they don't always. But there's some sketchy validation for it in the fact that we are all descended from Africans. Never mind that Africans evolved just as much as the rest of us since our differently-colored populations split from the seminal herd.
Sometimes they do it like this: http://tinyurl.com/kov942a (Slashdot wouldn't accept original URL because it's Russian and "too long"
The best guess would be to give them neutral racial characteristics. We have no clue when skin colors and hair types diverged. They might have been just as varied among h. erectus as they are among modern humans, since they had just as long or even longer to adapt to varied conditions and climates.
They don't. But what are the odds that of five individuals recovered from one location, one of them would be a freak? Or the location could have been populated by several different species over a period of as much as 20,000 years. That is certainly long enough for it to have happened. But the simplest explanation is one species with skull variations in its population not much greater than what we see in modern humans.
By that definition, every isolated population immediately becomes a new species. The housecats of the Isle of Man, for instance, would be a unique species because without humans to transport them to England or Scotland, they can't interbreed with Irish or British housecats. Do you make an exception because housecats and other domesticated species have tricked humans into helping them spread their genes? How isolated does the population have to be? Were American Indians a separate species from Frenchmen because for thousands of years, there was little or no gene exchange? But now they are the same species because they can make boats that can cross the Atlantic?
It's not as clear cut as all that either. When you take two populations that have been separated for a long time, they may be fully interfertile or they may have various degrees of ferility. For instance, horses and donkeys can have crosses (mules or more rarely hinnies) and sometimes female mules are fertile. Dogs are are still fully interfertile with wolves, but they have different physical and behavioral (esp. breeding) characteristics. They're also interfertile to some degree with coyotes, but those hybrids have more genetic problems and lower fertility than normal coyotes or dogs. (The same is true of jackals.)
So it appears that loss of fertility between populations with shared ancestry is not typically abrupt and species may continue to have some gene exchange even after their genetics have become distinct.
There is now solid evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with humans long ago in Eurasia and most of us (all except maybe Africans) have Neanderthal as well as early H. sapiens ancestors, but most of everyone's ancestry is from a population of anatomically modern folks who evolved in Africa.
Of course, we pretty limited evidence to go on, but it's safe to say that as long as Neanderthals existed as a separate type alongside of H. sapiens, the interfertility must have been limited, certainly more than mules but maybe not so smooth as dogs vs. coyotes.
And then there's sasquatch. Admit it, you didn't know I was going there but you're glad I did. Nobody knows how closely related sasquatch were to modern humans, denisovans or heidelbergensis.
Both proponents of creationism and anthropologists agree that all living humans must have one common male ancestor at some point. They Y-MRCA (most recent ancestor of all y-chromosomes, and the guy who had it) is estimated to have lived sometime between 140,000 and 300,000 years ago. That would probably make him H. sapiens because sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years. However, we can't be sure. If the oldest date is right, he might have been h. heidelbergensis.
That pretty much matches a good number of the Tea Party people I know. They got a good education in the sciences from very good public schools and universities but have nothing good to say about the education system and don't want to pay for it. Many of them work for government contractors.
A lot of private practice Drs and Dentists back the tea party, as they vote single issue - lowering the taxes on their $300k+ incomes. Medical degrees and certifications are of course lumped in the science bucket so probably make up a large part of the total. They tend to dislike welfare programs such as medicaid and medicare too, as they cut into their profit margins.
I doubt Medicaid and Medicare cut as much into their profits as having fewer customers.
I and the court disagree but even if you are right, all it would mean is that the court might find as you are thinking and impose a burden on the government to show that you have not complied with the law.
And the government will argue that it is a tax imposed on people who don't have health insurance because the government foots the bill for their effective insurance.
No, the evidence from 2003 didn't say he was innocent. It said there was insufficient evidence at that time to conclude that he was a terrorist or was working with terrorists. Maybe he started giving money to terrorists later. Or maybe in 2003, the same people he was giving money to weren't considered terrorists, but now they clearly are. (Al Shabaab was behind the Kenya mall attack, where they murdered a lot of people.)
The court is right, as far as the law goes. You don't have the right to control records ABOUT you if they're not YOUR records. If they wanted to see HIS COPY of his phone bill, they'd have to get a warrant. If they want to see the phone company's copy, they have to convince the phone company that giving over the records is less trouble for them than not giving them.
