Rather than simply complain about how deity-directed evolution is refused by science, perhaps the complainers should examine the reasons for this.

Why are teleological explanations shunned in evolutionary biology?

Well, for one thing, absolutely no evidence exists that evolution is directional outside of a specific selective pressure; these pressures are very proximal. Even so, while that can be directional, it is subject to change given new circumstances (new predators, change in diet, restricted food supply, habitat changes, etc.). Teleological explanations, being ultimate and planned, indicate a causality of desire. They can be worded as “in order to” explanations. In other words, teleological explanations ascribe ultimate causation and purpose, whereas evolutionary mechanisms are proximal, without purpose, and environmentally-specific. This is the crux of the issue of teleological thinking being placed into evolutionary biology. It obfuscates what is known with what is believed or hoped for and ascribes the very human notion of planning to evolution, as if to indicate that specific mutations are designed (the hope or desire) rather than chance events (as indicated by numerous examples of mutagenesis research) which then may survive differentially.

At least, if you believe a commenter that recently posted on my blog. Let’s see how well the link she posted, “Six Good Reasons to Avoid the Flu Shot,” holds up under the scrutiny of an individual familiar with many of the general complexities of the immune system and a cursory understanding of pseudoscience.

Every year it is recommended that people get a flu shot to avoid spending time feeling horrendously bad over the winter.

This is a matter of probability; the vaccines are selected and prepared based upon the strains most likely to be the most prevalent or dangerous the following year.  Case in point: the novel H1N1 Swine influenza virus has a relatively high transmission rate and mortality when compared to others; this would have been one of the selected viruses in “the flu shot” cocktail vaccine had it not been detected so late in the year. Other strains of virus still exist, but those most likely of causing a severe pandemic are prevented.

Elderly people are especially warned that without a flu shot, their health could be in serious jeopardy.

Yes, but would you care to elaborate on why? The immune system of elderly patients are significantly less prepared for viral infections (or other infections) than young adults. This is due to a myriad of factors ranging from the atrophy of the thymus (results in T-cell dysfunction) to a decrease in B-cell numbers. Here is a decent source of information about immune senescence. Now you know why…

In recent years, this warning has been extended to children, and more recently even teenagers.

Well, it certainly depends upon the type of infection. Children tend to have less developed immune systems (not because they need magical nutrients or foods) due to the time necessary for immune cells to mature. As for teenagers and young adults, viral infections which can lead to autoimmunity or so-called “cytokine storms” are more likely in the populations (teenagers and young adults) with fully mature and fully functioning immune systems. Teenagers and children are also more at-risk for contracting influenza than are young adults due to the high traffic areas of schools. These teenagers and children then come into contact with parents and grandparents.

Yet there is mounting evidence that flu shots do not guarantee a healthy winter, and in fact they cause far more harm than good.

I want to see where this “harm” comes from. While it does not guarantee a healthy winter, immunity to the most transmissive strains decreases the probability of getting sick significantly since one is immune to those strains most likely to cause infection.

Here are 6 reasons to avoid getting a flu shot.

Are any of them decent?

1.There is absolutely no evidence that flu shots actually work.

Try again. They work wonderfully to prevent the strains which they are targeted towards; they give little or no benefit if the strain is not one of those in the vaccine. Most of the time, the strains in circulation are the ones in the vaccine.

The flu shot is only able to protect against certain strains of the flu, so if you come into contact with a strain that you are not protected from, then you will still get the flu.

Yes, but MOST of the time, the strains you are most likely to come in contact with ARE the ones in the vaccine.

This is in fact not uncommon. In 2004, The National Vaccine Information Center reported that the vaccine given that year did not contain the flu strain that caused the majority of flu outbreaks that year.

One example? That makes it “not uncommon.” Talk about cherry picking data.

A study published in the Lancet in August revealed that there was no correlation between the flu shot and reduced risk of pneumonia.

Yea… pneumonia… not influenza. These are two different diseases, this surprises you, why? The only possible link between the two would be if the pneumonia was an opportunistic infection.

