Liriodendron Tulipifera

Clive Owen could pull off Galt. But he doesn't look like Galt, unfortunately. I really can't picture him with blond hair. George Peppard for Ragnar, all the way! Great suggestion. As for modern actresses, the only ones that have enough class to play the part of Dagny are Nicole Kidman and Jodie Foster. The problem is, Kidman is beautiful while Dagny was not. However, as we saw in The Hours, Kidman was made to look pre...tty unacttractive! So she just might work. Jodie Foster has the attitude needed, though.

The original assertion was that a man will appear more attractive to a woman when surrounded by other females. That was what Ravane was responding to. Certainly not every conversation with a philosophical person has to be philosophical. It could just be about the weather, and there is nothing wrong with that! But the fact that small talk has a place in our lives does not mean that seeing a man small-talking with two other females on the street automatically makes him sexually attractive to me.

I agree. Although what I have found on chimp language with google was very conservative. i.e. basically saying that chimps are not capable of language. Perhaps I'm ignoring the more "pop culture" stuff. Anyhow, there are one or two good skeptical points raised by other scientists on the blog that softwareNerd mentions about the validity of the researchers' claims in this case. One was that the reward was different for the children (praise by the researcher) but not for the chimp (food). Clearly, that's one problem right there. Also, the children got verbal instructions and a mechanical demonstration, whereas the chimps got simply a mechanical demonstration. That is hardly keeping the conditions same between treatments!!! Aaaaargh! I agree. As for the transgenic chimp bit, I would say it's on the way. While there are certainly regulations as regards transgenic work and animal experimentation, it still goes on, and the fact that we have human cloning going on seems to indicate that humans will still try to find a way around these legal barriers in order to do science. There have been several genes identified that are at least partly responsible for speech. One of them that is responsible for articulate speech in humans differs by only one nucleotide (or an amino acid, if protein, I honestly don't remember which) in the chimp analog. !!!

I rather agree, Dismuke. There is a quote by Dave Barry: "A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person." It seems to me that manners, generally speaking, are becoming non-existent. Oh, for the days when people acted like ladies and gentlemen! As for the difference between Canada and the United States, I find that people in Canada are generally more well-mannered in public settings. I can't attest to differences in tipping practices. Canadians are polite, they do not speak loudly and inappropriately on their cell phones or to people in person, and they have much better table manners. Of course, they also generally believe they are superior to Americans, perhaps for these reasons, which is rather a turn-off! I generally leave 20% every time, but I think after reading some of the posts here, I'm going to reduce my "adequate service" tip level to 15% and my "superior service" tip level to 20%. I think I've been tipping too much.

unfortunately, although I did set up an account, I could not read the entire article, only the first few sentences. The article seems to indicate that the children were preschool age. That means 3-4, correct? How old were the kids in the experiment, exactly? After all, I can teach a dog more tricks than a newborn baby. It doesn't prove anything except that the dog, at its adult developmental stage, is smarter than the baby at a very juvenile developmental stage. It's a comparison of apples and oranges. The reason I ask about the age of the children is that some people seem to feel threatened that animals might have some degree of rationality. I can't really understand why. Even if some animal species can understand a few simple concepts, it's really nothing in comparison to man's conceptual abilities. Now, if the chimps appeared more rational than eleven year old children, that would really make me sit back and go, "Wow!" A friend of mine is reading a book called "Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe" and the thesis of the book is that "intelligence" inevitably had to evolve because of molecular constraints on the evoutionary process. Of course, scientists like Stephen Jay Gould would argue otherwise, that everything is contingent on what happened before, and the chances of something like humans (although they may not have five finger and five toes) evolving again if evolution were to be "replayed," are infinitesimally small. This is something I would like to investigate. Ah, too many books, too little time. I don't necessarily believe this statement, but these examples of chimps and children are perhaps interesting examples of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," meaning: the developmental sequence of a species from juvenile to adult is mirrored in the evolutionary process of that species. What if we could "transplant" the genes for articulate speech in chimps? Would they then show the capacity for language, as they do not show now? DavidOdden, do you know anything about where along the evolutionary timeline language developed? It seems to me that it would have evolved after the ability to form concepts, as a means of communicating those concepts, which would, of course, have resulted in increased survival. Of course, this is mere speculation, but if it is true, it might explain why chimps show some signs of rationality without being able to communicate those concepts through language. Depending on the age of the children in the experiment mentioned by Diana, their ability to communicate may be approximately on the level of that of a chimp. My current understanding is that three year olds really don't have the capacity for language as such, although they do have the capacity for verbal communication, which is right about where chimps are.

