#macroevolution
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Photo
EVOLUTION -- KJV (King James Version) Bible Verse List #Scriptures #BibleStudy #BibleVerses Note: While the following verses are not actually discussing evolution, being as the theory obviously did not exist back then, nevertheless, they could very easily be used to describe the belief in evolution today, being as the mentality is basically the same. "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." James 3:15, KJV "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20, KJV "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13, KJV "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20, KJV "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:21-23, 25, KJV "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." Jeremiah 2:27, KJV "And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks." Jeremiah 3:9, KJV "But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities." Jeremiah 10:8, KJV If you would like more info regarding the origin of these KJV Bible verse lists, go to https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/. Thank-you! https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/evolution-kjv-king-james-version-bible-verse-list/?EVOLUTION%20--%20KJV%20%28King%20James%20Version%29%20Bible%20Verse%20List
#BIBLE#BIBLE_STUDY#BILL_KOCHMAN#BILLS_BIBLE_BASICS#CHARLES_DARWIN#EVOLUTION#KING_JAMES_VERSION#KJV#LIST#MACROEVOLUTION#SCRIPTURE#SCRIPTURES#TOPICAL#VERSE#VERSES
0 notes
Text
Anyone heard of Stabilization Theory?
It's an alternative to current evolutionary model that posits that most new species emerge from 'stabilization processes', which include variations in ploidy and (more notably) hybridization. It also includes ideas such as:
You can get hybrids of pretty much any two vertebrates in nature
Humans specifically are pig-chimp hybrids
Dinosaurs (among other mesozoic reptiles) were actually mammals, and evolved into the mammalian groups we see today
Stegosaurs in particular were actually giant pangolins, with their tail spikes actually being claws
It's clearly complete hogwash, but it could work for fantasy worldbuilding if you like stuffing evolution into fantasy worlds. You get hybrid creatures as part of the theory, and you could probably come up with some interesting creature ideas based on the dinosaur nonsense. Anyways, thanks for reading this
#evolution#macroevolution#stabilization theory#pseudoscience#bad science#worldbuilding inspo#worldbuilding inspiration#dinosaur#stegosaurus#pangolin
1 note
·
View note
Text
Abstract A negative answer to the question about the reducibility of genetic processes at the level of macroevolutionary events to microevolutionary ones has been obtained by analyzing the evolutionary transition-transversion bias and estimating the rates of molecular transformations in a number of vertebrates by the example of the CYTB gene. As a result, it has been established that, at a divergence at a level below families, the frequency of transitions sustains “a jump,” due to which the rate of molecular evolutions increases by an order of magnitude, whereas there occurs a slight predominance of transversion frequencies with a synchronous linear increase in the frequency of different nucleotide substitutions at the levels of orders and higher. An obvious reason for distinctions between the genetic processes of micro- and macroevolution is the leading role of spontaneous mutations in the formation of species. Their canalization results in stable morphological distinctions formed during postnatal ontogenesis. At the same time, the stages of macroevolution are associated with the transformation of organogenesis to be fixed with by changes in the sets of genes governing the nature of gene regulation and the interaction of genes in development.
#microevolution#macroevolution#transitiontransversionbias#mutationprocess#geneticsaturation#generegulation
0 notes
Text
Microevolution can be used to predict longer term evolution, new study shows
Microevolution can be used to predict longer term evolution, new study shows #evolution #microevolution #macroevolution #study #climate #evolvability #change #selection #science
A new paper published in Science, Evolvability predicts macroevolution under fluctuating selection, shows that evolvability, which is the ability of populations to evolve and adapt over just a few generations, can help us understand how evolution works on deeper time scales. While our relatively stable past environment has limited selective pressures, current climate change has caused more rapid…

View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
Hey y'all! My brother (not the one I live with) and I have birthdays fairly close together, and he'd like to get together and do some kind of joint celebration, but I have no idea what to do. He's an anti-vaxxer but is willing to wear a mask around me, but his kids won't so effectively whatever we do has to be outside Do you have suggestions of things we could do that are A. outside B. suitable for small children (youngest is old enough to run around and talk but not really reading yet) and C. no flashing lights?
