Kāmkwid Ŋrāɢweg

Members of carnivora paired with their common ancestor, a miacid. 

Ribbon-seal-male Josh London NOAAedit (16086029928) (cropped)

Official ominous sign

Because there’s a lot of economic behavior seems to be based on the assumption that eg. A particularly productive and healthy dairy cow is more likely to have daughters who are themselves partially productive and healthy dairy cows.

Also there’s stuff that has “scientific consensus” but not social consensus, like cancer treatments, vaccines, the utility of apple cider vinegar, and the historical ranges of various peoples, animals, and diseases.

the history of modern biology has been "so how does heredity work to explain everything?": darwinian evolution, the disproof of spontaneous generation, mendelian punnet square genetics, visible fruit fly chromosomal genetics, mutation tracing, genetic transformation, finding out the molecular shape of DNA is "here's where the heredity is stored and you can just read it off", reading it off and reconstructing phylogenetic trees...

I am seriously asking, is heredity being true currently uncontroversial? References to Lysenkoism are here to illustrate that no claiming to not believe in heredity would really fuck up people’s lives within living memory.

Like, I can roll out an argument based on “dinosaurs existed” and expect it to go better than an argument based on “Darwin was right” because Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Institute got “dinosaurs existed” to be uncontroversial among people who still don’t believe in evolution.

but also, mormon elders. i suggested they go down the way and have fun arguing with the freaks there

"Playing priest, and telling employees their request isn't legitimate, does not tend to bode well for companies," said Herd, also a cohost of the "HR Besties" podcast. "A jury doesn't like it when employees get made fun of by managers or HR."

Because there’s a lot of economic behavior seems to be based on the assumption that eg. A particularly productive and healthy dairy cow is more likely to have daughters who are themselves partially productive and healthy dairy cows.

Also there’s stuff that has “scientific consensus” but not social consensus, like cancer treatments, vaccines, the utility of apple cider vinegar, and the historical ranges of various peoples, animals, and diseases.

the history of modern biology has been "so how does heredity work to explain everything?": darwinian evolution, the disproof of spontaneous generation, mendelian punnet square genetics, visible fruit fly chromosomal genetics, mutation tracing, genetic transformation, finding out the molecular shape of DNA is "here's where the heredity is stored and you can just read it off", reading it off and reconstructing phylogenetic trees...

I am seriously asking, is heredity being true currently uncontroversial? References to Lysenkoism are here to illustrate that no claiming to not believe in heredity would really fuck up people’s lives within living memory.

Because there’s a lot of economic behavior seems to be based on the assumption that eg. A particularly productive and healthy dairy cow is more likely to have daughters who are themselves partially productive and healthy dairy cows.

Also there’s stuff that has “scientific consensus” but not social consensus, like cancer treatments, vaccines, the utility of apple cider vinegar, and the historical ranges of various peoples, animals, and diseases.

the history of modern biology has been "so how does heredity work to explain everything?": darwinian evolution, the disproof of spontaneous generation, mendelian punnet square genetics, visible fruit fly chromosomal genetics, mutation tracing, genetic transformation, finding out the molecular shape of DNA is "here's where the heredity is stored and you can just read it off", reading it off and reconstructing phylogenetic trees...