Mokele

Well, from what I know, for undergrad you do Chemistry or Biology with a concentration in pre-Pharm, but some schools may offer Pre-Pharm as it's own major. From there, AFAIK, you apply to Pharmacy School, which has *really* stringent requirements, like Med School. Sorry for the lack of details, I'm not actually in such a program myself, but I have friends who are. Mokele

Ok, I figure it's time to put a new twist on this, especially since it's applicable to my research. What about terminal animal experiments that aren't of medical use? Ones where the goal is simply to find out how the animal itself works; knowledge for the sake of knowledge. What would various people consider justifed? And, of course, there's the complicating factor that such pure knowledge might lead to beneficial applications, or it might not, and whether it will or not cannot be predicted from the intial experiments. How much sacrifce is pure knowledge worth? Mokele

An entire field, called Evolutionary Psychology (which is an outgrowth of E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" concept). There's plenty of profs in it, and I know someone who's actually going to do 2 chapters of their Ph.D. thesis in it (with the other two of cicada STDs). Mokele

Funny, we've been waiting for you to do just that. Mokele

A formerly alive, now dead englishman. Who shouldst play him in the movie, whether tis nobler to suffer mel gibson or to cast a Baldwin, and, by editing, make them look good. Blue paint. Mokele

At least 50 years ago, but they're an obscure african/arabian lineage, so don't feel bad. I didn't know about them until I met someone who owned one. Mokele

Wasn't that how we found Neptune in the first place? Mokele

Atractaspis bibronii and it's congenerics. They don't look like much, just little brown cylindrical burrowing snakes. However, they have the *weirdest* fang structure: instead of swinging in the dorsal-vental plane like vipers, they swing laterally. The snake never even opens its mouth; it just flicks the fangs out and swings it's head to the side. Their common name is "Stilleto snakes". Nobody can even agree what family to put them in, or if they belong in their own family. Yes, but the mexican ones (C. durrissus) become endothermic by a few degrees while digesting a meal. Rainbow boas? Those are native only to central and south america. Maybe you mean rubber boas or rosy boas? And ringnecks may actually be poisonous. Not venomous, poisonous, like they're toxic if you eat them. However, I'm not up to date with the work on that. Mokele

So how do you explain that twins reared *apart* are *far* more identical than even siblings raised together? Then your entire arguement is a fallacy of false dilema. Bad environment can *trigger* genes that would have otherwise never mattered, or accelerate or worse pre-existinge genetic factors. The foolishly simplistic notion of "nature *or* nurture" has long since been abandoned. Both play a role, and both genes and environment can interact, in a suprising number of ways. And evolution is do to what? Oh, that's right, *genes*. And what governs the development of you from a zygote into a human embryo then fetus? *Genes*. I hardly agree that it is overlooked, but even if it is, that's no excuse for going to the opposite extreme which is just as foolish and unsupportable. And how does the organism detect it's environment and process that information? Oh, that's right, with senory cells that are coded for by *genes*, and a neural system laid down according to *genes*. The neural system can change, but the overall form and instincts are in *genes*. Or perhaps you could offer an explanation of why a Queen snake fresh from the egg that is exposed to q-tips soaked in extracts of various organisms will only strike at the crayfish-soaked one? We're talking about *all* individuals in the species displaying the *same* reaction to a stimulus that occurs literally the moment they stick their nose out of their eggs. What other than genes can explain that? All oganisms have *some* level of genetic control over their behavior, and *some* level of environmental control. The levels of each, and the complexity of their interactions, often depends on the complexity of the organism. Environmental factors don't matter nearly as much as genes in a jellyfish, but in a human it's more complex. But to deny the influence of genes altogether, while using a body and brain those genes built for you, is foolish. Mokele

Scent. For a herbivorous herd animal, the scent of blood and alarm pheremones would likely trigger anxiety at the least. "Fearing for their life" is a bit much, given that, well, cows aren't exactly brilliant animals, but some sort of instinctual level of alarm, fear and unease as a purely biological/chemical response to scents is a very reasonable possibility. Proving some sort of advanced cognition about future possibilities and knowledge of death and what it entails is a lot harder, but, well, I'd argue that humans react to death and danger in similarly instinctive, programmed ways, so it's not all that difference. Not that I'm against using cows for food; quite the opposite. In fact, enough of the opposite that I'm tempted to actually look into the legalities of opening my own "Soylent Green" plant... Mokele

