How would you prioritize the reintroduction of American Bison?
Ecologically and politically speaking, this is a freebie. We know American Bison work well as a cornerstone for plains ecologies in the U.S. because they already have, we have lots of plains ecologies here, and the native tribes are sitting there with a brilliant, self-contained organization poised to carry out the restoration process, mostly just hoping that we'll stay out of their way. We should stay out of their way. And buy their bison stuff once they get going. Mmm, bison.
Post your thoughts on "Cancer risk higher in rich rural families".
Well, I've always thought that kids have trouble being disconnected from the natural world, but this is a much more intense example than I was expecting. I'm also surprised, as a city dweller, that someone living in a rural environment could be even more isolated from their surroundings than someone living in an urban one. Us city kids are usually the ones complaining that we don't know what an oak looks like or something similarly ridiculous. In fact, I've always idealized rural living. With no experience of it, I could only think of it as a permanent camping trip, and being rich at the same time could only make things more fun. I guess the grass on the other side isn't always as green as it looks.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
HIV
-How do you feel about Western approaches to HIV/AIDS?
Well, first off they are completely necassary. HIV is a modern virus, and some modern response must be made to it. It's a plague, and the proper response to a sudden, violent plague is to make sudden, violent changes in treatment. A plague created the Wen Bing; there's no reason our current one should not create at least a new viral cocktail.
At the same time, Western approaches require Eastern support. My view of AIDS is that it is a disease that struck when its victims weren't all that healthy anyway. With its narrow historical perspective, Western medicine can only hope to return our community to its earlier, also unhealthy state, and that's no good. Chinese medicine can be a powerful framework for picking up where the Western one leaves off in this case.
-Can TCM strengthen our immune systems?
The first thing I want to say about this question is that I'm not sure what it means, so I'm going to make some assumptions. From what I understand, the immune system is cells and specialized protiens that kill stuff in our bodies. In that case, I suppose that a "strong" immune system would mean having a lot of these cells and protiens, and/or that these cells and protiens would be very vigorous and active. Being as we're in a country ravaged by autoimmune as well as immunodeficiency diseases, it seems like we must keep the "strength" of our immune system within some pretty narrow parameters! As for TCM, it has been my experience that it's very difficult to make such a holistic system respond predictably to lab tests. There was even a student here who selflessly e-mailed everyone about her experience trying to do that with Shan Zha, said to lower cholesterol. She ended up with unchanged cholesterol and an ulcer. Do not ignore this warning!
Now, if we're talking about whether TCM can increase resistance to disease, that's a whole different kettle of fish, only one of which is the number of cells and protiens in the blood. To take an example most friendly to holistic treatment, any area with impaired fluid drainage will undoubtedly be more vulnerable to disease, as the branch of every system in that area will be having trouble. It's not just about T-cells; if you can't get the byproducts of an immune battle out of the area, you've got trouble that no amount of injecting phagocytes (or even antibiotics, ultimately) will fix. This is just one example of a causal relationship between systems in a hypothetical infected area of the body. There's a lot more, which is why we came up with the term wei qi to encompass them all and make them easier to talk about. That's what wei qi is, a massively generalized umbrella term one creative translation of which could be "superficial processes." That's right, I'm talking about physically superficial processes. All of them. It's a huge category! No amount of bloodwork could possibly render a diagnosis of such a massive field.
Anyway, yes, TCM can up or indeed down regulate the immune system. But that's not what folks mean when they ask us to make them stronger.
(oh, hey, Chinese Medicine considers the insides of the lungs and digestive tract to be, er, "physically superficial", which should inform the definition above)
-Save the Whales
Brilliant! Mexico has it on us and every other country everywhere when it comes to conservation in a poverty stricken area. Now, I'm usually pretty hard nosed about international politics, but in this case this advantage seems to come directly from the hearts of the Mexicans in the area. When else have you heard of really, really poor people accepting a yearly stipend with heavy independent oversight over a huge lump sum with no strings? I can only assume that the reason they accepted the deal was that the overseeing body had interests that aligned with theirs. These interests were and are the protection of the natural world. This means that subsistence fishermen in Baja California care far, far more about the environment than rich first worlders, which you could say is the problem facing global conservation in a nutshell. It's about time we started giving these people some hard cash.
