Edtharan

Can you come up with a way to measure distance without refering to distance? That is what you are saying about time. If we mark out an arbitary distance and call it M, then we can measure something by directly comparing it to M. If we find that we can put 10 of M in then we call it 10M. This is the same as time. We mark out an arbitary period os time (say the occilations of a cesium atom) and call it T. We then can use this to compare all other periods of time in relation to T. To make a useful measure, we need to be able to have something to remains constant. It would be no use to us if the distance we call a metre depended on weather you were faceing North/South or East/West. This is why we have to use something that is determined to be regular. Now as we can't be absloutely certain of this (even for the measure of a Metre) we have to keep making comparisons with unrelated phenomina. One thing we do know that is regular is the Distance/Time of light. This is alwayse regular (well according to theory and experiemnt) So we tent to use light as a good measure of both time and distance (Sapce and Time). As Einstien showed, there is a very tight relationship between Space and Time when Light is concerned. The experiemnt with the cesium atom is not determining time, it is measureing it. We know that the period (do to comparisons and theory) between the photons that are emmitted by the cesium atom in certain circumstances is regular. This means that we can use it as a measure of time. So your confusion is about the fact that we use a period of time to measure periods of time. But what else can we use? The atomic clock is not determining what time is, it is only measureing it. Just as a Metre ruler does not determine what space is, it just measures it. This is your problem, you have started to think that the measuring device is the thing that determines what it is that it is measureing.

The term "Global Warming" is a bit of a misnomer. Global warming does not mean higher temperatures. What it means is that due to the warmth from the sun being trapped within the atmosphere and oceans, there will be more energy in the system, which will increase temperatures in some locations. This extra energy can show up in various way: Increase in storms, changes in ocean curents, drier weather, wetter weather, and yes higher temperatures. Just because ther has not been an increased temperature, does not mean that there is not any effect from this increased eneergy in the system. The Ocean is an integral part of our atmosphere (and it helps to think of it as a very dense layer of the atmosphere) and it can store a lot of energy in it. The ocean also has a "conveyer" system that transports water from one part of an ocean to another. These coveyer curents can move warmer water from near the tropics to nearer the north pole, passed europe and england. It is this particular curent that give England its slighty warmer weather (and also its rain and fogs). This conveyer curent occures because cooler water in the north atlantic sinks (because it is more dense) and the water else where (near the tropics) is pulled in to replace it (it is really much more complex than this but it is a simplified description of it). If for some reason this cooler water did not sink, for example it was more fresh from the melt water from the Arctic, then it would shut down this conveyer curent. Scince no warm water from the equator would be then moved along the coast of europe, thes would cause a drop in temperature in europe. Now to really complicate things: There is an effect called global cooling. This is caused by an increase in atmospheric polutents scattering sunlight out of the atmosphere. This has been preventing sunlight reaching the surface and therefore it has not been trapped by the atmosphere. Recently we have been cutting back on atmospheric polutents that would scatter this sunlight away from the surface of the earth. Now that this is occureing, the sunlight is reaching the surface and therfore being trapped by the atmosphere. So in the past ther has been a close balance between the sunlight being trapped by greenhouse gasses and the effects of Global Cooling. But now we have stopped the production of the atmospheric polutents that are causeing Global Cooling, so we should see, in recent times, an increse in global warming (global atmospheric and ocianic energy levels).

The whole procedure hangs off the assumption tha the events are regular. If you are counting a regular series of events, then you can use this to mark out an arbitary timer period and call it a Second. A way you can check to see it is a regular series of events is to compare it to another series of events that is not closely related to the original series of events. And to do this over and over again (and also with as many different types of event series as well). Instead of thinking of it as the wavelengths os light, think of it as the peaks and troughs of the light over a single day. If you call one such peak -> trough -> peak a day, then you have determined a period of time. We assume that a Day is a regular event and so we used it as a measure of time. Infact we counted the number of "Days" that it took for another regular event to occure, the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun (it is very close to 365.25 days). We call that period a year. In the experiment with cesium atoms determineing the length of a second, we have an assumtion that the cesium atoms emitt a regular series of photons, and that the gap between them is also regular. Now this assumtion is that they occure regularly in time. So this means that we can use them for a measure of time. If they are regular in time, then by counting the number of them we can add the regular periods together to determine a value for the amount of time that has occured. We can check the regularity of them using quantum theory and also by checking it against other series of events (say the light/dark cycle of a day, the swing of a pendulum, etc).