Huh. That's really interesting! thanks. (Oh - I did not realize it was free. I admit, I was lazy and did not bother to try setting up an account. Just assumed I had to pay.) Anyway, I'm very interested in this topic, so maybe when I feel better and have more time, I'll return. Shortly after I wrote this I had to put my dog down, so I'm kind of sad.

Unfortunately, I could not view the NY Times article. I read about a study (I didn't read the original study) in which the researchers seemed to prove that chimps understand the concept of belief, which is something that three year old children do not understand. Here goes: Let's say that Tom and Harry, 3 year old humans, are allowed into a room where they play with a ball. Tom and Harry then place the ball in a box. Tom is asked to leave the room. The researcher then asks Harry to take the ball out of the box and place it in a basket. The researcher asks Harry "Harry, when Tom comes back in the room, where will he look for the ball?" Harry will answer, "In the basket!" Three year olds cannot understand the concept of belief. They do not understand that others' views about the world differ from their own. This is called the false belief task, and children cannot perform it properly until about age four. A group of researchers have studied false-belief tasks in chimps. Obviously, chimps are not capable of human language, so the studies had to be a bit more clever. In one study I read about, subordinate chimps were allowed to watch food being hidden on a stage in various locations: that is, they were aware of all locations where food was hidden. At the same time they were also watching a more dominant chimp that was watching the same procedure, but because of the setup, the dominant chimp could not see all pieces of food being hidden. When both chimps were released, the subordinate chimp was more likely to go for the food that the dominant chimp did not see hidden. Since subordinate chimps will defer to dominant chimps re: the taking of food, this suggested to the researchers that the subordinate chimp could keep track of what the other chimp knew, and altered his actions accordingly to get more food for himself. Many more studies will need to be done to determine how much chimps can reason, but in the meantime it's certainly fascinating. It is a relevant topic, since biotechnologically we are at the point where we can pinpoint certain genes that are responsible for certain behaviors (such as articulate speech) in humans, and find their analogs in chimps. I don't know enough about this area of research, but I presume that those genes may be altered by engineering at some point to create a kind of hybrid/chimera/or transgenic chimp that would have special abilities.

Hm. I'm with Ravane on this one.

Hal, I've only heard of one study that actually showed that kin selection exists, and even there the evidence was shaky. I can dig up the original reference if anyone is interested: it was done on some species of jaybird. Examples of kin selection may occur in nature, but I believe they are infrequent. Evolutionary biologists talk about it a lot, but it's still largely a theory and if it occurs it is a weak evolutionary force, from what I understand. Key examples of true kin selection are some social insects, but they clearly derive more genetic benefit from helping the queen to reproduce than to reproduce themselves. Clearly, truly altruistic behavior (in which one does not benefit more by the behavior than if one reproduced oneself) can survive evolutionarily only if it is directed toward other altruists. And that is why it is very uncommon in nature, if not non-existent. As regards altruism in the human race, I very much agree with Thales. Anyway, there is a vast difference between the rest of biological life and human life, both in the purpose of life and in the means for pursuing that life. As Binswanger points out in this book, no other species has the capacity to act irrationally because they do not have the capacity to act rationally. Man is the only species that act self-destructively.

No suprises here. How about the passage in the Old Testament (one of the books in the Torah) where a man had houseguests and a mob outside the house demanded they be released, but the man released his virgin daughters instead? Or the woman who got her father drunk and then slept with him to get pregnant? My Bible is packed away in my brother's basement, since I don't have use for it anymore. Otherwise I'm sure I could come up with some real winners. Having been raised in a bible-thumping household, I can attest to the fact that these passages are often rationalized away as "cultural differences of the time." Many pastors spend little time on Jesus' words, which were pretty radical, and spend more time on the books written by apostle Paul (the latter part of the New Testament). But even Paul said that to die is to gain. The Bible, and the modern Christian life, is one big contradiction, and I struggled over it for a long time before and after leaving the church. Christians have accepted reason to varying degrees. Most people who regularly attend protestant churches rationalize these types of passages away or don't spend much time on them. They cherry pick. Those who are Catholic don't read the Bible, anyway, for the most part. Tradition plays a much greater role in Catholicism. I'm not really sure what you're looking for. There are some nice poetic passages in the Bible, but most of it's nonsense or incredibly boring geneologies. You could take up a lot of space in this thread with ridiculous Bible verses, because most of the Bible is ridiculous!

heh. i thought there was something wierd about that person!

