Mokele

What website?

Nope, because women in suits is all kinds of androgynous hawtness.

Is it just me, or is accepting a free USB of software from Microsoft like accepting a freebie from a hooker with a face full of herpes sores?

I think you assume too much reflexive hatred towards the US on their part. The origin of the problems in the Middle East isn't the US, it's Europe. It was European powers who took over most of the middle east and divided it up into countries with little or no regard for existing tribal and cultural boundaries, setting things up for endless hostilities. Since then, the era of heady European imperialism has vanished, and the US has become the new big western power, but from their point of view, it's all still Western society. ---------------- A more general theme I see from you in this thread is an attempt to use this 'dry spell' (whether it's real or illusory) as evidence of the efficacy of some of the Bush administration's methods. First and foremost, that's precisely the wrong way to examine the question; you should research the situation and causes *first*, then determine if the administration's actions have had a noticable effect. Second, it's impossible. In addition to the fact that none of us know all the details (as some are surely classified), there's a myriad of additional possible factors, many of which have been elucidated in this thread. Trying to figure out what is responsible for their lack of major US attacks is like trying to figure out which raindrop caused the flood. Third, as bascule pointed out, even if such a proof could be shown, the ends do not necessarily justify the means. Personally, I think the whole thing's pointless; the only people who could actually have a grasp of the factors governing al-Quaida's activity are those who have extensive access to classified information on the topic. And I'd lay good money that even if they did talk about it, the first words out of their mouth would be "Well, it's a combination of a lot of different things..." Mokele

The best site I know is http://www.talkorigins.org, which covers just about everything. Personally, in real debates, snappy comebacks are always great, just simple examples and concepts that will explain just how moronic whatever they said is. For instance, if they say something about lack of evidence for major morphological change over time, my reply would be "If that's so, then how did we manage to turn a wolf into a bug-eyed rat with parkinson's disease in less than 10,000 years of selective breeding?" It's short, and best of all, the audience can immediately picture the difference between a wolf and a chihuahua, and knows they're related. On the subject of audiences, try to make sure it's not a stacked house. They tend to pull crowds from church groups and the like, and if the entire house is creationist, they won't listen anyway. Also, I'd point out that while the details have changed, the objections creationists raise now are the same ones they raised 150 years ago, and if nobody was convinced then, why should we be convinced now with all the additional evidence of evolution? While it's tempting to go into details, it'll lose the audience, hence the short and simple replies. Random tidbit that always baffles them: If everything was created as is, why have we found mutant whales with *external* legs? (More details on that on the TO page). Basically, expect an audience that has the brains of a jellyfish. Simple, powerful examples will do more than details and sophistication. Mokele

Well, I'm finally back. Sorry for the absence, but King Ghidora, Gamera, and Mecha-Mokele all were giving me trouble at once in addition to my usual duties of leveling Tokyo. In all seriousness, it's just been an insanely busy couple of quarters, but thing are lightening up now, and in a few weeks I'll be totally done with classes, and can concentrate on my thesis. It looks like it's been quite busy here, and thanks to everyone who asked after me in my absence! Mokele

Just one, a 95 mercedes e320 with about 75k miles on it. Simply put, because they're the best car on the market. They're incredibly well designed (I've had this merc and a prior one for over 10 years now, and I've spent a mere $300 on mechanical troubles), very strong (I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the all-steel frame of my prior merc), suprisingly fuel-efficient (26 mpg highway), excellent capabilities, and used ones are dirt cheap because they last for freaking ever and just plain will not die. Something with a chauffer. I actually dislike driving, and avoid it whenever possible, due to the incredibly high risk of death. I casually grab 6 foot crocs, but I'm paranoid about vehicle accidents. It's one of the reasons I will never, ever have a vehicle with anything less than a superb safety rating. Mokele

