Simat: Biologists don't talk about evolution over lunch

66 views
Skip to first unread message

Harlequin

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 6:34:02 PM6/16/05
to
Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:

In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
really has no meaning.

This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
together they talk about evolution.

--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"

"Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
They win just by being on the same platform."
- Bob Park

Noone Inparticular

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 7:28:46 PM6/16/05
to

Harlequin wrote:
> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> together they talk about evolution.

Well, in my line of work we may not talk about evolution at every
lunch, but if evolution was not true our conversations would make no
sense whatsoever.

Ken Shaw

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 8:08:11 PM6/16/05
to

Harlequin wrote:
> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> together they talk about evolution.
>

Most of my contact with professional scientists is with paleontologists
and they most definitely talk about evolution.

Ken

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 8:40:15 PM6/16/05
to
Molecular biologists talk about the phylogeny of their molecules over lunch.
Medical researchers discuss the conservation of genes (between groups as
distant as C. elegans, M. muscus, and D. rerio) at their work-in-progress
seminars. Biochemists talk about orthologous and paralogous proteins (i.e.,
proteins shared from common ancestry). Ornithologists discuss the
classification of birds according to molecular evolutionary data. Simat is
either unaware of what scientists talk about, most likely because he doesn't
know any, or he thinks doctors and engineers are scientists.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

r norman

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 9:08:55 PM6/16/05
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:40:15 +1000, John Wilkins
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:

>Ken Shaw wrote:
>>
>> Harlequin wrote:
>>
>>>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>>
>>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>>> really has no meaning.
>>>
>>>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>>>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>>>together they talk about evolution.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most of my contact with professional scientists is with paleontologists
>> and they most definitely talk about evolution.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>Molecular biologists talk about the phylogeny of their molecules over lunch.
>Medical researchers discuss the conservation of genes (between groups as
>distant as C. elegans, M. muscus, and D. rerio) at their work-in-progress
>seminars. Biochemists talk about orthologous and paralogous proteins (i.e.,
>proteins shared from common ancestry). Ornithologists discuss the
>classification of birds according to molecular evolutionary data. Simat is
>either unaware of what scientists talk about, most likely because he doesn't
>know any, or he thinks doctors and engineers are scientists.

John, you are dining at the strangest luncheon spots if you actually
hear that kind of talk.

Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend, their
favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their government --
pretty much everything except science over lunch.

When talking about science it usually is about technical details of
some recent paper or of a problem they are currently trying to sort
out, not about evolution.

However, the common shared understanding of the real significance of
evolution is never far below the surface. Molecular biologists talk
about particular sequence comparisons never explicitly mentioning the
obvious shared phylogeny. Medical researchers talk about the details
of gene activation and mechanisms never explicitly mentioning the
obvious conservation between disparate animal groups. Biochemists
talk about reaction mechanisms and structural details of proteins
never explicitly mentioning orthology and paralogy. Ornithologists
talk about the particular characters they have used to try to
identify a particular species or more likely about the ecology,
behavior, or physiology of a particular species they are observing
never explicitly mentioning classification or sequence homologies.

I think it is probably quite true that Biologists don't talk about
evolution over lunch. It is so obvious and so well established that
it is not worth talking about, unless the topic turns to the absolute
and complete stupidity of American school boards in determining what
our children should learn in science class.

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 9:31:26 PM6/16/05
to

r norman wrote:
[snip]


> Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend, their
> favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their government --
> pretty much everything except science over lunch.
>

You left out "How the new lab assistant fills out her white coat".

John Harshman

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 9:51:38 PM6/16/05
to
Harlequin wrote:

> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> together they talk about evolution.
>

I just got back from the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of
Evolution, in Fairbanks, AK. Guess what we talked about over lunch?
Well, lots of stuff. But evolution, by my estimate, was around 30% of
it. I don't know why this should be surprising, but evolutionary
biologists tend to be very interested in evolution.

r norman

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 9:53:55 PM6/16/05
to
On 16 Jun 2005 18:31:26 -0700, "Bill Hudson" <oldgee...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Considering that more than half the biology faculty in my department
are women -- not just any women but very outspoken virulently
anti-sexist-pig women -- that subject might be pondered silently but
never spoken aloud.


John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 10:06:00 PM6/16/05
to

Well, they talked about it when I asked them to :-) I use to work in a medical
research institute...


>
> Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend, their
> favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their government --
> pretty much everything except science over lunch.

It was a figure of speech. No need to be so *literal* ;-)


>
> When talking about science it usually is about technical details of
> some recent paper or of a problem they are currently trying to sort
> out, not about evolution.

Well the scientists I used to frequently listen to *were* in fact dealing with
these issues as part of their technical papers. I would stand in the lift
(elevator for non-anglians) listening to researchers chat about the
phylogenies of these items. The conservation of apoptotic pathways in
particular was a common topic.


