Mokele

Yes, when I was in school I accidentally stumbled across porn. Every day. Often several times a day. At a URL I knew by heart. Yes, um, accidentally. On a more pragmatic note, porn has actually been *good* for me. Because neither my parents nor my school had the balls to actually teach sex ed in any meaningful way (beyond "Oooh, it's scary and you'll get diseases"), my main info source was my friends and porn. Once you actually figure out what's fake (very easy), you can actually learn a lot. I'll not get into details, but suffice it to say my GF is very pleased with this learning. Mokele

You might as well have just handed me the win in this arguement. Especially since your reply has amply demonstrated that you don't know a) anything about evolutionary biology or population genetics and b) that you didn't understand my point. Here's a breif review, for the biologically incompetent: 1) Race (noun)- an geneticly isolated populations with significant synapomorphies that distinguish it from other populations. 2) population (noun) - a group of organisms of a species which interbreed. May have gene-flow with adjacent populations via migrations of any life-stage or gametes. Now, are there human races? There's two criteria from the definition above: 1) geneticly isolated. Obviously not the case, I've already shown, at length, just how great the gene-flow in our species is. 2) synaphomorphioes. None. There are *NO* genetic or phenotypic traits that are restricted to one and only one "race" and are diagnostic of that. Seriously, look at the anthropological literature. They've fallen over themselves trying to find one, and they came up with *nothing*. They went so far as to chemically analyze the *ear-wax* of various "races" and still found nothing. Let's repeat that, so you're clear: There are no shared, derived traits unique to particular races. None. So, that's 0/2. I win. Now, let's look at your objection: that there's genetic variability between "races". Which proves *nothing*. You know why? Because your logic is false. News flash: just because there's genetic variation and distinctions does *NOT* make a race. There are *lots* of populations that have genetic variation across their range. Let's look at an example. Let's say we're looking at a bunch of mice I've collected. One mouse is grey, the other is dark brown, the other is light brown. They can interbreed, but display other variations, such as mean litter size, behaviors, and physiological capabilities. Does this mean they are races? NO. If we have 1 big population of mice, which spans an area including city, woods and fields, all three of those variants can exist within a single population. They're all connected via interbreeding and geneflow from one end of the population to the next. The differences that appear are a function of the strength of selection of the various traits versus the gene flow that dilutes those traits. If the selections is strong enough (like, say, hawks who can easily spot a mouse that's a conspicuous color), then regional differences will persist in spite of the gene flow within a population. Let me sum this up for you: Genetic differences between *populations* of humans do not prove "race". Single populations, especially ones with a range as huge as ours, can easily have variation within them via the mechanisms described above. Since both races and populations have variation, it cannot be used as evidence that one or the other is the case. In fact, the only things that *can* be used as evidence for "race" status, as opposed to populations, are genetic isolation and synapomorphies. Both of which FAIL when applied to humans, as we saw above. --------------- So, with that said, I would like to recommend that you actually learn something for yourself, rather than parroting some poorly-reasoned webpage. It helps to actually know what you're talking about, kid. To re-iterate: Gene Flow. I win. Mokele

So? Seriously, let's take all of your arguements as good, and examine the implications. So what? Why should we care? Yes, we value intelligence *now*. But what if, hypothetically, our situation changed in such a way that the metabolic costs of increased intellect were not worth the benefits? Ditto for civilization; perhaps there are situations in which it simply isn't worth the effort required. If humans are becoming more of less intelligent, so what? That's evolution; the fittest survive, and fitness means one thing: number of offspring who reproduce. If local conditions make it advantageous to be dumb, guess who reproduces? ------------ Of course, one thing I haven't seen any mention of in this thread is the *important* thing: survivorship. If only sheer numbers mattered, all Earth would be beetles. Oh, wait, that 75% true anyway. Let's say I have a dumb friend. He has 4 kids, I have 2. Does that mean he'll have higher long-term fitness than me? Not necessarily. What if my smart kids have a decreased mortality rate compared to his grandkids? Or are less likely to make stupid choices? What if my smart kids can attracts stronger, healthier mates, resulting in even *lower* mortality for my grandkids and greatgrandkids. Now take into account investment in offspring. I'm smart, I can get a good job and pay of higher-end healthcare for my kids, which means they're have lower mortality, and be healthier and thus able to attract better mates, resulting in even better offspring for them (and those offspring are my grandkids, still carrying my genes). It is entirely possible for me to have many more descendants than my friend 6 generations down the line, even if he had more kids to being with. Number of immediate progeny is only a part of the puzzle. You have to take into acount *thier* mortality, mate-attraction, etc, and their ability to invest in their kids. Think of it this way: There are more humas in the US than gators, even though humans have 2 kids in a lifetime, while, in a comparably long lifetime, a gator may have 2000 kids. If it's just birth rate, why aren't we teeming with gators? Mokele

