REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The role of pyschopathy in modern society.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 17:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6199
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

They do tend to stand out, don't they ?

Quote:

I don't see any Neanderthals running around

Umm, have you ever been to the southeastern quarter of the US, Citizen ?

Hell, I might be able to dig you up some homo erectus if you go deep enough into the backwoods.

Plenty of homo redneckius down there too, which is widely suspected to be an offshoot or subspecies of erectus, although due to inbreeding the specific genetics are a bit murky.


-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:41 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. It's not impossible for a culture/society to move without becoming extinct. Just like it's possible that Neanderthal interbred with modern man instead of going extinct. I realise that the evidence is pointing the other way, but the possibility still exists.


Not really, we know the Russian's moved, where as the Greenlander's had nowhere to go.

As for Neanderthals, there's none left alive, so whether they interbred with Homosapians or not it largely irrelevant. They no longer exist, ergo they are extinct. That's what extinct means. There's evidence that some Dinosaur species evolved into birds, but Dinosaurs are also extinct.

Besides as your source says:
Quote:

"Neanderthals made no lasting contribution to the modern human [maternal] DNA gene pool," a team of German, American, Croatian and Finnish researchers wrote in Friday's edition of the journal Cell.


Beyond that the definition for a species is the ability to breed and produce viable fertile offspring. For Neanderthals to have made a contribution to the Human genome they'd have to have been the same species, they weren't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:44 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Umm, have you ever been to the southeastern quarter of the US, Citizen ?


Does Atlanta count? The thing that struck me most, besides the heat and not being allowed a fucking beer on Sunday, bastards, was the level of racial segregation there.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:49 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
There's evidence that some Dinosaur species evolved into birds, but Dinosaurs are also extinct.



If birds are Dinosaurs, which I do believe, they certainly are not extinct.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:52 PM

CITIZEN


Birds aren't extinct, but dinosaurs are.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:03 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Birds aren't extinct, but dinosaurs are.



So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:16 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?


Err, no. I think you'll find the differences between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Sparrow run a little deeper than their name. But if Dogs evolved into some other species, and the original members of the Dog species died out (which is a sub-species of wolves, so erm, whatever) then yeah, Dogs would be extinct.

Just because an offshoot species that has evolved from another still exists, doesn't mean the original still does. Birds may have evolved from Dinosaurs, but they AREN'T dinosaurs.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:22 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?


Err, no. I think you'll find the differences between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Sparrow run a little deeper than their name. But if Dogs evolved into some other species, and the original members of the Dog species died out (which is a sub-species of wolves, so erm, whatever) then yeah, Dogs would be extinct.

Just because an offshoot species that has evolved from another still exists, doesn't mean the original still does. Birds may have evolved from Dinosaurs, but they AREN'T dinosaurs.



So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:27 PM

KIRKULES


oops

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:34 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?


We all evolved from single celled micro-organisms if you go back far enough. Are you a Paramecium?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 2:05 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?


We all evolved from single celled micro-organisms if you go back far enough. Are you a Paramecium?


Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium. When T-Rex went extinct, Dinosaurs did'nt become extinct. If Sparrows become the last surviving birds on Earth,Dinosaurs won't be extinct. When the last bird on Earth dies, Dinosaurs become extinct.

Edit: I do concede that even if Neanderthal interbred with modern humans, they are extinct. Just not a genetic dead end.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Citizen
Quote:

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

Fremdfirma
Quote:

They do tend to stand out, don't they ?

Boy do they ever!

Wild Vikings to be deported
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/08/31/vikings-deport.html

Canadian immigration officials decided Thursday to deport two members of the Norwegian Wild Vikings, after their captain admitted to hiding a crew member from RCMP in two Nunavut communities.

Wild Vikings captain Jarle Andhoy and fellow adventurer Jeffrey Kane were ordered deported by Immigration Canada officials at a hearing Thursday in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.

