Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 What do you mean? We all know that nature by itself doesnt create intelligence.I think the opposite is true. So what do you mean? Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I think the opposite is true. So what do you mean?I guess the difference is that I can show over and over how intelligence only arises out of intelligence preceding it. All you have is conjecture inferred from more conjecture. You dont have any evidence, repeatable in a lab, showing intelligence arising from non intelligent matter. Link to comment
name Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Hi Rob You dont have any evidence, repeatable in a lab, showing intelligence arising from non intelligent matter. Intelligence? (That's step 754 - we can't even get past step 1) Life arising from non-living matter. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 We are at odds then. You claim a creator but deny his works. One day, God will show you he is the very professor of science. I eagerly await that day. Until that time I'll go with the science.SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/fox-news-regular-upset-google-will-rank-by-accuracy-let-the-public-decide-whats-the-truth/ Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Of course not, they (science) call the Creator and His works a "myth". Science does not say any such thing. Science say he is not testable using the tools available to science. Scientists can believe or not believe in God(s) as they choose. SEE Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Hi Rob Intelligence? (That's step 754 - we can't even get past step 1)Life arising from non-living matter.An amoeba can learn in a very limited sense of the word. Are they intelligent? A single Sodium atom naturally combines with single atom of Chlorine forming ordinary table salt due to electron attraction. Are those atoms intelligent? Abiogenesis in lab.SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html Link to comment
Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I guess the difference is that I can show over and over how intelligence only arises out of intelligence preceding it. All you have is conjecture inferred from more conjecture. You dont have any evidence, repeatable in a lab, showing intelligence arising from non intelligent matter. Rob, maybe we had better be clear about what we think intelligence is. For me the difference between the intelligence of a thermostat or a virus and the intelligence of a human being is one of degree of complexity and subtlety. It is a vast vast difference of degree (and degrees of freedom in the sense of articulation). I have never seen intelligence spring into existence where there was none before either. But I have seen a tiny bit of intelligence added naturally by selection where there was already slightly less intelligence. But, then there is nothing purely deductive about that fact that means there is a fundamental ontological obstacle to the natural emergence of intelligence. I have also never sense an immense tangle of wire or yarn emerge at once from something that wasn't just a slightly less immense tangle. But then, somehow it seems less mysterious. Yet if we were to trace the history of a truly immense tangle backward, I am sure there would be a point were someone would say, well yes but that isn't an immense tangle. But there would be a lot of disagreement about exactly what it takes to be an immense tangle and confusion about precisely when the "immense tangleness" came into being. It's less mysterious because we aren't so confused about what a tangle is. But sometimes we just can't imagine that something is really just explainable in other radically different terms.These days we know that heat is mean molecular motion but there was time when people thought that impossible or silly simply because heat was clearly a totally different thing than motion and people thought that the explanation left something out or sidestepped the real needed explanation. You can almost hear people laughing with score and saying something like "saying that heat is nothing but kinetic molecular motion is like saying that time is made of poppy seeds". It must have seemed like a category mistake at best. The real question is whether intelligence is the kind of thing that can be accounted for as the recursive or cooperative application of entities or states of a fairs that on their own seem utterly unintelligent. And, can it pile up or not? I think it can and I think it can do so for so long that the end result seems fundamentally different than anything we can imagine being the original state of affairs. But, if you think intelligence is not a kind of complexity but is rather more like a ghostly immaterial substance or an irreducible subjectivity then we will be talking past each other. Edited March 8, 2015 by Tarski Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 As is Scientology I believe. That is, unless one takes a central value of naturalism to be dependence on ordinary notions of publicly available evidence and the need for that evidence to be situated within a theoretical framework with explanatory power beyond the ad