I don't know but I would bet that it is surprizingly higher that most people might imagine. Many of the most profound features of living things evolved early billions of years ago and have been retained and built on. I would imagine lots of processes involved with sugar would be such an example
I don't know but I would bet that it is surprizingly higher that most people might imagine. Many of the most profound features of living things evolved early billions of years ago and have been retained and built on. I would imagine lots of processes involved with sugar would be such an example
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,342
- 47,577
- 136
CW, you're really a joke. What happened to "Please, demonstrate my ignorance, if you can. I made no assumptions in the above statement. I, however, demonstrated the complete idiocy of your previous statement." ???? You are so pompous and predictably juvenile I wonder why you are even bothering to post in this thread. It'd be a whole lot easier to take you seriously if it weren't for the mass of shoelaces hanging out of your mouth.
Your continued jackassery is what is beyond ridiculous. You ignore a widely accepted reality, go on to supply a weak comparison and then act like you've proffered a pithy rebuttal. You really are this dense, aren't you? Amazing. How old are you? 15? 16?
Thanks for adding kissnup...
Celera Genomics founder reports humans have only 30k genes, rather than 100k
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News.../Mar19_01/story13.html
"The big headline from the sequencing effort has been that humans have only 30,000 genes, not the 100,000 that had generally been assumed. "We have far fewer genes than anybody imagined," Venter said. That is only twice as many genes as the lowly fruit fly. "People wanted there to be a large number of genes. After all, we must be at least 10 times more complex than a fruit fly."
Not only is the difference between human and fly less in terms of number of genes, but it turns out that the two share a large number of genes in common. This illustrates one of the major realizations that has come from the sequencing project: the difference between humans and other higher organisms, both animal and plant, is much less than many people had assumed. The mouse only differs from human by about 300 genes, and that degree of similarity holds true with most mammals. Even plants like corn and lettuce share a surprising number of genes with humans, Venter reported. "
The new knowledge about the human genome also indicates that racial differences are superficial, rather than fundamental. "At the genetic level, we are all virtual genetic twins," Venter said.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News.../Mar19_01/story13.html
"The big headline from the sequencing effort has been that humans have only 30,000 genes, not the 100,000 that had generally been assumed. "We have far fewer genes than anybody imagined," Venter said. That is only twice as many genes as the lowly fruit fly. "People wanted there to be a large number of genes. After all, we must be at least 10 times more complex than a fruit fly."
Not only is the difference between human and fly less in terms of number of genes, but it turns out that the two share a large number of genes in common. This illustrates one of the major realizations that has come from the sequencing project: the difference between humans and other higher organisms, both animal and plant, is much less than many people had assumed. The mouse only differs from human by about 300 genes, and that degree of similarity holds true with most mammals. Even plants like corn and lettuce share a surprising number of genes with humans, Venter reported. "
The new knowledge about the human genome also indicates that racial differences are superficial, rather than fundamental. "At the genetic level, we are all virtual genetic twins," Venter said.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
That is something that bothers me as well. Men really have no legal say in the matter whatsoever. Now I'm not saying they should persay...but you have to see the difficulty involved with the issue.
Example:
Mother becomes pregnant...I, not believing in abortion and being the father decide that I would like to keep the baby. The mother and I are no longer together, she aborts the baby that I would gladly have taken care of on my own and I had no say in the matter.
Another example:
Mother becomes pregnant, again we are not together any longer. I don't want a baby and I want her to abort it. She has the baby, my wages are garnished for child support for a kid I didn't want. (Of course this example would never happen to me personally, because I personally do not believe in abortion. Again, I will not propose to make that decision for some one else, I do not feel its my place.)
Its a mess right there, I'm totally torn on the topic looking at both sides. The one valid point for the current "woman's right to choose" that she must carry the baby for 9 months...but you'll have to support it until its 18?
