← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · neoclassical
Thread ID: 18086 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2005-05-03
2005-05-03 16:20 | User Profile
Race differences are genetic 11:52 5/3/2005
A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."
[url]http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=9530[/url]
[ LNSG note: this says nothing about the value of different races, or any of the inferior/superior stuff, but it does point out that evolutionary differences are valid both between races and within races, and we should pay attention to them when we plan - and we should plan - the future breeding of humanity. ]
[url]http://www.nazi.org/community/news/1036.html[/url]
2005-05-03 16:28 | User Profile
Though the evidence may be conclusive, it will be summarily dismissed by race-skeptics simply because "known racist" Jean-Phillipe Rushton's name is associated with it.
2005-05-03 16:48 | User Profile
Despite what a tiny but vocal minority of crackpots has claimed, mainstream science has known for a very long time that race is a a function of genetics. Even if race consisted of nothing but differences in outward appearance, it would still have to be genetic, since in most cases outward appearance is determined by genes (forget about suntans, scars, etc.). But of course race is much more than that. Even if all the genetic factors that lead to differences among races aren't yet known specifically, there is no other plausible explanation why, for example, blacks are more prone to certain health conditions (e.g., high blood pressure) than whites even when possible environmental influences are factored out. Basically, the genetic basis for such differences can be seen through statistical studies.
When it comes to mental traits such as intelligence and temperament, there is also little question that there are average genetic differences between races. The evidence in the case of intelligence is particularly strong, as those who've read about the subject in some detail are aware. Yes, some of the black-white IQ difference can be attributed to environment, but there are unquestionably genetic factors at work, too. Most psychometricians recognize this but keep quiet about it; those who haven't -- e.g., Arthur Jensen, who has not only not kept quiet but has perhaps overstated the case somewhat -- have had abuse heaped on them by unqualified critics. And of course there are more than a few psychologists who deny the evidence because it doesn't fit their precious egalitarian dogma. Still, the evidence remains.
To be fair and honest, there are some pretty intelligent blacks out there, and there are many, many worthless whites (whites being more numerous, at least in the US). Nevertheless, if we're going to speak in terms of averages, whites are clearly superior in terms of mental ability. Blacks are generally better at physical tasks, but their health tends to deteriorate more rapidly with age.
2005-05-03 18:21 | User Profile
One can put the lie to the idea that 'race does not exist' or that it has nothing to do with genetics with one simple observation -- police can use DNA alone to determine the race of a suspect.
2005-05-04 08:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE][ LNSG note: this says nothing about the value of different races, or any of the inferior/superior stuff, but it does point out that evolutionary differences are valid both between races and within races, and we should pay attention to them when we plan - and we should plan - the future breeding of humanity. ] [/QUOTE] I've always felt that eugenicists and similar social Marxists should try their hands as livestock farmers in a effort to get this 'human husbandry' fetish out of their systems.
2005-05-04 08:53 | User Profile
You may wish to explain your meaning. Perhaps in one sentence.
Do you mean the selected breeding of the cow and the bull in order for the calf to be productive and valuable?
Most farmers confirm to it and many acknowledge it.
Perhaps you refer to the equine. The horse. The product of much genetic deliberation.
Over short periods a living animal can be changed, adapted, altered. If so desired, corrupted in all appearance and function.
What do you make of it? Do you understand it?
It is factual. And it applies to humans - if allowed. Various terms are employed: Eugenics is merely one term. Accelerated Evolution is another. It is no secrect. It is only the terms of reference that upset the sensitive.
What was once regarded as 'evil' and to be destroyed, is now correct science and accepted as good for humanity. The science remains the same. But the politics of those indulging in it, is of course, different. And therefore deemed righteous and good.
Mentzer
2005-05-04 13:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]I've always felt that eugenicists and similar social Marxists should try their hands as livestock farmers in a effort to get this 'human husbandry' fetish out of their systems.[/QUOTE] They'd have to be kind of dumb to do that, since livestock farming has a single purpose while human races do not. The point is well taken that different strains have different abilities, but most people are sick of hearing about superiority/inferiority as it gets us nowhere closer to a solution and usually serves as a masturbatory outlet for the person judging those qualities in themselves and others.
