Leaderboard

People are starting to argue with reputation points. I see more and more negatives, on both sides, even for valid points which deserve deliberation. It is a very sensitive subject but, I have come to know that everyone involved in this discussion is a sensible person. Discussion leads to understanding, so if you want your viewpoint understood, discuss it. Don't neg rep opposing views, they're just trying to make their viewpoint understood.

Genotype: refers to the set of a genetic material of an organism, but can used on different levels. E.g. you could distinguish genotypes of members of a species by allele variations on a single locus. Phenotype: refers to observable trait, often connected, but not exclusively to gene function.

That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions. Partially, because only fairly recent it has been seen to be an issue. To date there are only two larger reports (UK and Australia) who have looked at why reporting rates are low and even in cases of reports, why many women withdraw before the full trial. One thing that we can do, without changes in the legal system per se, is to remove the social stigma of rape victims or the taboo surrounding sexual violence. A big issue has been the fact that victims are seen as damaged goods, that it is their fault (e.g. for getting drunk or having a promiscuous lifestyle) or that they are just too weak and/or cannot be raped in the first place (mostly men). As long as these stigma persist and/or if certain folks attack the victims for not behaving in a certain way (reporting right away, trying to downplay the situation in an effort to regain control etc.). A second aspects that is relevant is that the reports have highlighted that law enforcement may be another gatekeeper. Typically young victims or victims from lower social status or vulnerable groups are not considered trustworthy by default. That makes them ideal victims as rarely there are any follow-ups. A general issue here is also that many are assuming that folks need to be protected from accusations as the first response. Which means the bar for investigations are raised as the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and therefore the accuser must be lying. Even if law enforcement tries to neutrally address this situation, the stigmata regarding the situation result in far larger polarization than in other crimes. Much again because of the stigma surrounding sexual vs "regular" violence.

+1 to that. I believe I have only given positives in this thread, including a couple to posters that seem to disagree with my positions (on what I consider their better or more informative posts, or corrected me when I clearly got something wrong) Badgering with negatives isn't going to change anyones mind. It may have the opposite affect. As an example, this post by a very new member currently has 2 negative reps, Why, I have no idea...I can't even guess what is being objected to.

! Moderator Note Me. Thread closed, and consider yourself placed in the mod queue while staff consider your posting privileges.

No, the statistic you asked for was "people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent". How does one "display as absolute truth"? Is there a special font used? Where did you come up with this "50%" you keep referencing? You say it like it is absolute truth. Please list the assumptions that were made. Please show me where they did rounding and how much it was. Please show the math that results in a multiple of 35. The reason I ask is because I'm afraid someone will think you are lying about having some basis for making those statements and we wouldn't want that to happen.

Son, if you are naive enough to not realize that Ford is being used by politicians then there is nothing I can say to help you. Which doesn't mean we should do it even more. Yes, women shouldn't be raped. Yes, we should make it easier for them to come forward. Yes, we should investigate their claims. Yes, too few women come forward. Yes, the overwhelming majority of them are telling the truth. What is your point? I'm not advocating that women don't report. I'm not advocating we don't believe them. I'm not advocating men should be given special preference. I'm not advocating it's women's fault. I'm not advocating we shouldn't make it easier for them to come forward. I'm not advocating anything against women. The system favors rapist because that is due process. Unless you can prove that someone is guilty, we should not throw them in jail. I'm sorry to the women who are hurt by this, but I absolutely refuse to compromise on that idea. Everybody, and when I say everybody I include men, have a right to a fair trial. If you cannot prove they did something wrong, they should not go to jail. Perhaps you disagree with this, but I guarantee you, when you, or your best friend, is arrested and imprisoned without proof or a fair trial, you will change your mind permanently.

I looked up Loricifera to familiarize myself and found this lovely picture:

There is ton of work on retroviruses and evolution. It should be rather obvious why there no work on aliens, however.

A decent read on the subject.

So. You believe all the accusations Swetnick alleged against Kavanaugh?

No. We are saying that at some point we must make a choice. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. There is no middle ground.