#the person behind the yarn#he suggested a picnic and like...I do not trust his kids to stay distanced from us#and when we are eating no one is wearing masks#and my dad isn't going to tell them to go away#they are his grandkids and they are small children he's doubly not going to do that#but also. I am immunocompromised and I live with my dad#and my niece goes to an anti-masking school#and like. I fundamentally do not understand given a member of his own household is also very high risk#why my brother is so antivax#but he also doesn't believe in evolution and once took me to a like guest speaker lecture thing#about how evolution doesn't exist it's just microevolution not macroevolution (I was like 12)#and what I took away from it was oh! microevolution is a useful term for small changes in a short time frame!#it was not the intended lesson lol#hey I think he was the one that had me read the Narnia books too!#that also did not give me the intended message I somehow fully missed the allegory as a child
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
I’d argue that we have excellent evidence that Diplodocus didn’t cause Gonorrhea (knowing what does cause gonorrhea, general understanding of infectious diseases, general understanding of animals).
Direct experimental evidence is not actually the only way to build scientific knowledge!

#source: I am an evolutionary biologist#look I know this was a joke but it also stems from a REALLY common misconception about what constitutes the scientific method okay#one that drives my whole subfield (macroevolution) bonkers#biology#SCIENCE#dinosaurs#amusing things#also: we have even better evidence that diplodocus does not currently cause gonorrhea
76K notes
·
View notes
Text
moved some stuff around in my room and got my chem lab work mostly done tonight i feel good ofc ofc
#85 on evolution test as well which is good considering i didint have the mya for the big macroevolution#events memorized and that was like 6 questions. anyways all good#still waiting on chem test to be graded but until then i have the pre lab for tuesday and to start some of the online work due wednesday bu#im probs done for the night my back hurts. i need to invest in one of those raised bed desks i just have a sheet of flat plastic for rn
1 note
·
View note
Text
NEW PAPER FROM CAU HUGE IF TRUE
Cau A. (2024). A Unified Framework for Predatory Dinosaur Macroevolution. Bulletin of the Italian Paleontological Society , 63(1): 1-19. doi:10.4435/BSPI.2024.08
313 notes
·
View notes
Note
I don't want kids, but I LOVE other people's kids.
I would absolute hate any kid that put me through the body horror of unplanned/unwanted/evil/awful/nightmare pregnancy, but if someone dropped a baby on my doorstep, I'd love the crap out of that kid.
I would (and probably will, I'm still just young) older kids someday, because I don't need it to be a baby and kids older than 7 have like a 90% chance of never getting adopted (most adopting parents request 6 and under, it's weird, you'd think it would 4-5 and under, but it's not. The legal world changes for kids at 7).
I'm also personally not great with babies. I like them, but they don't like me. There's a joke in my family that you can put a happy, smiling baby in my arms and it will be a freaking out, crying baby in a few minutes, but kids old enough to talk love me.
I'm also not a super fan of the stage of babies before they can lift their head where the only reason they're not still fetuses is because human babies started being born at 9 months instead of 11-12 months of gestation when humans started walking upright 5-ish million years ago, which is another reason I should adopt older. Parents who really want baby-babies should adopt the baby-babies, while future me would be perfectly happy with an older one.
In an ideal world, I'd adopt a 2.5-year-old, but I'll probably go 7+ cuz of the adoption issues older kids have.
The whole point of my comment is that you don't know how you feel about a hypothetical person until you know them in the flesh.
I can't tell whether by "body horror/evil/awful/nightmare pregnancy" you are referring to outlying criminal cases or if you are characterizing all pregnancy this way, but regardless, focusing on those rare instances as your point of reference for pregnancy as a phenomenon is unhealthy. Doubtless your mistaken belief in macroevolution and the according notion that humans aren't designed to optimally birth their own babies contributes to this outlook.
Your claim that you would "hate" any child for circumstances outside his or her control is very disturbing. I highly recommend resolving this dysfunctional view of children before adopting any.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Edvard's Supernatural Guide: 4x14 Sex and Violence
Mild spoilers for 4x21 When the Levee Breaks
Many a time I have been asked to 'prove' that Dean is gay. Why I am asked to prove Dean is 'gay' when I mostly claim he is bisexual is a whole different topic, but this is an episode I often refer to. It is not the episode which proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but claiming that there is nothing in the fact that the siren – a creature defined by its sexual allure -- appears to Dean as a man is akin to sticking one's fingers in his ears and going 'lalalalalalalala not listening not listening lalalalalalala'. Or at least this is how it feels: the reality is subtly different.