I didn't go there, but I've visited because a couple of my ex's went there. It's got a great program, but it's incredibly isolated. I lived up there for a summer, and I could walk from one end of Houghton to the other in less than an hour. There's almost nothing up there. Plus, it's incredibly cold (-50F with wind chill sometimes), and because it's so surrounded by water, it gets Huge amounts of snow. The people are great, though, as is the local culture (check out the schools SCA club), which is good because you'll have no escape from them for months and months. Mokele

No, it isn't. What's the point of you opening a thread and asking questions if you won't *listen* to the answers you receive (unless you can twist them into providing support for your goal of labeling those you disagree with as hypocrites). Mokele

You seem to be convientiently ignoring the fact that horses and humans *breathe*, thereby putting CO2 into the atmosphere. When any animal moves, it burns fuel (sugars, fats, protiens), and produces CO2 at a level above it's resting rate. It's not a zero-sum game; there's literally no way to win unless you car runs on fusion. In fact, even then you're *still* a hypocrite! Why? Because merely by existing you pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere. So the only non-hypocritical thing to do is kill yourself. Except that'll give food to all the beetles and worms, who also breathe out CO2 (though they aren't as wasteful as mammals). Mokele

Could a person who travels by bus rag on SUV drivers? Why? Busses get crap in terms of miles per gallon. The key is the number of people. A bus might only get 5 mpg, but if it trasports 20 people, that's the equivalent of each of those people driving a 100 mpg car if they drove individually. Same thing with planes, just even more people. The actual miles-per-gallon isn't that great, but there's over 100 people on most decent-sized airplanes, sometimes over 200. As I mentioned earlier, that'd be like each of those people driving a 75 mpg car if they drove individually. It's carpooling, just in the air.

Definitely agreed, but I'm unsure if anyone (or at least anyone who's opinion is listened to in the scientific community dealing with this) actually holds a pure nature or pure nurture position anymore, which might make objecting to such positions a bit of a moot point.

Just because we haven't found any link between specific genes and intelligence doesn't mean none exists. In fact, I can easily prove that intelligence has at least some genetic factor to it, in only two steps: 1) the brain is a mass of cells formed and molded during embryonic development under biological control which can be chemically disrupted (think fetal alcohol syndrome). 2) Different species have vastly different intelligences and mental capabilities. Human intelligence overall is clearly primarily genetic. What's a more cogent phrasing of the question is "How much of the *variation* within human intelligence is genetic versus environmental?". On one hand, we know that environment does affect intelligence in a variety of ways. On the other, we have powerful a priori reasons to expect genetic variation in intelligence (if there was none, how could humans have evolved larger brain size and greater intelligence than other apes?). In all likelyhood, it's both. Genes can influence what environmental stimuli does to the brain, while environmental stimuli can affect what genes are expressed in cells (including in the brain). To dichotomize it as "nature *or* nurture" is overly simplistic; a more accuate view is "nature *and* nurture", with both contributing and interacting. Mokele

