Ten oz

I had planned to sit this one out but then you went and made me give MigL a plus one which truly pains me to do. In stable group there will not be ongoing adaptation. Speciation requires a reduced gene flow."Speciation requires selective mating, which result in a reduced gene flow. Selective mating can be the result of 1. Geographic isolation, 2. Behavioural isolation, or 3. Temporal isolation." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation The overwhelming majority of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Extinction is significantly more common than successful adaptation to a changing environment. I know for many people when they imagine extinctions of the past it is often in form of a meteor strike that kills all life over night but that isn't the case. There have been several mass extinctions throughout earths history and each one takes tens and hundreds of thousands of years to run their course. Even with hundreds of thousands of years to adapt most species simply go extinct. It is not single winters freeze that would cause wasps adaptation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event Mutation happen often. Most times mutations are not embraced. Take ectrodactyly, more commonly called lobster hands. Most famously Grady Stiles was a sixth generation ectrodactyly. No missing link. No slow change from a normal hand to a cleft hand. If that trait was a desired one it could easily spread. Rather it is undesirable and stay confined to small family pockets.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectrodactyly Where as Blue eyes was a desired mutation. again, no slow progression. Some baby was born with a mutation and everyone thought it was assume so that mutation was bred into the population. Today blue eyes seem like a standard human trait. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm Change can be fast or it can be slow. No god, aliens, or other designer required.

@ at marcverhargen, DNA has allowed science to trace human life back to Africa. Observations about body fat, craving is shells, and other circumstantial bits does not trump DNA. The migration out of Africa is rather well preserved in our DNA. "Two pieces of the human genome are quite useful in deciphering human history: mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. These are the only two parts of the genome that are not shuffled about by the evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity with each generation: instead, these elements are passed down intact. According to the hypothesis, all people alive today have inherited the same mitochondria" "Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Mitochondrial_DNA The attached files in your post were interesting. However they do not address the gentics. Lots of observations and questions abou different adaptations but no genetics. So while compelling the points are not compelling enough. DNA evidence is simply more conclusive IMO than hypothesis' about why humans have larger nasal cavities than chimps. I was also put off by the papers attack on Wikipedia. Citation for everything on Wikipedia is provided. If there is a problem with a study or theory presented on Wikipedia that should be addressed directly. Going after the the site itself seems like a bait and switch.

1- Constitution needs to be amended to fix the Citizens United ruling. Corporations are not people and money isn't speech. 2 - Gerrymandering must be stopped. An algarythme should be made that divides states up into districts based on population density. Politicians should not be able to pick and choose which neighborhoods do or don't get to vote in their districts based on personal preferences. 3 - Election day should be a national holiday. Voting is a lot more difficult for some than others and it should not be that way. 4 - There should be 4 parties on the ballot. The two major parties can run their primaries however they choose but there should be two other openings that go to which ever other 2 parties (Green party, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc) get the most support. Those other two parties should be included in all televised debates. 5 - Politicians and organizations who make false claims during an election cycle (like saying a candidate isnt a natural born citizen when they provably are) should be prosecuted for manipulation of the electorate system. The offense should be akin to bribery.

Electricity is a theory. We are still learning more about it all the time. When Telsa created the first AC induction motor it didn't disprove DC or electricity as a whole.

Most humans can't do that either. Your example is a highly trained and conditioned person. Most humans have about the same ability to swim or dive underwater as the Japanenese Macaque (monkey).

I think it is worth noting that the Founding Farthers wanted only land owners to be able to vote. At that only white male land owners. The United States was structured as a Republic and not a Democracy. That was done so each state could self govern. Land owners in rural areas wouldn't have to compete with a group of land owners in a more established place teaming up to support some fee or law that more directly impact them. South Caroline shouldn't have to work for Virginia just because Virginia had more people and thus more votes. The system made sense for its time. Today that system doesn't work. Forget the popular vote vs the electoral college for a moment. The White House is only a third of the equation. Every state gets 2 senators equally to make up the Senate. Which means small states with 500 thousand residents like Montana get equal representation as California which has about 38 million residents. Rather than majority rule the Senate has a grosse over representation of the minority. Same applies to the House of reps as a result of gerrymandering. In the 2012 elections Republican only won 49% of the house votes yet they picked up 54% of the house seats. So it could be argued IMO that Congress is an example of tyranny of the minority. It is a system that was meant for different times. A time when slavery was still legal and people seldom if ever traveled further than 20 miles from the place of there birth. Today people traverse states as part of their daily commutes and companies do business in all 50 states. The old system currently allows for too much manipulation. Billionaire can legally dump money into any election anywhere. A Texas billionaire can put millions into an election in North Dakota. So the system is doing nothing to protect State sovereignty.

The trouble I have seen with discussions about Islam is that they mostly tend to be either "Islam is terrible" or "Islam needs to go by force" with the initial view being seen as an apologist one. I do not like the religion and the abuses against women culturally in the region rooted in the religion. That said I do not want to kill them either. I don't think attempts to change a culture through violence will do anything but further radicalize it. If people in the West have a problem with the Middle East (home of Mecca) than they should use less oil products and vote for politicians that want to expand solar and wind. Work to stop sending theocracies trillions of dollars in oil revenue.

