Mokele

Eh, it won't last. They did this before, remember? And they *immediately* reversed the decision when, all of a sudden, for *some reason* colleges started treating Kansas applicants like they were plague carriers.

Dammit, on the first guess. I dunno precisely what species of whale it is, only that's it's definitely male. More info here, though the paper isn't out yet

This recent photo depicts what has been tentatively identified as the source of many sea serpent sightings. Let's see who can guess what it is. Mokele

Welcome back!

Well, so much for this thread. FYI, racist little shits are not welcome here.

Then type like a serious adult. You don't see scientific papers in big, colored, easy-to-read letters, do you?

You do realize that posting in big letters and colors makes us *less* likely to take you seriously, right?

Aubrey de Grey, see here.

The link is entirely in chinese, and thus unreadable to the vast majority of the people on this board. Furthermore, I have a strong suspicious I already know who you're talking about, and he's a loon. Mokele

As I just attempted to clarify, homework help is availible, but only at a conceptual level and only for scientific subjects.

Then ask the teacher for help. This site exists to help if you have a *conceptual*, *science-related* problem with your homework (such as just 'not getting' Mendelian inheritance), in which case we will explain the *concept* but not answer the problems for you. However, help with your english homework is not an appropriate or topical use of the site's resources (and besides, there are surely places on your campus specifically designed and created to help students who are having difficulties with Enlgish due to it not being their first language). Mokele

Somehow I don't think you're in much of a position to be giving orders to the guy with his finger over the "Ban" button.

What part of "We will not do your homework for you?" did you not understand?

Another useless thread of drivel. Learn something before making assinine claims.

To quote Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons (specifically in a Halloween special): "Fire, and lots of it!"

Perhaps it works differently in psychology, but in bio, it seems to be more like "reviewers get the first crack at it", and reviews include all the picky stuff like why the author used this versus that statistical method or why this model species and whether conclusions are supported enough, etc. Of course, that might just be specific to JEB and SICB, because some of the journals, even top-tier ones, in other fields have papers that make me go "how the **** did this get past peer review?" Mokele

Well, perfectability aside, a good dose of gene therapy with reptilian DNA would do this species good. After all, how much cooler would swimming be if you could hold your breath for 3 hours? Mokele

It's certainly very possible. I do recall that our pattern of hair is neotenic, so it's certainly possible that, rather than an adaptation, our comparative hairlessness is merely an evolutionary side-effect of a different adaptation. Mokel

A quick poke around the journals reveals that, while smoking has not been *definitely* shown to cause ED, there's a strong indirect evidence and ample theoretical reasons to expect such an effect a priori. I got news for you about that: You can't live with it, either. Seriously, just quit if you're so worried. It's the best thing you can do. Mokele

It means brother, yes. Interestingly, if you drop the last i, it means 'goblin'

From the court notes I've read of the case, that's a large part of what the prosecution is doing, and they're doing a very good job of it. They've basically made Behe look like a total idiot (not that hard), and trapped him into numerous admissions that are pretty damning. The other IDiot witnesses have been pretty thoroughly disassembled, and one was even force to admit perjury on stand. Mokele

Actually, the rate of new mutations appearing is pretty much constant regardless of population size; that's the basis behind the 'molecular clock' used in phylogenies. We actually did the math behind it in Evolution, and the terms for population size drop out of the equation. Basically, in small population, a mutation will be a bigger fraction of the total genepool, but in a large population there's more individuals to mutate. As for HIV, from what I understand it's simply evolving. In societies where there's a substantial time between sexual partners, those variants which take longer to become AIDS will be more likely to be transmitted than their less restrained brethren. However, they pay the price of having to remain 'dormant' longer. On the other hand, those variants in an environment with numerous potentials for transmission have no such pressure, and thus the fastest-reproducing virus wins. This has cumulated in the recent discovery of an HIV variant which is immune to 3 of the 4 drug cocktails and all but one of the nearly 20 anti-retroviral drugs, and goes from infection to full-blown AIDS in less than 6 months, iirc. It was found in NYC, and the health officials were pretty much shitting bricks over this, since it was in (as would be predicted from the above) and *extremely* sexually active individual (hundreds of sexual partners in that time frame). Mokele

Incorrect, and only because we falsely set up western religions as the "standard". Eastern religions are very much "religions", as my theology-major GF and any of her *numerous* eastern religion profs will testify to. So, back to the point, how can you claim "religion is bad" while ignoring eastern religions. That's like saying all US coins just have a picture of a president on them because you can't be bothered to look at the other side of the coin. Actually, what happened in Europe barely affected the development of astonomy in the Islamic world; there was no global "scientific community" at the time, thus each culture more or less did things on it's own. And how far would science have gotten if it weren't for the very prevalent European attitude of past centuries that studying the natural world was a way to gain insight into God? How far would modern science have come without the work of one particular monk with an odd fascination with pea plants? Like most things in life, religion has good and bad sides, and can be used for good and bad. Nuclear weapons. Introduced species as a "new" idea for controlling pests. DDT spraying. Need more? So what about honesty. It's pretty efficient to just make up things to justify your actions rather than actually using facts. Intellectual integrity is based on a moral/honor system, nothing more. Bullshit. The leadership caste clearly has authority, and with that comes the capacity to accumulate power. No caste system has even been equal. Look at India. That's not science, it's engineering. Science includes things that have no applicable point, such as my own work. And often, they useless bits of knowledge for knowledge's sake give rise to the greatest advances. But without the curiousity to examine the world beyond what makes things more efficient, we would never even think of these possibilities. False dichotomy. Just because I do not automatically support one unifed government does not mean that I don't think we can exist peacefully. Governments *can* learn to co-exist, you know. Help them be happy. Second, there is no "greater body of humanity". It's a fiction, something that doesn't really exist. Point to it. What color is it? What does it feel like, taste like? Nothing. "Humanity" is nothing but a collective term for a mass of individual humans. As such, you cannot help "humanity" with means that hurt humans, as you're damaging the individual unit and somehow hoping that this will bring good results to something which is solely defined as the total of the individual units. The best way to help humanity it by helping humans. What would be the point, though? You'd still have unmodified, free humans to contend with, and for all that effort, why not just make a race of robots who'd serve us and provide for us? It'd be simpler, more cost effective, and would sidestep all the messy human rights violations of your plan. First you denigrate it, then you seek to emulate it. Hypocracy, anyone? And how do you know that? How do you *know* they didn't have precisely the right genes and precisely the right environmental stimuli to arrive at the point to make these contributions? If that's the case, the sheer mathematical probability of someone else just happening to find it isn't too great. Yes, mindless. I'm completely aware of my desk, yet I have no emotions towards it, no curiousity about it, nothing. As such, I pay it no mind, and it doesn't enter my thoughts. Your idea would reduce humanity to just such a state. How about the fact that it's failed every time it was tried? How about the fact that it will *always* fail since it runs counter to basic human selfishness, our oldest and deepest instinct? Dictatorship or not, it *will* fail, simply because humans are *programmed* to compete with other humans and aquire more, always more. In fact, I'd argue that the dictatorships were the only thing keeping communist societies from disintigrating within a decade of their creation. It's a horribly flawed and worthless system, based on ideas of what humans should be like, rather what they *are* like. I disagree, I think we've just got a garden-variety troll. Mokele

While I agree with much of what has been said above, I cannot help but add a bit of input. Throughout much of my education, I've usually been the curve-breaker, the nerd, etc, but recently I actually wound up in a situation which was the reversal of that. Specifically, I was taking Japanese class, which was required for my degree, and which I couldn't switch out of without delaying my graduation, so I *had* to pass. I'm not very good with languages, especially not spoken, so this added up to a lot of stress and anxiety about my grades in that class; I worried more about Japanese than all of my biology classes, even the high-level, high-difficulty ones. One semester, we're joined by two students who'd lived in japan for a time, who could effortlessly answer any of the questions, and who could be heard occaisionally snickering when the rest of us made normal mistakes. Frankly, I wanted to throttle both of them. That someone could so easily do what I had such trouble with inspired nothing short of seething jealousy and resentment. Eventually they left, but I can only imagine the problem for students who are actually not terribly bright, feeling that way in every class, where they can never get it right and never answer a question without being painfully aware of how they're probably wrong and embarassing themselves. I can fully see how making lack of intelligence into a merit in their minds would even help them preserve their self esteem; I effectively did the same thing and still do by universally proclaiming that I'm bad at learning languages. Of course, the only way to maintain this attitud is to perpetually assure themselves that they really are better or just as good, often by asserting their dominance physically or verbally in an effort to bring high achievers back to their level. Of course, this doesn't really help the situation, but I do think that perhaps a level of thought should be given to the ones superficially revelling in their dumbness, rather than just assuming they need to either work harder or just shut up and be left behind. Personally, I favor highly divided classes, in which all the high-level students are together and all the low-level students together, to minimize this sort of thing (and also facilitate different speeds and intensities of coursework). Mokele

Yes, stop worrying about perfection. It's an unachievable abstract with no bearing on any aspect of the real world and *especially* little bearing on any biological reality. Now, I can think of plenty of things to *help* humanity (more equiable wealth distribution, better health care, eradication of prevantable diseases, basic sanitation for all, better education, improved birth control, etc), but none will make it perfect, and all can only actually help if we do it voluntarily. Imposing change from the outside and trying to force people to be what they're not only breeds revolution. Convincing people that they should voluntarily do something because it's right, however, can make lasting change for the better. However, even that is irrelevant. To quote H. L. Mencken: "That I lack a solution for all the troubles of the world is no reason for me to accept yours." Mokele