Mokele

Personally, I agree. I think creationism and ID can be useful teaching tools, specifically because they point out the places where most people mis-understand evolution. In fact, I'd say I've probably learned about as much of evolution from debating these loons as I have from books and classes (including my evolution class). Teaching/explaining/debating something often shows you bits of your knowledge when there's a gap or where the pieces don't fit, which in turn lets you do some research to fill in this gap. Frankly, I'd love to present ID/creationist arguments in class, in the context of "Tell me why this arguement is a load of horseshit." If the students really understand evolution (rather than just vomiting back textbook paragraphs), they'll be able to answer it. Hrm, I smell an essay question... 20% of the total grade, say? Mokele

As others have pointed out, there is no such thing as 'de-evolving'. Why do we have one, then? We didn't have the ability to treat appendicitis until the last 200 years, tops, which leaves over 249,800 years of human evolution (and possibly more, esp. if we include other hominids in our line) for us to solve this problem. Why hasn't it been solved? Lack of variation. If nobody has ever been born without an appendix, then there is no trait to select *for*. Given that the formation of the appendix is no doubt a result of complex developmental pathways, and that such pathways rarely can be tinkered with without lethal or highly damaging results, it is entirely possible that the genetic combination for 'no appendix' simply hasn't happened. Flat out wrong. Ever had malaria? Tapeworms? Been through a famine? Those are large parts of ancient life. Call that quality? Because I don't. --------- Frankly, I fail to see a problem with the effects of medical technology. So what if the genes for our eyes suck; so long as we can get that corrected, we can still see, so there's no difference. Only the end result matters in nature, not how you get there. It doesn't matter if Mr. Primitive is strong because he worked so much, while I'm strong because I had 4 giant mechanical Dr. Octopus tentacles implanted into my back. Only the end result matters, and that I can kick his puny, un-enhanced butt. Mokele

I really have no idea. I know that most bears are left-handed, while in other species there is more of a mix, but that there seem to be both in all species we've looked at. However, that's about all I know of it, since it's so far outside my field. Shenzhou's links probably contain some good info, though. Mokele

Um, Kennedy was a Democrat. Ergo, the documents, assuming they aren't fake (which is a big question in my mind), would incriminate the Democrats.

I spelled it 'amyl nitrite' in my post because "poppers" *are* amyl nitrite. Amyl nitrate, on the other hand, is a drug used to cure cyanide poisoning and treat angina. Maybe if you actually *read* what the websites you quote say, you'd have noticed that. And yes, I saw that list of effects. Yes, they're nasty. None of them, however, are immunosupressant effects, even temporarily. Yes, I am aware of the dangers of mixing drugs, but I *still* don't see an immunosupressant effect, which is necessary for your idea to hold water. Oh, and how do you explain the numerous AIDS patients who are totally clean, never having used drugs? Precisely, because in order for other methods of debate to work, the other side actually has to be sane, reasonable, and focused on facts rather than speculation. As none of the above describe you, I have little choice in my debating tactics. Seriously, I've heard more reasoned arguements coming from homeless guys who mumble all the time about the CIA putting chips in their brains. Yes, let's stop people from being treated. Brilliant idea. All based on a conspiracy theory. If, god forbid, you ever reproduce, I bet you'll be one of these parents who never vaccinates their kids because they think it's all some secret government plot, then wonders why they died of whooping cough. Keep your paranoia to yourself, and don't interfere with the good works of other, sensible people. Mokele

It might have none, or even be detrimental (though I can't see how it could be), yet still persist because it's linked to an advantage that outweighs any problems. Given that both right and left handed people are still around, clearly the advantge is not universal, but rather situational, if there is any at all. Of course, it might just be a bit of neurological randomness. Interestingly, other animals also display 'handedness' in terms of manipulating prey and the like. Even snakes, ironicly, prefer to coil in a particular direction (clockwise or counterclockwise). Evolution is often constrained by developmental pathways. Fingers and toes use the same genes as penii, and many alterations to those can adversely effect the most important finger of all, if you get my drift. That's why 6 fingers hasn't become the standard. Basically, that just boils down to evolutionary novel environment (we haven't had time to adapt to how our evironment has changed) and lack of selection (food allergies would be selected against and mostly eliminated in the past). The last option. Neutral traits and those constrained by development or lack of variation are suprisingly infuential in evolution. Mokele