Zak, you are only the second guy who I've ever heard say that Angelina Jolie isn't hot. I agree. It's true that her acting stinks, but I don't really get why men think she's sexy. As in physically. I see more beautiful women on the street. Everything about her seems out of proportion, especially her mouth. It reminds me of a piano. Kind of like Julia Roberts'. I love Marilyn Monroe's look. Especially before she became famous. I'm sure there are better pictures around, but here are a few. And her first Playboy shoot against the red background are the most amazing images of a nude I have ever seen. Her face projects pure innocence: it's amazing!! Check out this website, too. Wasn't she adorable? http://www.womensrising.com/southwestflair...eanmarapr05.htm

No, pond scum is algae. I hate algae. Actually, the pond scum that is all white on the edges of streams (not ponds) and lakes is fungus. Those white "clouds" consist of spores suspended in water.

****sigh**** If a guy did this and I really wasn't interested in in the first place, I'd feel sorry for him. Let's say I WAS interested and had refused the dates because I was shy, or didn't know how to handle the attention in the first place. If some guy had expressed serious interest in me and then next week he started hanging out with some other chick, this would not make me "succumb." All it would make me think is that this guy is a loser/womanizer/ total floosy who doesn't know his own mind or what he values, and that I am better off without him. Disappointment does not translate into desperation. On top of that, if I could discern that he was just using someone else to have revenge against me, I'd think he was pond scum . Sorry for the strong words, but I think there are many men on this forum that need to understand that women are not a big ball of emotion. We are a lot more rational than you think.

yes, she is beautiful!

I see what you are saying now (I think). Is it that people back then had a different philosophic mindset, whereas today they do not have that mindset that leads them to think there is certainty in the world? I actually think in biology that we have a little too much certainty, even without the laws. Perhaps this is not a problem with laws or theories, per se, but with people just not thinking. For example, the Central Dogma, which states the DNA is transcribed into RNA which is translated into protein, has around since the 70s, and unfortunately, it really it got in the way of peoples' thinking when it came to prions (those protein things that cause mad cow disease), which somehow reverse-translate into DNA (I think, I'm not totally sure on this but it's something like that - either that or RNA). The rules should be there, but too often people do not think outside the box to refine the rules or the theories. Theories in biology, at this point, still need refinement. Anyway, there I go talking about models and refinements!

Doh! Wait - No, evolution is a theory AND a fact. Just don't think of it as an hypothesis. DO think of it as a theory, just as the fact that organisms are composed of cells is a theory. I am no less certain of evolution, a theory, than I am of gravity, a law. But it cannot be a law because it is not a fundamental, unchangeable part of the universe. It is only a potential result of those fundamental parts. Life is not universal in space and time. There was a time when life did not exist (and there may be a time in the future when life does not exist), and there are spaces where life does not exist. All of the physical laws operate consistently throughout time and space, always have, and always will. Physicists, am I correct? Someone help. Evolutionary theory and cell theory only explain life as we know it, on Earth, since it originated. Since life is NOT a given throughout space and time, there can be no laws concerning it.