Easy to answer all of these: We don't know, and we *can't* know. Not without knowing the future. Sure, we can extrapolate based on current events, but what happens if a huge asteroid hits the earth in 2035 and causes a global cataclysm? Much of evolution is dependent upon random chance, so much so that long term predictions are a waste of time. Mokele

It's a neat hypothesis, but how do we test it? Physics/astronomy people? Mokele

It's really simple to show why it won't work: where does the energy come from? You have a vapor going in, it gets compressed by the force of other pistons, and the pressure then forces it to expand. But in doing so, it *loses* energy to entropy and friction, so with each piston-pump you'd get less and less power out of it, until the whole system just stopped. At the very core of any engine is the principle of turning chemical energy into heat, which can be used to do work. Without a source of chemical energy (wood, gas, hydrogen, whatever), where will the energy come from? Mokele

Correct. It's all social. When you look at humans from the standpoint of population genetics, there are no races. There are no isolated populations within the species. We are a highly mobile species, and, as a result, there is a very high gene flow between populations. Don't think of human populations as isolated little ponds, but rather "deep spots" in one big lake. The flow of fish between the "deep spots" prevents any truly meaningful differences from accumulating. This can be backed up phylogeneticly: there are no synapomorphies for any human race. None. There are *no* derived traits that originated once and only once in a population, and distinguish that population. There's been too much gene flow between populations. Take "blacks". No such race. If we neglect the massive gene flow, there are *far* more differences between African tribes than there is between "whites" and "asians". Furthermore, other populations left africa multiple times, meaning that "black" is a paraphyletic grouping, and therefore biologically meaningless. Of course, that's all neglecting the gene flow, which, in and of itself, effectively negates the entire point. "Race" or "sub-species" is defined by levels of reproductive isolation between populations. Two reproductive isolated populations that can still easily interbreed when artificially united yet have major morphological distinctions are "sub-species". Lesser morphological distinctions are "races". But there's always an element of reproductive isolation. This is clearly not true for humans. The color of our skin no more makes us "distinct races" than the variations in the color of mice throughout a large population that spans heterogeneous habitat. See above; it's about reproductive isolation. Dog breeds were produced by isolating a population of dogs and breeding for specific traits. Human populations, in contrast, have not undergone such isolation. Ergo, no races. Imagine, if you will, a map of the world, and the land is colored in by the skin color of those that live there. Do you see sharp boundaries? Do you see rigid demarcations? No. You see one big smear of color, varying by environment but each color blending seamlessly into the adjacent colors. -------------- Now, to summarize: Gene flow. I win. Mokele

No, but it's sheer coincidence that she's of my color and nationality. We met over the internet, ergo I didn't actually know her race at first. "Race" is nothing but culture. There is no genetic basis for it, ergo it is a fiction of our minds. People "group together" by culture, because of similar ways of thinking and interacting. Doesn't matter if they're the same skin color or not. I'm more comfortable interacting with someone of a different skin color of the same culture as me than of the same skin color and different culture, simply because I don't understand them, their customs, what things mean, what I'm supposed to to etc. Aversion to social awkwardness does not equal ethnocentricity. Mokele

I sometimes visiting cnn.com, about once a week or so. Other than that, it's just word of mouth. Aside from a narrow few issues that I care about, I don't care unless it involves reptiles. I used to get news from many sources. Then I realized that a) it was depressing b) I didn't really care and c) I never used it anyway. So I stopped bothering. After all, politics is simple: see who the Christian right hates the most, and vote for them. Assume all politicians are liars, cheats, and swindlers. Assume all legistlation exists merely to please special interests. Assume, in general, that all humans are corrupt, selfish and cruel. That effective covers all of politics and 99.999% of the events in the world. Mokele

Um, by my calculations, even if we take 1776 as the begining (which is far from given, what with the articles of confederation and such), then the government is 228 years old, 229 soon. Over 70 years until the big 3-0-0. Nothing is more destructive to the concept of freedom this country was founded on than simply letting the majority always have the final say. Mob rule has never worked, especially for those with the misfortune to disagree with the mob. Mokele

