iNow

Who is this "we" that makes the judgement call and agrees about any actions being taken due to a "moral obligation?"

The only absolute is that there are none.

What I meant was not reflecting the light.

I see. You are referring to a human as a "blackbody." I'm pretty sure this is not possible, so theoretically speaking only, they would appear pitch black. Basically, all incoming radiation is absorbed, which is why it appears black.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html

As to how "sharp" the image of them would be, and if their edges would appear "fuzzy," I really don't know, and that's an interesting question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

\Basically radars work as human eye they send radio Frequency waves, or whatever wave they send they send, and when the RF hits something it returns back showing the position of the aircraft. The F117 Plane does not reflect this wave and thus it remains undetected, unseen by the radar.

Also, just to clarify this point, stealth technology tends to be a combination of 1) absorption of the radar signal, and 2) reflecting it in other directions.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question69.htm

First and foremost: Carl Sagan

Then, Nicolaus Copernicus

Also, Frederick Banting, for he is a large part of the reason I am alive today.

A friend of mine made a mistake one of these days by saying that human bodies absorb light . This got me thinking what if that were true

I'm not sure I follow your question. Light hitting the skin releases vitamin D, UVs cause tanning, light hitting the retina in our eyes results in firing of optical nerves and signals in the occipital cortex... aka, vision. What do you mean "human bodies absorb light" and what is it exactly that you think your friend is wrong about?

Well, mate... The easy answer is that there is no easy answer. Each individual's behavior and ability to learn comes from a complex interaction between their genetic makeup and the environment in which they have been raised and lived. These divisions are classically referred to as Nature (genetics) and Nurture (environment/experience).

Try looking at articles such as the one I have linked below. I get the feeling you want to ask a more specific question, but just don't quite know the words to use when framing it. I could be wrong, of course, but maybe if you like what I've quoted below you will open the link, read the rest of the article, and maybe even explore other parts of the site. Enjoy.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately, this can be very misleading to the public.

 

For example, a study published in 1999 claimed that overexpression of a particular gene in mice led to enhanced learning capacity. The popular press referred to this gene as "the learning gene" or the "smart gene." What the press didn't mention was that the learning enhancements observed in this study were short-term, lasting only a few hours to a few days in some cases.

 

Dubbing a gene as a "smart gene" gives the public a false impression of how much scientists really know about the genetics of a complex trait like intelligence. Once news of the "smart gene" reaches the public, suddenly there is talk about designer babies and the potential of genetically engineering embryos to have intelligence and other desirable traits, when in reality the path from genes to proteins to development of a particular trait is still a mystery.

 

With disorders, behaviors, or any physical trait, genes are just a part of the story, because a variety of genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic variant doesn't necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop. The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other genetic factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may be keeping a gene from being turned "on." In addition, the protein encoded by a gene can be modified in ways that can affect its ability to carry out its normal cellular function.

 

Genetic factors also can influence the role of certain environmental factors in the development of a particular trait. For example, a person may have a genetic variant that is know to increase his or her risk for developing emphysema from smoking, an environmental factor. If that person never smokes, then emphysema will not develop.

You may be able to establish trends, but race would not generally cause these trends or differences. It would be like asking if wearing different colored t-shirts effected how well you learn. Genetics play a role, but skin color really doesn't (unless, perhaps the teachers of these students treat them differently as a result of their skin color). What makes you ask this question?

I'm not Christian by a long shot but if there is a Christian "God" and he wrote in words of fire across the sky for the whole world to see "I Am The Lord Thy God" exactly how long would it be before the words "Mass Hallucination" were heard?

My first inclination would actually be "hoax." I am, after all, a person who approaches the world with a scientific mind, not as an active non-thinker. I would then investigate the phenomenon to clarify it's true origin and cause.

I think a lot of the comments regarding the rediculous come from the immediate presumption by those with high religiosity that the answer is "God did it" when looking at said evidence.

"Wow... the sun rose today again. That's clear evidence of the work of the lord."

It strikes me as childish, and due only to a lack of more information, awareness, and curiosity. In this example, my preference is to instead investigate planetary motion and mechanics, finding both awe and inpsiration in my quest toward better understanding the true mechanisms behind the beauty of our universe. Saying it's the work of some imaginary superpower is boring.

How come nobody sees Zeus in their potato chips or Hades on tortillas?

The congress. The people. The country.

Is it your intent to suggest that the congress, the people, and the country are all of like mind and agree on what is "moral" and who might be the "aggressor?" Your answer is true, but non-specific, so it ignores the issue to which I was calling attention.

We have a hard enough time agreeing on what to have for dinner in my house.

]It used radio waves if I remember correctly... Not sure. But I think the items being charged needed an adapter for it.

Sounds like this article:

http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/06/11/wireless_chargi.html

If so, it's actually Electromagnetic Induction, like how some electric toothbrushes are powered.

I and my partner (she did a lot of work) made tower that was 105cm.