Further, a large study of 260,000 children between 23 month and 6 discovered that the flu vaccine is no more effective that a placebo. This was reported in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Actually, you’re incorrect here if we’re talking about the same study (2008). Children under 2 years of age (with their developing immune system) have very little benefit from the vaccine. Without seeing if the data have any type of other anomaly which may explain this, I’ll take the word of the researchers. I am still curious as to why an 18 month old child and a 3 year old child differ so much in this regard, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it has something to do with the length of time necessary for T-cells and B-cells to develop with the necessary antibodies.

2.The flu vaccines, as well as all other vaccines contain mercury,

So?

which is a seriously health compromising heavy metal.

Wrong again. Thiomersal is degraded into ethylmercury, which is easily removed by the kidneys and does not accumulate like methylmercury. Also, the quantity of thiomersal in the vaccine is a very small quantity only sufficient to preserve the vaccine from bacterial contamination.

Vaccines contain Thimerosal, which is made up of mercury.

No, it’s not made up of mercury, it contains mercury. Specifically, it is 49% mercury by weight. That means that, of the 12.5 µg of thiomersal (I’ll use the correct spelling, thank you) present in the vaccine, 6.25 µg are mercury. The maximum limit of mercury content considered “safe” in fish (this is methylmercury, not ethylmercury) is 3 µg/day. This is twice as high as the daily dose, but I’m pretty sure no one wants to get a vaccine shot every single day. Combine this with how rapidly ethylmercury is removed from the body (and methylmercury is not) leaves one wondering how you can completely misunderstand this much.

The amount of mercury contained in a multi-dose flu shot is 250 times higher in mercury than what is legally classified as hazardous waste.

That’s because you’re dealing with a concentration threshold rather than a mass-dependent threshold. A single vaccine dose (.25 mL) contains 12.5 µg of thiomersal. That’s a concentration of 50 µg/mL thiomersal or roughly 25 mg/L mercury. The regulations for mercury can be found here. The “low mercury” hazard threshold is .2 mg/L. The reason for this extremely low threshold is to prevent leaching.

Side affects of mercury toxicity are vast and include depression, memory loss, attention deficit disorder, anger, oral cavity disorders, digestive disorder, anxiety, cardiovascular problems, respiratory issues, thyroid and other glandular imbalances, and low immune system to name a few.

But at what concentration? And in what form? There is no evidence to suggest that, at the dosage level present in vaccines, thiomersal is dangerous in any way.

3.The flu vaccines contain antibiotics such as neomycin, polymyxin B and gentamicin which are added to eliminate stray bacteria found in the mixture. Evidence shows that antibiotics wipe out beneficial bacteria that is needed for optimum health. Antibiotics ironically lower the immune system and cause Candida overgrowth.

Again, you must look, not only at what is in it, but at what concentration and how much of a dose is being given. “Penicillin kills E. coli” is a true statement, if, of course, a high enough dose is given. E. coli can live comfortably in media containing 2 µg/mL penicillin; once it reaches 32 µg/mL, E. coli can no longer live in that media. The doses within these vaccines are only high enough to kill bacteria living IN THE VACCINE; they will do nothing to bacteria living within or on the patient’s body.

4.Vaccines contain Polysorbate 80 as an emulsifier. This highly toxic agent can seriously lower the immune system and cause anaphylactic shock which can kill. According to the MSDS sheet at Science lab.com, section 11, polysorbate 80 may cause reproductive effects, cancer, and may be a mutagenic, (change the genetics), in animals. According to PubMed.Gov, neonatal rats that were injected with small doses of polysorbate 80 had serious damage to their reproductive organs, often resulting in infertility. Imagine that they are recommending this for young girls! It’s no wonder that the infertility rate is skyrocketing each and every year.

Damages what reproductive organs? Granted, if you eat 1 kg of polysorbate 80 every day for 21 days, you’ll lose a few pounds, but otherwise, no genes or jeans will be affected. Can I switch to Wikipedia style?

5.There is growing evidence that flu shots cause Alzheimer’s disease due to the aluminum and formaldehyde combined with mercury since they are even more toxic together than they are alone. ^{[citation needed]} Some research suggests that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3 to 5 years had 10 times greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots.^{[citation needed]}

I could find no decent studies showing aluminum OR formaldehyde having ANY affect upon Alzheimer’s. Since the neuronal “death receptor” DR6 is likely the causative agent of Alzheimer’s disease.