What if instead they used the word "Count" instead of period? This breaks down your entire argument that the current difinition of time is circular. Therefore you entire argument rests on an interperetation of the word "Period". So you should look at what the ment by the word "period". From my understanding of how the use this to determine a second, your interperetiation of the word "period" is wrong. They ment it more like the word "Count" is used. The reason is this: By "period" they ment "wavelength", of light. So 9 billion wavelengths of light should be detected and that determines a second. Sure the wavelength of light is measured in seconds, but if you detect the wavelengths comming in and count them, then you can determine what a second is. You are getting confused by: 9 billion counts is 1 second -> 1 count is 1 wavelength of light -> Wavelength is dependant on time -> A second is a measure of time. What is really occureing is that they are detecing the Peak -> Trough -> Peak of the light wave and then counting these. 9 billion counts are called 1 second. Thye cna then determine the wavelenght of that radiation and say that if 9 billion counts occure each second, then their wavelength must be the distance light travel in 1 second divided by 9 billion. The time we call a second is arbitary, and orrigiannaly it was determined to be a fraction of the time it takes earth to rotate (actually its: 1/60th of 1/60th of 1/24th of the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis). But as this varies, and scientists need to be more accurate, they used this original time period of a second to determin how many counts of the radiation from the cesium atom constitutes a second. This is an incorrect annalogy. Colour is a property of the way we interperet electromagnetic radiation. Sound is not electromagnetic radiation, so no matter how advanced this Bat might be, it does not hear in colour. We could use "False Colour" to translate it from sound to visual infomation, but that does not mean that it is colour. So if I count the number of centimetres in a metre, that means that a metre does not exist? This is a false annalogy (a type of logical falacy). Yes, the count of the events are a 0 dimentional number, but the events that you are counting are not 0 dimentional. This is logical falacy. You are equating our perception of time to the scientific measurement of time, which you previously stated was wrong. "We are accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how we experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, underlying things that are there." To me it seems that your argument centres around the fact that we use the convention of "distance" when talking about time. This is a consequence of our language, not the nature of time.

Trrue. First the creature has to expend energy to move. This creates friction. The friction robs the enegry used by the creature to move then the creature take this energy from the friction and uses it to move. This creature would go nowhere. The energy loss due to leakage of the heat away form the body (ie: it's not a 100% closed system) would rapidly bring the creature to a halt (and if it is flying that is not a good thing). It would be more energy efficient to have a highly streamlined body that reduced friction.

Yes they did do this (can't remember where the reference is though). Also the results of this experiemnt prove that you head is onlder than you body (as it is - usually - further from the Earth than the body). So the old saying that you can't put an old head on young shoulders is proven wrong...

This could be good to, block mobile phones in cinamas and hospitals. The material could be tuned to the frequencyis of mobils and then have the signals diverteed around the building (essentially make the building invisible to the mobile phone frequencies). As for planes, a stealth plane that was tuned to the specific frequencies of a Radar would become invisible to it, better than the current stealth technologies we have today.

But that is how science works, they attempt to disprove a proposition. So this is proper scientific invetigative behaviour and a good thing. To do otherwise, opens the door to taking actions based on beliefs taht have no basis in relaity. Like someone believing that a certain dictator is harbouring WMDs and launching a preemptive strike against them. It could lead to severe political embarisment and the loss of inocent lives.

Yes food chains area very simplistic view of what happens in the real world. Food webs are closer, but they still don't convey the cyclical nature of these relationships. Nature is the ultimate recycler . This is "The Explaination Is In The Gaps" explaination. They use the phrase "We don't know about that" to be an open license to make up stuff to justiy thier own beliefes, and if they can get something that can't be filled in in their lifetimes so much better. When the gap in our knowledge is eventually filled, they then change their "explaination" so that what was discovered doesn't really disprove what they were claiming or that they were really claiming somehting else and you were the one that misunderstood what they were saying. If these Aliens do exist, they then obviously wish us harm, so we should engage in a preemptive strike against them (the meddeling sods that they are...) .

