zapatos

No need to get your undies in a twist. I read the article and didn't see any reference to intelligence. When did I shift the goalposts? You talked about the relative intelligence of a long dead animal and I asked you to show me where you read about that intelligence. I'm unsure why you would take offense at such an obvious follow-up question.

Where is the reference to intelligence?

Before we go any further, can you please provide a citation that discusses the intelligence of a fox like animal that lived 34 million years ago?

As well you shouldn't. No particular outcome is inevitable with evolution. Agreed, it might be one in a billion. Or one in a million. Or one in a thousand. Or... I would suggest the trend IS there. A bison can smell a predator up to three kilometers away. They know how to find and use their horns. Taking on a bison is a very risky proposition for a wolf. Without intelligence a bison would look like a giant hamburger to a wolf. On the other hand you don't seem to give any credit to the wolf for increasing intelligence even though wolves can work collectively and figure out how to take down a 2000 pound battering ram that can run 40mph, has sharp horns, and can kill a wolf with a kick. The interaction between the wolf and the bison is exactly the kind of thing that fuels evolution and makes increasing intelligence more likely. It seems to me that you are looking at the development of intelligence on too short a time frame. Over a short period of time the growth looks flat, but over the long term there has been an upward trend. Citation? Many things are possible. Without evidence though there is no reason to think an "intelligence ceiling" exists.

And yet evolution didn't stop at bacteria.

I don't know what is worse, the person who falsely accuses another of rape, or the person who feels no empathy or sense of justice for the victim falsely accused. I sure hope to never see you on a jury.

From the environment, experiences and brain that are unique to me. Some people think it is ethical to take advantage of a situation if a person misunderstood a contract they signed. Others don't. Some think things are ethical if you follow the letter of the rules. Others think ethics require you to follow the spirit of the rules. Is there some reason people must agree on what they find ethical?

That was kind of my point. We don't have to agree on anything. We can each have our own ethics (which I believe is the norm). We may agree on many ethical issues, but agreeing is not required for anything.

My mistake then. Your response to my statement made me believe otherwise but I guess I read it wrong. Since Neanderthals don't exist, then ultimately no, it doesn't matter. However, from the perspective of exploring genetics, perspectives of race, and human psychology, it is an interesting exercise.

Awesome work Airbrush!

Correct, each individual could have their own set of ethics. So if the majority says it is ethical to steal, then you would claim those are your ethics too? If the majority holds the same ethics, that may translate into into a law saying it is illegal to steal, but the law doesn't say 'everyone agrees it is unethical to steal'. If the ethics of the majority were the same for the whole society, then we would never find a soldier debating a conscientious objector. Or a million other things that people disagree about.

Ethics is what the individual says it is.

I imagine they would have the same rights as human beings; some would be slaves, some would be taken advantage of to the benefit of the rich, and a few would be afforded as many rights as the rich or the majority.

I use a Sharpie too. They hold up well.

Beautiful! Congratulations on a wonderful accomplishment. Your great great grandkids are going to be fighting over who gets it many years from now. Whenever I build something, I write on the bottom when it was made, type of wood, why it was built, or any other interesting details.

Fortunately no one said that. What beecee said was that abiogenesis is the scientific answer to the appearance to life. An alternative to abiogenesis being the start of life is to say life has been here an infinitely long time. Still another way is to say goddidit. Given the alternatives, I'd say beecees's suggestion is spot on.

In Phi's picture, the front end is the tractor, and the back end is the trailer. A tractor-trailer. This type of trailer has no front wheels and is thus only a 'partial' or 'semi' trailer. It must be pulled by a tractor which essentially provides the front wheels for the trailer. Because it is a semi-trailer, people started calling that type of tractor a semi-truck. When people say 'semi' they may be referring to the tractor, the trailer, or the combination of both.

That is not a citation. It is another unsupported assertion. I don't believe you've proven your point that we are comparatively weak. People kill more snakes than the other way around. I could kill most dogs before they could kill me. We may not be the most physically deadly animal on the planet, but you still only have a list of 50 that could beat us in a fight. Most animals should fear us.

Love this collaboration!

My point is that people who deny their culpability by throwing out a pithy bumper sticker saying are pathetic, and that group includes Graham and those Evangelicals who support Trump while ignoring or minimizing his major deficiencies.

And I tell you again it is a straw man. Knowledge of Stormy Daniels was unavailable at the time of the election. You know this yet are trying to make it the basis of discounting what I said. Poor form.

Straw. Man. Trying to dismiss the faults of one by pointing to the faults of another is rather juvenile. I am saying anyone who sees someone's faults, is not critical of those faults, and continues to support that person, shares in the responsibility of their immoral actions.

How convenient. That way you can avoid responsibility for your actions as long as the immoral action is done by someone you put in power, rather than by you performing the immoral action yourself. Graham's pathetic attempt to shirk responsibility is appalling.

waitforufo seems to be channeling through one of our members...

Too many variables to respond in a meaningful way. Is it a terrorist attack or an act of war? Does the attacker have ICBMs? Do they want to remain unknown? Do they need to deliver a large number of weapons? Are they targeting cities or military bases? Regardless, it is unlikely the source of a nuclear attack will remain unknown.