The best attitude to have is also one of the hardest, namely one containing some level of emotional detachment from the arguement and positions. Without a strong emotional investment in a side or arguement, you're less likely to resort to adhoms, strawmen, accusations, and baseless certainty, and more likely to acknowledge genuine points the other poster makes, acknowledge weaknesses if your own position, and possibly even change your mind or admit you've been wrong. After all, admiting the other side has points is fine, and we've *all* been wrong before; it's how we learn. I've learned more by getting my ideas demolished by my prof than any other method. The problem is that it's human nature to become emotionally attached to the points we argue, especially if it's something deeply important to us like religion or major social issues. This doesn't preclude good debating, but it does mean that sometimes it's best to take a step back, have a breather, and realize it's just an internet debate before things get too heated. The way I think of it is like the difference between a martial arts match and a bar-room brawl. In the latter, you find someone with a different POV or goal that conflicts with yours, get all emotionally worked up about it, and when you begin exchanging blows, there's no level of restraint or honor and it just gets worse as it goes on. In the former, you wind up in a contrary position to someone, but you realize it's just a match and they're not *really* your enemy, so the main emotion is a sort of friendly competitiveness, with restraint (because all I need to do is show I *can* hit him, since it's trivial to simply add force to that) and honor, to the point I actually tend to have a level of freindly banter in my matches, and both sides willingly say "good shot!". The result of these differences in motivation and emotional context show in the result: an ugly chaotic brawl versus a display of skill with it's own particular sense of beauty, style and order. The same can be said for debates. When emotions boil over, you get an ugly chaotic brawl full of ad homs and crappy references as each person is determined not to give an inch, while a good debate without the emotional baggage is much more civil, honorable, informative and entertaining. Of course, the ideal is rarely possible, because of human nature, but we *can* try to keep ourselves in check, and make sure we don't get too wound up or overwrought about the debate. Beyond that, it's mostly points of skill. Know when to let minor details pass in order to address the main point, and learn to figure out what points are main support of the author's POV versus extraneous additions. Not getting bogged down in the details of analogies which are meant to be purely explanative. Making sure you actually understand what the author is trying to convey (there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the caveat of "If I'm reading you correctly, you say *insert short version of what you think they were saying*". Disagree because you have a true problem with the point, not just for the sake of being contrary. Ecoli mentions phcatlantis/revprez, and I think there's a great example there. The individual clearly was intelligent, articulate, and had an interesting POV. But he also had a fundamental attitude towards the debate which tainted it, usually in the form of "I'm right and I will argue every single point to death until you admit it" coupled with a tendency to mis-read other's posts and strawman badly in order to attempt to get his desired victory. These were more subtle than we see in the usual troll who simply hurls insults and claims instant superiority, but fundamentally the same. What made the difference was motivation and the underlying approach to debate, which seeped through all of the skill to fundamentally poison the debate and turn it into a brawl. I think what helps most is the realization that the existence of someone who disagrees with you will not end the world, and they do not necessarily have to be made to see the error of their ways and the grandeur of yours. Furthermore, by keeping things as unemotional, civil and 'honorable' as possible, you actually become more convincing and seem more authoritative; the overall impression of most people is that if you really do have a point that stands up to scrutiny and has merit, you don't need to yell to make it heard. Mokele

Enitrely possible and likely; sexual selection is bound by context, and if the context changes such that "experienced" females are the most likely to reproduce, sexual selection will favor them. I don't know of any animal speces that select based on mate experience, but many will select larger females (thus capable of laying more eggs) who are older and thus had prior partners in past seasons. As for the conflict, cultural forces that make us, say, want blondes, produce sexual selection (in the strict sense of "differential success between genotypes at achieving fertilizations"). This new sexual selection regime may not gel with our prior one (in which case there will be ambiguity and conflict between instinct and social desire), and may not be to the species long-term benfit, but who's actually getting laid and reproducing is what's important. It's often hypothesized that a contributing factor to numerous social problems and oddities of human behavior is that we have a brain which evolved in the African savannah and which has suddenly (in an evolutionary timescale) been dumped into a totally different situation. Mokele

Except that this is blown out of the water by the fact that AFAIK all extant polygynous cultures place a high value of virginity, and certainly don't distribute the femals equitably for ensuring peace. There's also the problem than men will pursue additional matings even if 'given' a permanent mate, so this wouldn't do anything to stop conflict due to cheating. Not to mention that I'm not aware of a single culture which actually enforces anything like the equitable distribution of females, and even if it did, females vary in desirability, so you'd *still* have conflict. Also, why give them away young? If its equal mate distribution society wants, why not wait until they're 20? or 30? In a culture with a stable population, that shouldn't cause any shortfall at all, merely shifting who marries whom. Basically, you're having to stretch way too far to attribute this to culture or something other than simple sexual selection. Sexual selection explains why males desire virgins, youth, and physical indicators of fitness such as breast size and symetric faces in a nice, simple, consistent manner than fits the observed data. Mokele

