MonDie

That thought is in a box, John, a white box with a gray-blue border.

If you can believe in a box, you can think in a box. Put some thought into it. To take pleasure in the box, try making love in the box. That's where you'll find happeniss.

When measuring male preference with a penile plethysmograph, IMO it sounds like men form a U-shaped curve, similar to what's been found for pupil dilation. You get varying degrees of flexibility, but with a strong unisexual bias. Phallometric bisexuals are sparse yet existent, but is this really just extreme flexibility? Alas, this assumes phallometry is a perfect and complete measure of sexual preference. I posted this elsewhere.

I have my doubts about whether we can evaluate The Bible's veracity at this point. Some of it seems too bizarre to have been the original intent, like when David goes collecting foreskins. Besides the imprecise nature of translation, Galileo pointed out to Father Lorini that phrases like "the hand of God" certainly shouldn't be taken literally, demonstrating that The Bible isn't always precise and literal. Plus, in the case of the Tanakh or old testament, much of it was transmitted by mouth for hundreds of years before inscription. If there was an obscure, divine message after all, how could we discern it from the noise millennia later? I suspect Genesis was allegorical and/or symbolic because, otherwise, it would seem that the Hebrews just plagiarized The Epic of Gilgamesh, which would have clearly contradicted its supposed divine origins. Maybe he just chose similar symbolism. All this not having read the darn book yet. I apologize for MonDie2, whose post I have cleaned up a bit.

Not when you consider Pluto's so slow. Its motion is mostly attributable to its ~10 degree parallax (retro/prograde cycle). Externet, if you mean celestial longitude AKA ecliptic longitude, then it's the vernal equinox, the point at which the Sun crosses the celestial equator every spring. This point does move due to the precession of the equinoxes, but I don't think by much.

++ which is taken as evidence for terror management theory.

I can imagine that life-after-death might provide comfort—hell or kharma too for the vindictive. On the other hand, a dying person may simply be pained at the thought that they lvied their life wrong. The latter is actually supported by evidence. There's a well-established link between mortality salience and worldview defense.

I only hate myself, and only for not always thinking this clearly.........

Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life. Your response seemed unrelated (and highly tenuous). I argued that astrology got astronomy going, for otherwise the planets were just tiny, irrelevant dots with no pressing importance. The preservation of life is probably indirectly beneficial to scientific progress, but your enjoyment hypothesis doesn't explain hell.

In the early days, more so than now, I have absolutely no doubt religion has helped many people, greatly. My only real objection to religion, other than genocide in its name, is its desire to convert everyone; even when those they seek to convert share the same basic beliefs (whether through god or other). How has it helped? How does it help? If it's not helpful, then the safest disposition is abstinence.

Of course they can coexist, but this response is wanting. It portrays religion only as something to be regulated or even eliminated, not fostered.

I get the urge to kill annoying bugs, but not fellow chordates. Noting the (partly or entirely) insectivorous diets of other primates, I bet we started small and worked our way up.Probably no big game prior to the invention of fire.

How did Galileo get so many enemies, enemies who likely created a fake 1615-1616 "inquisition file" to frame him?I say religion's habit of pretending to know things played its part in the conflict. From the same source above: credit Doug Linder of umkc

I meant to hell with religion. Besides Christian Catholicism, what political interests depended on Earth being the center of the universe??? That's all Galileo said was wrong, and he was threatened to retract it or die. suffer torture.* * http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html "even with the threat of torture"

Which hemispheres are yin or yang, respectively?

I apologize.

How did you get 110? You might estimate the average molar mass of an amino acid using the genetic code, accounting for degeneracy, but what to do about the acidic amino acids which can dissociate?

To hell with it.

Find out whether the text used is Campbell Biology. There's also Campbell Essential Biology, which briefly overviews the same material and is handy for cramming. You can get the 2009 edition "like new" at a reasonable price. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0321649540/ref=olp_page_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1436810505&sr=1-5&startIndex=30 Evolution is basically the second half of the book.

Maybe give it a growth hormone antagonist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome). You could keep it at a manageable size, and acquire endocrinological insights.

Hunting is natural. Jeffrey Dahmer was only a minor aberration.

Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

So make a sensor with photosites that won't max out. My problem is that you lose a lot of information when you humanize the image. You lose hue in the white and black ranges, and you exclude ultraviolet altogether. Bees, some birds, and some shrimp see ultraviolet wavelengths, and I speculate that, because some animals are adapted for night vision, these animals might also detect hues in our black range.

wrong link! camera exposure http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm Are you sure that increasing exposure will necessarily introduce noise? Overexposure could give greater color discernment as long as the camera isn't programmed to convert it to white. Of course then the camera is no longer seeing the animal like a human would. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm "One can therefore use many combinations of the above three settings to achieve the same exposure. [...] For example, aperture affects depth of field, shutter speed affects motion blur and ISO speed affects image noise."

Here is what they mean by under/over exposure. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm The problem is that moving toward brightness or darkness will drown out the hue. Hue reflects the relative strength of different wavelengths, but these wavelength proportions still exist even in things we see as white or black. The actual camera sensor, however, only sees in RGB (red green blue). http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm I think TAR is talking about cells on the sensor getting maxed out (at 255).