BS: What scientists think about

Subject: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM

The thread title is obviously spawned by Amos' more restricted thread title about physicists. I always like to read new entries in that thread so I thought I might follow that idea just with a broader title.

Franck Prugnolle et al., Geography predicts neutral genetic diversity of human populations, Current Biology, Vol 15, 2005, R159 - R160

Online version (maybe not accessible for most so I copy the summary and the start of the article)

A leading theory for the origin of modern humans, the ‘recent African origin’ (RAO) model, postulates that the ancestors of all modern humans originated in East Africa and that, around 100,000 years ago, some modern humans left the African continent and subsequently colonised the entire world, displacing previously established human species such as Neanderthals in Europe. This scenario is supported by the observation that human populations from Africa are genetically the most diverse and that the genetic diversity of non-African populations is negatively correlated with their genetic differentiation towards populations from Africa.

Here we add further compelling evidence supporting the RAO model by showing that geographic distance – not genetic distance as in – from East Africa along likely colonisation routes is an excellent predictor for genetic diversity of human populations (R2=85%). Our results point to a history of colonisation of the world characterised by a very large number of small bottlenecks and limited subsequent gene flow.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 09:58 PM

The info at the link indicates that you have to have a current subscription to the magazine in order to access the full article.

Th abstract indicates a plausible idea, but of course it's "all in the details" whether much new is added. The RAO idea has been around for quite some time, and does have lots of supporters.

A side path on the RAO idea is sometimes called the "Eve Theory" which postulates that we should be able to find a "single mother" (Eve of course) who was the "first human." Few credible people have meant "Eve" to mean a single "person," but quite a few less thoughtful ones have believed that's what they meant. Finding a single area in which traceable ancestors first appeared was all that was really intended by those who first used the term.

There's still much debate about whether there was a single place of origin, or several. Even if the genetic origin of humans was a more "dispersed" phenomenon, it still seems likely that it was localized since access to precursor gene pool(s) would likely be necessary to establishment of a surviving new line. The "sport" genetic deviation may result in new and helpful characteristics, but seldom survives on it's own unless it can recall - and be mixed back in with - the other characteristics that permitted survival up to the time of it's appearance.

Maybe...

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 12:27 AM

So you are scientificaly confirming that we are all niggers?

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: harpgirl
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:19 AM

This DNA geneology project by the British researcerh Sykes has illuminated the migratory patterns of early humans. The more mitochondrial DNA information we have on humans the more precisely we will be able to trace our genetic roots. Fascinating. Prehistory is a strong interest of mine. I'm enjoying Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs & Steel.

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 07:16 AM

You mean that Jean M. Auel is not authoritative?

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:00 AM

Not hardly, John!!

Harp, that is a great piece of work. Took me months to read itthough, as I could only absorb a page at a time before my head would start to throb! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:51 PM

I see made-for-TV documentaries on the various theories and evidence several times a year..(The Discovery Channel and it's ilk) and there is more & more evidence for the ideas noted in the abstract Wolfgang quotes. One group has collected DNA along supposed migration routes from Africa through S.E. Asia to Australia, and found diversity and patterns very close to what would be expected. Others have found support for migration patterns into Europe that further suggest that Africa is the ultimate source.......and yes, there do seem to be 'bottlenecks' along the way (after global catastrophes) that indicate that at one time we came very close to not surviving as a species, meaning that we all have a very small group of common ancestors about 35,000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM

I actually kind of doubt the present scientific theories about the origins of human life on this planet are correct. They're just the latest popular version. I suspect those theories will presently be replaced by other rather different theories in the halls of scientific orthodoxy. They are interesting, though...

What I think scientists mostly think about is...

Sex. Dinner. Having a drink. Peer pressure. Career advancement. Finances. Professional status. Their new car.