2005-05-04 14:07 | User Profile
I think a distinction should be made between intrusive state-enforced eugenics, and simpling encouraging a eugenic environment. I.e. "hard" eugenics versus "soft".
In most Western countries the environment is dysgenic for White people. This would change if immigration policies were tightened up and more traditional roles for women were promoted. There is no need to hand the role of human livestock breeder to the state.
Eugenics programs also cheapen "organic" relationships between people. Particularly when taking the form of sperm donor programs + mass adoption. And when the state says who may and may not marry.
2005-05-04 23:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I think a distinction should be made between intrusive state-enforced eugenics, and simpling encouraging a eugenic environment. I.e. "hard" eugenics versus "soft".
In most Western countries the environment is dysgenic for White people. This would change if immigration policies were tightened up and more traditional roles for women were promoted. There is no need to hand the role of human livestock breeder to the state. [/QUOTE] Very true. A healthy environment breeds better people. This idea can be extended to every area, as it's almost always better to have society organize itself than to impose central, bureaucratic control.
2005-05-05 00:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]I've always felt that eugenicists and similar social Marxists should try their hands as livestock farmers in a effort to get this 'human husbandry' fetish out of their systems.[/QUOTE] I'm inclined to agree. Obviously, there is no such thing as evolution. There is, however, the phenomenon of devolution, which is in accord with the second law of thermodynamics. Humans once lived to be hundreds of years old. Now, we live a fraction of that.
If God were to allow human history to go long enough, humans would eventually devolve to the point where they could no longer survive. Whites would eventually devolve to where blacks are now, and then devolve even further. Humans would lose the ability to make use of technology, not only sophisticated technology, but simple technology. And being physically inferior to animals, humans would no longer be able to fend for themselves. "Soft" eugenics as spoken of here might be able to slow down the process, but it could not stop it.
2005-05-05 01:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I'm inclined to agree. Obviously, there is no such thing as evolution. There is, however, the phenomenon of devolution, which is in accord with the second law of thermodynamics. I don't wish to get into yet another debate about evolution with nonscientists here, but I'll tell you this for a fact: the second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent evolution. Don't listen to creationist wanna-be scientists with "Ph.D.'s" from Joe Blow University who know absolutely nothing about physics or science in general -- they'll only mislead you. If those snake-handlers knew anything about science, they'd produce something useful once in a while besides anti-evolution tirades that make real scientists chuckle.
Order arises spontaneously from chaos in nature all the time. In fact, the ability of molecules to spontaneously assemble themselves into complex forms promises to be one of the key underpinnings of nanotechnology:
Molecular self-assembly-the spontaneous formation of molecules into covalently bonded, well-defined, stable structures-is a very important concept in biological systems and has increasingly become a focus of non-biological research. The top 25 papers include comparisons of the chemical and physical properties of self-assembled monolayers; reviews of the different types of self-assembly; the behavior of self-assembled monolayers on various surfaces, particularly gold electrodes and nanocrystals; and the role of self-assembly in various biologically important molecules, such as dendrimers, dynamin, and laminins. Potential applications involving molecular self-assembly include hinged coordination networks and a switchable molecular shuttle.
URL: [url]http://esi-topics.com/msa/[/url]
You can watch the magic of self-assembly in a laboratory; I've seen it myself.
Here's a good paper in a semi-popular science magazine on the subject (PDF file):
[url]http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-6/iss-6/p26.pdf[/url]
The idea is to take advantage of self-assembly processes that occur naturally in order to make materials specially structured at the nanoscopic level.
Humans once lived to be hundreds of years old. No they didn't. Humans are living longer now than they ever have.
2005-05-05 01:41 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Don't listen to creationist wanna-be scientists with "Ph.D.'s" from Joe Blow University who know absolutely nothing about physics or science in general -- they'll only mislead you."[/I][/B]
Poisoning-the-well strategy, IMHO...
[url]http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp[/url] [COLOR=Sienna]
"Not far into the more lengthy of his two Talk.Origins essays (ââ¬ÅThe Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probabilityââ¬Â), Steiger attributes to ââ¬Åcreationistsââ¬Â a:
[COLOR=Blue] [I]wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. [/I][/COLOR]
...which he then attempts to dispute by means of a grossly erroneous generalization: [COLOR=Blue][I] In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks. [/I][/COLOR]
[B]The ââ¬Åorderââ¬Â found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). [/B]The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibriumââ¬âa lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect ââ¬Åorderââ¬Â in the form of simple patterns.