I wish there were phone companies that had the balls to tell the government that a National Security Letter or a subpoena isn't a warrant and can't compel them to turn over any damn records, that they want a legal warrant that specifically names the things to be searched and seized, and will stand up and say "this isn't legal either" when a ridiculously overbroad warrant comes down saying "give them everything."
If there were a phone company like that, they'd have my business.
That's beside the point. The government didn't rule that it has the authority to do whatever it wants. It ruled that it has specific authority that it wants.
The authority is under the authority to impose income taxes -- you pay it as part of your income taxes and you're exempted if either (a) you don't have enough income or (b) you are somehow providing for health insurance, whether it's through your employer or otherwise.
What is your basis for saying it's not constitutional. Is there some right I haven't heard of that prevents the government from imposing taxes on certain behavior?
You are guaranteed the right to challenge the ACCURACY and the prosecution's INTERPRETATION of the evidence used against you. You can't challenge the government's ability to get that evidence from a third party. If you could, no one would ever be convicted of anything.
As a generalization, there's some truth to this, but it's not as clear cut as all that. Some vegetarians are so because they have personal qualms about eating animals or eat a vegetarian diet because of their religion. Those are the best vegetarians to study. They are not as prone to nutrition fads that encourage them to eat or drink 20x normal amounts of specific foods (e.g. http://www.drugstore.com/natures-answer-sambucus-black-elder-berry-extract-super-concentrated/qxp290049).
Steve Jobs is from California and Larry Ellison is from Chicago.
On the other hand, Bill Gates, another Seattle tech company founder and CEO, was raised by doting (and extraordinarily well connnected) natural parents.
Credit cards are taken as a promise to pay. If you have the card, either you are good for it or the credit company is the one who has to come after you for payment.
Debit cards don't work that way. If they can't verify the funds in your account, they don't get paid.
Slashdot Mirror
At least it's not one of these: http://patcoston.com/images/things/tv/Land%20of%20the%20Lost/74~Season%203%20-%20Sleestak%20leader%20speaks%20English%20-%20Season%202%20The%20Longest%20Day%20the%20dad%20and%20Sleestack%20hung%20out%20in%20the%20library%20of%20the%20skulls%20and%20could%20talk%20to%20each%20other.jpg
they don't always. But there's some sketchy validation for it in the fact that we are all descended from Africans. Never mind that Africans evolved just as much as the rest of us since our differently-colored populations split from the seminal herd.
Sometimes they do it like this:
http://tinyurl.com/kov942a (Slashdot wouldn't accept original URL because it's Russian and "too long"
The best guess would be to give them neutral racial characteristics. We have no clue when skin colors and hair types diverged. They might have been just as varied among h. erectus as they are among modern humans, since they had just as long or even longer to adapt to varied conditions and climates.
They don't. But what are the odds that of five individuals recovered from one location, one of them would be a freak? Or the location could have been populated by several different species over a period of as much as 20,000 years. That is certainly long enough for it to have happened. But the simplest explanation is one species with skull variations in its population not much greater than what we see in modern humans.
By that definition, every isolated population immediately becomes a new species. The housecats of the Isle of Man, for instance, would be a unique species because without humans to transport them to England or Scotland, they can't interbreed with Irish or British housecats. Do you make an exception because housecats and other domesticated species have tricked humans into helping them spread their genes? How isolated does the population have to be? Were American Indians a separate species from Frenchmen because for thousands of years, there was little or no gene exchange? But now they are the same species because they can make boats that can cross the Atlantic?
and if we migrate to other planets, we will.
It's not as clear cut as all that either. When you take two populations that have been separated for a long time, they may be fully interfertile or they may have various degrees of ferility. For instance, horses and donkeys can have crosses (mules or more rarely hinnies) and sometimes female mules are fertile. Dogs are are still fully interfertile with wolves, but they have different physical and behavioral (esp. breeding) characteristics. They're also interfertile to some degree with coyotes, but those hybrids have more genetic problems and lower fertility than normal coyotes or dogs. (The same is true of jackals.)
So it appears that loss of fertility between populations with shared ancestry is not typically abrupt and species may continue to have some gene exchange even after their genetics have become distinct.
There is now solid evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with humans long ago in Eurasia and most of us (all except maybe Africans) have Neanderthal as well as early H. sapiens ancestors, but most of everyone's ancestry is from a population of anatomically modern folks who evolved in Africa.
