CDarwin

Rewinding a bit... But things have contexts. A quote from the Talmund (or The Art of War, for example, which also has some religious underpinnings), is academic, even poetic. A quote from the Bible, on cover slides on briefings about a war already venturing dangerously close to "crusade," has an entirely different meaning attendant to it. These slides look like they belong on Baptist church bulletins. I don't think that there's any constitutional issue, but it's inappropriate and potentially dangerous, as Mokele pointed out. It seems that the argument so far has gotten caught up in this issue of constitutionality, which denies gray areas. I think this is quite validly a gray area, but one in which the Department of Defense or whoever was responsible for those files was, indeed, wrong. Just read some of these. "Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans shall succeed." Is that the way to run a war, now?

I haven't read much paleontology outside of primate stuff, so I wasn't aware of that. That's interesting. I think there are a lot of primate paleontologists who are still working on the assumption that primates diverged in the Cretaceous. Apparently that wasn't the discovers' point anyway. In the paper they just argued that some of D. masillae traits suggests that adapoids should be realigned with the Haplorhini, with anthropoids and tarsiers, instead of the Strepsirhini. And all the traits they used were already described in other adapoids. Not quite up to the "missing link" hype.

Well, of course it would be nice. Actually, a molecular clock calculating the time of divergence between modern anthropoids and lemurs (assuming adapoids to be ancestral to lemurs) or distantly related species within the two groups, might be relevant to determining if this fossil is from the right time to be a transitional form. I believe a number of those have been done. I'm not sure which is the best respected. This seems to be the most recent: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4K2252T-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a56d57416735b41d0c7d9acc2de860ec According to that, the two major anthropoid groups diverged 40 mya and the two most distantly related strepsirrhines (the group of lemurs and bushbabies) 57.1 mya. If we are to suppose that modern strepsirrhines evolved from adapoids, then this fossil couldn't be a transtional form to anthropoids since the divergence between lemurs and anthropoids is 77.5 mya. I'm not making a point; I just find that interesting. I'd never seen those numbers before.

The media hype is part of an orchestrated promotion of Phillip Gingrich and his adapoid theory of anthropoid origins. Darwinius masillae is an adapoid, and it supposedly has anthropoid features. Gingrich now has a huge soap box to scream from and I have a feeling he's going to try to shout down all the other scientists he's been arguing with for years about which Eocene primate group anthropoids evolved from. So, I'm skeptical of the missing link bit until we get some more objective analyses. But, still, beautiful skeleton. Or you could just look at the features of the skeleton and dentition using the same comparative techniques that have informed most of what we know about the relationships of modern and fossil forms since Cuvier. There really is an enormous amount of potential for analysis here. The teeth alone could be all we need to determine where it fits with respect to adapoids and anthropoids.

Although, as must be pointed out on a science forums eventually, it would be impossible to find the fossil of Midochondrial Eve, as suggested in the show. She's a construct determined by tracing back lineages of daughters. She wasn't necessarily the ancestor of all modern humans, either, just the only female to leave an unbroken line of female descendants to the present day. Still, great episode. Wait for this "The Plan," maybe they'll explain Daniel better then. Or maybe in Caprica.

It's wrong, though. Neanderthals didn't develop tools, or at least only developed their own tools. I'm a big They Might Be Giants fan. "James K. Polk" is the best obscure history song I've ever heard. And of course there is MC Hawking.

If by "traditional" definition you mean Star Trek definition. Sentient really, originally, just means "able to respond to sensations of pleasure and pain," which does cover mice. However, the term has been bandied about so much that it is more of a political term now than a terribly scientifically useful one.

I'm not sure how salty amphibians are, but I imagine they would lose water through osmosis to their surroundings faster than they would take up too much salt.

In case anyone didn't know. I just found it today; it might only recently have been posted. Ok, you may all resume discussion of chocolate types and blue penises.

Without addressing the responses about muscle action, which are well above my education, there are some skeletal implications of how bush babies (also called galagos) move, too. Their fibula is reduced and wraps very close to the tibia, increasing the strength of the combined bone and its leveraging ability. There's a fossil group of prosimians called omomyoids that share lower leg adaptations very similar to those of galagos, and probably moved similarly. Tarsiers, who rely even more heavily on leaping from vertical supports, take this to an even greater extreme, with a completely fused tibio-fibula. You can compare a the lower leg bones of the galago here: To a tarsier here: http://www.bohol.ph/pics/large/IMG_0577_Tarsier_Skeleton.jpg Notice the extended ankle bones, or tarsa, of both animals as well. They also help increase the leverage of the legs.

Anthropology and biology [student]. These things polls have been done before (I think I posted one once) and they always confirm that we're under domination by physical scientists here.

Haha, I live among mountains in the (our) South. That means we simultaneously have snow, it poses a legitimate danger to travel, and no one has any idea how to deal with it. Everyone runs on the supermarkets, whole counties shut down, it's very sad.

Well, I would obviously defend Darwin as more than a popularizer. He was a masterful synthesizer who took disparate arguments and lines of evidence from practically the breadth of natural science of his day and forged them into a single, coherent argument, better than anyone else had before (and better than Wallace did as his contemporary). He was also a model scientist and, generally, nice guy. That said, the real reason we have a Darwin Day is obviously politics. Empodocles, Wells, and Matthew didn't come up with anything that's still politically controversial. Darwin Day events mostly started up during times in which evolution was under some sort of political attack to serve as public education. The University of Tennessee's, for example, one of the oldest in the country, was started while there was an equal time bill poised in the state legislature. Oh, by the way, I posted this thread last year, if no one noticed the date, as I see Mr. Skeptic did.

