Mokele

Ok, there's just way too much stuff to respond to line-by-line, but I'll hit some of the big points, and try to explain myself a bit better. First, there is no "5000 year old definition of marriage". Back then, you were basically purchasing a female slave. And frequently, you could,purchase *several*. Romantic love as a basis didn't even enter the picture until the middle ages. Divorce was unknown until the 1500s. The idea of women even having a say didn't crop up until the 1700s, and that a minimal power at best. Interracial marriage was universally forbidden (and illegal in the US) until the 1960's. So that entire argument is bullshit. So is the argument that allowing gay marriage *forces* others to recognize it. You're free to treat gay couples with as much disdain as you want, as you are women, blacks, jews, etc. But you cannot legally discriminate or take actions that deprive them of their rights. Remember, all of civilization is built on a single principle - we trade freedoms and agree to rules in exchange for the benefits of cooperation and assurance that others will also live by those rules. If you systematically deny any group fully legal rights, you are taking not just their "rights", but the very benefits that make the whole 'civilization' thing even worth it in the first place. Finally, this is not Magic Libertarian Fairy Land where the God of The Free Market will instantly change everything to make it perfect forever. You want to work towards your long term goal, fine. But TIME DOES MATTER, because time=suffering. Every year we delay is more needless suffering. How will allowing gay marriage impede your goals, anyway? It won't. All it will do is allow a group of people to have basic human rights NOW, and you can sort it out later when you finally get your wished-for world (which, IMHO, will be *never*). Back to the subject at hand, the reason "people like me" are making a fuss about this is simple - we don't believe we should be forced to 'make do' and 'sit quietly and behave'. We have every right to hold our suffering in the faces of those who oppose us and demand they account for themselves. There is a time for dialog and discourse, and a time for compromise. But being willing to compromise does NOT mean turning a blind eye to someone's faults, nor does it mean avoiding those faults like a fart in the elevator that nobody wants to own up to. Warren should not be given a pass on his homophobia just because he's done other good things. This goes for Obama too - nobody has forgotten his willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pyxie, and he's been repeatedly questioned about it by the gay community. And finally, there is NO "philosophical difference". There is no justification, no rationale against gay marriage which does not, under scrutiny, end up with "gays are icky" (general opposition to marriage on libertarian terms is a different matter). Hidden in the cloak of religion or not, it's always the same, and it's always hatred. Find me any example to the contrary if you can, but I guarantee you won't. Mokele

Tom, your definition stretches the term to the point of meaninglessness. Do you think everyone who takes biology in high school is a biologist, since they study science? Anyone who calls themselves a scientist is one? How much studying is enough? A year? 5? 10? 40? And how much understanding - studying can mean just wrote memorization without deeper knowledge? There is no point at which suddenly someone is able to say "I am a scientist", no rigid qualification. But, like many things in life, people know it when they see it, and mere studying isn't enough. More importantly, saying "I'm a scientist" is usually a futile attempt to pull authority, real or imagined. I've known LOTS of scientists, including leaders in their fields. But none of them have ever said "I'm a scientist" in an argument. They all simply argue based on facts, logic, etc. If you have enough facts, and your arguments are sound, it shouldn't even matter if you are a scientist or not. I have plenty of friends in the reptile-keeping world who aren't scientists and don't call themselves such, but whose opinion and knowledge I deeply value (one, in particular, I've trusted with my life in the way you only can in the presence of an unrestrained black mamba). The point is, calling yourself a scientist isn't worth much, and isn't really applicable - if your arguments can't stand on their own merits and data, your status is irrelevant. Mokele

Not to be harsh, but simply studying a subject does not make you a scientist. I've studied animals, reptiles in particular, for many, many years - basically since I could read. But I was not a scientist then. When I became a biology major, I still wasn't a scientist. When I *graduated*, that didn't make me a scientist. The daily slog of doing experiments didn't make me a scientist. What made me a scientist, why I feel I can apply the term to myself, was when my mode of thinking *truly* began to work in hypothesis-testing mode. At that point, I began to really think as a scientist, and make my contributions to the field. It's also a bit of a loaded term - saying "I'm a scientist!" often seems a little over the top, a bit like grandstanding. I'm currently in the bio dept. of an Ivy-league school and I've never heard someone use "scientist" self-referentially - most people will say "I'm a doctoral student/post-doc/researcher/professor." Even "I'm a biologist/entomologist/botanist" is more common. Somehow "scientist" sounds pretentious, even to real scientists. Mokele

It'd have to involve the brain - the muscles involved in blinking are innervated by a different cranial nerve from those associated with sensing contact with the eye, so the signal would have to pass through the brain.