[B]Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.[/B]
On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:
[COLOR=Indigo] [I] ââ¬Åââ¬ËOrganizedââ¬â¢ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ââ¬Ëorderedââ¬â¢ systems. Neither kind of system is ââ¬Ërandom,ââ¬â¢ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ââ¬Ëwiring diagramââ¬â¢ with a high information content ... [B]Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ââ¬Ëorder.ââ¬â¢[/B]ââ¬Â[/I][/COLOR]
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:
[COLOR=Indigo][I] ââ¬ÅThe point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. [B]This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.[/B]ââ¬Â[/I][/COLOR]
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
[COLOR=Indigo] [I] ââ¬ÅAs ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.ââ¬Â[/I][/COLOR]
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Lifeââ¬â¢s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
[B]Steigerââ¬â¢s blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a willful misrepresentation of the facts. [/B][/COLOR]
Petr
2005-05-05 03:42 | User Profile
Petr, Angler's nuts. Just look at his new icon, some sort of demonic character. His old Rowdy Roddy Piper icon was much better.
But back to the point at hand. As you well know, everything is running down hill. The white supremacists who worship the white race rather than Christ are just building their house on sand. Devolution is a fact. We are inferior to our ancestors. We deceive ourselves because of the increase in scientific knowledge. But just take a group of people out of today's population, preferably people not trained in engineering or science, and put them down on some other planet. How long would it be before their descendents reached our level of knowledge? Several thousand years? Maybe never?
The level of civilization we have reached is probably our high point. Politically, our high point was reached with our Founding Fathers. Scientific knowledge is still growing, but our cultural institutions seem to be breaking down. I expect that at some point, civilization will collapse, unless Christ returns first.
BTW Petr, I enjoyed reading the information you posted. If Angler chooses to believe that water runs up hill, that people grow younger, and that perpetual motion machines really exist, well, I guess we'll just have to ignore him.
2005-05-05 04:19 | User Profile
Petr, I've got to go to bed now, but since Angler brought up nanotechnology, I did a search and found the following at
[url="http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0302.htm"]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0302.htm[/url]
[size=+1]Scientists Coax Molecules to Self-Assemble[/size] 03/12/2002 Nanotechnology, the use of molecules to build machines, is a hot topic these days. Makers of these invisibly-small robots are imitating nature, taking their cues from living systems. In the March 12 preprints of the [url="http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml"]Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/url], there are two papers describing how scientists have gotten molecules to self-assemble into structures. One team got star-shaped building blocks to assemble into tubes: [url="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/032527099v1"]ââ¬ÅEntropically driven self-assembly of multichannel rosette nanotubes.ââ¬Â[/url]. (See this summary on [url="http://www.sciam.com/news/031202/1.html"]Scientific American[/url].) In the same issue of PNAS, another team describes how molecular-size machines and motors might be built from various molecules in [url="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/022631599v1"]ââ¬ÅControlled disassembling of self-assembling systems: Toward artificial molecular-level devices and machinesââ¬Â[/url]. [color=#006000]
The words ââ¬Åself-assemblyââ¬Â sound impressive and give evolutionists hope that life assembled itself in the past. The molecules, however, do only what the chemists and the laws of nature tell them to do, following the well-known laws of thermodynamics. The rosette-shaped elements of the nanotube first had to be engineered by intelligent designers. Like magnetized Lego blocks, the forces of attraction bring them together, but the ingredient that requires a mind for self-assembly to work is information, intelligence, instructions; that is the challenge. Explains the author of the second paper (emphasis added), ââ¬ÅThe challenge for chemists engaged in this field resides in the ââ¬Ëprogrammingââ¬â¢ of the system, i.e., in the design and synthesis of components that carry within their structures the pieces of information necessary not only for the construction of the desired supramolecular architecture but also for the performance of the required function.ââ¬Â I.e., these self-assembling structures have been programmed. Programming requires a programmer.[/color]
2005-05-05 16:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]You may wish to explain your meaning. Perhaps in one sentence.[/QUOTE] No, I consider it sufficiently self-evident. Thanks for offering me the opportunity to clarify though.