I'm at odds with banning abortion outright because I feel there are exceptions that are valid. Yes, there are plenty of ones that are not valid...using it for birth control. But, IMO...we as a society have formed our laws on the "innocent until proven guilty" system. In short, we accept that some of the bad will go unpunished rather than allowing some of the innocent to be judged as guilty. Now that may not always happen, but it is a fundamental ideal...and given so many points to consider I apply that here as well.
I think, ultimately, Vic POV that we should leave it for the states to decide is a good one.
It is just murder. It is killing a child as it is born. This is stupid. A Cesarian Section can accomplish the same thing. There is no justifiable reason to preform this technique.
Mother Teresa said once that any nation that practices abortion is telling its citizens that it is ok to commit any crime including murder to get what you want. This is not an exact quote.
Abortion is the ultimate expression of Greed!
Mother Teresa said once that any nation that practices abortion is telling its citizens that it is ok to commit any crime including murder to get what you want. This is not an exact quote.
Abortion is the ultimate expression of Greed!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
This might shock you, Cyclo, but I am going to agree with you here. The rate at which abortions are being performed, and the reason they are being performed, is appalling (I told you I was morally opposed to abortion).
The problem is not the lack of education. Quite the contrary, our children are being well-educated in how to get an abortion done. The problem is that so many of these abortions and abortion clinics are federally funded and that must end. Your tax dollars and mine pay for all those abortions and that is, quite frankly IMO, the real crime.
Just to clarify my position with you, I believe that you cannot force people to do the right thing, but you shouldn't encourage them to do the wrong thing either. A federal ban on all abortions I believe would prove inadequate to solving the problem (and send woman back to coat hangers and dark alleys) but leaving the matter to the states would be more effective (so long as no state was allowed to become the Nevada of abortions). Women should be encouraged to choose adoption over abortion to the point where adoption should be state-subsidized if necessary (like how abortion is subsidized now).
Make sense? Shake?
I didn't want to repeat myself (I've listed examples before on this position many times in this fourm) and list my typical examples that support my opinion on the abortion issue regarding the rights of fathers, thanks for doing so well although it was like reading my own mind....
CycloWizard you asked for someone to "Please, demonstrate my ignorance, if you can"
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2848&enterthread=y
Next request?
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2848&enterthread=y
Next request?
Originally posted by: Alistar7
My only beef with abortion, the father has no rights. Even if your wife decides to abort the child you as the father and husband want, too bad, there goes little johnny to be down the drain...
I didn't know this. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.
BTW I'm a strong advocate of adoption...it's a light at the end of the tunnel for a woman carrying an unwanted child.
My only beef with abortion, the father has no rights. Even if your wife decides to abort the child you as the father and husband want, too bad, there goes little johnny to be down the drain...
I didn't know this. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.
BTW I'm a strong advocate of adoption...it's a light at the end of the tunnel for a woman carrying an unwanted child.
You really lend credence to anything you say when you begin it with a personal attack. Calling a counterpoint to your own fouled logic 'jackassery' equally adds to the validity of your statements. Let me know when you have something to add and can do it with above the debate skills of a second grader. Or, instead, if you want me to tell you how stupid your mother is every time you make a point, because that's what your post amounts to.
So, as you say, we err on the side of caution and would rather let a guilty man go than imprison an innocent one. Yet, in this case, the exact opposite is carried out. Rather than erring on the side of caution and assuming that the fetus MIGHT be a person and have rights that should be protected, we assume that it is not a person. So, in essence, the USSC assumed away the entire problem and assumed the guilty were innocent in rendering Roe v. Wade. This point is clear if you read the dissenting opinions.
Exactly. I couldn't agree with the second part any more. As far as education goes, I'm saying that people are being educated with respect to abortion but not alternatives, and they're certainly not being educated on the issues involved with abortion, particularly all of the physical, psychological, mental, and emotional trauma that afflicts women who have abortions and is likely the singular reason for the enormous increase in rates of depression and related diseases among women. It is not so unlikely that abortion is contributing significantly to the cost of healthcare for these reasons.