Of course, we pretty limited evidence to go on, but it's safe to say that as long as Neanderthals existed as a separate type alongside of H. sapiens, the interfertility must have been limited, certainly more than mules but maybe not so smooth as dogs vs. coyotes.
And then there's sasquatch. Admit it, you didn't know I was going there but you're glad I did. Nobody knows how closely related sasquatch were to modern humans, denisovans or heidelbergensis.
Both proponents of creationism and anthropologists agree that all living humans must have one common male ancestor at some point. They Y-MRCA (most recent ancestor of all y-chromosomes, and the guy who had it) is estimated to have lived sometime between 140,000 and 300,000 years ago. That would probably make him H. sapiens because sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years. However, we can't be sure. If the oldest date is right, he might have been h. heidelbergensis.
That pretty much matches a good number of the Tea Party people I know. They got a good education in the sciences from very good public schools and universities but have nothing good to say about the education system and don't want to pay for it. Many of them work for government contractors.
A lot of private practice Drs and Dentists back the tea party, as they vote single issue - lowering the taxes on their $300k+ incomes. Medical degrees and certifications are of course lumped in the science bucket so probably make up a large part of the total. They tend to dislike welfare programs such as medicaid and medicare too, as they cut into their profit margins.
I doubt Medicaid and Medicare cut as much into their profits as having fewer customers.
7000 bargain-basement servers or 2000 cheap servers plus the infrastructure to make them usable.
That's not too far from where I live, but it wasn't exactly "torched by locals", but torched by an anarchist group.
Was it a local anarchist group?
I and the court disagree but even if you are right, all it would mean is that the court might find as you are thinking and impose a burden on the government to show that you have not complied with the law.
All administrative subpoenas, as I understand them, are illegal warrants. They should all be challenged on 4th Amendment grounds.
And the government will argue that it is a tax imposed on people who don't have health insurance because the government foots the bill for their effective insurance.
Is irrelevant. If the government requests information about you from a third party and the third party gives it to them, you have no recourse.
No, the evidence from 2003 didn't say he was innocent. It said there was insufficient evidence at that time to conclude that he was a terrorist or was working with terrorists. Maybe he started giving money to terrorists later. Or maybe in 2003, the same people he was giving money to weren't considered terrorists, but now they clearly are. (Al Shabaab was behind the Kenya mall attack, where they murdered a lot of people.)
The court is right, as far as the law goes. You don't have the right to control records ABOUT you if they're not YOUR records. If they wanted to see HIS COPY of his phone bill, they'd have to get a warrant. If they want to see the phone company's copy, they have to convince the phone company that giving over the records is less trouble for them than not giving them.
I wish there were phone companies that had the balls to tell the government that a National Security Letter or a subpoena isn't a warrant and can't compel them to turn over any damn records, that they want a legal warrant that specifically names the things to be searched and seized, and will stand up and say "this isn't legal either" when a ridiculously overbroad warrant comes down saying "give them everything."
If there were a phone company like that, they'd have my business.
That's beside the point. The government didn't rule that it has the authority to do whatever it wants. It ruled that it has specific authority that it wants.
The authority is under the authority to impose income taxes -- you pay it as part of your income taxes and you're exempted if either (a) you don't have enough income or (b) you are somehow providing for health insurance, whether it's through your employer or otherwise.
What is your basis for saying it's not constitutional. Is there some right I haven't heard of that prevents the government from imposing taxes on certain behavior?
This court is almost certain to back the government. They take a very narrow view of who has standing.
You are guaranteed the right to challenge the ACCURACY and the prosecution's INTERPRETATION of the evidence used against you. You can't challenge the government's ability to get that evidence from a third party. If you could, no one would ever be convicted of anything.
As a generalization, there's some truth to this, but it's not as clear cut as all that. Some vegetarians are so because they have personal qualms about eating animals or eat a vegetarian diet because of their religion. Those are the best vegetarians to study. They are not as prone to nutrition fads that encourage them to eat or drink 20x normal amounts of specific foods (e.g. http://www.drugstore.com/natures-answer-sambucus-black-elder-berry-extract-super-concentrated/qxp290049).
Steve Jobs is from California and Larry Ellison is from Chicago.
On the other hand, Bill Gates, another Seattle tech company founder and CEO, was raised by doting (and extraordinarily well connnected) natural parents.
Credit cards are taken as a promise to pay. If you have the card, either you are good for it or the credit company is the one who has to come after you for payment.
Debit cards don't work that way. If they can't verify the funds in your account, they don't get paid.