Well, first off they are completely necassary. HIV is a modern virus, and some modern response must be made to it. It's a plague, and the proper response to a sudden, violent plague is to make sudden, violent changes in treatment. A plague created the Wen Bing; there's no reason our current one should not create at least a new viral cocktail.
At the same time, Western approaches require Eastern support. My view of AIDS is that it is a disease that struck when its victims weren't all that healthy anyway. With its narrow historical perspective, Western medicine can only hope to return our community to its earlier, also unhealthy state, and that's no good. Chinese medicine can be a powerful framework for picking up where the Western one leaves off in this case.
-Can TCM strengthen our immune systems?
The first thing I want to say about this question is that I'm not sure what it means, so I'm going to make some assumptions. From what I understand, the immune system is cells and specialized protiens that kill stuff in our bodies. In that case, I suppose that a "strong" immune system would mean having a lot of these cells and protiens, and/or that these cells and protiens would be very vigorous and active. Being as we're in a country ravaged by autoimmune as well as immunodeficiency diseases, it seems like we must keep the "strength" of our immune system within some pretty narrow parameters! As for TCM, it has been my experience that it's very difficult to make such a holistic system respond predictably to lab tests. There was even a student here who selflessly e-mailed everyone about her experience trying to do that with Shan Zha, said to lower cholesterol. She ended up with unchanged cholesterol and an ulcer. Do not ignore this warning!
Now, if we're talking about whether TCM can increase resistance to disease, that's a whole different kettle of fish, only one of which is the number of cells and protiens in the blood. To take an example most friendly to holistic treatment, any area with impaired fluid drainage will undoubtedly be more vulnerable to disease, as the branch of every system in that area will be having trouble. It's not just about T-cells; if you can't get the byproducts of an immune battle out of the area, you've got trouble that no amount of injecting phagocytes (or even antibiotics, ultimately) will fix. This is just one example of a causal relationship between systems in a hypothetical infected area of the body. There's a lot more, which is why we came up with the term wei qi to encompass them all and make them easier to talk about. That's what wei qi is, a massively generalized umbrella term one creative translation of which could be "superficial processes." That's right, I'm talking about physically superficial processes. All of them. It's a huge category! No amount of bloodwork could possibly render a diagnosis of such a massive field.
Anyway, yes, TCM can up or indeed down regulate the immune system. But that's not what folks mean when they ask us to make them stronger.
(oh, hey, Chinese Medicine considers the insides of the lungs and digestive tract to be, er, "physically superficial", which should inform the definition above)
-Save the Whales
Brilliant! Mexico has it on us and every other country everywhere when it comes to conservation in a poverty stricken area. Now, I'm usually pretty hard nosed about international politics, but in this case this advantage seems to come directly from the hearts of the Mexicans in the area. When else have you heard of really, really poor people accepting a yearly stipend with heavy independent oversight over a huge lump sum with no strings? I can only assume that the reason they accepted the deal was that the overseeing body had interests that aligned with theirs. These interests were and are the protection of the natural world. This means that subsistence fishermen in Baja California care far, far more about the environment than rich first worlders, which you could say is the problem facing global conservation in a nutshell. It's about time we started giving these people some hard cash.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Cancer
-How sophisticated is our understanding of cancer?
Well, from the perspective of Western medical science we know most of what there is to know about it. As Leland Hartwell says, genes change, sometimes go berserk, and then the berserk tissues either thrive or don't depending on whether they can get blood supply. That's about everything we can know about a tumor as a separate entity; any further knowledge, such as why genes would go berserk in some people and not others, or why blood goes where it does, has more to do with an understanding of how physiology and genetics work generally than with understanding any particular disease.
-How does a TCM approach to cancer differ?
The TCM approach to cancer differs from the Western one the in the same ways that the two systems are different generally. What this means is that TCM is built on the idea of using the mechanisms within the body to cure the body. Herbology and acupuncture are, usually, a set of suggestions made to the body's systems rather than a set of orders. This is why chemical analysis of herbs hasn't gotten us anywhere; the active ingredients are often inside the body of the patient, not within the plant.
Cancer, however, creates an interesting exception to this contrast, demonstrated in the "detoxifying with toxic substances" chart of the article. In this section, it is demonstrated that for patients who are extremely toxic, as sometimes happens with cancer, the only way to talk to there bodies at all is to poison them.
