geoguy

What is 'grassroots' science as opposed to 'science'? Science is science and is not about agendas, popularity or political correctness. If you want the broad population involved then give them the tools of scienctific understanding....chemistry, physics and so on.

This goes back to your:

"Such as the production of a new chemical for some particular application should have in its process or generation really the environmental reality that such a product will have, how will it react in the atmosphere, the geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere."

The 'grassroots'? how the heck can anyone begin to assess any environmnetal impact without nitty gritty understanding of matter and energy? Otherwise what 'environmetalism' is (as it has become) are folks lapping up someone else's statements and using them as 'evidence' to prove some point or another. Students in chemistry need a handle on mathematics to even begin to understand chemistry.....students in the environmnet need a hard science base to understand complex issues. Any one can follow the instructions on a chemsitry set and mix three chemicals to turn a red liquid bto blue. That's the level of environmentalism.

Teach science. Hard science. This will create a well educate populations and a larger base for advancement in all the sciences from space exploration to environmnetalism to the health sciences.

"Such as the production of a new chemical for some particular application should have in its process or generation really the environmental reality that such a product will have, how will it react in the atmosphere, the geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere.'

If you can get any consensus on that then we'll make you God. Your 'environmental reality' will be removed from mine and someone else's. Claiming any reality or 'the answer' on complex subjects moves out of the realm of science and into the sphere of politics and ideology.

In theory I agree with you but in the 'real world' science needs to be independent of myopic views and agendas.

I agree with much of your sentiment and some of your approach. I'd put the emphasis on basic 'science' more so than any one aspect of science (such as environmnetalism). A strong scientific basis for judging information gives citizens' awareness and understanding of environmental and other issues such as health care, information technology, energy use, etc.

When one emphasizes environmental variables beyond 'motherhood and apple pie' then education is politicised and lobbies line up from Libs vs Cons, first world vs developing countries... less government vs more government and so on. You don't want to take an issue such as 'global warming' and just entrench existing positions.

I'm a confessed Econut but it 'pisses me off' when some groups make the environment a political issue. Important issues get lost in the muck of ideological debate. Not everyone has the same opinion on 'wind power' as a positive energy source or agrees that 'vegetarianism' helps the environment.

Teach science and give folks an understanding of what good scientific methodolgy is. I don't have a friggin clue about the properties of gases and their impact on global warming...haven't looked at a gas molecule since first year university. How do I receive the flavour of the day announcement on 'proof' of global warming? I look at the science behind the pronouncement. Is it actual nitty gritty science with nitty gritty controlled variables or is it a statement tossed out as a sound bite based on some educated speculation but not actual 'science'. I don't care 'what scientists say'...I'm a scientist and my opinion on areas outside of my field has no more value than the mailman's.

Teach SCIENCE, Physics, chemistry, biology, etc. A population understanding scientific methodolgy will do more to impact the environment than environmnetalism without the science.

Now, that was absolutely uncalled for. Not nice at all. Why do you have to go and say something nasty like that?

 

You ever even been to Tennesse?

BEAUTIFUL place. God's country for sure.

And the people are really nice and friendly. Salt of the earth. Most of them would give you the shirts off their backs....well maybe not to you after they got to know you, but I know that they'd give their shirts to nice people.

Sure, I've been to Tenessee. Several times. Hot spot for Paleozoic paleontology.

Stop ten of those 'nice Tennessee people' at random on the street. Then give them a map with no names on countries.

Go ahead....I bet either one or 'none' wold be able to find Iraq. Few would even start looking at the right spot on the globe. This after almost 5 years of war the 'red' state eagerly supported.

I'll take a crack. Not that this is radically different than what everyone else has been saying.

 

It really depends on what you look at whether Hillary is 'liberal.' If you look at her healthcare policies from the 90's (in the context of the 90's) you'd think she was a raving Troskyist. If you look at some of her foreign policy statements, though, she's a neocon. To war-weary Democrats, those foreign policy statements might be enough to brand Clinton 'moderate.' To Republicans and the general public her domestic policy may seem more pertinent, therefore she seems more 'liberal.' Of course media bias has a whole lot to do with what gets focused on by different groups of people.

