silkworm

No, we're saying that there is too much gene flow among the entirety of the human species for one to branch off and be different than other groups of the human species where we'd have 2 seperate human species at the same time. And no. Say you have someone from the south pacific who moves up north, he will not grow fur. If he's dressed the same in the south pacific as he will up north he likely will freeze to death, but us human have invented coats and houses so such a thing isn't a problem. However, back in the days before coats and houses the most successful in northern tribes were the hairy (and white due to vitamin D) , so Northerners are relatively more hairy and white compared to those in warmer climates.

Well, the hobbit people are hominid and recent. Outside of us and other primates are squids and dolphins (that I'm aware of). Nothing compared to us though.

Well, thanks for the help everyone except this meeting was pretty uneventful. There weren't many people and Dr. Lucas did not join the meeting due to technical limitations, which are being worked out and he most likely will join us in two weeks. I recapped the meeting here:http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/06/02/recap-of-june-1st-corr-meeting/

In chemistry, as far as I know in electroplating, the cathode is where the electrons enter the water bath and so cations are attracted to it, and the anode attracts negative charges. A cation is actually the name given for a positively charged atomic species and an anion is a negatively charged atomic species.

Absolutely not in our lifetime, but definitely at some point in the future barring any unforeseen massively devastating events that would effect our technology and strength as a species and if we can manage not to kill ourselves either purposely or accidentally.

Peon, I agree about the seriousness of child rape, but no matter what the crime is you have to make sure it was going to happen before arresting the peddler. Otherwise, I could get you arrested you right now for being a peddler, or I could get you arrested because I think you're having a peddler thought. I'm sure that the authorities make their best effort not to entrap, and I don't disagree with the practice, but I'd like to know that it's certain that the peddler was a peddler before we send him to get his ass punished for years in prison for being one.

Most of it comes from human self-importance. The supporters don't realize how unimportant their opinion is to hard reality, and the preconceptions tend to be based on emotional responses based on how something sounds, and not what it means. Simply, they've never had to figure anything out, so they don't know how to, and generally don't have the reference or foresight to be able to criticize the information they're given. The botched boob jobs who claim to know the truth are just leaches who take advantage of these otherwise well meaning but disarmed people.

And they show huge amounts of disrepect to the followers of the religion they share by doing so.

Pffff. That's not cool Snail. Don't leave me alone with them.

We're evolving right now, always. It never ends. But you probably mean speciation, and I personally don't think we'll speciate until populations of us are isolated during interstellar space travel.

Yep, won't be long before it's that way here. On both the religion and the freedom of the press, because nothing does censorship and oppression like a theocracy. What's up with religion being allergic to truth anyway? At least they'll come out of this alive, well for now anyway. Good luck journalists.

Wait, don't they have to set up a meeting and the guy has to show? I think that has to happen and it has to be over statelines. I don't think they can bust into your house for chatting on the internet with a minor. That would be impossible to prosecute to conviction because you wouldn't even be sure it's him, and I'm sure chatting with a minor on the internet is not illegal. Attempted kidnapping is however, etc. If he crosses a stateline to meet an underage kid for what I'm sure the police establish in the chat the guy has a lot of stuff coming at him, interstate commerce, etc. etc. etc. etc. In fact I'm pretty sure it has to cross state lines to work because I'm not sure how you could legally get away setting these traps otherwise (because doing so helps a lot in showing criminal intent as well)- unless there are states that have special laws for this. So it's not just talking, dude has to show or legally they don't even know who it is and they have nothing at all.

That's what the death penalty is for. We have to stop this whining about ethics and try everything. If we stop doing things because we go mental we'll only stifle our own progress.

Is ADD an actual disorder or is it just one because society says it is? I mean, is the kid's life ruined because of ADD or is it better, and do we label it and treat it simply because of how society is set up or because it actually causes harm to him as a human organism?

@ ecoli - I don't know, and I don't think we should cross that road until we get there.

I definitely see problems with using genetic modification to intentionally steer behavior, but to cure genetic illness I'm all for. Either way (if not in common practice), I definitely see the benefit we would get by exploring it scientifically.

lucaspa, thanks again for those files. It was interesting to see "Mein Kampf" referenced in that area. I really have to struggle to keep a nerve from getting touched when I have to explain that I do not endorse Hitler. I generally use a different approach where we both agree that Hitler was an a-hole, neither one of us like him, and he's not a scientist. I'd also like to put this Gobineau into better perspective. Was he influencal? Do you have anything in his own words about "Darwinism"?

I agree if that were the case, but I also don't see a debate as possible until the two sides meet. In order to have a scientific argument, which I will gladly participate in, the other side has to bring a valid one and present a valid scientific argument. Scientific terms must be used and used correctly. If they want to make it theological, I can't participate because that is not my area. I don't drink the tea, I just say there isn't any.

(I never said that you said science has to consult a religious text either, I was just trying to illustrate my point) I very much see your point here, but don't you agree that religion is not required here, it simply predates the scientific method, thus leads to its insertion? And the way God works is the subsitute for the way nature operates at the time? The God part is unneccessary. I agree, and I wish he wouldn't. He needs to divorce them as well, but he has a chip on his shoulder. Ironically, he's giving religion a podium in science by doing so. No, no lie there, however, and you pointed this out earlier (and it is true) that my atheism has nothing to do with science. Whether or not science is compatible with my personal beliefs (or lack thereof) is moot to me because I divorce the too. When I view a scientific argument I see if it's scientifically valid before I try to put it into perspective in my personal life. Science used to be defined here as the use of natural explainations for phenoma. I take that to mean that science is limited by the bounds of nature. If there is a supernatural force it is outside the realm of science, because as you said, it can not be tested. I agree, but I leave religion out of it. I just say what science is and what it says and let them come to their own conclusions. Besides, it's harder to shake that way.

However, scientists come from different backgrounds. Different religions or no religion at all. And who a scientist is at home and where science exists are 2 entirely different places. Just like science is generally done a great disservice by being expressed in dramatic terms via the media (examples: "survival of the fittest," "disorder"), science does not have consult any religion or religious text in order to be good science. It simply must work. The marriage of science and religion is not done by science, though it is done by scientists at home and, unfortunately, by outsiders who take it out of context. This marriage is a cultural one and not a methodological one, as it is common for anyone to measure new ideas against what they already know, primarly given to them by their culture - which of course includes religion. It's simply done by unneccessary and unhappy accident, and it would be the best for both to be permanantly seperated and have no affect on the statements of the other.

Well' date=' these meetings are billed as scientific arguments, however I have yet to see a valid scientific argument presented, as well as support for the invalid argument is supported by misrepresented textbook science. I'm not going to argue in scientific invalidity, I just point out that he's misrepresenting science and that his arguments are invalid scientifically. The Dawkins Method is correct in sentiment in this regard. If I attend and join his imaginary tea party I'm giving him validity, however if I go and say, there's no simply no tea here, that's a different thing entirely. Waiting was my mistake in the last meeting, but the CCTV is supposed to be 2-way and I was told I will be given an opportunity to address Lucas in front of the audience. I don't attack him on the atheism-theism but I do attack him on the paranoia and the bad science. If I'm told not to speak until he's finished presenting, I won't listen because I can't let him lie to the audience, who are probably being given their frame of reference with the lie, and tare what he said appart afterwards. Also, agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, and I do not have the authority to redefine it for them. Thank you for the files.