Specific genes have actually been linked to homosexual behavior, too. If you muck with a gene called GB in a male fruit fly Drosophilia, for exmaple, it will begin attempting to mate with other males. Now of course humans are more sophisticated that fruit flies, so the matter is likely more complicated, but still the principle exists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm That's precisely what bonobos, who are considered equidistant from us with chimpanzees, do, actually. Female-female sexual behavior (genital rubbing) among bonobos is actually more common than male-female sexual behavior, and is used to release tension at times of increased likelihood of conflict, such as at the discovery of a new food resource. Male-male sexual behavior also occurs at high frequencies as well. It should be noted, however, that these females also mate with males when in estrous, so aren't as individuals true 'homosexuals.' That does seem to be more of a human thing, and tied up more heavily in the complexities of human culture and psychology than in simple biological drives. For example, many homosexual men marry and father children, so obviously they are capable of physiological arousal in the presence of women, even if they have a psychological preference for males and may even find the experience traumatic. Likewise, otherwise 'heterosexual' males can often, in circumstances such as prison, respond sexually to other males. Indeed, in whole cultures, such as the Etoro, homosexual behavior is encouraged as a norm and almost all males engage in it. Surely this one culture isn't made up entirely of biological homosexuals. So, it seems to me sexuality is something of a gray area, to be nudged in one direction or another by rather complex assemblages genetic, psychological, and cultural factors.

Oh, I'm not defending them. It's just interesting to me how, when it comes to the economy, we have such a tendency to build up 'maestros' and 'oracles' and put such implicit trust in them. That's why everyone is so angry and Paulson and Greenspan and such, because we all trusted them. Well, why did we trust them so much? There seems a danger the cycle might accelerate. Public officials (like Geitner) are invested with enormous public trust, misstep, and then rapidly lose it rendering them ineffective.

Oh, it was a very good program, and since I've decided to resurface, I might as well comment. I didn't think it was so sympathetic to Henry Paulson, really. Just a month or two ago Newsweek was calling him "King Henry," a pragmatic, trusty steersman leading us through the waters of crisis. Now he's being accused of, and I believe this was a quote, "Destroying the world." It's striking to me how our heroes seem to falling away as this thing keeps going. First Greenspan, then Paulson, now even Geitner is taking hits on the vagueness of his credit plan.

Or it may be linked to another trait or traits that confer some fitness.

I've noted that in how news media will report on the rumors about Barack Obama's Muslimness. They always say that the emails say he's a radical Muslim. Well, no, they don't really, for the most part they just say he's a Muslim. But the media doesn't want to implicitly endorse that being a Muslim is bad by saying "Barack Obama is not a Muslim that's a lie," while at the same time they don't want to have to address the deeper issue of racism and fear implicit in the charge. So they just paper over it by saying he's not a "radical" Muslim. Which is sort of offensive in and of itself. Radical Christian is hardly an insult. The point isn't that terrorists are really radical in their religion, it's that they're violent in it. They're violent Muslims. But, on topic, this new blitz from McCain and Palin has absolutely turned me off. When you've got people at your rallies saying "terrorist" and "kill him" about your political opponent you've crossed a definite line. That's the kind of stuff you see in former Soviet republics and places in Central America.

Especially when McCain used the same analogy to refer to, of all things, Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan. I'll admit to 'lol'ing.

But it gives our economy an unfair advantage, and I think that's a lot of why it's done. We have a massive, developed economy that became so under none of the restrictions we now want to impose on Mexico's. And what's more, we subsidize that massive economy in those sectors where it directly competes with developing nations'. Mexico's economy, by contrast is 1/13th the size, and has drastically cut subsidies since the 1990s when it began to neoliberalize in line with US and European wishes. Basically, by violating the spirit of NAFTA with tariffs functionally directed at its weakest member, you risk undoing all the good it's done for that country. You risk job loss and a slide in GDP and you risk destabilizing it's infant liberal democracy. And I think these things are more likely to lead to the results we want than imposition from the outside in trade deals to which Mexico is practically captive. If the Obama wants to seriously and fairly improve NAFTA, than he needs to put on the table cutting subsidies and providing capital for Mexican industry to make the improvements necessary to comply with any new labor or environmental supplements. I don't know if that's politically possible, though. That's a big reason why the Doha round of trade negotiations broke down, by the way. Industrialized countries refused to drop subsidies. They're like economic crack.

(Only vaguely on topic rant) Of course how much of 'renegotiate NAFTA' comes down to 'screw Mexico with tariffs'? NAFTA has been a relatively unmitigated success in all the countries in involved (it precipitated no less than an economic and democratic revolution in Mexico, with the GDP shooting up and the first free multiparty elections in the country's history being held). Talk about environmental concerns and market distortions are fine and noble, but I don't know how much of that can really be enforced without punitive tariffs that just give big economies that were allowed to grow and dominate unfettered with such concerns unfair advantages (especially when they keep up with subsidies). But, no, I wouldn't call Obama anti-free trade either. I don't think any serious observer or policy maker is any more.

Intuitively, I'd imagine so. It probably has a lot to do with the shape too. I don't know what all those echolocating bats would be doing with their large pinnae if they didn't have some effect on hearing.

It's not a comparative anatomy diagram... It's a chart answering the original question posed by this thread. Does the link not work?

Well, that assumes that state executives behave as in my ideal. But I see your point. I would have more confidence in Gov. Phil Bredesen, say, to be able to balance partisanship better than Barack Obama from day one, but he's not on the ballot and might be inferior to Obama in other ways.

So the rather starkly divergent way the two men see the world and the American imperative in foreign relations isn't sufficiently of note to you? I mean, the two are probably more alike in policy than either would like to admit (definitely more so that Bush and Kerry, say), but to call them identical seems a bit of a stretch.