dichotomy

That kid wouldn’t be out of place at an AC/DC concert!

I know this is science, but I found this amusing. A Neanderthal pronouncing the letter “e.” http://www.fau.edu/explore/media/FAU-neanderthal.wav http://www.fau.edu/explore/homepage-stories/2008-04speaks.php It's probably just me.

I think this story is proof that behaviours are shaped heavily and dominantly by environment. Human DNA to me is only the latent potential for a human to be much more than what, a chicken, can possibly become. Our behaviour is really at mercy of our environment. What do you think? A man in Suva, Fiji, is being taught to act human after being raised as a chicken. Clayton said doctors examined Sunjit and found no mental defects. Professionals agreed that his condition was the result of years of neglect and abuse. "He had imitated or imprinted with the chicken," Clayton said. "He was perching, he was picking at his food, he was hopping around like a chicken. He'd keep his hands in a chickenlike fashion, and he'd make a noise, which was like the calling of a chicken, which he still has." http://www.nbc10.com/news/3510527/detail.html Sorry about the limited info in the link, I actually saw a televised program with Sunjit and witnessed his heavy conditioning, it was beyond belief. Does anyone have more detailed info on Sunjit?

Science is either proving or disproving religious intuition. Science provides more solid illuminations via math and a growing body of evidence, while religion and art provides a murky starting platform for mans understanding of his environment and existence. IMO. I would think that the human awareness progression goes something like –unconscious darkness, subconscious darkness, consciousness puzzlement, religion, alchemy, science….. Crude I know, but this is the general idea. Well if you blindly target the atheist within, you might as well target the power tripper within. You might even be closer to the truth. Scientifically, power and the desire for beauty are the things that really drive man, are they not?

If you are saying that everything is a two edged sword, then of course, without evil we wouldn’t know what good was. Without fantasy we wouldn’t know what reality is. Without deities we wouldn’t know what an atheist was. The fact is, there are two sides to everything, in order for us to more fully comprehend what the other side might be. I don’t think it would be much of an atheist tragedy if the deity belief was successfully extinguished. Although it may be a tragedy for a fairy tales writer. I agree, herds, packs, flocks etc, wouldn't exist if some form of ethic wasn't being unconsciously practiced. I do agree that primitive minds had to start somewhere with a unifying code of morality, and religion filled that need, and that obviously millions/billions still need the deity belief thing as a sort of security blanket. Hopefully, eventually, that illusory security blanket can be let go of for plain old common ethics, once the mind is ready.

Both types would be interesting to see. So, with the 1nm labelled image, I assume that each light coloured dot is an observable individual atom, about as clearly as can be reproduced photographically? Thanks for the image links.

Q31. What is the smallest observable thing? Whatever it is, it can be observable with a very powerful microscope. Is there a link to a photograph of it? I was thinking of how far you could crush a grain of sand and still be able to observe its contents.

Or, a motion affect or the impression of time? So, this whole Space–Time thing might be better described as Space–Motion?

We have done this over a few years. It is not just one observation, it comes from 3 people who have been aware of their first choice (and its accuracy over time), and then selected another choice that failed more often then a first choice that was gone along with. But you are correct in saying that a log book would obviously be a more solid approach...depending on the amount of beer consumed of couse. An article on decision making - "Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts -- even up to 7 seconds ahead of time -- how a person is going to decide." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm Perhaps after those 7 seconds you can change your mind and more often make the wrong decision?

That maybe because, all that time is, is a tape measure of motion.

I occasionally play 8 ball (pool) with a couple of friends. One thing that we have noticed, as amateurs, is that if we go with our first decision it more often works than going with a revised, or, second decision on what play to make. Perhaps the first decision comes from the subconscious/unconscious and the second decision comes from the conscious? And in this way one could choose to go with either, that’s if one truly begins in the subconscious?

It was probably some tit that made it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forked_tongue A pretty poor Wiki entry, but it does state - "Reptiles smell using the tip of their tongue, and a forked tongue allows them to tell which direction a smell is coming from." Which begs the question, what are their nostrils for? Purely oxygen holes?

What, to produce milk? Is it urban legend that some concentration camp male prisoners in WWII developed breasts or enlarged mammary glands to feed the babies that had no mothers? I doubt this is true, but I don't know really.

Well, at least that guy has a larger than normal cranial casing.

What about eye brows? Why two?

Would it be reasonable to state that if something can be measured, then it must be real? I’m not 100% convinced that time is, or isn’t real, but it’s close relatives in things like motion, change and aging etc, can be measured and are real.

Ok, what about the forked tongue of a snake. Does each tip on the fork serve that slightly different, handy, sense service?

Amazing. It makes so much sense now. I would have thought it was just a relic. Why we have two eyes and ears is more obvious of course, but can the same be said, that is, does each eye pick up vision in a slightly different way? and each ear may pick up vibrations in a slightly different way?

I'm thinking just visible light. No UV a,b,c, no infra red, no x-ray, gamma rays, nothing but light that illuminates darkness. At any length? Or point in its length? Ok, what I’m thinking is if the directed light, from say a standard 12v 50w dichroic lamp, is about 3m above a red cotton t-shirt. Wouldn’t the heat just rise away from the t-shirt and not damage it, even over 10 years? I'm having a friendly argument with a museum person regarding 12v 50w dichroic lamp light possibly damaging textiles, the lamps use UV absorbing glass and are between 2 and 5 meters away from what they are lighting. It seems unlikely to me that fading or damage could occur over 3 or 4 months of exposure.

Nostrils, why two? Why do humans, and many other animals, have two nostrils? I’d think that one large one would have been more efficient.

Q30. Can light on a textile, by itself, fade colour and break down the textile? That is, if UV, infra red and heat are removed from the light source.

I got a "Session Cookie Error" wuth this one?

If I’m not mistaken the stats don’t have the entire population numbers of these breeds. I’d think these numbers would further magnify the real difference between breeds. E.g. if there are 100,000 Chihuahua’s with 1 death, and 100 pitbulls with 200 deaths, then Huston we have a problem. But still, the stats interesting and revealing.

Can you?!

Is DNA as colourful as that? Or, are the colours just for clarifying what is occuring? Amazing stuff.