Huguenot

If their child had been abducted to order, there was as much evidence of that as there was for an alien abduction. Occam's razor suggests that a sensible approach would be to choose the simplest solution to these conundrums, so long as they are still sufficient to explain it. Whilst a criminal gang is marginally more likely than an alien abduction, a lone opportunist is streets ahead of both alternatives. Likewise someone known to the child is more likely than a stranger.... and a family member is ten times more likely than a non-family member. Since there are physical hints that the story was inconsistent with reality, and that the parents were not supporting the enquiry, and that they threatened people who challenged their account of events, I'd tend to view their story with some skepticism. Having said that, I assume they were innocent and would treat them accordingly.

And some people, like incontinent mongrels, just pissed over all of it and ruined it for everyone. :)

On the subject of the Israeli find... Genetically the history of homo sapiens can be traced back through a series of 'bottlenecks' when the overall population was limited by geographical or environmental influences to a small number of individuals - perhaps only a few thousand. Examples of this may be Ice Ages. 'Out of Africa' merely highlights that the earliest bottleneck we can currently trace homo sapiens to is around 200,000 years ago in Africa, and that it was a few thousand individuals. Evolutionary theory doesn't deny the existence of humans before that point, it merely says that it has no evidence for them. In fact it's likely that variations on homo sapiens existed long before that point as part of the evolutionary process. A find in Israel 400,000 years ago would be a matter of celebration if it proves true, showing us an earlier point on the road map to the modern day. I'll wait for peer review on the data, because unlike the Daily Mail I'm a wee bit suspicous that the country naming it's residents as the 'chosen race' should now claim to be the birthplace of humanity, and that they should make the announcement at Christmas. I wonder if those religious links aren't also what makes you so excited about the possiblity of such a find?

I can't speak for other people's belief, but for clarity's sake I can say that in marks for plausibility in terms of the full picture the current 'Out of Africa' theory sits at 65/100 , whereas Garden of Eden, snakes and the Hand of God sit at 0/100 on the same scale. That's not a 'belief' that's a rational interpretation of the data. It most certainly is not philosophy, as it doesn't attempt to explore our history through contemplation, but through physical evidence. Many of my age group will have had the fortune to selectively breed fruit flies as part of their education. We've seen evolution in action, and it required no 'faith' or 'belief' to experience it. I'm shocked silverfox, that having already had the dangers of this discourse highlighted for you, that you are now asking specific questions about species 'purity'. Evolutionary theory has it that the random mutations necessary to generate modern humans could have happened once or many times, and that interbreeding could have emphasised or deemphasised the influence of a range of genes at multiple times in history. No one of these is any more 'pure' than the next, there is no right or wrong in evolution. Neither scientific method, evolution, nor I have any idea what you're talking about in terms of species purity. Biologically the community cannot even gain agreement on what a 'species' is; nature doesn't deliver flora and fauna against fixed blueprints, but instead as variations on a theme. You only need to glance around at your neighbours, with brown and blonde hair, big and small noses, brown and white skin to see that there is no single 'pure' genetic map that defines humanity. I think your desire to identify a 'pure' homo sapiens is a hopelessly flawed and narcissistic pursuit based on a religious desire to be both unique, and the most important thing in the universe. The fact that the outcome of such convictions through history have been evil should make you think twice.

Ironically, it seems to be silverfox pursuing this species issue with particular interest, because from a religious view the species question is very important - if man was made in God's image, and man is unique, then any other species is NOT man and hence can be dealt with accordingly. There is consequentially a streak of pure evil running through assertions by religious groups that Melanesians are 'not of the same stock'. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination or knowledge of history to see how this type of attitude manifests itself.

There isn't a legal definition for antique in the UK, it should be treated as a generalist term of no more importance than the words 'old' or 'ancient'. Instead you should ask for specific and legally binding statements about age. In the US it seems it was a tax issue, and was originally defined as pre-1830. I can't find any evidence it was updated, so possibly now means that it's over 170 years old. The '100 year' rule quoted above is often used to define antique, but actually doesn't do that, it's simply an inconsistently applied customs and excise regulation to do with import/export.

I don't really get the issue here: The 'Garden of Eden' is a creation myth designed to establish social hierarchies (in particular gender roles and religious authority) and political power structures (original sin and obedience). If you challenge it the you challenge the entire system. 'Out of Africa' is merely a hypothecation made upon the data at hand. It doesn't underpin any social or political structures, and certainly doesn't act as a foundation for scientific method (which is a process of rational investigation, not a religion or a political system). In short it's largely academic. New insight into human history doesn't suddenly make the 'Garden of Eden' more plausible - Eden is a literary conceit, a moral fable, a 'creation myth' like thousands of others. Genetic diversification takes place over long periods of time, and in the initial stages emerging new species are impossible to differentiate from each other. Pronounced differences across the evolutionary tree usually stem from an initial divergence followed by periods of isolation. The effectiveness of interbreeding is entirely down to how far they may have diverged during the isolation period. Either way, so what?