The problem is twofold. First and foremost, any new idea someone has, revolutionary or not, must fit the known facts. A new idea that's blatantly contradicted by known evidence (not theory, but rather observations and experimental results) should be rejected. If, to use something from my own field, I claim that snakes are actually mammals, my claim could be immediately rejected by the many facts which flatly contradict it. Second, there's the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For instance, if I make the claim that king cobras display the level of intelligence we'd expect from a cat, I cannot back that up with a citation, but it's not a particularly wild claim, either - plenty of keeper anecdotes back it up, they're predators in a complex habitat with variable prey and moderately complex social behavior, and animals with much smaller brains (octopi) have demonstrated much greater intelligence. If, on the other hand, I claim that there is a snake in the amazon that's 2000 feet long and as smart as a human, that claim is clearly extraordinary, and would be rightly disbelieved without evidence. If you claim to upend an important theory, such as evolution or relativity, be prepared to be greeted with skepticism, and have evidence to back up your claims. This is actually how science works - if I stand up at a conference and suggest something new, people will immediately try to see if it fits with known facts, or if it's a a reasonable possibility. If they think it's good, they'll say "That's an interesting idea", but then the onus is on me to actually go out and do the experiment. Obviously, doing a professional-level experiment is beyond most people's means, mostly in terms of finance (even cheap experiments in my field cost thousands of dollars, and the apparatus I'm using now costs $250k), but at the least you can ensure your idea is at least a) a reasonable possibility and b) in agreement with known facts. Remember, the ultimate test of whether an idea is reasonable or not is that there is a defined set of events or evidence which will disprove it. If you can say "I will abandon this idea if I can see the following evidence", that's a hallmark of rationality. It's not easy, but good science isn't easy. Mokele

Same thing. "I'm not against black people, I just don't think they should have their freedom!" So does the KKK. Then he's a moron, too. My position doesn't deny anything to anyone. Don't want to marry a person of the same sex? Fine! Want to marry them? Great! His position is the one that restricts behavior and rights, not mine. Mine gives rights, to EVERYONE. Here's a SHORT list. The actual list has 1042 items at last tally. # The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship. # The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents. # The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. # The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. # The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. # Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. # The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. # The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job Since when is steel tariffs about basic human rights? Yeah, telling people off and making a spectacle never works. Rosa Parks, all those sit-ins and marches of the 60's, those never accomplished anything. These people need to see that this is NOT some academic, political issue. They need to see that REAL PEOPLE are being hurt by this. They need to see that their friends, neighbors, co-workers, parents, children, bosses, and employees are being hurt by this. "Stop making a fuss" has been a line used to silence advocates of minority rights since the concept even existed. And it's never worked. And what if hospital policy is "only immediate family outside of visiting hours"? If you're just their partner of 20 years, but cannot get married, you're not on that list, cannot challenge it, and could be arrested for trespassing if you defy it. Even if you're straight and unmarried, the 'common law marriage' comes into effect, and you get in. By denying marriage, the government allows any law or rule which has special conditions for marriage to discriminate against gay couples. It may be "just a word", but that word is used in many, many laws and rules. His stance on Prop. 8 makes his character worthless, period. Are you honestly saying that there even IS a middle ground with a group whose ideals are diametrically opposed to the very concepts of freedom and equality this nation was founded upon? Some groups simply are contrary to every concept this country stands for. Neo-Nazis and the American Taliban both fall into this category. How am I creating prejudice? I'm not suggesting denying anyone rights, I'm suggesting they be called out for their reprehensible views. I'm not suggesting we throw Warren in jail, I'm suggesting that Obama change his pick because Warren is diametrically opposed to the fundamental basis of the very Constitution Obama is going to swear to uphold. Neither have ever worked on an appreciable scale. Show me any example. People react mostly out of emotion, not logic. The academic discourse on why black people should get equal rights had far less impact than the TV images of people getting sprayed with firehoses or beaten by police. MLK's speeches didn't contain cold, logical, reasoned arguments, they contained emotional appeals to a sense of equality. Gay rights has not been advanced by cold logic. It was advanced by the Stonewall riots, where we said "we are not taking this shit anymore". It was advanced thousands of gay men and women standing up to be counted, and refusing to live a lie. It was advanced by people hearing about the crimes against these people, looking at their own gay friends or kids, and realizing it could happen to them too. Rights are gained by winning people's hearts, because, as Warren clearly demonstrates, most people don't even use their minds. How is anything I've said hypocritical? All I've advocated is calling people out on their bigotry, nothing more. And funny, but it seems as if the tactics I've endorsed are working, considering we've gone from gay marriage being a ridiculous non-issue to being supported by well over a third of the country in less than 30 years. Studies have shown the strongest predictor of support for gay rights isn't what political pundits someone listens to, but whether they know any out gay people, and how close those people are. Once they see real people being really affected, they see the hate for what it is. Mokele I would like to note that this one is not merely academic. Right now, my wife is going through the process of immigrating to the US, a process made MUCH easier by the fact that we're married. It has not escaped the attention of either of us that, if this were a gay relationship, our love, which we treasure above all else, would have withered and died of the ocean between us, because *without* this spousal immigration, it would have been impossible for either of us to be with the other. The most precious love in my life has been saved merely by the fluke chance that we have different genitals. The mere possibility that a similar couple who just happen to have the same genitals would be denied and would break up as a result is a potent reminder to us of the cost of these laws. So stop before you reply again and actually *think*. Think about how these "trivial" laws actually affect people, think of the human cost, and put yourself in their shoes. This is not academic. This is peoples lives. Mokele