Wild Vikings captain Jarle Andhoy, who appeared at an immigration hearing Thursday in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, said he didn't feel he had to register his crew with officials.

The Wild Vikings — a five-man crew best known for their wild antics at sea, as documented on Norwegian television — had been trying to sail through the Northwest Passage on Andhoy's sailboat, the Beserk II.

RCMP arrested them in the western Nunavut hamlet on Aug. 24 while disembarking the Beserk II, after they failed to register their presence in Cambridge Bay and Gjoa Haven.

But Andhoy, 29, told CBC News Thursday that he did not feel they had to register.

"We are not here to visit Canada. We are here to do a transit to the Pacific," Andhoy said. "We're sailing the Northwest Passage and as far as I'm concerned the Northwest Passage is international."

An immigration official at Thursday's hearing concluded that Andhoy had misled RCMP in Nunavut about his crew, as he was hiding a member who had been ordered deported when the Wild Vikings stopped in Halifax earlier this year.

Canadian officials had found that crew member, along with another, to be a Norwegian associate of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.

Andhoy then sailed to Greenland, where he picked up the deported crew member and began sailing through the Northwest Passage. Andhoy admitted that he dropped off the illegal member on land before arriving at Gjoa Haven and Cambridge Bay.

"I wanted to avoid a confrontation," he said. "That didn't really work out."

But Kane, who plans to fly back to his home in the U.S., said Andhoy should have registered the Wild Vikings crew with immigration officials.

"I think it was a major error on the captain's part," Kane said. "I'm a captain myself and I do not make those mistakes."

The remaining three crew members are scheduled to appear at immigration hearings Friday in Cambridge Bay.

Immigration officials say Andhoy also did not disclose an illegal handgun to police. An official with the Canada Border Services Agency says criminal charges are pending.
========================

As an afterthought, being hassled, shaken down, poked at and spied upon when you're just passing through like that... hell they did everything but smack em with extortive tolls, or at least it's not mentioned in the story here.

I can see a certain justification for town-sacking, you ask me.

I can just see it, too.

"ARRGGH!!!, that's IT - enuff of this shite, boys!... SACK THE PLACE!"

Wouldn't blame em a lot, neither.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.

You need to check your numbers REALLY badly. Humans and micro-organisms are entirely different species, birds and Dinosaurs aren't the same species. Just because they may have evolved from Dinosaurs, doesn't mean they're the same species. If your proposal had any weight there could be no extinction of species. There is.
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
When T-Rex went extinct, Dinosaurs did'nt become extinct. If Sparrows become the last surviving birds on Earth,Dinosaurs won't be extinct. When the last bird on Earth dies, Dinosaurs become extinct.


*Sigh*

Even if Birds evolved from Dinosaurs, Birds AREN'T dinosaurs, and there are no members of the Dinosaurs species left alive. They're extinct.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:03 AM

SWISH


So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:40 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.


Pretty much what I said earlier:
Quote:


Beyond that the definition for a species is the ability to breed and produce viable fertile offspring.





More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:24 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:46 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.


Tortoises are of the class Reptilia, where as Dinosaurs are of the class Sauropsida. Crocodiles are pretty similar to Dinosaurs, and they're a member of Sauropsida, though their order Crocodilia isn't considered Dinosaur.

Dinosaurs did have a fairly major characteristic though, which was a straight legged posture more like how mammals hold their weight. Crocodiles are like modern day reptiles, where the legs sprawl out either side of the body.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:53 AM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Pretty much what I said earlier

Yeah, sorry. It just didn't seem to take, so I thought a repeat might help.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:55 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Yeah, sorry. It just didn't seem to take, so I thought a repeat might help.


No apology required, I just thought I'd repeat myself for prosperity .



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:32 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.


