Argent

He doesn't annoy. His actions scare me.

That was an odd thing to ask. Do you think it might have been homework?

I give up. Clearly you do not find your contradictory statements to be contradictory, so we'll ascribe it to me being thick and move on.

Six colours of fonts Bold text, underlined text, normal text, italic text Two fonts sizes Giant graphics Large empty spaces By and large I liked the last item best.

I found it difficult to interpret "Why aren't animals more homogenous" in any way other than, "Animals are not very homogenous, why is this?" What StringJunky just said is what I was struggling to imply in some of my posts. It should really serve to close the discussion, unless you feel it is incorrect.

The outcomes may well be different. That is the point that iNow appears to be making. That is the point that I made in my post. That is why I gave you examples. One case where it would not make a difference and one where it could. I am sorry if I did not make it clear. It seemed obvious at the time I posted it.

I have answered your question. Were you not looking for an answer?

I thought your post was well balanced and interesting. I would take exception to one point. Your logic here is faulty. One may consider that the horse has long bolted from the stables containing tobacco and alcohol. With this view opening other stable doors would simply make matters worse. This is a valid position to take. For the record I favour legalising most, probably all drugs, taxing them like alcohol and tobacco, while using a significant proportion of the those revenues to provide objective education on the consequences of their use.

445+675 . . . . No. 445/675 . . . . Yes

In the way you have phrased that question your implication is, very strongly, that there are no homogenous animals. It is therefore strange that you now assert that we don't know whether there are any or not. These two positions that you have adopted appear to be contradictory.

The identification of canali, or channels, by the Italian astronomer Schiaparelli and their mistranslation as canals, led to an imaginative and self -deceiving set of observations by several astronomers led by the wealthy American Percival Lowell. The canals were never there, but were "seen" through a combination of the brains tendency to see patterns and wishful thinking. This was over one hundred years ago. Even when the first Mariner probes were flying past Mars in the early 1960s there was a strong suspicion that the seasonal colour changes were caused by vegetation.

Quite possibly, but we may well be able "shut down" humans for thousands of years also. As to the reward, a dreamless sleep, followed immediately by the opportunity to gaze on an alien planetary system would seem the ultimate reward to many. Perhaps we can find the aliens discarded hibernation pods!

If nature has already discovered it, where is it? I would never rule out the possibility the animal may be hiding somewhere, but I would regard it as highly improbable. Your own view, expressed in the opening post, was "It seems like most or all animals have a very firm structure of their body followed by a very soft structure of their body, whether it's a bug or a mammal or a snail". Now you are suggesting that your impression was faulty. I cannot follow your logic. The requisite degree of stiffness would seem to preclude the necessary flexibility for organs, muscles etc. You are proposing a uniform "consistency". You need to demonstrate that organs and muscles could function effectively if sufficiently "stiff" to work as a skeleton. The car analogy stands. We don't build cars that way. Nature does not build land animals that way.* *(I have understood you to use animal to mean vertebrates. If you don't mean vertebrates, then there are plenty of land dwelling creatures that are fairly homogenous in terms of "stiffness" throughout. Worms and snails come immediately to mind.)

Yes, but you are suggesting, I think, that the intelligence is external to the building blocks, yet you apply the word to the building blocks. That is what seems potentially misleading.

Not all marijuana smoking is part of a lifestyle, but I don't think many people would contest that for regular users it is an important part of their lifestyle. Much like regular alcohol consumption or regular tobacco smoking are part of other peoples lifestyle. Just because a behaviour is a lifestyle choice does not mean it is not harmful. Are you claiming that lifestyle choices are automatically going to contain no negative consequences? . What is your doubt based upon? I won't be convinced by anecdotal evidence, since I can offer anecdotal evidence suggesting you are wrong. What substantive reason do you have for harbouring this doubt? Please offer meaningful evidence to counter what you claim is government sponsored disinformation. .

I have read Wegener's work in translation. He provided very detailed evidence to support and develop his hypothesis and did so in a tightly reasoned and well structured manner. This contrasts with the manner in which you have, thus far, presented your opinions. Personally I think the aquatic ape hypothesis is an interesting one. However, I haven't found your apparent argument for it a positive thing. Might you reconsider your style? You may find that a productive discussion would develop if you were less aggressive. Just a suggestion.

Which was more an accident than a targeted experiment, but that is interesting in itself. (So pigeons had a role to play in evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory.)

Any of Newton's work on optics. Hooke's studies of elasticity.

I think it might generate less controversy, or mitigate against rapid rejection of your ideas, if you found another term for "intelligent building blocks". Intelligent evokes thoughts of Intelligent Design and teleology and other things likely to prove unpopular on a science forum. I realise that it not what you mean by the word in this context, but why erect barriers?

I suggest it is an excellent analogy. If I may adapt your own writing to support my argument: There are many many varying circumstances in the body of an animal that require specialized substances, and nature, despite over three billion years of evolution by natural selection, has yet to discover a material that can address that variance all at once.

Put in overly simplified terms, material that was squidgy is unlikely to perform well as both a support structure and the body's organs. It's the same reason we don't make the engine and the upholstery of a car out of the same substance.

One might argue that their mental state, determined by prior experience and chemical balance drives them to take actions that are prejudicial to their survival. The strong instinctual drive in social species, such as humans, means that we can feel a great sense of shame for failing to act in a manner we feel appropriate. This can lead to acts of self sacrifice.

MRI-Based Measurement of Hippocampal Volume in Patients With Combat-Related Post-traumatic Stress DisorderUnusual brain growth patterns in early life in patients with autistic disorder Neuroanatomical abnormalities before and after onset of psychosis: a cross-sectional and longitudinal MRI comparison A further 100,000 examples are available on request.

Perhaps the point to consider is not if they are superior, by whatever definition one wishes, but whether they consider themselves superior, are proud of this perceived superiority and act accordingly.

In many cases the treatment of native peoples by the colonial powers were dismissive of their humanity and that was dealing with members of the same species. I don't think it is a large stretch to imagine that some alien races might be completely indifferent to humanity without in any way being considered "super beings".