Long-time readers might remember my having used my friend Lara's metaphor of hunting as trauma, especially generational trauma. 'Normal people' cannot see monsters, and scoff at the idea of the Otherworld existing because it is utterly outside their weltanschauung. Likewise, 'normal people' cannot understand trauma or traumatised people and often do not think it 'real'. Even when presented with evidence, rejection and refusal is often the response because it is not how the 'normal' person experiences the world. Similarly, those who insist Dean is straight require no evidence to do so: he just is because that is how the world works. Men just are straight, and any evidence to the contrary is seen as ludicrous. Moreover – and this is admittedly getting into the realm of speculation – bringing their attention to the fact that their assumptions are based on nothing, and that their way of viewing and experiencing the world is not the neutral, unbiased standard is met with ridicule and even hostility in part because they want to hold onto their belief that X is The Norm and Y is The Aberration.
All of this was of course fancy talk for: they do not and will not see it because they do not want to. They may ask to see evidence, but this is a ruse to save face: no evidence will convince them because they do not want to be convinced. They want us to present our flimsy 'evidence' so that they can sneer at it and prove to themselves that they are correct. This means that any evidence presented to them will be rejected out of hand, and those of us presenting it will be mocked and made out to be twisted, obsessed, or some kind of perverted. As a long-time atheist, this is frustratingly familiar from dealing with religionists, and puts me rather in mind of Richard Dawkins' famous 'debate' with Wendy Wright in which she -- utterly unschooled in evolutionary biology -- denied the existence of any kind of 'material evidence' of 'macroevolution'. Below is a highlight reel to give you an idea (and here is the whole thing for the adventurous among you.)
youtube
In other words: we are dealing with religious types, which reminds me of the Christopher Hitchens quote: 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.' If you want to claim Dean is straight, provide evidence.
Looping back around, this is not simply a case of 'lalalalala not listening lalalalalala', but rather an inability and refusal to see. Next time somebody tells you to prove Dean is gay/bi, first ask 'What would convince you?' Cas can tearfully confess his love for Dean seconds before sacricing himself to save him and people dismiss interpretations of Cas as gay, and people can see a siren turning into a man for Dean and laugh at the idea of him being anything other than straight, which should tell you that the denial is deeply ingrained.
Gay-baiting and queercoding are of course made to exist in this liminal space between: the reason it has existed for so long is that it is such an effective tool for either telling gay stories which fly under the censor's radar, or else luring in the GLBT audience with promises which come to nothing, i.e. Exploitation. Since I am a gay viewer who knows about this kind of thing and actively look for it, I can spot it. I can spot metaphors (Doyle in Angel being 'half-human, half-demon, e.g 'bi'racial)...
...bisexual lighting, references, looks between characters, etc, but to the majority this will look like desperately grasping for straws and 'reading too much into things'. The double-edged sword of queercoding.
youtube
As mentioned above, this is not the episode to prove anything. The reason for this is the fact that it tells us the siren turns into a man for Dean because it wanted to control him through fraternal love, becoming a 'little brother' for Dean to get him to kill Sam. The show tells the viewer this, and of course there is no reason why a siren would have to use sexual love to control its victims. Most of the viewership are perfectly content to absorb what the show tells us and ignore or completely miss what it shows us. ...Or even contradictory things which the show tells us. The episode tells us that the siren wants to fall in love again and again and again. It tell sus that oxytocin is the hormone released during sex, when falling in love, or when breastfeeding. It tell us that the siren wants Dean to be with him. But of course the straight explanation trumps everything, so we can ignore all of that -_-
I bristle even at the notion of having to spend my life with people rejecting and mocking my way of being in the world. I do not want to let people pretend men like me do not exist: I am not going to sit down and shut up just because I 'have my rights'. I do not want to be a ghost in other people's stories nor settle for being shunted to the margins. Or accept that the experiences of people like me could only be of interest or relevance to people like me. Titanic and Moulin Rouge are among my favourite films, and the fact the romance in them is heterosexual does not affect me, my worldview, or my sexuality in any way whatsoever. But Brokeback Mountain and All of Us Strangers are only for the gays, apparently.
And yes, I am talking about stories. Stories are important: the main reason I started writing these analyses is because stories are never just stories: they are a way for us to know what is possible. If all we see of gay/bi men is sad, lonely, bitter figures like Thomas in Downton Abbey, death and rejection like Arvid and Robert in The Emigrants, or the stereotyped fashion accessories of Stanford and Anthony in Sex and the City, it is hard to imagine anything else. And if people reject the validity of Dean being bisexual in spite of tons of evidence, then we see that we too are rejected.
