CDarwin

That's what I thought most of the responses would be, and I think that's wrong because there is more than simply that absence of any evidence here. We do have evidence about Gigantopithecus which doesn't fit with the descriptions of bigfoot, we do have evidence about primate locomotion and how unlikely a large bipedal ape is, and we do have evidence of the climatic conditions of the Pleistocene and how difficult it would be for a large tropical ape to make it down through Alaska. We also have evidence of from the nature of human storytelling that suggest bigfoot is a creation of our imaginations. Nothing proves that bigfoot doesn't exist, but the evidence does actively suggests that it doesn't. I'd say that's enough to draw the conclusion that bigfoot is bunk, pending contradicting evidence.

I've gotten some comedy books: Our Dumb World from the Onion Our Dumb Century from the Onion I Am America (And so can you!) by Stephen Colbert American (the book) by Jon Stewart and Evolution a textbook on the subject you would expect it to be on by Douglas Futuyma

I cast my stone for bunk, for the simple reason that I find the notion that Gigantopithecus was bipedal, crossed the Bering Land Bridge, and is now suddenly an omnivore (when its teeth from the Pleistocene clearly indicate it was a heavy-duty herbivore) highly improbable. Bigfoot has all the trappings of a culturally fabricated boogeyman and none of a real ape. But that's just me. What say you?

I know I'm waay behind on this debate, but I saw this scanning the "Aliens" thread and it just bothered me a bit, so I thought I'd interject concerning it. Regardless of every argument made about the relative certainty climate modelers have about the effects of aerosols, this argument is contrary to basic risk analysis. Risk takes into account both probability and potential consequences. If something is unlikely but catastrophic, it still may pay to take measures against it. You seem to be accepting that humans are driving anthropogenic climate change, and that models can accurately predict that change minus the effect of aerosols. Well, like you say, we may be underestimating their effect and the consequences may be less catastrophic, or we may be overestimating their effect and the consequences may be more catastrophic. The possibility of the worse scenario, even if the situation is as uncertain as you say it is, itself justifies action.

Why thank you.

Because that is the custom of American Presidential elections. We've already had the primaries in earlier threads to select these particular two, if that's what you mean.

We've talked around this before, I think, but there has been no concerted discussion on the topic. In all realism, what do you actually think the "Ron Paul Revolution" is actually going to amount to in the election cycle? Personally, I think he's going to be a blip in Iowa, and then rock the ticket somewhat in the more libertarian New Hampshire. New Hampshire is an open primary, so what Paul is probably going to end up doing is drawing some Democratic votes, especially of younger first-time voters. My most unconservative prediction: Paul will make a surprise 4th or even 3rd place showing in New Hampshire, hurt Obama because he's drawing the young voters and whatever Republicans he beats (probably Guiliani) because he'll make them look bad, and that will be the majority of his impact. Sorry, Paulites. But what are your opinions? EDIT: Read the word in the title as "effect." I'm really quite poor at this spelling thing.

Only on the Internet... SFN's candidates for President of the United States are Representative Ron Paul of the Republican Party and Senator Barack Obama of the Democratic Party. Call CNN, let's rock Iowa. So! It now falls to you to select which of the two you would rather see elected as President. You may post your choice and argue vociferously why it is superior if you so desire as well.

You seem to have a problem appreciating the Glorious Science of Paleontology. That said, I think the big discovery by Fred Spoor of the tiny Homo erectus alongside late Homo habilis might outrank 6.

Ah, the difficulties of pigeonholing human variation into racial categories.

I don't think that was the paper I found before... Maybe. Thank you.

Is he mad?? Waft, man, waft!

I'm putting this in homework help because it's help and it would be used for an essay, so it works. Would anyone have any experience with a paper published recently-ish (before 2004 I think) about a molecular clock calculated with proteins that gave the dates of divergence for a variety of mammalian groups and included the divergence between humans and tarsiers and put the date about 55 million years ago? I found this paper a few months ago and I had it on my laptop, but it crashed, so you know how that goes, and now I can't find it again on Google for the life of me. If anyone had any other papers on the divergence between humans and tarsiers that would be handy too. I realize I'm probably not going to get very much response here, but I thought I would try.

Wouldn't that have been grist for Pangloss's mill? I can imagine that outraged thread now.

It's not "best person of the year." It's "most influential." Russia is prouder, more prosperous, and more powerful than it has been since frescoes of Lenin graced Red Square. The Bear rises! (I'm a Russophile, in case you haven't guessed). So, yeah, I don't think its a horrible choice. Putin is the father of the new Russia. That's going to look a lot more important in a few years.

Those two seem to contradict for me. If we "screw up," than we did "do" something. Why should a nation not be held responsible for the damage it does with its foreign policy? Did the French and British have no responsibility to stand up to the Germans and stop them from taking Czechoslovakia? Disregarding responsibility retrospectively ("It wasn't our fault") means you must also disregard it prospectively ("We have no duty"). That means you remove ethics completely from policy. No one's going to say you can't, but it has some troublesome implications that you have to be comfortable with.

Is it possible that we could be? I ask this more as a theoretical. At what point does it really become your "fault" that a country that you've "had dealings with" in one way or another goes down the toilet? It's an interesting question. If the US provides arms to a dictator (which we have certainly done) are we responsible for what the dictator does with those arms? Partially? Wholly? If Great Britain colonizes a nation and trashes its social institutions (which they have quite undoubtedly done), is it responsible for the dire political and economic straits of the country once it become independent?

That's a bit of a straw man. No one's making a moral equvilation here. The point is that our actions in the Middle East have had and continue to have consequences, and we should remember than when we make foreign policy.

Al Gore seriously springs to mind. So does Barack Obama. Musharraf too. Maybe Amedenijad. Or Nancy Pelosi?

Well, it has a "perfect" state doesn't it? I.e., replication that is exactly faithful to the original. A mutation is a deviation from that "perfect" state. Thus an "error." It's a point of semantics, obviously.

The Mossadeq affair was pretty shameless, yes. It's interesting on a few levels. For one: It shows something of what the Iranians have to be angry about. Western powers really have been messing around in their country to protect commercial interests. Beyond the guilt trip though, I think its an excellent case study belying the idea that in the Middle East "pro-democracy" = "pro-Western." Mossadeq was a secular, democratic leader, but he was also a rabid nationalist. Today we have plenty of political movements who are just fine with free and fair elections... to install Sharia Law. It's an interesting paradox, and a pretty tough nut to crack for those who might want to protect individual liberties. Do you do that best by allowing democracy to take its course, or do you suppress democracy in the name of liberty?

I think its fair to call it an "error." If DNA replication was 100% infallible then you would never have any mutations. Mutations occur because replication is imperfect; there are "errors."

Eat that, Boortz?

Has anyone got one of these things? I just "gave one got one" (or rather my mother did, but I clicked the button), and I'm wondering if anyone else had done similarly and could offer an opinion as to the device.

Playing bureaucrat with God.