See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Mathmeticians Destroy Evolution Theory
Source:
pathlights
URL Source: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
Published: Oct 25, 2006
Author: na
Post Date: 2006-10-25 16:48:25 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 358
Comments: 29
**go to url for links WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION With the dawn of large main-frame computers came the data needed to disprove evolution. Wistar buried evolutionary theory. Yet the evolutionists won't admit it. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the evidence found in nature. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts. CONTENTS: Wistar Destroys Evolution The 1966 Philadelphia Meeting - Evolution destroyed by mathematical facts at Wistar The 1969 Alpbach Meeting - More evidence against evolution The 1980 New York Meeting - The situation became even worse The 1984 Cambridge Meeting - The finishing touch This material is excerpted from the book, HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. (See Order Sheet.) An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, History of Evolutionary Theory. THE 1966 PHILADELPHIA MEETING It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts. "The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4. A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark: "The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5. A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is. For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence. *C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring! The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute. It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action. For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction. *Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism! *George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die. For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by *Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells). The 1969 Alpbach Meeting A follow-up meeting was held in 1969 at Alpbach, but it only resulted in fruitless discussions in defense of evolution, angry words by some, desperation by others desiring some kind of "evolutionary" solution that scientists could ably defend, and additional presentations of evidence that evolutionary theory was unscientific. Although it was an important meeting, little space was given to it in the public press. "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium, in 1969, called `Beyond Reductionism,' for the express purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism he was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist, Holgar Hyden; zoologists, Paul Weiss and W.H. Thorpe; linguist, David McNeil; and child psychologist, Jean Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his opening remarks: `. . invitations were confined to personalities in academic life, with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent. "At the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966, which brought together mathematicians and biologists of impeccable academic credentials, Sir Peter Medawar acknowledged in his introductory address the existence of a widespread feeling of skepticism over the role of chance in evolution, a feeling in his own words that: `. . something is missing from orthodox theory.' "—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), pp. 327-328. THE 1980 NEW YORK MEETING For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation, not evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading paleontologists, such as *Gould and Stanley, were brazenly flaunting the foolishness of Darwin's legacy; but, unfortunately they were substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical probabilities. Something had to be done. In October 1980, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a special Evolution Conference. "The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980. "Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur. At the 1980 Chicago meeting: "In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55. Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers. "Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12. Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred. "At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."—*Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12. *Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory. A year later, *Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist wrote: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19. Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided that the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad." The 1980 meeting was held in Chicago's Field Museum and was attended by 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists. "[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, "Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin," in The Riverside (California) Enterprise, p. E9; *Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory under Fire," Science, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887. It was decided that no record would be kept of the sessions, in order not to give ammunition to the creationists. The rapid accumulation of evidence against evolutionary theory had brought a crisis of such proportions that most of those in attendance decided to repudiate a cardinal Darwinian doctrine; they agreed that small changes from generation to generation within a species could never accumulate to produce a new species. In its place, the Alice-in-Wonderland theory of "punctuated equilibria" was given prominence. This view teaches that sudden massive mutations produced "hopeful monsters"—and made all our modern species. It was at the 1980 meeting that the majority of leading scientists present decided in desperation to adopt the basic "hopeful monster" theory of *Goldschmidt, *Stanley, and *Gould. Men act as if they are chained to a cart and must go wherever it carries them. They dare not get off of it, for to do so is admit a terrible fact which they do not wish to consider. "According to an article in Newsweek (November 3, 1980), at a conference in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists agreed to abandon Darwinian evolution in favor of punctuated equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster theory. "Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact. The hopeful monster theory is a retreat to what appears to be reliable geological evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of fossils from `simple' to `complex' in the rock strata."—Randall Hedtke, "Asa Gray Vindicated," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 74. 1984 CAMBRIDGE MEETING The following year, still another important meeting of evolutionists was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge," and added that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth." The same year another scientist wrote this: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828. Commenting on the crisis that had come to the evolutionary camp, *Niles Eldredge, head of the Department of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, later wrote this: "The doubt that has infiltrated the previously smug confident certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions . . There has been a total lack of agreement even within the warring camps . . Things are really in an uproar these days . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists."—*Niles Eldredge, "Evolutionary Housecleaning," in Natural History, February 1982, pp. 78, 81.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
The 1969 Alpbach Meeting The 1984 Cambridge Meeting - The finishing touch "—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) Yawn.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
http://www.pathlights.com/ is a religious propaganda site. This is holy roller pot boiler material. Mathematicians Destroying the theory or evolution exactly means a verifiable proof had been developed that incontrovertibly showed the theory to be impossible with no wiggle room. Proofs have to be formulated to prove mathematical theory to get it accepted as fact. Therefore I call B.S. on this deceptive and bombastic title meant to exploit the verbiage surrounding the manner things are proven or disproven. When a proof is formed or found that proves or disproves the origin of the species theory by Charles Darwin, it would be major headline news. This is just another fundie wet dream of an article, sorry about their bad luck.