But if I can see a man like Dean who (appears) confident, healthy, finds friends, a home, and ends up having a life worth living, then I know that is possible for me as well. I am aware that to the uninitiated some of this may well sound irrational, melodramatic, and ridiculous, to which my response is: spend 33 years in my boots, then you might understand.
An unusual way to begin an analysis of a Supernatural episode, but I do not think it just or right that I – and others like me – should have to spend our lives believing we are aberrant, wrong, or of no interest because we are not a part of The Norm. I also do not accept that I should be pushed to the margins, treated as a joke, and made to content myself with whatever scraps the mainstream throws me. Dean bones men, and sometimes men bone him. Deal with it.
For now, though, I will put this discussion on hold to discuss the other aspects of the episode. First up, Sam's incompetence.
Sam is supposed to be a professional demon-hunter with years of experience under his belt. He wants Dean to trust him and treat him like a responsible adult. In spite of that, his behaviour shows time after time that he should not even be trusted with a pair of scissors. For those of you who might not remember the episode, the situation is as follows: Dean and Sam are working a case involving men being controlled by women through sex. They find out very quickly from Bobby that the culprit is probably a siren. Despite this knowledge, Sam allowed himself to be alone in a room with a woman who was being less than subtle about wanting his D. He allowed Doctor Roberts to seduce him, give him alcohol, and have sex with him, all while he was supposed to be working.
This man is an idiot. That people think he is the intelligent brother must be down to that show vs tell thing, i.e. Nobody pays attention to what the show shows us. He is a moron who thinks with his penis. If Dean treats him like a child, it is because Sam acts like a stupid teenager. If he were only putting himself at risk, then it would be bad enough, but he knows very well that the siren's victims are made to kill the people closest to them, i.e. A wife or mother. Ergo, Sam was also endangering Dean's life, or Bobby's. While he was supposed to be working. Still, at least it is not quite as criminally negligent as John in 1x18 Something Wicked.
Further to the subject of endangering Dean, Sam chose not to answer Dean's phone calls while Doctor Roberts was trying to jump his bones. When on a hunt, a phone call could be a matter of life and death, so not answering that was dereliction of duty.
People who are on their first viewing of the show might wonder at my distaste for Sam, but the reason is mostly this: he is almost never held accountable for his actions or bad behaviour. When he claims to feel sorry or to want to apologise for something, it is usually because he wants to indulge in some self-pity until he gets bored, whereupon he resumes his bad behaviour as though he has learnt nothing. This continues for 15 years and he is never made to truly own up to it. He wants to be an adult, but is stuck in a perpetual adolescence.
This is evident in this very episode: after Dean finds out Sam engaged in coitus with what might be the siren, Dean refuses to allow Sam to join him in hunting the siren. This precipitates a puerile paddywhack from Sam which entails him throwing his mobile phone against a wall in anger. Anger that his immature behaviour had consequences and that Dean did not trust him or treat him like an adult.
Moreover, he not only does not learn from his mistakes, but passes off responsibility for his actions to others, namely Dean, whom he holds responsible for most of the bad things in Sam's life. But the show still wants us to think he is a sympathetic hero and to ignore all his crappy behaviour. As a result, I have no sympathy for nor interest in Sam. He is like the vampires in Buffy, a metaphor for somebody who cannot grow up and cannot change. At least the vampires in Buffy are actually villains are no excuses are made for them, unlike Sam. I find no aspect of Sam likeable, and I make no bones of the fact I regard him as dead weight in the show who probably only stuck around so long because of the hordes of fan girls who would have tuned out if he were killed off.
He is also generally nasty to Dean. In her review, Paula discussed Sam's Kick the Dog moment. A Kick the Dog moment is when a villain kicks a dog, showing the audience that s/he is irredeemable. Paula brought up Sam calling Dean whiney and mocking his Hell trauma as Sam's Kick the Dog moment, with Dean being the dog here. At that point, Sam has passed the villain event horizon. The end of series eight might have succeeded in bringing him back, but alas see above RE: wants to indulge in self-pity until he gets bored. Before too long, he goes right back to his poisonous narcissistic behaviour in series nine. Having watched the entire show, I find Sam ultimately irredeemable and a waste of a character.
And I said I would not have to write much about Sam's NPD for a few episodes yet. Time to move on, I suppose.