hoc and a framework unmuddled by endless exceptions and unconvincing rationalizations (as we see with attempts to harmonize evolution with scriptural theology). Notice that Scientologists and Mormons alike accept most science and yet neither accept the others theology which only shows that such "naturalistic theologies" are nothing like science since they lack the power to convince in the same way.Publicly available knowledge and technical capacity will vary with time and place, as well as with the sentient beings who possess it. The point Richard Dawkins makes is that some very advanced beings in the universe (which he considers quite likely, as do most astrophysicists) would possess what we in our time and place would consider "godlike powers." Since the Mormon concept of God is both finite and progressive, and since they place such a god or gods inside the universe and subject to natural law (though he has mastered it), and even though we now possess only a limited degree of knowledge and technical capacity (after all, we know nothing of dark energy and dark matter, which is what most of the universe is composed of), we are naturally going to seem quite heretical to the normative Muslims, Jews, and Christians, who maintain a dogma placing a necessary God outside of time and space, and all the universe and the creatures in it as contingent and alien to that one God (the only uncaused Cause). Thus far, the monistic and naturalistic Mormon theology. This is all something which Rob Osborn cannot understand or accept, which is the ultimate source of his difficulty. In addition, Mormon theology makes all humans of the same genus & species as God, from their eternal existence as raw intelligences, through their spiritual and physical embodiments, to their eventual glorification. As a practical matter, Mormonism takes a universalist approach to that eventual purpose of human existence. Most of humanity makes it, and there is nothing supernatural or miraculous about it, except as a reflection of our relative ignorance. Our Father's selfless plan is to bring most of us home. That is what he really cares about. We are coeternal with him, and responsible for our own decisions. 1 Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Science does not say any such thing. Science say he is not testable using the tools available to science. Scientists can believe or not believe in God(s) as they choose. SEE Your idea of science may tell you that but science does include all that truly does exist even if we havent found everything and everyone involved yet including God himself. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 An amoeba can learn in a very limited sense of the word. Are they intelligent? A single Sodium atom naturally combines with single atom of Chlorine forming ordinary table salt due to electron attraction. Are those atoms intelligent? Abiogenesis in lab. SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html Thats not abiogenesis. All they did was synthesize some of the ingredients that they think made life. No actual life was created in the lab. Link to comment
Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Publicly available knowledge and technical capacity will vary with time and place, as well as with the sentient beings who possess it. The point Richard Dawkins makes is that some very advanced beings in the universe (which he considers quite likely, as do most astrophysicists) would possess what we in our time and place would consider "godlike powers." Since the Mormon concept of God is both finite and progressive, and since they place such a god or gods inside the universe and subject to natural law (though he has mastered it), and even though we now possess only a limited degree of knowledge and technical capacity (after all, we know nothing of dark energy and dark matter, which is what most of the universe is composed of), we are naturally going to seem quite heretical to the normative Muslims, Jews, and Christians, who maintain a dogma placing a necessary God outside of time and space, and all the universe and the creatures in it as contingent and alien to that one God (the only uncaused Cause). Thus far, the monistic and naturalistic Mormon theology. This is all something which Rob Osborn cannot understand or accept, which is the ultimate source of his difficulty. In addition, Mormon theology makes all humans of the same genus & species as God, from their eternal existence as raw intelligences, through their spiritual and physical embodiments, to their eventual glorification. As a practical matter, Mormonism takes a universalist approach to that eventual purpose of human existence. Most of humanity makes it, and there is nothing supernatural or miraculous about it, except as a reflection of our relative ignorance. Our Father's selfless plan is to bring most of us home. That is what he really cares about. We are coeternal with him, and responsible for our own decisions. Yes I know this is the narrative and it is quite different than protestant theology. My only point was that it is pretty easy to develop an elaborate "sci fi" style theology that might appeal to certain people who can't deal with good old fashioned miracles and such ( as in Catholicism). The obvious problem from my perspective is the deadly coincidence of implausibility and lack of evidence suffered by both Mormonism and Scientology. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 ....................................................................... But, if you think intelligence is not a kind of complexity but is rather more like a ghostly immaterial substance or an irreducible subjectivity then we will be talking past each other.I suppose we might measure the IQ or intelligence of a paramecium, or of a Dodo bird, just as we do with humans, but such concepts have nothing to do with the Mormon theological concept of an eternal entity which exists in an unknown state before being embodied in a spirit body, and thus enabled to exercise its basic nature with elan. Further embodiment in a human body is only one more step in the developmental sequence to apotheosis (godhood). In that sense, the Mormon concept of irreduclble and indestructible "intelligence" as an entity seems to exist quite apart from physical material in the universe, since that material universe can be altered in molecular form, or changed from energy to matter and back again. Not so with the Mormon "intelligence" entity or entelechy. God can imprison it, but he cannot destroy it. 1 Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Rob, maybe we had better be clear about what we think intelligence is. For me the difference between the intelligence of a thermostat or a virus and the intelligence of a human being is one of degree of complexity and subtlety. It is a vast vast difference of degree (and degrees of freedom in the sense of articulation). I have never seen intelligence spring into existence where there was none before either. But I have seen a tiny bit of intelligence added naturally by selection where there was already slightly less intelligence. But, then there is nothing purely deductive about that fact that means there is a fundamental ontological obstacle to the natural emergence of intelligence. I have also never sense an immense tangle of wire or yarn emerge at once from something that wasn't just a slightly less immense tangle. But then, somehow it seems less mysterious. Yet if we were to trace the history of a truly immense tangle backward, I am sure there would be a point were someone would say, well yes but that isn't an immense tangle. But there would be a lot of disagreement about exactly what it takes to be an immense tangle and confusion about precisely when the "immense tangleness" came into being. It's less mysterious because we aren't so confused about what a tangle is. But sometimes we just can't imagine that something is really just explainable in other radically different terms. These days we know that heat is mean molecular motion but there was time when people thought that impossible or silly simply because heat was clearly a totally different thing than motion and people thought that the explanation left something out or sidestepped the real needed explanation. You can almost hear people laughing with score and saying something like "saying that heat is nothing but kinetic molecular motion is like saying that time is made of poppy seeds". It must have seemed like a category mistake at best. The real question is whether intelligence is the kind of thing that can be accounted for as the recursive or cooperative application of entities or states of a fairs that on their own seem utterly unintelligent. And, can it pile up or not? I think it can and I think it can do so for so long that the end result seems fundamentally different than anything we can imagine being the original state of affairs. But, if you think intelligence is not a kind of complexity but is rather more like a ghostly immaterial substance or an irreducible subjectivity then we will be talking past each other. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and use skills. A characteristic of intelligence is thus the capacity to learn, reason, think, and make and apply decisions. Scientific evidence to this point shows that only living things have intelligence. Science investigation shows that only from living intelligent things do we find any evidence of intelligence in nature. In fact, no law in nature itself can produce intelligence from a non life source. This is a basic constant in nature- one of its many laws. Intelligence doesnt nor cannot just arise from any sequence of non intelligent events, even if on the surface they may appear intelligent. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Yes I know this is the narrative and it is quite different than protestant theology. My only point was that it is pretty easy to develop an elaborate "sci fi" style theology that might appeal to certain people who can't deal with good old fashioned miracles and such ( as in Catholicism). The obvious problem from my perspective is the deadly coincidence of implausibility and lack of evidence suffered by both Mormonism and Scientology. Well, of course, the basic sticking point might be epistemological in either case (and one can extend that to Buddhism as well). So I don't disagree that one might come up with any scenario. And, since I cut my teeth on scifi as a kid, I know exactly what you mean. Where we part company is in judging the "implausibility and lack of evidence" for Mormonism. Surely you do not consider mainstream science and technology implausible, so that you must have something else in mind. Anti-supernarturalist humanists would supposedly be quite at home with a religion which eschews the division between religion and science, not as a strategy devised by an L. Ron Hubbard, but as a direct reflection of ancient Israelite religion. Perhaps you are unaware of the stark dichotomy between normative Jewish-Christian-Muslim dogma (and their supernatural accretions) and ancient biblical dogma. Do you realize that they jettisoned their base? As non-Mormon Ernst Benz said: Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith=s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.[1][1] ADer Mensch als Imago Dei,@ in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326, Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben. English version in Benz, AImagio Dei: Man in the Image of God,@ in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219. 1 Link to comment
Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Intelligence is the ability to acquire and use skills. A characteristic of intelligence is thus the capacity to learn, reason, think, and make and apply decisions. Scientific evidence to this point shows that only living things have intelligence. Science investigation shows that only from living intelligent things do we find any evidence of intelligence in nature. In fact, no law in nature itself can produce intelligence from a non life source. This is a basic constant in nature- one of its many laws. Intelligence doesnt nor cannot just arise from any sequence of non intelligent events, even if on the surface they may appear intelligent. I don't think you can say this is a basic scientific fact since it would not be hard list hundreds scientists who think the oppostie. In fact, the branch of science the explicitly deals with intelligence as such is cognitive science. I think that most if not all cognitive scientists accept both the evolutionary take on the origins of intelligence (there is even a very active and fruitful area known as evolutionary cognitive science (google the phrase). It is also a basic working assumption in the field that artificial intelligence is possible. A popular expositor of this scientific way of thinking is Douglas Hofstader. You assert that "no law in nature itself can produce intelligence from a non life source" is a basic law of nature and yet I have never ever seen it asserted as such in any field. Indeed, I don't know of a single prominent cognitive scientist, biologist, or neurologist who has made such an assertion even as an opinion let alone as a basic "law". No, I am sure you just pulled that one out of thin air or are repeating it from some religiously oriented source. It isn't a law at all and I am quite sure it isn't true. We did evolve after all. By the way, the ability to acquire and use skills is an entriely external objective criterion. Either an entity (bird, man, or robot) can do it or not. It is odd that you give that definition and then hedge your bets by saying that something might just appear to do it (true Scottsman fallacy?). Either the entity sucessfully navigates the environment or it doesn't. Well at least you aren't going with the eternal prexistent substance version of intelligence. That one just never gets off the ground due to a fatal lack of clarity. I have no idea what they are talking about. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I don't think you can say this is a basic scientific fact since it would not be hard list hundreds scientists who think the oppostie. In fact, the branch of science the explicitly deals with intelligence as such is cognitive science. I think that most if not all cognitive scientists accept both the evolutionary take on the origins of intelligence (there is even a very active and fruitful area known as evolutionary cognitive science (google the phrase). It is also a basic working assumption in the field that artificial intelligence is possible. A popular expositor of this scientific way of thinking is Douglas Hofstader. You assert that "no law in nature itself can produce intelligence from a non life source" is a basic law of nature and yet I have never ever seen it asserted as such in any field. Indeed, I don't know of a single prominent cognitive scientist, biologist, or neurologist who has made such an assertion even as an opinion let alone as a basic "law". No, I am sure you just pulled that one out of thin air or are repeating it from some religiously oriented source. It isn't a law at all and I am quite sure it isn't true. We did evolve after all. By the way, the ability to acquire and use skills is an entriely external objective criterion. Either an entity (bird, man, or robot) can do it or not. It is odd that you give that definition and then hedge your bets by saying that something might just appear to do it (true Scottsman fallacy?). Either the entity sucessfully navigates the environment or it doesn't. Well at least you aren't going with the eternal prexistent substance version of intelligence. That one just never gets off the ground due to a fatal lack of clarity. I have no idea what they are talking about.One can think and believe that intelligence arose on its own from nature in a series of small sequential events from non intelligent processes and chemical interactions. Problem is however- at this point its merely a fable, a fairytale with no scientific backing. Link to comment