I can't weigh individual sexual assualt cases but I can weigh the historical trends of discrimination and disenfranchisement. That is what the complaint here is after all. That men will some how become discriminated against in the eyes of the law. Between men and women that has never happened. It is women who have been historically disenfranchised forced to marry, forced to bare children, forced to be obedient, beaten, raped, paid less, and etc. Even today the U.S. and your home UK play nice with countries like Saudi Arabia which have horribly oppressive restrictions on women. The Western world wants oil too much to stand against the abuse of women. As such I find the complaint that men will be disenfranchised at the hands of false accusations a bunch of sanctimonious b#llsh!t. It won't happen. Has never happened. Men murder, rape, beat, harrass, and etc women at rates which far and away exceed anything women do to men. The majority of men who beat and or rape woman get away with it. Yet we are in here carrying on about the rare man who might be falsely accused some day.

I said If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. So, Ten oz. What exactly are you advocating? Is it guilty until proven innocent or is it something else?

So what are you advocating we do? Not requiring people to have evidence a crime was committed before being convicted? Plain and simple, this is what all this debate boils down to, and it's a yes or no question. Yes or no? Mind you, the discussion is no longer "Giving the benfiet of the doubt" or "leaning towards believing women" you are seemingly saying: "Believe women period." because statistics back them up.

If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. It is much more difficult but we need to consider ways to improve on the status quo without taking away the rights of the accused. I think we've made some steps in the right direction with #MeToo, but including rush to judgement is taking it too far. We have already seen the willingness to use it politically and as a weapon (something that the historic statistics make no accounting for).

So status quo then?

According to one study, ape have less grey matter in their spinal cord. This leads to fewer neural connections to the muscles. Basically, a single nerve impulse triggers more muscle fibers than it does for humans. This gives ape more brute strength. The greater amount of grey matter and larger number of neural connections human have means each nerve impulse controls a smaller group of muscles. While this reduces the strength potential for humans, it increases their fine motor skills. Apes are strong, but are poor at doing delicate tasks, while humans are not as stronger but are capable of doing all sorts of delicate tasks. It's a trade off between fine muscle control vs. pure strength. You just can't "have it all". Even in your post about breeding faster and stronger humans. The truth of the matter is that you would likely be forced to choose one over the other. People genetically disposed to be great weight lifters aren't going to be particularly fast on the race track, and a great marathon runner isn't going to excel at the clean and jerk. You probably would even have to qualify what you mean by "fast"; a good sprinter isn't going to fare well as a long distance runner and vice versa. For one thing, muscle fibers come four types that are categorized by their "twitch speed" and fatigue factor. Type I is a slow twitch fiber. It doesn't contract as fast but has good endurance as it also doesn't fatigue quickly Type IIA is a fast twitch fiber. contracts quickly, but fatigues rapidly also. Type IIB is a combo, doesn't twitch as fast as IIA, but doesn't fatigue as quickly either. Type IIC fastest response, but fatigues the easiest also. What separates these types of fibers is where they get their energy. Type I gets it aerobically (by using the oxygen we breathe) Types IIA and IIC get it anaerobically (using stored energy sources which deplete rapidly) Type IIB uses a mixture of both. A good sprinter might have an abundance of Type IIA, while the long distance runner might have an abundance of Type I.

A cryptic prophage is defective and typically lost the ability to form a full virus. They may have mutated to the point of not being easily recognizable as phages anymore.

It would be best, Ten oz, if we didn't err at all. ( just wishing )

The problem in the US is the written constitution. If the judges want to destroy a law passed by the legislators, they just have to interpret it as "against the constitution". In the UK the supreme court is (or was) simply there to interpret laws passed by parliament. Their guide was "what was actually meant by the legislation", so they don't have a written constitution to use to defeat that legislation. That was the case, although now, they can say, "this kind of law was ruled against by Europe" and override the express wishes of Parliament. To put the UK Parliament back in charge of it's own country, they would need to fully leave the EU and depart the European convention on Human Rights.

