admiral_ju00

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.

Erm, nice to know they are trying at least. I guess.

Why are you reading from those types of sites anyway?

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

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

It's doubtful enough intact DNA could even be found and extracted from a frozen mammoth, a pre-KT Event dino's chances of having any intact material is immeasurably improbable. You'd need C-3PO to give you the exact figure.

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.

I hope you are not a scientist' date=' because you would make a very poor scientist. Someone who is completely distanced from reality.[/quote']

 

I'm not here to prove to the likes of you my academic status and interests. I'm also not here to force anything on you, so take it as you like it.

 

Someone who is completely distanced from reality.

Leave alone what is common knowledge you are not even in touch with latest scientific developments.

 

"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.

 

 

But you are rather just preferring to ignore the rest of the information. As if by avoiding it will cease to exist. That's the old 'heterosexual' trick.

 

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.

Since when has any artist needed a practical purpose for their art? Anthropologists are always trying to come up with some logical explanation for everything people did. They were people, you know. They were as smart as any of us, wondered at the stars and had and probably had the same love of creating beautiful things as any artist.

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.

But are you saying that evolution is not genetic.

No I am not. Evolution is both Genetic and Environmental. Environment does play a big part on the organism, gene expression, mutations, etc.

You have to pin point a plausible evolution process (that makes men heterosexual) and the biological components of that evolution.

I do? Well, I suppose that the Y chromosome and Testasterone are a good start.

For that you first have to define what is 'heterosexuality'. And also very very clearly define who is a 'heterosexual'.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/101526014/PDFSTART

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/102531068/PDFSTART

If you are saying that 'heterosexuality' is just there --- as the 'normal' thing and so-called 'homosexuality' is an anomaly, then what is the basis for that assumption. You also have to define 'homosexuality' for that matter. And a 'homosexual'.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/107629367/PDFSTART

a. (i) I do not know on what basis you say that animals are superior to plants. At least how does sexual reproduction make animals more 'adapting' to their environment.

As has already been mentioned, plants reproduce sexually as well as asexualy, depending on the plant and environment. Sexual reproduction allows a much greather genetic diversity because of the DNA Recombination. As opposed to say bacteria where they simply split in half and the genome of the daughter cell is identical with the parent cell.

b. Surely, nature does not need heterosexual partners to reproduce. There are species where females alone can reproduce. Other species are hermaphrodites and can perform both the functions that in humans are divided between males and females.

Sexual dimorphism and Intraspecies variation exist and will continue to do so as long as the gemome shuffles and reshuffles it's self as when happens with sexual reproduction.

c. Even if what you are saying is correct, how does it prove that 'heterosexual' people -- as defined by the western society -- are needed to procreate sexually.

Now that would be a mostly homan thing, wouldn't it? More or less of a psychological state, desire. Very few animals out there(exceptions are Bonobo apes, who engage is that kind of an activity to relieve stress, and play.) Most animals have mating seasons, but only humans(and bonobos) took it a step furter to use it in a procreational matter.

d. If animals (including humans) were nreally heterosexual, and your evolution theory was also correct

Not exactly "My evolution" since Charles Darwin beat me by theorising it 1st.

it will follow naturally that evolution will also make sure that males live with females and raise children and not live in male only and female only groups. Which is not the case.

You're talking about evolution as it has some very strict rules, "do this and you'll be happy, but deviate and I'll punish you", not exactly how things work. Once again, Diversity within a population is what usually changes how things work, look.

In some tribal groups, the femals will band together and leave their camp(and all the males in it) while they are having their montly periods. That as well as the example you've provided above are more sociocultural in context than anything else.

Amongst humans it takes a lot of social maneuvering to bring about a mixed gender heterosexual society and a cumbersome marriage institution to bring man and woman together in the rest of the societies. The whole unnatural process creates a lot of waste products in terms of generalised human stress and unhappiness as well as in terms of human beings who are rendered useless --- those who completely fall out of this system.

Gay bashing aside for a moment, and a pause to think about it. Homosexual, be it male or female are not rendered useless just because they engage in same sex. If forced, surely they will perform just as well as what you call 'Normal' heterosexuals. Adolf Hitler for one, thought that Homosexual males were lost hence they got the camps, while the lesbians were forced into marriage and into heterosexual life style, at least for a while. Also, keeping in mind, the homosexual circles and communities are not as large and as open as they are today. But they existed as long as the heterosexuals.

Is it possible that sexual interest for the same-sex is the basic sexual desire of human beings, -- being a part of human evolution that everyone is born with,

If there is, I haven't seen or heard of any such research papers.

and there is a gene which causes 'heterosexuality' (perhaps it makes men secrete a feminising hormone)

Much of the rest had a tinge of wild imagination and a tad of insanity in them.

