dichotomy

I think he was just using convenient short hand. You see, I understand when Lucaspa is being convienient, he just doesn't seem to understand when others are being convienient. What ever happened to a presumption of innocence? Eeew, I've just been petty, I think I need a shower. But, would not that be natural selection in good working order?

Sounds like something for identical twin studies to work out? E.g. You would need to find a mathematically inclined twin and an artistically inclined one, perhaps?

Like blonde hair, blue eyes are recessive as well, so why, if all blued eyed people have a common ancestor, are blue eyes so successful in parts of Europe? Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm I’d think genes will only take us so far with intelligence and artistic ability. The rest would be damn good nurturing. And I don’t think there are genes for good nurturing? Good nurturing is learned, over generations, over time.

As long as the 'Arms Race' is solely about female beauty, I have no objections!

A philosophical question here. If GM Human Beauty becomes widespread, will it still be considered beautiful? Perceived beauty relies on perceived ugliness to even exist, does it not? I’d imagine the GM beauties may be considered healthy, but beautiful, I dunno?

Yes, I found #2 interesting because I've not come across that possibility before. I assumed there would simply be a die off, rather than a reduction in complexity.

Ok, so you’re hypersensitive to ‘convenient shorthand’, got it. I should have stated something along the lines of - Life uses whatever available energy there is available in order to survive? Here's a story on jellyfish possibly being the first. Or, first to diverge? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080410153648.htm "While cautioning that additional studies should be conducted to corroborate his team's findings, Dunn says that the comb jelly could only have achieved its apparent seniority over the simpler sponge via one of two new evolutionary scenarios: 1. the comb jelly evolved its complexity independently of other animals, after it branched off onto its own evolutionary path; or the sponge evolved its simple form from more complex creatures 2. a possibility that underscores the fact that "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," says Dunn. "This scenario would provide a particularly dramatic example of that principle."

No problem. Lost in translation. Yes, energy sources makes more sense at this point in the discussion. Originally I was thinking of vertebrates (carnivoresm & herbivores), but it's been much more interesting to leave it open. Shows me just how complex it is to classify things.

Your translation does you little credit. No sarcasm was intended at all, I was stating, in a fun way, that stalactites might be included as a kind of animal or proto animal, that didn’t need nutrients as such, but did need resources to grow. Again, I’m not being serious here, just being human. If anything I was asking what animals there are that didn’t need nutrients (as I was talking about food and water in this thread). As iNow’s ‘resources’ seemed to imply there are nutrients, outside of food and water, to sustain life. But again, I could be interpreting iNow incorrectly, and he me. Sheesh this is hard work…

Why’s that? To include stalactites?

I think what Rev is getting at is that it’s all well and good to patent seeds, but what happens when it’s in the hands of a few multinationals? And what happens when/if all major farms are using their patented seeds? The central question seems like is should be - is GM science responsible for GM related political actions? And if it is, is science responsible for regulating itself? or is politics responsible for regulating science? If history is anything to go by, I think only the ones with the biggest guns can sort these types of questions out?

And Fish? But I think you might be referring to land creatures? Ok, so in terms of land animals herbivores came first. With amphibians it is unknown, and early life probably fed on itself, a form of cannibalism perhaps? What this is sort of telling me, I think, is that unconscious life doesn't think in terms of animal, mineral or vegetable, it thinks in terms of what available nutrients can I use. Very logical really.

Did animal life begin as herbivorous? And if so, does this mean animal classes generally begin as herbivorous before they can have carnivores and omnivores branching off them? I was thinking about the T-rex nibbling on similar shaped, to itself, herbivores.

So it seems like GM is fine, as long as natural genetic diversity is maintained to a sensible level globally? Whatever ‘sensible level’ might constitute? And economics and politics are the biggest factors inhibiting sensible levels of diversity?

I don't think religion has been around long enough to have a significant genetic impact. Its more likely a significant behavioural conditioning impact that religion would cause, and that would eventually lead to a genetic impact, if the religion was successful enough? Are there temperament traits in religious groups like there are for dog breeds?

If GM is mostly fuelled by population pressures, which I’d guess it is, then what’s easier to tackle? Population growth, or, developing non-harmful GM product? I know what my answer is. Although the whole scientific discovery/ unravelling thing with GM is still highly worthy, IMO.

This might have been mulled over here already, but I haven't come accross it. Is time a form of motion? Like, motion speed, motion decay, motion acceleration, motion growth, motion time etc? Time might be to scientists, what Deities are to religious folk?

"In terms of human nutrition, starch is by far the most consumed polysaccharide in the human diet. It constitutes more than half of the carbohydrates even in many affluent diets, and much more in poorer diets." - wikip Starch is still an important nutrient. But I think you are saying that food crops can be grown for non-human consumption reasons. I don't see a problem with this, unless it negatively impacts directly, or, indirectly on the existing average human health level. Oh, and we do eat cattle you know, so I'd like to be assured of the safety of what the cattle are eating. Moo, Moo... Then the engineering should really be confined to a lab until proven at least as safe as existing non-GM crops. So, whats changed from the year dot?

I'm all for the greater good. If something just beifits the few at the potential detriment of the many, then it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So, bottom line is, if it doesn't effect the average health of the majority, then it's fine. If there are unknowns there is always a risk. The starving would be more safely fed by the wealthy nations. Super weeds may just keep getting 'super', afterall, weeds aren't called weeds for no reason, they are incredibly robust. And super crops can potentially become super weeds themselves. Yes, but you would want some minimum standard of nutritional value, or all the productivity in the world becomes useless. I think you know this very well?

Solar Tower technology http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm Hot fractured rock http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html solar thermal electric power the Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector http://www.ausra.com/ Thorium Nuclear Power http://www.thoriumpowerinc.com

I'd define a reduction in yield as threatening. Anything that causes an uncontrollable reduction in available nutrients/water to humans is threatening to human health.

Yes, but only with the proper precautions. And, yes if GM product is proven to be – 1. Non threatening to human health 2. Water efficient/drought tolerant 3. nutrient efficient 4. pest/disease resistant 5. provides at least as much nutritional value as existing crops If it can’t be all of these, it should at minimum be nos. 1 and 5, before it comes out of 'THE LAB'.

agnostic 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. Then, I’m agnostic type b. A true atheist must then be 100% certain that deities of any description do not exist. None of this 99.9% crap.

Wouldn't it be more like, "I don't know, and it's highly probable, in mans current form, that there will never be enough evidence to tell". That's the agnostic that I am anyway.

a,b: Repositioning of individual atom Ok, I think I have found my answer.