>
> However, the common shared understanding of the real significance of
> evolution is never far below the surface. Molecular biologists talk
> about particular sequence comparisons never explicitly mentioning the
> obvious shared phylogeny. Medical researchers talk about the details
> of gene activation and mechanisms never explicitly mentioning the
> obvious conservation between disparate animal groups. Biochemists
> talk about reaction mechanisms and structural details of proteins
> never explicitly mentioning orthology and paralogy. Ornithologists
> talk about the particular characters they have used to try to
> identify a particular species or more likely about the ecology,
> behavior, or physiology of a particular species they are observing
> never explicitly mentioning classification or sequence homologies.
>
> I think it is probably quite true that Biologists don't talk about
> evolution over lunch. It is so obvious and so well established that
> it is not worth talking about, unless the topic turns to the absolute
> and complete stupidity of American school boards in determining what
> our children should learn in science class.

It might be best to make the point that the *concepts* of common descent,
phylogeny, homology and so forth are not ever questioned. But the employment
of these concepts in day to day science are at issue - is this gene an
orthology of that gene, does the function of the X polymer remain constant in
several phylogenetically distant groups? and so forth.

There are "ground-level" hypotheses that are put up and tested daily. Some of
these are phylogenetic hypotheses. Some are a matter of local adaptation. All
of them rely in some respect on the underlying evolutionary understanding.

But ornithologists do, in my experience. often discuss evolution; possibly
more than many other specialists. The standard identification manual in
Australia in fact has an extensive discussion of the Sibley and Alquist
taxonomies.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 10:06:27 PM6/16/05
to
I worry about American labs...

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 10:24:43 PM6/16/05
to

John Wilkins wrote:
> Bill Hudson wrote:
> >
> > r norman wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >>Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend, their
> >>favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their government --
> >>pretty much everything except science over lunch.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You left out "How the new lab assistant fills out her white coat".
> >
> I worry about American labs...
>

No need to worry, I'm a lecherous computer geek, not a biologist.

Ron O

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 10:20:58 PM6/16/05
to
I recently talked to other scientists about evolution over lunch, but I
admit that I was at the chicken genome meeting at Cold Spring Harbor.

Is this guy a biologist?

Ron Okimoto

r norman

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 10:42:24 PM6/16/05
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:06:00 +1000, John Wilkins
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:

>
>Well the scientists I used to frequently listen to *were* in fact dealing with
>these issues as part of their technical papers. I would stand in the lift
>(elevator for non-anglians) listening to researchers chat about the
>phylogenies of these items. The conservation of apoptotic pathways in
>particular was a common topic.

<snip>

>But ornithologists do, in my experience. often discuss evolution; possibly
>more than many other specialists. The standard identification manual in
>Australia in fact has an extensive discussion of the Sibley and Alquist
>taxonomies.

It really depends -- there are an awful lot of different kinds of
biologists.

The kinds of people that you are likely to hang out with, John
Harshman and Ron O also (to try to work in responses to several posts
simultaneously) are evolutionary type biologists -- biologists whose
work is in great part dealing with evolutionary issues. But
physiologists or neurobiologists or bird ecologists and bird
physiologists and bird ethologists (to cite three different kinds of
ornithologists) are very likely to talk shop about a tremendous
variety of technical issues more remotely connected to evolution. Of
course, it is still true that, without evolution, nothing makes sense.
But neurobiologists are almost certainly going to simply toss out the
fact that this experiment showed that a particular glutamate synaptic
receptor does such and such while that experiment showed that it does
the other and that ... without any concern to the fact that one result
was in an insect,, another in a mollusc, and the third in a rat. To
mention that the three are related only through evolutionary processes
would be like mentioning "you know, a protein is really a polymer made
of amino acids joined by peptide bonds", even thought that is a very
important background fact to any discussion involving any protein.


Harlequin

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 10:54:08 PM6/16/05
to
"Ron O" <poke...@aol.com> wrote in
news:1118974858....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Harlequin wrote:
>> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>
>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>> really has no meaning.
>>
>> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>> together they talk about evolution.

> I recently talked to other scientists about evolution over lunch, but


> I admit that I was at the chicken genome meeting at Cold Spring
> Harbor.

That is what is so interesting about about Simat's comment: molecular
biology especially genomics by all accounts uses a lot of evolution.


> Is this guy a biologist?


He seems to have a biochemistry background though unsurprisingly
it seems a bit geared towards the medicine rather than science.

A. First of all, I'm not a cheese head. My name is Bruce Michael
Simat. I'm currently at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

My background starts with the University of Minnesota, Duluth, where
I gained my bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry. I then went
to the Duluth Medical School and got my master's degree in human
physiology with biochemistry. After I did a research project there
then I moved on to the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and did
my Ph.D. work in the Department of Medicine and the Department of
Physiology in human physiology and biochemistry-- and biochemistry as
a minor, but almost a second major. My thesis research was delving
into the nuclear site of action of thyroid hormone and how it turned
on specifically messenger RNA and the genome itself. After the
University of Minnesota, I went to work for the U.S. Government at
the VA Medical Center in a postdoctoral position looking at
toxicology and specifically looking at how to modify specific
therapeutic drugs that could be used as cardiotonics to reduce
arrhythmias as well as to reduce bronchial congestion for asthmatics.