You know, the usual stuff... :-)

A few really brilliant ones probably think about William Shatner now and then too.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:07 PM

I am a scientist. I even have an Master of Science degree to prove it.    I'm thinking about lots and lots of stuff. Like could quark spin be used to influence the input of the 856 MARC field, or the effect that a quantity of trinitrotoulene could have upon the protoplasmic bodies of the city council should they want to cut my budget again this year.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM

Yeah, you could end up like that guy who had his project cut off, and then his wife was complaining that she hadn't had any satisfaction in months and months.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM

And right now I'm thinking about going home early.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:35 PM

"I actually kind of doubt the present scientific theories about the origins of human life on this planet are correct." etc..etc...

Well, you are no doubt correct, LH...at least about the details. That is what theory and scientific inquiry are about: constant adding to and correcting of ideas. But I see no indication that the basic notions about origins and evolution are in any danger- barring some totally amzing new discovery.(you know...an alien ship buried in Atlantis with unopened containers of DNA labeled "open in 7 million years")

Right now it just a matter of honing in on dates, places, specific order and failed lines. *IF* the carbon dating process is not shown to be flawed and no outright tricks like Piltdown Man are discovered, this current 'general' theory looks like it will just be refined.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:52 PM

John,

they used dataset from 51 worldwide distributed populations and used graph theory to find the shortest path (starting in Ethiopia) using land connections whenever possible and making use of natural obstacles to deflect a path.

The migration routes generated this way were quite close to those of Cavalli-Sforza. Genetic diversity between population correlated highly with path distance from Ethiopia.

I actually kind of doubt...
The 'actually' is brilliant, Little Hawk. It makes you look so special when saying something that is trivially true.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 07:43 PM

spencer wells who studied under Cavalli-Sforza
published a book Journey of Man (as well as a national geographic documentary) which did an huge study of y chromosome genes which
are passed along the male line (although theres been some recent talk that it can be passed along the female line as well)

and by studying the dna was able to map human migrations --
quite fascinating although Id like to hear from opposing views from geneticists.. (such as those who studied mitochondrial dna in female genes)

the study indicated that not only did humans come of out Africa and displace the rest of the human populations it was much more recent than anyone had expected. Ie. 50-60,000 years ago. From Africa along the southasian coast to Australia, subsequent migrations that came out from Africa again and went to central asia - split into some going to Europe and more going to Asia - north America. etc.

it was a fascinating book and documentary..
even though Wells encountered some unexpected opposition from native peoples in Australia or North America, one goes away thinking about how closely related we all are, and just how incredibly resourceful people are to survive in many harsh environments.

on another note..Scientific American had story on using, the genetic variation of stomach bacteria to map human migrations - just another tack on the problem.

it is an interesting window - prior to the revolution in dna studies,
such a survey would not be possible, and a few generations from now, with travel and intermixing of populations the dna will have become to diluted ..

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM

In addition the science of linguistics was dramatically advanced by researched that compared the transition patterns of DNA with t he transition patterns of languages.

They produced remarkably parallel suggestions about the pattern of migration of human life.


A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:40 PM

yes, Amos & petr....I think those studies were the ones I saw incorporated into the TV documentary. Language studies and DNA mapping gave remarkably similar patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:02 PM

I don't follow your objection to my use of the word "actually", Wolfgang. It's a normal way of speaking, isn't it? However, I shall rephrase my statement.

I have my doubts that the present scientific theories about the origins of human life on this planet are correct. I don't think the scientists have the foggiest idea where human beings came from or when. I think they're as far at sea about it as the Catholic Church and the Ayatollah What's-his-name, only in a completely different way.

Is that clear enough?

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:36 PM

I can tell you what they think about here in the U.S.

"Am I going to have to adjust my findings to support the administration's forgone conclusions?"

I overheard an employee from one of our scientific services talking to a friend. She had just completed a study that found two species were endangered and in need of protection. She has heard from up the chain that her paper will be reviewed and sent all the way up but it will never be approved. Sorry I can't be more specific but I don't want the source to get in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:12 PM

gee, Little Hawk...when you 'rephrase', you don't mess around!

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 03:59 PM

"just funning", LH, to borrow a phrase. I enjoy interpreting what people have written and not what they might mean. What you had written was trivial and noone would object. Such a sentence is usually started with "I too doubt..." or not said at all.

