AzurePhoenix

Absolutely true in it's own right certainly, but the fact is that it would be very, very unlikely to ever spread so widely in the first place. Keep in mind that the 'bird flu to human' reference I made should include that it isn't adapted to us yet The people have spoken, it's not my place to argue

okay, totally ignoring the whole time travel thing for now, you need to understand just how bizarre a disease this would have to be. The concept is basically the same as that addressed in This Thread A virus that can jump and spread across so many species would be unprecedented, especially the sheer number of species and families and even the range of Kingdoms that were effected by the "KT Event." Perhaps if it was somehow to make the enormously unlikely jump from human to dino or any other creature in the ancient landscape, it still very, very probably would NOT spread across the face of the Earth killing off everything it encountered, from plants to sea critters, and then somehow pick it's way along only leaving behind animal species smaller than fifty pounds. The Cretaceous extinction was simply too broad an event to have been caused by something of that nature. evidence for this is very strong, not that it was the definitive facotr, but that an impact certainly did occur around that time. we know traveling forward in time is possible, but we still have no definitive idea as to whether or not past-travel is, and that opens an enormous realm of questions about paradoxes and such that makes my head hurt, then you have to consider that even if it could be theoretically possible whether or not it could ever be done. True, but I wouldn't say this lends any credence to the idea. The diseases wouldn't be adapted to the species either. The same thing with bird-flu today. We aren't immune to it, it simply can't NORMALLY make the jump to us because it's not adapted to us. *edit* the same thing goes for countless species today. They don't get the cold, but that's because it isn't adapted to them rather than having anything to do with anti-viral immunity.

Hmmm, it seems I don't annoy people quite as much as I thought. I'll have to fix that Happy congrats to all the winners and also to our "opponents" in the nominations. May the Penguin Buddha smile upon all of you.

Aye, singing birds are performing all sorts of nifty interactions with eachother, which kinda go out the window on days when birds are more focused on simply getting what they need and getting back home to snuggle up and conserve their energy and warmth.

I think there would have been alot fewer problems at my school if they'd simply mentioned condoms in sex ed. At least the babies were cute.

Those Pygmy seahorses are probably the cutest fish on the planet And I agree that it could be like you say. I'd be interested to see an assymetrical species of that size. Based on what the photo shows, if it were a real creature, it'd certainyl be unlike anything we know now.

While elephants can and do swim across deep water often enough (whether fresh or marine they are quite good swimmers) and do sometimes take the pose described when they decide to snorkel, if you look closely the Surgeon's Photo (the Loch Ness Fake) really has several characteristics, mostly in regards to the "trunk" shape that eliminate the resemblence.

I did notice that it did look like a tail curving up over the surface while I was trying to see whether or not it looked like a sturgeon, and it would certainly have to belong to a new species of marine creature to resemble the photo, but even so, the "neck" looks... lumpy to me.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen some lighter mosses cling ins some wierd ways. Really, it's just impossible to tell yes or no from this one. (this one meaning moss, and maybe not impossible so much as difficult)

I'd say that's quite rash. People have more to offer than being smart. Besdies, who wants to come down in four thousand years after their time-ship malfucntions and find themselves trapped on the "Planet of the Socially Awkward Asthmatic Nerds"?

You'd think so, but in my experience alga tends to be weighed down and runs against something making a fairly smooth surface. Not all the time mind you, but often enough.

They could simply not have adapted for it, jsut because something is usefull or beneficial doesn't men it will arise. And it's not temperature so much as uv rays from sunlight itself. Maybe I'll pitch a speculation and say it has something to do with uv rays reflected off snow and ice (snow burn can really suck ) Or maybe if not that there was something in their diet that provided more vitamin D, or maybe even a physiological adaption to just deal with it, I know they have a few adapted traits for withstanding the environment. ---edit--- apparently fish and fish oils have high levels of vitamin D

lake monster It certainly isn't a duck or a waterfowl, and though sturgeon get plenty large to account for it, it does't even come close to resembling one. In general, the picture just doesn't look like it has the "cut" of a well formed animal. Mosses and algaes could easily account for that, especially on a waterlogged.... log.

It's a big sea, it was first heard in extreme depths, there's no telling how rare "Bloops" might be in the event of it being an organism. Additionally, the people who determined that it's supposed to be alive are as far as I can tell experienced in identifying underwater sounds. It is a true science, and as such I would think that there are telltale signs indicating what the nature of the sound might be. Erm, yeah... that too.

