Oh- I'm curious- what's the mutation of choice?


And moreso, your conception history. Because this exposure has to
happen to your parents before you're even CONCIEVED, in order for you to
pick up a gene mutation from it. Withing, give or take, three hours of
their exposure.

And that's obviously not enough genetic change to constitute you as
another species, is it? I wasn't talking about every little genome
twitch. No organic being is ever free of those. May have been thanks to
bomb testing, may have just been the luck of the draw. But you're not
even in the same class of divergency as what I'm talking about.


I'm talking about complete revisions of entire chunks of the
biochemical code.


And moreso- whatever causes these "leaps" has to be able to affect more
than one member of the species in exactly the same way. Random mutations
don't do that. Because the "new" species needs to be able to breed.
Sometimes- not a problem. Asexual beings don't have this issue. But for
anything from fish and amphibians on up, you need at least two viable
members.


Plus (and this is another biggie)- these leaps are "unique" in an area.
One species will make a sudden jump, and all the species around them
will be appearantly unchanged. Which means it can't be a general
environmental exposure. It has to be species-specific.

Well, remember that in the difficulties ahead. And there will be
difficulties. As far as I'm concerned, you can't know it's love until
you survive the hard times. And life is certain to give you a few in the
future. You know, unless the both of you die in a car crash tomorrow.

But those types of things don't result in "acceptable" mutations. They
create freaks. Defective, unstable, incapable of breeding. Look at human
mutations. Down's syndrom, hermaphrodites.... the list goes on, and the
results are never positive. And even if you had a stable leap.... it'd
be essentially fatal. Enough genetic changes to constitute a new species
makes you incapable of breeding with the original.


The closest thing we have are genetic fallbacks. Where an ancestor gene
mysteriously activates. But it's only one already in our genetic memory.
Like gills, and webbed fingers. But of course, they're incomplete, and
don't actually work for anything. Plus they're usually fatal to the
infant.


Nothing we have works enough to actually *work*. It might be related to
radiation or chemistry, but it has to be more fine-tuned and less
destructive.

If there's any sanity left in this country, a troop-withdrawal timeline
will NEVER be approved, until the Iraqi government is stable.

Not in this case, at least. He never got a chance to.

Either way, it wasn't good when that stupid Aqua Teen show did it, and
it's not good now.

Just for everyone to note- there are two threads by this name. Let this
one die and use the other one. Just to keep things simpler.

You posted this one already. Like I said- local failure, not Bush or
any other major official's fault. Field commanders have been known to
say stuff like that since long before modern warefare.

Yes. And as far as any rational evidence goes, this coverup was done on
the field. So it's a local event, and not a governmental failure. You
don't blame the CEO when an employee, about 30 places lower on the
corporate ladder, does something wrong.

Considering half the stuff this article claims are provably wrong, just
by knowing historical facts, we can safely say it's unimportant, mostly
lies and to be ignored.


Much the same way as I wouldn't trust a history book that doesn't even
get the right CENTURY of WW2 to be accurate.

Fair enough, but they only learned those things were possible by
discovering new facts. Evolution, as it's known today, is just not
possible. There's facts missing. Important ones. And without them, the
theory is so incomplete that it's an insult to science to call it a
theory.


Did we come from animals? Probably. Could we call that "evolution"?
Sure, why not. Did it occure like the current Theory of Evolution (note
the caps make it a name or title) describes? No, not even possibly.

Sounds like a waste of time. Why not just become rich and move to south
america or something? You have to be rich to be president, anyways,
these days. If you have the money, stop messing with the campaign stuff
and stock a mansion with third-world hotties.

And at one point or another SOMETHING had to come into existence first.

Either God (of some nature or another) did it.

Or, the atheistic theory "first there was Nothing- and then- it blew
up".


At least, in the God case, we also have an explanation for all the
exceedingly, IMPOSSIBLY unlikely things that have allowed for life on
this world. Including the natural laws of the universe. There's no
reason water and carbon had to have the properties they do. And change
any property of either element, and life is instantly impossible.


Plus, God could "create" him/her/itself. An intelligent being of that
power could warp time. Probably require the destruction of the universe
to pull it off, but a thinking mind could get away with it.

Yeah, AB- when it comes to your definition of evolution (which most
scientifically focused people call "natural selection)- I fully believe
THAT happens. Only an idiot could discount genetic changes over time.


We're talking about the exceedingly less likely "big brother"- where
all species were created from earlier species that split up. Ad
infinitum back to the first cell that managed to survive dividing in
half (yet another "irreducibly complex" system that is impossible to
occur naturally without a slow developement).

Hey, I don't think I'd do well in a polyamorous relationship, either.
I'm just saying that "love" has nothing to do with that. It's
essentially jealousy and insecurity that prevents most people from being
able to handle such an arrangement.

Depends on the type of cheater.

You have some cheaters who do it because their significant other is a
bastard. Cheating as a defence mechanism, essentially. They (can) stop.
They don't usually, but they can.

And you've got the "I'm ----ed up" cheaters. They cheat because they're
emotionally defective and, frankly, shouldn't be allowed near an
intimate relationship until they clean up their act. But, some people
are still dumb enough to bone them. Once they have their "wake up you
stupid loser" moment, they usually quit.


And then you've got the ones for whom cheating is essentially a sexual
deviation. These make up the VAST majority of cheaters. They'll never
stop. Not so long as they've got the chance.

Well, if it does exist, no human's found it yet. I've said repeatedly
that there very well may be a natural explanation to the gaps in
evolution.

It's certain gaps exist, so much so that many evolutionary scientists
have "evolutionary leap" theories tagged onto evolution. That sometimes,
a species will undergo a million's years worth of "natural selective"
changes in a single generation. Which is more or less proven true- just
lacking in a HOW or WHY yet.

These leaps may be divine intervention. And they may be another, as yet
undiscovered, natural phenomenon.



For almost a century, "scientists" refused to believe the stories of
Yellowstone. That the legends spoken by the native americans was just
more mythology. Even after Lewis and Clark visited the place, most
people considered their claims to be fanciful and innacurate.

I defy anyone to claim the geological events of Yellowstone are fantasy
these days.

Perhaps some people can't "spread themselves" without thinning out. But
let me ask you this- does the same hold true of children? Does a person
with only two children somehow give them more love than a person with
three? Or is there only a set amount that has to be spread out.


Admittedly, we only have so much *attention* to spread. But love, I've
never even come close to running low on that.

Besides, no human being can share *ALL* of themselves. Work, we do
alone (usually). "Me time" is one of the biggest issues in any
relationship. You can't expect another human being- even your lover- to
be *everything* to you. That's just not healthy. But add in a third
person, and you don't have to depend so heavily on one other person.