Please note here that I am using the world "toxic" as a TCM technical term, not literally. We're not talking about true chemical toxins here, but of a poisonous physical process manifesting as a fever on top of other cancer symptoms. From a TCM perspective, the essence of this poisonous functionality and the essence of poisonous herbs are exactly the same.
So, that is how TCM views this class of treatment. However, from a Western perspective, "detoxifying with toxic substances" is chemotherapy! This is a fascinating example of two very different theoretical structures producing very similar treatments, and might be a starting point for opening dialogue between the systems.
-Are our genes still being shapes by natural selection?
Well, yeah. We continue to change, the Earth continues to change, our genes continue to change. The only reason this question came up at all is that our drive to remain unchanging became so strong that it destroyed our minds.
Which (segue!) brings me to a thought about cancer that I had in class the other day. Our esteemed teacher began our class on a terminal illness by talking about the wish, so prevalent in humanity up to this point, to become immortal. When he said that, I immediately thought "Immortality? Cancer is living that dream!" And it is. Cancer happens when some of the cells in our body succeed in turning off the mechanisms that we have already worked so hard to destroy. Examples are apoptosis (it turns off and makes cancer, right?), ischemia (this both ravages tissues in the elderly and renders any tumor harmless if it cannot produce angiogenic factor), and, most strikingly, hormone starvation! This last example brings out the absurdity of our situation most strikingly, as it has created a situation where women go through both prophylactic mastectomy and permanent hormone replacement therapy in the same body, albeit at different times in their lives.
My point is that Western longevity treatments and cancer treatments are trying to do exactly opposite things, and often amount to two different medical specialists having a biochemical showdown within the body of a patient. The characteristics of cancer, wild growth and agelessness, are the same ones lusted after by America generally. If we cease in this lust, our thinking about the disease will become less confused.
Well, from the perspective of Western medical science we know most of what there is to know about it. As Leland Hartwell says, genes change, sometimes go berserk, and then the berserk tissues either thrive or don't depending on whether they can get blood supply. That's about everything we can know about a tumor as a separate entity; any further knowledge, such as why genes would go berserk in some people and not others, or why blood goes where it does, has more to do with an understanding of how physiology and genetics work generally than with understanding any particular disease.
-How does a TCM approach to cancer differ?
The TCM approach to cancer differs from the Western one the in the same ways that the two systems are different generally. What this means is that TCM is built on the idea of using the mechanisms within the body to cure the body. Herbology and acupuncture are, usually, a set of suggestions made to the body's systems rather than a set of orders. This is why chemical analysis of herbs hasn't gotten us anywhere; the active ingredients are often inside the body of the patient, not within the plant.
Cancer, however, creates an interesting exception to this contrast, demonstrated in the "detoxifying with toxic substances" chart of the article. In this section, it is demonstrated that for patients who are extremely toxic, as sometimes happens with cancer, the only way to talk to there bodies at all is to poison them.
Please note here that I am using the world "toxic" as a TCM technical term, not literally. We're not talking about true chemical toxins here, but of a poisonous physical process manifesting as a fever on top of other cancer symptoms. From a TCM perspective, the essence of this poisonous functionality and the essence of poisonous herbs are exactly the same.
So, that is how TCM views this class of treatment. However, from a Western perspective, "detoxifying with toxic substances" is chemotherapy! This is a fascinating example of two very different theoretical structures producing very similar treatments, and might be a starting point for opening dialogue between the systems.
-Are our genes still being shapes by natural selection?
Well, yeah. We continue to change, the Earth continues to change, our genes continue to change. The only reason this question came up at all is that our drive to remain unchanging became so strong that it destroyed our minds.
Which (segue!) brings me to a thought about cancer that I had in class the other day. Our esteemed teacher began our class on a terminal illness by talking about the wish, so prevalent in humanity up to this point, to become immortal. When he said that, I immediately thought "Immortality? Cancer is living that dream!" And it is. Cancer happens when some of the cells in our body succeed in turning off the mechanisms that we have already worked so hard to destroy. Examples are apoptosis (it turns off and makes cancer, right?), ischemia (this both ravages tissues in the elderly and renders any tumor harmless if it cannot produce angiogenic factor), and, most strikingly, hormone starvation! This last example brings out the absurdity of our situation most strikingly, as it has created a situation where women go through both prophylactic mastectomy and permanent hormone replacement therapy in the same body, albeit at different times in their lives.
