iNow

You state openly what you seek to show. You then run the test. You then either confirm or refute the opening hypothesis. It's not an issue of phrasing it positive or negative, but what you anticipate happening before the experiment is performed. Hypotheses should be framed in such a way as to mandate their proof or disproof. Now, there are some little caveats where you might try to "market" an idea by positioning your hypothesis a certain way, however, as a general rule this isn't appreciated by the scientific community, and you should state clearly what you seek to validate empirically.

I'll take that to mean, yes, you do want me to explain. We waste loads of time arguing "across the aisle." People aligning themselves by party instead of by issue. The party system worked in the past because the issues were local to the colonies. There was a relatively small population that could actually be represented by a select group of individuals weighing the opposing ends of the spectrum. Now, fast forward a few centuries, and put the context in terms of a global population over 6 billion. The bell curve is smoothing, and the individual differences are countless. There are parallels among many of us, but you'll be hard pressed to find two people who agree on every issue. So, why align with one group instead of representing your people as an individual? Why fling mud at others for being the same as you, but with a different label? Six to one, half a dozen to another, ya dig? Now... the broader point (which I think is magnified on a forum such as this) is that it's archaic to continue thinking as a small collective in a township or a nation. We are connected globally, instantly, and our activities are not limited to our backyard, but the entire sphere we call home. So, why waste our lives arguing with one another about what color shirts we should wear... when we could instead spend that energy improving the future of ourselves, our children, and our planet by realizing that we're but a fraction of a speck of nothing suspended in a moat of dust, and will accomplish more by realizing this greater connection we all share? Is there any benefit for remaining a two party system? Aren't the two parties just different shades of the same gray? Is there any benefit for continuing to think of ourselves as an isolated country instead of an isolated globe?

Can I treat your question as rhetorical, or do you really want me to explain this? To get a sense of the context in which I stated that, please click the username portion of my signature and listen (and if you're so inclined, the link in the quote is pretty shnazzy too, but off topic here so not appropriate to this conversation).

You should look up the work of Albert Bandura (I think he was at Stanford at the time), and his research on social learning theory... aka "modelling behavior." I think you'd like it. Per your point above on language only being to "transfer the mind," I think you are sorely mistaken if you see no other evolutionary benefits (I am not sure this is the case, so will point it out just to be sure since your post seems to imply such). Language is vital to social groups... to society in general... and need not be defined only as that which is verbal. All of those modelling behaviors you list above are language, just nonverbal. Even tiny organisms navigate using patterns of scent and electromagnitism, itself a form of language when the organisms manipulate and perceive these. Further, think of pack behavior (wolves, hyenas, dolphins, etc.) and successful hunting groups... even the military. Language is vital to the successful hunt, vital to the successful mission, and those who communicated well tended to have greater chances at survival... itself translating into better chances at passing on their offspring. "I see," said the blind man to his deaf daughter. Fox trot charlie two to base nine. The eagle flies at midnight. I repeat, the eagle flies at midnight.

I guess I should have used the TongueInCheek tab. [/sarcasm]

Your premise implies that Jeffrey Dahmer is more evolved than the rest of us. Wouldn't eating fellow humans be more of a function of the available quantity of other food sources, not natural selection?

I appreciate that this may be the only time you perceive hearing it, but I can honestly state that it's not the only time I state it. We're a planet, not a country... not a state... not a city... not a county... not a street... not a house... not a political party. A planet.

A form of kung fu, rooted in the Shaolin, complete with animal forms and weapons.

When are we going to leave these archaic divisions of Democrat and Republican behind us and wake up to the fact that we are a global community of living organisms? The time we waste arguing with people who choose to wear a different button on their chest... I swear.

Here's a press release from Keck: http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=114

Does this mean that creationists don't get horny? EDIT: Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

You do realize that by starting a thread like this you've effectively made those few females who post feel ever MORE ostracized? Who here hates science and likes creationsim, eh? Don't be shy... raise your hands!

