I suppose the irrational religious types would voice some kind of objection, but our DNA is a tangled mess, most of it not even used. Yet another reason to reject the creationist bull.

“Yet another reason to reject the creationist bull.”

Well, I point you sir/madam, to this link .

.
…by the “thundering” call to recognize “anonymous heros” as the cowering, afraid to stand and be recognized, one-fingered typing commentators they are.

Moreover, the “anonymous” closet-dweller above chose to make a comment about religion as if [insert omnipotent diety here] wouldn’t know who she/he is.

Such comments seem to leap out and say, “See, there is a use for “junk” DNA after all.”

I would call you Jon, but you’ve given only Sweetwind permission to do so.  Your crusade against ANONYMOUS HEROES  (and “heroes” is ES in the plural :-) ) is laudable, but aren’t all of us actually hiding behind a mask if we are using some whimsical screen name?

I mean, I like to think of myself as a free spirit, thus “gypsysoul,” — besides, “Into the Mystic” is one of my favorite songs– and “Silent Thunder” is a wonderful oxymoron, packed with symbolic meaning, I’m sure.  

However, Anonymous Hero is simply what posters use who haven’t joined the Sciscoop community.  We could change the phrase to GUEST if that would help any…   but my point is, unless we each state the name printed on our Social Security cards, or do as some posters who include their real names at the end of a post, aren’t we all  anonymous?  Perhaps it’s the HERO part that troubles you.  We can each add HERO to our screen names if that would soothe your ruffled feathers.

Happy Monday :-)  

Makes me think of potatoes :-)

You always come up with the most succinct response!

I, too, am fond of “Sissy ‘Taters”…

I have a feeling I’d enjoy knowing you for REAL.

My weight loss is ON TARGET because I have stayed ON TASK, in educational doublespeak.  My goal was to lose 30 pounds by May 15.  I’m -28 and clipping along… I see miles of walking in in next 5 days, but I think I can make it.

SOUTH BEACH RULES!!!

.
I hereby give anyone permission to call me “Jon” or any other irrational but hopefully enduring and fitting nomenclature. Please feel free, you won’t hurt my feelings.

While I recognize that those anonymous posters might not be memebers of SciScoop, my own inclination is to push people to join. There are many sites I visit where membership is not an option to participate.

What wispy masks we hide behind in SciScoop — with any name, gypsysoul — should be positive, not anonymous. We should be open and proud to belong to such a premier group.

That’s why with a great flourish of trumpets I announce I will henceforth “sign” all my posts with

jon

Although I personally think “Anonymous Hero” IS positive-sounding (surely a factor in Drog’s choosing it– that, and the play on Slashdot’s “Anonymous Coward”), I must admire your pertinacity on this issue.

I doubt that I can remember to include my real name every time I post a comment, but you’ve inspired me.  I’m Marikay, in that fine double-name Southern tradition [I've not yet evolved to lower case "northern" and "southern" as the new trends encourage]. Good to meet you :-).

 Nice touch on the trumpet flourish, btw.

…but I suspect most anonymous postings are from people who happened upon a SciScoop story via a link, like from Google or Google News, decide to post a comment and only then realize that there is no place to sign their name. They may figure out that they need to become a member if they want to be unanonymous, but either don’t want to rewrite their comment or simply can’t be bothered because they just wanted to post a quick comment, not become a contributing member of this site.

Congratulations!! I hope there is some sort of celebration in the offing. New outfits maybe?? :-)

Of COURSE, new outfits.   Madison Square Mall, here I come….

And HUGE apologies to Apsmith for this total digression from junk DNA.   Well, maybe the excess flab I’ve lost could be considered junk DNA….

…I too shall abide by that fine double-name Southern tradition and be known forevermore around here as rickyjames.  If you’re a Northerner in a hurry, tho, it’ll be OK to call me rick.

Creation models only rely on the idea that all “effects” have causes.  (simple, yes, but quite true.)  So what may look like a tangled mess to you, in reality, still has better error correction mechanisms in it that most technology we possess.  

Many scorn biblical origins for the laws of cause and effect, I think, because physics laws have an inextricable relationship to moral laws.  Thus the inference that any religious influence on the sciences is “irrational”, might work just as long as the decline of science in the US can be blamed on something that isn’t “personal.”

but did you know that ‘blame’ has causality, too?

I’ve been fighting the foolish term “junk” DNA for years. I’m glad to see scientists are starting to agree with me.

:)