Interesting Science


Electoral Member
Jun 23, 2004
Science sure is interesting. I am still struggling with this equation where the force of a Canadian reaction is inversly proportional to that with a non Canadian.

Equivalent to nuclear fission, where an atom sized event is all that is needed to trigger a world destroying event.

Canadians relativity to nuclear fission would be measured as such by the following theorems:

(equation 1)
Dog bark(squared)= Canadian bark. (ever noticed that they yell louder than their dog??)

(equation 2)
Square root of PROBLEM / 100 (cube root) = Actual size of problem. (the canadian media is hilarious, always exaggerating to get the people thinking that the world is gonna end,now how seriously you take the media is a different matter.)

Hmmm, Canadians, excellent specimens. Very interesting science that breaks the rules of even the most basic physics. What might happen if I inject a Canadian gene into a turtle??

Teenage mutant ninja turtles (sings theme song)

Haggis McBagpipe

Walks on Forum Water
Jun 11, 2004
Victoria, B.C.
Someone has been hurting your feelings again, haven't they. Don't worry, one day you will make friends and will then feel a whole lot better.

As for your analysis above: I must protest, you are far too kind, we Canadians are much, much worse than that. I think you are being extra-cautious around here because you want everybody to like you. Don't worry, you can say what you really feel, everybody will still feel the same way about you! Trust me!

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
Every other disipline of science has progressed immeasurable with advances of thought and techniques. When looking at evolution through the eyes of 21st century science, the antiquated19th century idea doesn't stand up.

But the basic idea does stand up and evolutionary theory has changed dramatically as new facts became available. It will continue to do so in the future.


Darwin basically drew a line with branches coming of it. A tree, always progressing upwards. First there was pond scum, then there were fish, then there were voles, then there were apes, then there were people. (I skipped a few steps, but if you read Descent of Man that's the gist of it)

Modern evolutionary theory does not follow that line. It has pond scum and people, but it also has progressions, regressions, examples of failed species, size adaptations (mini-elephants in an island environment) and so on. It takes into account changing environments and natural disasters. It is no longer a branched line, but an intricate web. All of the evidence so far presented from the fossil record backs up the basic idea...adaptation making some individuals more likely to pass on their genes (and the positive adaptive traits), but the basic idea has evolved into something infinitely more complex.

Milton is pushing intelligent design...the idea that complex organisms cannot develop by accident and therefore there must be an intelligence behind their development.

Evolution does not have complex organisms developing by accident though, it has them developing through selective breeding. Consider how much taller people are today than they were even in the recent past. Some of that can be attributed to nutrition, but there is an evolutionary component as well, and it is affected by social and technological changes. As a species, we tend to be attracted to members of the opposite sex that show good health and an ability to protect and provide for offspring. Height is an indicator, at a very basic level, of those three things.

Now toss in technological changes of the last century or few centuries. Human populations are more easily able to travel, and therefore more likely to find a mate with the attributes they are looking for. More tall people will successfully reproduce than will short people. Socially, it is also more acceptable to marry outside of your own ethnic background, religion, etc. Again that allows more chance to choose a mate with the attributes you are looking for.

There isn't a a series of steps, but the average height keeps rising. Ten thousand years from now, no scientist will be able to say that he found the missing link that led to tall people and has named it 1982 Man. He will be able to look back and say that average heights started rising due to a number of factors...that tall people evolved from short people.

It makes sense


Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2004
If one tries to cross-breed any animal or plant, you will eventually reach a point where you can't breed any further. You can breed a horse for being fast for racing or for being strong so it can pull a plow or heavy loads. But there is a limit to how far you can go - the horse still remains a horse. It won't turn into something else.

Genetic homeostasis - it' accepted by Darwinists but just as with Convergance and the marsupial problem, they seem to forget about and say that a microbe can turn into an elephant given enough time.

And if that is the case, why are there still, "lower" life forms?

Or as when addressing "Survivial of the Fittess", the best way to survive "is entirely compatible with the idea that all organisms should regress to the safest common denominator, a single-celled organism, and thus become optimally adapted to every habitat."

We should all be very tiny microbes right now.

As far as the reproduction, i.e. "More tall people will successfully reproduce than will short people." this comes to "The Survival of the Fittest" statement (it sounds so simple and elegant).

This isn't about the strongest most tallest 'surviving'.

Milton: "George Simpson, professor of paleontology at Harvard, sought to restore content to the idea of natural selection by saying; "If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a larger proportion of children than blondes or brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed people have more children, evolution will be towards left-handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural selection favours fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which maybe confusing to others. To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding."

Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint."

As males fight for domination for a female, there is really no particular advantage as the females will mate as readily with the loser.

A fit lion may use is strength and agility to escpase a natual disaster but find no food because of it and die. A weak cowardly lion may just be lucky to escape find food and breed.

Luck can be survival.