You might have noticed I said 'siren's victims' before. Paula's review of this episode brought up the idea that it might have been seen by some as misogyny if the wife- and mother-killing men had been portrayed as victims. This was in part mentioned due to the inconsistency in portrayals of the murderers, motives, and mental states: the viewer is to believe that the first murderer whom Dean and Sam meet in prison is entirely responsible for what happened, and Dean's attitude towards him in that scene supports that interpretation. However, it is later made clear enough that the men are essentially date-raped into doing the siren's bidding.
Therefore, it seems like a logical conclusion that the men are victims of the siren, even if they were completely aware of what they were doing the whole time: their mind and body had been altered. To this I add the fact that the siren could only be killed with a bronze dagger soaked in the blood of men who were under his/her/its spell. The fact that it is the men taking an 'active' role in killing people in their lives hides this. It is the same as when somebody is 'coerced into sex' regardless of whether s/he takes an 'active' or 'passive' role.
A slight side-track: in Smallville 4x11 Unsafe Clark is similarly mind-controlled and essentially date-raped by kryptonite resulting in his marrying Alicia in Las Vegas. At the end of the episode, Mr and Mrs Kent hold Clark to blame for everything that happens, and the presentation of that discussion is such that the audience is presumably supposed to agree with the Kent. I maintain that that is a load of balls and when Jason was about to blast them to Kingdom Come in 4x22 Commencement, I was unequivocally on his side.
That the siren exploits and enhances extant grievances does not change that basic fact: the siren is is in control. But that the grievances exist is worthy of discussion. The couple in the cold open do not seem like a happily married couple if you pay attention: the wife is a little jumpy, suggesting perhaps several recent arguments. The relationship cold also have been physically abusive, though the ease with which the wife makes plans for her husband's free time does not seem to fit all too well with that.
I do not for a second buy what Bobby said at the end, i.e. That nothing the siren makes people say is real. Every single word which came out of Dean's mouth before his fight with Sam rang true, and every word which came out of Sam's mouth sounded like pure, unfiltered Sam. And if nothing which came out of their mouths while under the siren's influence, what was the narrative point of any of it? There would be none, just like electro!Sam would be pointless in 1x10 Asylum and shifter!Dean would be pointless in 1x06 Skin.
Sam has betrayed Dean and lied to him for well over a year. He has thrown his lot in with humanity's enemies and refuses to feel guilty about it. Dean is right to say that the Sam he knew is gone, or perhaps the Sam Dean thought he knew is gone. Sam is not right to claim that Dean is weak, nor that Dean is holding him back, but as Paula pointed out in her review, Sam reveals truths about himself in what he says. All of Sam's accusations against Dean are projections of his own insecurities. He knows he is less competent than Dean, but does not want to admit it to himself or his brother. Instead, he attacks to avoid dealing with his own issues, true to character (and true to narcissistic personality disorder).
By attack, I meant that Dean criticises Sam's behaviour whereas Sam attacks Dean for checks notes talking about his experience in hell for a few minutes and being seriously damaged by everything he did there. In other words, Dean's makes valid criticisms whereas Sam goes for personal attacks. ...Just like a narcissist.
The word 'narcissist', as you know, comes from the word 'Narcissus', the Latin version of the Ancient Greek name Narkissos. Narkissos was a semi-divine being who ended up falling in love with a man he saw in a pool of water, not realising it was his own reflection. When Narkissos eventually realised that the man in the water would never love him back, he killed himself, leaving behind only a narcissus (daffodil) flower.
youtube
Hyacinth is another flower of some significance in Greek mythology. Like the narcissus flower, the hyacinth in Greek myth is also heavily associated with same-sex attration. Huakinthos was a beautiful Spartan prince with whom the sun god Apollo fell in love. But he was also the beloved of Boreas the north wind, Thamyris the singer, and Zephyrus the god of the west wing (all male, just so you know). Huakinthos chose Apollo to be his lover. One day, Huakinthos and Apollo were playing discus, and the spurned west wind Zephyrus blew Apollo's discus off course so that it struck Huakinthos in the head and mortally wounded him. Apollo failed to cure him, and could not make him immortal. Apollo begged Hades to kill him, but was rejected. In the end, Apollo decided to keep Huakinthos's memory alive through song and poetry, and by making a flower out of Huakinthos's blood, the hyacinth.
youtube
The hyacinth appears in this episode of Supernatural, closely associated with the siren and by extension Dean. This fact is more meaningful in context of the story of Apollo and Huakinthos and same-sex attraction. Which means it is finally time to brush the foreplay aside and get right to business: that being Dean and Nick the siren.
It is valid to view Nick's control over Dean as being purely platonic. Interpreting it this way doe snot contradict anything in the show, and it is in line with what it tell sus is going on. Ostensibly, Nick is using Dean's grievances at Sam's betrayal to control Dean. Dean 'wants a little brother he can trust' and all that jazz. However, this is a surface-level interpretation and erases a huge part of the mythology of sirens, that being their use of sexual allure to control and kill their victims. This is not only a Greek mythology thing, but has a more recent equivalent in the German Lorelei (whom I know of -- once again -- because of the music I listen to:
youtube
and has even featured in a D&D campaign I played a few years ago. The mermaids in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides were also very reminiscent of sirens, luring men in with their song and then dragging them into the sea to feed on them.
youtube
The siren in Supernatural is also associated with sex: it takes the form of 'exotic dancers', has sex with men and gets them to kill people close to them. The man from the cold open had sex with the siren, and the man who killed his mother was depicted copulating with the siren. Consequently I must conclude that sex is an inherent part of the siren's mode of operation, so it seems strange to me that Nick would alter his whole method for one person when the method was shown to be foolproof.
Such being said, Nick can read minds at least to such a degree that he can change his appearance to be whatever his prey desires. Nick also seemed to know a lot about Dean and Sam's relationship without any such conversation between Nick and Dean being shown, so one can infer that Nick might have known Dean and Sam were hunters. If he knew, then he would have known they were looking for (female) strippers, for which reason trying his usual trick would be dangerous. Dean and Sam would treat any attractive woman trying to get into their pants with extreme suspicion (well, Dean would: Sam would have sex with her with the blinds open). Much safer then to appear in a form they would not expect, i.e. as a man.
But if the siren knew it was in danger from hunters, why stick around at all? Why not just run a few thousand miles and start again elsewhere? Either the siren was hubristic, or sensed that he could still get to Dean in man-form, and if he could get to Dean in man-form, there was no reason to believe that the usual tactics of sex then murder-by-proxy would be unsuccessful.
But wait! The siren appeared to Dean as a man because Dean wanted a little brother! Stop trying to make this about sex! Did you even watch the episode?!
The episode made things about sex the moment it decided to:
a) introduce a siren b) show the siren using sex to control her victims
So yes, I did watch the episode. Nick talked about Dean needing a 'little brother', but Dean and Nick would not be brothers: they would be close male friends, and no part of being close friends necessarily precludes a sexual and/or romantic relationship forming.
A random woman (or man) would not be able to get close to Dean. All he has ever known is family, and he believes that love = family. Saying Bobby is 'like a father to me' is Dean's way of saying he loves Bobby. Saying Cas is 'like family' was Dean's way of saying 'I love you'. The only way to ingratiate oneself with Dean would be to become 'like family'. Only after that could an actual sexual relationship begin. As a result, Nick ostensibly wanting to be Dean's 'little brother' is a crowbar to get under Dean's armour, part of his manipulation and seduction.
If all the siren wanted were to become Dean's little brother, why would Nick use such romantic language? 'Dean is mine', 'Dean loves me', 'you can be with me forever', and 'I want to fall in love again and again and again'. Why would the episode bring up the 'love hormone' oxytocin, the hormone released during sex, when falling in love, when holding hands, or when breastfeeding? Why the strippers, why the mirroring of Dean/Nick with Sam/Doc Roberts?
And if the siren's plan were just to become Dean's brother, did her plan hinge entirely on the possibility that Dean might at some point share a flask with him and forget to wipe the brim? Why would it change its plan so fundamentally to be completely contingent on such an unlikely happenstance? That makes no sense at all to me. The only thing which really makes sense is that Nick saw his opportunity to make things go quicker when Dean handed him the flask, but his plan was actually the same as always: transfer of saliva through kissing, then sex.
Oxytocin is inextricably linked with physical sexual arousal, social bonding, trust, empathy, and romantic attachment. It is more than a rush of dopamine, it is the hormone necessary for long-term, let's-grow-old-together-and-rot-together love. Another aspect of (successful, healthy) long-term relationships is bonding over shared interests, such as Dean and Nick did: Nick showed appreciation for and interest in Dean's car, and by extension Dean's life...
...and then in the strip club he and Dean bonded over music. Nick built a rapport between them which could serve as the basis for further romantic development, which is what the siren lives for. Nick was in love with Dean (if only in a Machiavellian way) and allowed Dean to begin falling in love with him in return.