In that experience I learned how specific biomolecules really work in
the human body in a therapeutic fashion and how the slightest
modification changed either their therapeutic value or it enhanced
and made the drug extremely lethal. We were able to take some of
those drugs and make them therapeutic at doses 1 X and lethal at does
2 X. You want to be very careful with cardiotonics.

After that two-year experience I moved to Abbott Laboratories in
Chicago, Illinois, and worked for four years with them in their
medical diagnostic division. There I invented new biomolecules for
that division. Biomolecules that were used to produce blood tests in
the hospital market. After that I went to--

Q. What were you testing for in your blood tests?

A. Oh, things that you might not like. Pregnancy tests and human
thyroid hormone, prolactin hormone. And we had a very successful
unit. In fact, I also headed up a group that was a new technology
group looking to produce some of these tests in the home market so
that they could be a home pregnancy test, for instance. And we worked
very carefully with new techniques in delivery where you could do
mass amounts of protein attached to small plastic particles. So I
learned a lot about material science there as well.

And that is why I was hired through head hunters to come to Minnesota
to look at a job that was produced by Sanofi Diagnostic Pasteur,
which is French company in Minneapolis. And there we worked on
diagnostic tests, but more importantly I think is the experience I
had with the new technologies. I learned very carefully how to
produce blood tests with a new technology. In fact, three new
technologies. I actually won a science award for technology in
putting the biomolecules on them.

Since that time-- and that-- I guess that was eleven years ago when I
quit that job. Since that time I have worked for Northwestern College
in Minnesota. And for the last eleven years I've been teaching a
variety of classes there.

Q. Why did you take the job at Northwestern? What did they ask you to
do?

A. Well, actually I had a choice of going into technology again,
biotechnology. There's plenty of companies in the twin cities where
you can do biotechnology, but I-- I don't know if I can explain it
easily. I really had a yen to try teaching because I had not really
been a professor in a college before, although I had taught
extensively through the businesses. So I was hired because of my
extensive background in teaching in business and teaching bio and
biotechnology.

A bit of a giveaway that he is a bit out of it is this Behe-esque
argument:

A. Yes. If it had not been finding these chapters in these textbooks
I probably wouldn't have been involved with evolution at all. In
fact, some of my textbooks don't mention evolution but maybe in
passing. My physiology textbook is pretty much devoid of using the
term evolution. My biochemistry textbooks are scant. In fact, I go to
the index to find every word that's mentioned so I can read exactly
what is being said there. And the entries to the index in the
biochemistry textbook is about three or four entries, five entries
maybe in the entire textbook. When it comes to genetics then there's
a whole column of entries in the index, so it's referred to often and
talked about and described often.

This newsgroup's own resident biochemistry textbook author, Larry Moran,
showed the problem with that in the Archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html

SDM Technical Constultants

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 11:21:48 PM6/16/05
to
Harlequin wrote:
> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> together they talk about evolution.
>

Simat teaches at a bible college that ISN'T IN ST. PAUL. It is in a suburb.

I worked in a body shop and evolution was rarely the topic. I don't get
why Simat thinks that this is relevant, unless he believes in the EAC.

floyd

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 11:31:51 PM6/16/05
to

Harlequin wrote:
> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> together they talk about evolution.
>

Well, I'm an anthropologist, I study humans, and I must admit that I
haven't had too many conversations with colleagues about whether or not
humans exist. We do tend to take the obvious as read and try to build
from there. If someone presented us with empirical evidence _against_
the existence of humans, I suppose we'd probably talk about that quite
a bit, but if some biochemist or lawyer or school board lackey claimed
that his studies lead him to believe that humans could not exist, I
admit I'd be skeptical.
Still, Mr. Simat can take comfort in the fact that years of
anthropological research have demonstrated that idiots exist, so he
need experience no existential uncertainty.

catshark

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 11:44:13 PM6/16/05
to
On 16 Jun 2005 19:20:58 -0700, "Ron O" <poke...@aol.com> wrote:

>I recently talked to other scientists about evolution over lunch, but I
>admit that I was at the chicken genome meeting at Cold Spring Harbor.
>
>Is this guy a biologist?

An associate professor of biochemistry and human physiology at Northwestern
College (a conservatively Christian school) in St. Paul, MN
<http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Bruce_Simat>

Of course, if you are going to do your research and development at a
conservative Christian school, it is hardly surprising evolution (or a lot
of other sciences) didn't come up at lunch.


--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

[I]n its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation . . .

- William A. Dembski -

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 16, 2005, 11:58:08 PM6/16/05
to
You have lecherous computers? I thought that was just in that movie with Julie
Christie...