"I actually doubt..." is the start of a sentence by someone who thinks he says something not everybody would agree with. Such a start sounds pompous when followed by a triviality.

But since you meant to say something not trivial (utterly wrong and uninformed in my eyes, BTW) your 'actually' fits, of course. Only my deliberate misreading made it not fitting.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,*Laura*
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:24 PM

At what point do you become a 'scientist'.
Is it just someone who practises science?
Or has a qualification? (in which case - I have GCSE science - can I be a scientist?)
Or is it if you have a job that involves the use of science?

Ahh the possibilities are endless!

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:35 PM

You can only be a scientist if you have a it-started-out-white lab coat and can tell the difference between a Bunsen burner and a dissected frog. Otherwise you have to go into the fuzzy-thinking Liberal Arts.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,*Laura*
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:42 PM

Ahh - that's me out then.

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:32 PM

You're only a true scientist AFTER the bunsen burner has set your hair on fire.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM

Well, then I don't qualify yet...

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: John O'L
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 06:44 PM

Petr -
"Wells encountered some unexpected opposition from native peoples in Australia or North America"

Do you know what their objections were?

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:28 AM

Sex and drugs and rock & Roll actually.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 07:02 AM

An MRI might cheer you up
Reuters, Friday, 11 March 2005

Scans may cause other effects we don't yet understand, say researcher, who are calling for renewed caution in the use of high-speed MRIs . A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can have the same effect as antidepressants, say researchers, whose findings in rats confirm previous observations made in humans.

Dr William Carlezon of Harvard Medical School's McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and team say their findings, reported in the journal Biological Psychiatry, suggest that electromagnetic fields can affect brain biology. "We found that when we administered the magnetic stimulation to the rats, we saw an antidepressant-like effect, the same effect as seen after administration of standard antidepressant drugs," say the researchers.

Carlezon and team tested the rats after another team at the same hospital reported a new type of magnetic resonance imaging, called echo planar magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (EP-MRSI), had improved the mood of people in the depressed phase of bipolar disorder. The new study was designed "to see if we could demonstrate in an animal model what the clinicians thought they were seeing in humans," says Carlezon.

"It's a non-drug way to change the firing of nerve cells," Cohen said. "That's why the implications of this work have the potential to be so profound."

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 10:07 AM

So THAT'S why I so attracted to electromagnets! I thought I had too much iron in my blood.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:45 PM

An Opinion on Evolution

(Note: I'll post much more of this than I would normally, since it appears you may need Macromedia Flash to get this to download, and some prefer not to have such fancy gadgetry. I do suggest reading the full article, which is not really too long.)

quoting from Technology Review:

Carl Woese published a provocative and illuminating article, A New Biology for a New Century, in the June 2004 issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. His main theme is the obsolescence of reductionist biology as it has been practiced for the last hundred years, and the need for a new biology based on communities and ecosystems rather than on genes and molecules. He also raises another profoundly important question: when did Darwinian evolution begin? By Darwinian evolution he means evolution as Darwin himself understood it, based on the intense competition for survival among noninterbreeding species. He presents evidence that Darwinian evolution did not go back to the beginning of life. In early times, the process that he calls horizontal gene transfer, the sharing of genes between unrelated species, was prevalent. It becomes more prevalent the further back you go in time. Carl Woese is the worlds greatest expert in the field of microbial taxonomy. Whatever he writes, even in a speculative vein, is to be taken seriously.

Woese is postulating a golden age of pre-Darwinian life, during which horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. Evolution was a communal affair, the whole community advancing in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared. But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share. Its offspring became the first species. With its superior efficiency, it continued to prosper and to evolve separately. Some millions of years later, another cell separated itself from the community and became another species. And so it went on, until all life was divided into species.

