THANK GOD THEY ARE GONE!!

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree, as every scientist in the 1500s would tell you that the world was flat. Information can be misanalyzed easily and more often than not is.

Every Biology textbook in the world will tell you that the female Praying mantice devours the male after mating. This is actually not true, as the naturalist observing them mistook two males fighting over territory for a mating ritual. Yet it is in every textbook you'll ever find. Don't treat science like canon fact, its changing every day.

Then your "hypothesis" would be just as suspect Stedric , and the female praying mantis "sometimes" kills(not devours) the male as do many spiders(funny how you totally took one event out of context and thought because of this every book written on the subject took this naturalist as its evidence). The male tries to escape after mating and is often succesful(if they arent its agood thing their genes arent passed on to more females as a result). Claiming "scientists" thought the world was flat in 1500 's would also only be accurate to scientists living in the Vatican controlled countries of europe. Ancient greeks "knew" the world was round through simple empirical observation. And, that was over a thousand years "before" the 1500's .....And, actually every biology textbook in the world will not tell you "the female devours" the male, it simply states they(females) generally attack the male after mating(as do alot of other insects). I'm not treating science as Canon Fact , im treating empirical evidence as such. The only reason scientists claimed the world was flat was because of the church's insistence against the world being round. Also heliocentric theory was a "burn at the stake offense" the only thing that saved Galileo was his connections in the church. You can disagree all you like I'll still buy empirical observation. Also privately as recorded in memoirs released at the time and found now by archivists, would even show european scientists as not thinking the world is flat...at any time...

It's kind of an irony you attack science but then make your observation and claim it as fact dont you think? Then go on to cite one example of a naturalist who was disproved within the year...;) But, claim because of his observations we think that Praying mantids attack and devour after mating (they do however attack , I used to keep them as pets, makes me no expert but the difference between male and female is quite observable , and they(females) do attack after mating, which is why the male often flees as fast as possible. But hey you believe what you want, but I suppose every biologist is wrong and your right. After all because science is always changing we shouldnt believe a word of it right? (its healthy to approach with skepticism but simply to dismiss without researching the whole body of evidence is absurd).

I wasn't attacking science, you're oversimplifying. I was saying don't take it as canon fact because it isn't, its always changing and most scientists know this.

I wasn't trying to claim anything was a FACT, just stating my opinion. Sorry if you found it somehow offensive or stupid.

I didnt say offensive or stupid , and I said I take empirical evidence as Canon fact man no worries. And, not stupid just absurd to dismiss(science automatically, I reject it admittedly alot myself but only based on "how when where why etc the study was done") , sorry if I misread you. (now answer my cat questions on the general board lol ;) I wanna know what kind of trouble your kitty gets into ;) )

Yeah I knew stoners couldn't make an argument go for too long.

:p Just kidding, ok I'll answer your questions.

its funny how Torog said that democrats despise america and christianity and the army. No thats not true what the democrats despise is hte people in charge "bush team" who actually send you guys out there to a place where you shouldn't even be to die for them yeah for their corporation it wasn't like iraq had any problems for us. And how many oil rigs did you have to protect?

ummmmmmmmm......maybe none of you heard....but we did break down the genome code. there is a "gay" gene. homosexuality occurs naturally reguardless of population.

there was also research done that shows that.....i forget the name of the gland....but males are a lot smaller than the female ones.....and in gay men, theres are the size of womens.....and in gay women, theirs are a lot smaller. def not a choice thing. and definately natural. almost like a birth defect.

not saying i don't believe you, because it seems very likely...but do you have anything to back that up?

yeah i can find omething....i will post back

Um the gay gene wouldnt preclude its not related to overpopulation (pssst they already found the reason animals become "gay" last time I checked story telling apes were still animals "thats homo sapiens ie: humans",unless your of the camp of course that humans are somehow superior to all life on earth because we use tools and write things down?,if so check out Dolphins and Whales brain to body mass ratio (how we measure intellectual capacity overall ;) ).

Last time I studied evolution Genetic traits become predominant when their found advantageous.....Not randomly(thats how they start in the first place ;)), Of course there is those who think its always been part of the human condition and that we all are "a little gay" some more than others (look at ancient greece...large numbers of homosexual's and completely acceptable in society). Once again doesnt preclude Homosexuality being a biological response to over population. Sorry studies have been done on thousands of species they all come out the same, to think humans are somehow special would be illogical. (thats why in EVERY zoo over 40% of the animals in the zoo engage in homosexual behaviour...they're crowded...In a world where we can move freely from place to place(being the dominant species) these genetic characteristics(or behaviours) would not neccessarily be limited to crowded areas, as the precursor's of such gene's (produced by overpopulation) would pass it on when they moved, a genetic trait wouldnt simply dissappear it'll spread. (contrary to popular belief many gay couples reproduce....unfortunately for the "gay gene" camp less than 20% of those studied produce "gay offspring" thus throwing the "gay gene" argument for a loop. It would also mean its not a "normal behaviour" but a mutation that cropped up and survived for a reason (how evolution works). I'm inclined to believe from available evidence that its completely natural and is a reaction (brain based) to over population (or else bi sexuality and being "straight" would also be genetic...Studies however do not support this). Look at the greater body of evidence ;). But I would love to see the study to look at it, I'll use an open mind too. I'd be very interested in seeing it personally (and any other studies on any other subject you wish to post, I'm always up for reading a scientific journal :) ).

have you heard of the "new being project"? its a very interesting idea on evolution. i wish i could link you up but i dont remember how to get there. maybe you could do a search.? let me know how you feel about it if you look at it?

I shall endeavour to do so MooMoo, If I find a good site for it (ie: informative and not just cursory examination) I'll post it too :)