The classifications are defined somewhat by who is making the list of species. Many don't include Birds as Dinosaurs after Arceopteryx because there are so many birds extinct and still alive that the few(700-800) dinosaur genus known would be just a minute portion of the list. One of the problems we are haveing here is that Dinosaurs are not known by their species, but their genus, Tyrannosaur is the genus, Rex is the species. If all dinosaurs were the same species then they could interbreed. Because almost nothing is known about their genetics, it's almost impossible to determine what species a particular dinosaur belonged to, other than by common appearance. If you want to cut off your list of Dinosaurs so feathered genus after Arceopteryx are not included, then yes all genus of Dinosaurs are extinct. The only problem I see with this is that Dinosaurs did not become extinct when Archeopterex emerged, so it's just an arbitrary point in the evolution of Dinosaurs. By doing so you are assuming all other genus of Dinosaurs did become extinct. If we conclusively knew that all modern bird were descended from genus Archyopteryx then I would have no problem saying all Dinosaurs are extinct and calling a Sparrow, Archyopteryx-Sparrow. The problem I see with that is, a few year form now we might discover that Archyopteryx was just another dead end Dinosaur genus and that modern birds are actually descended from a Dinosaur genus that emerged a million years after Arceopteryx.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:42 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
The classifications are defined somewhat by who is making the list of species. Many don't include Birds as Dinosaurs after Arceopteryx because there are so many birds extinct and still alive that the few(700-800) dinosaur genus known would be just a minute portion of the list. One of the problems we are haveing here is that Dinosaurs are not known by their species, but their genus, Tyrannosaur is the genus, Rex is the species. If all dinosaurs were the same species then they could interbreed. Because almost nothing is known about their genetics, it's almost impossible to determine what species a particular dinosaur belonged to, other than by common appearance. If you want to cut off your list of Dinosaurs so feathered genus after Arceopteryx are not included, then yes all genus of Dinosaurs are extinct. The only problem I see with this is that Dinosaurs did not become extinct when Archeopterex emerged, so it's just an arbitrary point in the evolution of Dinosaurs. By doing so you are assuming all other genus of Dinosaurs did become extinct. If we conclusively knew that all modern bird were descended from genus Archyopteryx then I would have no problem saying all Dinosaurs are extinct and calling a Sparrow Archyopteryx Sparrow. The problem I see with that is, a few year form now we might discover that Archyopteryx was just another dead end Dinosaur genus and that modern birds are actually descended from a Dinosaur genus that emerged a million years after Arceopteryx.


It doesn't make a difference. Birds are not part of the Dinosaur group of species, regardless of what species they may have evolved from. It's not just an arbitrary distinction, Birds have a number of physical differences and adaptations to Dinosaur species that warrants them being placed in a separate category. There are still bird species in the world, but that doesn't mean the Dodo isn't extinct.

There are no species that fit into the Dinosaur classification left alive in the world, thus they are extinct.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:45 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.

You need to check your numbers REALLY badly. Humans and micro-organisms are entirely different species, birds and Dinosaurs aren't the same species. Just because they may have evolved from Dinosaurs, doesn't mean they're the same species. If your proposal had any weight there could be no extinction of species. There is.


I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:06 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.


It's a misconception that more complex animals have a greater amount of, or more complex DNA. Actually evidence suggests that specialisation has reduced the number of base pairs in complex life forms. So no, you don't contain all the genetic material of all your evolutionary ancestors.

Besides, wasn't the "being evolved from an older species doesn't make you that older species" actually my point?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:15 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

Mike


That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:29 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.


By that reasoning we don't know for sure modern day people couldn't breed with dinosaurs, having no living Dinosaurs to test the theory with. But again, Birds are very different to dinosaur species, there's basically no chance they could interbreed, and even then it's not actually proof that the species are the same. Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:39 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.



"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".


I haven't added anything. I'm going by the definition made by biologists, last time I checked dictionaries weren't considered biological texts. No interbreeding is fine for a rule of thumb, and I'll say for sure that no dinosaur species could breed with modern birds, because the genetic morphology is far to remote, but it's not all encompassing. Horses and Donkeys are different species, even the dictionary won't tell you different.