The basic biochemical machinery of life evolved rapidly during the few hundred million years that preceded the Darwinian era and changed very little in the following two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established, evolve very little. Darwinian evolution requires species to become extinct so that new species can replace them. Three innovations helped to speed up the pace of evolution in the later stages of the Darwinian era. The first was sex, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer within species. The second innovation was multicellular organization, which opened up a whole new world of form and function. The third was brains, which opened a new world of cordinated sensation and action, culminating in the evolution of eyes and hands. All through the Darwinian era, occasional mass extinctions helped to open opportunities for new evolutionary ventures.

Now, after some three billion years, the Darwinian era is over. The epoch of species competition came to an end about 10 thousand years ago when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. ...

end quote.

John

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM

Fascinating but a bit too anthopomorphic for my tastes.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:46 PM

Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep
And doesn't know where to find them.
But they'll all, face to face, meet in parallel space
Preceeding their leaders behind them.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 05:27 AM

John O'L:

according to their legends (beliefs) they have been there from the origin on (in Latin: ab origine, therefore aborigines) and have not migrated from somewhere else. Period. Results telling them otherwise are unacceptable for some.

They are now at that stage the Christian religion was in the 16th century, but one could argue that at some places even for some Christians the 16th century is still there.

Neither religion, nor politics, nor PC-thinking should prescribe what are acceptable results.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 02:32 PM

John, Wolfgang just answered the question for me..
Wells was surprised when he was explaining his theory of migration based on genetic variation, to an Australian aboriginal artist who just said bullshit I dont believe it, all our traditions say we came from here period. And whose to say the rest of the world wasnt settled from Australia?
he had similar opposition from North American first nations.
Although to his credit rather than debating the science versus mythology
he took the view that the 'science' is essentially his or the NorthAmerican/European mythology.

Some north American first nations people also took opposition to his theory but did find it appealing on another level, when shown photos of Chukchi (siberian reindeer herders) they saw a lot of similarity in their faces..
And on another level, they did find the idea that we are all distant cousins rather than completely separate races quite appealing.

There is another recent theory (still quite controversial) that some early north american peoples may have arrived from Europe. Ie. the clovis technology looks very similar to the Solutrean technology (from France 20,000 years ago) and that there is nothing like the clovis spearpoint technology in Siberia. And although there should be no evidence of pre-clovis sites in North America, some sites do turn up.
There is a genetic marker in some east coast first nations that is clearly a European marker but is some 15,000 years old..

of course while youd think there would be strong opposition to such a theory, a first nations spokesman took the view that it shows the strength and tenacity of those early people that they were able to survive in such environments, and again that we are all much closer related than previously believed.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: John O'L
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 06:33 PM

Thanks Wofgang & Petr

I should have realised what their objections would have been.
Science v. religion. Here we go again.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,munchie
Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:20 AM

Since scientists already know everything about man's origin, maybe they should now think about how to cure the common cold or something. I mean, which should be easier to do after all? Seems to me like curing the common cold, or even cancer for that matter, would be easy for the scientists who already know how we originated and "evolved" into our present selves. I would say more, but I'm just not smart enough to talk about scientists. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 05 - 10:38 AM

Ther is a lot of evidence that ABoriginalcultures came to Australia, rather than rising there. They are written about clearly in "Guns Germs and Steel" a really fine study on the movements of cultures through time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:01 AM

"Darwinian evolution requires species to become extinct so that new species can replace them."

Tripe. Species change occurs whenever an opportunity arrives, and one or more existing populations has characteristics which allow them to exploit the opportunity. The opportunity can arrive in many ways, the most common probably being environmental change.

"Now...the Darwinian era is over. The epoch of species competition came to an end about 10 thousand years ago when... Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. ..."

Also tripe. All species are constantly adapting to their environment. Human domination over the last five hundred years is merely another environmental factor from their evolutionary point of view - though perhaps as great a change as an ice age or an asteroid. Why should other species stop competing (to live) just because humans are cutting down the forests they live in?

