Gerhard Adam

Why is it that so many scientific stories seem intent on debunking and end by demonstrating that they are just rehashing opinions and have no actual data?A recent article purported to debunk the story of the Candiru, which supposedly would be attracted to urine in the water and swim up the urethra to anchor itself into a penis to suck the host's blood.The candiru, apparently cannot get back out of a human host, and cannot be removed because of the spines – so this little fish does horrendous damage, leading to laceration, hemorrhage, bladder destruction, penis amputation, even death!

In several posts the question of biological costs is invariably mentioned in discussing evolution.  These costs are normally of the metabolic or fitness type.  Metabolic costs are associated with the existence of a particular trait and the energy necessary for the trait's existence, while fitness costs are those that have an impact on the organism's ability to survive and reproduce (1).In most instances, these concepts are taken from economic analogies, yet, like economics, the concept of cost is meaningless without a context.  The two defining elements that must be considered are value and affordability.

Increasingly one can't help but notice the tone of many of today's hot button science topics have decidedly left the realm of science and become firmly entrenched in advocacy.  My choice of discussion is Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) foods.While I don't intent to pick on Steve Savage, since he is clearly a very knowledgeable individual, I couldn't help but be struck by his recent article which seemed to cross far over the line into advocacy.  Moreover, I certainly don't intend to impugn anything about Steve as anything other than that we have a disagreement on this topic.  

I recently read an article about an individual that had been struck by lightning, while it was interesting to read about the experience it was disturbing to read some of the comments that followed and their gross misunderstanding of lightning.In particular the following comment illustrates the problem.Lightning happens when a really huge negative charge builds up in the ground, corresponding to a positive charge overhead, and the differential becomes sufficient to jump the gap. (and, as others are pointing out repeatedly, air is an excellent insulator, so it takes a whacking huge voltage differential to make the arc.)

As has been mentioned in other articles, evolution is one of the more misunderstood theories ‌in biology.  This isn't because it is complicated.  Its beauty derives from its simplicity, but often the nuances that are overlooked.  We hear about "survival of the fittest" and many immediately think of strength.  We hear about natural selection and many immediately focus on speciation.  Yet, the first claim is simply wrong, while the second isn't the most important element of the theory.So, if it's not about strength or how species originated, then what is important.

Intelligent Design is often presented as a view that runs counter to evolutionary theory.  Whether it be the concept of natural selection or ideas about speciation, Intelligent Design (ID) purports to reconcile the observed environment from the perspective of an intelligent ordering system.Concepts like "irreducible complexity" to examples of finding a watch or a tornado spontaneously assembling a 747 in a junkyard.  All these images are invoked by Intelligent Design as an argument against evolution.The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I was struck by the subject matter of three articles that had been posted recently.Egg White Protein May Help Lower High Blood PressureChlorogenic Acids In Green Coffee Beans Help Control Blood Sugar LevelsBalkan Bean Remedy Traps Bedbugs

In watching a recent discussion about "free will", I was surprised as to how quickly the discussion got confused by conflating "free choice" with "free will".[Day 2, Afternoon, First Session:  Free Will/Consciousness]In this article, I will attempt to better define some of these concepts to illustrate why "free will" is an illusion.To begin, let's define "choice" as an event that occurs in which a decision point is reached.  Regardless of how many apparent choices one has, they always reduce to one decision.  In addition, we may recognize that certain choices may eliminate other choices from further consideration or selection.

It becomes increasingly tedious that this question invariably elevates pure speculation to the verge of almost claiming actual science, simply because we can't imagine it otherwise.  Arguments are advanced about large numbers, large numbers of stars, large numbers of galaxies, etc. etc. ad nauseum.None of that matters.  The most important question is first; is life easy or hard?Without an answer to that question, the rest is schoolyard nonsense.I'm equally disturbed at how blithely we regard our own dominance.  It's as if there is no question that the universe was created for humans to use and abuse. 

There is no question that Darwin's tremendous insight into the mechanisms by which evolution occurred was one of the singularly most significant events in biology.  Similarly with the discovery of DNA and genetics, the processes by which organisms were formed received a similar boost.  So the purpose of this article is not to argue that Darwin or genetics is wrong.  Instead, the point is to suggest that it is necessarily incomplete.  In the same way that Darwin's work was incomplete because he lacked the necessary information about genetics.  The modern evolutionary synthesis is also incomplete, because it fails to extend the issues of natural selection in an organism's development to their co-evolutionary pa

You wouldn’t know it by current world events, but humans actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals.- ‘Man the Hunter’ theory is debunked in new book, February 18, 2006, By Neil SchoenherrSo begins a discussion regarding humans as a prey species rather than predators.  It isn't true, and it doesn't even make any sense.  After all, what do any of those traits have to do with being a predator or prey?Does anyone believe that wolves or lions aren't social?  or cooperative?  or peaceful amongst themselves?

At some point everyone has heard the question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg.".  What is surprising about this question is that it can still produce any debate.It is surprisingly obvious yet one wonders what has contributed to its longevity and its countinued appearance in various arguments.Why obvious?  Well, let's consider the premises.  Unless one is predisposed to believing that animals simply appear, then we must reject the premise that a chicken can exist as a fully formed adult without any previous existence.  As a result, the only element left to examine is the egg.  Yet, an egg doesn't spring into existence fully formed either.