As I said above, no. To quote myself: It's pretty much a logical fallacy compounded with a lack of understanding of evolution. Mokele

Translation: It's not in there at all, but if you have a hefty dose of imagination and paranoia, you can pretend it is.

Which has precisely nothing to do with this thread, beyond giving you a tiny wedge of credulity, which you use as a springboard for ridiculous speculation. Actually, the one supposedly responsible was a norwegian sailor, and that has, AFAIK, been proven. Any *real* evidence for this rampant and baseless speculation? I turned up precisely jack about immunosupressant effects of amyl nitrite. As for the "toxins", those are called "anti-cancer drugs"; damn near all such drugs are actually lethal toxins, but are administered in small amounts. This is because one of the most common affects of HIV is Kaposi's sarcoma, a cancer that arises due to infection by a virus the body usually wipes out, but cannot in immuno-suppressed patients. So they were actually treating them for what they thought was the problem. If this is your idea of 'plausible', I shudder to think what your speculations must be like. Naked Lunch on an acid trip, most likely. This statement is so outrageously moronic that I just have to ask if you are being ironic, or just stupid. You should actually know that a) the only connection between cancer and HIV is a few opportunistic infections (see above) and that sometimes the same company makes drugs for both (a given in the age of mergers), and b) the idea of HIV does not cause AIDS is so patently ludicrous that no reputable peer-review journal will publish it, and the main supporters have become pariahs in the scientific community. Seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous. If this is your idea of science, you don't belong here. Mokele

Mostly ones of minor mechanisms and how often what happens, like "What drives sympatric speciation?", "How do parasites affect sexual selection?", "Why do large multicellular asexual organisms occur so infrequently and have such poor survival?", "Is extinction truly random with respect to phylogeny?". There's also more mundane ones that exist due to gaps in the fossil record or things that don't fossilize, like "Did birds begin flying by gliding from trees or leaping from the ground?" and "Did snakes evolve from aquatic, burrowing, or brush-living ancestors?" There are still questions, but there are no serious logical shortcomings. Some ID proponents cliam that there is "Irreducible Complexity", mechanisms within cells that cannot function without all their parts, and therefore could not have arrisen by evolution. First, this is arguement from ignorance, since just because we can't think of how they could function with less doesn't mean they couldn't, but rather that we have limited imaginations. Second, it ignores exapation, in which one aspect of an animal is adapted to a new purpose later. Third, every example they've used of this, and I mean *every* one, has been shot down in flames. No serious scientist holds to ID or Irreducible complexity. Mokele

::puts on a suit and dark sunglasses, acting all cold and sinister:: Hello, Mr. ed84c.... Hobbits are a disease...Wait... ::calls offset:: Line!

And you've become so committed to your foolish, irrational, paranoid conspiracy theory that you cannot see it's obvious failures and shortcomings, mostly a total lack of evidence and 'support' based solely upon arguement from ignorance (by which I mean lack of evidence, arguing from the gaps) and wild speculation. Yes, deliberate tampering with the evidence *can* interfere with Occam's razor. But tampering is never, ever perfect and further evidence-gathering can uncover it. On top of that, even your example relies on it: new evidence must be presented, even in conspiracy theories, before speculation can even begin. If the Kennedy assassination had been totally unremarkable, we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of speculations about it, would we? No, that's only because *evidence* (crappy or not) tipped us off that there might be something more. Even conspiracy theories have an element of Occam's razor. Now, as to the alteration of data, you cannot expect any agency working in the late 50's and 60's to be able to forsee *and* cover up data we can now aquire. For instance, modern genetic testing has allowed us to precisely trace the lineages of HIV, and find the ancestral SIV species. Not only could they not have known that we'd be able to do that, but even if they had speculated, they would have had *NO* way of doctoring the results because they lacked the technology back then. They could not have altered the origin location, because again, they lacked the technology to alter the data we would uncover. They could not have doctored old blood samples, because it would be evident they did so. Over and over again, we find aspects of the origin and spread of HIV that could *not* have been convered up simply because they lacked the technology to do so. If you want to ignore OR, along with all logic and reason, feel free, but this thread is in a *science* forum. If you want to post these views, feel free to do so, but in Psuedoscience, where they belong. Mokele

