StringJunky

No such thing as mutants then? You only have to find one example to prove your belief wrong that humans were "singularly" dark skinned..

Interesting point about the heat dissipation properties of black skin; wasn't aware of that.

I was responding to DrKrettin implying that philosophy was no use; it mostly is but is but not all of it.

Perhaps the advantage of dark skin, in a forest environment, is concealment or camouflage from prey/enemies and useful for stalking. As you say, they are amongst the darkest skinned and that would be a definite plus for merging with the shadowed areas.

They would have been all shades, just like they have today, but some more common than others

Curie was one of my science heroes as a child and I've read a fair bit about Franklin.

Your narcissism is rather blatant and just a bit irritating.

But you have to start somewhere - think axioms - and how you start may send you in the wrong direction and with the wrong mental approach. It is the art of thinking how to think. Just my opinion.

I think part of the reason is that a black surface gives the highest possible contrast ratio of light and dark areas, so, if it's not perfectly flat there will always be areas that scintillate reflected light, highlighting even the most microscopic irregularities in the the surface. Unless it's moulded in a perfectly blemish-free mould, which is flat from the beginning, you will only scratch the surface if you apply polishing techniques. Perhaps Jeweller's Rouge might be worth trying and is not expensive. My grandad used to take the scratches out of glass and plastic with it; he did my watches a few times, which usually had plastic watchglasses, when I scratched them. I have some coming shortly and will have go scuffing a black plastic object and see what happens using it. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00O3GVV2I/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

No it's not a native function and swansont's already said it's a potential avenue for abuse by sockpuppets. One hole closes another opens seems to be the case with situation.

How about: reality is the sum of all possible frames?

My understanding is that the observed (noun) doesn't change but the measurements do. One of the difficulties people might have getting to grips with it is imagining all these frames have their own discrete volume of space which is uniquely affected and then possibly try to align all the frames as 3D volumes butted together and it doesn't work or fit smoothly in the real sense. I just view the change in the signal for each observer and don't think about the space but am aware that each has its own geometry; you can't see it anyway in practice. I don't pretend to have it clearly in my mind but, at the end of the day, it's just the measurements that matter and the model they describe isn't it? The problem people are having is an ontological one, it seems.

As an analogy, would you say each frame represents a lens with different perspective views but all give representations that are equally valid?

He was speaking for his time and there was also no alternative at that time but he helped break that mould with his logic, which persists today. Focus on the principle not the extraneous details.

Variations in distance over time relative to a reference. These are measurable properties of the spacetime model. 'It' is nothing more than is measured. Don't go all ontological/philosophical/metaphysical on me.

That's the principle I had my mind on when I wrote the post; It is very pertinent to this topic imo. There's enough chaff to sift through without adding more.

Genetic diversity is the best protection against extinction; more tools in the tool bag to handle more problems that may arise.

Begone, mirage!

Indeed, but the conversation was focused on the oxygen balance, not other factors as well. It helps to actually follow a conversation.

And therein lies the answer.

When depends if you are an ant or a giraffe

Life would continue but not as we know it.

I was wondering about them but didn't think they were strictly phytoplankton. I know they were probably the first photosynthetic organisms. I stand corrected.

I think the only you could live forever happily and not go insane from repetition is by having no memory or a very short term one but then one would be trapped within a moat of forgetfulness doomed to do the same thing over and over again. <Puts God is a DJ on for the fifth time>.