I guess we actually did evolve from the smallest known units, especially since function follows form. But what a journey this must have been. No need to necessarily put life in the equation since there will be no life without organisms, or organisms are life. Life is probably just a configuration of energy/organs.

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.

Can you or any one else elaborate so eloquently on what causes so-called 'heterosexuality'?

 

Is it also genetic?

 

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.

Try this: http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

they also have some very interesting stats and other items.

http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm

As a whole species, perhaps not.

However, individual and especially geographically isolated human societies can and will.

And as far as I know, Homo heidelbergensis[/i'] is not a hoax.

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.

Humans cannot be evoluting

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.

as there are too many in the population to get a complete change in the gene pool

Are you assuming that if an organism is to evolve, it must undergo a gradual transition from one species into the next? Well, that may happen sometimes, but it does not have to happen. Evolution does not follow a certain - predetermined direction. It can branch into whatever direction that is more fitted for the particular environment. What about all the species that were led into a dead end, and who barely(if any) had any resemblence to their CA's? Taxonomists and others(paleontologists, archaeologists, etc) are always debating about a particular fossil or species and should it either be lumped into an existing species or split into a new species or subspecies. Hence the 2 schools of thought: The Lumpers and the Splitters.

and everybody regardless of the fitness makes it to reproductive age.

Uhm, no, absolutely not true at all.

Therefore, does this mean that we are just waiting until another species catches up or are we now here for ever?

This has already been asnwered by myself, and others on this page. Don't think of evolution as a mechanism that follows a certain path.

without natural disease do you think humans could ever be competiting for food and shelter again?

Once again, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't hold any merrit in it's current school of thought or structure.

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.

what i meant is that to make a complete dinosaur you need every organ a dianosaur has you either need stem cells or a sample of every cell yes? hence cloning humans is controversial as it requires stem cells from embryos (or bone marrow)

The whole controversy of cloning or stem cells comes mostly when you deal(or try to) with Embryonic stem cells.

Bone marrow stem cells(research) are/is not controversial.

do you not need stem cells to make other parts of the dinosaur' date=' unless you just want to spend millions on some sort of dino-black pudding......

 

So does a mosquito not have to eat bone marrow or an umbillical cord to make dinosaurs?[/quote']

 

explain to me how u get DNA from blood cells that have no nucleus?!

 

Funny.

 

Red blood cells don't have dna. White blood cell do.

 

Here's a good read for ya.

 

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/Blood.html

My computer keeps downloading porn by itself.

I don't see a problem with that.

we have vestigial vermiform appendix and canines as well.today we are omnivorous but what was our feeding habit in the beginning?carnivore or herbivore ?

Mainly herbivore, but a meat snack was there as well.

i think human started to eat plants ie crops after learning to farm (they maybe eating fruits before) and before learning the farming, they were carnivore.

Wrong. You got to go back much much further back in time. Back before H.sapiens even existed.

Don't have time to explain it all in better detail. Will try to get to it tonight.

I'm still failing to see this.

Are you saying that when you break elements into their electron configuration, you use Ar as a base(since it has 18 electrons) and then build on from there?

Hoping I wouldn't sound like a complete dumbass, or even at the rist of it......

I'm trying to review my Chem and I forgot some of the basics and it is really pissing me off.

I know that electrons want to ocupy the lowest level shell, and if they need to move to the next energy shell that excerts energy, etc.

So, that said, taking Ca and breaking it down to it's electron configuration, which is the correct answer:

[math]1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^2 3p^6 4s^2[/math]

or

[math]1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^2 3p^6 3d^2[/math]

If it's the 1st one, why would the 2 electrons jump to [math]4s^2[/math]?

Isn't the next lower lvl subshell is the [math]3d^2[/math]?

Or do these 2 electrons go to [math]4s^2[/math] because the [math]3d^x[/math] is incomplete while [math]4s^2[/math] is. ???

I've tryed once. It failed horribly. Here's a linky:

Failed thread 1

Then again, many of the threads I create, simply die with minimal or no respones at all. Here are some examples:

Failed thread yet again

and one more I suppose:

Failed 3:

So at this point in time, there won't be very many threads I'll create myself.

Someone else may take a shot thou.

I've asked several times about Anthropology/Paleontology section, but it's not happening since there's simply no volume at the time. Most people on this site are into Physics, Biology and Math are a close 2nd.

I run ZA in tandem with BlackIce, thus far all`s been quite safe, but I run it on win 98, so it`s probably Security through Obscurity!

Not on the same computer, I hope.

If I'm wrong, why? Isn't that just redundant?

Oh damn, I forgot about my very last auction win. Oopsie.