The skeletal system has no motile properties whatsoever - it cannot move unless acted upon by an outside force, like muscles. It is technically metabolically active, as cells within the bone with deposit or release calcium into the blood to regulate blood calcium levels and buffer pH, as well as constantly dissolving and redepositing bone to both heal (either breaks or minor, microscopic stress fractures) and respond to loads (strongly loaded bone, such as a pro tennis player's dominant arm bones, will hypertrophy). And yes, there are nerves, but they only go to the surface layer of membrane around the bone, called periosteum, not into the bone itself, and they're purely sensory. It's actually the disruption of this membrane that hurts, not the break. So, ultra-short version: 1) Yes, bone is mechanically passive 2) Sensory nerves surround bones, but none actually go in, nor are there motor nerves. Mokele

Bullshit. That's like saying "I'm not a racist, because I gave my slaves plenty of food!" He actively and openly worked to deny people their rights, period. If you think that's 'classy', you need to seriously rethink your social standards. Denying people their basic human rights IS personal. This isn't about steel tariffs or income tax, it's about unjust laws that inflict suffering and deny the rights of people for absolutely no good reason. Tell me how being denied a chance to visit your dying partner of 20 years ISN'T 'personal'. How being evicted from your apartment because of who you are ISN'T personal. Discrimination IS PERSONAL, period. That you try to make it into an abstract political cause simply shows your total lack of understanding of the issue, and especially shows that you have zero actual experience with it, direct or indirect. So, by your logic, you would support Obama inviting a Neo-Nazi to speak at inauguration? After all, hate is hate. Godwined. Time to close this rampant example of hetero-privilege. Mokele

Since when is basic human rights a "special interest group"? Warren is a bigot, and should be treated as such.

Yeah, because a childhood of constant mockery, social isolation, frequent beatings at the hands of any and every bully, and total rejection by civilized society can all be fixed by just changing his name. Intentionally inflicting psychological trauma on a child - it's all harmless fun!

You know, I can't grasp how many people are willing to say "the parents have the right to name their kids this", while completely ignoring the many, MANY problems this will cause the kid. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he shoots himself before he's 15. Your rights to do what you want end when causing massive psychological trauma that will mentally cripple a kid for life. This is child abuse, pure and simple.

Energy is limited. Time is limited. I (and everyone else) have a finite amount of time in the day. Why should I spend that time and energy on something that will never work, when I could actually help people?

Sure, they can go ahead. Though I do have some reservations on incest, mostly because of harm to the kids (which opens thornier issues, such as whether it should be illegal to drink or use drugs during pregnancy). Remember, you're talking to someone who was in a long-term polyamorous relationship. But given that it has zero feasability, why are we wasting so much space and energy on it? Shouldn't we just say "yes, yes, that would be nice, but lets get back to actually working towards equality" and hear no more about it. Mokele

Wind isn't without major problems, though. Apparently, wind turbines are killing loads of bats, which will eventually disrupt the ecosystem (they're truly prodigious consumers of insects).

It depends. Some reflexes, such as the patellar reflex or pulling back from a burnt finger, are spinal, involving no brain input whatsoever. Other reflexes, such as the optomotor reflex (where the eyes will stay fixed in inertia space if the body is moved by an external force), involve the brain strongly. Mokele

Interesting, I didn't know about the quantum tunneling effects in proteins. Perhaps I should clarify: what I meant was, while obviously quantum mechanics determine things like reactions and whatnot, there's a LOT of garbage floated about 'connecting your brain to the quantum foam' and other such hogwash, and that when considering the possibility of quantum effects, to remember that cells can be HUGE, and contain billions of atoms, so in the end, things tend to average out. To re-enforce "huge", consider the squid giant axon (not giant squid axon) - it's a single nerve which has informed us about a great deal of neurobiology, and was chosen because this *single axon* is so huge it's visible to the naked eye. Muscles are even bigger. You know the stringy sort of texture of chicken meat? Those fibers are *individual muscle cells*. And most intact muscles are similar - you can often see individual cells with the naked eye. Obviously, some cells are smaller, and in the case of sperm, a LOT smaller, but from the quantum perspective, they're still HUGE. Sorry to harp on like this, but a pet peeve of mine is that intro to biology classes just say that "cells are tiny", but don't really go into detai about how big or small they are or the range of sizes. Same thing with chemistry. As a result, students just lump electrons and cells together in the "very tiny" category, without realizing that the difference in size between a modest-sized cell and an atom is like the difference between a large sports stadium and a gnat. Mokele