 

On a side note: the fact that Hillary told Newsweek that she's willing to work with James Inhofe on environmental policy worries me a bit. That's part of her 'moderate' credentials, I suppose.

 

 

 

Well you're a cynical fellow.

That's probably 95% from your state that couldn't point out Iraq on a map. TN is one of the chubby, low academic states. 10 to 1 they could tell you where the nearest Mcdonald's is and the name of some football team....but find Iraq on a map after almost 5 years of war?...Ha Ha:D ...forget it.

Most Americans don't pay a lot of attention. Many know who Hillary is...perhaps know 'some' of the other candidates but couldn't tell you if McCain is a Demo or Rep, etc.

DrDNa is more or less on the mark when he states

"Because the TV/radio/newspaper/internet pundits said so."

Few could name a single 'liberal' Hillary policy or a single Thompson 'conservative' policy. Most of the images are PR jobs and are subject to the latest ad campaign.

10 to 1 that 50% of Americans couldn't pick out more than one candidate, Hillary, by name in a police line up and 90% so ignorant they couldn't find Iraq on a map.

On contraire dear neighbor. "Sort of at war" has been around for a while, a quite useful (but perhaps illegal tool) and it hasn't stopped the use of the draft so far.

Facts:

1. Korea was not a declared war (by the US), but a was considered a "police action" from Truman. Result: 1.7 million drafted.

 

2. The sort of war in Vietnam was never officially declared either. Our spineless Congress ceded its war-making powers to President Johnson in 1964 giving him unchecked authority to "wage war". Result: 9,000,000 military personnel on active duty from 1964 to 1975. Approximately 1/3 of which were drafted.

 

3. Current situation: The Supreme Court determined that the commander-in-chief has authority to recognize a "state of war" (not to declare war but to wage sort of wars) initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. Bush has stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

 

But that doesn't make it right. Some of us believe that a declaration of war is a constitutional requirement and the constitution has been violated since Korea. Of course the congress deserves almost as much blame.

 

The bottom line is, the draft has been used in sort of wars and will continue to be used in sort of wars (by both parties). Of course a minor detail like a presidential election must be dealt with before it:mad: is initiated.......

I said 'sort of war'. I couldn't care less of the internal legalities of the USA. That's irrelevent. Call it a legal war or any other term and it doesn't change the reality. Americans have been mired Iraqinam for years and the day after a major speech by President Pinnochio , the 'war' can't even push OJ off the top of the headlines. Discussion of the war around America is no more animated than who is going to win American Idol....gets less air time than college football. Americans aren't going to accept a draft and send their 18-year-old princesses to be killed for a cause that gets less press than Brittany Spear's flabby belly.

It's September, 2007. After all this time stop the average American on the street and ask who the 'enemy' is in Iraq. 'Who' exactly are American soldiers fighting? According to President Pinnochio it's al-Quaida....General Lapdog this week answered the same question by saying Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia....the American in the street would say what? Muslims? terrorists? Iraqis? Iran? or maybe an answer like 'those Sunni guys, no wait, the other ones....what are they called again? Cards and Sheets or something like that. The Muslim ones'

Oh I readily agree that that may be in fact what happens. But as much as I respect your observations on these issues, I don't agree that that's what Democrats really want. They would much prefer for Iraq to be off the table by election time, because that issue carries a HUGE amount of baggage for them.

 

You have to remember that for Moveon it's about WINNING, but for Democrats it's about HOLDING. There is a very subtle difference there. What happens when Hillary enters office with 100,000 troops still in Iraq (which we agree is going to be the case)? Moveon declares victory, but Democrats groan in trepidation. Why? Because no matter what you say about why we are there, at that moment in time it becomes Hillary's problem, and how she deals with it will have EVERYTHING to do with whether she gets re-elected in 2012. Republicans will make sure of that -- they'd be stupid not to.

Not at all. All any Demo or Rep candidate care about is winning in 2008....the 2012 election might as well be on Mars in their mindset. 'Iraq' for most Americans has little to do with 'Iraq'. It's all to do with American public opinion and internal domestic politics. Republicans are on the wrong side of the public opinion on Iraq. The republican President has been a master at out manouevering the anti-war majority but it will be to the detriment of Republicans in November 2008. Clinton and Dems running for Congress are salivating that the issue will be the doublspeak of the Iraq fiasco.

Withdrawl will not occur. Not after Vietnam.

Oh, they will be replaced. You can bet on it. The legacy demands it. Can you say draft?

The odds of a draft is zero. There won't be a draft a draft when the USA is 'sort of' at war. The day after the President Pinnochio's speech, the lead story on CNN is OJ Simpson.

Double the troops, triple them or 'whatever' and Iraq slips into the hands of the Islamic fundies whenever the Americans leave....next year or five years from now....the fundies have played Americans like a fish on the line. 'Stability' is a fundi Iraqi state that is 'best friends' with Tehran and instability is a fundi Shiite majority in league with Tehran.

Lots of eggs and canned tuna/salmon. Most fresh vegetables are inexpensive, but more importantly, healthy.

note: Let people know you are a struggling student when you go into a store. A lot of business people empathize with your plight and will give you good deals on food and 'stuff'. The 4 years I was at McGill in Montreal I paid next to nothing for food. I'd got to know a lot of shopkeepers, etc. and would do small jobs for them. Instead of earning a dollar an hour and leaving with 3 bucks, they'd pay me in groceries worth many times that. Most folks are always happy to help a student who is trying to better themselves....a bit like buying girl guide cookies or supporting veterans by buying a poppy on Remembrance Day.

The thing you have to bear in mind is that being in Iraq is bad for Republicans too. NEITHER side wants Iraq to be the central issue of the next election. Hence Bush's cut-back announcement last night.

 

Put another way, General Petraeus said we need to stay the course, and Bush immediately announced a withdrawl. That's hypocrisy. It's also hypocrisy for Democrats to criticize this decision, because the number of troops coming home THIS YEAR is going to be GREATER than the number of troops THEY voted AGAINST withdrawing in APRIL.

Wrong as usual.

The Demos definitely want the 2008 election to be about Iraq. Clinton et al are rubbing there hands with glee today. American troops are going to me in the Iraq toilet floating along with hunks of shit in Novermber 2008. The Demos will be declaring 'bring them home' and Republicans will be spouting the same 'progress' garbage. Demos and independents will give Clinton about a 56% Presidential victory and Demos will win another 5 senate seats (that's an estimate from Pat Buchanan, arch 'real' conservative and not a Bush lapdog)

Personally, I think HF is your best bet.....happens every day in the semiconductor industry.

 

But have you thought of putting them in a regular test tube with water and then trying to separate with a pasture pipette?

The "mica sand", since is less dense, should be pulled into the pipette much easier than the gold, much like a centrifuge....

 

Then I think you may be left with mercury, which is still used to purify gold from ore.....

 

If you don't want to mess with mercury...TOXIC!!...ignore the following....

 

If there is still some impurites left (I'm sure there are) cover the concentrates with water. Add one tablespoon of household lye to the concentrates and swirl it around for several minutes. This will remove surface impurities such as dirt and oils from the gold.

 

Pour off the lye laden water. Add fresh water and add one ounce of mercury.

 

*** WARNING!!! WHEN USING LYE YOU SHOULD WEAR SAFETY GOGGLES AND RUBBER GLOVES TO AVOID GETTING ANY IN YOUR EYES OR ON YOUR SKIN. WHEN USING MERCURY, USE THE SAME PRECAUTIONS. IN BOTH CASES DO NOT INHALE ANY OF THE FUMES!!! ALWAYS WORK OUTSIDE AND UPWIND.

 

Slowly swirl the contents with the mercury. As the mercury goes around the pan it will pick up all the finest gold in the pan. The more gold there is the stiffer the mercury becomes.

 

Once you have all the gold gathered, pan or suck off the sands (or use a magnet in a plastic baggie to retrieve black sands), leaving only the gold laden mercury and free mercury. The free mercury will roll around easily where the gold laden mercury is stiff and does not toll well. Place your mercury container INSIDE another gold pan and pour off the free mercury into the container. Using another pan keeps it from spilling out onto the floor or ground. If you spill mercury on the floor or God forbid, the living room carpet, you will be inhaling evaporating fumes for years!

 

Once you have a stiff ball of gold laden mercury in the plastic pan flush it out into a glass measuring cup. To this add a few drops of nitric acid Keep adding nitric acid until you get a bubbling or fizzing action from the mercury. !!! DO NOT BREATH THE FUMES !!! The acid will dissolve the mercury as well as any trace silver. After awhile the fizzing stops and at the bottom of your cup is a bronze colored metallic looking blob.... It's GOLD!

 

You can recover your mercury from the nitric acid by placing a flat copper bar or copper sheet into the acid and letting it set overnight. The next day the mercury will have come out of solution and attached itself to the copper now you can scrape the mercury from the copper and put it back into your storage container.

 

Carefully pour off the remaining liquid and neutralize the acid with baking soda, a little at a time until you get no reaction from the acid and soda. Gently rinse the gold in the cup with fresh water avoiding hard sprays that could rinse away your gold. Pour off the water and let dry. The remainder is your pure gold! (actually 95% - -98% pure)

http://www.learngoldprospecting.com/index.cfm?var_file=separate-gold-concentrates.htm

what the heck? This is gold and mica. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Pour them in a glass of WATER and the gold and mica will separate. Odds are the mica silicate plates will float. No need for mercury etc.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do. You have a residue containing gold and mica? Or, to the contrary, is this in a matrix rock such as quarzite? If it's a residue then simply dump the gold and mica into a tall clear glass of water and the gold will sink much quicker....the difference so obvious that you just have to tilt the glass after the gold sinks to separate them.

I have to question if you actually have flakes of gold and mica....they will be quite distinct if you look with a hand lens. There couldn't be an element and a mineral easier to separate just by vibrating them on a sheet of paper. No fancy solutions or equipment are necessary. Even blowing on the residue will separate them.

I'm quite rejuvenated by the healthy skepticism on this topic. It's a positive that individuality and creativity and INDEPENDENCE are alive and well in the scientific community. The last thing scientists need is the nanny state with nanny principles sticking it's nanny nose in the labs and experiments of the world.

"Im a geologist and see no contradiction believing in Jesus and Creationism"

Respect that? My respect is 'F' off and go drown yourself. Science is not about respect, political correctness, community service or other seemingly 'noble' values. It's about scientific methodology....period.

How can brain activity or anything not be linked to QM? Everything in existence is based on the reality of the physical properties of the Universe. Whether or not we can measure QM impact on the brain and it's functions is irrelevent as to the reality. Any model that doesn't take into account first principles is veneer and subject to revision to account for the properties of matter and energy.

Here they are:

- Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date

- Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest

- Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists

- Ensure that research is justified and lawful

- Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment

-Discuss issues science raises for society

-Do not mislead; present evidence honestly

 

 

what about

-Eat five servings of fruits and vegetables every day?

-Don't forget to wash behind the ears?

'ensure your research is justified and lawful' !!!!!! what the 'f' does that have to do with being a good scientist? 'Hey, Hans, I know your real name is Jacob and you are breaking the law by not reporting to the Gestapo and I'm breaking the law letting you work on a cure for polio'.

'discuss issues science raises for society';....PLEASE!!!!!

'Yes, litte Johnny. There is no god and you are an ignorant little boy if you believe such crap your parents teach you. I'm raising this issue to show you that your parents are idiots believing in such mythologies and don't ever believe another word they say on the matter".

Sounds like a good campaign slogan, but for which party? I think it has been tried before, it was called revolution. Aux armes, citoyens!