I have no worries about leaving it to the states. Again, I couldn't agree more. I fully believe that the states will do the right thing, just as they had been doing for more than 100 years prior to Roe v. Wade. :beer:Just to clarify my position with you, I believe that you cannot force people to do the right thing, but you shouldn't encourage them to do the wrong thing either. A federal ban on all abortions I believe would prove inadequate to solving the problem (and send woman back to coat hangers and dark alleys) but leaving the matter to the states would be more effective (so long as no state was allowed to become the Nevada of abortions). Women should be encouraged to choose adoption over abortion to the point where adoption should be state-subsidized if necessary (like how abortion is subsidized now).
Make sense? Shake?
Are you still serious? Anyone who reads that thread (with the possible exception of yourself) will realize who is right. You argued against the point I was making all along. By the end of the thread, you were claiming that point as your own. And why aren't you banned yet?
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,342
- 47,577
- 136
I'll call a spade a spade. And spare us your views on logic, as you've demonstrated earlier (and in many other threads I might add) you haven't the faintest clue what it is. I don't really have to extrapolate on why your an idiot, you're doing that job for me. Your not even man enough to admit you were wrong earlier, you're just pretending nothing happened. I just re-read the entire thread, and can honestly say you're the only one here acting like a 2nd grader. Until you start acting like a mature, sensible adult, I will continue to treat you like the petty, trollish child you are.
Where was I wrong? If you can show me, I'll admit it. If you can show me where I've used something other than logic and facts to argue my position, feel free to produce it. Your entire post is a personal attack, which leads me to believe that you won't be able to. Attack the person when you can't attack his ideas.
The risk of sex falls on half the population and consists of a 9 month sentence as a forced incubator if pregnancy occurs. Interesting! Women get the privilege of being a prisoner to their bodies or to jail. Fascinating! And the people who push this the hardest are men? Astounding!
Most abortions are spontaneous miscarriages. The fetus dies often because it is genetically defective. Do people of to jail because they have miscarriages. Some defectives will die early and some late. Do we morn for the late deaths more than the early. If so why? It was a fatal genetic defect either way. Some will die after they are born form genetic defects. Why is it OK for nature to murder babies and not people? Why the difference in the acceptance of one over the other. If it's ok for a genetically defective fetus to die what's the difference in whether it is defective or not? How does this little switch in the mind work, to accept one and reject the other purely on a mental idea? Some proteins are probably twisted in the brains of pro and anti abortionists in some slightly different way. What if we could give you a shot that changed the way you thought. This serum will cure you of your anti abortion stance and you can relax. Would you take such a serum?
Most abortions are spontaneous miscarriages. The fetus dies often because it is genetically defective. Do people of to jail because they have miscarriages. Some defectives will die early and some late. Do we morn for the late deaths more than the early. If so why? It was a fatal genetic defect either way. Some will die after they are born form genetic defects. Why is it OK for nature to murder babies and not people? Why the difference in the acceptance of one over the other. If it's ok for a genetically defective fetus to die what's the difference in whether it is defective or not? How does this little switch in the mind work, to accept one and reject the other purely on a mental idea? Some proteins are probably twisted in the brains of pro and anti abortionists in some slightly different way. What if we could give you a shot that changed the way you thought. This serum will cure you of your anti abortion stance and you can relax. Would you take such a serum?
That's what I thought. Thanks for at least leaving out the personal attacks this time around.
Actually, the majority of activists on both sides of this issue are women.
As with other crimes, if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. There is nothing that says a person needs to have sex. Exercise of self-control is a lost art in our society, as people have pushed the blame away, blaming their actions on instincts and influence of media. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
Do you know any woman who has had a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion? I do. The typical emotional response is grief almost identical to the death of a close friend or relative. In a procured abortion, this response is also typical, though it's usually delayed by an amount of time that depends on the person.
Do you mourn the loss of a loved one less if they die of natural causes or if they were murdered? If so, why? You would likely feel rage at the murder, whereas you would likely not at the natural causes, but the grief is the same in both cases. So, there is a relevant difference between natural death and a human-initiated death.
