Yeah, because religious tards haven't been trying to pander their bogus creationist bullshit in the classroom....

Sorry. You lose. 1 Douchebag Atheist spreading actual truth vs. Bunch of Christian wacks trying to force their religion into the science classes of children.

Hmm. Which is worse...

From what I can see, it seems to be "hard-wired" in the person, either in the personality, or in the genes. But I do see that it doesn't occur in every member of the same family, and often occurs in one member of many families. So I lean towards personality, rather than genetics.

Honestly, if you would just do a little research yourself, it would be clear to you how futile it is arguing for the FDA.

The evidence is overwelming that its extremely slow approval process kills people who would otherwise have been saved, that its astronomically high costs drive up the prices of drugs for every American, by stifling new drug creation, it limits innovation, and that its measures prevent new pharmaceutical companies from forming by dramatically raising the cost of entering the market.

Can I just ask you people this? Why would the US government allow the vaccine to be released if they knew it was going to kill people? Do you really think they would try to kill their own people?

In late 1984, when a Hong Kong distributor asked Cutter about the newer product, records show that Cutter asked the distributor to "use up stocks" of the old medicine before switching to its "safer, better" product.[3] Several months later, once hemophiliacs in Hong Kong began testing positive for HIV, some local doctors began to question whether Cutter was dumping "AIDS tainted" medicine into less-developed countries.[3] Cutter denied the allegation, claiming that the unheated product posed "no severe hazard" and was in fact the "same fine product we have supplied for years."[3] By May 1985, when the Hong Kong distributor told of an impending medical emergency, asking for the newer product, Cutter replied that most of the new medicine was going to the US and Europe and there wasn't enough for Hong Kong, except for possibly a small amount for the "most vocal patients."[3]

The United States Food and Drug Administration helped to keep the news out of the public. In May 1985, the FDA's regulator of blood products, Dr. Harry M. Meyer Jr., believing the companies had broken a voluntary agreement to withdraw the old medicine from the market, called together officials of the companies and ordered them to comply.[3] Cutter's notes from the meeting indicate that Dr. Meyer asked that the issue be "quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public" while another company noted that the FDA wanted the matter solved "quickly and quietly."[3]

Did you see the electrician who was killed performing a dangerous standards inspection in his state that wasn't required in other states?


I read far enough down to see this:


The gruesome death by electrocution shown in the photograph occurred when the man shown tried to steal electrical power from a high voltage cable.


The man killed was not a home inspector. It was a sensationalist tactic (the picture).

I told you that it was a link was to safety procedures, for home and electrical inspectors.

I was 1) seeing if you would check my sources (because I always do), and 2) to see if you would figure out where I was going with it.

A politician will be quick to tell you this new label has saved lives.. but unless you can demonstrate that it has you are full of shit.

This shit makes me sick to my stomach.

"Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.

About the size of vaccine scars in older people. The larger scars were due to the way they administered the small pox. It wasn't just a vaccine delivered in a single needle like today. The surface of the skin was scratched several times and then the vaccine was administered to the area. The area reacted, crusted over, and then created a scar. My scar is smaller than my dad's, probably because they scratched a smaller area in younger generations.

Uh , it's exactly true. Why wouldn't it be ?
Take a balloon and a black marker. Put a dot on the uninflated balloon. Note the size of the dot. Now blow the balloon up. Look at the dot again. It's bigger.
Same idea.

Results Traits measured by the SCDC were highly heritable in both genders (0.74). Internal consistency was excellent (0.93) and test – retest reliability high (0.81). Discriminant validity between pervasive developmental disorder and other clinical groups was good, discrimination from non-clinical samples was better; sensitivity (0.90), specificity (0.69).

If neither parent is Autistic, then it is a trait that needs some other factor to explain its occurrence.

I'm sure you know that genetics is a bit more complex than 'mum and dad'.

The Canadian government, and more specifically the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia, have suspended the 'normal' seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 in response to this study.

Alberta in particular, and I'm sure the remainder of the provinces, suspended seasonal flu vaccination because pandemic vaccination was considered more important. Seasonal vaccinations here were offered right up until pandemic vaccine became available. The switch had nothing to do with the study. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Nonetheless, we NEED people like Richard Dawkins, especially in a world that is going completely nuts!

David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion--and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him--is of no more scientific interest than semantic double talk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E.O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error [that the replicator concept provides an argument against group selection]...I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them. D.S. Wilson should apologize. E.O. Wilson, being the gentleman that he is, probably will.

Gracious! What a hierarchical guy! Dawkins acts as if he is the No. 2 monkey, kowtowing to the No. 1 monkey (Ed) while dishing it out to the No. 3 monkey (me)! As Ed commented to me after reading Dawkins' comment, "What does he think--that you slipped me a Mickey

Consider his response to my recent article with Edward O. Wilson in American Scientist magazine titled "Evolution 'For the Good of the Group'"
*******************************************************************************
Genes Still Central: David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion--and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him--is of no more scientific interest than semantic double talk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E.O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error [that the replicator concept provides an argument against group selection]...I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them. D.S. Wilson should apologize. E.O. Wilson, being the gentleman that he is, probably will.
*******************************************************************************
Gracious! What a hierarchical guy! Dawkins acts as if he is the No. 2 monkey, kowtowing to the No. 1 monkey (Ed) while dishing it out to the No. 3 monkey (me)! As Ed commented to me after reading Dawkins' comment, "What does he think--that you slipped me a Mickey?"



hehe :) I like that DS Wilson. "Stealth Religion" is nice term , too.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/truth-and-reconciliation_b_190008.html&cp

Sloths have a running land speed of about 1.2mph and this 'speed' helps them to avoid jaguars and other predators in their environment because it helps them blend in with their surroundings.

Being among the strongest members of your species can give a false sense of security resulting in a greater likelihood of getting picked off by predators.

Its surprising what can be considered sub-optimal or optimal.

I believe a man should have more control in a relationship than a woman but not be controlling. Does that make sense? The answer to world peace ladies is to keep all the men in this world happy. If we are keeping them happy then we really are in COMPLETE CONTROL! Think about it!

Are you trying to get your own thread deleted or something ?
Nobody is attacking you ...tone it down and stop lashing out at responses you don't like.

This isn't a scientific question but rather a philosophical question. It's not semantics to use proper definitions nor is the onus on me to rephrase your question for you. You asked us to answer and we did. If you refuse to discuss the matter as you yourself presented it then I suggest you ask the moderators to shut this thread down. Or , if you like , I can do it on your behalf if you wish to continue baiting the respondents.

Optimal is a complex concept. There are many factors at work here. In your example - "high velocity" predators, the animal has to be fast enough to eat on a regular basis. But not go so far down that path that it makes sacrifices in other areas - for example, possibly a metabolism that's unsustainably fast in lean times.

And there are always competing strategies at work - maybe the animal doesn't have to be as fast if it were a little smarter, or a little better camoflauged. Those types of tradeoffs are always at work in a population - and it's even more dynamic when you remember that the prey is evolving simultaneously.

So no, I don't think evolution pushes an animal toward an optimum in a specific narrow trait. It's more what you term Pareto optimal. There may be many strategies for survival in a given environment, and different animals will occupy something approaching a Pareto front in their adaptation to the environment. From your example - cheetahs and lions occupy much of the same range and have a very similar basic body configuration. But have very different strategies.

But it doesn't select for optimal. It selects against sub-optimal.