Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Thorin

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/04/1903

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    PaintBall, Chess, Mountain Bikes
  • College Major/Degree
    BA in English Literature & Creative Writing
  • Occupation
    Computer Technician
  1. Dov, the article also says that "Identical twins have the same DNA configuration but they do not have identical friction ridge configuration." Thanks for the verification.
  2. Domayele- I think you theory is a strange mix of weed and the deist perspective. You also seem to have added a pinch of Buddhism. I too am wondering why you classify man as the pinnacle of evolution.
  3. In response to Aommaster's post I'm an identical twin and my brother and I have different fingerprints. I've done some research and it seems that fingerprints also depend on the embryonic environment to help develop their pattern, which causes slight variations. Now we do still have the same DNA, but a fingerprint would identify the individual. So much for advanced science, LOL. As for Brainman's later comment: The main function of the fingerprint is to increase the available surface area that can be used for grip, nerve endings, "breathing," and so on; more than just "tire tred" for your fingers. The ridges exponentially increase the surface area.
  4. I remember, in grade school science, we formed a line and held hands. The student on the end touched a vandigraph machine. You could feel the current travel through the chain, but the person on the end got the worst of it. Static is fun stuff!
  5. I reread part of your original post and this sentence stood out to me as a possible overstatement. Darwin gave broad theories, which were speculative in their very nature. That is why he remains open to "attack." What gave his theories power were the in-depth examples using modern diversity. You seem to be almost offended that people still debate Darwin's theories and paint dissenters as being almost heretical. I would argue that it is that very debate that you would want to happen. I would not advocate persecution of thought, but a little friction keeps us from getting lazy and hones the argument, discarding the stuff that doesn't work. What a LAZY conclusion! You negate the fact that what is true for one can be imposed on others, making it true (reality) for all. I think the Nazis and Stalin made that clearly possible. Your conclusion also negates the positive force of education and collaboration, both of which seek to introduce previously unknown ideas into the singularly personal mind of the individual and break down the barriers that exist naturally within isolation. Your conclusion is stuck in the ivory-tower of the Victorian and Romantic intellect.
  6. Yep, both of your cited articles reference his brain as being within the normal bounds, but they do mention a curios detail about his inferior parietal lobe. That being, it was 15% bigger than the norm. That section of the brain does seen to correlate with spatial reasoning. It may not be causation, but it is an interesting fact, considering his use of mental pictures to formulate his theories. Your articles also mention his unusually thin separator membranes between lobes, which meant he had a greater neuron density then most. This points toward density and lobe size as being more important than head size when considering "intelligence" in any given area of study or application, which may have more bearing on evolutionary discussions.
  7. If you want a cheap experiment in overclocking, try a pentiumII 300MHz. With a relativly normal heatsink and a good fan, it was amazingly stable up to twice its speed. You might also want to keep in mind that processors tend to develop a "memory" as far as what speed they are run at. If you overclock/underclock your processor for an extended period of time, it may only run at that speed.
  8. Thorin

    Paper CD`s

    I think this is one technology I'll wait a while to try. Let someone else put their data at risk first.
  9. Thanks for the link! Where can I find G-class engines?
  10. Back to the subject: To imply that the plant somehow wants to defend itself by introducing "pro-nature" thought patterns into another organism, goes too far and suggests an active intelligence. I would agree that THC probably started out as a defense mechanism and then, when its effects were accidentally discovered when someone dumped a load of it on the fire, was selectively cultivated for potency.
  11. Neo, has any of this helped? BTW- It has been said that Einstein had one of the smallest brains on record. It just depends on how much of it you use (what is the average?) and which parts are most developed (spatial reasoning and such).
  12. Even inhalers for Asthma can inhance performance and oxygen utilization. Should we draw the line at "medically necessary," or does that give a "crutch" that allows people to play who couldn't otherwise do so?
  13. I think it would fit in nicely with deists like Thomas Jefferson. Deism is also known as the clockmaker theory: a higher being made the clock and its mechanisms (laws) and then walked away. So is gravity and quantum physics, but they're still powerful models. Nothing is a "law" anymore. See previous post... The whole paragraph works as an example, but fails as evidence for your paper's premise. You even bring up the possibility (earlier in the paper) that things can be similar but not descended from one another, like apes and humans. Could Lucy be from a failed branch and not an ancestor? This brings up another, probably unintended, question. Why do we have logic? In and of itself, it is not as good a survival tactic (for the species) as say massive reproduction, or a shorter gestation period. Look at the amazing quantities of ants as apposed to the population of humans. I think you need to answer the logic question, which is also present in large octopi, a non-vertebrate. If you’re going to make that kind of statement, you’d better sight a source. Who said it? In conclusion, your conclusion concludes nothing. At least repeat your premise or thesis.
  14. As far as a non-Christian rebutttle of Darwinian Evolution, read Darwin's Black Box. He comes at it from a micro-biologist's point of view. It's a good read and easy to understand. You can get it cheap in paperback. Your post sounds like a term paper to me. Do want us to critique it for you?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.