Ophiolite

Well, I wasn't expressing a view either way. I did say if and you. My wavering thoughts on the correct qm interpretation haven't collapsed into a particular conclusion yet. It seems a little unusual to characterise the observer viewpoint as selfish. If it happens to be the correct one, then it just is.

Very strange. You don't come across in your posts as one sided. Edit: More seriously, it sounds like you have a middle ear infection. Its reasonable that that would begin on one side and could then spread.

Radical Edward asked us back in April to consider the ethics of creating a human-chimp hybrid. It can be argued that an important basis for arriving at a conclusion on this would be the degree of relationship between chimp and man. Spaceman expressed the view that their is no relationship. I should like to clarify the nature of this belief. I am not sure, Spaceman, if you are arguing that: The evolutionary divergence is earlier in the primate line The divergence pre-dates the emergence of primates Man is a 'special' creation separate from primates and from other life Some other explanation If I can understand your underlying thoughts on this it will be easier to discuss those thoughts. In the meantime, a central plank, I believe, of your arguments for the non-relationship of man and chimps was the declared 98.5% (or whatever) similarity in genetic make up between chimps and man, which you characterise as inaccurate and misleading. I am not wedded to any specific figure, at all, but rather the underlying relationships. You state: Good advice. I would ask for your thoughts on the following abstract: Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo What do functionally important DNA sites, those scrutinized and shaped by natural selection, tell us about the place of humans in evolution? Here we compare 90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. On a time scale, the coding DNA divergencies separate the human–chimpanzee clade from the gorilla clade at between 6 and 7 million years ago and place the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees at between 5 and 6 million years ago. The evolutionary rate of coding DNA in the catarrhine clade (Old World monkey and ape, including human) is much slower than in the lineage to mouse. Among the genes examined, 30 show evidence of positive selection during descent of catarrhines. Nonsynonymous substitutions by themselves, in this subset of positively selected genes, group humans and chimpanzees closest to each other and have chimpanzees diverge about as much from the common human–chimpanzee ancestor as humans do. This functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered taxonomic proposals: family Hominidae should include all extant apes; and genus Homo should include three extant species and two subgenera, Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee). From, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America June 10, 2003

If no one reports it, then it suggests there was no interest in the entry, so its loss may actually be a net gain.

Of course we are. We live by the motto A scientific criminal is a safe criminal.

I'd have to say that the Mongol Empire wasn't so much an Empire as it was a drinking party that got out of hand!

You aren't making it easy for us to help Primary Gun, since you don't seem to know the exact spelling of the words. Since this is presumably at a very basic level, I would have thought Phi for All's guess (padre madre) was best. And I am also puzzled why you don't ask your teacher. That's what teachers are for.

If you care to read the reference I gave in Post #2 you will find the following: The theory constructs a notion of "equilibrium," to which the complex chain of thinking about thinking could converge. Then the strategies of all players would be mutually consistent in the sense that each would be choosing his or her best response to the choices of the others. For such a theory to be useful, the equilibrium it posits should exist. Nash used novel mathematical techniques to prove the existence of equilibrium in a very general class of games. This paved the way for applications. Biologists have even used the notion of Nash equilibrium to formulate the idea of evolutionary stability. The article then continues with some examples.

I understand that compared with the other primates humans are quite well endowed. I don't want any monkeying with that aspect, please.

Really Pangloss! It was quite simple. There were 240 pennies (designated by the letter d) in the pound (or quid' date=' designated by the letter [b']L[/b]). There were twelve pennies in a shilling (or bob, designated by the letter s), so there were twenty shillings in the pound. You could also get a halfpenny (or ha'penny), quarter penny (or farthing) and, here I go out on a limb, an eighth of a penny (or groat), but they were even before my time. There were threepenny coins (thruppenny bits) sixpence's (or tanners),two shilling coins (or florins), half crowns (which were two shillings and sixpence), but no longer any crowns. And of course guineas, whose value fluctuated through the centuries but settled down to be twenty one shillings, i.e. one pound and one shilling. Those were used in bespoke tailors and Harrod's and the like to keep out the riff-raff. It's probably not surprising then that the abbreviation for this currency construct was L.S.D. Edit: I forgot about the ten bob note.

