admiral_ju00

There is also some data that suggest that women that are actively involved in caring for their young, live a bit longer than those who don't. The last time I checked on this, wasn't definitive, so the researchers are not entirely certain if caring for the child increases life span, or if it's genetic.

Like the title said, I got my arse handed to me by a Venom 650. This is the first venom I've ever seen in KY. I don't believe and or engage in street racing, but this was an opportunity I could not miss, even though I knew that there's no way in hell my car could outperform her, but there's that chance of user error. I guess I was hoping that she might have slipped a gear or something.... We had 3 launches, and the first one was a test more or less. Second we got out at about the same time(but that was it though, she very quickly overtook me after that point) and the final hit me with a train. By the time I got to 60, I lost sight of the venom. Caught up with the girl at the next intersection and had a brief chat. She popped the hood and pretty much bragged about it(as she should have, obviously). Damn I love and want that car, hell, I'll take a regular 92 RT/10 in a heartbeat!!! One thing that sucks about the 'Maro though is at higher speeds the car starts to shake and does not feel all that secure. Highest speed I've every pushed it to was about 95mph.

Yes, and all the efforts to find them have failed miserably. That's a damn good point.

And they would have been dealt with by the selection. Those that had the more severe form of it, would have certainly not lasted very long as opposed to others. That is true, many do not abort even when they know that their child will not be normal. While people with down syndrome, may maintain a good and healthy lives, they are useless when it comes to evolution as they are sterile. Or very quick. Many chromosomal aberrations result is self abortions. So most deleterious or problematic mutations in major biological functions of an organism never reach the fetus stage. Oh yes, the infamous butterfly effect. Know all about it. The problem with this is that it affected the population of the species rather drastically because it changed major keys in their environment. There are many other similar examples of such works in progress. One that I like myself is the affect of pesticides on a population of pests. Same thing, basically. Unless something happens that affects the 'human' ecology global-wide, such as should something happen to all the phytoplankton, we may discover that there are some individuals that are able to use say Methane or Carbon Dioxide just as well all of use Oxygen. Who knows. Until that happens, things most likely will remain as they are, since h.sapiens have dominated the entire world ecology with our technology. No, but perhaps we can delay the inevitable.

err. never mind. didn't fully read that last reply. I now have another question on this How will you try and do behavioral studies on the ants? I doubt that even the classical conditioning will work with them, plus they will be too numerous. Although I don't believe I've ever heard of this being done with ants. Also, keeping the ants either individually or group segregated may not yield much info about their social structure since they would lack the normal 'bureaucratic' environment.

I doubt that most people can afford the gear to reach the above mentioned temps.

Natural Selection has, is and will always be here. Taking into the account that say for the past 3 thousand years, the average lifespan of h.sapiens peaked at 20's and it was a marvel when someone lived to 30's, it will not change. Also, when you're talking about genes, be sure to consider or include the following factors: dominant alleles, co-dominant alleles and resecive alleles. Just because the parent or even parents have some 'undesirable alleles or genes', it does in no way guarantee that they will be passed on to their offspring. In Evolution, Natural selection will deal with the 'problematic' genes before in many cases they can have an effect on the total gene pool. Taking things like a life threatening genetic disorder, and in particularly a disorder that occurs at a very early stage in the life of the organism, will be dealt with by natural selection. After a certain age, you could say that the forces of natural selection may weaken on an organism thereby it may life well beyond it usefulness. For an example of the 1st one, take the one(I don't remember the name of this condition, someone help me out pls if you know it), There are mechanisms in the brain that keep fatty cells from forming, but if one is born with a genetic defect in this system, then fat cells start to accumulate in the brain and eventually leads to the death of the child by the age of 7. The very reason this condition is RARE is because of Natural Selection. This child has not yet had a chance to reproduce and possibly pass the mutation. Issues like that are fairly simply to eliminate from the total gene pool. That's why potential parents can have their DNA checked for such problems and make a decision of taking the chance or simply choose not to have any kids. For the 2nd example, take someone with Alzheimer's decease. This problem occurs relatively late in one's life. This organism(person) HAS had a chance to reproduce and pass the genetic information. This is a problem as Natural Selection's affect on this is severely limited and it will not be selected against, as far as the evolution is concerned. Taking something like asthma, allergy or other non-life threatening decease before the organism is capable of reproduction is irrelevant to the natural selection. Organ donation is a relatively new phenomenon and when compared to the total history of h.sapiens is also irrelevant and should not be used as a metric in the evolutionary forces. No. The genes will be in the circulation, but they won't make any significant impact. If you haven't (yet) been introduced to the square, then try and play with this, as it gets fascinating really quick. Keep in mind, that for each offspring, you got to start fresh. http://www.borg.com/~lubehawk/psquare.htm

Lol. I'm glad that Nature and other publishers phrased that a bit more elegantly I know about the bet, but you haven't answered the question. What is so special to this encyclopedia that one highly respected scholar and researcher places a bet on it? Surely it's not the common stock encyclopedia like Britannica or something.

Oh hell yeah!!! Courtesy of Nature

No, not at all. It might put a dent in a small and geographically/culturally isolated gene pool, but not of the entire species.

huh? Where did you get the above quote? Or to whom is it aimed in this thread? { edit } And also, what is this "encyclopaedia "from which information can be recovered at will" that they are talking about?

I agree. Carving an amendment for this in the Constitution is just plain stupid(Just like creating this country and calling it FREE and all man are created equal, but then to import slaves to this free land.....). This and a number of other issues or things that Bush said or done has made me want to see him KICKED out of the office. And especially if they could do something to Impeach him for something/anything, for example the Iraqi war, or at least our - err, HIS reason for us going there, would be even nicer.

What is your major malfunction? And what the hell is this about???

Thank you, Sayonara. As for you yourdadonapogos, please take a look at the following post #'s. 133,137,139 & 143 Surely with your *cough*fictitious*cough* BSc in Aeronautical Engineering, you can figure something out, eh?

I'll take whatever you can give me . Thank you Glider and Senexa for the link.

I'm surprised that NO ONE has yet added a link for this greatness on here(what the world coming to??): http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/

There are numerous candidates that are being. In most cases, the work that's been done with rodents, monkeys and other animals(short lived ones like spiders, flies, etc) have dramatically prolonged their life. In humans, many of these are either unethical or undoable. But some of the many things involved(or at least currently investigated are) Genetics, Cell replication, Diet, Sexual reproduction, Hormones, Oxidation or Free Radical damage (if you prefer), etc. Reason why I quoted your post is this, some research has shown that a cell, in a lab conditions will divide about 50 times and then no more. The reason is that evidently each time the cell divides, the chromosomal telomers get shorter with each division, 'till it comes to a certain crucial point and the cell will no longer divide(Asexual reproduction). It can it' date=' but it would only be [b']Partially[/b] responsible. Taking a completely evolutionary view of this, you can say the following: Once an organism has acquired a fitness(even say of 1), then that organisms evolutionary task is complete and there is no really any more reason to keep this organism alive much longer.Right? For instance, while women outlive men, you could say that women are no longer needed past the age of 40. Several things for this view: 1) 40's bring the menopause 2) After the age of 35, each time a woman gets pregnant she has higher chances of producing some kind of mutation that would affect the child. Ex: Down Syndrome, etc. 3) Even if having an in vitro fertilization, she may not carry the fetus to full term and or develop other complications. What this all means is that women are useful in terms of evolution while they have very high chances of producing of an equally viable offspring. You could limit the age of this group from 12 - 34/35. Men on the other can and do produce sperm well off into their sixties and can still impregnate someone with much less chances of producing any or very few undesirable traits.

What the hell is in that picture? ROFL. That's sheer genious at work. {edit} Uhm, just noticed the fins there, heh.

In both cases the actions of the 'eyewitnesses' is inexcusable. It doesn't matter if the 40 other passengers were elderly or in their teens. If they All rose up to the attackers/rapists, their combined aurora would have been enough to deter the attacks. Or what were their alternative? Slaughter all of the 40 people(plus the original victim)? Well, a single case of say: a brutal rape is in no way equal to a mass murder.

No doubt about post 66, however I didn't rip it from you. Although now that I think about it, you did say something similar(at least as far as the future is concerned) in your last debate. Since the field I'm studying for does involve a great deal of biology and genetics, that is where our thoughts were derived. As far as the DNA being not the best example of the Physics/Chemistry/Biology entanglement, it is rather one of the perhaps more famous and easiest to point out. By the way JaKiri, while I understand about say the Economics, what is so funny about Sociology(Social Psychology)?

Ok, me confused. Who and what are you talking about Sayo?

No, I do not discount the things that Physics did that helped along the way - and like you said, X-ray was the key. However, If my memory serves me right(and it is) a Chemist came a lot closer(didn't get the gold) to explaining what the dna was. The physicist with his theory did perform have a crash and burn at the exact same task. Let's keep any future thoughts and speculation on what a Physicist can do at say explaining at a great detail how an Ecosystem works to well, the future. Yes because everything is made out of molecules and you will know about it better than I, however, your Quantum mechanics(or whatever) will not and does not explain any of the cellular functions, let alone an entire organism or worse yet, an entire biological system. Future what if's and what could be's are irrelevant. If there was no need for various branches within the science, then why and how were they created in the first place? Because Physics has it's limitations.