I understand the environmental perspective, I hope that we can also be pragmatic with that... I'm not sure there's many Brits who would like to take on a Cuban standard of living just for the sake of diplomatic niceties. As I've said before, most of Wikileaks output is either widely known, tittle tattle, or just part of the usual ebb and flow of intentational negotiation. Exceptions like the coverage of US helicpoter forces indulging in homicidal chicken shoots on innocent civilians mean that's not always the case of course :-(

Whilst I agree with the principle IV, there's a bit of a confusion between the means and the end. Would you prefer to have the UK fail in its international strategy (for example regular supplies of resources such as oil and gas that keep everyine alive), but be principled in its behaviour? It's easy to be 'principled' now, but you might not feel so good about it if you find yourself back in the stone age.

"my point is, if it is not true that human origins originated in Africa then your belief in that falsehood was as silly as you regard the story of Adam and Eve being silly" No silverfox, there is no equivalence here. An assertion that we are an alien experiment placed on earth, or descendants of the tooth fairy would be as daft as Adam and Eve, since there is no evidence for any of them. The 'out of africa' theory isn't even a belief - it's a best estimate derived from the huge depth of evidence currently at hand. If other evidence comes to light that challenges it, you'll be impressed with the pace at which science accepts the error and revises the theory. Religion on the other hand would imprison the heretics. You didn't need to mention the word religion in your post for it to be an obviously religious invocation. The case for this is supported by the fact that you readily jumped at the religious debate it fostered.

August 10th 2008

Sorry untamedstylist, but this is NOT 'trying to be nice': "responding to a few posts and seeing some of the not so nice forumees responding with the ridiculous arguements and nit picking, contradicting, and insulting of people... Those particulars must suffer survere boredom or lack of interest in there lifes tha they feel the need to start..... "

You launch an attack on unnamed users of the forum for attacking unnamed users of the forum? You see the irony yes? There's a rather spiteful judgmental whingeing element to your personality that it would be wise to address before parading yourself prima donna style as a role model for the community.

I don't think silverfox's point was a racist one, I think it was a religious one. For literal interpreters of the Bible, ridicule of evolution relies heavily on the absence of a 'missing link'. The discovery of genetic markers demonstrating the evolutionary process is a hard cross to bear for those insisting the world is 4,000 years old, and mankind is special. Likewise silverfox had to have a crack at 'out of Africa'. For god botherers, we didn't emerge from Africa, but from the Garden of Eden after being put there by God, and women were fashioned an evil subsidiary role to men, and should still be paying the price.

Sorry Narnia, misunderstanding, what I was hoping for was the courier having left a note saying 'delivery with No.XX'. If the guy was a thief, and the PO denies receipt, he's probably going to deny the conversation with sedgewick ever happened. I think sedgewick, that you're going to have to assume he's on the level until you've visited the PO.

How do you know he received it? Did you go to the PO in Rye Lane?

It was a catch up on 2010 predictions LadyM, rather than predictions for 2011... ;-)

I can't see any down side to telling the refuge, particularly if you raise your doubts with them?

I think you're being selective RosieH, that has as much to do with class as it does gender. Lady is used here as a painless term of deference to authority. Washer-woman, lady-doctor. Likewise milk-man and gentleman-caller. If you interpret it as whimsy and fainting fits, it's possible the view isn't shared. Since I don't share your interpretation I hope you'll understand that I don't see why you should be legislating it?

SMG, all good points, am glad you understand my view, as I do yours.

Jah, I don't know what I could possibly be saying that could be deemed as 'unpleasant'. I have no issue with the feminist movement, I agree with all who have suggested that there are issues to be addressed. Long may the ambition to address them thrive. I have an issue with people applying totalitarian approaches to language to achieve political or social goals. I abhor them because not only are they as oppressive as the injustices they seek to overthrow, but because they manifestly don't work. I think it's obtuse hyperbole to equate the use of the word 'comedienne' with violent racist epithets.

No, I'm genetically a man, although I'm aware that semantically the term carries many other connotations that may be more or less appropriate. I do so hope that you're not going to make the suggestion that if I'm not a woman I'm not entitled to comment? DJKQ reverted to just calling me a woman hater the other day, and that was both tiresome and incorrect. To clarify, I'm debating merely the practicality or effectiveness of amending dictionaries to achieve social or political goals. Newspeak didn't control Winston Smith, it took torture to achieve that. SMG, having looked it up, historically terms for African Americans started with African, changed to colored or Negro when they were seeking citizenship (black was rejected for having too many negative connotations), focused on Negro in the sixties with Luther King, went back to black in the seventies with James Brown, and Jesse Jackson is currently campaigning to a full circle return to African American.

I'm not using it, and didn't bring it up. I think that was you, but could be wrong - on iPad at the moment, and haven't quite worked out how to multitask. If people think poorly of female comics, it ain't going to get changed by bamboozling then into thinking they're male. If people have gender anxieties when visiting doctors we ain't going to change that by concealing their gender. As for woman being carrying less baggage than lady, well I've never been insulted for being a 'lady' but more than once for being a 'woman'. If the prejudice is there, changing the word won't take it away.

If 'black' turned to 'colored' because 'black' was too prejudiced, and then 'colored' turned to 'black' because 'colored' was to prejudice it only goes to show that changing the words achieves nothing.

You can do it in adobe premiere with what's called a mask - the flying man is created elsewhere against a single colour background, and then placed over the top of the original video. The single colour is deleted on the run to let the background show through. The jumper is two people, number one never makes it up the ramp, and number two is already in the pool.