So people who want to take the episode at face value and deny any suggestion of sex and romance between Dean and Nick can do so, but they are making a choice to ignore all this stuff. That is fine, to each his own. But can those who make that choice please stop trying to make the rest of us think we are insane for seeing what the episode actually shows us? That would be great.
And if the plan was really to become Deans little brother', did his entire plan hinge on the faint possibility that one day he and Dean might share a flask and Dean might forget to wipe the lip? Or that they might otherwise share a beverage container and Dean might swallow his backwash?
Enough of that now. This episode is largely stand-alone, but does allow long-simmering tensions between Dean and Sam to come to a head. It is a shame their relationship does not really change at all as a result of this. In fact, the fight will be repeated in 4x21 When the Levee Breaks for pretty much the same reasons. Sam refuses to learn from his betters and Dean is not allowed by the writers to truly teach Sam a lesson about betrayal. Both brothers almost became a fratricide in this episode, but this was because they were both date-raped. What happens in 4x21 When the Levee Breaks has no such mitigating circumstances, and is the result of two years of Sam's self-absorbed choices. I think it honestly a shame that Bobby appeared ex machina when he did to stop Dean splitting Sam's skull. How much better the show would be...
A few last little points before finishing this. Sam was an idiot at the beginning for calling Ruby with the toilet door open while Dean was asleep in the next room. He was also an idiot for making the call in the same four walls as Dean, as he was also an idiot for forgetting his phone and missing the telling look Dean gave him upon returning his phone.
And I hereby finish this analysis. Next time the show gets back into Neil Gaiman territory as Tessa makes a return and reapers are captured with rituals. See you then! Further discussion on this analysis available here
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Sundry
You can also read Paula's review here and Demian's here.
P.S. Doctor Roberts also has no taste in men. Sam's puppy dog eyes do nothing for me whatsoever, and there is no chance in Hell Sam would be able to cock-block Dean if I were in Doctor Roberts' chair. None.
#edvard's supernatural guide#spn meta#meta analysis#spn#supernatural#bi!dean#siren#jensen ackles#apollo#apollo x hyacinthus#narcissus#queerbaiting#dean winchester#greek mythology#spn 4x14#s04e14#sex and violence#spn 4x14 sex and violence
37 notes
·
View notes
Photo
EVOLUTION -- KJV (King James Version) Bible Verse List #Scriptures #BibleStudy #BibleVerses Note: While the following verses are not actually discussing evolution, being as the theory obviously did not exist back then, nevertheless, they could very easily be used to describe the belief in evolution today, being as the mentality is basically the same. "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." James 3:15, KJV "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20, KJV "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13, KJV "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20, KJV "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:21-23, 25, KJV "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." Jeremiah 2:27, KJV "And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks." Jeremiah 3:9, KJV "But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities." Jeremiah 10:8, KJV If you would like more info regarding the origin of these KJV Bible verse lists, go to https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/. Thank-you! https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/evolution-kjv-king-james-version-bible-verse-list/?EVOLUTION%20--%20KJV%20%28King%20James%20Version%29%20Bible%20Verse%20List
#BIBLE#BIBLE_STUDY#BILL_KOCHMAN#BILLS_BIBLE_BASICS#CHARLES_DARWIN#EVOLUTION#KING_JAMES_VERSION#KJV#LIST#MACROEVOLUTION#SCRIPTURE#SCRIPTURES#TOPICAL#VERSE#VERSES
0 notes
Text
16 Days Till Med School Entries

Today I was at the library with a really good friend of mine 🤗 we laughed too hard!
It's always so nice to have friends around especially while studying! It makes it easier since the struggle is shared lmao by this being said...*cough* @claykitty-studyblog *cough* still waiting for u to come with me 😏
I did:
Microevolution ✅️
Macroevolution ✅️
Crossingover ✅️
Thanks to @study-diaries for the tag!!