I have many thousands of hours studying and researching emotions and their development. A critical role in emotional development is the process of bonding which is outlined in Attachment Theory. The principles I talk about are empirically proven. I find myself increasingly needing to explain them in terms of genetics to people who ask me to outline the principal of the process. My understanding of genetics is not professional, and I am insecure of the terms I find myself using and feel duty bound to use correct terms to form the most accurate description I can. I ask people who have a grounding in genetics to criticise the following paragraphs (which are my response to someone asking for clarification of my use of the term 'chemical imbalance'), and tell me if I'm using incorrect terms and suggest improvements to both language and concepts? ""Thank you for reading the posts, and yes I will elaborate on my meaning of 'chemical imbalance' as you have shown interest. I used the definition chemical imbalance to refer to the metabolic constitution that is created by a baby's innate urge to attach (genotype), yet also the modulated levels when those expressions are met with an environmental behaviour - such as oxytocin and vasopressin (from the primary caregiver), and so also the establishment of a unique set of metabolic constitutions (phenotypes) which are adapted responses based upon the innate expression and response received. All of these things together could clumsily be referred to as 'temperament', yet this term lacks considerable definition. That is to say, it's proven that babies innately seek attachments with a primary caregiver, so there is a genetic basis urging the baby to attach (genotype) that creates an initial metabolic constitution - or levels. Oxytocin and vasopressin are hormones that have been empirically proven to directly related to the creation and maintenance of the bonding behaviours - attachment - and specifically when 'contact comfort' is received. This has been proven across mammal species in prairie voles, rats and humans. This suggests that when the initial and innate expressions of attachment are expressed by a baby that the creation of hormones, such as oxytocin (through interaction with the primary caregiver), creates a unique bond which establishes a newly modulated metabolic constitution which becomes the new basis of the baby's expressions of attachment (phenotype). Attachment is a genetically based behaviour that is modulated by interaction that produce certain hormones and neurotransmitters. The research seems to suggest that the initial genetic urge to attach undergoes a specific modulation when it encounters oxytocin. As oxytocin is also proven to have potent anti-stress effects and be created by contact comfort, a baby's ongoing metabolic levels are most significantly related to these principal concerns. Including counteracting anxiety-based constitutions which are created from perceptions of fear (stressors). As oxytocin is directly related to the creation and maintenance of attachments, it is therefore crucial to a child's developing emotional behaviour which is nested in the primary caregiver attachment, and the anti-social personality traits that result when no attachment is created because of its absence. I am a Perceptual Philosopher and generally use the terminology of the fields in which I research, yet the term 'temperament' is seriously inadequate to describe such complexities, and I as of yet I have found no other term which specifically refers to this, so I used 'chemical imbalance' as a catch all."" Thank you for reading my post.

Invent a time machine. Or a matter transporter. Or a machine to turn lead into gold.

"On the internet, 37% of statistics cited are made up, and 53% of them are incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi

You are making things up or terribly misreading the chart. These are not specific individuals we are talking about, they are statistics. If a woman is raped, there is someone who is a rapist. Just because a specific person who was accused is found not guilty does not mean the woman wasn't raped. You seem to be searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted and that the crime is underreported.

That's one way to describe undoing the last few hundred thousand years of human evolution.

! Moderator Note Done.

Yep. That’s mature.

FFS grow up. Stop postiong such idiotic and immature threads.

It's a good question, and one that tests our intuitions. My first reaction, counterintuitive though it may seem at first, is to say "yes!" (though interested to hear other members' thoughts) After all, what is the Grand Canyon, say, if not a great big hole in the ground? Yet no one seems to deny it bona fide ontological status. How about that hole in our faces that we use to speak and eat, and er, other things too? Ever been told "Shut your hole!" What is one supposed to reply? "Pfft! There's no such thing!" Then we could talk doughnuts... LOL You guys fill in -- pardon the pun -- the rest. Edit P.S. And consider this: If holes are not real, then a hole in your parachute is no cause for alarm. Right?

This debate has been going on for millennia. Philosophers and mathematicians seem about equally divided in the issue. Some animals certainly have a concept of number. For example show a dog 2 treats then hide them, they will look for both.

I'm also an old bastard like you, but a couple of years ahead. Firstly the first thing anyone needs to do if they believe they have solved some issue, is to know thoroughly the theory/model you are trying to over throw, or the incumbent explanation. For a start the BB is overwhelmingly supported because it aligns with more observations then any other hypothetical model...secondly the BB was not the creation of the universe, but a description of how spacetime evolved from a hot dense state, starting at t+10-43 seconds. Mthematics also is simply the language of physics. And finally, one of the greatest attributes of science, the scientific method, and scientific theories, is that they are never really proven.....A theory will gain status as it aligns with what we observe and makes successful predictions....any theory can be and often are overthrown or modified as further data comes to light and observations improve. In saying that, theories also grow in certainty over time, as they continue making successful predictions...good example, the relatively recent discovery of gravitational waves that GR predicted 100 years ago. The theory of the evolution of life is as close to certain as we could hope for and others like SR and the BB are not too far behind. I suggest you read some reputable material, stick with forums such as this and learn from the on line experts.....and see what you decide.

