Mokele

::facepalms:: So, what you're saying is that you can find the gene based on the first 3 codons after the start and last 3 codons before the stop codon. Great, you have a new way of searching for genes. Numerous other search functions similar to that already exist, including being able to search based on a string of nucleotides from *any* point in the gene. All you are saying is that you have a new way to search. I fail to see how this says *anything* about evolution or natural selection. All you've done is re-invent the wheel. Mokele

Neither are valid, because chimps and man both descended from a common (chimp-like) ancestor. As for similarity, you need to understand that science is an inductive process, and thus never *proves*, only accumulates evidence. As for humans and other apes, we have lots of genetic evidence, lots of morphological evidence, and lots of fossil evidence. Now, given that we *know* evolution happens (directly observed phenomenon), including macroevolution, it is the logical explanation for the diversity of life. If we see two species who are similar (specifically with shared, derived characteristics), the logical conclusion, in the absence of any flatly contradictory evidence, is that they are closely related. You seem to be arguing from incredulity on that, claiming that even though *all* of the evidence points to it, it's wrong because it's inductive rather than deductive. This shows a lack of understanding of how science works. Seriously, there is more evidence for humans sharing common ancestors with modern ape species (and fossil ape species) than there is for all snakes sharing a common ancestor, yet I don't hear any great protestations about the special creation of burrowing snakes. Just because people object to it does not mean the standard of proof is any higher. As a scientist, I have to achieve the same level of certainty whether it's about the origins of humans or the evolutionary relationships of sand boas. And that level has been met, time and again, for the case of humans and apes. Unless you actually have *empirical* evidence that contradicts the evolutionary theory of human origins, you're just arguing from incredulity. If you have said evidence, please do present it. Mokele

Ok, I'll give a little background. At my lab we have 2 computers, and a lab with about half a dozen. All of them run Win XP Pro, and have the thingy where you must log in as a particular user to get on, as a security measure. However, several of these machines have an extra user "mashie" as a log-in, and we have no idea who it is, how it got there, if it's being used and what it's being used for. Maybe one of my lab-mates made it for some silly reason and just won't own up, or maybe the janitorial staff did and they're surfing for porn. Either way, we'd like to know. So the question is, how do I (with ad admin account) get into "mashie", and can I find out things like when it was made, accessed, what was done, internet sites visited, etc? Can this be done without serious alteration to the machine's functioning (I don't want to have to go into the registry or anything)? Thanks, Mokele

Actually, I'd argue that *ocean* temperatures are more important. Air is a poor conductor of heat, and tends to stay put, more or less. In contrast, there are numerous ocean currents which, by virtue of the *huge* amount of mass and thermal energy they transport, can massively alter the climate in a region. Alteration of their flow patterns of temperature have had major impacts on world climate in the past (ice ages and such). Mokele

Most Anatomy & physiology textbooks have such a list.

The brain does not directly control the dilation or constriction of the pupil through nerves. Instead, hormones are secreted, such as adrenaline, which cause many effects throughout the body, including pupil dilation. Mokele

Genes are different? And can be uniquely IDed by those differences? WOW, I never would have guessed from the millions of species with a myriad of forms that genes migh actually be *variable*. And since you seem to have a knack for missng the obvious, that was *sarcasm*. Oh, here's a newsflash: I can do the same thing. Anyone here can. The NIH website, the online mendelian inheretance in man website, a others *all* allow this. So all you're done is re-invented the wheel to tell us sme pointless bit of information we alread knew and that doesn't mean what you think it means. However, I'm going to humor you, and give you an easy way to show how great your ideas are: publish them in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. If your ideas are *nearly* the hot shit you think the are, that sould be a snap. Or are you going to come up with some cock-and-bull story about how the evil establishment is keeping you dow with their vicious use of facts, logic and data? Seriously, if you have such a great idea, why are you here? Why aren't you submitting an abstract to Nature right now? Mokele

"Science does not have a moral dimension. It is like a knife. If you give it to a surgeon or a murderer, each will use it differently." --Werner von Braun, creator of the Saturn V moonrocket

