Because DW isn't running around holding other people/discussions hostage until so-and-so replies. Ridiculous behavior on your part when ignoring people is your past time.


Considering your irrational and often scornful views of people whom you decide are anti-theists, I found your request that we meet in person so that you could show me your relative's medical records to be extremely creepy. And when I said no - I'm not an M.D. and medical records wouldn't support your argument about the efficacy of intercessory prayer anyways- you upped the creep factor by taunting, "You aren't scared, are you? " At the time, my answer was inappropriately graphic, but I won't apologize for its sentiment: the combination of spite, irrationality, and creepiness from an anonymous, religiously-motivated stranger from the internet definitely made me contemplate my personal safety.

It's closed access, can't afford to read that one either.

Thankfully from all the excitement here from the NSTA published self-assembly experiment we all understand the importance of shaking motion of waves. And none here need another slap in the face with the usual generalizations instead of answers that pertain to intelligence and other things you cannot even explain.

Gary,

Check out this free piece. In the future if you cannot read it just google it for keywords, names of researchers, institutions, etc. and you are almost always going to get some news site that will have it for free and you don't have to pay for it.

Coral embryos broken in half can turn into ... identical twins!
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46595524/ns/techno ... 1FTYIcgerY

Your questions about my relative were extremely offensive; your follow up equally so. Your accusations and scornful views of those you decide are too "religious" show a level of contempt that is approaching hatred, and that IS scary.

I want to defuse this situation, so if you really want to have your questions answered, lets step forward and deal with them.

So, O.K., I am willing to give it a chance to see if you really want discusson... what's your question?

OK, interesting, corals have embryos that like in humans can be split to produce identical twins. Am I supposed to be shocked by that discovery?

DagnyWener

I don't have a situation, I have a position.

Thanks for the personal analysis you did good 50%, your right down there with Gene Dioxin and Nostradamus.

Like I said before, you don't comprehend well.



I like to know how my view, my language is hurting us as a species.

ABO...... I like to know how my view, my language is hurting us as a species.

From little I've seen on this board, by now you should be able to know what position of others on it is. Let's try to see if you can hypothesize what that could be? Give me 5-10 things that can be sited about your world view that can hurt humanity. I am wondering if you can see the objective reality from objective reality world view.

After several attempts to get a straight answer, I would now say your just running your mouth and have no idea what you're talking about.

ABO,

I asked you for 5-10 things to see if you can see another prospective. I am sorry to see that you have failed. All the best to you and yours.

Interesting little critter. Appears to be "a missing link" for cordates, including humans.

Pikaia gracilens Walcott, a stem-group chordate from the Middle Cambrian of British Columbia

Simon Conway Morris1,*, Jean-Bernard Caron2,3
Article first published online: 4 MAR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00220.x
© 2012 The Authors. Biological Reviews © 2012 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Keywords:
Pikaia;Burgess Shale;Cambrian;chordates;evolution;yunnanozoans;amphioxus
The Middle Cambrian Pikaia gracilens (Walcott) has an iconic position as a Cambrian chordate, but until now no detailed description has been available. Here on the basis of the 114 available specimens we review its anatomy, confirm its place in the chordates and explore with varying degrees of confidence its relationships to both extant and extinct chordates and other deuterostomes. The body of Pikaia is fusiform, laterally compressed and possesses about 100 myomeres. The head is small, bilobed and bears two narrow tentacles. There is no evidence for eyes. Apart from a thin dorsal fin (without finrays) and a series of at least nine bilaterally arranged appendages with possible pharyngeal pores at the anterior end, there are no other external features. In addition to the musculature the internal anatomy includes an alimentary canal, the anterior of which forms a prominent lenticular unit that is almost invariably preserved in positive relief. The cavity is interpreted as pharyngeal, implying that the mouth itself was almost terminal. The posterior extension of the gut is unclear although the anus appears to have been terminal. The most prominent internal structure is a reflectively preserved unit, possibly hollow, termed here the dorsal organ. Although formerly interpreted as a notochord its position and size make this less likely. Its original function remains uncertain, but it could have formed a storage organ. Ventral to the dorsal organ a narrower strand of tissue is interpreted as representing the nerve chord and notochord. In addition to these structures, there is also evidence for a vascular system, including a ventral blood vessel.

The position of Pikaia in the chordates is largely based on the presence of sigmoidal myomeres, and the more tentative identification of a notochord. In many other respects, Pikaia differs from the expected nature of primitive chordates, especially as revealed in amphioxus and the Cambrian record (including Cathaymyrus, Haikouichthys, Metaspriggina, Myllokunmingia, and Zhongxiniscus). Whilst the possibility that Pikaia is simply convergent on the chordates cannot be dismissed, we prefer to build a scenario that regards Pikaia as the most stem-ward of the chordates with links to the phylogenetically controversial yunnanozoans. This hypothesis has implications for the evolution of the myomeres, notochord and gills. Finally, the wealth of material of Pikaia indicates that, although by definition there must be some sort of taphonomic imprint, the consistency of preservational details allows a reliable reconstruction of the anatomy and does not significantly erode phylogenetically relevant characters.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

Study Reveals How Protein Machinery Binds and Wraps DNA to Start Replication

Molecular-level details of mechanism may point to ways to block unwanted cell division
March 6, 2012

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_d ... late=Today

And looking back through all this I see that, despite all the articles cited, no one even came close to explaining abiogenesis.

Why would you expect abiogenesis to be explained?

Good question; given the posts here, I shouldn't have.

The issue isn't "posts here", but basic biological knowledge.