SkepticLance

I agree with lucaspa on the need for a risk assessment. I read an article in the last Skeptic magazine. They discussed the risks of hormone replacement therapy for women going through menopause. The very large study that recently caused doctors everywhere to stop prescribing HRT was discussed. Quote : Over 10,000 person years, women on oestrogen plus progesterone had 7 more coronary events, 8 more strokes, 8 more pulmonary emboli, and 8 more invasive breast cancers than women who didn't take hormones. But they also had 6 fewer colorectal cancers, and 5 fewer hip fractures, and the same number of deaths overall. So the study that has changed prescribing habits world wide, and condemned millions of women into greater menopause suffering, in fact showed no extra deaths. Knowing this, what woman would choose to suffer menopause with no mitigating therapy, just to avoid a miniscule increased risk of a non fatal illness? We definitely need to be told risk factors.

luke Do you not agree that, for some hypothesis to be science, it must be falsifiable, if it is in fact, incorrect?

Which came first : chicken or egg? Which came first : concepts later introduced into language or the language itself. Did language generate the mental ability, or was the mental ability there first, and influenced the language? Inuit are said to have over 100 words for snow. You can absolutely guarantee that Inuit have a great mental ability to appreciate the differences between different kinds of snow. However, did that come from the language, or did they appreciate the snow first, and introduce their appreciation into language later?

It is true this is not science. Science requires hypotheses to be testable, and tested. I see no way you could test this one. So, we have to call this either speculation or religion. Of course, that don't mean it is wrong.

To Pioneer. Wow!!!! I have rarely seen such a distorted and jasperist view of politics. You are to be congratulated for setting a new record. You said : American are too generous and gentle. We never ask to be repayed or even expect simple gratitude. Does this explain why Americans are hated with a terrible intensity in third world nations dotted all over the globe? Is it the gentleness of Americans that led to over 2 million Vietnamese dying in the Viet Nam war; for the tens of thousands burned by napalm, and for the 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians dying over the last 4 years? Saddam killed only 200,000 with his nerve gases. I am not calling Americans cruel or sadistic, but I am saying that the actions taken by successive American administrations has had the same effect. The great irony in my view, is that under Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda was almost totally ineffective inside Iraq. Under American occupation, Al Qaeda has gone from strength to strength, and is now recruiting young Iraqi men, many willing to die in suicide attacks, by the tens of thousands. Bush junior has done exactly what was required to make the terrorist problem much worse.

Probably time for a few international summit meetings to sort out details peacefully. Norway and Canada need to sit around a table and agree on new boundaries. The business of Russia planting an underwater flag is a subset of a larger issue - that is, who owns the oceans. This is important, since international waters get over-exploited by everyone and there is no control. Down here in the south, we are looking at the incipient extinction of the Patagonian toothfish, which lives in deep international waters, and is over-fished by every nation that cares to try. I would like to see the oceans carved up by international treaty, with responsibility for controlled exploitation given to nations that border those oceans. That way the open slather approach can be curtailed.

john If you catch me attacking Americans as a class, please slap me down. I do not believe that geoguy intends that, either. We are, though, agin the aggressions of the Bush administration. I am aware, pleasurably so, that a large fraction of the American public feels exactly the same way. Lots of Americans can't wait to see the back of Bush junior. And likewise cannot wait to see the US get out of Iraq.

I mostly agree with what geoguy says. it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. It is to do with anti-stupidism.

Paranoia said to geoguy However, when you work past your emotional issues and apply logic and reason, There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is geoguy who is applying logic and reason. Where are the WMDs? What about the 655,000 innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed? What the hell is the point of the invasion madness? The whole thing was just plain stupid. There were many, many people in countries other than the USA who knew it was stupidity well before the invasion took place, and even a few in the US. As geoguy says, it is Viet Nam all over again, except in the desert instead of the rainforest.

Personally, I think science is probably more free of corruption than any other major human activity. That does not mean totally free, since we are all human, and a degree of 'corruption' is part of what makes us human. Science has always had mainstream belief and radical revolutionaries. Most of the time, the radicals are shown in the end to be talking a load of cobblers. This makes most scientists a bit conservative, relucatant to accept radical ideas. That is not corruption - just good sense. Occasionally a radical uncovers another corner of the truth and has a difficult time getting it accepted. However, if it is, indeed, the truth, it does get accepted finally.

