Leaderboard

The meaning of what you are asking would be quite clear in lay circles, maybe discussing this around a drink. But you have asked on a science forum and science can do better than that. Much better. Hence, people here have much higher expectations. People are asking what might appear to you to be stupid questions to hone your question into something more amenable to investigation. If you don't want to go through this process, fair enough, but then be content with vague 20 - 40 type answers. For example, you are using a term called 'physical peak' assuming it has a universal meaning. What sport to you like/play? I'll take football (the one where athletes can't use hands) because that's one i know. A striker is said to peak around 29ish, measured by goals scored. A goalkeeper peaks around 33ish, measured by goals conceded (although modern metrics are a little more sophisticated than that). They peak at different times because they are performing different physical tasks. The discrepancy will be even greater when comparing gymnasts ('peak' maybe in mid teens? Based on what i see at the olympics) to weightlifters (mid 20s?): maybe a whole decade of difference. Maybe you want to look at bone density as well as medals won. Maybe you want to include fertility - i've heard some female athletes sacrifice their fertility when pushing their boundaries at the top levels. Maybe you just want to know when your body will 'peak'? Maybe... I hope this helps clarify why people aren't just giving you simple answers.

It's not a stupid question. Making colour pigments takes energy (food, which will be scarce in the dark depths) and there is no evolutionary reason, like protecting from harmful light rays, hiding, etc for the fish to evolve to be coloured. To put it simply: deep sea organisms generally aren't going to make something they don't need to survive or reproduce, especially when food is hard to find.

What is the evolutionary reason for humans to have large penis compared to Gorillas and for Gorillas to have small penis that is only about 4 inches long? Btw Gorillas are my favorite animal!

An expedition to the Atacama Trench has uncovered a wealth of information. They found three new fish species. They do not conform to the preconceived stereotypical image of what a deep-sea fish should look like. Instead of giant teeth and a menacing frame, the fishes that roam in the deepest parts of the ocean are small, translucent, bereft of scales—and highly adept at living where few other organisms can. https://phys.org/news/2018-09-species-fish-extreme-depths-pacific.html#jCp

It is Saturday evening here; everyone has a lot of time on their hands, sorry DannyTR already argued why there cannot be any number larger than all other numbers, which, assuming the total ordering of numbers, is the same as saying that there has to be infinitely many numbers. By inference he is not disputing that fact. A, ehm, mathematically inclined person might speak of the "cardinality" of the set of integers, the set of points on a line. Rarely of the "number". But you hint at the possibility that the OP is thinking about this "Actual Infinity" as a number? Q.E.D. as witnessed by this thread: OP's confusion and everyone else's time wasted.

Are you aware that in math you have to give definitions of the things that you want to talk about? Could *you* give me "a counter-example of Wombats from maths" without knowing what one might think of as being the meaning of "wombat" in math? Maybe if we are lucky there might actually be found a research paper which introduces the definition of a "wombat" as some kind of mathematical structure. Maybe the paper also presents a Theorem which states that a wombat exists if and only if no tabmow exists, where a "tabmow" is another structure with a precise mathematical definition. If *you* then were to actually produce a tabmow, then you would have "a counter-example of a wombat from math". Is that the kind of situation that you have in mind? You do not really know of any definition of a mathematical object called "Actual Infinity", am I right?

! Moderator Note Split and moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules regarding this section. Please use supporting evidence for any assertions, and answers questions and calls for clarity.

In response to a question from Sen. Whitehouse about drinking Kavanaugh responded “I like beer, like beer. I don’t know if you do…. Do you like beer, Senator, or not? What do you like to drink? Senator, what do you like to drink?” This was an ugly exchanged where I felt Kavanaugh showed a lack of basic reasoning and an inability to be impartial. Kavanaugh is up for a Lifetime appointment. The Senator asking the question is not. The Senator holds an elected position where her constituents can vote her out of office. A lifetime appointment is permanent. The Senator is accountable to those she represents and a SCOTUS judge is accountable to no one. Yet in throwing questions back at the Senator about whether or not she drinks Kavanaugh attempted to pretend the standards between the two are equal. As if nothing different or greater should be expected of him. Plus it was Kavanaugh being questioned and not vice versa. The Senator doesn't answer to him. She answers to her constituents and per the Constitution she is empowered to question SCOTUS nominees. Kavanaugh boasted about being top of his class, a Yale grad, and spoke about how hard he worked yet in action was failing to respect the process which like it or not is a lawful process. The Appointment Clause in the U.S. Constitution empowers the Senate Committee to do what they are doing and you'd think a graduate of Yale Law would understand have some tiny amount of respect for that. Rather it appeared Kavanaugh was temperamental and disrespectful of the process. How that relates to sexual misconduct for me (my feeling based on his public testimony) is it raises questions about his temperament. If he can't stay calm and behavior in a cooperative manner with the world watching during a formal proceeding authorized by the Constitution imagine how he is behind a closed doors with some beers in him. For the record I like Beer. I brew craft beer at my home. I also am not fit for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS for at least a thousand different reasons.

Of course, I stand corrected.

