Here's a follow-up to Edna DeVore's column ~6-7 posts back : Evolution: It's Only a Theory, But One Worth Teaching By Edna DeVore Director of Education and Public Outreach posted: 03 March 2005 06:13 am ET My prior column was composed at 35,000 feet above North America as I surveyed the landscape from the air. The patterns etched by geological evolution are visible at altitude. Closer up, fossils tell the story of earlier life upon our continent. Gazing to the heavens, astronomers gather evidence of the evolution of planets, stars, galaxiesthe whole universe evolves. Natural history museums host large collections of extant and extinct life that document biological evolution. Yet, as I noted, teaching evolution remains controversial in America. A flood of email ensued. Many were supportive; some asked questions. Several negative and hostile emails were openly critical of my assertion that American schools should teach evolution in science classrooms to "leave no child behind". In addition to rejecting evolution for religious reasons, several people claimed that there was not sufficient evidence, that scientists could not all agree, or that evolution is "only a theory" which they equate with an unfounded idea. Evolution is supported by evidence. There are several thousand peer-reviewed scientific journals where the evidence is presented in article after article. Natural history museums house large collections of fossils that document the history of life. Geologists and astronomers have a massive amount of observational evidence of the long-term change in physical systems: stars, galaxies, planets, interstellar dust, asteroids, etc. Biologists observe and document the patterns of the evolution of life: for example, the fossil record, DNA, and the observation of evolution in action such as the adaptive evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that now pose a serious threat to human health. Selective breeding in agriculture generated our crops and domestic animals over thousands of years; agriculture is evolution in action. Certainly, there are continuing debates among scientists about the particulars of cosmic, planetary, and biological evolution. The nature of science requires continual questioning of ideas, evidence and theories. Theoretical scientists consider what we know, and pose new ideas and models to explain the natural world. New models and ideas generate new scientific tests of theory: observational experiments at Earth and space-based observatories, high-energy collisions of particle physics, deep-sea dives at the plate boundaries, and lab experiments in molecular biology to cite a few. Science is based upon observational and experimental evidence. Concepts that dont match observations are altered or tossed out. Its an iterative cycle. Likewise, if a scientist makes an observation or does an experiment that cannot be replicated, the results are suspect. Scientific explanations of the natural world are tested against nature, and discarded if they do not work. Consider cold fusion. Science is a self-correcting system that provides humans with powerful descriptions that allow us to understand and predict how the natural world works. Consider Johannes Kepler, a mathematician who is often cited as one of the first modern astronomers. He took observational data collected by Tycho Brahe who was a terrific observer and had mounds of measurements for Mars. Brahe challenged Kepler to make sense of these Mars data. Tycho had his own ideas, but he didnt have Keplers mathematical skills. Kepler spent months trying to fit the Mars data to the circular epicycles and deferents that explained planetary orbits in the astronomical tradition of his day. The data just didnt fit. Unlike his predecessors, Kepler took a leap toward modern science. He elected to trust the data, and abandoned the ancient model of circles upon circles for a new description of planetary motion. His ideas can be condensed into three statements which we call Keplers laws. In their simplest form, they are: planets orbit on elliptical paths with the Sun at one focus; the period of a planets orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun; and a planets speed in orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun (equal areas are swept out in equal time). Kepler didnt know why the planets orbited as they did, but he could describe their orbits and make accurate predictions about future positions. The next big step came with Isaac Newton who explained that why planets orbit the Sun: gravity. Only Mercury didnt behave as predicted by Newtons physics. Einstein remodeled physics once again with special and general relativity, and was able to explain Mercurys motion. The theory of gravitation is a powerful explanation of how objects interact in space-time. Its heritage goes back to Keplers description of planetary motion based upon Brahes observational data. Its funny how no one argues that gravity is "only a theory," yet many dismiss evolution as "only a theory." At a fundamental level, popular English and scientific usage are at odds here. In popular culture, a "theory" is understood to be a guess or speculation that may or may not be based upon evidence and analysis. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,National Academy of Sciences, 1998: 7). A scientific theory is the larger explanation of how the well-tested "laws" fit together to describe the natural world. Dismissing evolution as "only a theory" is, at the simplest level, a misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" in science. But, in the current controversy, discounting evolution as "only a theory" is more than a semantic debate. Its a political statement at the heart of the attack upon teaching evolution in science classrooms in America. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, and has a dominant role in modern economics and culture. Scientific theories are at the heart of the enterprise. In the science classroom, children should learn about major scientific theories such as gravitation and evolution. Science is a way of knowing, but not the only way of knowing. There are things that science does not address. For example, music, art, emotion, and religious beliefs are all outside the domain of what science can address. I find it unfortunate that the controversy over the theory of evolution continues as science offers all humans a way to know about the natural world and how it works.