Actullay Sociopaths are quite prevalent in to0p administrative positions (not just in politics), infact they have a name: "Corporate Sociaopaths" as that is where they are ususally found. The requierments for these job and the roles the have to perform are well suited to that personality type. Someone without the sociopathis trend, one who can empathise with the emploees, might find it very difficult to fire many people (if the survival of the is at stake for instance). These non sociopaths might start thinking about how these people will survive without a job, etc. With sociopaths, these feeling don't have as high an importance (its what defines them sociopths). I think non sociaopaths would be able to do those jobs, and might be able to make better decisions in certain circumstances, but not nessesarily in all situations (or even the majority).

Well the fog can easily be explained by micro climates. These are where the surounding areas (terrain, vegitation, air passages, preasence/absence of water etc) can change the conditions in a smal area from the larger areas. This occures in cities all the time and the large buildings channel air curnets and trap heat and can make the climte of a city differnet from out side it (generally it is warmer). I have seen this use din botanical gardens to create rainforests where they don't normally thrive and in the real environment in gullies/valleys, etc. Without going there and doing a survey I can't say with 100% accuracy that this is waht is causeing the mists, but I I am almost certain that this would be the cause of it from the description you gave of the place. As for the Ghosts, well the school teacjer was traveleing home late at night, and people can fall into a microsleep, even while driving. Also it is posible especially if you are over tiered (like a lot of teachers I know are as they work very hard and long hours)or are woken suddenly then the sleep/wake circuit in the brain can glitch and you can experience strange sensations. These tend to be similar to dreams (ask of the nero scienc forum for better info -I only have a passing knowledge of this) and can include halucenations and "otherworldly" feelings. This effect has been suggested as a posible source for a lot of UFO, Witch and Ghost stories throught the ages. As for Ghost pictures: I have a Ghost picture of myself! One Christmass (when I was about 12 or so) I was opening presents and my parents took a picture of me. when we got the photo developed I was transparent!, You could see me but you could make out all the details behind me as if I was made of glass. I wasn't moving in the picture, but it did look very strange. What we reliased later was that I had moved during the photo (I was actually seated in the picture so it reenforced the concept that I was not moving), but it was because the camera glitched and it too 2 quick photos in rapid succession, one before I moved and one after I moved out of frame and the person taking the pictuer had not yet move the camera from taking the pictue (so the background completely lined up). Peoples memories are highly succeptable to change, each time you remember somehting you actually re-write that memory. During this re-write you will modify you memory unintentionally (it is also posible to do so intentionally). So whay might have just been a vage shape in the mist that caused you to come out of a half sleep and gave you a fright, can eventually turn into a ghost child (you might have initially even thought: "What if that was a child and not an eddy in the mist" to "Somthing that I first though was a child" to "An eddy in the mist that looked like a child" to "A misty child like form" to a "Ghost of a child"). This in its self, especially since it was a teacher (duty of care and all), indicates that this teacher was not acting in a rational way (much like in dreams). I think, most rational people, upon seeing a child wandering around the streets late at night regardless of costume (could have been at a fancy dress party) would at least get out of the car and see if they were lost and where their parents were, not run them down! They would at least back up the car and attempt to go around them.

Apparently, examination of meteors indicate that the centres (of even small meteors) don't heat up much on entry into the atmosphere. The outside tends to get hot, but then a plasma forms around it, which tends to insulate the meteor. Although I do not know of any case where this has been shown to allow organic matter to survive (scince they haven't found any meteors with it in it), but it seems that if there was organisms in the meteor, they might be able to survive entry into the atmosphere.

Well they would have had to drive to the school in the first place (unless there is the on campus domatories thing). If they did this while druk (and could be proved) then they should be subject to legal prosecution as they have then violated the law. That might be a legal avenue for proper prosecution.

I do find this kind of debate fun. Not all people find the same things fun, and we can express it and approach it in different ways. I would not be posting on these forums if I didn't find it fun to do so. Yes, but these points in the sky are different between the norther and southern hemispheres, so this invalidates it as an argument that would allow it to occure as the initial claim said. No it doesn't. As I said above Northern and Southern Himispheres negate a fixt point in the sky that is not directly above the equator. And, if it is above the equator, then it can not be in a fixed position and also deliver 17 hours of exposure to a specific point on the Earth (timezone). Aproximate times or not, it is geometrically imposible for these two conditions to both apply, one or the other is ok, but not both. They are mutually exclusive.