Way to go! That's awesome.

Why do we feel it's ok to force our moral values on the rest of society?

Who gets to make the final decision about what's "moral," and which side is the "aggressor?"

Relativity is about more than the speed of light.

You could count how many times your dog deficates in a week, then change it's diet to rice boiled in chicken broth for the next week and graph the change in pooping patterns.

Too silly? Yeah... I know.

What about one of Rupert Sheldrake's tests (strange British fella who talks about "morphological fields"). He wrote a book called, "Dogs who know when their owners are coming home." You might enjoy some of his (admittedly wild and not too rigorous) ideas to at least get the proverbial ball rolling.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/

Good luck!

I'd say "Proof of memes" is an excellent thread title. Well played sir.

http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/chain-letter/glossary.htm

What is a meme?

As defined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976): "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation." "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. ...

Internet people...

Personally, I've never really liked the idea of a one night stand. Just not my cup of tea, as it were.

You are female. A one night stand could result in your need to devote (at absolute minimum) nine months worth of resources to that one night's decision. For the male, he gets an offspring, an orgasm, and has not really lost any significant resources in the exchange. It's a maximal return for minimal expenditure for him, and a life altering event for her. It's no wonder that there are different "feelings" about such encounters which are gender specific.

Now, with the advent and improvement of contraception, there are definitely exceptions to this norm which has evolved through the ages.

As dichotomy mentioned, ants and bees are not conscious, and insects like them will likely outlast humans - all without consciousness.

I suppose it is this point which I am challenging, since none of us have yet agreed upon an adequate definition of consciousness.

Guest026,

Take about 10 minutes and watch these:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6574747902226985762&q=sagan+cosmos+evolution&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667&q=sagan+cosmos+evolution&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

They are not conscious of what finite can mean to their survival chances.

I think by your logic above that you are defining a person in poverty (struggles to find food and shelter each day and night) is more conscious than a person who is extremely rich (can buy and do practically whatever they want with little regard or concern for it's impact on resources).

Additionally, (and not that I disagree) you are suggesting that we as a culture are not conscious, since we act so consistently to our own detriment with our approach to resources in the environment. In this regard, we as humans are clearly more parasitic than conscious.

Let's burn dinosaur bones until we can't find anymore, and make our air more disgusting with each item we power. Cough... Another cancer? Damn... I don't even smoke.

SO the laws of relativity which is based upon the speed of light as Einstein wrote have been shown to be wrong...

How do you figure that? Have you even read the other 15 posts in this thread? Are you familiar with all of the empirical evidence in support of both SR and GR?

Perhaps we could break the discussion down two distinct paths.

1) What do you find appealing in a potential mate with whom you desire nothing more than a one-night stand?

2) What do you find appealing in a potential mate with whom you desire a long-term, multi-year, cross-context relationship?

Please, don't just say "big tits." I think that's a given for both.

not a troll, just a high school kid who wrote that monster on behalf of another and wanted to get an online community of people interested in science to comment on it

Don't take it personally. Listen to the criticisms, and recognize where you can do better next time. This is how science works. You have some information, you make a prediction, you run a test, and you go from there. So far, you made some claims which are being challenged. The next step is to update your points, and adjust your reasoning and outcome as appropriate.

Evolution by natural selection is probably the single most robust theory we've ever had the opportunity to explore. Do you have a question for us that interests you? You seem like an explorer.

Many animal species, including primates, will have several alternate mating strategies that a male can take advantage of.

This is the key point. There are trends, and there are individual differences. There is no "one size fits all," but a series of options weighted across one'e specific combination of nature and nurture that lead up to the final mating choice.

I'm a girl, by the way. And I promise, I'm not anorexic.

Sorry to call you a he. Nothing personal.

To SkepticLance,

Isn't a third option "both A and B?"

Also, understanding the opposite sex isn't the issue. Put your focus instead on understanding the person, and you'll do just fine. We are more similar than we are different.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Evolution IS supported by science. How many references do you want? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

Tell me Watson, what falsifyable predictions does creationism offer?

I don't believe in abortion because the fetus you just killed could of cured cancer,aids, and the common cold in the future.

I suppose then that you also don't believe in masturbation for the same reason.

The number of cancer curing sperm I've let swim down the shower drain...

Hmmm...

Premise A: Consciousness is not a phenomenon unique to humans.

Premise B: The scope of an animals consciousness is a function of what is required for survival in it's environment.

Premise C: Consciousness is an emergent property of life.

Fire away.

I don't know if I can find a good internet cite for that, as the first thing that comes up when I google "omomyoid theory" is this thread. I'm going by Beard's book and Primate Adaptation and Evolution.

Have you looked at Beard's references section for a source or two?

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PgiGPYeVN0sC&oi=fnd&pg=PA55&dq=beard+omomyoids+&ots=oeDGRqhqx0&sig=3h0Hku8yn6m1V_KeQ8klwms6Pts#PPP1,M1