An adorable little guy, all these recent discoveries are really building up.

Not really, as of now, I don't think it's a problem, it porobably won't be a problem for centuries to come, probably longer. Hell, the disaster could happen sooner than my optimism believes, and we'd be fine, maybe even pull through relatively intact. But then again, maybe not. But how immediate a concern does it have to be before people take notice?

I don't trust human civilization enough to stand up to a global spanning cataclysm. Some people think that when the day(s) comes, that humanity will have the right stuff to pull through relatively intact. I don't, and for me it's that simple. I'm sorry, i really am, that I'm not as sensitive to the individuals as I am to the long-term picture. Just let me leave at this, because we'll never agree on what consitutes immoral in this scenario. In the end, I am a naturalist. When I picture my ideal humanity, I picture a race with low population living in simpler ways, small communities living off the land, living a rugged life. But such a life can't offer happiness to many of what we'd consider "frail" or delicate. I'm just afriad that someday, if society does collapse under the threat of an asteroid or ecological collapse or nuclear war, we won'tbe able to surivie it if we are so dependent on medicine and health care that we literally couldn't live without it.

I understand, and I apologize, I just consider inaction to be far worse than action. It's more a matter of the society that possesses it failing. Perhaps I was too vague on that end. And such dangers do exist. Shouldn't we be prepared for such a calamity? You keep thinking that I'm saying that the diseased person can't be happy, but I've never said that and never could, I know as welll as you that it's not. This is where it comes down to the species itself. I just don't want to see the species threatened by our mistakes.

I understand, I'm simply afraid that I see the importance of the rather small sacrifice of this one rather negligable right, especially considering the possibilities it would open up for orphaned or abused children.

If this leads to a failure of civilization and leads to a more natural state of living, so much the better

At least my bad decision makers are trying to do the right thing, unlike yours. Humans have disease -> huamns spread disease further and further -> disease is supressed by technology for generations -> technology fails, disease can't be supressed = countless die to the hardships of the real world and the human race is placed in jeopardy. Well, that's the gist of it anyway. Not a difficult concept. You are condoning the suffering of countless, increasingly tormented generations of children for the pity of one. That is selfish and immoral. Human lives are important, but human life is only theoretical if it even becomes a zygote in the first place. I'm not saying that a person with disease couldn't be a good member of society or should be punished in anyform. But for the sake of potential victims, somethign has to be done to stop the disease before it has a stranglehold not only on teh species, which is all important, but on every individual as well. If these children were never born, by proxy, they would never have been born otherwise they might have been. No one is being killed. No person's life is being taken away. A disease is being hindered for teh sake of millions, at cost to no one.

I think most people would agree with the thought that most people aren't the best decision makers. These diseased people are being hurt by those who could have prevented the problem. Not that they'd care Please, just explain to me why you think it is mroally better to condemn an enormous number of people to pain, suffering and death for the sake of one right that isn't even that rational? You aren't taking the moral route, you are setting aside morals for sensitivity. There's a difference.

please, you should be more clear and put the proper quote next to the corresponding response

You didn't listen. Any child that is lost could be another Hawkings, children lost to other means that you seem to deem acceptable. There's this thing called a genetic disease that inflicts oftentimes terrible hereditary problems on an innocent victims health. This has nothing to do with people. This a a question of harmful diseases that threaten peoples' health. And waht decides these rights? What is so special about being able to carry your own that you would condemn the children of the future to this madness? If you've paid attention you'd see that we're very clear on our stance that murder is abominable, whether it be the kind the nazis dealt out or the kind Irokwild would suggest. No one should have to die at all. Well I cettainly doubt a worldwide employment of this would be put into action in a dvided world, which is why it's unlikely in teh first place. And there's nothing stopping them from doing it anyway. God knows they do worse now. It would be the obligation of whatever was in charge to try to put an end to such abuse.

Indeed, while eye-witness accounts aren't the most reliable of source, they shouldn't be entirely dismissed for it. Is the creature real? Highly unlikely, the lack of physical evidence suggests that it isn't. But the fact that witnesses claim to have seen it means at least that there is a possibility it exists, no matter how slight that chance, and no matter whether or not you or me or whoever believes in it.