Sayonara and YT, you are either engaging in some very subtle humour that I cannot fathom, or you are aliens briefly absconding with the personae of our much loved moderators, or you are wrong. Campaign spending in the UK is limited during the three or four weeks of the campaign. There is a limit for each candidate (635(?) MP's) and for each national party. Each candidate is limited to a base amount of just over 5,000 pounds (No I didn't miss out any zeros.) plus around 5p per elector in his/her constituency. That's probably worth a further 2,500 pounds. So the total expenditure per candidate is limted to about $12,000. At the national level each party is limited to just over 15 million pounds. Neither of the main parties reached this limit in the 2001 election. Labour - £10,945,119 Conservatives - £12,751,813 Lib Dems - £1,361,377 SNP - £226,203 Plaid Cymru - £87,121 Expenditure by all the individual candidates was around 11 million pounds. Thus the total spending for parties and candidates and others (e.g trade unions) at the 2001 election was just over 40 million pounds, say $75,000,000. A far cry, even if you use the multiplier of 4.6 for population difference, from being about the same level. So, the US may have the best government money can buy, but perhaps the UK has the most affordable.

No, you didn't sound agressive. I certainly didn't take it that way, but unlike most of the points you make,even the ones where I disagree with you, you sounded wrong. I was just seeking to clarify why I thought so. As an aside, if you re-read my first post on this aspect I emphasised that deciding that I must be against Bush was a reaction. You will not be aware that I am not in favour of reaction, since that essentialy places ones decision making in the hands of others. So I first react, then discard my reaction, then decide on the logical/ethical/most amusing/ course of action (or inaction) appropriate. As I have said on this or another thread before, I would be more comfortable about us going into Iraq if we were also prepared to go in - under UN auspices - to clean out other despots around the globe. That, however, would require a quite different UN charter and it wont happen any time soon. Iraq is the right war, in one of the right places, at the right time, for the wrong reasons.

A Dutch friend of mine, with rudimentary Spanish, while travelling in South America wanted to thank someone for giving up their seat on a bus to his wife. He intended to say "Gracias senor, usted es un caballero.' Which translates as, 'thank you sir, you are a gentleman' (Caballero is literally horseman. Think of the english word cavalier.) What he actually said was "Gracias senor, usted es un caballo.' Which translates as 'Thank you sir, you are a horse.' It left one very confused caballero.

Good question, but will it stand up to close scrutiny?

No, PanGloss. Usually you make a lot of sense, but you have lost me here. President Bush has given me an option - 'with us, or against us'. An option presented in a way that I take as a threat, wherein I am being told 'If you aren't on our side, and you'd better be, then just watch out'. Curiously I don't like being bullied. I should like to have had the option of saying, "well I applaud most of your ultimate goals, I'd like you to consider modifying this goal, for these reasons. Now lets talk about the methods we'll employ too achieve these goals, and perhaps we'll have to disagree on that one, and compromise on that one." That's dialogue, that's co-operation, that's sensible. But what we were told was 'the US is going to do this, so ***k you if you don't like it." Quite a few of us don't like that approach. So to repeat, I didn't go out on an extreme, your President picked me up and put me there. Please read my post. I am not asking that 'our opinion be the sole determining factor in your thinking'. I never have asked this. I never shall. I am asking that it be one of the factors, for at the moment it patently isn't.

There is some confusion here. It is true that being on the equator means you require less of a velocity increase to achieve orbit because you are already going faster than at higher latitudes. That's why the European Ariane rockets are launched from South America and the shuttle from Florida, not Maine. But I was proposing a sky hook, or Jacob's ladder, or space elevator, in which a cable is suspended from space and is so sized and positioned that its centre of gravity is in geosyncrhonous orbit, so that it stays above the same spot on the Earth' surface. You can then run loads up and down the cable at a fraction of the cost of current launch methods. Sounds like science fiction? After originally being proposed by a Russian in the early 1960's it was popularised by two SF author's, Arthur C.Clarke and Charles Sheffield. It would be a huge technical challenge, but is should be practical, I would hope before the end of the century. If you want to know more look here: http://www.spaceelevator.com/

I just knew you were going to post that!

Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it. I shall await the event with interest.

It would be nice if occasionally it was one of the factors.When Bush said 'You are either with us or against us' my reaction (and yes' date=' it was a [b']reaction[/b]) was to say, 'That leaves me no option. I guess I'm against you.' Diplomacy appears to be underated by this President and this administration. Some of us older Brits recall how an Empire is run. It involves a self righteous arrogance. We can recognise the symptoms.

Excellent idea LucidDreamer. The better creationist arguments that I have read do pinpoint weaknesses (even though these are only in detail or current available evidence) in evolutionary theory. An intelligent debate on these topics would be welcome rather than a perpetual rehash. Have you a plan for locating this "scholar"?

Hot Zone is a good read, but somewhat sensationalised. If I recall correctly it has a small bibligraphy, which could be handy. This Ebola and Marburg viruses are responsible for well-documented outbreaks of severe human hemorrhagic fever with resultant case mortality rates ranging from 23% for Marburg virus (Marburg, Germany; 1967) to 88% for Ebola virus (Yambuku, Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC]; formerly Zaire; 1976). is from here: http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic626.htm I suggest you may also wish simply to google for [ebola "mortality rates"]