical of that claim - but you can't turn around and then label my disbelief as being a belief in itself! I hope you see that you're falling into this simple fallacy.

In this statement, you have presented a fallacious argument. It is perfectly valid for me to ask you to support any assertion you make. It sounds to me that you don't think science regarding the nature nurture question is valid at all. Perhaps you should check out astrology for an answer. No? Then answer this- Why do you think that if "personality and character cannot be explained scientifically," that experience explanations (nurture) are valid, but genetic explanations (nature) are not? No more hand waving please.

I find your repeated orders to "drive this principle into your head" very annoying and condescending. I suggest that you take your own advice for the following- It is scientifically valid to study how variability in the genetics of any organism affects variability in resulting body structure, function, and behavior. If you don't believe this, please explain. No more hand waving please.

I think this thread should be moved to the Speculations section. SM

SamTheSkeptic. You say-

Well, I'm not surprised that you're surprised. Most people don't realize this, but it really is at the foundation of the entire debate. At the same time, you shouldn't be surprised that it is impossible to scientifically measure a concept that only exists inside our minds. . .

This statement is nonsensical. Personality and character constructs are based on the output of our complex biological computers (brains). There is no representation of “risk taker” in the brain, but it is a demonstrable component of behavior. This behavior is well defined in culture and by scientists who wish to study it (in the studies I have cited) so I challenge you to provide scientific evidence, no more opinions, of any representation of this concept "inside our minds." Don't imply that this is obvious because this is just your opinion. Both genetics and experience affect the processor and, thereby, the output, and this has been reliably measured by researchers.

Let's delve a bit deeper into your example. Sure, we have all heard the term "risk taker." I don't disagree that we all know the general concept of what it means to be a 'risk taker' - obviously, it is a term given to those who take risks. But how much risk does a person have to take in order to be considered a "risk taker" ? I mean, we all take risks in our life at some point or another. ..indeed, from driving in cars to flying in airplanes to even taking a shower! This then begs the question, "what constitutes a risk?" And then, if this question were to somehow be universally answered and agreed upon, how many risks would one have to take in order to be deemed a "risk taker? The problem is coming up with a scale that exists objectively to measure the risk; that's the impossible part. There are pH tests to measure acidity and blood tests to measure HIV, but no such tests to measure "risk."

This bit demonstrates your lack of understanding of how science works. Most phenomena, and especially biological ones, can be represented by the ubiquitous normal (bell) curve. Scientists who study behavior can define a trait, such as risk taker, operationally for research. This typically might be behavior tested to be two standard deviations from the mean. This operational definition is more than adequate for performing a study that relates heritability to behavior. Defining risk is actually very easy. It is based on how often the behavior results in a bad outcome. If you think that there is disagreement about this prove it with science, not opinion.

As for the rest of your missive- Science is always building on past knowledge. Many questions, such as evolutionary theory, are a long term continuing project. Because of the nature of the scientific enterprise the findings absolutely do not have the same meaning for everyone. You are confusing science with nature. Finally, NASA did send people into orbit knowing that they might burn up on reentry, and some did. SM

JorgeLobo, I was making a guess at what Pippo meant by cr++ and I think it is a good one based on the content of his post. Perhaps he will tell us. Because you brought it up, please tell me what your scientific credentials are, I have a Ph.D. and 40 years in biological research and teaching. In my expert scientific judgment the Wikipedia article is quite good because it is properly referenced and linked to further information so the reader can verify sources and pursue further knowledge. SM

JorgeLobo and John Cuthbar:

Crap?

SM

SamTheSkeptic:

I am very surprised at your statements regarding “scientific measurement for character or personality” being impossible. For example, it is common to say that somebody is excitable, or a risk taker, or is trusting, or tends to be melancholy and the meaning is clear to others. The fact that we all are able to communicate these complex character traits to one another indicates that they are real and verifiable behaviors. The point is that they are behaviors and are easily measured. A behavior geneticist studying heritability of complex behavior traits will reduce these descriptions to operational definitions for research purposes.

Some of the best evidence for the heritability of complex behavioral traits can be found in twin studies. There are two big ones, the Minnesota twin study- http://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/ where you can find links to research from their database and the Swedish twin study for which I couldn’t find a website, but you can see an enormous amount of research for both by putting the twin study name in the search field in Google Scholar. The reason this is such good research is that it is relatively easy to statistically measure heritability from behavioral comparisons of identical twins reared together and apart and non-identical twins reared together and apart. There is a very large research literature on this topic.

Here are some links to good research. I have tried to provide full text links where possible.

T.J. Bouchard twin study- http://www.sciencemag.org/content/250/4978/223.abstract, full text- http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall06/yoonh/psy3135/articles/bouchard_1990.pdf

Behavior study using Swedish twin data, the full text link is on this page- http://www.pnas.org/content/105/10/3721.short

Heritability of personality dimensions- http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall06/yoonh/psy3135/articles/Jang%20et%20al_1996.pdf

Here is one on homosexuality- http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/samesex%202010.pdf

You might also be interested in Robert Plomin’s work- http://www.sciencemag.org/content/264/5166/1733.short

As for my thought experiment, your answer is very confusing. You seem to be saying that personality and character are completely determined by experience, as opposed to inheritance, but that you couldn’t tell. If you can’t tell the difference then you also can’t assign these traits to either cause.

SM

Pippo. Gore's information was vetted by climate scientists and he pretty much got it right. Why don't you find out what the science actually says before criticizing? SM

JorgeLobo, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre for the definition of the regions and scan down to find the links to the different garbage patches. SM