It wasn't about 'which party' but 'the system'. Conservative philosophy in Revolutionary revolved around the teachings of Burke. It wasn't a British/colony split but a philosophical one. Tradition vs change. It wasn't even a question of change to what as much as 'how' does one bring about change. Since the Revolution the USA has embraced Burke's conservative philosophy of chage. This is the antithesis of what many of the revolutionary leaders accomplished by independence. For the most part the USA has functioned well since the Civil War but as layers are added it gets harder to turn around the ocean liner in the bath tub. Regardless of what party controls what, fewer citizens remain content and get disconnected from the political process. Governments and politicians become 'them' insead of 'us'. Send 'them' to Washington and despite good intentions 'they' act the same . The process is cumbersome and has an inertia. The original colony representatives might have sat down and changed some provision on state rights in an hour over a mug of ale whereas today the same provision might not have a hope in heck of being changed after a decade of lobbying even if the majority of Americans were in favor of it. The suppression of the will of the People was what the Revolutionaries wanted to avoid. They understood that there is never a single answer but that the consensus of the People shouldn't get buried under a landslide of systemic obstacles.

Bascule said “Neoconservatism, at least under Bush”.

 

You know what I’m « smarting » about ; a rigid and overly simplistic interpretation of the constitution. If draconian measures must be taken, then at least they should be supported by sound and rational arguments, not by a dogmatic endorsement of old documents.

Good point. Many folks view the Constitution almost as a third book of the Bible. Some how divinely inspired by and conceived by 'extraordinary and wise' minds. The input of Jefferson, Adams and others have taken on a kinship to the gospels of John and Mathew. the irony of this 'belief' in the Constitution is it's the antithesis of what Paine, Franklin and others wanted it to be .... they wrote against creating another entrenched set of laws binding future generations and stifling future revolution and social experiments. Each generation or at least every century free people should tear down the old and re-invent their institutions.

That is an interesting point, that language can affect perception of the world. Language not only allows us to convey meaning, but language can also be used to confuse meaning. It adds both objectivity and subjectivity to the human mind. It can help focus us to clarity, or else confuse clarity so we can go off into tangents.

 

To a child, this is the leaf of a tree. To a metaphysical person, this is temporal expression of the eternal essense. To the homeowner in the fall, this is one of these waste things, I have to rake and put in the trash. Without language, we pick it up and say uug!. It is only uug! Add complex language and we can focus with the clarity of the scientist, or drift off in the subjectivity of metaphysical philosophy. Language has helped to clarify and confuse at the same time. It is a two edged sword.

You mention the scientist. There is a seminal series of paleontolgy that is focused on the Devonian of Morocco....first started under the French and then continued under the Moroccans. The publications are in French and despite being written by various researchers 'never quite seem clear'. There is just something not expansive enough about the French language that doesn't lend itself to the preciseness of English, German or Russian (the other principal languages in Devonian study). I get requests to translate a few lines here and there and going from French into English is much less accurate than German or Russian into English. It's not onlya positive that a universal language (English) has dominated scientific publications in thel ast 50 years but that the language of domination, by chance, is precise and unambiguous. I prefer French in novels, poetry, songs, etc. but it's a pain in the butt when describing the minutia often needed in taxonomy.

I grew up in a home in which I spoke English to my mother and French to my father and a mix of both on the outside. Language use had a subtle impact on viewing the world around me. My siblings and I would switch back and forth and it was often subject related. It's not a rule but the norm that happens is subjects related to creativity, the arts, music, feelings, disputes and so on are in French and 'practical' subjects (the grocery list, bicycle repairs)) in English. It's almost the reverse of what one would expect as one is tied more emotionally with one's mother as a child (in my case English language).

French has a 'texture' to it that adds to one's 'spice of life'. English has a functional richness to tackle 'getting the job done'. The difference, of course, is on a continuum and a matter of degree and not extremes. It makes me wonder, however, just how different an oriental or East Indian might be influenced in their view of the world partially due to use of their language.

The devil is in the details.

Does states rights include slavery? Segregated schools?

What's individual liberty? Polygamy and freedom to marry off oe's 16 year old daughter to a a 60 year old religious elder?

I know you are not advocating these and this is certainly not reflective of most conservatives or anyone else. The question, however, is where lines are drawn. One person's liberty is another's oppression. 'Limited' government is fine if one is holding the reigns of that government....not so great if you're a disenfranchised minority.

Building an effective army takes years, many years, what are they going to do if/when the U.S. gets out ?