Noone Inparticular

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:03:20 AM6/17/05
to

John Wilkins wrote:
> Ken Shaw wrote:
> >
> > Harlequin wrote:
> >
> >>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
> >>
> >> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> >> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> >> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> >> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> >> really has no meaning.
> >>
> >>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> >>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> >>together they talk about evolution.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Most of my contact with professional scientists is with paleontologists
> > and they most definitely talk about evolution.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> Molecular biologists talk about the phylogeny of their molecules over lunch.
> Medical researchers discuss the conservation of genes (between groups as
> distant as C. elegans, M. muscus, and D. rerio) at their work-in-progress
> seminars.

Exactly. And as I said upstream, even if the word "evolution" is never
mentioned, these discussions would make *no sense whatsoever* if
evolution was not true.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:03:56 AM6/17/05
to
It's a matter of what scope the particular topic covers. I sat though a talk
on birds songs in woodlands (fascinating stuff - he showed how the song was
adapted to the sonic properties of the environment; Jared Diamond was there)
which ended up with a review of song evolution. Now if you are publishing a
paper on the sonogram results, you might not mention or even use evolution, as
the physics would be more important. But once you start to deal with *why* the
songs are as they are, evolutionary (as well as ecological, biogeographical,
and other fields) considerations come into the foreground.

And the underlying rational for even *using* molluscan neurochemistry to
investigate human neurochemistry is, pure and simple, a phylogenetic account.
Just insofar as the chemistry was laid down before the mollusc-vertebrate
split can the results be generalised. Yes it is, in one way, a matter of
"well, duh", but in others it's not. You might note that molluscan signalling
has convergently evolved something similar to mammalian signalling, which is
not shared by, say, chelonians. That would be interesting, and immediately
relevant.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:06:00 AM6/17/05
to
SDM Technical Constultants wrote:
> Harlequin wrote:
>
>>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>
>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>> really has no meaning.
>>
>>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>>together they talk about evolution.
>>
>
>
> Simat teaches at a bible college that ISN'T IN ST. PAUL. It is in a suburb.
>
> I worked in a body shop and evolution was rarely the topic.

You mean there's nothing published on the evolution of panel beating?

> I don't get
> why Simat thinks that this is relevant, unless he believes in the EAC.

--

Seppo Pietikainen

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:29:50 AM6/17/05
to
Harlequin wrote:
> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> together they talk about evolution.
>

But do they talk about the shape of the earth?

Seppo P.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:47:29 AM6/17/05
to
Or superstring theory? Or Bohrian atomic theory? What exactly *do* they talk
about outside their own speciality? [Sports must be excluded from the sample
set, along with religion, politics and sex.]

SDM Technical Constultants

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 2:54:48 AM6/17/05
to
John Wilkins wrote:
> SDM Technical Constultants wrote:
>
>>Harlequin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>>
>>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>>> really has no meaning.
>>>
>>>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>>>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>>>together they talk about evolution.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Simat teaches at a bible college that ISN'T IN ST. PAUL. It is in a suburb.
>>
>>I worked in a body shop and evolution was rarely the topic.
>
>
> You mean there's nothing published on the evolution of panel beating?

I am sure I could work something up if I could get a grant.

SDM Technical Constultants

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 2:57:02 AM6/17/05
to
John Wilkins wrote:

> Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
>
>>Harlequin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>>
>>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>>> really has no meaning.
>>>
>>>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>>>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>>>together they talk about evolution.
>>>
>>
>>
>>But do they talk about the shape of the earth?
>>
>
> Or superstring theory? Or Bohrian atomic theory? What exactly *do* they talk
> about outside their own speciality? [Sports must be excluded from the sample
> set, along with religion, politics and sex.]
>

I think they talk about the Simpsons, White Wine and Cheese.

Not being a scientist, I can't say for sure.

Larry Moran

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 5:06:23 AM6/17/05
to
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:08:55 -0400,
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:40:15 +1000, John Wilkins
><j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>Ken Shaw wrote:

[snip]

>>> Most of my contact with professional scientists is with
>>> paleontologists and they most definitely talk about evolution.
>>>

>>Molecular biologists talk about the phylogeny of their molecules over
>>lunch. Medical researchers discuss the conservation of genes (between
>>groups as distant as C. elegans, M. muscus, and D. rerio) at their
>>work-in-progress seminars. Biochemists talk about orthologous and
>>paralogous proteins (i.e., proteins shared from common ancestry).
>>Ornithologists discuss the classification of birds according to
>>molecular evolutionary data. Simat is either unaware of what scientists
>>talk about, most likely because he doesn't know any, or he thinks
>>doctors and engineers are scientists.
>
> John, you are dining at the strangest luncheon spots if you actually
> hear that kind of talk.
>
> Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend,
> their favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their
> government -- pretty much everything except science over lunch.

I have lunch with scientists every day. We frequently talk about
evolution. We also talk about those other things but we don't avoid
science the way your friends seem to.

Yesterday we talked about the evolutionary relationships between the
three complement pathways. On Monday we argued about the best way to
teach molecular evolution to undergraduates. Last week we discussed
the threat of Intelligent Design Creationism and the evolutionary
importance of alternative splicing and interfering RNA.

Today we're going to talk about whether scientists talk about
evolution over lunch.

