Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About admiral_ju00

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/06/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    lou, ky
  • Interests
    SCIENCE, cars, ART
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Anthropology, Psychology, Genetics
  • Occupation
    student / pc tech

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here are some reasons why that is: Because Nature is one of the more respected and prestigious Journals. They are published weekly Full price for 1 year is $200 bucks. (looks like it was reduced. last time i checked it was significantly more) Edit: forgot to add: Journal Nature itself covers all types of topics. They also have specific subject Nature journals which are a lot more expencive.
  2. Erm, nice to know they are trying at least. I guess. Why are you reading from those types of sites anyway?
  3. This might displease some creationists. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-06-02T180216Z_01_N62647062_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-DINOSAUR-DC.XML
  4. I wonder will we ever catch up to our European brothers on certain issues. Doesn't look like it to me. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/25/stem.cells.ap/index.html
  5. Indeed. Even if deep, deep frozen, DNA will not survive too long especially to be of any real use. The discovery of soft tissue was certainly unexpected by a long shot and surprising.
  6. "Someone who is completely distanced from reality"........ Hmm, are you talking about yourself there? To me, you sound like you're on the edge of being officially diagnosed as a Schitzophrenic should you see a psychologist. You've obviosly put in much thought into this and the world as you see it. So I am done with this discussion. And by the way, I ignored the other portions of that post because they were nothing more than a delusional, circular argument garbage where no matter what is said, you will hold your ground, and ignore what everyone else has to say.
  7. Doh. I guess I'll need to change my educational path then. On a side note, it's just interesting how there was a great nothing for a very long time and all of a sudden, a KaBOOM around 28kya and all sorts of arstistic and ritualistic items started coming up.
  8. No I am not. Evolution is both Genetic and Environmental. Environment does play a big part on the organism, gene expression, mutations, etc. I do? Well, I suppose that the Y chromosome and Testasterone are a good start. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/101526014/PDFSTART http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/102531068/PDFSTART http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/107629367/PDFSTART As has already been mentioned, plants reproduce sexually as well as asexualy, depending on the plant and environment. Sexual
  9. You do know that in order for an evolution to *occur*, there doesn't have to be any new speciation or growth of an extra appendage. Evolution quite simply is the change of genetic makeup within a population/or organism. Doesn't matter how significant or trivial the genome change is, as long as the alleles and or traits are expressed, the organism(or at a macro level, species) has changed(evolved) into something it wasn't just a generation or a few ago.
  10. It may be genetic, but more than likely it's the mostly of natural selection and therefore evolution. Sexual reproduction produces new phenotipycal and morphological traits, also the organism that undergoes a sexual reproduction has a better chance at evolving and adapting to it's environment. So there are far more advantages to it than asexual reproduction.
  11. Try this: http://www.avert.org/origins.htm they also have some very interesting stats and other items. http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm
  12. As a whole species, perhaps not. However, individual and especially geographically isolated human societies can and will.
  13. You are correct. Depending on whom you speak to(Lumper or Splitter), they can agree that Homo heidelbergensis is a part of the Archaic's. The question that is debatable is can you lump Homo heidelbergensis into a subspecies of Homo sapiens(eg: Homo sapiens heidelbergensis), or keep it as is. Their fossils are closely matched to ours, yet they are definently not h. sapiens(sapiens) as you and I are as they still exhibit some archaic features. Hope this helps.
  14. No. Humans, and more specifically their genome is constantly evolving. There is not a progress bar on evolution, therefore you can not tell that evolution is standing still or is no longer at play. Natural selection and mutation are constantly present. For some people who want to think of it as a whole species, they may be inclined that Homo sapiens sapiens are done evolving, just because we as a species have yet to get a new limb or a head, etc. That however is incorrect. Are you assuming that if an organism is to evolve, it must undergo a gradual transition from one species into th
  15. admiral_ju00


    I've been a pretty busy in school, work and with the family, haven't had a chance to log in here in quite a while. I'm glad to see lots of familiar people are still active and I hope to once again start spending more time here as this is a great community.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.