#28187: coturnix — 06/12  at  02:47 PM
Thanks for giving me a heads-up and giving me the assignment. It was fun to do.

This was also an opportunity to post something on Circadiana - I have placed it on hiatus since the final grades were turned in. Running two blogs (and participating in a group blog), writing a dissertation, and playing with kids now that they are on summer break, all takes time.

Hmmm, this also looks like a good entry for Skeptic's Circle....

#28211: — 06/12  at  07:52 PM
I'm surprised that Reverend William Paley hasn't realized that an inflexible circadian rhythm would have difficulty dealing with the fact that days (hours of sunlight) are longer in summer than winter.

No wait, I'm not surprised at all.

#28225: — 06/12  at  09:56 PM
Didn't they do some study years ago with college students where they put them in rooms without the feedback of natural sunlight and had them choose their own wake/sleep cycles? If I remember right, they discovered that the "natural" human cycle (without outside inputs like sunlight, which is known to affect circadian cycles) is about 25 hours, not 24.

#28233: Jamie — 06/12  at  11:11 PM
Well, I would argue, anecdotally, that if you're in Las Vegas for a Clutch show, your "natural human cycle" adapts to about 56 hours . . .

#28249: — 06/13  at  04:36 AM

I'm surprised that Reverend William Paley hasn't realized that an inflexible circadian rhythm would have difficulty dealing with the fact that days (hours of sunlight) are longer in summer than winter.

No wait, I'm not surprised at all.

Yeah, me neither. People who died two centuries ago are really inflexible when it comes to changing their ideas when confronted with new evidence.

#28329: judgeMC — 06/13  at  09:08 PM
I love this site so much. Not a day goes by that I don't learn something new.