6.With so many potential side effects, it seems clear that the flu shot is potentially dangerous while not making a difference anyway. In addition, it is also completely unnecessary. Everything that we need to enjoy amazing health is right here on planet earth. Nothing man made is ever, ever needed in order to ward off illness and live vibrantly. Here are some powerful ways that you can ensure you don’t get the flu this year without injecting yourself with the extremely toxic flu shot:

This isn’t a reason, it’s a conclusion, it goes at the end. It shouldn’t be in the list of “reasons.” Here’s an idea, think about the “Nothing man made is ever, ever needed in order to ward off illness and live vibrantly” statement a bit. I present to you soap. I also present to you fire. I will also present to you tools. The flu shot is not toxic, it is not dangerous, it is just another tool humans have developed to prevent the discomfort and death of those we care about. One has to wonder how man members of those ancient tribes were afraid of fire…

·Make sure that you get plenty of sunshine over the winter research continually indicates that the winter flu is often a result of vitamin D deficiency from lack of sun. If you live in a place without sunshine, take cod liver oil, find a place that offers sunshowers (natural tanning beds), and if it is sunny go outside as much as you possibly can no matter how cold it is. Raw, unpasteurized milk is another vitamin D abundant food.

Except vitamin D increases the likelihood of influenza infections.

·Exercise, exercise, exercise! When you get out and get your body moving, you are much less likely to get sick. Yoga, for example is a fabulous way to get fit, relieve stress and boost the immune system.

Yoga? Really? There was a study done over a year ago by NCCAM that has yet to be published… For the time being, the “immune system boosting” gets a bullshit tag.

·Eat plenty of immune boosting foods such as garlic, vitamin C containing fruits and fresh green juices (broccoli, cabbage, cucumber and celery.) A diet rich in live foods is a sure way to stay healthy all year long.

More “boosing” the immune system. What the hell is it with alternative to medicine con artists and “boosting” the immune system? What exactly is meant by this word “boosting,” does it imply increasing the activity of something that is already functioning properly (called autoimmunity) or increasing the response time beyond it’s “normal” maximum; in which case, how was this claim tested? Also, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say these foods were *gasp* selectively bred and thus “made by man,” but oh well. Anyway, garlic is tasty, citrus fruits are tasty, and I personally love celery. It won’t keep you from getting influenza.

·Cut out sugar. Sugar suppresses the immune system and causes disease.

Wait, so, sugar suppresses the immune system? How? Evidence?

Today there are so many wonderful healthy alternatives such as agave nectar and xylitol that it is totally unnecessary to ever consume sugar.

Except, you know, if you like bread or any sweet pickled foods. Also, if you’re, you know, poor. Both are substantially more expensive than sucrose.

·Deal with emotional stress. Anger and stress suppress the immune system.

Well, and then, when they get sick, you can just say that they were stressed rather than admit you were full of shit?

Yoga, meditation, counselling, natural therapies and plant medicines can transform stress and help you live with abundant health in mind and body.^{[citation needed]} Get plenty of sleep. A lack of sleep suppresses the immune system, but is a reality for millions of people. Find ways to make life less hectic so that you have more time to catch those zzzzs.

Because people with hectic schedules have options like “slow down, relax, take a break.” More than likely, these people are busy because they have no other choice. I certainly hope we’ve learned something here.

Lastly, my little rant below the fold:

The reasons to get an influenza vaccine are not just to prevent you from getting sick, it’s to break the chain of infections. If it is only 50% successful at preventing infections, the decreased spread of the virus makes it less likely for those with compromised immune systems to come into contact with an infected person. It also means less people will get sick to the point of needing medical attention, cutting medical costs. Also, decreasing the number of infected people decreases the mutation rate of the disease, decreasing the likelihood of it becoming very, very dangerous. There are many other reasons to get a vaccine other than yourself.

