Dak

ah. gotcha now. 2 things come to mind: 1/ whilst there is probably evolutionary pressure on the mimics to retain identical warning-patterns, there is probably less pressure to maintain identical toxins: if the pattern is different, the individual will get et; if the toxin is different but the pattern the same, then the individual will not get et. this could lead to the situation where x species are marked the same but carry different toxins. one possible repercussion could be that some predators could tolerate some toxins, but not others, and so could eat some of the mimics but not others, thus redusing the effectiveness of the pattern, and possibly putting pressure on the species to produce their own, toxic-specific patterns. 2/ I studied Batesian mimics at uni briefly, and iirc the population size of toxics and mimes are linked. basically, the more mimes there are the less effective the pattern is, and visa versa. so, if there are too many mimes then the pattern will become innafective and both mimes and toxics will get eaten; if the number of toxics increase, then the pattern becomes more effective and mimes increase aswell. If the number of mimes decreases, then the effect would be that there is a higher ratio of toxics, increasing the pattern effectiveness and stimulating an increase in both toxics and mimes etc. iirc, this basically means that the ratio of mimes:toxics is held roughly steady; a change in one direction or another will have an effect that brings the ratio back to a sort of equilibrium point. soo... I would assume that Mullerian mimetics are relatively stable in a dynamic kinda way as, for example, whilst there is an evolutionary advantage to cheating, if too many species cheat then the system temporarily stops working, many insects are et, and then the ratios of toxics:cheats reattains a functional level. also, i guess that, as the number of insects sharing a pattern increases, there is increasing pressure for them to develope their own pattern, and so some would break away from the mime-group, thus returning it to a smaller, more stable, size. that ^ is mainly conjecture based on my hazyish reccolections of the lectures, but i remember that there was some (pretty harsh) maths describing the dynamics, and i think the system was self-maintaining. so, my guess would be: dynamically stable mullerian mime-group with a relatively stable number of batesian mimes assocciated with (and probably originating from) the Mullerian mime-group. possibly. Ill ask 'odd american lecturer #1' when i go back to uni.

if two objects are placed together, then i assume that, due to the random breaking and reforming of the bonds of the chemicals of the two objects, that there would be a very few chemical links between the two objects. what i mean is, if plank A and plank B are placed together, then i assume that some of the molecules of plank A will dissasociate, some of the molecules of plank B will dissociate, and some molecules will form that reside half in plank A and half in plank B, thus chemically joining the two. my question is, if two objects are left touching for long enough, would they eventually fuse into one object? also, are their any restrictions on the type of objects that will fuse, or can any two objects fuse in such manner?

what exactly is the question? Im a bit lost and confused

as blike is soley financially responcable for the forum, i think its only fair that he gets to choose.

because this 'macroevolution' is at least similar enough to 'microevolution' in mechanism that, having observed 'microevolution', there is little reason to assume that 'macroevolution' does not occour. plus the fact that 'macroevolution' has been observed. its not a belief system. it is a logical/empirical system. whats the likelyhood of rolling a 6? its 1/6, ie its more likely than not that a 6 would not be rolled. yet we do not marvel at the statistical unlikelyhood of every 6 that comes up, because every outcome is unlikely. amino acids forming from 'nothing' and surviving. slim. probability that something would happen. high. any given outcome would have been unlikely, but shit happening was quite likely, and theres no point in going 'hey, why did this unlikely event happen and not one of the other unlikely events?'. out of all of the incredibly unlikely events that could of happened, it was statistically likely that one of them would occour, and it happened to be amino acids forming from 'nothing', which, depending on what you actually mean, might not be as unlikely an event as you actually believe. finally on this point, you are talking about abiogenesis, and possibly the big bang -- neither of which are evolution. read this thread no we're not. 1/ science is agnostic, not athiest, and 2/ the thing that you have described above is unscientific, and thus scientists would not do it, or we wouldnt be scientists. nope. I suspect you are referring to darwinism, which considered negroes people inferior to caucasions. Darwinism is not the current theory (the current theory is called the modern synthesis), and the modern theory states that negroes and caucasians both evolved from cro-magna homo sapiens and are both of the same species, and definately does not place one race above the other. actually, i think religion is far more guilty of treating people unequaly, espescially if theyre a different religion, of no religion, the same religion but do things in a different way, a different colour or, heaven forbid, the lowest-of-the-low, a female.