My point is that Western longevity treatments and cancer treatments are trying to do exactly opposite things, and often amount to two different medical specialists having a biochemical showdown within the body of a patient. The characteristics of cancer, wild growth and agelessness, are the same ones lusted after by America generally. If we cease in this lust, our thinking about the disease will become less confused.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Chimps
Hi everyone! Before I write anything, I'd like to remind you all that I wasn't in class last week, so the opinions on this post are formed entirely from two Wikipedia articles, posted below, as well as this article which suggests that human evolution had everything to do with getting out of the forests and into the grasslands. I've carefully not read anyone else's blogs before posting this, though I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks!
So, in thinking about why humans and chimps might have diverged, I looked into how chimps and bonobos seem to have diverged to see what we might learn from that mechanism. Wikipedia says that they might have been split apart by a river suddenly splitting their habitat; neither species can swim. The ecology is not the same on the two sides of the river, and the way the two species have adapted to their unique surroundings is quite informative.
Chimpanzee social structure is based around a heavy meat diet, which means that on a basic level the community must be organized to go on hunts, a highly organized, relatively difficult, and periodic activity. This gives rise to a strictly hierarchical structure with lots of aggression, because that structure allows for orders to be passed down and followed efficiently and with no dissent.
Bonobos, by contrast, survive mostly on fruit, with termites, small animals, and leaves supplementing the diet. This means that their basic food-getting activities are more constant than periodic, easier, and dependent on food that is thinly distributed rather than walking around as huge, discrete chunks of meat. In this environment, the primary social challenges have to do with distribution, both of the bonobos themselves and of the food once they gather it. In simple terms, they have to make sure everyone gets enough, and that there are never so many bonobos in one place that they drill a hole through the food network (trees, termite nests, etc.). They solve these problems with the famously ubiquitous bonobo sexuality as a conflict mediator so that no one fights over food too much, and with free female migration between troops (see article) to keep everyone spread out.
Both species use tools appropriate to their food sources.
So, with this example in mind, what might have motivated humans to employ our own, third speciation? I'm going to take the forest vs. grassland thing and just run with it, here, even though I haven't looked deeply into what was really happening in Africa at the time.
The challenges of the plains initially resemble those of the chimpanzees' environment, in that before agriculture (waaaaaay before!) most of the food on the plains was running around rather than growing. However, no matter how much we might have turned up the aggression in our social networks, walking monkeys are just not set up to compete for eating ungulates with, say, cats. We were the new kids, and could not continue to do things in the old way, even the plains' old way. For our solution, I like the scavenger theory. Persistence hunting aside, scavenging is a lot like gathering, and makes excellent use of our touted bipedal efficiency (that is, we can wander around all day looking for something dead). In this sense, waiting for the grazing animals to fall over on their own before we ate them would have been a good fit.
So, that's a niche. But there was already a scavenger community in the plains, from vicious dogs to birds! We can't fly and we're not dogs, so we needed to find a sub-niche. Isolated from all our forest advantages, we were down to tool-making. It's all we had that would translate seamlessly into our new environment, because it's even easier to change than behavior is, and even more versatile because it happens outside the body. Making increasingly fine and powerful tools would have let us compete in one small, sub-sub-area of plains-style survival, and finally given us something that we were better at than anyone else: butchery. Scavengers are generally set up to eat one particular part of a dead animal, and are stuck with bodies that are perfectly tuned to eat that part, down to sense organs that allow them to find the corpse at the proper stage of decay. With tools, we could vary our target areas as much as we wanted depending on when we found the animal and who had found it first, as well as getting to things that barely anyone else could, like bone marrow.
Once we found such a cozy niche, we would have survived and run with it, giving us the time to move from tools to weapons, allowing us to take care of the competition not by out-competing them but by simply finding and killing them wherever we were. This would fit the general trend of human behavior both at the time and since then, as well as explaining the advent of primitive, but very effective hunting methods in Africa. That is to say that persistence hunting would have been more worthwhile once we figured out how to kill lions, for example.
So, here's the articles about chimps and bonobos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
That's it! Can't wait to see what you guys think.