I think what you mean is "there is little or no evidence to support [the existence of] this beastie". Evidence for the existence of the Bigfoot concept is pretty overwhelming. You just deployed it. So did I. That makes at least two of us who have the Bigfoot concept. Again, we must try to avoid the pitfalls of confusing a representation with that which is represented. Here we run into the same problem as we had before, beecee: what does, and what does not, constitute evidence? Now, just to be clear, I'm not a Bigfoot believer myself, but to illustrate the point, I recently watched a documentary about the aforementioned hairy critter on Youtube. The scientific expert who was commissioned to commentate at one point told us "there is no evidence for Bigfoot". Twenty minutes later or so, the same expert told us "the evidence for Bigfoot is weak". (I'll post a link if you like, assuming I can find it again). I trust the problem is clear: on pain of contradiction or equivocation, the evidence for such-and-such cannot be at once non-existent and weak.

Nice thought-provoking topic, Acreator. My own take on this would be that concepts -- on pain of denying their existence altogether -- must be instantiated somewhere in the brain. Supposing you're six years old and Dad takes you to the zoo. He points to the first kangaroo you've ever seen, "Look, son. That's a kangaroo". You have now added to your inventory of concepts that of a kangaroo, and presumably this would be reflected by certain changes in the neurostructure of your brain. Now, one common mistake we must be wary of is to confuse a representation with that which is represented. For example, surely we don't suppose the concept heaviness is itself heavy, or that the concept immortality is itself immortal? And by similar reasoning, the concept Bigfoot, say, is not itself Bigfoot, any more than a painting of Bigfoot is itself Bigfoot. Can we agree that paintings of Bigfoot exist? Well, there's bound to be a few out there somewhere, I suppose. Can we agree that Bigfoot exists? Well, maybe yes, maybe no; but I hope it's clear that this is quite a different question from that of whether paintings (cf. concepts) of Bigfoot exist. I'd say so, unless you're willing to bite the Cartesian bullet and deny that concepts are part of physical reality. But again, we must be wary not to confuse the physical properties of the concept with those of that which the concept represents.

Yes backfire. The question actually assumes Ford deserved more credence (the Democrat position), but it got diluted by a seemingly much less credible accusation. Senator Collins called Swetnick's allegations "outlandish" where she considered Ford "compelling". Swetnick's allegation demonstrated the flaw in the unqualified "believe the accuser" claim (I am calling it unqualified rather than the context I considered obvious in deference to Swansont). Keep in mind it is the Democrats that are now lamenting the Avanetti/Swetnick allegations (see the link). The sad part is that the full block is not even the tip of the iceberg if you are looking at attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment... ...never mind the daily fear of all of the above. (based on the rapes represented by the block) Falsely accused could be as low as you suggest, but could also be 4 or 5 times higher (that is generally considered the range). The statistics cannot be applied in a specific case. Kavanaugh either attempted to rape her or he didn't. But what can be done? How many more falsely accused would you like to encourage by artificially making these statistics more balanced, by taking away the rights of the accused? You cannot make it fair. There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim.

The thing is, objectivley, a hole is an abstract idea. Even in our language, what we call a hole is not an entity, it is the place where an entity once was. So a hole cannot have temperature or color because it is not an entity in and of itself. However if you look at it as science, you can say that a hole, unless in vacuum, has the temperature of the air around it, and it's color would be that of the gas in it (Assuming that the hole is on Earth).

While it is true that virtually all human cultures have or had some form of supernatural myths prevalent in their culture I would argue that there is a meaningful distinction between what people actual believe vs casually entertain. It is not uncommon for my to buy young people in my family Christmas presents despite the fact I am an Atheist and at no point in my life was ever Christian (Jewish mother). The use of totems and and spirit animals while seemingly religious in nature were also a mechanism to pass on useful craft and hunting skills during a time when oral and traditions were all people had. Giving stories flare makes them easier to tell around a camp fire and that is how knowledge was passed down in many cultures. Whether or not the individuals in those cultures honestly believed the stories verbatim is debatable just as not everyone who buys Christmas gifts believes Jesus did for our sins. In my opinion when analyzing religion throughout human history there needs to be a distinction between those who were using myths as idioms to pass along useful information about the environment/world and those who were true believers prepared to kill others or die themselves in the name of the supernatural. If we study the later group I believe we'd find Religion (true fervent belief) to only exist in very large societies and is generally associated with the power structure which dominates those large societies. Egypt, Greeks, Mayans, and etc had established religions they killed and died for. How does or did that impact evolution isn't clear. To my knowledge no formal religion that individuals killed or died for existed during human evolution. What religion existed in Homo Heidelbergensis as they evolved into Homo Sapiens?

Hi there everyone. I'm currently in my second year of studying Biochemistry at university and was thinking of writing my third year dissertation on a particular toxin or poisonous substance, possibly examining it's mechanism of action in detail, maybe analysing possibility for therapeutic potential depending on the substance. I did a presentation on Bothrops Asper venom recently, and have been dabbling in toxicology since my first year. However, to get a start in formalising my education on this topic I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction. Ideally a fairly widely known textbook, and I don't mind dishing out some cash for one. Any websites or journals would also be appreciated. Thanks

Is there anywhere where I can take a 4 credit online, un-proctored physics course to have transfer back to my college? The equivalent of physics 1 (preferably algebra based)? I'm a double major in chemistry and biology and am required to take physics 1 and 2, which I would rather not take but have no choice. I am very terrible at math and the only reason I passed calculus 1 was because the professor allowed the exams to be open book, which the physics professor does not. I have dyscalculIa so it's extremely hard for me to do any math above basic arithmetic. I barely scraped by with a C in calculus and was like 1 point from a D, even though I have A's and B's in all my chem and bio classes. I will fail if I take physics at my college and I cannot fail because this so going to be my fifth year of school and I just want to get done already so I can go to graduate school. Does anyone know of any online, un-proctored physics courses that generally transfer to another school (so, not from some place like the university of phoenix).

I suspect the Republican party gained massive ground during the Kavanaugh trials. This is something that not only do I agree with, but I'd openly advocate doing. This is where I'd disagree with you, however, only slightly. I think the default assumption should still be innocent until proven guilty, and I think I and others have made the argument already why we believe this. If the assumption is leaning towards innocent at any given time, then that's biased in my opinion. It should be neutral, however, unless evidence is provided, presumed innocent.

OK. So you only consider it a problem when Republicans stack the Supreme Court ? Please elaborate.

Ford is not a Democratic politician. For isn't a politician period. Ford wrote to her govt representatives whom happen to be Democrats. If was Sen. Flakes, who is a Republican, that got the vote for Kavanaugh delay so that the FBI could get involved. The only us vs them which exists in the situation is in the minds of people who falsely view Ford as a Democratic saboteur. You have it backwards. The fact that black people are more likely to be jailed for the same crime than white people means society already leans toward giving white people the benefit of the doubt. In the U.S. 20% of women will be raped during their lifetime. The overwhelming majority (63% of victims) will never report. One of the factors for not reporting is fear of not being believed. 95% of the women who have made reports have done so truthfully. Discouraging tens of millions of victims in the name of defending a few men who may potentially be falsely accused simply isn't working. After millennias of women not being or feeling unable to come forward we need to create safe spaces for them to do so. Once that space exists it can be fine tuned and we can look at ensuring men aren't falsely accused. However we should not hold up the development of safe spaces for millions of victims and sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect. Sacrifice the confidence of a several million women for the comfort of a couple hundred men. 63% of rape victims don't report. The system currently favors rapist. That is inexcusable. The system should favor the victim.

You seem to have a different conclusion than me as to the nature of why African Americans are jailed more often, and you then draw a flawed conclusion rooted in that flawed premise. And it’s still totally off topic.

If you can't behave like an adult about it I suggest you yourself grow up. There is nothing immature about this, this is a serious thread. My intent is pure curiosity.

Maybe that is a topic up for discussion. Me and my friends talk about masturbation all the time, we don't consider it private. That is subjective view. And yes I believe there is some medical interest in it for me as well so if Staff/Admin could move this question to correct place that would be awesome.

No, you do not get to pick a topic then not talk about it. The word Kavanagh is in the title, but we can't talk about him? You want to talk about pervasive false accusations, but we can't talk about the pervasive false accuser in chief? I don't make rules for your thoughts, I comment on them. DON"T make rules about my comments.... no less about abstracts. If the mods feel I am off topic, I trust they'll intervene, otherwise my thoughts stand.