It is not a coincidence that the USA has a high rate of police killing citizens while also having protests against police brutality. It is silly that you challange the direct connection between the two. What people believe various greatly. Your suspicions should be provably valid if they are suppose to justify someone's death. And by provably valid I don't mean if or had X, Y, and Z happened at some theoretically point past the time of lethal force. Pull the tigger? This implies a gun is present. I referenced UNARMED people.

I think it is self evident that if as few people were killed by police in the U.S. as are killed in Canada, Germany, and England we would not see the level of protest we are seeing. Context matters and you are stretching mine a bit. Police in the U.S. kill too people. That is what is being protested. Police violence throughout the country. That is why the militarization of the police, body cameras, police training, and international statistic have become part of the national dialogue . You are commenting on personal choices and behaviors but Brown, Gardner, Rice, and etc are just examples that highlight the problem just as Rosa Parks was just one example. Doesn't matter if Brown was a terrible person anymore than it would have mattered if Parks had been a terrible person. The issue is bigger. The protests are obviously about more than lone individuals. There is already a legal minimum:"In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents." "This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances." http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/ I do not think a reasonable person would judge an unarmed person who is not in act of assualting or otherwise injurying a person(s) as an unavoidable threat of death. If a police officer fears a person might have a gun, shoots that person dead, and it turns out that person was not armed; that police officer was wrong. What they thought was not accurate. That police officer acted to avoid a threat that did not exist. In my opinion life, everyone's life, is a basic right. Someone elses fear of me should not trump my right to continued existence. Police are good killing people who are actively threating their lives. But it is not reasonable to kill people for what you fear they might or could do. Departments are not obligated to make reports to the FBI's database. So the 400 plus we know about is the absolute minium killed. The true numbers are higher.

Police should not shoot unarmed people and then be able to just get off by saying they were scared. Carrying on about behavior, who could have made what choices, and so on distracts from the issue. People are not protesting around the country because they support Brown's life choices. They are protesting because here in the USA the police kill citizens at a substantially higher rate than the rest of the developed world. The pattern is big and goes far beyond any single persons behavior.

Of course the Bible is not real history. That isn't the question being asked in this thread. I am sure that Jesus had he existed did not rise from the dead and all that nonsense. But did he exist. Was the myth built around an actual person?

You are sure? I personally think it is unclear. What specifically makes you sure?

My understand is that blackberry has a closed emailing system. It does not operate through the Internet but rather internally on there own intranet. North Korea? What are your thoughts? I honestly don't have any interesting ones. I suspect more of the same. I don't anticipate anything changing for the positive or negative in 2015.

Improving ones situation is relative. Choosing a less violent pimp improves a prostitutes situation. The goal posts are on wheels when discussing a person's ability to improve their life.

Interiorly in respects to humans of course? The concept of destroying nature and pushing animals into extinction never seem to make there way to any conversation about god. Instead get the narcissistic obsession with humans as the only creation of the creator who need know thy creator.

iNow's link provides several examples of people being discriminated against under controlled conditions where personal behavior has been removed from the equation.

I disagree. In my opinion science seeks to learn and accumulate information. Truth as a monolithic concept is not tangible. Conclusive truth is redundant as belief in faith. Do you apply this equally to all life? Does a grasshopper make decisions based on what it knows, thinks, and believes?

Good post. Despite research repeatedly finding that blacks have an extra burden in society that makes employment, housing, education, and etc more difficult many still choose to blame the victim. Personal responsibility and questions about bringing it on themselves are still considered reasonable arguments when discussing statistical inequalities. Those arguments ingore history and rely an idea that things are equal which they are provably not. It doesn't end at race either. Tall people are treated better than short people, attractive people better than ugly people, rich better than poor, and etc, etc, etc. The playing field isn't equal. You asked the above questions. The point of the statistical info on traffic stops was to show that your examples are not amongst the most common reasons for police interaction. You asserted "I think you would have to answer yes" regarding your question of bringing it on themselves but then failed to support that position with anything but anacdotal observations from the TV show Cops. That is what the stats on traffic stops have to do with this discussion. The stats were directed at your assertions, not the OP. However your assertions directly relate to the OP because you are essentially asking if Brown, Gardner, Rice, and black victims of excessive force by the police overall don't "bring it on themselves".

They were the most well known figures. Lots of people were killed though. Like when Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney who killed by the KKK in Missisippi while registering black voters. Of course most of the people killed were advocates and not opponents of civil rights. My post was meant to satisfy MigL's desire to see this thread continued so perhaps I was not direct enough in my choice of words.