The answer is no. And interestingly, the precise mechanisms of evolution have been known for much longer than for photosynthesis. Melvin Calvin did not discover how carbon dioxide was transformed into glucose until 1980 (he won a Nobel Prize for this). Although that is besides the point. The reasons evolution is not accepted as a fact, or people think it is just a hypothesis, are complex. First, it is not very self-evident. I'm sure there are people that even deny the existence of gravity, and that is very self-evident! One needs a lot of preliminary knowledge in biology to fully understand evolution and all of its mechanisms. Even with that knowledge in place, many biology students cannot fathom the immense amount of time it takes for species to evolve. People think on an enormously smaller time scale, and evolution is highly conceptual. We all know how many people have trouble forming concepts! Second, people perceive that evolution has philosophical implications, and their emotional reactions prevent them from being able to accept the facts. "You're telling me I descended from a MONKEY?" The answer here is not that we have *not* directly observed evolution taking place. We *have* directly observed evolution taking place, and we have observed, over several centuries, through historical accounts, some new plant species evolve. I am not sure about animals, but I think there are a few examples. Of course, we have indirect evidence that all species evolved from one or a few forms. Here is my answer - again, but hopefully more articulate this time - as to why evolution is not considered a law. Consider the cell theory. Nobody will ever disprove it. It is a fact that life is made up of cells. However, in the world we live in, with all of the given physical laws, must life have evolved in the form of a cell? Must life have evolved at all? No. Given the same physical laws and combinations of elements and compounds, perhaps life would have evolved, perhaps not, and if it did, there is no guarantee that the cell would be the basic unit of life. This is my educated guess as to why we do not consider any facts in biology to be laws. After all, the origin of life was an accident. (Its perpetuation is not.) There is no guarantee that if we started with an Earth exactly the same as what we had 6 billion years ago, that life would evolve in the same way, if at all. Life itself is not universal in space and time as are the physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.), and therefore, no theories predicting how life can behave or evolve can be considered laws. No one has answered my question re: Einstein's theory of relativity. Doesn't this equation predict mass and energy with absolute certainty? If so, why is it still considered a theory? When has it ever been invalidated? It is has not, correct? It is because it does not assume that TIME is constant? Might this be why Einstein's theory is not considered a law? Because time changes with velocity? just some thoughts.

I agree with what you said, but what do mean about "bad timing?" That we're just "not there yet" in predicting what happens in biological systems because there are too many factors to consider, but that we might be someday? I would be interested to hear what you think about this. Anyway, why aren't Einstein's equations re: relativity considered to be laws? They give the whole answer, do they not? In fact, there are lots of equations in biology, but you are right David, they do not give us the whole answer. They show us what happens in very specific situations that usually don't exist. ha! ha! example: Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium and Punnett squares....

Well, here is an expanded picture from my avatar, a picture of me with my grandpa, and a baby picture! baby pictures are always fun. Well, almost always. The photographer blew bubbles in my eyes, which is why I was crying. Stupid lady! Dagny, I'm getting a kick out your husband squinting in that last picture. ha ha! Ravane, you don't look mad in that picture to me. That picture makes you look a lot like Meg Ryan! Or maybe you really do look like her!

(Split from a discussion about a specific court-decision on teaching of ID/evolution - sNerd) I have often wondered about this - why are there no "laws" in biology? Why don't we refer to a "law of evolution" as we refer to a "law of gravity"? I don't know the answer to this, other than to point out another example: no one would question Einstein's *theory* of relativity as a *fact*, either. (Or would they? Any physicists on the forum who could correct me?) I'm preaching to the choir here, but theory is not mere speculation. Even an educated guess that needs proving is a hypothesis. Also, in biology, we have what is called the cell theory, which states that all cells come from other cells, and that all organisms are composed of cells, and that cells are the fundamental unit of life. I have no idea why it is still called a *theory*, since it is obvious that no one will ever be able to disprove this *fact*. Perhaps the answer lies in that laws as defined in physics are universal in space and time and non-accidental. Anyway, finally we have a judge making some sense!

The statement alone is akin to an argument from intimidation, but when it is backed up by evidence that the accused is being dogmatic, as opposed to rational, I see no problem with making that judgment. I myself have hinted that others on this forum are dogmatic, as an actual response to an argument from intimidation. See this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=95777

Well, NewYorkRoark, unfortunately this is one example that the religion people have latched onto for good reason, since I believe there is some evidence that the data were falsified in the classic peppered moth example. However, as I have mentioned in the other evolution thread, the falsification of data in a few studies does nothing to eliminate the existence of thousands of other observational or experimental studies. I daresay evolution will never be disproved. It is a fact, and it is here to stay whether people like it or not. The theory will undergo refinements, that is to be sure. neolithic - if you took high school biology and understand the concepts of 'DNA' and 'cell' and how they work, you should be fine. Perhaps it was silly to suggest a course. Courses are time consuming and expensive and one can learn just as well by reading. The most comprehensive thing you could read would be probably be something by Ernst Mayr. He is arguably the most respected evolutionary biologist of last century, although he tended to focus on animals (grumble). I have not read the following book, but perhaps you could find it. 2001. Ernst Mayr. What Evolution Is. Basic Books. New York. Sorry, I may have overwhelmed you with all those authors, only because this is a subject about which I am passionate. Don't give up too easily I would certainly recommend Origin of Species. It is eloquently written.

You could read Origin of Species. It's a marvelous book. Unfortunately, Darwin did not have a mechanism to explain how evolution worked, so even when you are through with this convincing book you won't know much about modern evolutionary theory. Gregor Mendel gave us the mechanism with his work on 'genetics'. If you are seriously interested in understanding evolution and combating the arguments of those who don't understand it, you need a modern synthesis of evolution that combines evidence from DNA, the fossil record, and biogeography of extant organisms. Since much of the work has happened within the last 20 years, you need to read a textbook to cover all sub-topics of evolution in general, or take a class. Unfortunately, most departments require that you take other Bio classes to sign up for a class in Evolution. Then, if you are interested in speciation, which is where the creationist types seem to have the most trouble, you could try: Endless forms - species and speciation, ed. by Daniel J. Howard. Reading Dawkins is OK, I suppose. As far as speciation, anything by Ernst Mayr is excellent. You could also read E.O. Wilson or Stephen Jay Gould. This does not mean I sanction the philosophy of any of these scientists. That you will have to analyze for yourself. Wilson and Dawkins are both determinists. I recently read The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Harry Binswanger, who is an Objectivist. The book is an attempt at a synthesis of evolutionary theory and philosophy, and you may find it interesting. Critics of evolution always criticize the fossil record or our ability to interpret it, or say that these data do not "make sense" because there are not "gradual changes" or "species transforming into others." They also criticize arguments that evolutionary biologists rarely use anymore. They attack gradualism, when it is the model of punctuated equilibrium that best explain the fossil record. This is not to say there are not "gaps" in the fossil record. But when you are inferring what happened in the past based on pieces of data you have in the present, of course each individual dataset will be incomplete. They want their cake and to eat it, too. This is impossible. The same critics also rarely attack phylogenetic work (comparison of DNA to model how organisms might be related). Furthermore, they only attack pieces of the evolutionary synthesis at a time, never the whole evolutionary synthesis of evidence from phylogenetics, the fossil record, and biogeography. When the data are synthesized, they provide a much more convincing picture, rather like the gathering of evidence at a crime scene. Of course, they also always ignore the many examples we have of species changing to others right before our eyes!! Ironically, something Jesus said is applicable here. "Even if they see with their own eyes, they will not believe." Now why is that? Because all of these "arguments" of theirs are driven by emotion, not reason. They feel a certain way because of the perceived implications of evolution (i.e. they perceive that evolution says man is not special), so they try to cook up "facts" that indicate that evolution doesn't happen. So, you cannot really reason with these people anyway. Not all are irrational. Some are rational but have simply been temporarily swept up with the wrong crowd. You must separate the wheat from the chaff to determine whether arguing with these people is even worth your time. Check out some of my other posts in evolution threads for more on this topic of evolution. To accept evolution, people first need to understand it. Evolution does not make organisms progress. You need to get that out of your head. It allows them to survive. That is all. In the case of what traits will be selected for, consider the following. If the trait in question increases fitness (and all we mean by that is a greater reproduction and survival for those that have the trait vs. those that don't) then it will spread through a population. That is, it will be selected for. Whether the trait is strictly or loosely heritable will determine how fast that particular trait will sweep to fixation or, at least, a high level within the population. Different traits arise through mutation. I have no doubt that human intelligence is what has allowed us to dominate the planet, but I agree with Hal that it's senseless to use intelligence in humans as an argument for or against natural selection. First of all, knowledge can be passed on from generation to generation in a way that does not happen in the vast majority of other species. Intelligence in humans is a very complex topic. We probably don't even know to what extent it is heritable, and even if it were 100% heritable, the selection forces it is under are not all natural, they are cultural and artificial. Intelligence these days does not lead to increased fitness in a biological sense. All that one has to do is consider the state of affairs in today's world to know that this is not true. It is not the intelligent who are fit, in a reproductive sense.

Well, there's your answer, if it's really true. I totally agree with everything Jennifer has said. It makes perfect sense. (I just think you needed to hear another woman say it.) Sit back for awhile and try to figure out what you did to cause her to become disinterested in you, if you honestly think that she has changed her mind about you. Otherwise, your attempts (flowers, asking her out for any kind of date - "whatever you want to do!") are going to seem like desperation, which will drive her even further away.