These guys build and maintain trackways, which is a simple form of road. They also have to keep a map of their "road" network in their hends so as to be able to take short cuts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_shrew Sure they are not as complex as our roads, but it is on the same ballground, much like the tool use of chimps is a simpler version of the tool use that gave us computers (which are a tool in themselves). Even language is not strictly only in humans. Many animals (the great apes, dolphins and posibly squid and octopus too) have rudimentary forms of langauge (with dialects too). Chimps are able to grasp the concept of syntax and there is even an Parrot that has learned around 1000 words of English and can respond to questions (not bad for a bird brain ). Ther is no single human ability that is not also seen to a greatere or lesser degree in other animals all over the world.

For a start this is an assumption that Humans are the best adapted organisms around for every environemtn. This is not the case. Fish do not need complex and bulky equipment to live in water, hamans can not do this at all. Ther are single celled organisms that live in environments that are absolutly toxic to humans. They live near undersea "Black Smokers" volcanic vents wher the temperature of the water would scald a human to death in seconds, not to mention the pressures that would crush us in an instant. There are many different environments on Earth, many of them are created by other animals (we have more single celled organisms in our guts then we have of our own cells in our bodies). So not all environments are suitable for humans, and humans require other organisms to survive (and these require other, etc) even other organisms require humans to survive. We are all a part of one big and complex web of interrelationships. Humans are not the "be all and end all" of evolution, we are just one organism that is slightly more inteligent than others (and the way many humans act I'm not so sure of that either ). We are not the pinacle of evolution, we are not even a stop on the way to the pinacle of evolution. We are just good at what we do (have our offspring live long enough to reproduce). The fact is they are addapeted to their environment. How long would you survive living as an Ape does, or try living as a Lion would, or any other animal of your choice. We tend to place Human evolution on a pedistal, but that is only the result of bias (we are all human after all).

Also contacts are reversable. You can take them out when the fasion fad is over. Who knows in 5 years or so having two difernet coloured eyes might be considered unfasionable and if you invoke a permenent change, you can't go back.

I am not sure of the laws in America, but from what I knwo of the laws here in Australia, the schools do not have the ability to bring legal action against the children. Even their breathalizer may not be able to be used in a case against them. However, if the school had imediately called the police and the police had breathalized them, then they would have been subject to legal action. It is the fact that the school is not a law inforcement agency, is the reason that they are restricted to what legal action they could take. At most the school might be able to bring a case of vandalism and trespass (and maybe reckless driving) on the children, but, unless the police had administered their own intoxications tests, the children could not be brought up on charges of drink driving.

Not realy, as you yourself stated if you do get something visible for the 17 hours, it is not visible everywhere on Earth (infact there are places where something is visible for 24 hous a day - the North and South poles). So my premise stands: You can not have something visible for 17 hours out of 24 and be visible everywhere on Earth in every Time Zone. Also Time Zones are a bit skewed, they don't nessesarrily form even spaced lines. They move them in places to take into account political and geographic boundaries. So in these areas the effect will not occure at the specified clock times (I'm not sure of the maximum displacement, but it would be less the 1/2 an hour). The other problem is the 17 hours is at identical clock times regardless of your time zone, which means an arc source, not a point source (and posibley moving too - wich make a maximum distance that it can be away from Earth as too far out it would need to move faster than light). the only way a beam of light could hit all points on the Earth in a specific time zone is if it is directly above the Equator, not towards the poles at all.