Oh. in that case use a proxy, enter the ISP rather than the url, use a different browser, end/delete the process/plugin that is responsable for the filtering, accept that school is not the place to look up pr0n, etc. I should point out that it would be easy for a school to check what youv been doing, by cheking the school-proxy's history etc, so you probably shouldnt bypass the filtering wotzit.

he's inconsistant tho. sometimes its object verb subject (yoda am I, ooh-hoo-ho-ho-hee), other times its subject object verb (strange the ways of the forse are), others its verb object subject (judge me by my size, do you?), others still its the english subject verb object (you seek yoda).

aye, ye be sailin for a keelhaulin, ye skavy saggart. skivent, talk ee like a pirate or ye be dancin wi davy jones fore the morros sun. krives. ya we feggr. buggrit: bo'sun phi, splice thar mainsail; master skye, shiver me timbers (if ye'd be so kind); and 'memory-wench, lode yon cannon with gammon: we be moving on bascule, for an orgy of cake*, pillage and plunder. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar. etcetera. --------------------------------------------------------------- * 'cos we be psudo-ethical 21st century pirates. and basule be uglier than neptunes scrote. aye.

if so wize yoda is, why basic sentance-structure understand he don't?

it sounds as if you might be talking about hetrologouse-fatal alleles, ie the allele distribution in the offspring would be: AA, Aa, Aa, aa ie, your standard 25:50:25 AA:Aa:aa ratio between a dominant and a resessive allele; but then the hetz would die, leaving this: AA, Aa, Aa, aa hense 50:50 AA:aa ratio in the surviving offspring. although, iv never heard of hetrologouse-fatal alleles. (homologouse-fatal alleles, yes; but not hetrologouse).

a firewall must allow some access to the internet, and so the best way to 'bypass' a firewall is to forse one of the programs allowed to acess the internet into doing what you want. for example, if you want to load a program onto someones machine, then you could set up a website which exploits a security issue in internet explorer in such a way that, if the site is viewed with internet explorer, then IE is made to download something onto the PC. this program can then do your dirty work. Of course the downloaded program wont be secured for internet acess, and so wont be able to acess the internet to communicate with you; to get round this, the program could use an exploit in IE to forse IE to send out data, or could use an exploit in your firewall to shut it down, at which point the firewall could be considered to be well and truly bypassed. although it is most common to use exploits in web browsers to bypass firewalls, any program which the firewall allows access to the internet can be used, such as an instant messanger program such as MSN or AOL messanger, or one of the operating system programs such as the remote procedure call service (?).

I dont get this bit surely breeding, be it in or out, is selective by its very nature? ie, alleles will get shuffled about and put in different combinations, and the combinations with (overall) the best alleles has the highest chance of passing on those alleles, reguardless of the fact that your mother might also be your brother? Also, i thought the higher birth defects were due to resesively deleteriouse mutations, which are likely to be shared by bro' and sis', and so the progeny of insest are more likely to be homologouse for resessive bad genes; rather than the random inheritance doobries you mentioned above?