Congratulations. It's rare, outside of creationism, that I can dismiss entire posts in one handy sweep, but your HIV post allows me to do just that: Arguementum ad ignorantum, I win. Like I said, until you can offer *hard evidence* that cannot be explained by the much less ludicrous and paranoid "zoonotic transmission", then you're simply speculating wildly and without basis. For instance, lets say I want to know why both alligators and cryptobranchid salamanders have a range limited to the eastern US and eastern China (& Japan for cryptobranchids). On one hand, I have a hypothesis about continental drifts, extinctions, and climate change. On the other, I have a hypothesis about sneaky aliens moving animals around on prehistoric earth according to some secret plan, leaving no trace beyond the movement of the animals. Both explain all the data (present and past distributions). Now, which of these will a serious journal on phylogeography accept: "The effects of climate change on large laurasian aquatic predators" or "Aliens have been abducting our salamanders!" Occam's razor. Until you can provide any sort of credible evidence that *isn't* just explaining existing data in new and ludicrous ways, the only journal you'll be publishing this in is The Weekly World News, next to the story about Bigfoot's hot naked affair with the Loch Ness Monster. Mokele

However, it would be a consistent lie, and consistent with all other lies, and the only source of information availible. Given that we live and exist through our senses, one could argue that the 'lie' is in fact simply a layer of reality, or even reality itself, since we effectively live in it. In fact, if there is nothing else and no way to escape this world of lies, then it effectively *is* reality, and the lies are truth, at least as far as we are concerned. So what it boils down to is that either evolution is real, or a falsity that is part of an all-pervasive falsity we live in, and therefore also real in it's own way. Either way, it's real. Mokele

First, if you're claiming HIV was 'created', that's obviously wrong. It is evident in a blood sample taken in 1959, and we didn't have the technology to artifically create viri. Secondly, why would any government agency waste the time 'starting' the disease over 6 times (there are a minimum of 6 origins of HIV strains, all zoonotic)? Third, why use SIV anyway? Herpes and other STDs would have worked just as well, without the trouble of getting an african virus. That'd be like going to Iowa to buy corn flakes rather than your local grocery store. Fifth, HIV is a shitty bioweapon. The *only* reasons it's so scary is that it can't be cured and it has a long transmission time, but it's actual infection rate is pretty shitty, on the order of 1 in 10000 transmissions resulting in infection. Sixth, why would you use a bioweapon that you can't control? It'd make much more sense to use something that you can cure so that if it spreads out of the target area/population, the accidental infections can be cured. Seventh, if it was to target gays, why start it out in africa? If it was to target africa, why not use something rapid and lethal that could be contained to that continent? If blacks in general, you could use the same and simply count on the general poverty level to prevent access to the healthcare needed for a cure. HIV makes *no* sense as a weapon for any of these 'target groups'. Do I even want to know how much of our money was wasted on that? A bit of quick googling around showed that it's typically less than 24 hours, though in artificial lab conditions it can be kept for as much as 15 days. But for anything occuring in the non-lab world, the 24 hours figure would be closer. It's apparently very fragile. Do you have a source for this, a real source? ---- Basically, it's Occam's razor. You can argue the conspiracy POV until you're blue in the face, but until you find hard evidence that *cannot* be explained by the current, simple view, there's no reason to give the conspiracy POV any creedence at all. Mokele

