Mokele

I just happened across this website, and figured I should post it here for interest. As fair warning, if you are squeamish or have trouble with human cadavers or dissecting them, don't watch. http://www.anatomy.wisc.edu/courses/gross/ Personally, I found it fascinating, and it gives a much better look than in textbooks, since you can see how everything is interconnected. Mokele

Look, the logic is *not* that complex. Premise one: heritable variation exists. (obviously true) Premise two: some of this variation affects the ability of the organism to replicate and pass on that variation. (obviously true) Premise three: not all offspring survive (see malthus). So, if you have variants, and some make more copies of themselves than others, the relative proportions of the variants in the population will change. Simple as that. Attempting to define "fitness" in a way that doesn't inclue "surviving better" is flat out silly; it's like asking to define "morphology" without using "shape" or "form". Genetic variation can lead to variation in phenotype (bigger, faster, more toxic venom, more efficient digestion, higher sperm count, etc), which in turn leads to the organism producing more offspring relative to one which does not possess the trait, or who possesses an alternative form of the trait. However, that's really all superfluous. All you need to say is that in a population whose members vary in their total number of lifetime replications, the proportion of the variants in the population will change. You don't even need limited populations; if you've got two bacteria, one of which can replicate one every hour, and the other of which can replicate 5 times an hour, even if the populations grow without limit, the proportions will change. It all boils down to varying ability to replicate. Mokele

Am I the only one that suspects this entire thread was inspired by a Porno For Pyros song?

Actually, it is, for precisely the reason lucapsa said: geometric population increase. Since all animals have more offspring than are needed to replace them, yet we aren't knee-deep in cockroaches, we must conclude that not all of those offspring survive, ergo the stuggle for existence. Mokele

While some Furries claim that, the general trend is that you're a furry if you actively participate in the furry fandom and self-identify as such, kinda like how lotsa people like Harry Potter, but only the batshit-insane ones are part of the HP fandom. Mokele

Someone on a webcomic I read once said that people pick on furries for precisely the same reason they throw rocks at a beehive. I've had experience with members of the furry fandom, and there's a range, from normal folks who just like cartoon animals, to those who like them too much, to stuff that's so ****ed up I shudder in horror at the mere memory (seriously, yiff and fursuiting is *normal* compared to some of the widespread kinks in furry fandom). Mokele

I actually do the same thing, providing completely lucid responses even though I'm definitely asleep and remember none of it the next day.

His motivations were fine, but doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, especially when it's easy to find the facts, doesn't fly. By not using drugs, he hurt them *more*, and he knew that. This isn't PhD stuff; I know plenty of people who don't even have undergrad biology degrees, but keep crocodilians as pets, and *they* know this stuff. I don't think he was malicious. I think he was either ignorant (possibly willfuly) or just a show-off. Playing with fire's fine, if you know how. Just ask anyone in the chemistry forum. It's when people who don't know what they're doing try it that people get hurt. Mokele

Minimum size depends on a lot of things, such as the level of genetic variability of the initial group, whether the breeding is controlled or not, etc. If you can hand-pick your individuals, and pick who they mate with (like in species conservation programs for endangered animals), you can get by with a smaller population than you could if a population (possibly all somewhat related if it's a migrating clan/tribe) just shows up and breeds as they will. Mokele

Interesting, but I agree it's overclaiming to call it consciousness, and I'll wait for further tests (such as are described in the link) before I'm convinced.

Moral grey areas are the most fun. That's actually part of the background in my story; two characters, realizing they have the power to change the world, take drastically different paths (trying to build a tolerant utopia vs. socialist revolution). Neither is good or evil, just with different moral stances and priorities. Mokele

I did Taekwondo for many years, and practiced with a mixed group a few years ago, but I've done little since. I was known for using biomechanical principles to make a nuisance of myself. "Oh, they're doing a jump technique. That means they have no traction, so if I just give them a good shove, all that momentum will transfer to them and send them flying...." Mokele

If I had the choice, and could still do my work? Either Borneo or Papua/New Guinea. Both are great climates (tropical rainforest with mountains), both have plenty of carnivorous plants and reptiles. Sadly, I don't think there are any major research universities in either, plus PNG still has tribes that engage in cannibalism and headhunting. Mokele

First, I should say that Steve did do a lot to popularize reptiles, and show the more dangerous species as something more than just mindless killers. That said, his stunts crossed the line beyond 'showing off' and into 'insanely dangerous', and for no good reason. He never used snake hooks or tongs (an essential for handling venomous snakes), often deliberately harrassed the animal into giving a response, and repeatedly put his camera crew, wife, and associates at risk with his behavior. He never taped the mouths of crocodiles, and the reasoning he cited was just plain bullshit. The stunt with the kid in croc enclosure was, IMNSHO, child endangerment of the kind that justifies placing the kid in a foster home. I've worked with crocs, I know how fast they can be and how crafty; if something had happened, the kid would have been eaten in a heatbeat. The fact that he lived as long as he did is mostly due to having good reflexes, rather than any real skill. Then, the issue of the animals, and there's no two ways about this: Steve's handling methods were dangerous to the animals as well. The biggest issues, which he *repeatedly* did, were tailing vipers and not drugging crocs. Often, Steve would use tailing to control heavy-bodied ground vipers. While fine for the elapids he's used to, the spine of heavy vipers is *not* made to deal with this sort of stress. Every time he did that, he risked breaking the animal's back. One of the basics of reptilian biology is that they primarily rely on anaerobic metabolism for powerful or fast movement. This means they have little stamina, and quickly give up and wear out as the lactic acid builds up. However, in very large reptiles, especially crocodilians, the animal has so much muscle, and fights so tenaciously and for so long that the lactic acid level in the blood can quickly build up to lethal levels. Several large crocs that have been captured have died shortly thereafter for precisely this reason. This isn't obscure trivia; *every* croc handler knows this, and Steve himself has mentioned it. Yet, in spite of this, he refuses to drug the animals once they get on land, presumably because it would make a better show. I'm not saying he's a horrible person, but I'm not going to ignore his shoddy handling practices either. His heart was in the right place, but his methods should not be considered as anything but showboating which put himself, others, and the animals at risk. Mokele

According to Romanian legend, if your index and ring fingers are the same length, you're a werewolf.

I quite liked it; nicely original, a bit of Frankenstien mixed with a bit of Metropolis (the film, not the city). As far as contests, they could be good, if enough people participate, but maybe just a section for creative endeavors in general, where people can post stuff as they please. Mokele

It's basically just sound, but the prefix explains where the frequency lies relative to human hearing. Infrasound is below the frequency range we can hear, while ultrasound lies above it. Mokele

Do we have a "boring, irrelevant crap" subforum to move this too?

Hey, mine's accurate! Excuse me, I have to go kill a moth with a 500-foot wingspan....

While theologically legitimate, saying not to judge them is essentially saying you can never, ever call anyone else Christian. Shit, by that rule, I cannot claim that former Popes' political actions were influenced by their religion, since only God can know if they were Christian and it wasn't my place to judge. What we're interested in here isn't Hitler's soul; either it doesn't exist, or that's a matter for God, and either way it's not part of the discussion. What we *are* interested in is Hitler's behavior, which in turn was influenced by his faith (if he had any, hence the discussion). Even if he wasn't truly christian and did go to hell, that doesn't change whether his personal (warped) view of Christianity influenced his behavior. To analogize, whether or not God is real, you (Sev) believe in him, and that belief influences your actions. Regardless of whether your beliefs are right, if we're trying to understand you as a person and how you behave, we must take into account those beliefs. In summary, whether his beliefs were right or not, and whether or not he was a true christian, are irrelevant. He held some religious beliefs, and they influenced his behavior. From the behavioral standpoint, if not from the theological standpoint, he should be considered Christian, since that influence was present. Mokele

That skirts awfully close to "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The problem with the latter definition is not just that it can be used to make the statement "All Christians are good" as a tautology (since anyone who isn't doesn't fit the definition), but that it doesn't take into account the numerous ways of being Christian. Bill, Bob and Brian all consider themselves Christian, even by your latter definition. Bill is an enlightened modern guy in all major respects. Bob is the same, except that his church is very keen on the various Biblical passages concerning a wife submitting to her husband, and as such, he gives her practically no freedom or say in anything. Brian, on the other hand, isn't so keen on that, but is very keen on the passages that state the homsexuality is an abomination and gays should be put to death. All three practice some variant of Christianity, all can find support for their views in biblical passages, yet I suspect the latter two would not call Bill a true Christian, nor would he call them true Christians. And before you yell strawman, this is merely an example, and can be applied to all sorts of doctrinal differences between churches and individuals. What if Hitler truly did believe, and gave his heart to Jesus, but also held the belief that God wanted him to carry out his Final Solution? The problem with the latter of your two definitions is that it leaves open to interpretation whether a person lives and believes the right way, and, as is obvious, there's plenty of differences of opinion on that. In essence, it puts faith in the eye of the beholder, and the categorization of an individual as christian or non-christian becomes a mere matter of opinion that varies from person to person. IMHO, the person should be categorized by what they *say* they are, whether they live up to it or not, and whether their beliefs are necessarily congruent with the mainstream or not. After all, what we're after is the motivation for behavior. If Hitler thought of himself as christian (even if we wasn't a 'true christian'), then those beliefs he held would have had a role in influencing his behavior. It's like a serial killer who thinks God is telling him to kill all the midgets. He might not be a 'true christian', but there's no debate that his conception of christianity (insane though it is), influences his behavior. Mokele

Not as much as you'd think; reptiles are surprisingly fuel-efficient since they don't waste most of it heating their bodies. Several rabbits a week would probably be more than enough for an adult Megalania, especially since captive monitor lizards have an unfortunate tendency towards obesity. Mokele

Sure, that's what we're here for!

I think one factor that's fundamentally missing is the tone of the discussion. For istance, IMM and I have had several interesting and enlightening debates about veganism and related subjects, and clearly don't agree, yet we both discussed each other's underlying reasoning civilly and without offense. The difference is the tone. If I said "Veganism is deeply flawed and silly, and is just new-age fluff", she'd have every right to get pissed, since even though I'm free to criticise the philosophical stance, I'm not really doing so in a respectful, academic, productive way. In contrast, if I say "I strongly disagree with the reasoning by which veganism dismisses the philosophical schools which I feel lend strong support to animal testing", I'm still criticising the philosophical stance of veganism, but I'm not being flatly offensive and, more importantly, I'm doing so in a reasonable way that furthers dicussion. Now, let's try with Islam. Comape this: "Islam is an inherently violent and oppressive religion." to this: "Many Islamic traditions have stances on women's rights and violence which give me cause for concern, and the following Quaran passages illustrate my point." Both are critical of Islam as a religion. But one is offensive, trite, and contributes practically nothing to a discussion, while the other is a well-reasoned, level-headed approach to a sensitive topic that puts it in terms that will lead to productive and interesting discussion about whether and to what degree these issues are a genuine part of the Islamic faith and/or particular sects. Seriously, tone makes a *HUGE* difference. If you've got a point worth making, it's worth taking the time to express yourself in a tone that won't result in, well, crap like this. Mokele

Well, to be honest, I'd be less afraid of hunters getting them than smugglers finding a nest and 4 months later seeing an ad on the reptile forums I visit for "baby super-lizards". With all the idiotic things people keep, that wouldn't be a big jump. Mokele