Maybe my scientist friends are older than yours?

Larry Moran

Dean Chesterman

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 8:14:34 AM6/17/05
to

>
>>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>
>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>> really has no meaning.
>>
>>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>>together they talk about evolution.
>>
>
>
As a consulting engineer in the electric power business, when I get
together with other engineers, I never talk "electricity" either.
Electricity is what the kids are taught in school, I talk of surge
impedance loading, voltage collapse, dynamic generator stability, all
those pieces of engineering knowledge and someone overhearing the
conversation will not even know what we are taking about. The biological
sciences are similar so I am not surprised that working biologists have
never said "evolution".

Dean Chesterman

r norman

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 8:36:05 AM6/17/05
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:06:23 +0000 (UTC),
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
>
>I have lunch with scientists every day. We frequently talk about
>evolution. We also talk about those other things but we don't avoid
>science the way your friends seem to.
>
>Yesterday we talked about the evolutionary relationships between the
>three complement pathways. On Monday we argued about the best way to
>teach molecular evolution to undergraduates. Last week we discussed
>the threat of Intelligent Design Creationism and the evolutionary
>importance of alternative splicing and interfering RNA.
>
>Today we're going to talk about whether scientists talk about
>evolution over lunch.
>
>Maybe my scientist friends are older than yours?
>

Me being a rather old geezer, just about everybody I know is younger
than me!

You, Larry, are an unusual specimen being particularly interested in
evolutionary questions and considerations. I could easily imagine
that the reminiscences of anybody that actively participates in this
news group would be biased since their participation in lunch
discussions will automatically preselect certain topics. I will admit
that many biologists do often enough talk explicitly about evolution
and that probably every biologist at some time discussed evolution. I
still claim that the majority of biologists the majority of the time,
even when talking shop, refrain from explicit mention of evolution.

Whatever the reality, the most important point is that evolution,
whether mentioned explicitly or not, still acts as an exceptionally
important shared understanding that underlies virtually all of the
conversation.


Richard Forrest

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 8:48:52 AM6/17/05
to

Let's see.
We had a one-day conference in Leicester on Wednesday (Progressive
Palaenology - aimed principally at post-grads), and finished off the
day with a meal in an Indian Restaurant. From memory, topics of
conversation were:
Why the latest Star Wars films are crap (not an unanimous view).
Trying to persuade Rowan to get her kit off and streak around the
block.
Why English people don't wear bowler hats.
Are all Americans stupid, or is it just the creationists?
Do they have dollar coins in the USA (this was a particularly hot
topic)
Why the Loch Ness monster is not a plesiosaur (I screamed and hid under
the table at this point)
Preservational bias in black shales.
Who hasn't handed over their share of the bill yet?
Is it better to build web sites in HTML or php?
Nudity on German beaches, and the complex harmonic relationships of
oscilations of fleshy appendages in the perambulations of large,
overweight German women. (there may be a paper in this one).Is
'Tremors' the best film ever made?
What are the phylogenetic relationships of the worm creatures in
'Tremors'?
Why working behind a checkout in Safeways is better paid than the first
job you get after your PhD.
What happens when you get appointed as agony aunt on a web blog, and
dealing with teenage boys.
Can vegetarians be defined according to the taxonimic level of their
deitary restrictions.
Eating insects.
Swedish furniture.
Carbon cycles in the Permian.
The reliablity of the DNA clock.
Is the American approach to science too restricted by methodology.
What is a character?
The relative benefits of Macs, Windows and Linux operating systems
(very heated)
Should we refer to dinosaurs as birds?
Why is there nobody in the UK doing any research on Icthyosaurs?
The taxonomy of biscuits. (Adam has published a cladistic analysis of
biscuits to try to answer that most significant and important question:
'Are Jaffa Cakes true cakes, or are they biscuits?')
The characters of several people (many of them at the table) were
thoroughly assasinated ("Richard, take your hand off my leg! You're old
enough to be my father!")

I'm sure there were a few more.

RF

PS: I never touched her.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 9:01:10 AM6/17/05
to
Or they are less interested in sports?

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 9:02:45 AM6/17/05
to
I think I was at that lunch :-) Did anyone talk about paraconsistent logics?

Richard Forrest

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 9:24:27 AM6/17/05
to

No, but I'm sure that by the end of the evening some of the party (no
me, I'm afraid - I had to drive) were parainconsistently illogical.

RF

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 9:56:22 AM6/17/05
to
In article <hs74b11da7oo5etrl...@4ax.com>,
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:40:15 +1000, John Wilkins
> <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>

> >Ken Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >> Harlequin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
> >>>
> >>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> >>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> >>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> >>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> >>> really has no meaning.
> >>>
> >>>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
> >>>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
> >>>together they talk about evolution.
> >>>
> >>
> >>

> >> Most of my contact with professional scientists is with paleontologists
> >> and they most definitely talk about evolution.
> >>

> >> Ken


> >>
> >Molecular biologists talk about the phylogeny of their molecules over lunch.
> >Medical researchers discuss the conservation of genes (between groups as
> >distant as C. elegans, M. muscus, and D. rerio) at their work-in-progress
> >seminars. Biochemists talk about orthologous and paralogous proteins (i.e.,
> >proteins shared from common ancestry). Ornithologists discuss the
> >classification of birds according to molecular evolutionary data. Simat is
> >either unaware of what scientists talk about, most likely because he doesn't
> >know any, or he thinks doctors and engineers are scientists.
>
> John, you are dining at the strangest luncheon spots if you actually
> hear that kind of talk.
>
> Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend, their
> favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their government --
> pretty much everything except science over lunch.
>

> When talking about science it usually is about technical details of
> some recent paper or of a problem they are currently trying to sort
> out, not about evolution.
>

> However, the common shared understanding of the real significance of
> evolution is never far below the surface. Molecular biologists talk
> about particular sequence comparisons never explicitly mentioning the
> obvious shared phylogeny. Medical researchers talk about the details
> of gene activation and mechanisms never explicitly mentioning the
> obvious conservation between disparate animal groups. Biochemists
> talk about reaction mechanisms and structural details of proteins
> never explicitly mentioning orthology and paralogy. Ornithologists
> talk about the particular characters they have used to try to
> identify a particular species or more likely about the ecology,
> behavior, or physiology of a particular species they are observing
> never explicitly mentioning classification or sequence homologies.
>
> I think it is probably quite true that Biologists don't talk about
> evolution over lunch. It is so obvious and so well established that
> it is not worth talking about, unless the topic turns to the absolute
> and complete stupidity of American school boards in determining what
> our children should learn in science class.
>
>

In short evolution is talked about at lunch like sex is talked about at
singles functions, not usually but its lurking in the background and
forms the context for much of the discussion.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 10:20:08 AM6/17/05
to
In article <1118979111.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
<snip>

> If someone presented us with empirical evidence _against_
> the existence of humans,
<snip>

A previous script has shown there are no humans in Australia.

Lilith

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 10:36:33 AM6/17/05
to
Agree with Larry -- we also explicitly talk about evolution and
associated subjects over lunch and in fact, over dinner last night we
were able to talk about evolution of certain signaling pathways and
kinase phosphorylation networks.

And, we talked about that cool new article on evolution -- the protein
in M. smegmatis (cousin of tuberculosis) which has evolved to look
like a DNA molecule and helps it resist fluoroquinolones by
self-inhibition of gyrase (as kind of a protective inhibition). Article
is Hegde et al. Science vol 308 p 1480 if you're interested.

D

Ken Shaw

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 11:38:12 AM6/17/05
to

Richard Forrest wrote:

Yes. Although the newest version is as usual failing to catch on. For no
good reason we still have dollar notes and so no one uses the coins.

Ken

Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 11:43:12 AM6/17/05
to
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in
news:t5b4b15fhg8uh8nkf...@4ax.com:

> On 16 Jun 2005 18:31:26 -0700, "Bill Hudson" <oldgee...@yahoo.com>


> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>r norman wrote:
>>[snip]

>>> Most biologists I know talk about their families, their weekend,
their
>>> favorite sports teams, the appalling activities of their government
--
>>> pretty much everything except science over lunch.
>>>
>>

>>You left out "How the new lab assistant fills out her white coat".
>

> Considering that more than half the biology faculty in my department
> are women -- not just any women but very outspoken virulently
> anti-sexist-pig women -- that subject might be pondered silently but
> never spoken aloud.
>
Till they've gone home for the day.

--
"...disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd
report. It just is."
{[Reporter] You're worried, sir, that you're losing some of your push?}
" I don't worry about anything here in Washington, D.C"
--Curious George, 5/31/05.

Richard Forrest

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 11:48:25 AM6/17/05
to

Funily enough, it was the only American at the table who didn't know
about dollar coins.

Mind you, I was more interested in Rowan....


RF

r norman

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:07:30 PM6/17/05
to
On 17 Jun 2005 08:48:25 -0700, "Richard Forrest"
<ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:

>Funily enough, it was the only American at the table who didn't know
>about dollar coins.
>

Back in the old days, silver dollars were actually in circulation.
Any locality anywhere near Nevada (where they were heavily used in
slot machines) had them in abundance. That was when silver coins
(dimes, quarters and half-dollars, too) actually contained silver and
when silver coins were worth exactly face value. There were also
silver certificate bills, entitling you to exchange them for silver.
Sacajawea just doesn't have the same pizzazz. It is small and
insubstantial, not like the old ones which had real heft.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 12:55:46 PM6/17/05
to
Ron O <poke...@aol.com> wrote:
>I recently talked to other scientists about evolution over lunch, but I
>admit that I was at the chicken genome meeting at Cold Spring Harbor.

>Is this guy a biologist?

>Ron Okimoto

We chemists don't talk about the law of conservation of
matter over lunch. Mainly because there is no argument
about its validity.

