Dak

are you leading up to some kind of 'the theory of evolution has not been conclusively proven' revelation (coincidentally ignoring the fact, which has been pointed out twice, that the mechanisms of evolution can be proven indipendantly of the history of any/all species)

but not an admin i was just thinking that the rate of change was a tad fast to be sustainable, and just wondering as to the reason for the sudden change-fest. oh, and what are the plans for the religiouse forum?

why not? evolution isnt unique to living things. ideas, methods, bacteria, viruses, forums, humans, desighns, all can evolve under the right circumstances. its entirely believable that micelles full of amino-acids and a few nucleotides could evolve, eventually crossing the fuzzy border from non-life into life.

please dont start that again. just accept that the usage of the word 'creationist' on this site is slightly different than the usage that your used to, and leave it at that.

hmmm... for some inexplicable reason i have the irrisistable urge to write this post in the style of brinnie... oh well, i think ill follow my whim. since i joined liek two months ago, this forum has, liek, made loads of changes. 1/promoted a mod to an admin (dave - yay dave) 2/introdused a 360min limit on editing posts i think 3/introdused a resident expert thing 4/got a, liek, arcade thing (yay arcade) 5/theres some, like, 'plans' for the religiouse section or sumthing whatever that means my question is, liek, does it normally change this fast? or has it liek been liek changing a bit more than liek normal lately? liek? or something. WHATEVER liek. hehe, that was fun seriously, does it normally change this fast.

Experiment with ImprovedScanabilityTextTM number 1 please excuse the strangeness of the formatting, whilst i learn how to properly format for scan-reading.

it was entirely unintentional; however i did notice it after i'd typed it, but descided it was funny enough to leave i resisted the urge to plonk in a few comments such as it being an interesting pole which is bound to get a lot of attention, possibly ending up as one of the biggest poles on this forum etc. etc. etc.

iv always wondered about that. iv heard of studies that reveal that many women experiment with homosexuality, but iv never heard the same about men. iv heard it claimed, but not by a reliable study. hmm... i feel a pole coming on.

i still prefer the term 'tossers'. and before anyone moans at me for attacking religion, id like to point out that every single 'fristian' that iv heard speak has outright said that i am evil and going to hell because of who i am/something i do. so **** 'em.

so mary was a hermaphrodidic nut-job. mmmmmmmm, sacreliciouse the affair is my personal favorite hypothesis.

mary would have had to have been a hermaphrodite, in that case -- unless of course jesus was a female transvestite. i dont believe that males can result from partheneogenesis: there genes come soley from the mother and, whilst the offspring is genetically different from the mother due to different allele frequensies and recombination etc, as the mother has no y chromosome the offspring cannot either.

what warning system? the one that mods can use, or can us mere mortals warn each other now?

in a society with contact lenses, can a gene which causes shortsightedness actually be said to be bad? i mean, im incredably shortsighted, but it only ever has any bearing on my life once every month, when i have to change my contacts. so, rather than saying 'modern medicine allows weak genes to survive' would it not be more accurate to say that 'modern medicine removes evolutionary pressure from a gene'? with no bad effects of posessing wonkey eye genes (because of contact lenses) eye-genes are free to mutate, and so possibly evolve -- gene duplication has a similar effect, if a gene is duplilcated then one of the copies, having the evolutionary pressure to stay the same removed, can go off and evolve into something else. so maybe, by removing the evolutionary pressure on our genes, well actually be allowing them to evolve into something better. of course, they could just crap out, and then the entire human race would have to wear contacts; but if the entire human race has decent eyesight then the entire human race has decent eyesight -- wether naturally or due to contact lenses.

are you implying that mary may have partheneogenisised?

This shows a phylogenetic analysis of different strains of HIV and SIV. Whilst the tree isnt nessessaraly 100% accurate (due to the nature of phylogenetic analysis), it does show the commonly held scientific oppinion that HIV-1M evolved from SIVcpz (that is, simmian immunodificiency virus that infected chimpanzees), HIV-1N evolved from HIV-1M, HIV-1O also evolved from SIVcpz, and HIV-2 evolved from SIVsmm (ie, simmian immunodificiency virus which infected sooty mangabeys). also, the prevalence of HIV-1 and the geographic origin of the virus coinsides with the habitat of Pan troglodites troglodites (a sub-species of chimps), adding further weight to the argument that HIV came from SIV; or more specifically, that HIV-1 came from a strain of SIV which infects the troglodytes subspecies of chimps (SIVcpzUS).1

should it not say what theyre resident experts in? (i assume its phisics, herpetology and microbiology for swanson, mokele and skye respectively)?

big squiggly L with a quote-mark at the top, little swirly thingy, another big squiggly thing (kinda like an h, with the arc flattened). or something.

hurm, whats 1st past the post mean? (im pretty sure that yes, we do)

yeah, jallepeno sause sux. having a cigarrete then putting a contact lense in also stings like buggary. my most painful has got to be a scrunched up paper ball, which sliced my contact lense in half and paper-cut my eye. ouch. would you mind if i added 'things gotten lodged up nose' to your question? i got a rasin wedged up my right nostril once when i was young. my mum had to fish it out with a matchstick.

was it the first time that they'd been to that island?

ok. naturally, with things involving mortal combat etc, like defending territories, many animals send the blokes off to fight and the women, elderly and young stay at home: thus, the local population is split into two groups, one consisting of males and one consisting of females. now, if either of these groups is wiped out (possible, as the split usually happens in times of conflict), then the entire population will be lost as there will only be members of one sex left. by having a few women who will go off and fight with the men, and a few men who will stay at home with the females, it is ensured that even if one group is wiped out, the remaining group will contain both men and women so that the population can reproduce. dont know how good/bad this theory is (actually, it seems a little lame), i was just relaying what iv heard conjectured before.

oooh, do you want to plonk in a few of them once this ones been done? were they deserters?

hmmm... how about: excluding matters directly related to the seagul, was there any conversation between the man and the person who served him the seagul.

did the person who served him the seagul tell him anything significant/relevant?

possibly, one male and ten females can result in ten pregnancies, whereas ten males and one female can only result in one pregnancy so, in terms of continuing the species, its better to lose males than females. iv also heard this as an argument for the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality of the 'completely acts like a member of the opposite sex' variety: if all the male monkeys go off to fight and are all slaughtered, then the one effeminate male monkey which stayed behind with the female monkeys can empregnate the females and spawn a new generation; if all of the monkeys which stay behind and dont fight get killed, the one butch lesbian monkey which went off and fought with the males can get pregnant and spawn a new generation.