PhDP

I've tried "Brahms"... got "Brahman". What a blasphemy !!!

West et al. (1997) proposed that the 3/4 power law for metabolic rates was the consequences of fractal space-filling networks. We're not sure their argument is mathematically correct, of even that the 3/4 power law exist, but still... West, G.B., Brown, J.H. and Enquist, B.J. 1997. A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology. Science 276, 122-126.

While I don't think any of those options are probable, the alien hypothesis is far more reasonable. You don't need to invoke any supernatural being and it's less anthropocentric. It's possible there's life out there, it's possible some forms of life, like us, have evolved a civilization. With an advanced knowledge of biochemistry and planetoly, creating life on a planet isn't that far stretched. The fact that there's no proof for 2 hypothesis certainly doesn't mean they are equally plausible. It's all about parsimony.

Even if selection isn't there, random genetic drift will makes allele frequency increase or decrease. And some mutations does have spectacular effect, I was just reading an article by Harvey, he showed that the extraordinary radiation of teleost fishes (about 50% of all vertebrates) was probably fuelled by a whole-genome duplication, giving material for evolution (natural selection and drift). The dynamics of mutations is not very well known, but it's certainly a very important part of what's missing in today's theory of evolution. Hurley, I., Hale, M.E. and Prince, V.E. 2005. Duplication events and the evolution of segmental identity. EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 7:6, 556–567. "Naive group selection", it's not. But there's much evidences that at least some sort of group selection is occuring; Gregory, T.R. 2004. Macroevolution, hierarchy theory, and the C-value enigma. PALEOBIOLOGY, 30(2), 179–202.

Futuyma's book on evolution includes a rebuttal creationism, proofs of evolution and, more importantly, it contains a good explanation of the science of evolution, which is the best tool against creationism. Futuyma, D.J. 1997. Evolutionary Biology. 763 pages. Futuyma, D.J. 2005. Evolution. 543 pages. It doesn't debunk creationism and it's bad science.

WinEdt is better for making BibTeX entries, but for everything else there's TeXnicCenter (http://www.toolscenter.org/), and WinShell (http://www.winshell.de/). And it's free ! And if you're making a bibliography there's a lot of great packages here (including the very good style of "Journal of theoretical biology").

I think evolutionary biology, cosmology and particle physics are the most interesting fields of science, so I'd definitely go for the the ILC.

Well, a theory that is based on something done by Jung has a good chance of being pseudoscience. The problem with synchronicity is that it's impossible to test, AND it's based on strange egocentrical suppositions (that there's some kind of spiritual "connection" guiding things to teach you how to evolve...). And documenting improbable events is not a proof of anything, other than Jung had a poor mathematical intuition. It's nearly impossible to live a life without having encountered some statistically improbable events.

In fact I just found the article free on the internet here

Although general neural organization resembles birds, pterosaurs had smaller brains relative to body mass than do birds. This difference probably has more to do with phylogeny than flight, in that birds evolved from nonavian theropods that had already established trends for greater encephalization in; Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, R. 2003. Neuroanatomy of flying reptiles and implications for flight, posture and behaviour. Nature:425, 950-953. You should try to get this article it's very interesting. About "brain to body ratio"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_to_body_mass_ratio

We are superior ?

Restricted. Cigarette is harmfull to those who smoke (it's their problem to some extant), but it's also harmful to others' health.

Well, I didn't say all "Junk DNA" was useless, but at least some part of Junk DNA is indeed devoid of function and can be deleted without any discernable effect on the phenotype. And if I remember correctly, Junk DNA was indeed a term used to explain useless DNA.

Hi Dak, The selfish gene theory is not really an alternative theory, it's merely a slight modification on Neo-Darwinism, advocating that genes, not organisms, are the units of selection. In fact, both "darwinian evolution" (selectionism) and the "selfish gene theory" are not very good to explain junk DNA. According to the selectionists, junk DNA is there because of its elevated rate of replication, it's a parasite called selfish DNA. The scientific name of that hypothesis intragenomic selectionist hypothesis. The neutralist hypothesis, on the other hand, say that junk DNA is carried passively because it's linked to functional genes, and as long as the cost for the organism to replicate this junk DNA is not too high, it will be passed from generations to generations. Those 2 hypothesis are probably true to some extant, but neither selfish gene theory or darwinian evolution can account for the evolution of junk DNA on their own, in fact, it took some time for traditional neo-Darwinists to accept junk DNA and neutral evolution. Selection is not as strong, but it's still there. Also, in large populations, even weak selection can mean fixation/extinction for a gene.

I said currently, in 1995 it was less than 50%. At the beginning of the 1995 campaign more than 60% were against sovereignty, it's now much lower.