IIRC, there's a strain of cancer cells, called HeLa, which were cultured in the 1950's and are still going strong. They appear to be completely immortal and capable of surviving indefinitely outside of a human body if given basic culture media. Some people have even suggested calling them a new species, though that's contentious. Mokele

Xrays don't actually 'color' anything - if you've seen images with color, the color has been added afterwards via image processing to make things prettier. Basically, X-rays are absorbed by materials depending mostly on density. Air isn't very dense, so X-rays go right through. Fat is more dense, so absorbs more, water even denser, bone even more, and finally metal. However, it's also about the *amount* of material. A friend of mine is currently doing an experiment on fish feeding using X-ray video, and the problem is that he can't feed them in a normal tank, because there's just too much water in the way of the beam, and so all the x-rays get absorbed. As a result, he has to make specially designed tanks with a very thin "feeding area" and train the fish to eat in there. So basically, matter stops x-rays, and if you want to shield something, you either need a lot of matter (thick layer of water) or dense matter (thin layer of metal). Mokele

I should note that in my field, I can immediately call to mind two papers written by statisticians who basically said "You're doing your math wrong", and far from being repressed or rjected, these papers were published in top-tier journals, given space beyond the usual for those journals, and are required reading in every biology graduate program (and many of the better undergrad programs). Mokele

How is modifying every single aspect of one body *easier* than moving a single organ to a new body? None of this is possible today, so we have no way of assessing the actual difficulties involved, but in general, one procedure is easier than 200. I think you're seriously underestimating the level of modification birds have undergone. Have you ever dissected one? They're all air. Mokele

I've actually had some discussions with 'philosophers of science' and one thing that limits the usefulness of their analysis to broad strokes is that they don't really get the 'nitty gritty' of science. They understand the general issues, but, especially in complex topics like biology, they can't wrap their heads around all the tiny details and problems (how do you do true repeated tests when every animal is different? How do you account for past events you have no way of detecting but which influence your experiment? How do you deal with animals learning during the test? How do you deal with the non-independence of individuals, since they're all related at some level? What about testing hypotheses about extinct species? Etc.) Basically, there's a tendency within science to see "philosophers of science" as "armchair generals" who don't actually understand what's involved with actually getting your hands dirty.

All of this "quantum biology" crap is just that - crap. Quantum effects occur on a very small scale, far, far below where biological systems operate. Any biological system or activity involves so many molecules as to make quantum effects meaningless. Think of it this way: a coin flip is random. To simulate quantum effects on a single animal cell, throw 1,000,000,000,000,000 coins into the air, and see what the ratio of heads:tails is. I guarantee it'll be so close to 1:1 as makes no difference, especially since in an accurate simulation, you'd be tossing those same coins every millisecond. Remember, even individual neurons can be large enough to see with minimal magnification. Ones in the leg can have axons a meter long. That's a LOT of atoms. Mokele

As I've pointed out before on this forum, the idea of the government simply butting out of marriage is like the prospect of shitting gold nuggets - it'd be nice, but it's never, ever going to happen. Not in our political system. And even if it *could* happen, how long would it take? 50 years? 100? Can you honestly tell the millions of gay couples being denied their rights, "Sorry, but we'll have this fixed in about a lifetime or two. Just wait patiently." A solution which cannot be implemented is worthless.

What's the basis for your skepticism? I'm not being flip - skepticism without basis is just being contrary for it's own sake. For instance, I'm skeptical of many molecular phylogenies because I worry about long-branch attraction between long-separated modern taxa, taxon sampling effects, and molecular convergence. These are all legitimate, specific issues which particular, specific phylogenies may avoid, address, or account for. So, what specific aspect and problems are the basis for your skepticism? How do you determine whether these problems are an issue in any particular given model? Mokele

True, but limitations don't make them useless, and they definitely should not be dismissed entirely. Clearly, they have predictive value, especially for large-scale variables like average global temperature, even if they break down at smaller-resolution variables, like arctic sea-ice levels. Someone whose name I forget once said "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others." No model will ever be perfect, but they will improve over time, and many are specially tailored to particular issues. Basically, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - exercising caution about predictions is not the same as just disregarding them due to imperfections. Also, a climate scientist who gave a seminar I attended pointed out that for long term (100+ year) predictions, the biggest unknown is human behavior, with regards to everything from carbon output to simple population. Mokele