While I support most non-discrimination in the workplace (with exceptions, of course, for when it would prevent the individual from doing the job or would endanger them or others), I fail to see what this has to do with psychometric tests that are *not* designed as above. Let's take a hypothetical example: say I want to get a job loading trucks for Fed-Ex (I had (and hated) this job, but there was no test). I do the interview, and they ask that I take a psychometric test. This test is designed to assess spatial reasoning, for the obvious and simple application of determining who will be better at the job and get the most boxes into a single truck. In your opinion is it right or wrong for them to a) require this test in the first place and to b) make hiring decisions based on it? My question is, if the answer is "yes", can that be taken into account in the hiring process? To use another hypothetical, fast-forward 20 years. I have a professorship and a lab, and I'm hiring a lab assistant. The hypothetical blind-Coral applies. Now, my lab is currently working on pack-hunting behavior in cuban crocodiles, and the job involves being in a cage with 6 fast, strong, man-eating reptiles that see you as dinner. Am I allowed to discriminate on the basis of your blindness, because you could not perform the job without being torn to shreds and devoured? That's an extreme example, but I'm sure you get the gist of my objection (namely safety). Mokele

Coral, you mis-interpreted. What I meant was not determining if things were consensual. What I meant was the ability to extract the information from people's brains, no matter how they feel about it, whether they want to have their mind probed or not. Assuming it doesn't cause permanent damage or anything, of course. It'd make it so much simpler. If you say "so and so did this to me", then you just both get in the machine and the information about precisely what *did* happen is extracted. No more need for lawyers and juries, just the facts. Mokele

So, accuracy and usefullness aside, isn't it up to the employer to decide if they want to require a test? It's not like you *must* apply for the job. If the employer thinks the tests are a legitimate hiring practice, why should anyone stop them? Isn't who to hire and how the perogative of employers? Mokele

Wrong. For instance, I don't even subtly consider myself "better" because of my race. The only group I consider inherently "better" are those that have earned that title by ruling the planet for 200 million years, until some little fuzzy upstarts got in during a moment of weakness. But, thanks to global warming and extinction, things will be back to their proper order soon enough. (25% of mammal species are at least threatened, while that same number for reptile is 5%). Bow before the master-race, milk-sucker! Mokele

It'd be a pity if the US declined much, since it's the perfect place for me, namely an industrialized nation with copious reptiles in the southern areas. The only other contender is Australia, which is useless to me because they refuse to allow any importation of foreign herps. On the upside, I've got dual citizenship with the US and UK, so I can move whenever I feel like. Mokele

Bull****. People have been violent and terrible to each other numerous times without the need to dehumanize the intended victims. We're a violent species. Furthermore, as I've noted, your point has no logical content (since it rests on a shaky assumption) and, worse, is counter-productive to discussion. Your point doesn't convey information, but merely seek to inflame one side and demonize the other by drawing parallels to "evil" occurences. In fact, that means you yourself are guilty of a more minor version of the same thing. It's an ad hominem, nothing more. Since when does DNA define personhood? The DNA of the eggs women lose every menstrual cycle looks like that too, as does the DNA of the trillions of sperm who die every time you whack off. The DNA of the hundreds of fertilized eggs that fail to implant looks like that. A cancer has human DNA too, acts for it's own interests, and I significantly geneticly different from it's host. Does that mean tumors have a right to life? "Potential" is not something to judge on. I have the potential to be a truly great biologist, up there with Gould and the like. I also have the potential to become a mass-murdering sociopath. And everything in between. Should I simultaneously be given the Nobel and put to death because of my potential? And so, once again, we come back to the core question: How do we define what is a person? It's not as simple as the knee-jerk stormtroopers-for-jesus would have people believe. Mokele

