I'm not assuming he's in any camp at all. I was just hoping to learn something about the point he was making. I'm obviously in the wrong forum for that though.
This is pretty low Eddy, and you know it. The article was about the simulacrum of the "tree of life", nothing to do with evolution at all. The article simply stated that to be correct, you'd have to represent the tree as having connections between the main trunks to represent hybridization.
The...
Perhaps you're right. However, even though I don't underestimate the adaptive abilities of the Archaea, I'm still struggling to see how they could adapt to survive the scorching temperatures predicted! =(
And as for your snooty little "pop science" jibe... ;) Stop being such a snob, I read all...
Yet someone simply defining God as "preternatural", and stating that because of this definition requires no explanation, is using solid, mature logic?
I'm not fishing for one of your horrible little put-downs. So please, I'd like a real response because I'm actually trying to learn something here.
Research like this is still worth considering though... It seems to me that sexuality has at least something to do with how we're "wired".
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
Just another wild statement with no supporting evidence... You can't make a provocative statement like this and provide no reference. It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
After reading an article in this week's New Scientist (which is better than Science Daily) I've been left with a feeling that can only be described as bleak futility. In essence, the article was a summary of the arguments against the still-popular "Gaia hypothesis".
For those baffled by the...
Hey hey... I was having a bit of fun. The comment wasn't aimed at you either, that's why I didn't quote you. I was referring to the fact that no one seems to agree with me, indicating that maybe I am not as informed as I could stand to be. =) No hard feelings.
*Sigh*
I'm clearly moron or slightly confused. I give up. Horrendously high gun-crime rates are not my problem after all. It's been fun but I have a New Scientist to read.
I read the whole of the article, hence "depending on area". Still worrying that there are areas where basically anyone can carry a concealed weapon, although obviously you don't agree.
"Under current federal legal precedent, it is constitutional under the Second Amendment for states to have concealed carry licensing that permits concealed carried weapons, or even not to require any permits for concealed carry weapons; for example, any legal gun owner in the state of Vermont...