Mokele

It's pretty simple: the Daily Show is a comedy program, which means it has jokes. Jokes, however, need to be set up - you need to give the audience enough background to get the joke (called "laying pipe" in writing). Unlike a *true* news show, where conveying information is the end goals, on TDS, news *is* conveyed, but only in the process of 'laying pipe' for the joke. The various omissions of TDS (parts of stories or whole stories) are due to this - they're giving you as much information as you need to get the joke, rather than as much as you need to thoroughly understand the subject, then moving on to the next joke. Because TDS goes for somewhat smart humor (in terms of minimal reliance on fart jokes), a fair bit of pipe has to be laid, and thus a fair bit of information conveyed. But, as Stewart himself said, "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls!" It's all about the jokes.

If CD is humane for any rodent, why wouldn't it be for all of them unless it were an issue of being able to do it properly (and possibly without injury to the human handler)? I'd suspect difficulty simply from personal experience. Anyhow, as I said, this wasn't in a laboratory setting, and CD is pretty humane compared to python constriction (and *very* humane compared to what large monitor lizards do to their prey). I'm pretty sure it's the USDA that regulates them, though I don't know when it started - I've only had to deal with them for 6 years or so. I poked around the website and couldn't find much. I do know that they're now regulated - I've got to go to training, we've got IACUC numbers on all the cages (even captive-bred herps and fish). I even remember my MS adviser complaining because he had to fill out paperwork in order to feed goldfish to the lungfish.

I'm pretty sure we can't, but I don't know of any other specifically allometric brain data that's at or near the cellular level. I'm aware of lots of stuff about counting neurons in, say, the hippocampus of a bird that has to remember where stored food is vs one that doesn't, but you can't really get size stuff from that.

Within mammals, brain size is pretty well determined by body size, though there are exceptions. The nerves going to and from the limbs etc. *do* change size - smaller animals have smaller diameter neurons, though it's not a simple linear relationship. I saw a talk on this a few months ago, and the paper should be out vaguely soon-ish.

Look into genetic counseling. They should be able to do tests and determine risk factors.

I've used it on rats (up to 1 lb in weight) and I've seen it used in rabbits with 100% success, but not in a laboratory (for snake food). The method is pretty much the same for rats (but with a larger blunt object), though rabbits require a much more difficult method (pulling back on the rear legs while holding the neck tightly). IIRC, they fall under the scope of one of the dozen or so oversight agencies that go through IACUC, but I forget which one. At the end of the day, I know you have to fill out IACUC paperwork for every procedure and species.

Five toes is the basal condition for all *extant* tetrapods, but certainly not all tetrapods including extinct spcies. Back when vertebrates first crawled onto land, they had a wide variety of toe numbers, in some cases more than a dozen on each foot. Eventually, a five-toed form gave rise to all extant vertebrates, probably simply due to it coincidentally having some other trait which actually mattered. The basal condition is pretty much "lizard" - a head, a tail, and 4 limbs with 5 toes each. From there, things have diverged, and we're actually very odd creatures in comparison to most other tetrapods.

Yes, but because we're mammals, low oxygen is much more of an immediate problem for us, and much more distressing. We run out of O2 long before we encounter excess CO2.

Toasty, lack of oxygen =/= high CO2. The former is much, much more distressing than the latter. Mr. Skeptic - nitrogen would be the same as depriving of O2, resulting in the same suffocation sensation. Excess CO2 is somewhat milder. Is it perfect, no, but when you can't use more potent chemicals like anaesthetics, it works quite well. Personally, I'm a fan of cervical dislocation, but that takes practice and is a lot more time-intensive.

Minor technical note - there is some dispute about whether this process is humane for ectotherms, which can hold their breath for long periods (24+ hours in some turtles) and for which CO2 buildup is a more pressing physiological issue than O2 loss. However, their differing physiology also makes alternative means of anaesthesia and euthanasia possible, some of which are even simpler and more effective (especially those absorbed via the gills and permeable skin of fish and amphibians).

I dunno, given the fact that we actually find giant logs and such made of coal, with dead animals inside, I find the abiogenic idea rather farfetched.

That the hands/feet and the body have the same number of immediate branches is nothing more than coincidence. Consider how many organisms have less than 5 digits, or have lost one or both pairs of limbs. The genes and embryology behind them are different too. So basically, yes, it's a coincidence.