So, in thinking about why humans and chimps might have diverged, I looked into how chimps and bonobos seem to have diverged to see what we might learn from that mechanism. Wikipedia says that they might have been split apart by a river suddenly splitting their habitat; neither species can swim. The ecology is not the same on the two sides of the river, and the way the two species have adapted to their unique surroundings is quite informative.
Chimpanzee social structure is based around a heavy meat diet, which means that on a basic level the community must be organized to go on hunts, a highly organized, relatively difficult, and periodic activity. This gives rise to a strictly hierarchical structure with lots of aggression, because that structure allows for orders to be passed down and followed efficiently and with no dissent.
Bonobos, by contrast, survive mostly on fruit, with termites, small animals, and leaves supplementing the diet. This means that their basic food-getting activities are more constant than periodic, easier, and dependent on food that is thinly distributed rather than walking around as huge, discrete chunks of meat. In this environment, the primary social challenges have to do with distribution, both of the bonobos themselves and of the food once they gather it. In simple terms, they have to make sure everyone gets enough, and that there are never so many bonobos in one place that they drill a hole through the food network (trees, termite nests, etc.). They solve these problems with the famously ubiquitous bonobo sexuality as a conflict mediator so that no one fights over food too much, and with free female migration between troops (see article) to keep everyone spread out.
Both species use tools appropriate to their food sources.
So, with this example in mind, what might have motivated humans to employ our own, third speciation? I'm going to take the forest vs. grassland thing and just run with it, here, even though I haven't looked deeply into what was really happening in Africa at the time.
The challenges of the plains initially resemble those of the chimpanzees' environment, in that before agriculture (waaaaaay before!) most of the food on the plains was running around rather than growing. However, no matter how much we might have turned up the aggression in our social networks, walking monkeys are just not set up to compete for eating ungulates with, say, cats. We were the new kids, and could not continue to do things in the old way, even the plains' old way. For our solution, I like the scavenger theory. Persistence hunting aside, scavenging is a lot like gathering, and makes excellent use of our touted bipedal efficiency (that is, we can wander around all day looking for something dead). In this sense, waiting for the grazing animals to fall over on their own before we ate them would have been a good fit.
So, that's a niche. But there was already a scavenger community in the plains, from vicious dogs to birds! We can't fly and we're not dogs, so we needed to find a sub-niche. Isolated from all our forest advantages, we were down to tool-making. It's all we had that would translate seamlessly into our new environment, because it's even easier to change than behavior is, and even more versatile because it happens outside the body. Making increasingly fine and powerful tools would have let us compete in one small, sub-sub-area of plains-style survival, and finally given us something that we were better at than anyone else: butchery. Scavengers are generally set up to eat one particular part of a dead animal, and are stuck with bodies that are perfectly tuned to eat that part, down to sense organs that allow them to find the corpse at the proper stage of decay. With tools, we could vary our target areas as much as we wanted depending on when we found the animal and who had found it first, as well as getting to things that barely anyone else could, like bone marrow.
Once we found such a cozy niche, we would have survived and run with it, giving us the time to move from tools to weapons, allowing us to take care of the competition not by out-competing them but by simply finding and killing them wherever we were. This would fit the general trend of human behavior both at the time and since then, as well as explaining the advent of primitive, but very effective hunting methods in Africa. That is to say that persistence hunting would have been more worthwhile once we figured out how to kill lions, for example.
So, here's the articles about chimps and bonobos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
That's it! Can't wait to see what you guys think.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Evo-Devo
Evo Devo blog assignments:
1. So, for my thoughts on Evo-Devo, I'm going to give an example of how considering the interaction between evolution and development can help us to work out humanity's evolutionary pathways, that is to say, by studying the way our behavior takes advantage of our changing biology.
In class last week we were debating about the likelihood of the Homo genus tipping over into "Sapiens" territory while they (we?) were in Africa. It made me think of an interesting piece of African developmental evolution, that is to say, a good idea had by Africans. Pictured here, so-called persistence hunting caught my attention because it nearly exclusively exploits human bipedalism, for efficiency, and big brains, for tracking. As Mr. Attenborough points out, even having a throwable spear is more of a ceremonial than a practical gesture when hunting this way. The combination of bipedalism and smarts is what moved us to tack "Wise" on to the end of our name as a species. Perhaps the exclusive use of these two traits as a hunting method suggests that the method was a new innovation to take advantage of newly altered biology.