The Gorilla is the normal one. It's we humans that have an unusually large one. Nobody knows for sure why. It might be that peeing standing upright is easier to control with an extra inch or two. Or it could be that in hand-to-hand fighting, a bigger penis is more vulnerable. Humans carrying weapons are less likely to bite or get bitten in a fight. Or it could be that Gorillas establish mating rights by being the dominant male of a harem, and females don't get much of a choice, so the big Silverback doesn't need to attract females, he basically acquires them by combat. We humans tend to pair off, and females get more say in the matter. Maybe the human female is built differently, due to having to give birth to babies with enormous heads, so human males need a few more inches. Or it could be something else entirely. Nobody knows.

You could reasonably argue that they are "designed" for making more human bodies. Obviously, that requires a range of functions.

Maybe, but in fact I know that some members actually operate under difficult conditions of access - we have one female from a country that undervalues them for instance and yet is studying hard at Science. I value this and am prepared to go the extra mile to be helpful.

I didn't think he was responding to you. (But I know how touchy you are about people not replying to you, so maybe better to pretend he was. )

I was a junior officer, so "mister" works. I guess I could be Atheist, junior grade "Welcome Aboard!" (as described in the movie "Down Periscope")

Between ages 25 and 40.

"Atomic Physicist Reveals 'Tremendous' Penis Tattoo!"

Such a thing was actually built and did work, but was controversial. Because it did pour huge currents into the Earth, just as Tesla said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sanguine

Most don't walk in the door so obviously ill-willed. He only had 5 posts, and he used all of them to spew, rant, and spread sickness. This swan was too ill to fly, and never got off the ground.

Question to the mods and admins: Do we have any data on the number of these swan songs we've seen through the years? Brownie points if we can check those swan song authors against the number who have later started posting once again despite making their ridiculous, "Oh whoa is me... this i my last post" post.

"facts" that you presented. That's a funny joke. Actually it's not even about the "facts" that you presented but the manner you chose to do it in. Also posts are not deleted. And threads are not closed without a good reason.

This is not a complaints forum. You are here voluntarily.

(－‸ლ)

What does Darwinism care about quality, in the sense you intend? There are Pakistani families who breed within their own families, producing severely retarded children who go on to continue the practice. Muslims intend to take over the world and are far outpacing atheists/agnostics in this regard. IF atheism is so very rational, so very scientific and good and true, then why do its adherents abandon atheism more than Catholics or Baptists or Lutherans or Mormons or Muslims do? (See graph below) Then there is your comment: One can have sex every day, with different women, and have almost as many children as days of life, and then pay no attention to their growing up, development, and teach nothing.. It reminds me of Isaac Asimov, who so neglected his own son that his son became a pedophile, arrested a few years ago in California with thousands of illegal child porn images on his computer. Lovely legacy for the consummately arrogant, hateful Isaac Asimov, who was so ignorant that he never flew on commercial aircraft, out of fear.

Argue with Richard Dawkins, not me. Dawkins is the one who said all life forms are simply "copy me" replicators. He didn't add quantum physics, chemistry, biology, biotechnology, etc. etc. to his evolutionary claim. On the subject of intellectualism, on which you put such emphasis, note your own poor grammar: "...they put it to extremity (sic) where sexual partners are testing them self (sic)…"

It doesn't take much reflection on the common explanation of formation of fossil fuels, from coal, to crude oil, to natural gas, to find that it doesn't make any sense at all. In fact, it's anti-science. 1. Where in the world is fossil fuel formation currently underway today? Answer: nowhere. 2. Why didn't microorganisms break down the plant and animal matter that supposedly was compressed to form coal, and crude oil, and natural gas? They were around then. 3. How could such a profound volume of organic matter accumulate in so many different locations around the world, such that they are now under thousands of feet of ocean, and soil, and rock? 4. How elegant that rock formations contained natural gas, and crude oil under very high pressure, for such long periods of time? Gas station underground tanks leak with extreme regularity. But oilfields have been producing enormous quantities of crude oil for many decades. 5. The elegance of atomic structure and chemical reactions and their reversibility and efficiency, the vast interconnectedness of virtually all things, the beauty of our senses and our discoveries and our lives and loves, the tutorial method by which humans have acquired knowledge for thousands of years, all of these and many more factors besides didn't just assert themselves, from the fluctuation of a quantum vacuum. Sorry. Ponder these and other questions every time you fill your automobile gas tank with gasoline, and you watch tens of thousands of other vehicles plying the roadways worldwide, and the airspace, overhead, and the oceans, rivers and lakes around the world, as they have done for over 100 years now. That is one heck of a lot of fossil fuel. I posed these issues to a geologist specializing in oilfield work, who lives in Canada. He agreed with me and stated that there is considerable debate over how all this stuff was actually formed. We really don't have a clue. But here is one scientific fact: We really don't HAVE to have "a theory," particularly when it doesn't hold water. It is sufficient to simply say, "We don't know," and let it go at that. Darwinists have yet to learn this. They HAVE to have something to cling to, no matter how useless it might be.

It is an Atheist Forum, where arrogance and condescension rule. Opinions and facts presented which are contrary to the diktats of Swansont are summarily deleted, with malice. He has a faint orgasm every time he bans someone who doesn't speak and write in accordance with his own views. This is my final post. I am self-banning, denying Mister Petty Atheist the chance to meaningfully ban me.

Actual Infinity does not behave like a quantity or even an object. What other thing can you add to without changing? I’m Eternalist and a Finitist so I have to believe time has a end.

If you want a scientific definition then use a scientific dictionary on Google. Do you understand English?