Rivers Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) One can think and believe that intelligence arose on its own from nature in a series of small sequential events from non intelligent processes and chemical interactions. Problem is however- at this point its merely a fable, a fairytale with no scientific backing.You're talking about abiogenesis. That's a whole different topic. Edited March 8, 2015 by Rivers Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 You're talking about abiogenesis. That's a whole different topic.No, its the same topic. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'm not sure why you cite such irrelevant arguments. They have nothing to do with my contention, which you really ought to reread, before jumping to your mainstream attack on mainstream, supernatural religious ideology. Normative Muslims, Christians, and Jews do have very vulnerable dogmas, which is probably why you trot out this nonsense, thinking wrongly perhaps that Mormonism has the same theological and theoretical base. You need to more carefully study the positions of anti-religious scientists like Richard Dawkins on the existence of advanced, "godlike" entities in our universe, before spouting off. Haven't we discussed this before? You learned nothing previously? Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic and humanistic religion, even though few Mormons have any idea what that might mean. You seem altogether unfamiliar with that fact. That is not my contention at all. My contention is that ALL religions deal with the Supernatural. What happens after we die. Science has no way to test ANY such ideas. Other than our bodies rot away to dust. Mormon's are not Christians? Here I thought that for the last 185 years we've been trying to convince the world that we are that. I'm no fan of Mr. Dawkins' atheism. But his science is right on. Science can not use some Godlike creature or force and still be science. Sure there MAYBE such in a universe of hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies that have existed for about the last 14 billion years.. Obviously it is you that have learned nothing. Such arrogant ignorance can be amusing in young children, but I really don't appreciate it in an adult. Mormonism for all its strengths is NOT naturalistic in the way that science uses the term.Science is AgnosticSEE Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Your idea of science may tell you that but science does include all that truly does exist even if we havent found everything and everyone involved yet including God himself. There maybe God(s) but science has no way to test any Supernatural being or force. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 There maybe God(s) but science has no way to test any Supernatural being or force.The God I believe in isnt supernatural (magical). Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 That is not my contention at all. My contention is that ALL religions deal with the Supernatural. What happens after we die. Science has no way to test ANY such ideas. Other than our bodies rot away to dust. Mormon's are not Christians? Here I thought that for the last 185 years we've been trying to convince the world that we are that. I'm no fan of Mr. Dawkins' atheism. But his science is right on. Science can not use some Godlike creature or force and still be science. Sure there MAYBE such in a universe of hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies that have existed for about the last 14 billion years.. Obviously it is you that have learned nothing. Such arrogant ignorance can be amusing in young children, but I really don't appreciate it in an adult. Mormonism for all its strengths is NOT naturalistic in the way that science uses the term.Science is AgnosticSEE Eugenie Scott is an atheist and that clouds her judgment. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 The God I believe in isnt supernatural (magical). Supernatural doesn't mean magical it means relating to God. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Supernatural doesn't mean magical it means relating to God.When discussing these kind of topics one cannot use the word "supernatural" because evolutionists use it as a way to readily dismiss God as if he were mythical. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Eugenie Scott is an atheist and that clouds her judgment. So what? Dr. Kenneth Miller is a Theist.Dr. Francis Collins is a Theist.Charles Darwin was a Theist. ALL these Mormon scientists accept evolution, and are still Theists.Jonathan Adjimani – Biochemistry, University of GhanaAlan C. Ashton – Computer Science, Private IndustryDavid H. Bailey – Mathematics, Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryEmily Bates – Genetics, Brigham Young UniversityJeffrey M. Bradshaw – Cognitive Science, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, FloridaLaura Clarke Bridgewater – Molecular Biology, Brigham Young UniversityBarry Brocas – Mathematics Education, Massey University, New ZealandJohn M. Butler – Forensic DNA, U.S. National Institute for Standards and TechnologyJames W. Cannon – Mathematics, Brigham Young UniversityDouglas M. Chabries – Electrical Engineering, Brigham Young UniversityDavid L. Clark – Geology, University of Wisconsin, MadisonJames Joshua Claus – Applied Research, Park City, UtahCarol Anne Clayson – Meteorology, Florida State UniversityMark Clayson – Astronomy and Engineering, Private IndustryPaul Alan Cox – Ethnobotany, Institute for EthnomedicineR. Kent Crookston – Plant Physiology and Agronomy, Brigham Young UniversityBanyan Acquaye Dadson – Organic Chemistry, University of Cape Coast, GhanaJames Dunlop – Plant Physiology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, New ZealandHenry Eyring – Chemistry, University of UtahBruce K. Gale – Bioengineering, University of UtahBruce K. Gale (Japanese) – Bioengineering, University of UtahRichard D. Gardner – Molecular and Cellular Biology, Southern Virginia UniversityB. Kent Harrison – Mathematical Physics, Brigham Young UniversityMichael “Larkin” Hastriter – Electrical and Computer Engineering, United States Air ForceRon Hellings – Theoretical Physics, Montana State UniversityDouglas J. Henderson – Chemistry and Physics, Academia and Private IndustryA. Scott Howe – Systems Engineering, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California Institute of Technology and NASA)John Howell – Physics, University of RochesterTodd E. Humphreys – Aerospace Engineering, University of Texas at AustinM. Lynn James – Chemistry, University of Northern ColoradoHollis R. Johnson – Astronomy, Indiana UniversityBenjamin R. Jordan – Geology, Brigham Young University-IdahoBart J. Kowallis – Geology, Brigham Young UniversityPhilip D. LaFleur – Chemistry, Government and Industry and AcademiaMilton L. Lee – Chemistry, Brigham Young UniversityJohn S. Lewis – Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona and Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDon L. Lind – Nuclear Physics and Astronautics, NASA and Utah State UniversityJeff Lindsay – Chemical Engineering, Private IndustryPhilip S. Low – Chemistry, Purdue UniversityJoseph Lynn Lyon – Epidemiology, University of UtahTony Martinez – Computer Science, Brigham Young UniversityJames Matis – Statistics, Texas A&M UniversityMichael Matthews – Mathematics Education, University of Nebraska at OmahaMatthew Memmott – Nuclear Science and Engineering, Private IndustryWade E. Miller – Geology and Paleontology, Brigham Young UniversityJ. Ward Moody – Astronomy and Astrophysics, Brigham Young UniversityJ. Ward Moody (Japanese) – Astronomy and Astrophysics, Brigham Young UniversityTodd K. Moon – Electrical and Computer Engineering, Utah State UniversityAlexander B. Morrison – Nutrition and Pharmacology, University of Guelph (Ontario) and Public ServiceC. Riley Nelson – Biology, Brigham Young UniversityT. Heath Ogden – Biology, Utah Valley UniversityNoel L. Owen – Chemistry, Brigham Young UniversityDula Parkinson – Chemistry, Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryRyan L. Parr – Human Genetics, Thunder Bay, Ontario, CanadaUgo A. Perego – Population Genetics, Sorenson Molecular Genealogy FoundationLawrence L. Poulsen – Biochemistry, University of Texas at AustinDarin Ragozzine – Astrophysics, University of FloridaThorsten Ritz – Biophysics, University of California, IrvineThorsten Ritz (Japanese) – Biophysics, University of California, IrvineAngela M. Berg Robertson – Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Houston Center for Neuromotor and Biomechanics ResearchCharles W. Rogers – Physics, Southwestern Oklahoma State UniversityFrank B. Salisbury – Plant Physiology, Utah State UniversityLynn H. Slaugh – Chemistry, Private IndustryL. Douglas Smoot – Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young UniversityLarry St. Clair – Biology, Brigham Young UniversityTrent D. Stephens – Anatomy and Embryology, Idaho State UniversityPeter Stopher – Transport Planning and Engineering, University of Sydney, AustraliaJoseph William Stucki – Soil and Clay Chemistry, University of IllinoisDouglass F. Taber – Organic Chemistry, University of DelawareJames E. Talmage – Geology, University of UtahJason A. Tullis – Geosciences, University of ArkansasJamie Turner – Metallurgical and Materials Engineering / Engineering Systems, Houston, TexasDan Vassilaros – Chemistry, Private IndustryMatt Walters – Structural Engineering, Private IndustryBarry M. Willardson – Biochemistry, Brigham Young UniversityAmy Williams – Harvard University, Computer Science and GeneticsPeter Wöllauer – Chemistry, Bavaria, GermanyJeffrey C. (“Jeff”) Wynn – Geophysics, U.S. Geological SurveyLei Yang – Environmental Engineering, National Sun Yat-sen University, TaiwanCraig M. Young – Marine Biology, University of Oregon and Oregon Institute of Marine BiologyTom Yuill – Biology, University of Wisconsin 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts