Her husband is gaslighting her. Time for a divorce
Think of it this way: removals get passed down, but additions do not. For proof, you add clothes to your body and you remove them, but your baby is born naked, because your removals get passed down
Babies are not born with all the clothes their parents have ever worn. That would be silly, you fuckin idiots
I know, I know, some of you are thinking âbut the parents are naked when the baby is conceivedâ
No, theyâre OFTEN naked, but not always, dumdum
That canât be real.
Mailman has a small nose.
On top of that. The air in your lungs would compress in a millisecond, so you probably have every part of your chest crushed and torn instantly.
Thinking about it, thereâs probably so much kinetic energy you just get shaken and smashed to pieces instantly.
We donât need to ask anyone when we saw people falling/jumping on 9/11 and hitting the ground.
I donât think itâs that crazy - Lamarckian inheritance was a fairly well-known scientific theory. Sheâs just living 200 years in the past.
Is he jus a grammar nit? What is wrong with âcomprised ofâ
I remember seeing video of someone falling from one of the towers. It was sickening enough. I didnât see the aftermath and wouldnât want to.
Details I read today: The wife/mom and her daughter were on the support ship. Kid loved Rubikâs Cubes and wanted to solve it at Titanic. The guy who got fired said their warning system might only give milliseconds of warning. CEO just couldnât accept the design was fundamentally bad. Heâs now Wikipedia list of people killed by their own invention. List includes Marie Curie and a guy who jumped off Eiffel tower to test weird parachute so Rush fits somewhere in the middle I guess.
I once tried to correct a guy who was using comprises correctly. That was the beginning of the end of my grammar nit career. That guy is fanatical about it so nobody wants to cross the guy.
I saw that video yesterday. Creeped me out.
Lamarkian inheritance was always more about like habits and conditioning. Like if you are a marathoner or bodybuilder that gets passed down. They never thought chopping off your hand is going to cause problems for your progenyâs hand.
And hell, with epigenetics, is Lamarkaianism de-debunked? I donât know, maybe.
I think thatâs true of most people, but Iâm not sure itâs universally true - Weismannâs mouse tail test was apparently viewed (by some) as a rebuke of Lamarckian ideas. Presumably if some scientist thought it worth testing, there must have been other people thinking it.
In 1888, Weismann delivered a lecture at the meeting of the Association of German Naturalists at Cologne, Germany, in which he described the results of an experiment that he said contradicted Lamarckâs theory and supported the theory of the Weismann Barrier. The lecture became the eighth chapter of Essays on Heredity titled âThe Supposed Transmission of Mutilationsâ. In the experiment, Weismann cut off the tails of 901 mice and their offspring for five generations. If acquired characteristics were heritable, Weismann reasoned, the experimental mice should eventually produce offspring with no tails. Yet, as Weismann had predicted, the descendants of those amputee mice still grew tails like normal mice. He used his experimental results to frame a comprehensive argument against the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
a straw man trial maybe?
And in any case, Lamarck gets a bad rap. All his writing was before Darwin and Mendel. How was he supposed to know? And if you actually read Darwin, he believed in Lamarckism too. He just didnât think that was the exclusive or dominant mechanism.
What