You might think it's funny, well, it is, but still, it's quite disturbing to hear "god bless Canada" from our prime minister . Australia is perhaps be the next in line (if it's not already too late). Quebec has rejected the Canadian constitution, a revised form of the constitution, and sovereignty. So no, it's not clear at all. Also, the last referendum was 49.4% vs 50.6%, and its now known the "NO" has cheated. In Quebec, each side have the same amount of money to spend, so nobody can win by raising more money. And, in the end, we are STILL not in the constitution. It has been more than 25 years of battles, discussions, referendums, nothing was done, it's always the same problems over and over again, the only thing that was done is the "Clarity Act" to restrain our democratic right to self-determination. Currently more than 50% Quebecers FOR separation, and one day, we'll have either to enter in the constitution, or get out of Canada, but the statu quo isn't an option.

Conservative Minority Governement Now it's "god bless Canada" Canadian House of Commons 2006 124 Conservative Party (Center-right/right) 103 Liberal Party (Center) 51 Bloc Québécois (Center-Left/Left) 29 New Démocratic Party (Left) 1 Independant Canadian House of Commons 2004 135 Liberal Party (Center) 99 Conservative Party (Center-right/right) 54 Bloc Québécois (Center-Left/Left) 19 New Démocratic Party (Left) 1 Independant

I've added a references, well, I've tryied at least on the article "Evolution", but the format used in wikipedia doesn't work on WiSci, for exemple in the article "Molecular evolution"; *{{book reference|Author= Li, W.H. |Year=1997 |Title=Molecular Evolution |Publisher=Sinauer |ID=ISBN 0-87893-463-4}} *{{journal reference|Author=[[Motoo Kimura|Kimura, M.]] and [[James Crow|Crow, J]] | Year=1964 |Title=The Number of Alleles that Can Be Maintained in a Finite Population | Journal=[[Genetics (journal)|Genetics]] |Volume=49| Pages=725-738}} It doesn't work on WiSci.

You forget Lamarck. And.. anyway, Darwinism nearly died right after the "revolution" in question. Darwinism had a second breath with the help of Haldane, Fisher and Wright's "modern synthesis". I can't give you a specific passage, but I don't think you'll find an evolutionary biologist claiming there's no genetic evolution in human. Evolution is always present, like it or not, even if there was no natural selection at all, no gene flow, there would still be genetic drift.

Sure I did, I gave you 9 references. To be sure this time, I'll ask you the question directly; IF "Blacks" are genetically less "intelligent", why, when the environmental causes are out, they are NOT less "intelligent" ? I've state many times, that phenotype is not genotype, that's basic knowledge of genetics, and you don't even disagree but again, by looking at "society everywhere they go", you are making a fallacy, you ARE confusing phenotype and genotype. I don't answer your question about society, and I could start speaking about how harsh is Africa and how they are closing the gaps in America, but it doesn't matter, what matter is; are they still disadvantaged when you compare them without any environmental factor. You say they are not equipped to create a good environments, and it's perfectly possible that for some reason there is something in their culture not helping "them" in the modern world, but again, if it's cultural, the claim made by Rushton is wrong. In the pdf I gave you, under "Assignment of Black Adoptees to Families of Different Races", "Assignment of Black and White Adoptees to the Same Environment", "Children in Postwar Germany Born to Black and White American Soldiers" and under "Self-Reports of European Ancestry". The author quote many studies showing that, in absence of environmental factor the gap is gone. Again I ask you, if it's in the gene pool, if "being black" is a disadvantage, why then eliminating the environmental factor eliminate the gap in intelligence ? It's the only thing that really matters. If you think "blacks" are less intelligent, and that it's in their genes, there's no way the gap could ever be overcome by comparing them with "whites" in the same environment.

It's very interesting (although it's quite strange to see Sheldrake among them). For me, the most dangerous idea is not very new, it is that "criminals and terrorists are "intrinsically evil", should be punished, and my god, don't you try to understand them you're justifying their actions". While criminality and terrorism aren't only the consequences of poverty and social problems, it would certainly help to have a world a little more equitable, both economically and socially. That's the funny thing, there's a formidable expansion of natural selection everywhere in science (physics, psychology, sociology...), except in evolutionary biology.

No, absolutely not. While I can see the problems of our "socialized" system, I think that in essence it's in the good direction. However, implementing it can be extremely hard, it might even be unrealistic for the United-States in the short run. Out of greed, in 1962, doctors in Saskatchewan, because they refused the new healthcare system (less $$ for them), closed their doors. I will always recall the testimony of parents who lost their son because of the strike, it's really disgusting. There's many legitimate concerns over socialized healthcare. My concern is that socialized healthcare is at the mercy of populists, who promise they can cut an X amount of taxes without reducing services, and in the end, when they don't know where to cut they finally cut into healthcare and education. But still, empty rhetoric is often used against socialized healthcare, even if it seems to be working quite well. In the specific case of socialized healthcare, my opinion is that the option presented by the left is quite efficient, and it angers me when people are attacking it because it's "leftish" without even considering the practical aspect, on the ground that's the government is bad or that it will encouraged people to get sick.

Isn't it simpler just to work on wikipedia instead ?

He said "some creationists". It's obvious all creationists aren't fundamentalists claiming the earth is 6 000 years old. There's such a wonderful amount of diversity within the division Creationisticus, from the "primitive" Young Earth Creationisticus to the recent, highly derived and "more evolved", Intelligent Designistus...