Mr Skeptic

Another example is with humans and chimps:

We share 98% of our DNA with chimps. . .that other 2% is what makes a very large difference in terms of our physical features and brain

capacity. Now, we know that chimps are "further back" on the evolutionary tree than humans. . they are closer to the common ancestor than we are; or in other

words, our species is newer because it came into existence more recently.

Nope! The whole concept of one contemporary species being "newer" or "superior" to another goes against everything evolution says, and is reminiscent of the ancient Greek and Lamarkian ideas of a Great Chain of Being. One species may be closer to its ancestral species but that does not make it any worse nor better. You cannot ever tell by comparing two individuals which is closer to the ancestral species. To be able to claim similarity to a common ancestor would require either comparison with several other current related species or with fossils from the ancestral ones.

So it follows then that you would expect to find "chimp DNA" in human tests. . .but you would NEVER find that other 2% ("Human DNA") when testing a Chimp!

Time only moves forward, never backwards. . .

No... You will no more find "chimp DNA" in humans than you will find "human DNA" in chimps. You will find "common ancestor DNA" in both, in addition to finding "chimp DNA" in chimps and "human DNA" in humans. Even if you show that the chimps are closer to the common ancestor than are the humans, the shared DNA will still be "common ancestor DNA". All it would mean is that the species closer to the common ancestor would have a little more "common ancestor DNA" and a little less "new species DNA" than would the species less similar to the common ancestor.

Very well then, suppose you know of DNA that all humans hold in common. Could this DNA be used to distinguish between groups of humans? If so, how? If not, why not?

No, species do not get stuck in time nor do species stop evolving. Why do you expect modern Europeans to have something in common with modern Africans, that the modern Africans do not have in common with the modern Europeans? Yes we all share ancestral DNA but that is not what this test is measuring. We have DNA in common with all species all the way down to bacteria. And we have genes separate from them too. But these tests are of modern Africans and modern Europeans, not modern Europeans and time-travel-back-a-million-years Africans. And even if you did test against time-travel-back-a-million-years Africans, the result would be the same -- the genes common to both get ignored for the test, and the different genes get used to compare which group someone belongs to.

You are being observed. You are leaving your scent all over the place, for example. This leaves a record in your room that you were there, so you were observed by your room just as surely as if you took photographs of yourself.

It seems you can get rich quick, by selling Iraq dinars to gullible people. Not by being one of the gullible people who buy it.

No, not in animals but in humans. I know a lot of ugly men who don't try to improve their appearance. They still manage to get married and have (ugly) children. In the case of humans, I think there is a tradeoff between appearance and intelligence.

No tradeoff. Beautiful people are more intelligent, ugly people less intelligent. (on average, of course)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i

This is misunderstanding, I think. The conclusion of the research is that male attractiveness does not have advantage in evolution, no matter it is used to attract females or not.

It seems to me like the study says the the sexually selected genes do have an advantage but that it is limited and not selected for beyond a certain point.

How about this situation: A man comes at you with a weapon hollering that he's going to kill you. However, you manage to knock him out, then tie him up. Then you shoot him. While almost no one would have faulted you to shoot him in the first place, shooting him after he gets tied up is going to get you charged for murder. Yes, even though in this situation there is no need for a trial to determine the man's guilt due to the circumstances, it would still be murder. Except when the state does it, in which case it is execution. Now I'm not against execution but in the US it is not particularly cheaper than life imprisonment so there is little reason to carry one out.

I think that, using technology to help, we will split into three species -- one for land, one for (salt) water, and one for space.

Jesus even recommends total celibacy as the ultimate ideal, but he says that since most people can't achieve this "it is better to marry than to burn."

...

What I have found interesting in studying the bible is that ...[masturbation]... is basically treated as a sin of gratuitous sexuality.

Sources please! Your first statement I'm pretty sure was Paul's and not Jesus', and your second one I doubt you will find anywhere in the Bible.

There is a world of difference between flies and men. It would be interesting to see any human studies.

Or studies in peacocks.

If this is for class, one of your professors might have access, or your school itself might have access.

Hydrogen is a fuel. It is also like the article said, an energy carrier. It's not an energy source but that is not what the article said.

I think it's mostly becasue children have no vioce when it comes to explotation, as i said before I could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and teach a child to do anything, an adult might take the cattle prod and stick it up my ass.

But we've already done that, minus the sugar cubes, to adults, and they were not able to defend themselves against it. Eventually, we decided it was a bad idea and outlawed slavery.

However I agree that everyone really needs to be protected to some extent from other people who are just out to exploit others, (just being a soulless bastard who doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself shouldn't be the best way to success) adults have the capacity to make decisions, they might be wrong but at some point you have to allow people to take responsibility for themselves, our society for better or worse seems to have decided that responsibility for your actions comes with an arbitrary age instead of the older you are the more responsible you are.

 

If you provide no protection for anyone from the exploitation of others you will end up with psychopaths in charge (maybe that has already happened?)

 

Many people seem to think that they have the right to teach their children anything they want and some seem to think that using them to make money is ok as well but we as a society put limits on what adults can do with children, even their parents, personally i don't think the restrictions are strict enough, but it's not for me to say but the precedence of protecting children from adults is already on the books, now it's just a matter of how far we want to take those restrictions...

And here is the heart of the matter: for almost every right and protection we want to grant to children, we want to and for the most part already have, granted that right to people regardless of whether they are children or adults. But children do need additional protection -- from themselves and their parents. Back in the day, or even now where allowed, many parents would send their children off to work whatever job they could for whatever money they could get. This of course is a problem since that would sabotage the child's ability to get educated so they can be even more productive members of society.

