Slashdot Mirror

I believe you've made a reference to Phrenology. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/phrenology/ Where one would guess the intelligence and metal faculties of a person by the bumps on their head. I'm under the impression that particular school of thought is no longer considered to be 'real science'. Much like Alchemy is to Chemistry, Phrenology is Psychology and Neurology.

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species ; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt--can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions ? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience ? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake. I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Phrenology is so pre-modern. The Germans we're also pursuing quantum zero-point energy during WWII because Relativity would never amount to anything. (e=mc^2 of course as expressed as a nuclear weapon)

The idea that our body must be damaged by force in order for there to be malfunction would only be correct if we were a static mechanical entity.. that is not alive and constantly changing and responding.

It has been demonstrated that the delicate blood/brain barrier filter opens or is perforated by cell phone radiation, leading to proteins (primarily albumin) leaking into brain tissues. These proteins then cause great damage to neural tissue. (research references)

There are many real situations where cellphone radiation is concentrated.. metal subway cars with many cell carrying passengers for instance. So all the rational pencil pushing in the world can't claim to be accurate without empirical evidence of the devices operation in the field.
also another good link page

Essentialism is the practice of stating features of someone based on how they were born. In a lot of ways, it's like phrenology, except instead of bumps on your head, it's the colour of your skin, or your sex organs. Just because I'm black, I'm going to kill you and take your stereo. Just because I have tits and a vagina, I'm going to cry, be better and communications, and not take math in University.

Repeat after me: who we are is a complex mixture of nature and nurture. We do not have any definitive research on how much each plays a role in our development, nor have there been significant or breakthrough strides in figuring this information out.

I would consider the low math enrollment to be a social factor: how many times do teacher select males rather than females in a math class, every year from K to 12, and what kind of effect would this have on females going on to post-secondary math education? What about the other behaviours that we unconciously do towards people based on their genders? Where is the story that explores a gender swap, ala "Black Like Me"?

There is a reason gender studies needs to be a required social science in many curriculums: many people are so blindly ignorant and arrogant about gender, that they can say things, or have an intermediary interpret things to cause situations like this one.

You are correct - pangenesis was proposed by Darwin as a possible means of heredity, and is semi-Lamarkian. Mendel filled in that crucial piece of the puzzle. I had forgotten that aspect, it's been a while since I learned it.

However, pangenesis is NOT part of the venerable biology of Darwin, it's a theory of his that was proven wrong, is of interest only to historians of science and would rarely get more than a sentence or two in your average biology textbook. One he himself regarded as provisional. Choosing that long-discredited provisional theory as representative sample of his work is disingeneous. You think Einstein and Heisenberg never vetted a wrong idea? The present incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity means at least one of them is oversimplified, incomplete, or flawed. Those two men didn't even agree with each other - Einstein flat-out rejected Heisenberg's interpretations of the quantum. Future generations of scientists may yet look back on Einstein and his cosmological constant in the exact fashion you are regarding Darwin now.

Einstein and Heisenberg, I might add, were developing theories that were neither accessible nor threatening to the sensibilities of the layman in the 20th century. Darwin, on the other hand, and all the later students of evolution have had to constantly defend against entrenched religious and political authorities that regard evolution as a mortal threat to their existence since the 19th century. And while you'll find plenty of inspirational posters of Einstein, ask a thousand random people and you'll find hardly anyone who has ANY idea what he actually worked on (good luck finding people who have even heard of Heisenberg). The basic theory of evolution is taught at the high school level everywhere, and and even the people that have forgotten/ignored the basic mechanisms know quite well what the implication is - diverse and complex creatures and systems can arise without any direct intervention. Darwin also did quite a bit of fieldwork to develop and back up his theory - and sailing around the Earth in those times definitely took some balls. Einstein mostly worked on paper. Heisenberg probably got his hands dirty - leading the German atomic bomb project during WWII.

So, who again is supposed to be the inspiration?

And as you have indirectly pointed out, the theory of evolution goes well beyond Charles Darwin even if the core insights and original evidence did originate with him and the voyage of the Beagle. I don't know what PhDs you hang out with but I've while I hear plenty of debate over the minutia of the process I've yet to meet a single biologist who had any objections to the central tenets. I've met quite a few - I am a biologist. Hell, I work upstairs from a guy that evolves novel enzymes from only random sequence and selective pressure on a regular basis. Pray tell, if the PhDs you know think evolution as a theory has a long way to go, just how much further do they think it needs to go and what alternative hypotheses are they proposing?

I see two distinct possibilities here: A) you're Yet Another Intelligent Design Guy parroting faulty arguments you pulled off of sites like this or B) you're a pure physics/math/engineering snob who regards the relatively messy field of biology with unwarranted disdain. Please enlighten me in this regard.

Which ones, when was it. Were the peer reviewed? By whom?

It's called phrenology, and it was a very popular theory in Victorian times.

>>There has never been a single piece of hard evidence for low-intensity radio waves causing the symptoms he and others describe.

You might want to do a Google search before you make such, ignorant statements again, it makes you look like a fool.

You also might want to look at these links which document just what you claim doesn't eixist.

- There are at least 60 studies listed here: Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation

- Mobile Phone Electromagnetic Fields Affect Body Cells