LOLARRRRRRRRRRRRRS. It now be yon 19th of thar month of september in fair ol' england, so now i can be talkin loik a pairate too, mehearties. are!

mokele, you should really use the quote-boxes

i remember seeing a documentry about this once... lesse if i can remember: there are 4 main reasons that people rape: 1/ women arent really people: some rapists rape because they dont consider women to be real people, and so it doesnt matter to them if women get hurt or not. 2/ women are evil: some people rape because they hate women, and want to punish them (issues with ex-girlfriend/wife/mother?) 3/ women like it: some people rape because they genuinely bellieve that when a woman says 'no' she really means 'yes', but doesnt want to say yes because then she'd seem like a slut. 4/weekness: some people rape because they are too weak to controll their sex drive (im not sure about that one, but i think that was the fourth reason). so power trip and sadism, iirc, wernt actually common reason that rapist rape. as to the seeing people in discomfort being arousing: that, i think, is more to do with domanance/power trip than rape usually is. actually iv just remembered: the above were about rape of a person who the rapist has never seen before; i imagine it would be different for someone who, for example, rapes his wife.

Its technically a skeleton, of the hydrostatic variety. not, as has been said, a muscle and so exersizing it wont make it gro bigger. I'v never met a black man who would hold it against you for being racist in that manner. im curiouse: are US toilet rols the same size as UK toilet rolls?

oh and by-the-way, wrighting 'small' in capital letters next to the 'below 5 inches' option was just harsh.

I remember hearing those stats. Also, isnt it the case that caucasians' penises, when unexcited, go small and flacid, whereas negroids' penises just go flaccid: making negroids' unerect penuses much bigger than caucasians' unerect penises, whilst there is little difference when erect. also, mongaloids' are apparently quite smaller than caucasians' and negroids'.

im surprised no-one has accused bush of trying to fiddle the votes again. after all, i believe that blacks are more inclined to vote democrat, and bush is a republican: hes already been accused of trying to prevent democrat-voting-demographics from voting, and of preventing blacks from voting in the process (the first election that he won), I'd have thought that this would be 'one big conspiracy to rid the world of some democrat voters, and if that kills aload of blacks then sobeit'.

gills --> gills that can breath in the air, albeit innefficiently. this makes a fish that can escape predators by going on to dry land for short periods of time, and thus is a huge natural advantage. gills that can breath in the air, albeit innefficiently --> lungs. the above can be seen in lung fish; also, the smooth transition from fish --> amphibians --> reptiles, and the fact that all chordates* (fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds**) have what are called pharangeal gills, which is where they develope gills in the early stages of embryonic development; a vestige of our picine evolutionary past. evolution tends to happen slowly, and there are, to my knowledge, no huge jumps of the form 'fish gives birth to air-breathing animal'. If your thinking thats the case, then that is probably why evolution seems unbelilevable to you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- * except euchordates -- colourful little filter-feeding sacs -- from which fish evolved. ** actually, im not sure if birds have pharangeal gills, but i think that they do.

oh eleven-thousand-and-eleven quintillion one-hundered-and-ten quadrillion one-hundered-and-ten trillion one-hundered billion one-hundered-and-one million and eleven.

i think its a |o|_||/| and I think its 'leeb'. 'leeg' would be 1339

Norton is notorius for uninstalling incorrectly. If you can, try and re-install and then uninstall norton to see if that works. If not, then delete any of the following folders that exist: c:\Program Files\Symantec AntiVirus c:\Program Files\Norton c:\Program Files\Symantec c:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared then try the instructions on this page. after all of that, try installing your av of choice and seeing if it works now. ZoneAlarm and Kerio both come highly reccomended, and both are free (only install one). as 5614 said, deactivate the windows firewall 'cos its poo and will conflict with your decent firewall if you leave it active. Anti-spyware/adware/etcware programs: Spybot S&D (make sure to select the option to turn teatimer on) Ad-Aware SE Spywareblaster Spyware Guard.

this seems like a convienient plase to sate my curiosity by asking you why you keep wrighting 'five' in leet-speak?

Can anyone remember which oldy it was that had 'desktop waiter' on it? Im trying to remember the old one we had in school, but thats pretty-much all that I can remember: that it had a program called 'waiter' on it (i have a feeling that waiter was part of the OS rather than an added on application.) Oh, and that if you pressed F12 the bar-along-the-bottom shifted up one, and a command-line interface appeared below it.