J.C.MacSwell

It might not be over quite a number of generations but ultimately it can be significant. Luck and random chance are of course involved but if blue eyes are more sensitive to light that could affect the odds of survival differently in different regions and ever so slightly effect a change given enough time. I don't think it is as conclusive as you suggest. Of course with modern adaptations dark and light skinned individuals do fine in both northern and southern latitudes (or closer to and further from the equator, polar region and other extremes notwithstanding)

Hard to say though. A recent study was done on primates with regard to eye colour and the ambient light of the areas they inhabit: https://phys.org/news/2022-10-eye-variation-primates.html

Cousins it could well have been but through cousins it would take longer for the second blue eyed human to show up, based on the simplest model and your link. Your OP suggests a single common ancestor. Under the simplest blue/brown model with blue genes recessive cousins would require an extra generation. I was wrong though suggesting the single common ancestor could not have had blue eyed kids. They could have had them if sexual bonding with their own children, again assuming the simplest gene model. What's interesting is that a recessive gene, whether advantageous or not, might gain some traction before much testing through the fitness/survival filter.

Single common ancestor...so from the simplest blue/brown model that ancestor could not have had blue eyed kids...but at earliest could have blue eyed grandkids given an incestuous relationship of those kids...assuming they had at least two with the recessive blue gene.

If Trump is correct I guess Biden is again eligible in 2028 even if he wins in 2024...or even 2032 if he steals another LOL. Now if George W. can just find enough extra old Al Gore hanging chad votes to make himself eligible...

I guess that's better than the 4 years if he wins followed by the 99% certainty ...

As usual, they were out of the XL by the time I came in. Its high tide they started bringing in extras...

The Israel Policy Forum is a American Jewish organization working for a a two state solution. This outlines the West Bank Settlements history including political motivations and their position on it. It's from this year though I think it predates Oct 7. https://israelpolicyforum.org/west-bank-settlements-explained/#:~:text=By placing Israeli civilians in,of defense against an invasion.

Good post but wrong thread. That one's more for the "Can Religion Make Claims Without Evidence?" thread. I think we can all agree religion wins that one as well. Science kind of tilts it's own playing field against itself...at least the good scientists do so.

Did he finally say something sexist? Not to toot my own horn, but I think I might have been the only one here to see that coming...😜

Sometimes you have to choose one or the other, compromising the other or the one, or both and compromise both. That's Israel's dilemma and Hamas's tactic to force it on them.,

No worries. I didn't neg rep you. ...and I did watch the "baddies" skit in the video

They would generally recall parliament if needed in any significant arising urgency.

Trump of course wants it to delay everything and keep it as different as possible... https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/politics/trump-legal-chaos-2024/index.html If you or I had done some relatively minor offence it would of course "drag out" a few months not years if we disputed it.

First off good post. My point on the quoted is that while your statement seems commendable Israel cannot take it on as policy. There will always be children in the way, especially given Gaza's population demographics, and Israel cannot defend itself without putting children and other civilians at risk. If they cannot defend themselves they have learned from a long history that that puts their own children and civilians at greater and greater risk. Any excess pacifism will invite more terror. We can only ask that they try to minimize civilian casualties and insist they obey international law. We cannot demand even that they give as much consideration to other civilians as they do their own, even if it makes no difference to us. I would consider it very differently if Israel had started the war but they did not. Hamas started the war in a way that made clear they must be eliminated.

I see you capitalized Brian... (everyone has to believe in something...I believe I'll have another beer...)

You are probably correct.