Well, like everything, it depends. If you want to be a CEO and make money, an MBA is the best bet, unless you make a startup company (and the vast majority of those fail, and you'd need to hire business people for them). However, PhD does not preclude rising high in the corp. structure and making good money. For instance, my father is a PhD Chemist who joined a chemical company. Over the years he worked his way up, and because of his PhD he was able to rise higher than most, becoming head of the R&D part of the company and a VP. We aren't filthy rich, but well-off enough from his income that I could feasibly whine 'Daddy, I need grant money for an electromyography setup...' and get it. So I guess it boils down to what you want to do and how much money you want. If you get a PhD, you'll be much more involved in the science aspect and can earn a 6-figure salary. Alternatively, as a CEO, you can earn a salary that best described as 'obscene', but you would have little to no involvement in the science aspect, and would instead be basically doing business management and playing office politics. You have the grades for either, it just depends on which you actually want to do and what your personal priorities are. Mokele

In what spare time I have, I'd like to add a few things. How 'beginner' are we talking here? Mokele

There's no one "magic number", and it depends a lot on species. A species with a lot of kids (assuming that you can keep all the kids safe and in captivity) will have a lot less genetic drift in the early stages of the repopulation than one that has only a few. That and inbreeding depression are the main problems. You technically *can* repopulate from a small number, less than 100, but you're going to see some *major* screw-ups due to inbreeding, and it'd take many, many generations before mutations can restore even a semblance of proper genetic diversity. Mokele

So, wait, let me get this straight.... You have a field full of GM crops that are herbicide-resistant. This allows the farmer to spray more herbicide to control weeds, and I'll bet that's exactly what he did. Now weeds in adjacent fields are showing resistance. Option one: the two species hybridized, in spite of the fact that such a thing is supposedly impossible, and there is no hard evidence as of yet. Option two: The weeds evolved resistance on their own, via natural selection. Given the high doses of herbicide, it shouldn't really be a surprise. Frankly, option two seems to be a lot higher in probability, and most of Newtonian's posts seem to be nothing but alarmism. Mokele