2. Unfortunately, and as cynical as this may seem, the greatest impact Darwinism has had in my life is through its misinterpretations. The theory of species change by itself is very benign. The environment changes, so the animals change. This isn't news! The animals are part of the environment anyway, specifically each other's environment. The rest of the theory, natural selection and such, is just quibbling over the details of mechanisms of change. It's important quibbling, to be sure, but nothing to lose your hat over.
So, as a benign theory mapping out the obvious macrocosm and giving us a nice venue to debate the not-so-obvious resulting microcosms, the only super-dramatic splash that Darwinism has made has been through people using it as an excuse to be dicks. Somehow, an idea that boils down to "things change" itself changed into the theory of "let's kill everyone", aka imperialism, especially cultural imperialism. These two ideas have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps Darwin ran afoul of the authoritarian streak in the scientific culture of his time, which then got sucked up into the regular old governmental authoritarianism, thus pushing the culture in the direction it was already going. I don't know, but somehow everything went wrong. Hopefully the next big splash Darwinism makes will be a happier one.
Something I should have made clear above, as re the second paragraph of this heading: I don't swallow the theory of natural selection precisely as it's presented nowadays, simply because I don't think we understand how genetics and heritability work. That is to say, environmental conditions mediating genetic expression makes perfect sense, and it would be wonderful if we had any idea how genetic expression worked so that we would be able to extrapolate anything at all from that connection, which right now we can't. We'll get there. Once we do, I'm perfectly happy to entertain anyone's theory of the mechanisms of biological change, including that it's God. I just think we're getting ahead of ourselves in that debate.
That's it.
1. So, for my thoughts on Evo-Devo, I'm going to give an example of how considering the interaction between evolution and development can help us to work out humanity's evolutionary pathways, that is to say, by studying the way our behavior takes advantage of our changing biology.
In class last week we were debating about the likelihood of the Homo genus tipping over into "Sapiens" territory while they (we?) were in Africa. It made me think of an interesting piece of African developmental evolution, that is to say, a good idea had by Africans. Pictured here, so-called persistence hunting caught my attention because it nearly exclusively exploits human bipedalism, for efficiency, and big brains, for tracking. As Mr. Attenborough points out, even having a throwable spear is more of a ceremonial than a practical gesture when hunting this way. The combination of bipedalism and smarts is what moved us to tack "Wise" on to the end of our name as a species. Perhaps the exclusive use of these two traits as a hunting method suggests that the method was a new innovation to take advantage of newly altered biology.
2. Unfortunately, and as cynical as this may seem, the greatest impact Darwinism has had in my life is through its misinterpretations. The theory of species change by itself is very benign. The environment changes, so the animals change. This isn't news! The animals are part of the environment anyway, specifically each other's environment. The rest of the theory, natural selection and such, is just quibbling over the details of mechanisms of change. It's important quibbling, to be sure, but nothing to lose your hat over.
So, as a benign theory mapping out the obvious macrocosm and giving us a nice venue to debate the not-so-obvious resulting microcosms, the only super-dramatic splash that Darwinism has made has been through people using it as an excuse to be dicks. Somehow, an idea that boils down to "things change" itself changed into the theory of "let's kill everyone", aka imperialism, especially cultural imperialism. These two ideas have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps Darwin ran afoul of the authoritarian streak in the scientific culture of his time, which then got sucked up into the regular old governmental authoritarianism, thus pushing the culture in the direction it was already going. I don't know, but somehow everything went wrong. Hopefully the next big splash Darwinism makes will be a happier one.
Something I should have made clear above, as re the second paragraph of this heading: I don't swallow the theory of natural selection precisely as it's presented nowadays, simply because I don't think we understand how genetics and heritability work. That is to say, environmental conditions mediating genetic expression makes perfect sense, and it would be wonderful if we had any idea how genetic expression worked so that we would be able to extrapolate anything at all from that connection, which right now we can't. We'll get there. Once we do, I'm perfectly happy to entertain anyone's theory of the mechanisms of biological change, including that it's God. I just think we're getting ahead of ourselves in that debate.
That's it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)