The same they will do if the USA gets out 10 years from now. What is going to change among the Iraqis? Unfortunately 'stability' is a pro Iran Islamic dictatorship.

I recall the words of one mother whose son, a U.S. soldier, was killed. Her son was 19 years old and has 6 months of military service. The Iraqis have had over 3 years of training. What exactly is going to change in the next few months or year to make the Iraqis more 'prepared'?

Isn't this a fairly recent addition to the Republican platform? I thought they were all about NOT being the world's police?!

True.

When was the last time the USA entered a war for moral reasons? I don't see any 'morality' being motivation for selling arms to the Saudis or 'morality' being the motivation for invading Iraq. Where is this record of a moral basis for military intervention? Dictators from Chile to El Salvador to Iran to Guatemala to...were propped up by the Americans.

I'm surprised so many American Republicans support the military invasion policy of George W Bush. As Pat Buchanan, a conservative notes: "This President has been a one man wrecking ball destroying the Republican image as a party reluctant to enter foreign conflicts".

The man in charge: The hero of the Right.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070907/APEC_BUSH_070907/20070907?hub=TopStories

Most of my life I considered myself part of the liberal movement. It was only over the past few years that I decided to go against them. It has to do with the original positive charter having become very regressive. I am not a conservative, by try to stay sort of in the middle.

 

Back in the 1960's and early 1970's the liberals were part of the "love generation". They actually set the ethical standards higher. Let me give one example. Back then divorce was still quite rare. But there were some women in very difficult situations, due to abusive husbands. But there was a social stigmatism against divorce. It was not just their own self that felt social shame, but the shame could extend to their family, as the gossip minded neighbors would add self rightoeusness to the misery.

 

The original liberal movement tried to open people's mind's to love and acceptance. It was not pro-divorce, per se, but tries to protect those who needed to take that step, against moral self righteousness. The morality of the day was old fashion, i.e., old testament, and the love generation was much more connected to the new testament teachings of Jesus; love and forgiveness. This set the bar of ethics high and culture shifted.

 

But unfortuneately, the bar didn't stay high for long, but started to lower further and further, until today, divorce is treated like a form of dating. It was not originally intended to break the family but protect the needy. The bar is lower now than what the liberals fought against in the 1960's. If you trace most of the progressive social changes, which once set higher social standards, they all have seemed to have regressed to a standard that is now so low, you can't help but trip over the bar.

 

Part of this change, began in the late 1970's and was connected to the disco era. The love generation had done its social service, the Viet Nam War was over, so the times began to change. These times were more for the new lust generation, that was fuel with cocaine. The push today toward safe sex and don't do drugs, may be due to that generation doing enough of both for two generations. Asked your liberal parents.

 

By then, the gays were now more socially accepted. The letting out of the closet during this time, led to 100,000 gay AIDS deaths. The liberals are in a state of denial about this to avoid accepting any responsiblity. The high ethical bar set by loving social acceptance, became a free ticket to degenerate. It is sort of like a teenager getting his parents to get used to the idea of him driving the car, by showing how responsible he was. Once the parents gives in, now it was time to act like a fool. But by then it is too late to take the keys away, since the teen now needs the car. To the liberal mind anything stable is suspect, they are the only pure people.

 

What also began to happen was a stronger movement toward aethiesm. What this allowed was the removal of all ethical standards so the bar could drop just about as far it could go, without any sense of moral guilt. How could one degenerate in peace if a God might be watching. At the beginning one protected accused criminals against getting being rail roaded by a justice system that sometimes, had built in bias. But as time went on, protecting the criminal was a way to protect themselves.

 

History seems to indicate that liberal good intention reaches a peak, which actually moves things to a higher level for a short time. But they can't seem to sustain that high standard, but use it as an excuse to regress. Save the environment is a noble cause. But it then leads to an excuse to be a butthead that can now interfere anywhere it wants. The liberal organization is the Democratic party, mainstream media and Hollywood. They control most of the educational system. They encourage failure with high emotional but low intellectual standards. The idea appears to stupid/degenerate the youth so they are easier to control.

 

A part of me can still see what liberalism once was, but what they have become is lower than that which they originally tried to change. What the rest of the world sees as the failure of America are due to liberal doctrine and that well oil liberal propaganda puppet, call the American media.

