mistermack

Keep your secrets then. But don't expect to be taken seriously. It turns your effort to debate into a joke.

I've always felt that they were. But I wouldn't be without them.

Ok, I grant you that I misread his myth passage. Which is a bit convoluted, but nevertheless I misread it. So the "myth" isn't Darwin's tree, but Francis's own hypothetical myth that we have supposedly been indoctrinated in. ie that "Darwin's tree is essential to all forms of biology" . I'm struggling to get my head around this. So Francis's point isn't about the validity of Darwin's tree, but about the fact that it's "considered essential" ???? Which is something, to be honest, that I've personally never even thought about. Nor cared about. In that case it would be nice for Francis to declare his position on whether he thinks Darwin's tree picture is actually right or wrong. I personally think it's right, it's self evident, and INTEGRAL to biology, but whether it's essential or not has never been mentioned to me, and I can certainly say with complete confidence that nobody has ever tried to indoctrinate me in that convoluted notion. Have you ever seen such a thing as a jigsaw? If that's the current state of biology, then Darwin's tree is one of the pieces to me. An integral part. That doesn't make it essential, you can do some sort of biology without it, but the puzzle isn't complete, if you leave it out.

I agree it's possible that people we think are dead can still hear and understand what's going on. Possible, but unlikely I would say. But in any case, it's the hours and days before death that could be improved first, I think. I remember when my father ways dying, he was unconscious and drugged up, and my family (who loved him dearly) would stand around the bed discussing him like he was completely inert. He might have been, he might not. I was seething inside, but I couldn't say anything, because they meant no harm, and were suffering like I was. I tried a few times to suggest that they talked out of earshot but got no recognition at all. I think they thought I was potty. They did the same when my Aunt was dying, and she was even responding at the time with the odd squeeze of the hand. Yet they still talked about her as if she was somehow not there in the room. I dread to think what it would be like to hear yourself talked about for a while AFTER you were declared dead.

Er, no ... read the OP I've read the OP, and it says that you find it rather curious that there are no practical uses for Darwin's tree. And later you call it a myth. I'm asking you why you think it's curious, and why you think his tree of life is a myth. Because it simply doesn't follow. But maybe you can explain why it does, rather than dodging the question. You say in the OP that you are no expert. Well, you don't need to be. You just need to apply very average powers of reasoning. I had no trouble seeing the logic of evolution and common descent the first time I came across it, aged about 12 or 13. Because there's logic behind it. Your reasoning that it's somehow curious that there is no (in your opinion) practical use for his tree of descent, and why you think it's a myth, needs explaining, not dodging.

Some Anglerfish mate by fusing the tiny male to the much bigger female, becoming merged physically if not genetically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish

What they are saying is that it's not visible. Not with the technology we have so far developed. That doesn't mean it's missing. If something is moving the long grass, it might still be a lion, even if you can't see the lion. You can detect it's presence. Same thing applies to stars. If something moves them, it's pretty certain that there's something there.

I think the OP has a valid point. If you ever get cancer, I recommend that you get a shaman to do the bone dance around you, and a priest to bless you. Forget modern science, cancer is too serious for that rubbish.

Sounds like just what I need. My kitchen extractor currently goes straight to the atmosphere. Do you take paypal? On a technical note, I don't see how or why you extract 70% water vapour and what do you do with it if the EIA prohibits external drainage ?

I don't pretend to know the answer to your point, but I believe it's not simple stuff. I think you would need to study relativity and learn the maths to get a picture of what's going on. I think these wiki pages address what you are saying, as a sort of overview, but I don't claim to follow it myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

Not at all. I don't mind a few coming in, but if you're not careful, there will soon be millions of em.

No, plants didn't descend from fungi, nor did animals. The guy is an interesting and entertaining speaker, but he seems to get a lot wrong, for a "Ted speaker". Plants and animals have a common ancestor with fungi, going back 1,500 million years. Animals didn't separate from fungi 650 million years ago. Fungi don't exhale oxygen and inhale carbon dioxide. And he even got the number of feet in a kilometre wrong. (2,200) . I think he was thinking about kg and pounds ? Metric tonnes? That was just in the first few minutes. Interesting hat though.