And where did men get this idea that virgins are preferrable? How does that work? How is violence linked in any way to whether a female is a virgin? Logically, I'd expect the preference for virgins to *increase* violence, due to males competing for an artificially reduced number of mates. Well, sexual selection can act upon the rest of the body as well. But that doesn't mean it's not selecting for men with a preference for virgins. Both, in a sense. The particular situation is cultural, but it's actually been postulated that the need to deceive others and detect deception was a major factor driving the evolution of the human brain. As such, we've been selected to become quite good at it (and before noting the gullibility of some humans, compare it to that of other species, like dogs who'll run to get a non-existent ball you pretend to throw). I also don't see the two as isolated. Human evolution is what set the stage for our cultures to develop, and has influenced how they develop, but culture also defines the context in which selection (natural or sexual) must now act, and can thus influence selection. Mokele

Not a clue; all of my work and almost all of my education has focused on animals, so I'm nowhere near familiar enough with fungi or microorganisms to even venture a guess. A very weird part of me says: "Make it standard practice to name all microbial taxa in 133t. The highest level of classification will be the H/-\><0r." Mokele

But those are technically referred to as "parasitoids" (such as "parasitoid wasps and flies").

Well, one thing comes to mind, namely why bother with "species" for things which either don't have a gene pool (a hypothetical asexual organism which never exchanges DNA) or have such a broad one as to make attempts to define 'species' futile? Wouldn't it make more sense to recongize how different they are from the usual animal/plant model by calling them something distinct, rather than trying to force them into a term for which there is no analagous concept in their evolution? Mokele

Why not? Even flies and spiders demonstrate awareness of virginity and male preference for it. Sexual selection is a powerful force. If that were true, one would expect it to vary between cultures to a great degree, since it's essentially arbitrary. Instead, we see it as being prized in just about every culture, with the only exceptions being very modern and permissive societies like Sweden. Don't forget pheremones. Humans respond to them as well, and we're just beginning to figure them out. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a difference we can subconsciously detect via pheremones. Plus in a small tribe, it's *really* easy to keep track of who's sleeping with who. Early human social groups have been likened to soap operas, and I don't think that's far off (except with better acting and plots involving hungry leopards). Think about how quickly the sexual exploits of individuals become known in your (general you) group of friends. And where did these ideas come from? Is it just coincidence that these ideas are the most common around the globe, even in common between cultures long isolated from each other? What, that females will cheat and thereby endanger paternity? There's no 'belief about it; various genetic studies that have relied of family history for totally unrelated genes (like breast cancer genes) have turned up evidence than in the modern US up to 10% of kids aren't really the kids of the purported father. Actually, you see a range of variation supporting the biological origin of much of sexual behavior. Sexual dimorphism is greatest in gorillas, who monopolize entire harems, but least in chimps, where even "loser" males can sneak in enough copulations not to be totally devoid of descendants. The female choice aspect also vaires, from little in harem-based structures to very picky in more balanced groups (though the female may deliberately mate with many males in order to create confusion about the baby's paternity and thus reduce the risk of infanticide). Mokele

Well, from what I know, what was inside the bone was more likely just protien, such as collagen, though there might be remnants of blood cells. However, the probability of any actual DNA remaining is absolutely tiny. Protiens are more stable, and ones like collagen are especially so (since it is, after all, a structural protien). The possibility of cloning a dinosaur from any DNA we did find would be, to use an analogy of an LJ friend, like knitting a Lambourgini out of steel wool. Mokele

Off by quite a bit: we have stone-age sculptures of naked women and men, and also carved stone "toys". Well, it depends on the porn. I can see the possibility that there can be exploitative porn made (and there's probably quite a lot), but there's also porn made by companies where the health, safety, and well-being of the actors is primary. There's always some bad apples, but that doesn't negate the whole. It's all about the people involved, their comfort levels, and how they want a relationship to be. I'm in a monogamous relationship now, but that's not been the case for prior relationships. Mokele

Nope. In fact, I actually saw something about these recently, and they're all apparently plugs for a videogame.

Not really. AFAIK, DNA isn't very stable even within an organism's lifetime and with active metabolic effort to maintain it. Once the organism is dead, it decays fairly rapidly, and over 65 million years I doubt there's be even recognizable base-pairs left.