iNow

Care to elaborate? In short, I disagree.

Go with your doubt on this one.

Not that I know of. As far as I'm aware, the more connections, the better the response. When the connections are not used, they get trimmed, or "pruned."

The ones at this link are, quite simply, stunning. Once you've viewed the animation on the homepage, be sure to go to the bottom right and click "Media" for more: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/ Also, swansont's recent blog post: http://listverse.com/science/top-10-amazing-chemical-reactions/

Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled:

But how would it become fully submerged if it were less dense than the water and floated on top?

Norm, Will you answer my question?

You should note to whom I was responding, and look at his posts across SFN. Once you have, I think you'll quickly find the reason this thread got derailed, and why I took the tone I did.

No! Not at all, antimatter. Your response was perfect. You said basically that you did not know, but you wanted to learn. You requested help, but also stated that you would put some effort in on your own. I really meant what I said, and your response is a sign of good character. No sarcasm intended.

Brilliant answer, and a good indication of your character. Start here, click links when you need clarification, then come back here once you've refined your questions. I won't necessarily be able to answer it, but we might be able to figure it out together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrite

Let me ask you first... Do you understand how new connections are formed when the cell is perfectly healthy? If not, I'd start there.

That's almost certainly a product of mate selection, but functionally, a larger brow ridge, one enhanced with hair, helps the person to have better vision in bright conditions. Sort of like wearing a hat with a brim to keep the sun out of your eyes. Before hats, eyebrows would have served similar purpose. Again, though, for some reason brows were found more attractive during mate selection. I just can't understand why, myself.

I suppose there is a risk of a nerve cell being "over-fired" and then crippling itself, but each time it fires new dendritic connections would form and the neural web in that pathway would become denser... likely to cancel the effects of a small handful of individual cells exhausting. I'm not 100% sure on the above, but I think it's reasonable.

Taq, That's not a very useful post. You are simply spouting a lot of conclusions which have been REPEATEDLY demonstrated to be false. Please study this topic in greater detail before suggesting that you know so much about it. In case you struggle with graphs, the one below demonstrates the relative impact of the various forcings on climate. You will see that CO2 far surpasses the others. You also know that humans pour tons of carbon into the atmosphere at unprecendented rates. So... carbon is the biggest factor in warming, we keep adding carbon to the atmosphere. You don't have to have a PhD in mathematics to understand the outcome.

This is a very often repeated, though seriously inaccurate statement, but much of the issue is with the fact that people don't understand the concept of addiction. We can be addicted to pizza. We can be addicted to flirting. We can be addicted to Wild Cherry Pepsi. and...yes, We can be addicted to marajuana. It's all about the baseline psychological state and what your body will do to satisfy that baseline need. Marajuana may not fit snugly into little nicotinic acetocholine receptors like cigarettes do, but that does not mean one can accurately state it is not addictive.

I agree. I'll ask a similar question to Eric's. Is a banana a rock or a hot air balloon? Simple question.

Thank you, sir. Finally! Once you're done, we'll ultimately be left with Bush bashers who can back up their hatred with logical arguments. It will be a glorious day indeed for those who remain... which will still be a majority of the populace if I reckon.

In what base?

Well, there is a "non-zero probability" of that ( ), but it's not very likely.

I quite agree, and also thank you for offering a post from a perspective outside of the US. I suppose it makes it that much harder for your points to be blanketly dismissed as "leftie." ... Which gets REALLY frustrating.

You have already been put in your place, but you just haven't yet comprehended that fact. Swansont is quite right when he tells you that this is a false dichotomy.

It might have something to do with the fact that the guy with three nostrils couldn't get laid.

Ah... Isn't that always what happens when you try to convey something using overly simplistic terms. Thanks man. Important clarification, indeed.

Barbie, Short answer, all the stuff you mentioned in regards to the warming trend have been shown not to be the cause. It is the result of human activity, and there are countless examples in support of my statement. And bagpipes? Well, that's a pretty clear strawman of the actual position. C'mon right back atcha.

I think it has more to do with the passion he feels on the issue. Since I quite agree with the goal he is trying to achieve, I am trying to drive more rationality into the perspective being shared, not attack him personally.