Some sterotypes exist for a *reason*. Having a stupid belief does not make them incapable of reason. Inability to have a reasoned discussion on the subject, and inability to make logical connections no matter how much coaching they are given, however, *does* make them incapable of reason, at least in this area. I've fought with these morons for a long while, and eventually I just got sick of wasting my time. *Every* creationist I've debated with has demonstrated the failings I noted above. That's not sterotyping, it's reasonable inference from extensive experience. Mokele

Could you clarify that, because it almost sounds like you're saying they have no self-preservation instincts, which I doubt is the correct reading. Mokele

Why get cremated anyway? It's so...boring. I plan to have my body dumped into the Grumeti river in Tanzania. Sure, cremation takes care of your earthly remains pretty fast, but so do dozens of 18-foot, 2000 lb crocodiles. Mokele

In yet other words, Useless creationist drivel, as always. Why do you even bother trying? Creationists are incapable of reason, and haven't come up with any legitimate points against evolution in almost 150 years of trying. To quote despair.com: "Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots." Mokele

In the US, it's fairly simple, but once you get into central mexico and go south from there, it gets a lot more complicated. Many of the coral-snake mimics are so identical that the only way to actually tell them apart is picking them up and counting scale rows. Given that some South American coral snakes can be 6 feet long, probably not a good idea. Also, many other deserts have an abundance of venomous species which are either burrowers (stilleto snake, etc) or have a habit of covering themselves in sand with only their eyes poking out. Those two, bead-sized eyes in the sand can be attached to a 4 foot, 30 lb puff adder with 2-inch fangs. Overall, the US west has it *very* light on venomous reptiles. Most other deserts of similar size have an abundance that are far less easy to avoid or identify. And then there's Australia, to which the answer is "Yes it is venomous" no matter what you're talking about. Including trees, sand, other people, and discarded candy wrappers. Mokele

Cross the human reproductive system with that of reptiles. No more looking after kids. No more long pregnancies. And, best of all, the female can *chose* when to get pregnant, and store sperm for up to 7 years. However, depending on what species is used for the source of genes, it might be a good idea not to get bitten by your kids... Mokele

Possibly, but maybe not (how's that for a cop-out?). The first thing that springs to mind is ancient Greece. Even though they still didn't think homoseuxal sex was as "good" as heterosexual sex, there was a certain level of openness about it, especially in males. I'm not sure what the attitude towards female homosexuality was, though. Maybe ignoring it, maybe looking down on it. I don't really know history that well, so I'll leave that open for someone else. Mokele

100 is average in IQ tests, always. That's how they're made: You make the test, administer it to a test group, and set the scores in the middle for 100. Makes it easier to remember. Mokele

Fallacy: arguement from tradition. Just because we have done something continuously in the past does not mean that we will continue to do so, nor does it mean we *should* continue to do so. Mokele

There's serious debate about whether re-introduction programs truly work. I'm not really up to date on it, something to do with low success rate (especially with mammals) when simply introduced, as opposed to when simply naturally expanding from their remaining habitat. Of course, in some cases, re-introduction is the only option, like when there is no native population left, but I just thought I'd point out that it's effectiveness in the long term is questioned by some. Mokele

Interesting sidenote: Ever notice how Kenyans always do so well at track and field events in the olympics? Turns out that many people from that area have a somehow altered metabolism that makes them up to 10% more efficient than normal. The study was controlled for environmental effects, too. Nobody knows *why*, but the effect is real. Mokele

Why don't we actually set a challenge for creationists that they can meet, even if it takes them a bit of effort? Like, say, being able to tie their shoelaces on their own? Mokele

The main problem I can see is that, while a gene is inactive, it is, obviously, not under selection. As such, mutations will accumulate in the gene, especially since there's no selection acting to remove those mutations. When the gene is finally "re-activated", it will likely be in a mutated form. If the mutations are all on introns, or are silent (like they don't change the actual amino acid being coded for or don't alter the overall protien structure), then the animal gets lucky and the gene is back. If not, well, it's still back, just not in way it was when it left. Iirc, these sorts of re-activations of old genes do happen, though. Mokele

I think you give him too much credit, Cadmus... Mokele

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that higher than the turnout in the US election that just passed? Mokele