Last song I listened to: according to my Spotify it was Imam Chovek by Itzo Hazarta (not expecting anyone to know it lmao)
Currently watching: Magnificent century 👌 👑 it's a turkish historical series and it's SOOO good!! Just binged 3 episodes lmao
Sweet / Savoury / Spicy?: sweet for sure!! 🍰
Relashionship status: happily taken for 2 years now 🌎💕
Current obsession: bruh, I don't think I have one atm
I tag: @claykitty-studyblog @glassingshards @rain-is-studying @zzzzzestforlife @medstudsposts @anna--studies @thequeerlibrarian-studyblr
#studyblr#studying#study blog#study motivation#notes#study aesthetic#biology#chemistry#grades#organic chemistry
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
So the Preliminary SVP Schedule got released
For those unfamiliar, SVP = Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
usually when paleontologists say "SVP" they mean specifically the conference that SVP hosts each year, one of the biggest events for the "spends their lives studying old bones" people each year
each day has six sessions - three in the morning, three in the afternoon - and they're packed with talks. like, if you want to see talks in two different concurrent sessions, you gotta run around like a maniac
anyways
Wednesday Morning has Sauropods & Ornithischians, Early Mammals & Carnivorans, and then Fishes & Amphibians as three different sessions (all of these are groups of three going forward)
Wednesday afternoon has Dinosaur Soft Tissues, Ungulates, and Marine Reptiles
Thursday Morning has Romer Prize (fancy student talks), Birds, and Preparators' Session
Thursday afternoon has Theropod Flight Origins, Mammal Paleoecology, and Sauropsids
Friday morning has Euarchontoglires & Xenarthra, Archosaurs, and Methods & Paleohistology
Friday afternoon has Actinopterygians, Crocodylomorphs & Turtles, and Paleoecology & Paleoclimatology
Saturday morning has Theropods I, Afrotheria & Mammal Macroevolution, and Synapsids
and Saturday afternoon has Theropods II, Marine Mammals & Bats, and Squamates
The fact that Theropods get four separate focused sessions while Ornithischians and Sauropods are smushed into one is... well, I'm laughing my head off at Theropod bias right now
would you like theropods? Or more theropods? How about some THEROPODS
78 notes
·
View notes
Note
Awesome new video on conservation and the Jurassic Park/World movies!
Completely unrelated, but I'm actually a current UChicago PhD student studying paleontology (+ macroevolution and a litany of other stuff), and I'm wondering which evolution/paleo-centric classes you took.
I managed to squeeze into Dinosaur Science during my last semester of 4th year. I dunno if Paul Sereno would remember me, but if you see him, tell him I say hi!
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
Submitted via Google Form:
I have a world in which evolution changes rapidly because there's a magical component to it because there's a ancient population of shapeshifters whose DNA is in just about everyone's ancestries. Problem is, I'm having trouble trying to define rules as to what makes sense and how quickly/slow certain changes can be? I'm talking mostly on the microevolution scale but sometimes it definitely results in some macroevolution. People are not chameleons, no. I mean like, I hear that skin colour is macroevolution, but in my world it's microevolution and it changes when people move around. It doesn't take 10000 years it takes maybe 50 years.
Tex: 10,000 years to 50 years seems to be the ratio you already want to work with, and it seems as good of a pick as any when it comes to worldbuilding in a fantasy world. What aspects are important in your worldbuilding, and is this something you require for the development of a plot, or something to answer questions that you’re using worldbuilding to address?
Addy: If skin color (or other things) can change within a person's lifetime, that doesn't seem like actual evolution. Seems more like epigenetics to me, albeit particularly slow-acting.
Evolution is a gradual process where random changes in the genome either fit or do not fit their environment. If the genome change fits, it's likely that the bearer of that gene will live long enough to have children. Random genes pop up all the time, it's just that many of them aren't helpful. That's why evolution takes time - you only have a chance to change at each new generation.
If you've got shapeshifters and people with hyperadaptability, there seem to be two approaches to me.
One, epigenetics. People have these genes, but they aren't always expressed. Think of how animals have summer and winter coats, and animals kept indoors have thinner winter coats. Birds change their plumage depending on the season. Goats in colder weather will grow finer coats than goats in warmer weather (which is why the most expensive cashmere comes from very cold mountainous regions). So your people have all these genes, it's just a matter of whether or not those genes are activated at the moment. This could work extremely quickly, on a matter of weeks or months.
Second option is a magic handwaving. Maybe each region of the world has its own magical frequency (like how the background noise of songbirds, insects, etc is different depending on what species are native), and people's bodies slowly "tune into" that natural regional frequency. So their bodies express effects more suited to that frequency as they tune in, and any children born are born with their parents' tuning.
If you wanted to have generational changes but not changes-in-a-living-person, the adaptation/tuning phase could be limited to gestation or early childhood.
But straight genetics... genetics don't change over the lifetime of an individual, so that's a limiting factor. You can work around it with other things, but genetics just aren't suited for that.
12 notes
·
View notes