Who among you has heard that “scientific discoveries become public knowledge” or something along those lines. A little quip about how society “is X years behind the scientific field” is often added onto this. Most frequently, the equation E=mc² is used as an example of something that has finally made this trek. I will concede that many people have heard this formula, but few understand it to any extent. While it does explain nuclear reactions and so forth, it also demonstrates why the energy CONTENT within a massive object directly affects the mass of the object. Warming an object will increase its mass, very slightly, but it will. So we can say that it takes 100 years for scientific discoveries to become “public knowledge” if this is to be a decent example. If this is the case, why do so many people hold onto the idea of vitalism after the prediction that organic compounds differed substantially from inorganic compounds and thus could not be synthesized? It was Wöhler who once wrote, after synthesizing urea, ” The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Today, in undergraduate Organic Chemistry labs across the country, students can synthesize much more complex organic compounds. Planck’s law of black body radiation is older than Einstein’s formula, yet it still sits in the obscurity of scientific textbooks. Evolution has made it into society as a combination of misunderstood descriptions and incorrect depictions and is actively opposed by many of the same people that still hold fast on vitalism. (I guess they don’t get the memos)

Given these examples, I propose that accurately represented and understood science does not make it into culture.

I suppose you’ve heard the creationist fantasy that the Earth was created in 4004 BCE, at least once or twice in your lifetime. It seems to have been documented!

According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians—the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government—were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.

“I do not understand,” reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. “A booming voice is saying, ‘Let there be light,’ but there is already light. It is saying, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass,’ but I am already standing on grass.”

I am left only wondering why creationists hold on to such silliness. For fuck’s sake, we have dendrochronological evidence indicating the Earth is at least 11,000 years old.

As Douglas Adams once wrote: “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

The infamous and aptly named Oral Robers (Granville Oral Roberts) who claimed to have visions of a Giant Zombie Jesus (GZJ)-no, seriously, a 900 ft tall vision of Jesus-that encouraged him to build a hospital, and this hospital would make him money and be really successful. The hospital was losing tons of money (MILLIONS), and so he said he had to make $8 million by March of 1987 or god would “call him home.” That’s right, he said god would kill him. After that, he sold the hospital (which GZJ told him would be a success) with the hospital in nearly $25 million in debt. The guy who started a university only to use it as a personal slush fund. Am I sad that he died? Not in the least, we all die. I am sad that he died having wasted his life and the money of thousands of duped people and exploited their ignorance. He was a con artist, a very clever con artist, but a liar, thief, and charlatan. It also seems Mr. Granville has a son that picked up where his father left off: Richard Roberts. Thankfully, Dick (kind of funny; Oral has a son named “Dick”) doesn’t have quite the political clout his father did.

Well, since yesterday wasn’t the Rapture, nor was September 21st, October 21st, or November 11th, it seems they have decided upon a new date! December 21st. Why do the days always end with a “1?” Why is the 21st so damn common? Does the love of the number 21 have something to do with why 21 is the legal drinking age here in the United States? It absolutely does!

Any time a group or an individual uses a rectally derived number, it must sound significant. This is true of dates, times, ages, or so forth. These numbers fall into predictable patterns. The most common final digits are 0 and 5, but when someone wants to “opinion push” data, these numbers will be a 1, 7, or 9. I have no idea why they use these numbers, but think of prices at a fuel station. There is no difference between fuel which is $2.999/gallon versus $3.000/gallon. You would save one penny per 10 gallons of fuel, or if buying 100 gallons of fuel, the total savings would be 10 cents.  The reason is that the number 2.999 appears to be less than 3.00 upon casual observation (which is how we typically make purchases). Similarly, the number 3.10 would seem significantly higher than 2.099 even though there is, realistically, no significant quantitative difference. Let us take this to an extreme of saving one penny per gallon over the lifetime of a car. Say, for example, you drive a vehicle that gets 20 mpg on average. The average lifespan of a car is 200,000 miles (it’s not, but let’s use this overly large number as an example). that means you will purchase, over the lifetime of that car, 10,000 gallons of fuel, saving (given the 10 cents per 100 gallons) about $10.00 over the entire lifetime of that car. This is just extrapolating mathematically, feel free to double check it. In essence, you would have saved enough to purchase 3.33 gallons of fuel.  Realistically, that savings over such a period is inconsequential given both its negligible magnitude and the time span involved.