The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.
Quote:

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology.
...
Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:07 AM

SWISH


And I'll add that that was not my definition, it was from dictionary.com, and can be found in any high school, or probably junior high or even elementary biology textbook. The issue of different but similar species, such as horses and donkeys, being able to procreate would also be addressed in these texts.

Kirk - really, it doesn't help the discussion if you have no respect for common definitions, or don't take the time to learn them. You probably have a very good point, but if you continually misuse basic terms like "species", it's hard to understand you!

What was this discussion about anyway? Psychopathic birds doing it with dinosaurs?

*confused*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Re Greenlanders going extinct

"I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. ."

Yes, Greenlanders did actually all go extinct. The trading records of the day indicated no trading ships went to Greenland in a span of 100 years (one left Iceland for Greenland early in that timeframe but never returned. Voyaging was a dangerous occupation.) Furthermore, the Greenlanders had cleared all the available trees for pasture for their beloved cows, so they couldn't build ships. Without visiting ships and unable to make their own they were unable to go elsewhere. Finally, the archeological evidence is of a once large and thriving community with major elements long fallen into disrepair and disuse, indications of economic and population contraction. And the few skeletons and waste left behind indicated a half-dozen people living with their few remaining precious cattle, eating them, and eating each other. While ships occasionally sheltered near Greenland during the interim, knowledge of the colony itself was lost to time. The next time anyone visited the colony was hundreds of years later and, and obviously, no one was home.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:10 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.


In my original post that is all I was trying to imply about Neanderthal. The "general consensus" among scientists is that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are separate species. This is not a scientific fact. They are classified that way because the current consensus is that most of the evidence in the fossil record suggests that this may be the case. Many scientists believe that modern humans might be the result of Neanderthal, Homo Sapien hybridization. If this is the case then the name given to our species is just a result of the fact that the consensus is that our skeletons more closely resemble Homo Sapien. It's possible that future evidence will determine that the Neanderthal contribution to human genetics is much greater than currently thought. If that is the case it would be just as reasonable to call modern man Neanderthal as Homo Sapien. By any of the definitions of species you accept, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien would be considered the same due to the "blurring" between closely related species. They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile. The difference in their skeletal structure is significant, but so is the deference in skeletal structure among different populations of Homo Sapiens.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:20 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile."

A few skeletons of what appear to be Neandertal human crosses have been uncovered. However, the state of their fertility is in doubt, given the inability to find Neandertal traces in human DNA. It's possible humans simply swamped Neandertal out of existence - by numbers encouraging human Neandertal crosses which couldn't propagate, thus condemning Neandertal genes to extinction.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:21 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:

What was this discussion about anyway? Psychopathic birds doing it with dinosaurs?

*confused*


I'm as confused as you are about the original subject of this thread. That's why I stayed away until something Rue said reminded me of the Neanderthal special that was on NGCHD Sunday night. I thought it would be of interest to the egg heads in this thread. Shouldn't have allowed Citizen to bait me into a off subject argument.

Thanks for policing the threads anyway. What was you contribution, a few vague insults and a dictionary definition?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:26 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Re Greenlanders going extinct

"I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. ."

Yes, Greenlanders did actually all go extinct. The trading records of the day indicated no trading ships went to Greenland in a span of 100 years (one left Iceland for Greenland early in that timeframe but never returned. Voyaging was a dangerous occupation.) Furthermore, the Greenlanders had cleared all the available trees for pasture for their beloved cows, so they couldn't build ships. Without visiting ships and unable to make their own they were unable to go elsewhere. Finally, the archeological evidence is of a once large and thriving community with major elements long fallen into disrepair and disuse, indications of economic and population contraction. And the few skeletons and waste left behind indicated a half-dozen people living with their few remaining precious cattle, eating them, and eating each other. While ships occasionally sheltered near Greenland during the interim, knowledge of the colony itself was lost to time. The next time anyone visited the colony was hundreds of years later and, and obviously, no one was home.


