Phi for All

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is something every vertebrate has from a distant fishy common ancestor, connecting the larynx (which performed a gill function) to the brain. Over time, the connecting nerve looped below the heart and just stretched to fit each evolving species. In humans, the laryngeal nerve goes from our brains, down our throats and in front of the aorta before looping underneath the heart and going back up the throat to our voice boxes. In giraffes, the RLN is crazy long. Imagine what it was like on some of the long-necked sauropods!

Sometimes realizing you're not alone in your feelings can remove some stress, and for that a forum can help. Other times it might be better to speak one on one with a professional, preferably someone recommended by your doctor. I can't help you. I don't think of negative thoughts as a "condition"; I think of them as a perspective, which is one of the few things in my life I can control. Negativity is an easier path, and often seems more realistic than being positive. It takes more work to stay positive, to think positively, and to spin events so they uplift me rather than depress me. It's hard, but the negativity is a bad habit I'm trying to kick, like nail-biting or smoking. So, negative results, time to try something else. Maybe see a professional face-to-face.

The argument that breaks ID for me is irreducible complexity. Proponents claim the human eye is so ridiculously complex that it MUST have been designed by an intelligent creator, yet ignore how badly this designer botched the job. Today, one could easily design a much more effective eye from scratch, and it's obvious from the current design that the human eye has changed over time to produce the clunky version we have now.

But I heard their Clinical Management courses involve handling snakes and walking across hot coals. And some of the student testimonials on the website were written in crayon. Is this a personal choice or a requirement? Can you give me the names of the schools where the teachers don't talk to you? That sounds ideal, actually. I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY studies at their own pace. It's impossible not to, really, so this seems like you're using buzzwords to emphasize something that happens anyway at every school.

... except it would be much more scientific to ignore the rambling and focus on the individual arguments for evidence. Taken in that light, nothing makes any of these incidents special or designed. You don't have to dismiss any of the arguments as "rambling" when they include things like predicting that politicians would be corrupt in the future.

These totally sound like silly little coincidences, except for your own manipulation (you asked the officer to look at the drive, so how was it "intended" to occur?). Birthday probabilities tell us you only need a sample of 23 people before the odds of two of them having the same birthday exceed 50%. And OMG, a son named Joseph? Something like 3% of American men are named Joseph.

Fingers. But not stuck up inside a sockpuppet. That's not allowed here.

! Moderator Note This is in the Organic Chemistry section. Guesswork here isn't helpful.

Can there be yellow without bananas and lemons? Can you have round without balls and circles? Can I borrow a cup of momentum? All of these things, including energy, are properties of a thing rather than things by themselves.

Jamie Maussan, a UFO researcher, is showing this evidence TO the government of Mexico. He's the one making the claims, not the government of Mexico. That's the way I read this story.

! Moderator Note This argument is clearly made in bad faith as an attempt to dismiss what others have said. I suggest you reread the whole thread before claiming nobody has given you any support for their arguments.

You have no real control over the past or the future, and the only things you truly control in the present are your attitude and your efforts. You can make sure both are focused on what you want to achieve.

How do you define those terms? Does "leave the past behind" mean never thinking about it anymore? Does it mean forgetting all you've learned from your experiences in the past? Does it mean only thinking about the good parts of the past? I think "move towards the future" assumes there is an ideal future for you if you can figure it out. Am I wrong about that? I think our past shapes and prepares us for what we're doing in the present, and helps us think ahead to prepare for what may happen in the future. Success in the future almost always comes from correctly predicting in the present what you'll need to get or do to achieve it, and that's mostly based on past experience.

Sometimes merchants need to finalize transactions and delay charges, but I've never heard of a bank doing it. I can almost guarantee those charges will show back up again.

If one person with a skin temp of 95F lies on the material to warm it up, and ten minutes later another person with a skin temp of 95F touches it with their hand, the second person is going to feel less than or equal to 95F, so it will feel either cooler or the same, but not warmer. Does that make sense? Like when you test someone for a fever by touching their forehead, you feel the difference between 95F and 100F as warmth.

Your wife gets annoyed when you hover? Are you using some kind of blower arrangement indoors? You should switch to magnetic levitation. Welcome to the forum!

! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge.

! Moderator Note This is NOT the place to advertise anything. It's against the rules.

Not entirely. Retailers make a LOT of choices about what to sell based on space available, profit margins, and many other factors, none of which were driven by the customer. I want a specific part to fix my X, but to save space and make more profit, the retailer carries a kit that fits 90% of all Xs so he only has to stock the kit, which costs 50% more and makes the retailer more profit than the specific part I wanted. Not sure if it's happening where you are, but in the US the grocery stores are revamping their floorplans and procedures, paying their employees more and giving them better working conditions (which is long overdue), but they've done so at the expense of the customer. We used to load up our carts and bring them to the checkout, where the checker took each item out of the basket to scan it. Now the checkouts start with a conveyor belt, the customer loads AND unloads the cart, and the checker just scans. They have fewer checkers, so the lines are longer. The stores are making record amounts of profit, but they aren't hiring more workers, they're just getting the customers to do more for free. The US is far from a free market, and blaming the customer is blaming the victim, imo. I've still got my eye on the ultra-rich as the culprits.

There's a HUGE amount wrong with that in modern execution. Many companies made great profits in the past without beggaring the rest of the population, including their own workers. If you haven't seen how much more money goes to the shareholders and owners these days, you aren't paying attention. I've spent my life in business to make money, but I never excused industries like Pharma for the corrupt business practices they've lobbied into law. Oh, and I don't think it's working for anyone but the ethically corrupt, but I'm sure your support is appreciated.

This is where people in general get the blame, but in the US, at least, the economy is geared towards breaking families up into the smallest groups possible, ensuring that everybody needs to buy everything, leading to overconsumption on a massive scale.

You frame this as if lower population automatically means higher quality of life. I propose that focusing on education and healthcare, giving people access to success, and working on ways to curb overconsumption can achieve a higher quality of life for more people than we have now. I suspect the problem has deep roots in how the rich keep the poor poor, then complain that they're the problem.

! Moderator Note If you don't understand what someone is saying, please ask questions. Don't attack them personally. Try to clarify exactly where your understanding has failed when you make replies like this. Stop trolling.

I don't assume that. I think the human population is underutilized, mismanaged, and kept barely above slavery in many parts of the world. I think the outrage of overpopulation is being manufactured by those who hoard resources and demean the labor of people. Rather than giving the resource hoarders more control over our reproduction, I'd like to try more cooperation and less competition, and try to distribute resources more efficiently and effectively for a larger percentage of the population. No more food rotting on docks because there's no profit in getting it to starving people, which will make them healthier and more able to continue their own prosperity. I'd like to start a cycle like that, because we know where the "overpopulation" cycle leads.

To add to what iNow said, you're framing a lack of belief as a belief itself, similar to saying bald is a hair color. Your framework is askew. Since this is a science site, it's my duty to point out that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and "logic". Philosophy and mathematics use formal logic and proofs. Science deals with theory, which is the best current explanation for a specific phenomenon. Some may dub what science uses as informal logic, but I think critical thinking/reasoning is more accurate and less misleading. Spock from Star Trek spawned a bad pop-sci trend with his interpretation of logic, and nowadays many use it as shorthand for "this makes sense to me".