So Francis, the argument is, that Darwin's tree is a myth, because you can't identify a practical use for it? What kind of reasoning is that? The one simply does not follow from the other. Can you explain how you got to that conclusion?

I don't worry about bacteria under normal circumstances. I wash my hands for social reasons, I like them looking clean, especially under the nails. But it's just to conform. My exceptions are in hospitals, airports and public toilets and restaurants. You never know who's been there, or where they have just come from. Local bacteria are usually ok, but foreign ones can hit you for six. You haven't built up the immunity.

To be fair, Bush seems to hate whites as much as blacks. Going by his treatment of his parents, and the fact that he married a black woman. I hate it when people slag off mass murderers, it's so unfair. In the land of the free, it's every American's right to say what he likes, shoot what he likes and kill whoever he likes. It's what makes America great.

I'd say no. That's not to say it couldn't happen, but I can't think of any instance of it. Young swallows might have an apparent knowledge of Africa and the route there, but it's just instinct, responses to stimuli, not knowledge.

Yeh right. Believe what you are told to believe. Say what they say. Do like they do. So your "self identity" is the one you are given. It takes no thought on your part. Probably just as well.

Unfortunately most people are the same. Humans are very like sheep. They like to be led and told what to think. I think you're on the wrong forum.

Well, I suppose that saves you from having to think for yourself. But all three seem pretty backward.

I don't see the point of it. You need electrical energy for the laser. You might as well just have an electric motor.

I don't see that the two are incompatible. Male lions are extremely aggressive, and especially so when taking over a pride. They may possibly be instinctively more aggressive against cubs at that point, because of inherited gene combinations that were favoured by that behaviour. If by the "scientific explanation" you mean that male lions somehow know that killing the cubs will bring the females into season, I would doubt that very much, and I'd like to see what scientists made that claim, and what their evidence was. No, lion prides are territorial, and yes they kill female cubs too. I'd be interested to know what they do about pregnant females, and their cubs when they give birth. Edit: I just searched that on google and got an interesting page : https://lionaid.org/faqs_lions/why-do-male-lions-kill-cubs.htm They claim that the theory of males killing cubs to bring them into estrus has been disproved. (don't know how) and that they DON'T kill the cubs of pregnant females later. Don't know how valid it is, but it's worth a look.

No, I was talking about a takeover of a pride. It's probably the most intense period in their lives, they normally have to fight the previous male or males.

I don't know. I was guessing, as I've never done it with sea water. I have had de-ionised water go green in the past though, when left in the sunlight, so I'm guessing that sea water would do the same.

That's ok then. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. Ironic really. It's you who responded to my post which was about the human species. So I presumed that "we" were talking about that post. Look, you seem to be getting aggressive in your posts, so I'm not reading any further. But I was not telling people what to say. I was just pointing out that the "purpose" is an illusion. It's an apparent purpose, like the eye is an apparent design. I'm sure I say the same thing all the time. Most of the time there's no practical difference. Sometimes it does bug me though, when people like David Attenborough say things like "when male lions take over a pride, they kill the cubs to cause the females to come into season". No they don't, they kill them because they are full of aggression and will kill anything that moves, apart from a female lion. And that instinct paid off genetically in the past, so it's still there in the genes.

If you think it's semantics then you still haven't understood the difference. The illusion of purpose is just as fundamental and real as the illusion of design. I know everybody SAYS that animals do this or that for this or that purpose, but they don't. It's a matter of fact, not semantics. Yes but we're talking about humans. Most of the animals that are successfully eusocial have females capable of bearing large litters. And the smaller the litter, the less well it works. Bees and ants have taken that to an extreme level. Humans and other apes are on the other end of the spectrum. We have small litters of usually one, and the young take years of care before they are independent. On the subject of the effect on our species success of homosexuality, there are other factors rather than eusocial organisation that could mitigate the downside. Humans are fairly promiscuous, in spite of the tendency to form pairs. So in a "wild" setting, a gay male would not prevent females getting pregnant. Someone else (probably a close relative) will step in and do the job. And gay females will probably get forcibly mated, in a lawless wild setting. So again their genes will still probably get reproduced, in spite of their sexual orientation.