----- Paul J. Gans

>Harlequin wrote:
>> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>
>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>> really has no meaning.
>>
>> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>> together they talk about evolution.
>>

>> --
>> Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
>>
>> "Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
>> inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
>> They win just by being on the same platform."
>> - Bob Park

Andrew Arensburger

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 1:02:43 PM6/17/05
to
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
> It really depends -- there are an awful lot of different kinds of
> biologists.

Nonsense. They're all just microspecializations within the
"Biologist" baramin.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
I just had a mental breakdown. Got any jumper cables?

r norman

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 1:35:38 PM6/17/05
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:02:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:

>r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
>> It really depends -- there are an awful lot of different kinds of
>> biologists.
>
> Nonsense. They're all just microspecializations within the
>"Biologist" baramin.
>
> (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Actually they are quite distinct species. Under natural
circumstances, it is quite impossible for a membrane biophysicist to
successfully mate with a stream phycologist. Of course the
application of a couple moles of ethanol might help.

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 1:54:32 PM6/17/05
to
"Ron O" <poke...@aol.com> writes:

> I recently talked to other scientists about evolution over lunch, but I
> admit that I was at the chicken genome meeting at Cold Spring Harbor.

So you must have been one of the guys leaving as I was arriving for
the Genome Biology meeting at Cold Spring Harbor.

--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

Ernest Major

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 2:27:02 PM6/17/05
to
In message <1119012532.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> writes

>Why the Loch Ness monster is not a plesiosaur (I screamed and hid under
>the table at this point)

Better than a discussion of why the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur,
surely.
--
alias Ernest Major


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005

Andrew Arensburger

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 2:35:20 PM6/17/05
to
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I just got back from the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of
> Evolution, in Fairbanks, AK. Guess what we talked about over lunch?
> Well, lots of stuff. But evolution, by my estimate, was around 30% of
> it. I don't know why this should be surprising, but evolutionary
> biologists tend to be very interested in evolution.

Presumably the other 70% was on topics such as ways to
disguise the fact that evolution is a religion, so that it can be
snuck into the classroom; how best to bury the mountains of evidence
for creationism; worrying about losing your job/grant/tenure if you
don't support evilutionism; sex ("Your black helicopter or mine?");
and, of course, which barbecue sauce goes best with the babies you
eat.

--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology

If it ain't broke, I'll break it.

Richard Forrest

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 2:39:36 PM6/17/05
to

Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1119012532.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> writes
> >Why the Loch Ness monster is not a plesiosaur (I screamed and hid under
> >the table at this point)
>
> Better than a discussion of why the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur,
> surely.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

I'll still scream and hide under the table.

Andrew Arensburger

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 2:51:41 PM6/17/05
to
Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
> Let's see.
> We had a one-day conference in Leicester on Wednesday (Progressive
> Palaenology - aimed principally at post-grads), and finished off the
> day with a meal in an Indian Restaurant. From memory, topics of
> conversation were:

In case you still care:

> Are all Americans stupid, or is it just the creationists?

Not all creationists are stupid: some of them are ignorant or
lying. At the same time, there are a lot of stupid non-creationist
Americans.

> Do they have dollar coins in the USA (this was a particularly hot
> topic)

Yes, several. But we don't use them because we're stupid.
(I've heard the argument that stores don't like dollar coins
because there's no slot for them in a standard cash register. This can
easily be fixed by eliminating the penny.)
(Of course, if I had my way, there'd be $5 coins. And bills
would come in different sizes and colors, according to denomination.)
(But that probably makes me a communist.)

--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology

Finish the project. We'll buy you a new family.

John Harshman

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 3:07:04 PM6/17/05
to
Andrew Arensburger wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>I just got back from the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of
>>Evolution, in Fairbanks, AK. Guess what we talked about over lunch?
>>Well, lots of stuff. But evolution, by my estimate, was around 30% of
>>it. I don't know why this should be surprising, but evolutionary
>>biologists tend to be very interested in evolution.
>
> Presumably the other 70% was on topics such as ways to
> disguise the fact that evolution is a religion, so that it can be
> snuck into the classroom; how best to bury the mountains of evidence
> for creationism; worrying about losing your job/grant/tenure if you
> don't support evilutionism; sex ("Your black helicopter or mine?");
> and, of course, which barbecue sauce goes best with the babies you
> eat.

Mmmmm...barbecued babies. But I'm afraid you know too much. Now where
did I put my internet neuralyzer? Ah, there it is. There is no fnord
conspiracy fnord. Everything is fine.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 4:59:02 PM6/17/05
to
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:34:02 GMT, Harlequin <use...@sdc.cox.net>
wrote:

>Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>
> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
> really has no meaning.
>
>This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>together they talk about evolution.

I don't recall that evolution was discussed much among entomologists.
I would say that the largest single biology-related topics of
discussion were travel (sometimes the travel of the biologists and
sometimes of the insects), government regulations, conservation, and
beer. I have heard evolution come up, though.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

Richard Forrest

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 5:12:01 PM6/17/05
to

Just to avoid any confusion: I am reporting on what was discussed, and
was not offering my opinions on any of these matters!
My major contribution was large, naked German women.