When I was preparing for my blackbelt test (hehehe... I love saying that), we would engage in a form of training which translates roughly as "Iron shirt" training. Basically, it was a series of techniques to make the body more... well... more iron-like. In addition to some isometric techniques known as an active form of meditation called "I chin-chings," we would do things like finger tip pushups, jamming fingers into buckets of stones, punching rock bags, hitting each side of our forearms against wood posts, and rolling iron bars (30lbs to start, 150 to 200 lbs after years of training) across our shins. This was a benefit in a number of ways (but I strongly suggest to all readers... very strongly... to find a teacher who earns your trust to walk through such things... doing this at home could... well... cause you some significantly increased hospital bills). The bones would become denser, the body would become more solid (I would always laugh when the other person would grimmace during a shin to shin sweep), and the mind more adept to accept the pain. There's a neat little spot in the spine where the pain signal, on it's way to the brain, can actually be shot off consciously. However, I've derailed this thread enough. Find someone who you trust. Be patient with yourself. Don't expect to blow up overnight. Good results are earned, not requested. Make it a lifestyle choice, not a hobby. Take care of your body with fluids, protien, and rest. Martial arts is not about fighting or warriorship. It's about realizing and nurturing your body, your mind, and your relation to the universe around you. Now... if the pain continues for more than 3 or 4 days, you probably did something wrong and need some repair work.

Don't lawyers go by "Esquire?" I personally do believe (without support mind you) that you were wrong to call him "doctor." You don't go to the courtroom to be defended by a doctor unless it's medical case.

Not really. Generally, when one picks up porn, it's to satisfy an existing desire. The desire, however, was there prior to picking it up. Now, the question should be, "does looking at porn increase or decrease the urge which caused one to pick it up... are the desires sated or not?" The answer to which, of course, is "it depends on the individual."

That's quite an interesting question, John. It's akin to asking if Boston monkeys sound different than Georgia monkeys? I think, though (and correct me if I'm wrong) that CDarwin is trying to determine if the monkeys in the wild have a different style, pacing, and timing (etc.) of calls from monkeys in the zoo. So, he's looking to see if the monkeys in the wild sing "jazz," and if monkeys in the zoo sing "blues." Your question implies that they are all singing jazz, but that some are baratone and others are soprano. Bada Bing.

I do argue this. I'll show you why: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.html The above was published in the proceedings of "The Royal Society" just 3 weeks ago. [bold added by me]

It's not always a bastion of honest advertising, but you might try Craigslist. Also, if there's a local college/university, check there... whether they have a film department or not.

I suppose you missed the point I made above. I don't think this particular thread is about the economics of it all. It's about the environment itself, and the damage we are doing to the system in which all living organisms reside. So, to be clear, your comments about the economics seem off topic, since this thread resides in the "Ecology and Environment" forum, and the OP specifically asked: Yet you, Jackson33, continue to respond "Redistribution of wealth! Political spin! Trickle down economics!" Don't trolls live under bridges?

Well, I see an edit link. Either you missed it, they've locked your ability to make edits, or I'm special. I dunno... maybe some combination of those. Btw... you linked above to a sub-article. Here's the main page for "definition of a planet:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet Why is that chimpanzee throwing feces on passers-by?

It's a good thing there are admins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

Take your time, friend. It's not an easy topic, but it's not impossible either. Look here: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

Why don't you log in and fix it then? That's the beauty of wiki. It's only wrong until someone who knows better puts the onus on themselves to make a correction. I suppose it's easier to complain than to do something to improve a situation. Btw... that's not wiki's definition, it's the IAU's. http://www.iau.org/ http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html

Was anybody arguing that one should?

And again a creationists tunnel vision without regard for fact manages to derail a thread. Super job, religion. Thanks for advancing society so well. Why are hate of homosexuals and creationism problematic? Who cares! Creationism stands in the face of science! Yay! I do believe TB has managed to convince me further that homophobia is not as bad as creationism. I suppose that's pretty sick, since homophobia is so very awful.