10 thousand years? You probably couldn't even tell whether any evolutionary adaptations in that timescale were speciation or variation within a species.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:01 AM

Sorry, forgot to sign that last one.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 05 - 11:56 AM

Acupuncture activates the brain

evidence that patients benefit from acupuncture not simply because of their expectations...This study gives a clarification of the possible mechanisms by which acupuncture works, and by understanding the mechanisms we can design better placebos

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 May 05 - 06:36 PM

"Woese is postulating a golden age of pre-Darwinian life, during which horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. Evolution was a communal affair, the whole community advancing in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared."

If I may be so bold, ALSO Tripe. Surely it is apparant that "The clever catalytic processes" were not inherited by all of the microbes at once. How does a one celled organism know which genes to inherit? Obviously it doesn't. Occams razor suggests that the selection mechanism was that the microbes with the better genes outbred and crowded out those without them, Darwinian evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 03 May 05 - 07:41 PM

Thanks, Wolfgang...that is the kind of study I like to see! Real, testable results, with placebo variables thrown in!
There has been lots of anecdotal evidence that acupuncture has some real effects, but it was quite hard to tell whether it was psycho-somatic or not.

This is similar to learning about bio-feedback and how we can actually control some of our body's responses.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 05 - 09:28 PM

If they can get 80% of the pain relief from the placebo effect, why don't they just learn to implement the placebo effect? Surely training someone to heal himself through self-suggesting a placebo effect is more empowering than increasing his dependency on chemicals?


A

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 May 05 - 08:53 AM

Amos,

it has nothing to do with 'healing' it is symptom control. Pain is (usually) a symptom of an illness and pain perception is very subjective. That makes it a promising candidate for replacing pills by techniques using suggestion. I'm all for that of course. However, feeling pain less painful, whether by morphine or suggestion, doesn't make a cancer go away.

The placebo effect in actual healing lamentably looks much less promising yet than the placebo effect in influencing the subjective perception of pain.

A suggestion technique is to be prefered to pills if it works (that seems to be quite variable between persons) for it has not most of the side effects painkiller pills can have. However, one adverse side effect both painkiller pills and a placebo technique share: Pain has a warning function and if a readily available suggestion technique (or pill) suppresses effectively pain perception, the real cause that has triggered the warning signal of pain may be overlooked for just too long.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: jpk
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:00 PM

just remeber,a master in science degree,or any other piece of wallpaper,a scientist it does not make. a scientist is some one,who's thoughts and deeds tend to advance the causes.

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: *Laura*
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:50 PM

I think scientists think about science.
quite a lot of the time.
but not all of the time.

some of the time they think about food.
some of the time they think about sex.
some of the time they think about how food and sex are scientific.

so most of the time I think they think about science.

xLx

(sorry - I am quite tired and have just written a pointless essay for college so I am now brain-dead)

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Paranoid Android
Date: 04 May 05 - 09:37 PM

Enough of where we came from. So where are we going? Is there any scientific evidence that humans are evolving to a higher order of being? Will genetic engineering replace natural evolution to accelerate our progression to a more enlightened species? Can YOU read my mind?

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 24 May 05 - 07:11 AM

On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas

I haven't tried (and am not sure if I could if I tried) to follow the mathematics (and the assumptions) in this modeling but I found the plain language results fascinating:

The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer than 80 individuals...Analyses of Asian and New World data support a model of a recent founding of the New World by a population of quite small effective size.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 05 - 12:03 PM

Since both statistical and DNA/anthropological evidence suggests that this sort of circumstance has happened in various placess in the world..(migration from SE Asia to Australia, for example), I am not suprised. It is interesting, though, to see some refinement of the details, even if the math is overwhelming.

Adding this analysis to the data that indicates that the entire human population was, about 35,000-40,000 years ago, reduced to a few scattered groups numbering in the thousands, it is a wonder that any of us are anywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: What scientists think about
From: mooman
Date: 24 May 05 - 12:46 PM

I am a scientist and think mainly about nekkid Doctors of Archaeology.

I used to think mainly about scientific things in the not-too-distant past but since Mudguard (a computer-professional type naturally) mentioned this repeatedly in the context of the last EuroGathering I find it very hard to purge from my mind.

Peace

moo