Phi for All

This is a False Dilemma, an example of bad logic. Never make if/then statements about areas you're not well-versed in. You are wrong about humans evolving from apes and you are wrong about natural selection being forced to make humans out of apes. The circumstances that caused humans to develop our current intelligence might never be recreated again on this planet. Bigfoot would have to have been observing us for quite some time to figure out what a camera is. They'd also have to have observed film being developed and make the link between photos and what the camera was doing. They'd also have to develop reasoning to make a connection between photographs and a danger to themselves. I think that'd be tough for a *human* who'd never seen a camera, much less a lesser primate. Then they'd have to communicate such an advanced concept to others of their kind, which would give us more opportunities to gather evidence. Bigfoot knows what a camera does? Big stretch. As for burying their dead, there would be traces left of either tool use or distinctive hand marks like those left by chimps who dig near a river to create a temporary "well" to drink from. If you're going to suggest that Bigfoot buries its own then you have to go further and suggest that they rub out their own markings and bury the tools with the body. Bigfoot has a burial compulsion? Another big stretch.

Look, let's make this all about *you*, Zephir. Suppose you started a thread about the aether concept and someone else wanted to tell you about his own theory, how it may not be accepted by many but made sense to him. He posts his ideas and suddenly everyone stops talking about your topic and starts talking about his. Now imagine that this guy does this to virtually every thread you start, constantly taking over the topic of your thread and changing what everyone's discussing. Your ideas get no time because everyone is busy telling this other guy what they think of *his* thesis. This is what you've been doing. You're the other guy who keeps trying to make everyone discuss what *he* wants to talk about, even in someone else's thread.

See what I mean? Even when ten people tell you that humans do NOT come from apes, but rather that apes and humans both come from a common ancestor, you insist on parroting that same old crap "humans come from apes" garbage. What is it about the scientific answer that fails to penetrate some people's brains? Do you not see the distinction between "apes then humans" and "common primate ancestor then apes *and* humans"?

I like that he is less rehearsed and "focus-grouped" than Hillary, but Obama needs to bring voters together, not keep them polarized as we've been for the last two presidential elections. Labels are not a good way to accomplish diplomacy here or abroad.

You go from the bolded assumptions to the bolded conclusion a little too quickly, imo. As Cap'n said, it's still evidence gathering time.

What's stupid is that this question has been asked and answered for the last hundred years and yet it still gets asked on a daily basis. It's as if the answer is somehow unsatisfying to those who ask it.

I think Turtles All The Way Down is an excellent name for this ride. You're in for 10%.

Your research grant for the use of theoretical spacetime topology as a single appendage solution for ulnar irritation has been APPROVED.

So, an 8000 mile freefall, then a 7999 mile fall back, followed by a 7998 mile fall, and another back 7997 miles, and so forth until you reach stability in the center of the earth? If I build it, will you come? What would you be willing to pay (figure it takes about two to three days just for the first fall)? You may have to pay in US$ for the first fall, but pay in yuan for the second fall.

I didn't say that. I doubt you'll ever find a way to touch your real right elbow (not a photo or other representation) with your real right index finger without chopping something off.

What's really amusing to watch is an ID proponent who comes to a science forum looking for ammo against evolution, who proceeds to stir up "controversy" by claiming a witch hunt, then derides every answer he gets from the membership and calls them cowards for not trying to force a better theory than evolution into the discussion. And Vexer, please understand that if you're *not* an ID proponent in disguise, you're acting like every single one who has ever visited here. Your next move will either be to storm off in a huff, claiming that we're no scientists, or you will realize that people have tried to respond to your OP but there currently are no chinks in this theory's armor. While any theory is challengeable, evolution remains the best answer to how organisms change over time.

I teach the monkey to use a can opener and guess what I give him if he does it? Vi-o-la! A tin can opened with a banana!

No, it was busy with my nostril. And don't call me surely.

Tell that to my retinas.

Women are just going to have to give up their quaint notions of what's attractive if this species is ever going to evolve something really spectacular. Are we to miss out on something as cool as a shark's tooth replacement just because women won't date a guy who leaves his teeth lying around like toenail clippings?