This its self has problems. Because of the rotation of the Earth, a star or such will not be visable for 17 hours so this also can not be the reasoning behind their claims for time. The only solution is that the UV light is passing through the earth (and if it did, then ti could occure at the same clock time everywhere on earth. No matter what you interperetation of the number, it will always end up with contradictory and imposible results. UV radiation is Ultra Violet radiation, it is just an electromagnetic wave, like anyother EM radiation (light, radio, microwaves, X rays, Gamma rays, etc). UV radiation is a specific form of radiation and its behaviour in interacting with the particals if this universe are well understood. Even if there were higher dimensions (or perhaps lower ones - why do they have to be higher?), their interaction with what we know is well understood. If they are talking about some other kind of radiation, then it is not UV radiation, higher (or lower) dimension or not. UV radiation interacting on these dinensions will at the way any UV radiation would. But that means that it would hit one part of teh earth at one time and another part of the earth several hours later, and since it last for 17 hours and the earth takes 24 to make a full rotation, it means that the source is moving (so it could not originate in the constilation of lyra, as it would have to move to a different place for the other people on earth - it would actually have to be spread over an arc in the sky too, not a point source). Simple gemetery that you would learn in highschool proves that this can not occure as described. (I remember kids saying that they would never need such infomation after the finished school, but it does come in handy to avoid being taken in by false claims like this). So I take it you have seen things from the other dimensions then. This statement seem to indicate that this is such a regular occurance that it should be common knowledge.As far as I know nobody have even proved that these other simensions really exists. They are mathematical tools and untested theories. There has been no actual evidence that they exist. What I do know about them, is that if they did exist, they wouldn't give the world magicla powers or anything. Sure, something might seem to disappear , but that would not give that object any other special properties (say the ability to make your wishes come true, etc). A dimension is just a direction of measurement perpendicular to every other direction of measurement. There is nothing magical about it. However, human imagination can come up with these magical wys of thinking, but that is all they are imagination and has nothing to do with reality.

I have actually had the experience of using a device that could do things like this. It used an EEG to measure certain brain activity. It then translated the strengths of these into motions of a mouse pointer on a computer screen. This allowed the user (with sufficent practice - around 20 minutes was enough to establish basic control) to draw on the screen (there was one of these brain "waves" that determined the colour). It was crude (mainly because it was non invasive and only working off large scale fluctuations in brain activity) and not very accurate, but you did have mental control over a piece of technology (it could have been translated into the motions of a robotic arm just as easily). So, yes we have technology today that can do what you are hopeing for the future (which meamns its not all that science fiction and could easily becaome a reality in afew years). When I was younger (around 16) I stared looking for that "Something else" that I though would give menaing to life. I was a bit of a loner and didn't interact with people much (so I was in a similar boat to Herme3). I started looking into psychic phenomina. During this time I realised something that shattered my belief in these things. Waht I realised was that if such powers existed, then they would give an amazing survival advantage to any animal that could use them. If a prey species could see the future then they could avoid any predator as they would have foreknowledge of the event. If they could comunicate through telepathy, then they would have no need for biologially expensive chemical signaling, or otehr comunications (being heard by a predator while trying to hide is not good for survival). There would be so many obvious advantages, eve for an unpredictable power, that if it existed, then evolution would definitly enhance this ability in any animal that had it. It would become the defacto abilities of this createature. It would make them almost invunerable to predation, etc. They would also have no need for technological development, etc. What this means is that if these powers did really exist, then they should be found everywhere in the animal kingdom, every creature would have some ability in them (take telekinesis, if a predator jumped at you, you could just fling them away, or maybe an animal might use it to pick fruit from the highest branches and so would have no need to risk their neck by climbing up there, etc). As this is clearly not th case, these effects can therfore not exist. This means that no matter how much we would like these things to exist, or how much we thinkwe have had experiences of them, they could not posibly be psychic phenomina, either it would be common place, or non existant adn since it is not common place, they don't exist. Now for a bit of fun: Here si a "Magic Trick" that seems to demonstrate my telekinetic powers (as well as the ability to read minds). Follow these instructions carfully and exactly and you will be amazed at my powers... 1) Take a full deck of standard playing cards. 2) Pick a suit and take all those cards from the deck to use (discard the rest) 3) Now take the cards of that suit and pick a number between 1 and 5. 4) Discard that many cards from what you have. 5) Shuffle these cards then look and remember the bottom card. It is this card that I am going to read from your mind and then using my vast an powerful telekinetic powers, I will pull this card from the deck. Now to link you mind with mine we will need to use a mental charm. This will be "Psychic Resonance", also the name of this effect. When ever I detect this charm I will know that there is someone attempting to make contact with these cards and I will beable to excert my powers over them. 6) You will need to repeat this charm in a specific way for this to work. I want you to say each letter of this charm (p, s, y, c, h, i , c , r , e , s , o , n, a, n, c, e) and as you do so, move the top card of your pile to the bottom of the pile. 7) Now to complete the connection you will need to do waht is sometimes refered to as the australian deal (the down under deal). To do this you need to A) take the top card and place it onto the table (the down), then B) take the next card and put it on the bottom of the deck (the under). C) Repeat A and B in order until you are left with one card. Now if we have been able to make a proper conncetion the card you are left with is the card that you were asked to remember. Now to prove that this is not just a simple trick you can perform this again and again and even select a differnet number of cards to discad in steps 3 and 4. And since I am not touching the cards you can;'t put this one down to sleight of hand... Actually this is just a mathematical trick. Ther is no real magic or psychic powers, but it is fun to do and you can even use this on other people to sow off your own skills. It works good if you get 4 people to try it (one for each suit in the deck) and they each choose a different number of cards to discard. Have fun.