While I agree in principle, there's two problems: 1) What studies have been done have failed to find any statistically significant difference in the well-being and psychological adjustment of children raised by two same-sex parents, so there's no empirical data to support the notion of a difference. 2) Even if there was, there are far more children awaiting adoption than there are parents adopting (gay and straight combined). As such, the more valid question is "Will 2 same-sex parents be better than life in a series of foster homes?", to which the answer is pretty obviously "yes". D'oh! Second section down from the top displays a university study showing that homophobic men are much more likely to be aroused by gay porn. The reference at the bottom of the page is: Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr. & Bethany Lohr "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?", Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105 (1996), P. 440-445 Sadly, because I'm currently on vacation, I can't actually retrieve the full article (my school doesn't give out their passwords for journal archives, the bastards). First, as I said before, I have seen *no* evidence or even sufficient logic that pride parades have any negative impact. Secondly, what's wrong with doing something for the sake of community unity? The gay community is typically rather tight-knit in most large cities, and it's nice to be able to celebrate that, especially in places where it must remain hidden most of the year. Third, as I have also pointed out, the people most likely to feel mad about such parades would not have been swayed anyway, so there is no net loss. It's all about the 'swing voters'. We shouldn't have to, except for the fact that the populace tends to do things like make laws criminalizing private sexual behavior if they aren't reminded that there are faces and people behind the word. Believe me, I'd *like* to see a day when Pride Parades are as anachronistic as black civil rights marches, but until then, as I have *amply* supported, visibility is absolutely necessary to ensure progress. Yes, probably poor phrasing on my part. They *claim* that's their biggest problem, but in reality it's much more deeply rooted than that. If they didn't have a problem with homosexuality and the expression and acknowledgement of it, they wouldn't be upset by the pride parade. Well, your school, as you admit, is in an atypical area. And how many gay boys have you seen making out in public? Care to guess why so few? True. I grew up in the Deep South, where any sort of public homosexual intimacy (especially between males) at school would most assuredly result in one hell of a beating. And I'm not exagerating, either. Out in the rest of the US, away from places like San Fran and NYC's Greenwich village, you almost never see same-sex intimacy in public, because it's usually met with harassment or violence. And I'm not just basing this on statistics, I'm basing this on things that have happened to my friends. Because society has decided to put LBGT people into a class, and to consistently abuse, attack, and deny rights to that group based solely on who we are attracted to. And this 'frame of mind' is an immutable, biologically-based orientation, not just a perspective. As such, we have a class defined by both biology (brain structure and innate psychology) and socieity (behavior). How does that mean it isn't a valid class? Bullshit. One name: Matthew Shepard. Look him up if you have to, and *then* tell me there is no prejudice or discrimination. Or how about a man I met about a year back who, upon losing his partner of 10 years, had to deal with his partner's disapproving family denying him access to the hospital so he never even got to say goodbye, not even informing him (and barring him from) the funeral, and overturning the will (legally) so that they took the house, car, and *joint* bank accounts, leaving him with nothing. All of this was done *legally*, with the complicity of hospital staff, funerary staff, lawyers, etc. Now, tell me there is no discrimination. And these are not isolated incidents. I've had friends who have been attacked because of their sexuality. There where *thousands* of such crimes reported just last year, dozens ending in homicides. Except straights don't *want* to marry people of the same sex, and gays don't *want* to marry people of the opposite sex. You're looking at the wrong level. Look at the couple level. One couple *can* marry, the other cannot. Why? Because a law that was created *PURELY* to discriminate against gay couples. Mokele

I've heard that psychologists working from the behaviorist perspective (and using behaviorism in their therapy) have great success in curing phobias via slow, progressive desensitization. They're also much more mainstream and what society considers to be typical psychiatry, and thus will likely be covered by insurance. Mokele

This thread is in microbiology, not psuedoscience. Please keep baseless and ridiculous speculations to a minimum. Mokele

One word: Swing voters. It's just like the elections; you have the firm people on both sides, but a fair number of people in the middle who don't really hold ironclad positions. These people can be swung by realizing that a friend or co-worker is gay. Plus, we don't need to win over the homophobes, we already have them on our side. They just need to come out of the closet to themselves and realize just *why* they're so anti-gay. (Seriously, the stronger someone's anti-gay positions and the more they bluster about it, the more likely it is that they're actually gay and just trying to convince themselves otherwise. This isn't hearsay, but an accepted fact of psychology.) I agree that would solve the problem, but there are also homosexual-specific issues that need to be addressed. Two examples: 1) My city, Cincinnati, until very recently had a ban on equal-rights legislation involving sexuality. In this city, you could be fired, evicted, denied loans, anything just based on sexuality. This wasn't an omission of prior laws, but rather a specific ammendment to the city charter that *specifically* forbade making laws to protect the rights of homosexuals. Fortunately, though many petitions and, yes, parades, when it came up for a vote it was repealed, even in very conservative Cinci. 2) Gay adoption. There are many states that have specific laws forbidding it. In order for equality to be achieved, those laws must be repealed. In *both* cases, people need to realize that they are hurting *people*, not just an abstract grouping without a known face. That, as I've said many times before, is the point of such parades, something you have ignored each time I brought it up. They'd vote against it anyway, so why does it matter? To re-use the analogy at the top of this post, political parties don't try to woo the hard-core supporters of the opposition, but rather the 'swing voters', those who occupy the middle-ground. Plus the people most likely to be pissed off are the ones most likely to be secretly giving ******** in the alley behind the local gay bar because they can't come to terms with their sexuality. I'm not stretching your words. Here you *SPECIFICALLY* state that we should curtail our activities because of the ignorant bigots who don't like it. Bullshit. Freedom means the freedom to do something / be / hold views that are / live a life that is unpopular. And it's not "rubbing anyone's face in it" to simply demonstrate it. You (plural) rub our faces in your orientation every time you drive by in a car with "just married" written on it, or kiss in public without fear of being beaten up. The prevalence of strait sexuality is such that it's rubbed in the face of every non-straight every day. Yet you say us merely announcing our existence is "rubbing your face in it"? Bullshit. You are advocating a bigoted double-standard, where only straight displays of affection and sexuality are acceptable. Bullshit, their biggest beef is the one they're getting in the back room of the local gay leatherbar before they go home and return to their default of frantically trying to convince everyone (but mostly themselves) they aren't really gay. These people would be against gay rights with or without a parade. The parade just gives them something to lash out at. Dak is right, you're confusing the target of homophobia with the cause. And you're how old? Waiting to come over to our team, eh? I'd bet you actually haven't, through a common mental trick of simply remembering the notable events. That's not against you, that's just how the mind works. I'd bet that if you actually took a notepad with you and, over the course of a month noted down every time you saw anyone making out, you'd find that you've seen more straight couples making out. But your brain pays more attention and is more likely to remember novel or unusual stimuli, so when asked to recall, the ratio will be skewed. Suffice to say, in the vast majority of the world, you see far more public straight affection than public gay affection. All we want is the same right, to be able to kiss or hold hands in public without being insulted or attacked. Mokele