America is at war with Shiite insurgents. The war continues - it just changed its nature. The invasion and capture of Saddm was the easy bit. Today, the war has changed its nature into a war of attrition by Shiite insurgents, and it has become very, very, very difficult - probably impossible. The fact that Bush junior refuses to see what has happened is no excuse for others to put the blinkers on.

Paranoia said : For the president of a country, your solution is to back in time and kill him - the mentallity you say you're against. Paranoia, sometimes you have to understand that a few things are said tongue in cheek. When I said to go back in time and bump off Bush, that was firmly tongue in cheek. I suspect that most of the contributors to this thread were well able to understand that. My solution in three steps is not for Al Qaeda, but for nations such as Iraq. Al Qaeda is, of course, the moral equivalent of the mafia. They are a criminal group, who should be treated as such. Police actions to round them up so they can be put on trial for murder. Treating Al Qaeda the way we do simply gives them a credibility they do not deserve. Treat them as criminals and murderers, and let the criminal justice system deal with them. Al Qaeda can, in the long term, be cleaned up with undercover police who infiltrate and betray. This is already happening, of course, but their actions are hampered by the fact that, due to hostile action by the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, recruitment into Al Qaeda is faster than police action can deal with. Iran and Iraq, though, are full sovereign nations, and deserve respect. We may not agree with them, but that is no reason to go to war with them. Most such problems can be dealt with using good will and patience. Look at Viet Nam. This nation is now developing to the point of friendly relations and trade. And yet the utter morons of the 1960's had to declare war. Iraq is exactly the same. Give it time, and it would have come right. Even bloody Saddam would eventually have dropped dead.

That's a very good example, Geoguy. At the end of the day, it shows that the 'failsafe' mechanisms built into science aint so bad. Even highly eminent scientists cannot drive science into nonsense.

From a quick google search under "uses for snake venom" as key words. The use of snake venom to develop disease treatments is not a new field. Captopril, a drug used to treat high blood pressure, was derived after analyzing the venom of the South African pit viper. Aggrastat, used to treat chest pains by preventing blood clots, was developed from a peptide in the venom of an African viper.

Klaynos has got the answer. Supernova done it! Here on Earth, gold is concentrated in ores by hydrothermal action. Gold dissolves sparingly in ultra hot water. This is achieved by geothermal activity, where water is held in a liquid state at extreme temperature, since high pressure prevents it flashing off into steam. Eventually, the water travels over and through rock, dissolving gold, among other things, and releases the minerals as it cools. Since the minerals come out of solution at specific temperatures, they get concentrated into ores.

My favourite example of how scientists get pounded back into place is Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. Dr Linus Pauling was one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and probably the greatest chemist. He is the only person to win the Nobel prize twice on his own. In his dotage, he developed a theory that megadoses of Vitamin C could prevent and even cure cancer. Because of his eminence, he was taken seriously, and a number of proper randomised, controlled, double blind, clinical trials were run. Result : Vitamin C is just plain useless against cancer. In the end, the winner was scientific truth. As long as we retain scientific freedom, this will always be the case.

luke's point about occupying a country is an excellent one. He calls the first Gulf War an utter success, which I would not totally agree with. It was a partial success, in that it drove Saddam out of Kuwait. It left him in power, which means it was only partially successful, but realistically, that was all that could have been hoped for. It was Bush junior who was the fool, in trying to invade and occupy Iraq. As luke said, attempts at occupation rarely work. Let me suggest a recipe for dealing with situations like that in Iraq before the invasion. For example : dealing with Iran. It is a three stage process, which will leave many people dissatisfied - just like any good compromise. 1. Gettin' to know ya. Spend time studying and learning to understand the group that is currently hostile. Learn why they are hostile. Learn to understand them, from their own viewpoint. 2. Gettin' to help ya. Provide aid and assistance in helping the hostile group to develop in a humanitarian way. Send doctors, nurses and teachers rather than soldiers. 3. Learnin' to wait on ya. Be prepared to take time - sometimes decades. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. If you are behaving as a friend, eventually the friendship will be returned. However, there is a lot of history to be overcome, and that takes a lot of time. If it does not work at first, keep trying, and keep patient. The problem is that political expediency and special interest groups get in the way. Also, short term political thinking. If it does not win votes within 5 years, it aint worth doing.