I wonder how scorpian will handle this. They have a natrual flourecent protien in their exoskeletons. This means that each will be flouressing 1,000,000 brighter than they would already. Maybe this is really for their benifit, not ours? Also isn't UV light bad for us? Doesn't it cause skin cancers? A 1 million times burs for this UV liht for several hours might mean that we have the universes worst cases of sunburn. To me this seems a little strange. Nomatter what your time zone this UV light will reach us at that same clock time, even though light can travel 300,000 kilometres (or so) each second. It will also only last 17 hours but the earth rotates every 24 hours, whgich means that this beam must pass theough the Earth. And yet it reaches us at a specific clock time no matter what time zone you are in. This has so many holes in it that you can tell the person that came up with it has no knowledge of astronomy or cosmology (or even what a day really is - and maybe the shape of the Earth). Personally I would hate a UV beam 1,000,000 times stronger that what I would experience, within the hours stated by this, that can pass through the Earth and strike me for 17 hours. All I can say is that if it is true wer are, quite litteraly, toast.

My dad has teo different coloured eyes. One blue one brown. The colour of your eyes does change over your life time. Much like your skill changes with a tan (AFAIK its the same pigment molecuels). Exposure to sunlight might allow you to change the coulour to more of a brown colour, but there would be risks with this (blindness to over exposure), and it wouldn't happen over night (you might have to go around with an eyepatch for half you life). So I wouldn't recomend this in any way.

If you don't make any election promises or state you position before the election, then when elected you can't be held to them. Simple. It is a campaign strategy that allows the politician to avoid locking themselves into particular policies.

There was most likely this kind of behaviour in the crickets already. There is usually a fair bit of variation in the mateing strategies, even within a species. You probably would have found that a few crickets would attempt to steal another's mate (weather they sang or not). This behaviour would have been present, but normally it would not have been very successful. With the introduction of a prasitic fly that could use the sound of the crickets to locate a potential victem, this would have completely flipped the selection criteria. Now, crickets that sung would be killed off quickly by the introduced fly. This would mean that only a small numebr of them would survive to sing, when compared to those that tried to steel a mate. The crickets that tried to steal their mates would be in a greater proportion to the singer than they were before. This would increase their chances of stealing a mate as well has having the benifit of not being as detectable to the fly. There is, however, a limit for this. If no crickets sung then none of them will be able to find a mate. So the remnant of the "singers" will persist in the population. It is my oppinion that over the next few years the population might experience a crash. This would be because not enough of the singers will exist (due to predation by the parasitic fly) and therefore the number of females encountered for mating will decline. this will in turn increase the rate of singers that get to mate, strengthining their genes in the gene pool of the crickets. If there are enough crickets (both singers and non singers) that survive and the poredation by the fly is not too extreme, then you will get a fluctuation of boom/bust cycles in the population and it will eventually settle down to a stable state (not constant, but astable cycle of boom/bust). If the predation rate of the fyl is too great, you will find that the population of crickets will crash and they will either remain very low or die off entierly. If the fly has other sources for their parasitic behaviours (like another host species that it can use) then the second scenario is more likely. If the fly does not have another host that it can use, then the first scenario becomes the most likely. There are many of the factors that will make this hard to predict (like birth rates, other predators of both the fly and the crickets, life cycle times, etc). I would say that over a few thousand generations (100 years or so), if the crickets survive, we will see marked changes in their populations that will make then as a seperate or sub species (especially if there is a constant source of reintroduction of the original species some how). Eventually it will become its own species of cricket. For thouse that deny the existance of a transitional form, then this cricket looks to be a good conterporary for one. It has developed traits that will eventually (if these conditions hold) force a change that will make interbreeding between it and the original group unfavourable (different genes for the smooth wing phenotype frequency and other behaviours and mutations), creating a new species.