In reality, the numbers and frequency of the numbers used by the same individual tells us quite a bit about their motivations. “11″ and “21″ both appear significant, even though, realistically, no person is magically more mature at midnight beginning their 22nd year after birth (remember, you’re starting year 22 on your 21st birthday, since you start at 0). Nothing magical happens after living on this planet the full 18 years as opposed to 17 years and 364.20 days. What does this have to do with assigning dates, though? Well, everything, it would seem. Choosing a fictional numeric date is subject to the same patterns of fabricated numbers everywhere. If the numbers are data, dates, ages, prices, or anything else. Specific number elicit specific emotions associated with them. “21″ and “11″ seem like significant numbers because they end in “1″ as opposed to artificially insignificant numbers which end in 7, 8, or 9. The “1″ in “21″ make it “more than 20″ as opposed to “19″ which is “less than 20.” Optimally, one would choose a number ending in “1″ when choosing a date which something special will happen in the future on a specific date (as opposed to day of the week). Had this individual consistently chosen a specific day of the week, this numeric pattern would not be significant.

So, anyone familiar with evolutionary biology has probably heard about the Ensatina superspecies complex of lungless salamanders. This wouldn’t be interesting were it not for some relatively new research (and continuous production of research) indicating that this is much more complex than previously thought. Populations seem to have been geographically split and reunited in several locations, maybe. This is evident by the genetic discontinuities and divergence responsible for the color patterns observed. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) points to reproductive isolation and returning to low level gene flow between populations (termed “gene leakage” in the paper). Secondary contact seems to be the reason this superspecies did not completely diverge into multiple species. Indeed, at the far southern end of one sympatric region, it could be said that two subspecies have diverged enough to be considered distinct species were it not for the northern portions having low frequency hybridization (<20% hydbridization).

Previous mitochondrial evidence indicated that while reproductive isolation was historically important for these salamanders, new research suggests only one small area has achieved reproductive isolation. However, the authors then go on to explain something a bit interesting about the misleading nature of mitochondrial evidence in this case.

Furthermore, if migration is mainly led by males, as suggested by field estimates in Ensatina (Staub et al. 1995), the admixture rate would also be higher in markers carried by both sexes, which could further enhance the differential effect of genetic drift. Therefore, these results call for caution in the interpretation of species boundaries based solely on mitochondrial markers, which could be misleading especially in cases of organisms that are philopatric and that have sex-biased dispersal and/or low vagility.

What the authors are trying to say here can be summarized as “males do not pass mitochondria to offspring; since males are the primary cause of migration in this species, there may be more nuclear gene flow than indicated by mitochondrial evidence.”

If you thought that was the interesting part, you’re still missing quite a bit. Evolutionarily, fertile hybrids alone do not mean the two semi-isolated populations will not diverge. If, for example, the individuals rarely backcross (for any reason; untimely demise, mate preference, etc) with the parental population, gene flow between the two populations is still prevented. This would result in a stable hybrid zone where the two populations overlap, but allow genetic drift and selection to still result in the populations diverging. This seems to be the case in some of the regions, but also, it seems the differentiation and divergence has been completely stopped in some regions, and partially reversed with high levels of gene flow between populations due to stable and successful hybrids. Some areas are even DOMINATED by hybrids, and not only were most of them hybrids in these areas, but they were backcrossed hybrids! The two populations had merged in this area!

So it would seem that, not only is Ensatina a superspecies and still a ring species, but gives us amazing insight into new possibilities for speciation to occur. We basically see sympatric and allopatric divergence occurring as well as divergence REVERSAL. I leave you with the final sentence from this research:

Although prized as an example of evolutionary clarity, Ensatina presents a pattern of taxonomic irresolution (different systematists might recognize from one to many species, depending on what criteria they choose) that one expects from Darwinian species formation.

Refs:

Genetic Leakage After Adaptive and Nonadaptive Divergence in the Ensatina eschscholtzii Ring Species. Pereira, Ricardo and David B. Wake. Evolution.

Strictly speaking, atheism is the lack of any deity or supernatural power. It does not, strictly speaking, preclude the existence of souls, nor does it prevent the belief in pretty much anything else other than deities. Indeed, there are atheists that I would consider among the least reality-based and most prejudiced people in the world; Maher comes to mind. Atheism is, strictly, a statement of what one is does not believe in. As such, it is often viewed as a negative. What then, does atheism have to do with science, morality, relationships, sexuality, or anything else? Simply put, only parts of those which would include belief in a deity.