To assert the blame more clearly on Hamas (they are Palestinians...but read below)than is typical in this thread, including the comparison of Gaza to a concentration camp, despite that Israel alone doesn't control the perimeter, and inside Hamas has been diverting resources toward the destruction of Israel that were intended for, or could be utilized to help, other Gazans lead a more normal life. Not that Israeli leadership is not responsible for some aggravating of a bad situation in Gaza or on the West Bank. Unfortunately yes. Israel is justified in some of their actions even when innocent deaths occur. Hamas started the current war. If just you and I were hostages of the Hamas leadership, and Israel had a chance to take us all out, our deaths would be justified. If it was you and I, plus the rest of the members on this Forum, perhaps not. (I don't know where they draw the line) I'm on record alluding to the fact that I don't believe everyone in Hamas is evil, never mind other Palestinians, but unfortunately wars are never fair to the innocent. In this war instigated by Hamas, Israel is obligated to protect their citizens and, by the rules of war, try to limit Palestinian civilian casualties. How well they are doing in those regards is certainly open to debate but they are certainly not acting like everyone in Gaza deserves to be bombed. They are putting boots on the ground and putting their soldiers at greater risk than if they simply did that...small comfort as it may be to the Gazan civilians in harms way due to Hamas's war. So I hope for a ceasefire, even if I don't believe one should be demanded of Israel. Israel should be very wary though of breaking any of the rules of war...and also very wary of the long term results of any actions they take. Does a late term fetus and their civilian mother both count?

Personally I write God, rather than god, when referring to a supreme god, regardless of which religion, if any in particular and of course regardless of whether He/She exists as I certainly cannot know. (there is an underlying assumption on my part that if He/She exists it's the same One for all people and all religions regardless of the belief details that a religion might have ) I would mostly use god rather than God when referring to lesser gods, but not for the purpose of denying or belittling someone's God. But if it was a religion with multiple gods I might capitalize any where that was their custom. I see no reason to change that. Similar I think to what I now see the TheVat just posted.

This brings to mind the agreement between India and China not to use firearms within a couple kilometres of the Line of Actual Control in the area of disputed border between the two countries. Unfortunately at times casualties including fatalities sometimes occur when fighting erupts but at least those casualties are considerably lessened along with reduced tendencies for escalation than otherwise would be likely. "According to the agreement, they can’t use firearms, but that doesn’t mean they can’t have fistfights or fights with swords, axes, clubs, and more. Although shots have been fired, when this has occurred, both sides have immediately denied it as neither wants to be in violation of the agreement." https://www.sandboxx.us/news/these-are-the-unique-weapons-used-in-the-border-clashes-between-china-and-india/#:~:text=While the soldiers had rifles,batons%2C stones%2C and others.

Some do to some extent. Can't do that. It would contradict the very post you were quoting me from.

Until He stops working in mysterious ways that's unlikely to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the Abrahamic religions isn't everyone but God considered a sinner? The point being that unless someone claims they are God that doesn't necessarily put them higher on any moral ladder. People do judge though, often in a way that seems to imply they think they are better. I just don't see this as unique to the religious. Do you not judge? Do you not have a moral compass and some guiding principles? I can see the advantage of not committing to a set of rules in a book you haven't read yet (often the starting point where faith comes first and a fuller understanding of the "rules" second) but each and everyone making up their own rules isn't necessarily good either. Progress on at least some critical agreements can be made but I think more easily in a group of say, 10 than 100 and say 40 million (roughly Canadian population) rather than 8 billion...but somewhere along the line in any group where a hierarchy does not yet exist, especially in the bigger ones, someone might decide they should be the leader...and someone else might also...or instead decide that supporting the first might move them "up" in the group...and away we go...the ladder is set up and ready to go...the race is on for some...and the indifferent are set up and encouraged to have at least a slightly easier time following and at least a slightly harder time not...and often judged accordingly. Doesn't seem unique to religions. Do you not feel you have a strong sense of "self" though, beyond (or maybe emergent from?) your physical being?

My intention was defining it as something you consider yourself aside from your physical body, assuming there is such a thing. If there isn't I think it's almost certain, at least in my mind (lol because that's where I assume my soul would be), that we do not have free will. Most people believe they have free will and some essence of self but can't prove it, and I think that is how I would define my soul So I guess that's roughly how I choose to define it, but I can't even be certain I have a choice, though it feels like I have both a soul and free will right now, being alive and all. So assuming it exists...the question becomes what happens to it when you die? Since it really doesn't lend itself to a scientific investigation, it can't be proven as correct thinking...so religion, unencumbered by provable lines of thought, gets to reign over this type of question. That's the best I think I can do at the moment...weak-ass as it seems.

Yes. Religions have answers to those ranging from good through terrible. Science can't answer them...though I guess some might try to claim they have scientific answers for them. But I was thinking more along the lines of "what happens to our souls when we die?".