Although I did not need scientists to prove to me that evolution was a patently FALSE and impossible theory, this is a great article. Man will never outwit his Creator. ...now..back to more important issues like Hoppe's #9 and the Revolution to come to get back our Freedoms.
The 1966 Philadelphia Meeting;
#2. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#3. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
(Edited)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#4. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
An example of the problems with this site is where it shows it's uneducated bias in lambasting caffeine consumption as a life ruining endeavor. 
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#4) (Edited)
This is an issue [whether one believes in a Creator] that is irrelevant in our quest for freedom and serves only to divide and eventually conquer. I respect everyone's religious views when they don't infringe on my Freedom. It serves no compelling purpose to even discuss it IMO, with all the shit that's been called down upon us by TheStateInc.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
That sounds like a Mormon deal.
An example of the problems with this site is where it shows it's uneducated bias in lambasting caffeine consumption as a life ruining endeavor.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#7. To: IndieTX (#5)
Bingo. I been saying this for years.
This is an issue [whether one believes in a Creator] that is irrelevant in our quest for freedom and serves only to divide and eventually conquer.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#8. To: IndieTX (#5) (Edited)
I agree, and I fully respect another's ideas on whether evolution is fact or fancy. I just get tired of the pretentiousness and arrogance those opposing evolution consistently show. If it was up to many of them, evolution would be banned without disproving it as they view it as a clear and present danger to how and what they get their flocks to believe. I have a very strong attraction to pretentiousness. I like to find these balloons of pompousness and gleefully stick hat needles in them. Can't help it, it is the ferret like part of my nature that often makes me a memorable scoundrel and stinker. ;-D
#9. To: bluedogtxn (#6)
To me too. And as a coffee addict that has that as my one remaining vice, you can have my coffee cup when you pry my cold dead fingers from it. ;-)
"That sounds like a Mormon deal."
#10. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
This assumes the formulas the mathematicians used are accurate depicitions of the Evolution theory, which may well be accurate, but that further presumes that the mechanics behind genetics and reproduction are fully understood -- something I tend to doubt. I think fundamentalist christians that dogmatically seek to scientifically disprove evolution are themselves basing their faith on science, not God, and thereby set themselves up for a fall. What if further research reveals evidence in support of evolution? What if bacteria are found on Mars or a moon of Jupiter? What if the universe is estimated to be 15 trillion years old instead of 15 billion? What if something else turns up that makes these same mathemeticians revise their models to greatly improve odds? Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as it's billed now suffers scientifically in that there is no positive evidence for it, only negative evidence, so it's really only a "default" theory, of sorts. E.g., because it couldn't have been evolution, it must have been creationism. So even if evolution is disproved in the end, scientifically speaking, it always leaves the door open to an alternative secular theory for the origin of life. I couldn't imagine what such a theory would be, but that means nothing. I know God is real and it doesn't really matter to me how he got us here. But if he did it through evolution, I'd find that to be really awesome because to me that is much more to admire about how He could author the laws of the universe such that life would arise. That He'd just make lots of critters out of thin air seems to me to be somewhat less spectacular. But either way, my faith is not based on evolution or on creationism. It's based on God.
Mathmeticians Destroy Evolution Theory
#11. To: Neil McIver (#10)
good post and an Amen too
#12. To: Neil McIver, robin (#10)
"War is caused by the ancient pagan belief that Authority controls individuals, and must and should control them. This belief is in individual minds, and no force whatever can change any man's mind. War will end when a majority of men on this earth know that every man is free. Each person must see for himself that everyone is self-controlling and responsible. So long as any large group of persons, anywhere on this earth, believe the ancient superstition that some Authority is responsible for their welfare, they will set up some image of that Authority and try to obey it. And the result will be poverty and war." - from What Was Wrong With the Old World, by Rose Wilder Lane What a damned fine essay, check it out.
I know God is real and it doesn't really matter to me how he got us here.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
Mister, I order my expresso through the mail and mainline the stuff! ;)
And as a coffee addict that has that as my one remaining vice, you can have my coffee cup when you pry my cold dead fingers from it. ;-)
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
Is that any worse than a bunch of scientists meeting and deciding not to keep notes for fear there might be information disclosed that could disprove or lead to disproving evolution? Just wondering.......I have always heard that science was the search for truth [well, maybe we need a lot of scientists in politics then and not in biology and physics and astrophysics and all that stuff].
I just get tired of the pretentiousness and arrogance those opposing evolution consistently show.
#15. To: rowdee (#14)
We need standards. What we don't need is "leaders".
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
#16. To: Dakmar (#12)
All your base are ours. It doesn't even require a religion per se. Some people just love dictators, that's all. The Creator may have authority but that doesn't make Him a dictator; free will and all that.
So long as any large group of persons, anywhere on this earth, believe the ancient superstition that some Authority is responsible for their welfare, they will set up some image of that Authority and try to obey it. And the result will be poverty and war."
#17. To: robin (#16)
RWL got me thinking about internalised authority, and how it often is more powerful than external authority, like in Iraq.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
#18. To: Dakmar (#17)
I'll check that link out later, thanks.
#19. To: robin (#18)
It's entirely possible that some humans will set up authority figures to worship for others in situations that might not be entirely altruistic.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
Crazy Mormons? Why would God create something that would not be good for man? What kind of intelligent design is that?
An example of the problems with this site is where it shows it's uneducated bias in lambasting caffeine consumption as a life ruining endeavor.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#21. To: Destro (#20)
Suede denim secret police?
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
#22. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
i doubt evolutionary theory is destroyed. critiqued, sure, but not destroyed. evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity and other theistic religions which posit an "unmoved mover" of sorts...
Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom
"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa
#23. To: Destro (#20) (Edited)
Vraiment, C'est une bonne question. I have a Michael Mac print showing the Christian God handing man a cannabis leaf with him saying, "I give this to you so you might grow." It has always been interesting to me how plants are aware of us and figure out how to influence our mental states, but that is how all life is; all species are interconnected and components of a greater whole.
"Why would God create something that would not be good for man? What kind of intelligent design is that?"
#24. To: Neil McIver (#10)
Actaully there are THREE theories of origins. Theistic Evolution (the idea of the development of life being mainly evolutionary with special creation being involved only in its origin and to help evolutionary development across the many gaps in the fossil record) tends to get the short shift from both the Evolutionists that insist on a totally secular theory and from the Fundie rapture monkey "scientists".
#25. To: Coral Snake (#24)
You are mistaking philosophy with science. Common mistake.
(the idea of the development of life being mainly evolutionary with special creation being involved only in its origin and to help evolutionary development across the many gaps in the fossil record)
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
I would make anything that grows in nature like pot the coca plant legal - make their processing into something else like cocaine and heroin illegal. That is the proper right wing attitude.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
"If there is a universal mind, must it be sane?" Often attributed to Charles Fort
I have a Michal Mac print showing the Christian God handing man a cannabis leaf with him saying, "I give this to you so you might grow."
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#28. To: Destro (#27)
A number of studies indicate that THC may provide medical benefits for cancer and AIDS patients by increasing appetite and decreasing nausea, and by blocking the spread of some cancer-causing Herpes simplex viruses. It has been shown to assist some glaucoma patients by reducing pressure within the eye, and is used in the form of cannabis by a number of multiple sclerosis patients to relieve the spasms associated with their condition. Studies also indicate a variety of negative effects associated with constant, long-term use, including short-term memory loss. However, other studies have refuted this, claiming the MRIs of long term users show little or no difference to MRIs of the non-using control group. The long-term effects of THC on humans have been disputed because its status as an illegal drug makes research difficult. Preliminary research on synthetic THC has been conducted on patients with Tourette syndrome, with results suggesting that it may help in reducing nervous tics and urges by a significant degree. Animal studies suggested that Marinol and nicotine could be used as an effective adjunct to neuroleptic drugs in treating TS. Research on twelve patients showed that Marinol reduced tics with no significant adverse effects. A six-week controlled study on 24 patients showed the patients taking Marinol had a significant reduction in tic severity without serious adverse effects. Seven patients dropped out or had to be excluded from the study, one due to adverse side-effects. More significant reduction in tic severity was reported with longer treatment. No detrimental effects on cognitive functioning and a trend towards improvement in cognitive functioning were reported during and after treatment. Marinol's usefulness as a treatment for TS cannot be determined until/unless longer controlled studies on larger samples are undertaken. Recent research has shown that many adverse side effects, generally known as the "stoner" stereotype, fail to hold up to the scientific method. Recent studies with synthetic cannabinoids show that activation of CB1 receptors can facilitate neurogeneration, as well as neuroprotection, and can even help prevent natural neural degredation from neurodegenerative diseases such as MS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. This, along with research into the CB2 receptor (throughout the immune system), has given the case for medical marijuana more support. THC, the active component in marijuana, may protect the brain from the ravages of Alzheimer's disease, U.S. scientists reported. In lab experiments release on 10/09/2006, investigators from Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., found THC appears to block an enzyme in the brain that causes plaques to form better than currently approved drugs. 
#29. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
I don't somke herb - but how can I ban something nature/God/Whatever placed on the earth? And if you are an Old Testamnt type does it not say that all of the earth was put here for man's use/disposal? Stupid drug war.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest