fafalone

Men could grow babies in feeding chambers and eliminate women... in fact I'm sure the government has already perfected the technology.

Depends on the particular variance. Anything moving towards sexual reproduction would be an advantage, because it would increase variance in f generations.

I listen to pop, country, classical crossover, opera, new age, basically anything besides rap (OFFENSE TO DEEP ), hiphop, r&b, jazz... but perhaps the type of music i despise the most, even more than rap (and i have the AIM 'rap music sucks') is classic rock. instant migraine.

Well by this logic if 2.9 billion people were about the die, the remaining 3.1 billion shouldn't risk anything to save them. Logic dictates that there is an "acceptable risk."

What if llamas sprouted wings, flew into space, and ate the ISS astronauts?

This is the theory of use and disuse. Word for word. These are the words that came from your mouth, and those words describe the theory of use and disuse. Furthermore, intermediary steps would NOT be useless since those steps would be all increasing in variance, which is the advantage that resulted in sexual reproduction. And what's more, your last post demonstrated even more of a lack of understanding of evolution than your first one. I don't even have time right now to go through it all. Go ask your bio professor so he/she can laugh in your face. I put no words in your mouth, I merely responded to the literal meaning of your post. You seriously need to get a basic understanding of evolution, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Good god you're so ignorant about evolutionary theory. Seriously, how can you take general biology and be this unfamiliar with evolution? Sexual reproduction is about VARIANCE. There would be no evolution without variance. Sexual reproduction evolved quickly because it greatly increased variance. From non-sexual reproduction, organisms whose reproductive process was influenced by variance causing factors survived better, thus a complex system such as sexual reproduction evolved. You really need to read a book on this stuff. Furthermore, Mr. Lamark, "useless adaptions" are only eliminated if they are a disadvantage. Ever heard of "vestigial structures"? No? WELL THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S IN THE EVOLUTION BOOK YOU NEVER READ. The theory of use and disuse was debunked ages ago.

This is all a load of crap anyway.

The present is the way it is because of the future; everything that has happened is the result of everything that will happen; therefore if you travel into the past and change something, it will always have happened and a different future never would have existed. This idea comes from the concept that if you can travel into the past, you should be able to travel into the future, and this makes time a closed cycle whereby all event are the way they are because of everything that happened in the past AND future.

Estrogen floods are just as bad as testosterone floods.

As your velocity approaches the speed of light, time slows down, and if you exceeded the speed of light you would in theory travel into the past. Travelling into the future would involve travelling extremely close to the speed of light.

Women fight.

We don't know yet.

Oh please, if it was my ego talking it was in response to your arrogance claiming you've "never lost' to me.

someone is taking things too seriously

Reproduction without nuclei or mitochondria is not unique to thermophiles, it's found in all prokaryotes.

They just use enzymes that don't denature, such as L-Isoaspartyl Methyltransferase.

RNA predated DNA. The four bases of RNA are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil. 4 energy molecules commonly used in our body are adenosine triphosphate (ATP), guanosine triphosphate (GTP), cytosine triphosphate (CTP), and uracil trisphosphate (UTP), each formed from nucleosides of the bases for RNA, provide energy for many biological functions. Given that, and that RNA itself can act as an enzyme, could these molecules provide a link as to how the first cells formed? Most biologists believe that in fact there is a link, but the question no one can conclusively answer is the nature of this link.

Great reading. quantum cosmology.pdf

Highly technical, but interesting. Post questions or comments. Alot of people like to argue about the theories based on this stuff, but hopefully this will elucidate how very unlikely it is they know what they're talking about Note: In PS format, get GSView here if you don't already have a program to read this filetype. general relativity.zip

MIT Open Courseware for quantum mechanics: http://ocw.mit.edu/5/5.61/f01/index.html Go, learn, become less ignorant

Not many steps before chemoautotrophs.

The initial test apparently was just a blood comparison, that wouldn't show the karyotype.

I think extreme thermophiles and halophiles are different enough than anything else; and they don't actually go against any proposed mechanisms of evolution.

When I blatantly discredit your facts and you leave with no reply, that's winning. Happens all the time.