Oh, and by the way, the "theory" on your page is the same bullshit I so thoroughly refuted in this thread. If you're just trying to get around the massive logical holes in your prior theory, you might as well give up now. Mokele

Frankly, I think he's a racist asshole. Why? Look at the comments again. Sure, Freakenomics said that about *general* abortion by reducing the number of unwanted kids in poverty etc, but he's claiming that total abortion based on *race*, not economic status or ability to parent effectively, would reduce crime. Even that he considers it a possble solution shows an inherent racism, as he obvious thinks crime is caused by black people, not by poverty or anything else. He even gos on to say that, even though it could not and should not be done, it would have the effect he claims. The democrat quote, on the other hand, states that the positions are "wrong", probably from a both moral and logical standpoint, but I agree that it's kinda close and wasn't really a smart thing to say. He also seems to be pulling more from historical suggestions of eugenics an such. Basically, the democrat made it clear he considered such ideas "wrong", whereas Bennett merely said that it was immoral and unfeasible, but re-iterated that his belief that blacks cause crime as true. Mokele

So, are you actually going to explain why you think the existence of homologous genes someone violates or disproves evolutionary theory, rather than proving it quite nicely? Mokele

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head right there: "tend to". Basically, most studies show that the average level of sex drive for males is higher than for femals. However, there is a range around those averages, and those ranges overlap. Thus, while some women have higher sex drives than some men, if you randomly select individuals from the population, you will find moe pairings in which the male has the higher sex drive than equal or vice-versa. It also fits in very well with simple predictions of evolution: Males get a large genetic payoff for a minimal investment (1 ejaculation), while femals get the same genetic payoff for a huge energy and time investment. Thus, it makes evolutionary sense for a female to be picky, while males will mate with anything that moves at a moment's notice. Mokele

Get into one such situation in which he's boasting to you again, in a very public place. Then calmly say, loud enough for everyone in the vicinity to hear, "Look, I know what you're trying to do by impressing me, and I'm flattered by your attentions, but I really don't swing that way, OK?"

Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer (you'll never touch anything that hasn't been radiation-sterilized ever again after reading it).

I don't have time to full respond, but I'll just clarify somthing: "...in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin hehehe Mokele

Maybe that's the answer to effecive gun control: establish a minimum length requirement. Think about it for a second and you'll see what I mean. ;-) Mokele

With all due respect, I think you missed my point: animals die anyay, why does it matter which way they die? I strongly disagree with you assertion that natural death requires no violation of interests. If we attribute the interests you describe above to a mouse, and accept that killing the mouse ends those interests, how does a hawk or snake killing the mouse not end those interests with just as much finality as any mousetrap? Basically, what I'm saying is that the animal is going to be killed by someone, human or animal (or even plant, considering my garden), so it's really just a matter of who does it. And if you mean "natural death" to be death by old age, that almost *never* happens in the wild; the vast majority die from disease, parasites, predators, fights, etc. Why is killing acceptable if it's a hawk rather than a human? As for choice, yes, we do, but as I'm pointing out 1) there isn't nearly as much black-and-white as often claimed in the issue and 2) from the food animal's perspective, does the motivation of the predator really matter? Dead is dead, after all. Well, you *could*, but only in a system in which anything less than perfect conditions was prevented from coming to market, so that 'cheaters' couldn't drive down the price. But that's more of a economic debate. Why? Like I said above, the cow got something out of it (free food, medical, a life) that it would have otherwise lacked, and in return, we got to use it and pick when. Killing only becomes highly unethical if you fail to acknowledge that death is one of the two universal certainties, and that the manner of death doesn't really matter much beyond ensuring minimal pain. Sure, we kill the cows, but they would have died anyway someday, and I'd bet they'd've beem just as unhappy about it regardless of the timing or situation. So you're saying that no existence is better than some with a special termination clause? I don't buy that. Surely any existence is better than none at all, and said 'termination clause' an acceptable price. Personally, I see farming as just hunting with less running around and hiding in bushes, and hunting as merely replacing another predator with us, so no net ethical change for the prey. Because medical ethics committees all but forbid true experimenation on humans. Oh, sure, we can given them a drug and see if it works, but *real* experiments with proper controls and such just are not possible without creating imprisoned, cloned/inbred lines of humans. Too much environmenal variation. Why would it not be strong enough? Isn't sacrificing a few hundred lives to save hundreds of thousands worthwhile? Mokele