However, I don't think entirely outlawing child labor was the right answer. Many children nowadays go around thinking they have the right not to work, they don't want to work, and they don't want to grow up and have to work, and they don't understand responsibility. No work experience, no work ethic, no desire to work. And part of this I would say would be due to their being forbidden to work. Other children are controlled by their parents because their parents are their only possible source of money, and not only have we allowed that but made it the law. Yet others get a feeling of entitlement because their parents must provide them with everything. Why not simply ensure they get paid fairly and work limited hours, maybe no more than 2 or 4 hours per day? Then they could gain work experience, some responsibility, and realize the value of things. Surely a little bit of work wouldn't ruin their education nor even their fun?

I too almost ignored the whole thread due to the title.

Fuck it, there is no point...

I will post this much of what i originally wrote

 

now I look at life from a a rather unique perspective neither fish nor fowl, not Conservative. not Liberal, i go with the truth and the truth never resides in either extreme but one thing i know absolutely for sure is that children have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our children from exploitation.

I agree, and I will add that adults have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our adults from exploitation.

The visible part of the breath is of course water droplets formed by condensation of hot humid air from your lungs in the cold air. As to what would make it more visible: a dark background and proper lighting. The dark background will make a sharper contrast when light reflects/refracts/disperses from the droplets. Try playing around with a flashlight to see what effects extra lighting would have.

I think the "best time" from biological, psychological, traditional, and sociological perspectives would each give different answers. Define what you mean by "best", and answers will be easier to find.

Is exploiting a child who cannot say no a separate issue?

No. I'm against forcing a person to work against their will. It really doesn't matter to me whether that person is a child or not. How come people act like things are only terrible when done to children?

Hint:

So you're not sure keeping children out of the dangerous factories and mines was a good idea? You might be correct, when I worked in a factory i was faced with many scenarios where a small child could have crawled back inside one of the machine to effect repairs much easier than taking it completely apart to fix, of course the high voltage capacitors and hot surfaces might have been a problem for the little ones.. oh and yeah they can work in smaller tunnels in the mines than adults can not to mention all you have to pay them is pennies i mean after all they are just children, how much can they be worth?

 

http://www2.needham....childlabor.html

 

http://www.eiu.edu/e...s/childhood.php

 

According to wiki children as young as 4 were employed in factories and mines, i thought this was ridiculous at first, no way a 4 year old as I know them could do factory work but then I thought if I had no morals or feelings i could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and train a 4yo to do almost anything....

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Child_labour

And this has anything to do with child labor how? It was not only children who were abused such -- worker safety and worker compensation are separate issues.

The strong force that binds the nucleus together is very short-ranged, but the electromagnetic repulsion from the protons has a larger range and opposes it. The optimum is iron, and anything either heavier or lighter can gain energy by fusion or fission that moves it closer to iron.

As I understand it it was the unions that wanted to eliminate child labor (and prison labor too) since it represented a source of cheap labor and undermined their bargaining position. I'm not convinced it was a good idea.

Think of it like this. Suppose you have a species of flower that can have red, white, blue, and purple flowers. Then someone takes the wild population and divides it into groups based on the color. Later on, you could do a genetic analysis of the DNA and determine which group an individual plant belongs to (or you could just look at the color). However, that grouping was rather arbitrary, and you could as easily grouped them by height, pest resistance, seed size, or whatever other attributes you can think of. Racial genetics is rather like this, but not so much based on specific genes that either exist or not in a population, but rather the frequency of an enormous range of genes. One assortment of gene frequencies we call "african", another "european", "asian", or "native american". You could take any of these populations and through careful breeding change the gene frequencies to match those of another race, unless there are some genes unique to any one group, but that would take a very long time. Because so many genes are involved, for quite a while it would be possible to identify the proportions of the groups which form your ancestry.

Another example would be if you had four children. One of your children stayed at home and the rest went each to a different continent, and all had children of their own. By DNA testing you can tell which of your children the grandchildren belong to, even though they are all descended from you. You could also tell that one of the grandchildren was not the son of your stay-at-home son, which of course should be no surprise.

So humanity divided from its common origins into a few groups each of which went their separate way genetically with low intermingling. It should no more surprise you that the tests might show no african ancestry in an euoropean than if it shows no euoropean ancestry in an african, since all are from a common origin.

But 1 = 0.9999.... and 1 = 1.0000.......1 so 1 - 1 can equals 1.00000.....1 - 1 = 0.0000....1 so 0.000....1 x Infinity = 1 yet 0.000....1 = 0 so 0 x Infinity = 1 hence if 0 x Infinity = 1 then 1 divided by 0 = Infinity? or is this incorrect.

There is no 0.0000....1 nor 1.0000....1, any more than there is an end to something endless.

Some real numbers have two ways you can write them, which is little different than five = 5 = V = cinco = 5.0 = 4.99999... = the third prime number = (any other way you feel like representing the number 5)

Think of it this way: if you try to match speeds with the photon, by moving in the direction it is traveling as fast as you possibly can, the photon gets red-shifted and thus its energy and relative mass lowered. Now you could say that the mass of things depends on how fast we're going, but we have a perfectly good word for that already: energy. If you measure the mass of something when it is at rest, it is an intrinsic property rather than a relative property, which is more useful. To remove confusion you can say rest mass, which is labeled [math]m_0[/math] rather than m, but often it is called mass either way. The other type of mass could be called relative mass or mass-energy or energy to avoid confusion.