So nobody who has a negative media image should even try? That's what you're saying. The media will always twist things, so why should anyone ever do anything? Let's just sit at home as our rights are trampled, lest the few people too stupid to look beyond the media get a bad impression. So there exists a form of invisibility that is best countered by events such as pride parades and other forms of visibility-increasing events. No, you stated, and I quote "the only reason 'homosexuals' is a minority with second class citizen status is BECAUSE THEY BRING IT UP." My example is a pointed refutation of your foolish statement. The people who murdered Matthew Shepard actually deliberately went *into* a gay bar and picked him up for the *explicit* purpose of murdering him. Or should we never even gather in private, and instead spend our lives in the closet, isolated and alone, on the off chance that someone might take offense? And you expect us to protest how, since you seem to think we should never be seen in public? But most people don't realize that. Many people, because they are only presented with homosexuality in abstract, don't put a personal face on it. When they *can* put a personal face on it, a neighbor or co-worker or relative or friend, *then* they see it as affecting *people* rather than an abstract categorical noun. And that's where pride parades and openness come in: putting the faces of people that you (plural you) know on the concept. Only then, only with visibility, do we become 'people' in the minds of others. Funny, it seems to have had precisely the opposite effect. In fact, ALL progress in gay rights was made *after* Stonewall, *after* we started to stand up and proclaim our existence with pride. Before, when gays lived in shame and hiding, never being open or bothering anyone, it was illegal and gays were jailed for just being who they were. Let me repeat, in case you missed it: *ALL* advances in gay rights, have come *AFTER* and *BECAUSE* we stood up and proclaimed we exist, we're everywhere, and we will fight for our rights. Maybe it pisses a narrow segment of the population off, but many more see their friends, family, and associates in the parades and realize that they aren't just taking rights away from a group, but from *people* they know. Have you ever held hands with a member of the opposite sex in public? Have you ever kissed a date/gf in public, even chastely? Hugged? If the answer to *ANY* of the above is yes, then you are far more guilty of parading your orientation around in public than almost any gay couple. It has nothing to do with politeness. It has to do with standing up for our rights and so that everyone can see just *who* they are hurting. ---------- By your logic, politcal parties and their conventions should be banned. How dare they parade their differences in public, when doing so might offend people! Mokele

But would the increase in kill rate make up for the metabolic expenditure needed for that intelligence? Probably not, or cats would be smarter than they already are. Mokele