To Pioneer Conditioning may not have as big a part to play in sexual attraction as you think. Some research was done earlier this year (reported in New Scientist - though I have lost the exact issue number). The researchers looked at the ideal woman as reported at various times in literature over the last several thousand years. They found certain commonalities across history. Slimness, for example, was a constant in beauty. So was the ideal waist to hip ratio. Ditto youth.

To Pangloss You are entirely entitled to disagree with me, anytime you like. However, as part of this discussion, I would ask you to consider the history of the US's military activities since WWII. Korea. A war that still goes on - a 'temporary' stalemate that still requires enormous military activity, and represents a financial drain that is hard to justify. Viet Nam A total disaster for the USA, and for the 2 million Vietnamese who died. Bay of Pigs. A military disaster for the USA Central America. Support for insurgents, which resulted only in more deaths. Somalia. A total failure which increased the number of deaths. "Successes" include Kosovo. However, that was not the USA alone. It was a NATO action, with the full support of most of the world. It includes Granada, which is a tiny helpless island unable to fight back, and it includes the abduction of Noriega, which occurred in another tiny helpless place. The attack on Afghanistan was shrewdly carried out, by being in alliance with a local faction. However, the history of foreign invasions into Afghanistan makes it seem unlikely to have a successful outcome. And the invasion of Iraq was utterly stupid. Bush senior was too shrewd to try an invasion. Junior should have listened to his Daddy.

Yeah! I wish I was all wise and could suggest a solution. The only solution I have is to invent a time machine and go back to before 9/11 and shoot George Bush junior. Too late now. Iraq is a mess. If America continues, another 100,000 will die. If America pulls out, another 100,000 will die. Whaddaya do? Wish I noo.

The whole approach is Iraq is, and always has been, totally stupid. You do not win peace by marching, jackboots and all, into someone else's country, and by then shooting people. The Lancet study showed 650,000 Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of Bush's actions. Sending more troops in is only going to mean more militants fighting back. Right or wrong - those guys believe very sincerely that they are defending their country and their religion. End result - more death and destruction.

To pioneer Your vitamin D/sunlight theory may have some merit. However, I doubt if this is a single factor evolutionary change. As I said earlier, the main existing theories are parasite control and cooling. Your vitamin D theory may be valid, and be a third factor giving advantage to hair loss. My own feeling is that we also have to take into account the disadvantage of hair loss - that is hypothermia when the ambient temperature drops. Thus, I think the change will not happen till some technological means of keeping warm exists - whether clothing or fire. As far as the differences in hair growth between male and female are concerned - most authorities seems to ascribe that to sexual attraction. A bearded man seems to have some attraction to many women, whereas women with hairy chins and chests are not attractive to males.

I agree with Markus. The pattern in which fat is laid down, or burned off, is individual. Everyone is different. In spite of misleading advertisements, you cannot simply do ab exercises and end up with a muscular lean stomach. If we could, I would look great! I do lots of exercise, including abdominal exercises. I am sure I have fantastic abs, somewhere in there.... Getting rid of fat is simply a case of the good old ratio between calories consumed versus calories burned. Which part of you loses fat first is a function of your individual physiology.

Gene therapy is always a hot potato, but not for any airy fairy ethical reasons. Quite simply, people have died during gene therapy, and safety is at issue. Once we nail down the safety issues, no reason at all not to use the therapy. If it saves lives, great!

To CDarwin When I first read the article, and the suggestion that the overlapping fossils 'proved' erectus did not evolve from habilis, my reaction was exactly the same as yours. I see no reason why Homo habilis could not have split off a line that led to Homo erectus, while at the same time, elsewhere, continuing a line that remained habilis. Of course, if the two lines once more moved to occupy the same territory, there would have to be a difference in ecological niche to minimise competition, or one would likely out compete the other, leading to the extinction of the 'weaker' line.