RF

Ron O

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 7:35:48 PM6/17/05
to

I wanted to stay for the whole meeting, but a chicken breeding company
was picking up the tab. I went as a consultant.

Ron Okimoto

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 8:34:46 PM6/17/05
to
Does it increase the permeability of the egg membrane?

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 8:37:20 PM6/17/05
to
You carry some with you, just on the off chance?

r norman

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 10:12:54 PM6/17/05
to
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:34:46 +1000, John Wilkins
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:

>r norman wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:02:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
>> <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It really depends -- there are an awful lot of different kinds of
>>>>biologists.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. They're all just microspecializations within the
>>>"Biologist" baramin.
>>>
>>> (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>>
>>
>> Actually they are quite distinct species. Under natural
>> circumstances, it is quite impossible for a membrane biophysicist to
>> successfully mate with a stream phycologist. Of course the
>> application of a couple moles of ethanol might help.
>>
>Does it increase the permeability of the egg membrane?

Trying to do just that is why the membrane biophysicists strike out!


Martin Hutton

unread,
Jun 17, 2005, 11:58:41 PM6/17/05
to

A noble endeavor. I assume it didn't pan out.

> > Why English people don't wear bowler hats.

Because they make you look like a total prat.

> > Are all Americans stupid, or is it just the creationists?

Good question. Sometimes I wonder, but then I read Paul's* posts
and realise there's hope yet.

*And others...rhetoric forbids naming you.

> > Do they have dollar coins in the USA (this was a particularly hot
> > topic)
>
> Yes. Although the newest version is as usual failing to catch on. For no
> good reason we still have dollar notes and so no one uses the coins.

It's because the treasury is too balless to stop printing one dollar bills.
To do so would be a tacit admission that the dollar is worth shit. The
coin relegates the dollar to the status of a quarter.

--
Martin Hutton
Don't leave your dad in the rain...Caravan

Richard Forrest

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 3:25:54 AM6/18/05
to

John Wilkins wrote:
<Snipped>

> >
> > Just to avoid any confusion: I am reporting on what was discussed, and
> > was not offering my opinions on any of these matters!
> > My major contribution was large, naked German women.
> >
> You carry some with you, just on the off chance?

The engineering of the carrying case posed considerable problems.

RF

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 7:58:57 AM6/18/05
to
In article
<E7Cse.975845$w62.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:

> Richard Forrest wrote:

<snip>


>
>
> Yes. Although the newest version is as usual failing to catch on. For no
> good reason we still have dollar notes and so no one uses the coins.
>
> Ken

The dollar coins in the US are too much like quarters, you get them as
change from the post office vending machines. They do warn people.

Grasshopper

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 10:47:00 AM6/19/05
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:08:11 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:

>
>
> Harlequin wrote:
>> Bruce Michael Simat said during the Kansas Kangaroo Court:
>>
>> In fact, I realized in over those 15 years of research and
>> development that I didn't run into anyone who ever mentioned
>> evolution. It was not a topic of conversation over lunch, over
>> anything. It has no meaning. In operational science out there, it
>> really has no meaning.
>>
>> This certainly contradict ever biologist I have ever seen take on
>> that. The typical claim from biologists is that when they get
>> together they talk about evolution.
>>
>

> Most of my contact with professional scientists is with paleontologists
> and they most definitely talk about evolution.
>
> Ken
>

Pale ontologists perhaps should discuss evolution in the sunshin.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because it never happened doesn't mean it isn't true.

Harlequin

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 1:07:30 PM6/19/05
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
news:proto-35496C....@reader1.panix.com:

> In article
> <E7Cse.975845$w62.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:
>
>> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Yes. Although the newest version is as usual failing to catch on. For
>> no good reason we still have dollar notes and so no one uses the
>> coins.
>>

> The dollar coins in the US are too much like quarters, you get them as
> change from the post office vending machines. They do warn people.


Admittedly they could have done a better job with the Susan B. Anthony
coins. The recent dollar coins, the ones with the "portrait" an native
American lady whose appearance is unknown, are completely distict from
the quarters.

Actually, sometimes I have a hard time understanding why people have a
hard time recognizing the Susan B. Anthony dollars. Even if the color
and size is approximate, there is still quite a few VERY obvious
differences.

Maybe it is because not everyone has ever ran a cash register before.
Spend some time handling money all day and the differences will just
stick out like a sore thumb. Heck anyone who is even remotely
observant with a few weeks as a cashier should be able to notice
attempts to pay with Canadian coins. (For those who live outside
of the U.S. and Canada, the pennies, quarters, etc. in Canada are
pretty much the same as the American versions except for having the
Queen instead of a U.S. President, etc. Canada's dollar coin
however was an original creation that is considerably different
from the quarter.)

Ken Shaw

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 2:00:58 PM6/19/05
to

The only Canadian coin I can't immediately pick out is the penny.

Ken

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 2:24:09 AM6/20/05