The problem is that, as sideline commentators, they don't have the understanding of how scince works on the day-to-day level, the difficulties of experiments, the peer-review process (at least as it works in science), and often are unaware of recent results. I feel that this difference is strongly shown by the way in which "testable" was expanded to the point of meaninglessness previously in the thread. Now, part of this *is* a vocabulary mix-up; we just use 'testable' rather than 'testable in a practical, realistic manner' or somesuch because, well, it's shorter, much like we'll sometimes say group A was "evolving towards" some ends, when we know evolution isn't goal directed. It's just errors or assumptions in communication. The philosophers of science in this instance took 'testable' and generalized it (which, given their background in searching for things like 'truth' and 'reality', isn't surprising) to a level that is not appropriate. To claim someting as "testable" because it's conceivable that we could trip over some bit of evidence someday is just plain ridiculous. That's not testing, it's waiting for evidence to all into your lap, and answering every question of "where's your evience?" with "We're still waiting". I really don't have anything against philosophers of science; I'm friends with two of them, one being the head of the UC philosophy dept. But both are very fast to acknowledge the limitations of their field, and both actually have a reputation for crushing the arguements of others in the field who overreach by ignoring these limitations. Mokele

True, but it's not actually the neurons (or any other brain cells) making the ketones or utilizing fats or protiens. The fats and protiens are being broken down into ketones in order to make glucose, which is then dumped into the blood for the neurons to use. Iirc, the actual process of gluconeogenesis occurs in the liver. Mokele

Ok, aside from the fact that it's an obvious fake up there with Bonsai Kittens, what would be wrong with it?

The first thing to realize is that philosophers of science are just sidelines commentators. What is a scientific hypothesis? One that can be tested and falsified, period. That's all. If this definition excludes "political science" or "economics", there's a reason why. What about ID? Can it make hypotheses we can test and falsify? *NO*. Because, even if they come up with something testable, you can *never* falsify ID hypotheses; they rely on an all-powerful creator who can, if it wishes, hide it's signature, so any lack of evidence and failure to find support can be explained away. Similarly, it cannot make true prediction. Oh, sure, it can say "We should find evidence of design", but that's not a *real* prediction. If you tried to publish in any reputable journal with a prediction like that, the editor would laugh so hard they'd have a heart attack. A *real* prediction is *specific*. For instance, one I've made (and not tested yet): Snake species which engage in upright 'wrestling' combat over females should display modified and possibly sexually dimorphic muscle and tendon configurations. Note that it's both falsifiable (if I find nothing, it means I'm *definitely* wrong) and *specific* (it says precisely what to test). ID offers nothing testable that doesn't expand the word to the point of uselessness, and nothing falsifiable since they can put their god of the gaps anywhere they please. Now, maybe the philosophers disagree, but these are people who have generated about 10 deciduous forests' worth of books on the nature of corkscrews. No, I'm not kidding. Until ID actually adheres to the rules of *real* scientists (not just sideline commentators), it is not science. And given that, by it's very nature, it *cannot* meet those rules, it never will be. Mokele

Bouyancy regulation, I think.

Exactly, and some of those prevent the egg from implanting into the uterine lining even if fertilized, and hence would be objectionable to certain groups who give me the willies. Mokele

I would think, just guessing, that it would suffer the same problem as flying animals: If you double the length and keep the proportions, you have 4x as much wing area but 8x as much weight. So, proportionally, the wings need to increase in size a lot faster than the increase in size of what they're supporting. There's probably and upper limit, defined by materials strength and fuel needed. Mokele

Actually, that's not quite right, jdurg. Diabetes means that you simply cannot naturally control your blood glucose levels, not that they aren't there. Hypoglycemia is, I've heard, a really big problem for those with diabetes, in part for the very reason that nerves can only take in and use glucose. Mokele