What are everyone's predictions for the new year? Not the obvious stuff. Technology: Tipping point for cable TV. I suspect Apple will finally release its long anticipated Television which will have built in apple TV streaming along with some form of updated iTunes that offers some free content. Separately google will update chromecast possible working directly with TV studios to create exclusive content as Netflix has. I also think it is possible Google purchases Roku as a means of shrinking the field. A comeback for Blackberry. Between the fappening and Sony hacks security will be a priory for many in 2015. Blackberry arguably still has the most secure emailing system in the cell market. By years end I suspect Blackberry will partner with of hardware builders utilizing their patients to produces a very well received super secure cell phone. It will be thee phone to have for everyone who believes they are famous or important. Global Politics: Tensions with Russia ease. Low oil prices hurt Russia as they are such a large producer. By late summer relations between Russia, E.U., and USA should be somewhat normalized. Relations between India and Pakistan will become more tense as extremist Islamic groups move from Afghanistan into Pakistan. China, Russia, Canada, and the United States sign a territorial agreement that establishes economic rights to territory in the Arctic. Miscellaneous: - flight 370 will be found - unambigious proof that life once existed on Mars will be dicovered - a multi player/organization PED scandal will hit the NFL - a manned electric plane will circle the globe

Figures don't lie but lairs can figure. NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and every other meaningful organization in the world that actually performs climate research agrees that man is impacting the earths climates. NOAA has actual personel out in he middle of the ocean taking readings, NASA has satellites messuring the whole planet, and so on. Thus far you have present nothing that counters their finding. Just petty arguments over the definition of theory vs categorical fact.

As discussed in other topics the actual clearance rate of crime is far less than 100%. Even serious crimes like murder only have a 65% clearance rate. Then you have cases where people convicted for crimes are later found innocent decades later. So we humans don't always get to the bottom of everything and there is obvious motive for killing a president. So as previously stated I do believe conspiracy is possible. However I have never seen evidence that would lead me to believe a specific conspiracy surrounding the assassination of JFK is likely. Heard lots of arguments but no real evidence. Something was absolutely in the water in the 60's. Medger Evers, Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcom X (cointelpro), and George Lincoln Rockwell are amongst the more prominent assassinations of that decade. All were advocates or opponents of civil rights. So divided on the issue of civil rights were people in the United States that in 1968 George Wallace running as a third party candidate on a platform of segregation won 10 million votes and was awarded the electoral college of 5 southern states. Of course there was an attempt on his life in 1972, he was shot 5 times. Despite there being a seemingly clear connection between the high rate of 60's assassination and the civil rights movement neither of the Kennedy assassinations are attributed to the civil rights movement. That seems suspicious but is certainly not evidence of anything. current crime clearance stats - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/clearances

1 - You have not yet presented any information that show those things are a significant drivers of police interaction with citizens. The single greatest driver of police interaction is vehicle stops. If I recall correctly you brought loitering and prostitution in to this discussion as a mean of implying that poor people bring police interaction on themselves with their behavior. Your example are off base. "The most common reason for contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. In 2008, an estimated 44% of face-to-face contacts that U.S. residents had with police occurred for this reason. About half of all traffic stops that year resulted in a traffic ticket. Approximately 5% of all stopped drivers were searched by police during a traffic stop. Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008." http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702 2 - This voting stuff was brought into the discussion following a comment made about the fact that whites often hold positions of influence and authority in minority neighborhoods but the opposite is never true. The following exchanges initially were attempts to explain why by getting off into the weeds about who votes. Ultimately the why of the thing doesn't change that fact that it happens. Whites are the overwhelming majority in the United States and that comes with certain privileges whether people choose to acknowledges those privileges or not.

@ Acme, good post. I had considered going in that direction but want to avoid an all out voter suppression debate. I am holding out hope this discussion finds it way back to police violence at some point.

66% of eligible black voters turn out and vote national. In Ferguson specifically 54% of eligible blacks voted which was only a single percent less than the white participation which was 55% of eligible. However local positions are not on the ballot along side national election. The local position elections are held on odd numbered year and voter turnout across the board plummets. in the 2013 election for municipal positions saw only 17% of eligible whites and 4% of eligible blacks. This drop in off year elections equals a 52% of the total turn out being white and 47% being black. So it isn't as if black people aren't participating. Any argument that labels blacks collectively and describes a behavior unique to that racial label is an inaccurate one. The majority of blacks do vote nationally and voter participation falls in off year elections for every other demographic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/15/how-ferguson-exposes-the-racial-bias-in-local-elections/ It is no secret that conservatives do better when less people vote. Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 national elections. Another way of putting that is to say republicans have only won the popular once since the average aged American, 35 yrs old for male or 38 years old for female, has been eligible to vote. In that same time frame Republicans have made gains in 4 of the last 6 midterm elections when turnout is dramatically reduced. So it is no wild conspiracy theory to say Republicans prefer low turn. Especially in minority communities which are far less likely to support them. "In the three states with the longest lines in 2012, precincts in minority neighborhoods were systematically deprived of the resources they needed to make voting operate smoothly — specifically, voting machines and poll workers, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The report’s data show the growing need for federal supervision of voting rights, though ensuring supervision is harder than ever since the Supreme Court removed the teeth from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last year. The report looked at Maryland, South Carolina and Florida, where many voters waited for hours to cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election. In all three, minority precincts were more likely to have had long lines. In South Carolina, the 10 precincts with the longest waits had more than twice the percentage of black registered voters, on average, than the rest of the state" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/opinion/long-lines-at-minority-polling-places.html?_r=0