What a load of baloney. For example the divorce rate is LOWER today than in the 1970's And in the USA it is highest in the conservative Republican 'Red States' and lowest in liberal 'Blue states'.

As for God and atheism, etc. hint. The USA, the western nation with the highest belief in mythologies such as the Jesus dude, has the HIGHEST levels of murder, rape and violence and by far the highest level of incarceration. Countries such as Denmark & Sweden with a much higher percent of atheists, have the lowest level of violence.

Blacks aren't going back to shining shoes...women aren't going back to playing bridge and Gays aren't going back in the closet. The neo-cons are a minority in a nation that is refinding itself and the USA will soon again be a positive example to the world. You, however, might want to go back to school to learn some facts.

1. That's a VERY big "if" there. The webpage you referenced states "In some aspects of its cranial morphology, Eosimias exhibits affinities with the omomyoids." That would lend support to the Onomyoid Theory, not Beard's.

 

2.The molecular data also fits the Onomyoid or Tarsier theory, too, doesn't it? Wait a minute, the molecular data actually is against Beard, isn't it? After all, Beard states that "anthropoids descended from some ancient and unknown group of primates in the Eocene that are uniquely related to the living anthropoids." If that were the case, then there would be no diverging from the tarsiers because the lineage is unique, not tarsiers. Therefore the molecular data should place anthropoids equidistant from tarsiers and all other known mammalian taxa. If Beard's hypothesis were correct.

 

The webpage didn't give an age for Eosimias. What is the supposed age of the fossil?

 

 

 

First, let's remember we aren't looking in this thread at human evolution, but considerably further back: the origin of the anthropoids. If the molecular data is correct (and it usually is), we are 48 million years before the split of chimps and hominids.

 

Second, since we don't have the hands-on experience, yes, we are confined to 1) speculation and 2) waiting for the scientific consensus to emerge. That's why I thought it was way too early to say Beard's ideas are more supported than the other ones. CDarwin, learn to be patient. Don't cheerlead a hypothesis; wait for the data. There is no "weight of data" yet.

 

Third, when we get to the hominid line we run into problems of secondary motivation among the scientists. Every paleontologist wants to either 1) have his fossils be in the direct ancestor-descendent line to humans or 2) be a new species. Those are the sexy claims. I can see this in the discussion of the 3 species discovered near the chimp-hominid split; all the investigators are sure the species they discovered are on the hominid side of the split. I also see this when new hominid fossils are discovered, particularly H. antecessori and A. garhi. Both, as described, sound like transitional individuals to me, but both are classed as completely separate species.

That's why I enjoy being in the field of paleozoic invertebrates, Nobody is after a 'gold star' in the media and rarely is anyone's knickers in a knot if further research questions previous conclusions.

As I've stated, we lived in the USA and the medical coverage our company paid for was fine.

My concern with private insurance is the way it's offered in the USA....often through employers. It's a job benefit. Some colleagues in the USA are at times restrained in options in life because of a dependence on work provided insurance. Especially if they have a medical issue in the family. One fellow had a son with cerebral palsy and his wife developed M.S. Since these conditions were after he was employed by an energy company, much of the financial burden was taken care of but his career amd life options are limited. He's 'stuck' in his employment situation.

Here in Alberta folks come from all over the western world to work in the mountains in summer and the ski hills in winter. It's revealing that Americans are either young i(n their early to mid 20's) or retired. Germans, Australians, fellow Canadians, etc. seem to 'step out' of life at any age and change course (such as come her to work for a season then off to somewhere else). Americans, in there mid 20's to retirement age, in contrast, seem to only travel or do something new when 'on vacation'...then they have to get back into the grind. One reason they are tied, in part, to their work benefits (such as health). Folks from other parts of the world can go home at any time and qualify for health benefits, maternity supplements, parental leaves of absences, etc.

Americans might not be best served by trying to implement universal health coverage as in the rest of the western world. It might be like trying to turn an oil tanker around in a swimming pool. But some type of mandatory pay-in scheme independent of employment might be a compromise.