Where, then, do the arguments against science as a supposed attack on atheism come from? More importantly, where do the arguments against atheism as a supposed argument against science come from?* I think it stems, partially, from a response to the questions of “well, where do you think the universe came from?” or “well, how can you be moral without god(s)?” Aside from the nonsensical nature of these questions, as if the evidence for the origin of the universe proves the existence of their deity. Ignoring the blatant idiocy of arguing that religion gives morality, what does specific ethics have to do with science? Ethics are informed by culture, science is informed by evidence, and religion ignores evidence in favor of ancient cultural tradition.

But these arguments illustrate a point, creationists and the pompously pious do the same things: when arguing one point, they immediately shift to another, and when that is proven fallacious, they shift once again. This “Gish Gallop” is most notable when discussing something such as evolutionary biology with a group of creationists. You will notice they shift, immediately, and as frequently as possible, to other topics.

I found this rather old post which was, strangely enough, randomly associated with one of my blog posts. I have a bit of a long response to it, so I’ll be kind and post it here. Feel free to read the blog post, then my comments.

But, I deliberately left out “macroevolution,” or the evolution of different species from one another. It’s quite a bit harder to discuss scientifically, in my opinion, because it is limited to analysis of historical events.

Interesting to discuss it this way; I only use the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” to describe such concepts to the lay person. It is, frankly, not difficult at all to discuss macroevolution, because it is happening right now, all over the world, in any species with distinctive and isolated populations. All you need to do is look. Ring species make wonderful examples, but there are others. So to say it is limited ONLY to historical analysis is to indicate ignorance of modern research.

This individual then puts up the DNA sequence as “code” falsehood… Again, the sequence IS NOT THE CODE. The term “DNA code” is reserved for the sequences which are templates which produce proteins. Not all of them do, the whole thing is not code, moving along. I understand this subtlety may elude many people, but it is significant. The DNA strands are not code, the “code” is the sequence of RNA which results in a specific protein sequence.

The notion that mutations can be beneficial, dangerous, or irrelevant misses the point that a mutation can be both beneficial AND dangerous (sickle cell trait and Plasmodium).

The insertion of teleology into evolution indicates, once again, ignoring the research which indicates identical conditions and circumstances do not result in the same mutations or even evolutionary outcomes in separate populations. Sorry, but evolution is not teleological, it follows selective pressures, founder effects (sample bias), and genetic drift (also an example of sample bias), as well as a few other mechanisms like selective migration and population death due to regional destruction (read: “subspecies wiped out by a volcano or other major natural disaster”).

While this individual does seem to be genuinely educated in evolutionary biology, the way he or she is explaining these matters is quite poor, and seems mostly informed by 1970s evolutionary biology. It needs updating.

So, I’m sure my loyal readers (all ten of them) are familiar with the “DNA sequence as information” metaphor, but a recent publication brought to my attention by ERV has illustrated a point that template molecules (in this case, prions) which catalyze reactions (folding of a protein) is capable of “mutation” by minor changes in conformation. DNA sequences similarly change conformation quite frequently (such as “TATA boxes” binding TBP causing the DNA to partially unwind and bend). We can refer to DNA sequences, because of this, as a reactive mold (mould) for new synthesis of new molecules. Like any mold, occasionally “imperfections” (mutations or one component where something else should be) are present. This mold is capable of reproducing itself because the master mold and the master pattern go back together once used and can be used to make replicas of each other. Similar to the molding process, errors or imperfections in the mold are passed on through progressive “generations” of the reproduction of additional molds and patterns.

We can take this metaphor a bit further before it breaks down. The imperfections in this mold alter the function of the part which is made from this mold. These imperfections can make the part work better, worse, or have no effect. For instance, a bump in the tooth of a gear will make the gear wear faster, but dimples in the corresponding gear can result in this problem being resolved.

Another interesting result is that we have the option of referring to RNA as a “lost wax” or the interim mold or the product, depending, of course, on the destination of this RNA.

Questions, comments, observations, criticisms?