For canned acidified foods (pickles, chutney, relish) it is important to test the acidity before and after bottling with a pH meter (about $200), never trust litmus paper, but more so that proper pasteurization has been achieved through approved processes. It did not cost $10-15K to have my bread and butter pickles tested at the NC State Univ (NCSU) Food Science Lab (Cooperative Extension Office), it was only $100. I had it tested because I want to sell it. I have to register my "acidified food manufacturing facility" with the FDA, pass an FDA class in Better Process Control School for Acid and Acidified Foods, get approval of my method for each product from the FDA CFSAN (with the NCSU findings attached) called a Scheduled Process, register my facility with the Government, and have my kitchen re-inspected by the NC Dept of Ag, can never ever deviate from the scheduled process (methods and exact ingredients), have a written HACCP plan with complete records of each batch, before I can even sell one jar, and it is just me, a little old lady who offers her jam and pickles at the local farmers market and makes them in her canning kitchen in the outbuilding of her tiny farm. If you are not going to sell your stuff but want to be safe, you must follow approved recipes and current methods. If you want to change this or that, you can have your food tested at your State's approved site for $80 to $150, or pay a food science lab (several businesses do just food testing) which starts at fees of $2K and does go up to $15K as LindaLou says), or ask here about tweaking a specific recipe (do a search on Habanero Gold or Annie's Salsa, for example, with tons of questions about a product and tweaks and you'll see what I mean). If you are making fruit jam and applesauce, just follow the approved recipes, as they are canned food with a very low risk for botulism, but, low-sugar jams have a higher risk for bacteria and mold issues. I did not have to have my jams tested to sell them, other than to have my kitchen inspected and canning process questioned by the inspector. Ask "why" here for specific questions,as you did with lemon juice, and peruse the previous posts for lots of information, along with the other options posted in reply. I doubt if anyone could put in a book the why of methods, but I gleaned a lot of information from my week-long class for Acidified Foods since it is mostly for big businesses and "real" food manufacturing facilities. Not discussed here is also the issue of water activity which was also tested at the Lab I sent my acidified product to. If you are a physicist who wants to know why - ask away. There are many very knowledgeable and highly respected experts on this forum who may just give you the scientific reasoning you want, or not. You might also write to your State's Cooperative Extension Food Safety Office that might give you the in depth answers or where to look, or ask about classes they offer in Food Science. I did, just because I had to know "why" too, but I am far from being an expert on any part of it and am past wanting another profession, since most of it was over my head. Nancy

"Christmas, for me, is a season, not just a day."~ Luckygal I hear you! Someone said "Merry Christmas!" to me on the 27th, then became very apologetic & jittery, "Oh, I shouldn't say that, I mean, Happy New Year!" I said, "Actually, you were right the first time. It's Christmas until Epiphany which is January 6. Twelve days of Christmas, you know." She looked at me perplexed, as if I'd just tried to fill her head with utter nonsense. "No," I could see her thinking. "Christmas is over!" As for "over-the-top" Christmas decor (or any other OTT decor) I don't even enjoy seeing it around or in magazines. My approach is relatively spare, but then this is the first year I've even had a Christmas tree in a decade!

'bloviate'?!? and, i don't think you need to 'have something' to have an opinion or an interest or a desire to discuss!! i think it's safe to say that all of us know people with tattoos/piercings, like people with tattoos and piercings, and many of us have loved ones with tattoos and piercings!! i personally do not know anyone very well close to my age with large, very visible tattoos- i think of small little ankle/wrist tattoos in a different way- much less of a 'commitment', more like 'pierced ears'... the friends and relatives i have who have a small dolphin, hearts, flowers, or initials, etc on their ankle or wrist or hip usually don't have much of a story or decision making process to go with it and they would not get sleeves, full leg or back tats, etc... it's a totally different commitment! the people i know with more unusual piercings or tats are much younger than me!! we know that lots of things are discussed/thought about in depth here- whether it be paint colors, toaster or mixer colors, health issues, parenting decisions, the bible, the financial crisis, etc! and we all have things that interest us more than others! there are always some who have a higher tolerance for discussing things at length(to death)! it's unfortunate that some experience hard or hurt feelings when not everyone agrees or understands.