If you could take a serum that would remove your own bias from your eyes, would you? I cannot rationalize taking a serum that would remove from me a belief that I have labored long and hard to engender through countless hours of reading, research, and careful thought. I would be lying to myself.
Risk? Sex has an intentional outcome actually. By design, sex is for procreation. 9 month sentence? Some would call it an opportunity or a blessing. Both my girls were a blessing for my wife from conception to birth. We both enjoyed it. Your notion that it's a sentence is a mischaracterization.
I think that your view, while well stated, is a bit off. Question your parents about their view about your gestation and ensuing birth. Would they tell you it was a "sentence"? Prolly not, unless they are unusually cruel.
Perhaps of more interesting note to you MB is that 80% of women that have abortions report being pressured by their boyfriends and clergy to have the procedure.
No one is 'Pro-Abortion", especially pro-partial-birth abortion. Abortions in general are best avoided by some kind of earlier contraception and are generally an unpleasant experience for the would-be-mother involved.
That is why the quote "PRO-ABORTION" movement is refered to as "PRO-CHOICE". It's not that we (or anyone) thinks abortions are a great thing, its just that maybe the federal government shouldn't be getting involved in a procedure that is done in doctor-patient confidentiality and you should stop pushing YOUR beliefs and legislating YOUR religion/ethics on others. Its about giving women a choice.
That is why the quote "PRO-ABORTION" movement is refered to as "PRO-CHOICE". It's not that we (or anyone) thinks abortions are a great thing, its just that maybe the federal government shouldn't be getting involved in a procedure that is done in doctor-patient confidentiality and you should stop pushing YOUR beliefs and legislating YOUR religion/ethics on others. Its about giving women a choice.
I think this is what is called anecdotal evidence. The point is that there are women who want the sex but not the baby. It's just an accident of biology that this is so and there is a way, thanks to science that women don't have to be stuck with being a biological slave.
CW, 1984 was a long time ago. Men are the ones who play this issue and they do so to get elected. I think you simply ignore the fact that you want to tell half the population what to do and you are not a part of the population that would have to comply. That in itself is profoundly ethically suspect. It would be like telling Martians they have to lay eggs where there's no sun. You might as well say that women have to carry a cancerous tumor tell she dies because the tumor became an autonomous being when it mutated. There is no difference in the chemicals in your head you lined up in your study then the chemicals that lined up in the zygote. It's all just molecules of carbon etc. You have to evoke the spiritual if you want to give vibrating atoms any meaning. All you are doing is pushing your emotional issue. You feel the fetus is more important than utility and scientific solutions to biological design flaws. You make up this notion that people should be responsible. Why should they be. They can take a pill. Abortion is the responsibility that some women choose not to have a child they don't want. You just think your responsibility is better than theirs, but it is just your opinion. When it comes to opinions we each get to act on our own.
If the abortion is legal then the doctor should do it in a way to minimize impact on the mother. If that means Partial-birth then that is fine.
All this tells me is that you've never been to a pro-choice or pro-life rally. I have, and I was one of very very few men there. I presented a scientific study refuting your claim and all you have to offer is 'well, that was a long time ago.' The point stands until you can present a more recent study refuting it, which you will not be able to do, so don't waste your time looking (unless you're really that interested - if you are, then by all means). Since your whole argument is based on this assumption, which is the opposite of the truth, then I'm not going to address the rest of it.
Ya, mostly a rhetorical reply from MB, more of the same.
Break things down until it's all carbon molecules then we don't have to care right?
Anyways, this thread is about dead.....line up another dead horse to flog.
last year a law to ban partial birth abortion was signed, but some dumb judge (not supreme court) threw it out to "protect the mom's rights". Why does it seem like no democrats think about the baby. They're pro choice, but that doesnt count for some people i guess. We'll see what happens to people who think it's ok to murder babies on the last day.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 395
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter