admiral_ju00

right-amundo. if you for a second ignore the gaps in our fossil records, there are still organisms that can be said to be transistory which shows the pattern. but as a generelization when looking at the fossil evidence of Australopithecus afarensis > Australopithecus africunus > Paranthropus boisei > Paranthropus robustus > Homo sapiens (there's a bunch more ofcourse,but i had these stuck in my head now for a very long time) there clearly is a decrease of robust characteristics (eg: neandertals) and a transition to more gracile characteristics, change in dentition and increase in brain mass/size ps. too tired to worry about spelling at this time, you can flame me later that would be due to our Symbolic needs/abilities.

the biggest thing that separates us from all the other animals is our ability to understand, process and use Symbols there are 3 fundamental signs - signs, indexes and symbols. we can do all 3 where all other animals have limited ability to use the 1st 2. hence our extremely sophisticated means of communications - aka language can we say we are better adapter then some other animals, probably no. but then again, that would depend on to what are you trying to compare us to. as for our reasons to evolve to what we are today or heck even other animals i like the theory of the self developing genome as oposed to pure darwinism.

thanks i'll check it out

i believe it is essential for numerous reasons. w/o it, i don't see the Human Genome project was possible, etc

there are several theories but two of the biggest ones, of which i'm not going to go into detail, but they both say that that homo sapiens originated in africa and then spread to various parts of the europe and asia. there was dramatically less allele exchange between the africans and asians or europeans and asians, hence asians have evolved slightly different than their ancestors. and native americas are indeed genetically closer to asains then europeans or africans.

what? never mind skye. i misunderstood well no, i'm still slightly confused as to whatever do you mean about "all the invasions" thing....

hope you guys can help. high school, especially the 9th grade seems to have ended an eon ago and I need your help. I know there is a way to descipher, read and write(?) bar codes manually. if anybody knows the method or a website that shows how to do it, I'd appreciate that tremendously.

i believe you're refferin' to the Seven daughters of Eve that and other research seems to point that our common ancestor was of african descent that'll be the Cultural Anthropologists and to some degree even the Linguistic Anthropologists

it's still a good read, plus darwinism is the prevalent theory that many scientists embrace, so why not start with the original theory and then move on to the current developments of it?

yeah but there are those that are easily expendable. mice, rats, squirrels, etc so maybe instead of having to do the Pavlov's salivating dogs, you can do YT's hallucinating rodents?

was just curious on the results......... by the way, in post #1, you said you 'think' it is a meteorite but then in the subsiquent posts you were already calling 'my meteorite' as if all the tests have been already done and concured that it was indeed a 'meteorite' ............ trying to help you rule out any biases before you go through with the test.

i had to read it due to an 'implied' suggestion, but then again, i'm studying anthropology in which i'll probably specialize in paleontology, but then again, grad school is not for another year or so

i've been wandering, since nasa will most likely abandon the hubble, what will possible cause them to reconsider? naturally their budget may be a bit tight, but to let it go to waiste w/o a fight is stupid. why are they simply willing to let it die(and don't tell me "no budget, dah" cause that's a given)? thinking of all the wonders that it has shows us thus far, it would be stupid and irresponcible to 'can' the 'scope. the plan bush proposed is ok, grossly underestimated financially and perhaps even technologically, but at least nasa now has a goal to get back to the moon and i don't know how practical is the notion of mars, but still they must maintain the hubble. i wander what 'tard decided that it was a good idea to do so. i haven't seen anything that might indicate their change of heart, goddamnit. perhaps they should be bombarded with emails asking them to rethink their logic might do, eh? i will loose any and all respect for nasa, should they continue with their plan.

they better not 'can' the hubble. that full res pic is very impressive. by the way, i haven't had any time to spend checking up on this, but what's the current state of the 'dark matter' theory/research?

no takers eh?

yeah i know. still, it was fun saying it.

I know what that is and what they are looking for, but I was hoping that they'd have such a tool as the seti@home where the recieved data packets can be checked and then submited to OSETI's Hq. does anyone know if they are doing it now(i couldn't dig that out myself) or are they plan to ever doing it?

sadly still is the fact that the when things become fossils, it is a very rare case and it heavily relies on just the 'right' conditions in order for something to become a fossil. it may not matter if it's a leaf or a deceased animal, if the conditions aren't optimal, then no fossils

a nice new shiny coaster will have a similar effect plus it'll be a lot more fun than an elevator. well, most elevators. damn do i miss those high-speed elevators the WTC had

it's a comet. and she's going to buzz earth in a little bit, assuming that nothing intervenes with it's current course. cliff-notes version http://www.bsasnashville.com/comet/ and http://www.space.com/spacewatch/comet_NEAT_2004_030516.html some technical and more in-depth stuff http://cometography.com/lcomets/2001q4.html http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/2001Q4/2001Q4.html http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/Ephemerides/Comets/2001Q4.html

the C/2001 Q4 is coming and she's coming with a vengence! well, not really doomed, but i just wanted to say that

yes, i realize that denton's book is pretty poor and had some issues with it myself, but still as a generalization it is entertaining. and again, i do not conform to the 1st things i read or hear. i also care nothing for what the creationists say or any other theological matter. but at times of extreme boredom, i find their philosophy quite comical and as stated above, a bit entertaining. other than that, it does not deserve any serious considerations.