If there are those in government who are helping corporations to manipulate the press, I feel these blanket dismissals, leftie / rightie, conservative / liberal, Dem / Rep, all serve them very well. Personally, I don't know a single person who is conservative in all things, or who agrees with either major party's complete platform. Politicians seem extremely good at keeping us fighting each other instead of questioning them. Is it a Fundamental Attribution Error which tells someone that if I make a statement about a certain issue that seems "leftie", that *all* my statements are going to be "leftie"? No one seems to understand that I can support business in a free market economy but require that that business be done with the future of the planet in mind. Is it liberal or conservative to desire a market base that is alive and capable of purchasing my goods and services? I've said it before, but I think politics in the US have been distilled down to a competition instead of choosing a representative to take your vote to Washington DC. It's not an election, it's a "race" and Americans can't stand losing in a race, so many voters tend to back the person they think will win. That's a really stupid way of looking at the privilege, imo. Every major election is basically a false dilemma; we don't *have* to elect one of the two major candidates but that's the way it's always portrayed.

I didn't hear a thing. Your faces are feces. Unless... we maybe could sell the Sad Lion image to Disney for the Narnia movies....

Interesting how that works in the corporation's favor, huh? It's almost as if the corporations OWN the media! Oh, wait.... Like so many things, government regulation has been spun to be evil in virtually every instance. It helps people accept deregulation more easily and without all those pesky questions, like, "Why am I paying so much more for energy now but the service hasn't changed?" It also keeps people leery of funding new government programs like national healthcare ("Oh, the gov't will surely make a mess of that, let's not even try!"). A side note on national healthcare: I find it more than coincidence that the current administration made such a stink about the French not supporting us fully in the Iraq invasion. Spin like that is worth it's weight in gold when it serves to play down the fact that the French knew better than we did that no Nigerian yellow cake had gone to Iraq, AND it inflames US nationalism for an invasion, AND it will taint the people's opinion of France when the subject of their excellent national healthcare system crops up. Nice.

I've gotten pretty good at recognizing slant, and you're right, everyone's got one. Bias is recognizable. But when a story is suppressed we never get a chance to detect for slant. And again, I see the problem stemming not from government, but from corporations that can wiggle out of most any regulations the government might use to restrict their influence. Economic practices are being rewritten by these mega-corps. They are unfairly influencing government legislation that affects entities like the Patent Office, the GAO and others. And every administration in the last couple of decades has given them more and more of a hold over the media.

Let's not forget the lobbyists. How much more effective are they at political manipulation when their clients own the media? Between spin and suppression these guys multiply the influence exerted on politicians in addition to what they already have by being professional influence peddlers. Milton Berle (the Thief of Bad Gags): "Damn! I wish I'd said that!" George Burns: "Don't worry, Milton. You will."

I've often wondered if our unique civilization-building capabilities might offset the evolutionary damage we may do by thwarting natural selection.

Consider that if a corporation is influencing the news, they're influencing consumers who have learned to shield themselves from the more obvious advertising but remain vulnerable where news sources are concerned. Those consumers elect the politicians so if they are misinformed isn't their vote more likely to be misinformed? If corporations were interested in influencing elections to favor their businesses, this is a very likely scenario, especially if the cost of such manipulation is less than backing ALL the candidates to assure a favorable outcome. All really smart business moves, as long as you can get away with them. But is this what the system is for?

For how long? Every day you hear about mergers in the works that would concentrate even more power in the hands of corporate giants. It's not just the big guy buying up the small guy anymore. The biggies are merging and creating empires. And consider what we may never know. If you had a mega-corp that wanted to shield its clients from bad press, wouldn't it be a smart business move to contact another mega-corp and arrange a truce for both your clientele? As the competition dwindles deals like this are inevitable, imo, if not already in place. Speculation? Possibly, or an educated guess from 30 years in business. I don't think the government is the entity we need to look at here. They're being manipulated too.

Is it just me or does this "error" seem like a total Strawman? When did Gore mention evacuation? Why would "inundation" be equivalent to "evacuation". And I don't remember the atolls Gore mentioned as having any population at all. He just referenced them to show how a temperature rise affects ocean levels. Agreed, no more Flaming, warning issued.

I don't have his kind of money. I don't know anyone that rich who doesn't seem like a power-guzzler by comparison. I think you need to admit that when you saw the documentary and then heard people criticize his lifestyle you pictured him telling us all to stop wasting energy so he could hoard it all for himself. It's a knee-jerk reaction and it's hard to stop. Oh, I'm sure Secret Service would love that! How many trees do you want to chop down for the paperwork on plane-pooling with Al Gore? *You* may think him a hypocrite, but I cut him some slack. He could have done anything, ANYTHING after being VP, but when the top job fell through he chose to make the world aware of what he'd found out over the course of his career. I was going to do it but everybody thought Al was a better spokesman, enviable house and all.