Congrats, you completely missed my point. I did *not* say that he should not be held accountable for a crime if he did commit it. What I said is that ther weirdness of his situation makes it very hard to judge if there was a crime at all based on circumstantial evidence. Now, if they get non-circumstantial evidence, that's much better, but you cannot judge circumstantial evidence without taking the circumstances into account. That's like saying "no sane person would willingly handle an obscenely-venomous snake, therefore Mokele is insane" without taking into acount that I'm a herpetologist. So, wait, did you just actually say that someone should be jailed for the mere appearance of a crime, even if they didn't commit a crime? So, according to you, if I'm seen breaking into my own house because I locked myself out, I should go to jail for theft and breaking/entering because it *looked* like that's what I was doing, even though I wasn't? Sorry, that's just a stupid opinion. But not all emotionally immature people are pedophiles, so emotional immaturity, in-and-of itself is not indicative of guilt. Furthermore, *being* a pedophile isn't against the law. Acting on it is. *Many* pedophiles do the right thing and never act on their urges. How do you know he doesn't have a saintly level or restraint? ------------------ I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. What I *AM* saying is that you must be *very* careful about judging innocence or guilt based only on circumstantial evidence. Just because it *seems* likely, given how "normal" people act, doesn't mean it's the case. After all, do you convict someone of murder if there's no evidence except they have anger-management issues? On one hand, yes, there is some suspcious circumstances, and one claimed victim. On the other hand, maybe he's just weird but harmless, society has labeled him in a derogatory way just because he's different, and the "victim" is just making it up to capitalize on the social impression. It's hard to tell. It's a pity we don't simply have a machine that can go into their brains and retrieve the information directly, whether they consent or not. It'd make everything so much simpler, more effective, and just all around better. Mokele

I've actually had an "official" IQ test, like by a person trained to administer them, back when I was around 7 or so. Ironicly, I don't actually know my IQ. See, my sister and I got tested at the same time, and my mom had the foresight to KNOW that whichever scored higher would tease the other mercilessly. But we wanted to know, and wouldn't stop pestering her. So she did something *really* cunning: she told us both of the scores, but not who they belonged to. The scores were 163 and 166, and I'm betting the test has a margin on error of over 3 points. Still, you know how kids are. Hell, we argued because her month of birth (jan) had more days than mine (sept). Not like it matters much anyway. It's not the size of your brain, it's how you use it! or was that something else... Mokele

Except you have a false premise: that the cells should even be considered human to begin with. Now, maybe they are and maybe they aren't deserving of being called human. That's been a large part of this thread. But your statement treats this arguement as having been resolved in that manner, and is therefore based on a shaky foundation. It's one thing to use propaganda to state that something which is obviously human is not, but it's entirely different where there is legitimate debate as to whether something is human or not. It's not using propaganda to blind people to an obvious truth, but rather trying to ferret out the highly non-obvious truth of a complex situation. -------------- Of course, the funniest thing is that people seem to be under the delusions that a) morals exist as anything but social constructs and instincts and b) that killing is somehow "wrong". If killing is wrong, I'd like to see you justify that chicken you ate a while back. Death is part of nature, as much a part of life. Sure, it sucks, but that's life (at least the end of it). Mokele

I'm actually not sure. On one hand, a lot of what he's done and does would be interpreted as indicative of pedophilia in a normal person. But he is most definitely *not* a normal person, and his particular oddity leads to the possibility that all of these "warning signs" are merely being mis-interpreted because we're looking at them in the wrong light. Normally, I'd say these signs point to guilty, but he's such a collosally weird person that it's hard to say. I wouldn't be suprised if he slept with kids but in a totally non-sexual sense (as in sharing a bed while unconscious). It's such a weird context and world he lives in that we can't infer based on normal patterns of behavior. Mokele

::looks at the local frat boys:: 2%? Seems a bit high. Then again, I guess chimps haven't mastered binge-drinking yet. Mokele

Don't worry, though: I only just found out that wasn't right a few days ago. I doubt you'll find much: I don't think this info has been published yet. I learned it straight from the poor sods keeping them and the curator of the establishment. There were rumors before then, but everyone dismissed it until one of the keepers nearly became lunch. Well, the complex hearts of most reptiles and amphibians are specially suited to deliberately allowing "leakage" in one direction or the other, in order to shunt blood flow around the body to either regulate body temperature (in conjunction with behavioral thermoregulation, of course) or extend the duration of dives. Except that all fish have only 2 sets of paired appendages. All the other fins are single, and positioned along the dorsal or ventral midline. The only exception is that group of extinct fish I mentioned. Mokele

For aerobic exercise like running, in terms of what Sayo said, try pasta before you run (obviously not *right* before). It's a good source of complex carbs. Mokele

Dammit, I left the book in my office. I'll get it on monday, really!

Funny, I don't recall hearing about procedures to curl the troublesome antics of children by slicing off the most distal portion of their fingers, do you? Outside of organized crime, that is... Mokele