Another point to consider: humans have only been around 500k years, but our ancestors were around for MUCH longer, and showing large brains since well before we showed up. Primates diverged very early in the fossil record (just after the KT event), and it wasn't long before brains got bigger. Monkeys (which have noticeably big brains) are known from 40 million years of fossils, apes from almost 20 million years. Now, of course, it's possible that things just didn't fossilize, but all things considered, you'd expect there to be more "intermediates" in the record.

The problem is the word "dinosaurs" That's like saying "Mammals are civilized, intelligent beings which build cities". There *were* dinosaurs with grasping hands and increased brain size, but this was only one lineage out of many dozens. Even if one of the small theropods had become truly intelligent, that still leaves a planet full of hulking brutes with less brains than a pigeon. Also, the whole "raptors were smart" thing - their brains were about the size of an ostrich brain relative to their body size. I don't know if you've ever dealt with rattite birds, but folks I know who have say they're just about the stupidest things short of sheep. Hell, the whole "pack hunting" thing is, IIRC, based on a single fossil which may have just been an assembly of solitary animals around a carcass.

So a resting body on the ground is always pulling 1g?

Ok, simple question: Say I'm standing on the ground on Earth. I'm not moving, so I'm pushing down on the ground with a force of my mass * 9.81 m/s2. Now, I jump straight up, and in doing so, I push on the ground with twice that force. Thus, I should accelerate upwards are 9.81 m/s2. Would I say I'm "pulling 1 G" (based on my acceleration) or "pulling 2 Gs" (based on the force on the ground, including the portion supporting my body weight)?

Not all bias is equal. The "liberal biased" news sources are *barely* liberal at all*, and their bias is minuscule in comparison to Fox. The "liberal" stations will not openly ignore facts, lie, etc to promote their agenda, as Fox will. Complaining that we're picking on Fox is like getting pulled over for going 175 mph on the interstate and telling the cop you shouldn't be ticketed because someone going the other way was doing 66 mph. * - I use "liberal" in quotes, because none of the networks are liberal, nor any of the parties. We have two parties in the US - far right extremists and center-right. Actual, real liberalism would make most American's heads explode.

The stupid, it burns!

Lymph nodes are like rest stops on the highway - white blood cells and accumulate there and wait rather than being transported by the lymph.

Those traits are necessary, but not sufficient. After all, if that's all that's needed, then anyone capable of logical thought on their subject of choice, whether that be chemistry or Star Trek episodes, is "a scientist". Of course, it's a pretty sticky proposition determining when in one's career they become a scientist. After getting a bachelor's degree? PhD? Your first paper? Your first paper where you're lead author? The first Nature/Science paper? The first project that's entirely your concept/idea? When you have a faculty job? When you have a tenure-track job? When you get tenure? When you get a grant? When you get an R01 grant? When you accumulate $1 million in lifetime grant funding? Your first invited talk?

What proof do any of them have that these bacteria high in the atmosphere are not terrestrial? I'm sure there's a vague statement that the layers don't mix that far up, but how do we know *that*. We need to actually *check*. Retrieve them, see if they grow, see if they're just common Earth bacteria. IMHO, panspermia is a load of speculation, unsupported by any real evidence, guilty of ignoring fundamental problems with its claims, and of no significant benefit to our understanding of the origin of life (since, after all, it must have started *somewhere*).

It doesn't. Look at the way the book is written - it's probably either from 1850 or a reprint from that time. It's worth noting that books are not peer-reviewed sources - any moron can claim anything in a book.

Y'know, I'm as far-left as it gets without using the word "comrade" is daily conversation, and I also think it's a load. First they give it to Gore for a powerpoint (as opposed to, say, the actual scientists who've worked on GW), now to Obama before he's really even accomplished that much?

Plenty are. The top-tier journal in my field releases all papers, absolutely free, after 6 months. Many other journals do similarly. That's actually good, as the quality of scientific writing is a valid topic, and it's a way to get people to learn to be clear. I've actually never been in a paper discussion group that *doesn't* turn into "pick apart every flaw in this paper". Given that, it's hard to see anyone wanting to 'advertise'. I've considered suggesting this before, but I don't have the time to run it right now, and I'm not sure of the interest level.

So you seriously don't have a problem with deciding what a translation should say, then making it say that? Or with their over-the-top paranoia about "liberal influence", to the point they consider "fellow" to be a loaded, liberal term? I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this, by any means, just that they should be laughed at for it, as it's obvious not a single one of them has the IQ of a piece of cheese.