[QUOTE=neoclassical]They'd have to be kind of dumb to do that, since livestock farming has a single purpose while human races do not.[/QUOTE] I regard eugenicists as a special "kind of dumb" in the first instance, but in anycase what do you feel is the requisite number of purposes to factor when, as the LNSG network states, "[we should plan] the future breeding of humanity"? Virtually the only attribute eugenicists ever seem to discuss -- to a degree that easily qualifies as fetishism -- is intelligence (or more specifically IQ).
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I think a distinction should be made between intrusive state-enforced eugenics, and simpling encouraging a eugenic environment. I.e. "hard" eugenics versus "soft".[/QUOTE] As a social Darwinist myself Iââ¬â¢ve little time for any eugenic policies whether hard or soft, positive or negative. Dysgenic conditions are caused by social programs instigated by fellow travellers of eugenicists who themselves are merely socialists emphasising population, rather than economic, management. As a system advocating planned reproductive policy, eugenics -- by definition -- requires wide spread state intervention. Quite apart from my scientific objections to the incomplete and questionable (to say the least) data such policies are formulated upon, state interventionism in general has a tendency towards incompetence and, given time, is almost certain to exceed its original mandate.
2005-05-05 16:24 | User Profile
Angler, you have the wrong audience if you try talking science to Bible thumpers :wallbash:
The stuff pulled from the air about humans living hundreds of years in the past would instantly disqualify a debater in a saner group of people. But, as long as you are on the side of the Lord, you are on "our team" and anything goes.
2005-05-05 23:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Angler, you have the wrong audience if you try talking science to Bible thumpers :wallbash:
The stuff pulled from the air about humans living hundreds of years in the past would instantly disqualify a debater in a saner group of people. But, as long as you are on the side of the Lord, you are on "our team" and anything goes.[/QUOTE] Sadly, you're right, MR. They will always just dig up garbage from pseudo-scientific websites that "proves" mainstream science is wrong. It actually gives Christianity a bad name because it might cause some to believe that all or most Christians are as smugly ignorant as the Bible-thumpers.
To the Bible-thumpers: First get an education in science (from a real university) and, preferably, do some research. Then, and only then, should you attempt to debate about scientific subjects. Otherwise you only make yourself look like a child who attempts to build a rocketship to the moon in his dad's garage. I know this is falling on deaf ears, but I'm telling you the truth. When it comes to science, you don't know what you're talking about. I can't hope to give you an education over the Internet. It takes years of hard work to learn science. Casual reading, especially at crackpot websites, will not suffice. Rising above ignorance is your responsibility.
2005-05-06 00:13 | User Profile
That was another mighty secularist sermon, Angler, even though lacking any concrete details.
And yet - do you disagree with Nobelist Ilya Prigogine when he says that the ordering principle found in crystals et al cannot explain the formation of biological structures?
Petr
2005-05-06 01:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]That was another mighty secularist sermon, Angler, even though lacking any concrete details. What details were you expecting? I was making a general statement: the web-posting equivalent of throwing up my hands in resignation. Arguing about science with nonscientists -- especially nonscientists with a powerful ideological bias -- is futile.
And yet - do you disagree with Nobelist Ilya Prigogine when he says that the ordering principle found in crystals et al cannot explain the formation of biological structures?[/QUOTE]He is correct about that, but no one that I'm aware of claims that biological structures are formed in the same way that crystals are. The sole point of bringing crystals into the picture is to demonstrate that ordered structures can be formed from disordered media under the proper conditions, and that this happens all the time in nature. It debunks the claim used by many creationists that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A few creationists understand enough physics to avoid that error, but it's been repeated many times.
The origin of life is a very worthwhile question to investigate. I'm certain that evolution from simpler organisms is the cause of biodiversity on earth, and I'm 150% certain that humans evolved from chimps; still, I do NOT claim to know that the first unicellular life forms were created spontaneously (although I do suspect that's what happened). I do not rule out the work of some God, higher power, or even alien beings in that regard. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to assume that the first life must have been designed and then stop looking for a possible source of spontaneous origin. That's not what science does. Science never, ever assumes a supernatural explanation for anything, no matter how baffling the phenomenon. If it did, then there's the chance it could miss a natural explanation.
