StringJunky

How can we observe a process which we, as observant humans, are an integral and belated part of in the evolutionary timeline and for which the required initial conditions for an emergence to occur seem to have long since gone?

The bull was captive in a small pen with a cow and was observed by the farmer (along with my curious 12 year old self) to make sure that the short-legged hereford bull was capable of servicing the longer-legged fresians...in the event that it couldn't perform it wouldn't be used for stud.

When I was a young lad I watched a bull trying to service a cow for the first time and it mounted the cow and ejaculated about twenty times without penetrating the cow until it finally succeeded....to my mind these were spontaneous emissions without any penile/vaginal contact so it's not a stretch imo that a bull is capable of nocturnal emissions...its mental response is perfectly capable of bringing about ejaculation by thought alone.

I may have posted this too hastily as on further inspection the author seems to have injected his own personal hypothesis into the article...I thought this was a straightforward standard mathematical description of the properties of the electron pertaining to spin with some physical description thrown in where possible; sorry if that's not the case.

You might get something from this: http://wsminfo.org/articles/spin-qed.htm

In the UK the male and female fish do it together by bring their reproductive parts in close proximity to each other in stillwaters and the male is somewhat in front in running waters as far as I have observed...it's a simultaneous action. I appreciate things may be different in other parts of the world.

That might be an idea worth trying and if a person who has just joined really needs to post a link in their first post they will complain...this means they have passed the spambot test and they can be allowed! It won't get them all though: some are capable of making a few posts until the botmaster sets them to start spamming and post a link.

Ironically, it appears, from what I've read over the years about countries that have strict policies regarding contact between the opposite sex and active repression of homosexuality, there is actually more homosexual activity per capita than countries that have a more liberal attitude. This is because of the difficulty of heterosexuals meeting socially as the women must always be chaperoned and the casual mixing of potential suitors/lovers is frowned upon. This leads to a situation where men, in the absence of females, secretly seek out each other for sexual/emotional solace ...creating a situation, statistically anyway, where the apparent number of homosexuals is actually inflated by the very policy that seeks to extinguish it...don't you just love Nature?! With respect to the OP this is a confounding and obfuscating factor, as I'm sure there are more, when trying to determine these sorts of figures accurately...this is assuming of course, in a research situation, we were trying to ascertain the numbers of naturally inclined (endogenous?) homosexuals.

https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/internet/C/wireless-connecting.html

Some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter, a more poorly defined idea in the physical sciences. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed, but the precursors and products of such reactions retain both the original mass and energy, both of which remain unchanged (conserved) throughout the process. Letting the m in E = mc2 stand for a quantity of "matter" may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen..................... According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed or transformed into the other. Rather, neither one appears without the other. Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass. In this process, neither the amount of mass nor the amount of energy changes. Thus, if energy changes type and leaves a system, it simply takes its mass with it. If either mass or energy disappears from a system, it will always be found that both have simply moved off to another place. (My bold) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence Is this right Swansont?

I wasn't contesting what Swansont said...I was just contributing somebody else's take on the problem of understanding it. The Jabberwocky quote was the scientist's way of saying that Quantum physics has it's own logic ,language and internal consistency.

I remember a scientist once described the language of Quantum Physics like this: Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

Here's what Brazil nuts look like (they are up to about an inch (25.4mm) long): http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/brazil-nuts.html It turns out my suggestion was not a good one: the variation in ONE nut can give you from a low % of the recommended daily amount (RDA) to 780% of RDA according to NIH figures...it's potentially the richest source of natural selenium from a plant and could possibly be taken to toxic levels if consumed everyday so it's best left as an occasional treat...they taste great! This NIH factsheet should help gen you up on Selenium: http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/selenium/

Thanks for the correction...I've attributed that to the wrong person for years it would seem!

Of course, I was speaking in terms of general trends and there are always exceptions to these generalities especially in the field of human behaviour. It's hard to cover all bases when writing, especially when talking about a subject as messy and complex as human interactions. More power to you for having the objectivity and foresight to visualise from the outside your situation and surmount it...many people don't have the mental faculty to do this.

Ok...it's ethically irresponsible to have a family too early in ones developmental cycle because the risk of failure in the current Western social climate is disproportionately high....it is no longer taboo to divorce compared to 50 years ago or more (which previously COERCED people to stay together for fear of disdain and disapproval) and a consequence of this trend is more socially dysfunctional adults with no experience of stable relationships creating more and more dysfunctional families...it's self-perpetuating and muliplying ....if the social structure is too dynamic and fragmented within the family unit this will eventually erode cohesion and stability at the societal level. Inner city gangs are largely a' product of fragmented families and created by the innate human desire to to be part of a clearly defined and exclusive social group...that's their 'family'. To allude to Shakespeare: if you are born within a tangled web...all you know how to weave is tangled webs. There are macroscopic consequences to what happens at the microscopic family level.

The difference between marrying young and marrying later is that you are more likely to be aware of the variety of differences through previous liaisons and come to the realisation that perfect compatibility is largely a pipe-dream and you learn to modify your expectations of what can realistically be expected from yourself and any potential partner. What changed? They did because they hadn't finished their physical and emotional maturity resulting in altered expectations and desires on the way...that's why I think 25+ is better age for starting families...the rate of change decreases markedly from this point I think for most people.

If your body's ok with nuts one Brazil nut a day should give you all the Selenium you need and they taste nice too.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Coincidentally, I had a discussion on this subject with my 21 old year niece recently . She wants to travel around now she's got her degree and when she comes back she will settle down...in the meantime she might have 'random' experiences with people. I said this was a good idea and that she might try and put off settling down 'til she's at least in her mid-twenties, finally grown-up and got any need to 'experiment' with relationships out of the way. Too many people have families too early, then, when they are in their late-twenties get that urge to 'experiment' which they missed out when they were younger. Hopefully, when she's reached that stage she will be fulfilled on the selfish/personal level and will be able to fully commit with no nagging/yearning distractions and give her future mate and any resulting off spring her undivided attention. I say all this with the perspective of a person living in the UK, well aware of it's pretty high divorce rate, and wish to help her avoid the all too real possibility of marital unhappiness...especially for any children she may have.

He/she made a post and realised it was wrong /irrelevant resulting in its deletion...they didn't mean any of you were wrong...I interpreted it that way at first then saw the editing note

I think the proper neuroscientific term is Neuroplasticity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity