Mokele

Except that's probaly just an artefact of the number of people alive and in those areas, rather than actual severity. It's like how shark attacks have been on the rise for decades. The raw probability of any person getting attacked is the same or even less (now that many sharks are endangered), but so many more people go into the water than before that the net number of attacks is higher. Mokele

Nope, we just live in a more 'connected' world where we're more likely to hear about disasters far away. Any given time in history has floods, wars, earthquakes, etc.

Oh, and while we're here... From your very first post: I'd like to see proof of the latter, please. Where have you gotten your degrees from, in what, and, most importantly, what have you published and in what journals? Mokele

What you are stating here amounts to claiming that evolution can *ONLY* be brought in as an explanation is we *directly* witness it happening. This is flat out not so. I don't know what you've convinced yourself, but the most parsimonious explanation, and the *only* one that doesn't involve logical convolutions and evasions so complex they resemble politics more than science, for these similarities and their pattern is evolution. There simply is *no* other explanation that fits. These differences, and their pattern is *precisely* what we expect to see. You cannot simply ignore them. As inconvenient as the facts are, they are still facts. Claiming that such similarities can be discounted has *NO* basis in logic or science, and is merely a version of "Well maybe the world was created last tuesday, and all evidence of the past including our memories are fake". This claim is fallacious, worthless, and is nothing more than willful ignorance of the evidence because it doesn't suit your pre-determined conclusions. Use it again, and you'll be the first recipient of the brand-spanking-new "Persistent Fallacious Arguements" warning. I have given you the benefit of the doubt time and time again. That you resort to such cheap evasions of the massive body of evidence that contradicts you in order to perpetuate what is nothing more than an arguement from incredulity means you have officially used up your "benefit of the doubt" cards. This thread has been moved to psuedoscience, were it belongs, and where it shall remain until arguements are put forth that do not boil down to "Well, if you ignore hundreds of years of accumulated evidence, my idea has a leg to stand on." ::points to a chimpanzee genome:: We can and did answer it. End of story. Care to address why every single one shares the same codon translation then? Or the further massive similarities? Remember, saying "Similarities don't count" or other such bullshit will get an instant warning, so try to actually adress the evidence this time, rather than just sweeping it under the rug and hoping nobody will notice the enormous pile under said rug. ' So why do whales have a pelvis, then? and leg bones? Which, as I pointed out would mean their superior genes would always be selected for, preventing the evolution of genetic diversity that you seek to explain. And you still haven't explain why humans would just *happen* to evolve the exact same alleles as chimps. And even get *exactly* the same dead virus genomes stuck in *exactly* the same spot on their DNA. In fact, I notice you haven't actually responded to any of my posts or points directly. Anxious to avoid finding out how quickly your theory crumbles under the weight of actual evidence, once no longer supported by arguements from incredulity? Either show some damn backbone and actually deal with the evidence (rather than trying to dismiss it), or stop wasting our time. Oh, and as for references: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00295.x?cookieSet=1 http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001245?cookieSet=1 http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4203521 That's just a quick sample of the literature availible. Read all 3, especially the last one, before replying. Further sources can easily be found on Google scholar. Mokele

Then perhaps they need to re-evalutate their knowledge of god, to a form that isn't inconsistent with known facts. You mean the same way the head of geograph aggressively tries to convince you that the earth is round? There's no "convincing". It's a fact that some are too willfully ignorant to accept. Neither does it mention plate tectonics. Shall we crusade against the infidels of geology next? Mokele

Wow. Just wow. Congratulations Bascule, you have even further erroded what little faith in humanity I have left. Mokele

For the first two, there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support their reality. Every controled scientific test done on either failed to produce results beyond chance, or the "psychic" refused to be tested (wonder why). Time travel, there's no evidence of it happening. There's equations that say we could, but frankly, given that we *know* physics needs a major re-write (hence all this Theory of Everything hoopla), I take those with a grain of salt. Aliens, sure. Visiting us, again, no real evidence at all. Basically, science requires empirical results, tests and evidence to work, and without any of that, none of the above can really be considered science. Mokele

Just a couple of links to pics of my White Trumpet pitcher plants that I took earlier in the season. Now all the traps are so stuffed full of dead bugs they're almost falling over, the gluttonous tings. Two pitchers With my hand for scale The pitchers themselves stand about 18" above the soil surface. Exceptional individuals of the species can reach 3 feet tall. Mokele

Yes, with a strong caveat: I don't like the idea of a woman being put up to running for president simply as a political ploy, so that party could cast the others as sexist or somesuch. That's using her as a political pawn on account of her gender, which is exploitative and wrong in a whole different way. Mokele

This concept, in the absolute form described here, is pure sophistry, only used by people pretending to be deep in hopes of getting into easily impressed people's pants. The idea that some "social truths" are not absolute is correct (as we see norms and mores vary from culture to culture) but the "no truth at all" position is utter garbage. Mokele

We already have several threads on this topic.

"And God said, 'Yea, take this Turkey Baster and sperm donation clinic, be fruitful and multiply!' " True, but even with those, the mutation rate is quite low on a per-gene basis, and plus you have to factor in stuff like genetic drift, selection and other causes for loss of diversity. Perhaps I overstated a bit, but not by much; explaining modern genetic diversity entirely within human history and starting with only a single pair would be stretching probability pretty damn far. On top of that, there's another problem: If Adam and Eve were normal humans, the inbreeding and genetic drift would have doomed the species. If they were "geneticly perfect", then they had the best possible alleles, so any new allele created by mutation would have been eliminated by natural selection, thus actively eliminating diversity and preventing the possible origin of the diversity we see today. So option A is a genetic death sentence, and option B prevents any possible mechanism for generating the diversity we see today. The idea dies either way. Technically possible, but I suspect strong that, should we find the common ancestor for other genes or chromosomes, we'll find still more different dates, and at that point most of human history will have to be one long bottleneck to explain it. True, but remember that Adam and Eve's kids would have been so horrifly inbred that they would probably barely be able to think or survive, let alone compete. Just about all they'd be good for is playing country music. Because it's being presented as scientific, as bascule said, which it isn't. Mokele

Because you have't had enough time for your organs to become ireeparably damaged by oxygen if you get hit by a truck at age 25.

Monistat 7 and various other commerical yeast-infection treatements should do the trick.

Inbreeding is the most obvious reason why such a single-pair system would not work, but there are many others. First, on the inbreeding problem, it's not *just* inbreeding. Inbreeding makes organisms more homozygous, but doesn't actually alter gene frequencies of te population as a whole. Drift, on the other hand, does alter gene frequencies and does make animals more homozygous. In a tiny population, the level of drift would be astronomical; coupled with inbreeding, the population would be entirely homozygous at all loci within a handful of generations. Also note that drift and inbreeding are non-selective, so genetic diseases would not only appear, they'd become the only gene in town on account of drift overpowering selection. For a detailed and mathematical proof of this, look into population genetics, particularly the work of Sewall Wright. But don't use Ridley's textbook; he treats both together, and that makes it very confusing and hard to understand. However, there are numerous other problems. As swansont notes, evolution doesn't just start with a breeding pair. On top of that, the mutation rate cannot possibly account for current genetic diversity if only two humans were the ancestors. And let's not forget the copious fossils of hominids, hominins, members of genus Homo, and even early humans. And what of the fact that we *can* trace lineages of both the Y chromosome and the mitochondria, and while each have a common ancestor, neither lived at the same time. This kinda blows the "initial breeding pair" idea out of the water, doesn't it? The flat-out fact is that modern human genetic variation *cannot* be explained from a singl pair of humans, even if we give them the full 300,000 years of known history of our species. Another factor: Even if the inbreeding would have dissipated over time, how do the initial humans compete with two (or more) very non-inbred species, given the *massive* handicap they have? Homo erectus was a very viable species, and spread throughout much of the world prior to humans, thus would have provided a strong competitor against a tiny bad of geneticly inferior retards. And let's not forget Neanderthals, who were stronger, bigger, more cold-hardy, and had a bigger brain than us. Oh, and on top of that, why would these two individuals have flaws in their DNA shared with chimps and gorillas? See, sometimes viruses insert into the DNA but then don't work. As a result, they get passed on, genetic hichhikers. We've found many of these. Your hypothesis predicts there should be no commonality between humans and other apes. The fact is that not only is there commonality (with the *exact same* viri being in the *exact same* places), but that chimps share more of these with us that gorillas, who in turn share more with us than orangutans. This is *identical* to the pattern of evolutionar phylogenies determined from both anatomical and molcular data. ____________ Your proposition isn't science, it's grasping at straws to appease the religious groups in spite of the vast body of evidence showing the contrary. Is it possible? Sure. It's also *possible* that the Raelians are right and we were all put here by aliens. But there is not a scrap of evidence for either, and making an arguement for either requires an enormous amount of logistic contortions to avoid drawing the conclusion that is obviously more likely. So basically, what you have a slim possibility with no empirical supporting evidence, and that actually has evidence running counter to it. In legitimate science, when evidence directly contradicts your hypothesis, that means ith hypothesis is wrong and should be discarded. It's nice that you're offering the olive branch to these people, but you're clutcing at straws to do so. Many theological scholars have shown that a hominid origin of humans does not in any way contradict religion. Why not simply use their argements, rather than and unnecessary, wildly improbably and empirically contradicted appeasement? Mokele PS. "Hominds" technically refers to humans, our ancestors, and all great apes (I'm unsure if gibbons are included, but I think so), while "Hominins" refers to organisms more closely related to humans than any other ape, such as Australiopithecus and suchlike.

And what's wrong with that?

Tasty foods *were* good for you. High fat, high-sugar, high protien foods are great...for a nomadic savannah ape. All of these foods contain vital nutrients, and also allow the body to stockpile energy reserves for lean times, which, in the African Savannah, were more common than not. As a result, individuals with the drive to take great advantage of those resources when they were availible prospered more. However, evolution is slow, especially for big animals with long generation times, and the environment has changed drasticly in just a few hundred years. As a result, what was adaptive no longer is. The is the 'novelty' caveat in studying adaptations, namely that a trait may be currently maladaptive due to changes in the environment. Another good example is a tree in Australia with *huge* fruit; we're talking 50 lbs here. It cannot disperse, and it all just rots at the foot of the tree. The key in understanding this is to realize that, just a short time ago, Australia was populated by a variety of very large herbivores who could easily consume such fruit and would then spread the seeds in their dung. It's only become maladaptive since those giant herbivores died out. Mokele

One big sign of infection is scent. If a wound is developing a funny odor, it's probably infected. Of course, this isn't absolute, but it's a pretty good indicator. Mokele

And this couldn't be brought up in one of the *numerous* existing threads on the topic why?

Out of curiousity, how much power does the US consume? What fraction of the local and national power supply would this new facility supply?

You've made a simple process far to complex. Genetic mutations arise either because of environmental insult (radiation, carcinogens, etc) or a copying error. DNA copying protiens are accurate, but not *perfect*, and they screw up about 1 in a million time (more in particular instances like microsatelite repeats). There are no "quantum genetic changes" or any such thing. Just damage and copying errors. Mokele

And you believe that shit? If I scawl down some random doomsday prophecy, will you include me in your book? After all, it's just as reliable and accurate as anything else you've listed. Mokele

Well, not strictly 4, but they do have a very complex stomach that's subdivided into several distinct functional units.

The problem is that bufotoxin, as far as I understand, is less a toxin and more a name for a family of toxins. And my experience with the toads was purely incidental; they were an invasive pest at my research site. Why do you want to know?

Actually, no animal that I'm aware of has cellulase, which is why herbivores must have large, complex guts: in order to house the bacteria that *do* produce cellulase.