My brain tells me you're right Rue, but my Viking blood and genetic memory forces me to deny it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Greenland was orginally a scam anyway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:52 PM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Thanks for policing the threads anyway. What was you contribution, a few vague insults and a dictionary definition?

Now, son, I'm only gonna say this once. When I start policing threads, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:59 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
In my original post that is all I was trying to imply about Neanderthal. The "general consensus" among scientists is that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are separate species. This is not a scientific fact.


Erm, yes it is. They are, or rather were, separate species. You'll be telling me Homosapians and Chimpanzees are the same species next.
Quote:

They are classified that way because the current consensus is that most of the evidence in the fossil record suggests that this may be the case.

They had different Skeletons, different bodies, different sized brains, different eating habits. They were a different species, there's no new evidence that can turn up that can change that. Any more than there'll be any new evidence to show Humans are the same species as armadillos.
Quote:


Many scientists believe that modern humans might be the result of Neanderthal, Home Sapien hybridization. If this is the case then the name given to our species is just a result of the fact that the consensus is that our skeletons more closely resemble Homo Sapien.


No, not really. There's no evidence of Neanderthal contribution to the Human genome.
Quote:

It's possible that future evidence will determine that the Neanderthal contribution to human genetics is much greater than currently thought.

It's possible that my body could quantum tunnel into next week, but that doesn't make it likely. Neanderthals were a different species, they have completely different bone structures. They're no closer to modern man than Donkeys are to Horses, and those two are also separate species.
Quote:

If that is the case it would be just as reasonable to call modern man Neanderthal as Homo Sapien. By any of the definitions of species you accept, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien would be considered the same due to the "blurring" between closely related species.

No, it wouldn't. Neanderthal man and modern humans aren't that closely related for a start.
Quote:

They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile.

They almost certainly did not. There's been a couple of finds that might suggest Neanderthal/Human interbreeding, but are far more likely to suggest other things entirely.
Quote:

The difference in their skeletal structure is significant, but so is the deference in skeletal structure among different populations of Homo Sapiens.

What? Seriously, this is just getting silly. The differences in skeletal structure between diverse racial groups of humans are negligible, the difference between any modern man and Neanderthal is huge. The differences between populations of modern man, and the differences between Neanderthals and modern man are completely incomparable. There is no comparison. It's like comparing a truck to another truck and saying a scooter could also be a truck because it has wheels. It doesn't make any sense.
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Shouldn't have allowed Citizen to bait me into a off subject argument.


No, I shouldn't have let you bait me into an 'off subject argument'.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anyway, as I mentioned in another thread, I read 'Blink', and it had in it something I had run across before but completely forgot about, which is the concept of priming. What that is the ability to influence people by using words with non-conscious associations. So, for example if you give a speech you might want to use words like clean, home, breeze, family - not even necessarily together. And you want to avoid words like welfare (even in the phrase 'our country's welfare' - b/c welfare has too many negative non-conscious associations), work (too hard), or think (too hard and suspicious).

For example you might say: The economy is stumbling. The path we are on is dangerous. We need a clean start. We need to take a fresh look at our policies and goals. They must clearly reflect our primary aim, which is to represent the citizens of this country. We need to remember that we're not just talking about housing, we're talking about homes --- and families. The winds of change haven’t started yet - what we are feeling is just a breeze.

That's a clumsy example, but it's been done very well over the years. And it doesn't have to make sense logically - but by evoking the right non-conscious associations you can gain support.

What does this have to do with unexamined paradigms ? Unexamined paradigms ARE our non-conscious associations. Even when illogical, contradictory or just plain silly they are the underpinnings of our 'thoughts' and actions.

But I'll have to save the rest for later.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:20 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Dammit, quit spillin my beans, Rue!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL