Sayonara

No thanks.

Anyone notice that Darth Sidious is an anagram of Sithar Ddious?

It shows.

That's indicative of a highly restricted view of "science", not a characteristic change in the scientific community. Historically, colleges haven't generally tended to turn out a lot of scientists.

Clearly it is a small word. Whether or not it is "foolish" depends on how it is used, as is the case with any word you care to choose. Having said that, thinking up a good example that shows the value of this word turns out to be quite tricky.

You may have seen various acronyms used on the forums and wondered what they stood for. This non-exhaustive list is to clarify their meanings: IOW - in other words IMO - in my opinion IMHO - in my humble/honest opinion IIRC - if I remember correctly AFAIK - as far as I know ATM - at the moment (also "atinymonkey" on this site in particular) POV - point of view Please feel free to add relevant acronyms or query the meaning of any I have missed off.

As an example, putting "the" before a noun indicates that a particular instance of that noun is being referred to, rather than any or all instances of that noun.

It's quite useful actually. It allows for impersonal and indefinite referencing.

I think that's somewhat unlikely tbh.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9902

Unfortunately it's not possible to bar one person from a specific thread. I could always move it back to the evolution forum though, if there's enough demand. The subject has been satisfactorially discussed in plenty of other threads though.

Dammit. Whenever I move a thread, I leave a redirect if the topic of the thread is ambiguous and could have belonged to either the source or destination category, or if there are enough replies to make lots of people confused if it moves "silently". If it's self-evidently in the wrong forum, has few or no replies, or is being moved out of public view, I don't bother. Redirects seem untidy.

Like most anti-evolution "resources", that site preys on fear. Hurrah for them.

Which is all well and good, but fairly pointless if we cannot or will not address the problems that caused their decline. While this is perfectly true, I think the thread is supposed to refer to species that humans have jostled out "unfairly" (the idea that we'd clone any endangered species seems unlikely, due to the expense and difficulty of the task.) It's no secret that our activity has caused catastrophic damage to biodiversity all over the planet.

Or more unusual. Whichever

And it's important to realise that this can happen in any cell in any individual - so it's really not "uncommon" in population-wide terms.

I don't think it's really appropriate to label known market models as a "conspiracy". Of course they want to use the cheapest production method and discourage alternatives - that's the aim of any working capitalist system. You capitalise.

The basic idea is that in an infinite universe there should (eventually) be a star in any direction you can conceivably look, and therefore we should see light coming from every direction.

I suggest using your own made-up language in all dealings with them.

I voted no. Protecting biodiversity is the critical element, not duplicating randomly chosen genetic representations in a certain species.

Can't remember. I think we can safely assume it's in one of the physics forums though. If I wasn't so lazy and full of roast chicken I'd look.

No offence, but I don't think I really need to know where Slovenia is.

They're depressingly full of maths Don't even get me started on population biology texts. Holy cow.

That really isn't true at all.