The following is an interesting article on the search for self-replicating molecules. The idea is to create something artificially that could shed some light on how natural molecules might have caused the emergence of the first life:
[url]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v146/ai_15952616[/url]
2005-05-06 11:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Angler, you have the wrong audience if you try talking science to Bible thumpers :wallbash:
The stuff pulled from the air about humans living hundreds of years in the past would instantly disqualify a debater in a saner group of people. But, as long as you are on the side of the Lord, you are on "our team" and anything goes.[/QUOTE] It's not pulled from the air, Mad, it's taken from the Bible. Besides, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Jack Cuozzo?
2005-05-06 11:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]To the Bible-thumpers: First get an education in science (from a real university)[/QUOTE] Aha! First go to a government-certified public institution, sit at the feet of the high priests of darwinism, and be thoroughly indoctrinated in the godless religion of modern Babylon.
Thanks, but no thanks, Angler. You call yourself a scientist, but as I said, you're the one who believes that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and perpetual motion machines really do exist. What you're calling "science" is pure malarky.
I surmised on another thread, that people like you are part of the problem. Satan is attempting, and I'm afraid succeeding, in destroying Christendom. He's using his people the Jews to great effect. He also has another people, the pagan Gentiles, of which you are a part. So just like a Jew, you are a useful idiot for Satan.
2005-05-06 12:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Originally Posted by Angler He is correct about that, but no one that I'm aware of claims that biological structures are formed in the same way that crystals are. The sole point of bringing crystals into the picture is to demonstrate that ordered structures can be formed from disordered media under the proper conditions, and that this happens all the time in nature. [/QUOTE] I see. Throw up one red herring after another.
"Hey! I threw a group of marbles on the floor. What a pretty design they formed. Well, I guess I just proved evolution. Har! Har! Har!"
Real persuasive, Angler.
[QUOTE] It debunks the claim used by many creationists that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A few creationists understand enough physics to avoid that error, but it's been repeated many times. [/QUOTE] Hardly. Again, let's see you prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and perpetual motion machines really do exist. Because, in truth, that's what evolution amounts to.
The real scientific truth is devolution.
2005-05-06 22:11 | User Profile
Like I said, Robert, you have no understanding of science whatsoever.
By all means, continue to make ignorant comments about "water running uphill" and the like. Continue to think you're smarter and more knowledgeable than the entire worldwide scientific community, even though you've probably never done a single scientific calculation in your life.
I suppose there will always be religious fundamentalists who dance around with snakes or sit there clutching their Bibles and reassuring each other about how "dumb" or "Satanic" scientists are. It's always been that way. Yet the march of truth never halts. Science will continue to make great strides, show tremendous real-world results, and improve peoples' lives. And if the closed-minded anti-science crowd shares the benefits, then that's perfectly okay. We scientists are generally not as vindictive as the average religious zealot.
2005-05-06 22:50 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Yet the march of truth never halts. Science will continue to make great strides, show tremendous real-world results, and improve peoples' lives."[/I][/B]
Yup, thanks to [B]creative[/B] people (like MRI-scanner inventor and young-earth creationist Raymond Damadian) using their God-given gifts, and not thanks to any empty evolutionist speculations.
What have fanatical propagandists like Thomas Huxley or Richard Dawkins ever done for mankind?
Petr
2005-05-06 23:32 | User Profile
Good point, Petr. Our buddy Angler just doesn't get it. People who come to this board are tired of the lies of the PC establishment, and choose to think for themselves. And here's ol' Angler, who says that unless you hew to the party line of the darwinist establishment, you better not dare speak. I think Angler needs to go join the darwinists over at "freerepublic".
2005-05-07 01:24 | User Profile
=== Order arises spontaneously from chaos in nature all the time
Order out of chaos, eh?
who'd a thunk.
2005-05-07 01:30 | User Profile
=== Order arises spontaneously from chaos in nature all the time
Order out of chaos, eh?
who'd a thunk.
2005-05-07 01:31 | User Profile
"Mainstream" is good when it's applied to science these days?