She's an adorable vestigial behavior. Get it, because all fetuses start out female and become the superior male. hah

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though

We mostly agree then, just differ on our level of distaste. Not being a parent, I'll even concede that my opinion is less important on this issue than most other people.

As an aside, the appendix is not actually useless or vestigial as previously thought. It's been found to be like a small pocket off your intestine where beneficial bacteria can be preserved when something happens to the rest of the intestinal floura, to 're-seed' your intestine after (if) the issue is resolved.

The wings part annoys me. I'm calling "Balloon Boy".

...in a spiritual form would you need wings? to fly? because there's gravity? what do you walk on? do you have physical mass? what do you fly on - air? would you suffocate? where would you fly to? is there up and down? Why are his wings smaller, because he's young? but everyone in heaven is young, are all wings graduated by growth of age? can you flap them? extend them? or are they vestigial what type / genus of wings are they? dove wings? eagle wings? bat wings? (don't even get me started on how spiritual wings could become vestigial in spirit form without evolution)

@bareboards2 Just because it has survived evolution does not mean that it serves an evolutionary purpose. Things can be vestigial, even ideas. This maxim may or may not apply to the religion debate.

The way I see it is religion is perfectly rational insofar as it provides answers to questions we cant seem to answer but it is not reasonable as the premises and conclusions defy the same logic that enables us to have cohesive ideas. It is just a matter of how much reason one has or is willing to surrender for comfort. The new atheists appear to have no tolerance for surrendering reason.

Pretty sure humans do in fact have a vestigial third eyelid. That little red blob of semi-transparent shit in the corner of your eye? Yup, there it is.

Anyway, turns out the blind blink isn't antiquated at all. Theres probably a good reason why we got rid of it too, I mean, thats how Evolution works.

Ah..."Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" -Euripides. It has been my personal experience that those who do not believe in evolution are not so much resistant to the idea as they are ignorant of it, as you said. You can explain to him that evolution is the product of math, and that's it. As one allele is favored in the environment, it increases in frequency. In fact, you could also explain that evolution may also occur through something as simple (and unarguable) as migration. If more individuals with blond hair enter a population, the population evolves because the frequency of the blond allele increases.

In regards to the age of the earth, you could discuss some geological facts that are in obvious support of an ancient earth:
1) Fossils (Previous types of organisms have existed. Extinction has occurred. We know the rate of extinction and the rate that speciation occurs - these all indicate an earth that is billions of years old)
2) Vestigial structures (Previous useful structures can lose their function through time - lots of it)
3) Modern Gemonics (The more closely related two organisms are the more similar their DNA is, the more genes they have in common and therefore the more morphologically similar they are. We know the rate of mutation, which means we know the rate of the formation of alleles in a population. For humans, the rate of mutation is about 0.0000001 mutations per base pair per generation (very slow - and this is for all mutations, not just for positive ones). The formation of new species usually takes millions of years due to this slow rate coupled with natural selection.
4) Biogeography (A single species separated by the movement of continents evolves at the same discussed rate. We know how fast continents move (theory of plate tectonics: 2 - 10 cm/year). We know many organisms were separated by continental drift (Many separate (but very similar-looking) species are found in currently separate geographical areas that were once together - primates in Africa / South America, for example or the flightless birds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite - for marsupials: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/contdrift.htm)

I hope this helps!

Marc

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, you seem to know your way around science so I have a question for you (asking several people actually):

I have a friend who is fairly intelligent and open-minded, but is also a young-earth creationist. While there is quite a bit of evidence showing the planet to be much older than 7000 years, I'm trying to find something that is fairly obvious and can't be dismissed as easily as, say, radiometric dating.

Needless to say, he doesn't "believe" in evolution, but I think many of his positions are the product of misinformation. I wouldn't believe in what he thinks evolution is either, but for now I just want a clear way of showing a skeptic that the earth is much older than the christian bible seems to indicate.

Any insight?

>> ^Sniper007:

I'm sorry, vestigial wings that act like gyroscopes and allow the fly to do amazing maneuvers? That makes no sense at all.
Oh, I see. There is a new definition of "vestigial" out. Well damn, with that definition, almost every organ can be called vestigial.
I suppose they had to change the definition of the term, because no vestigial organs exist otherwise.


Halteres are vestigial in that they are greatly reduced in size, and structural and functional complexity from the ancestral wings. In fact, they serve as little more than mass, and interact minimally with the surrounding air. The interesting stuff happens when they are waved back and forth. Sensory organs at their base detect deviations in their movement caused by changes in the orientation of the insect while in flight.
So, yes, they are vestigial, and no, not by some broad definition that encompasses most "organs". Wings, for instance, are not vestigial because there are tremendous selection pressures acting to refine and constrain their shape and other physical properties.

I'm sorry, vestigial wings that act like gyroscopes and allow the fly to do amazing maneuvers? That makes no sense at all.

Oh, I see. There is a new definition of "vestigial" out. Well damn, with that definition, almost every organ can be called vestigial.

I suppose they had to change the definition of the term, because no vestigial organs exist otherwise.

The pair of vestigial wings on a fly are called "halteres".

>> ^Lodurr:
There are lots of unique examples of altruism in nature, but not every animal or living thing displays altruism. The only ones that display altruism do so because it benefits the species in the long run. Just because altruism can exist without manmade laws doesn't mean it always does.
If you took a step farther back, you would see that religion and laws are a part of nature in the sense that they're a part of culture, and we require culture to survive. Of course that's very different than saying any of the religions are right.
It's more strange to suggest that religion was unnecessary for our survival. If it wasn't necessary, it would not have existed (and persisted). Whether it's necessary for our future survival is another topic. It's not yet as vestigial as our tailbones, and in any case, it needs to shrink naturally just as our tailbones did while we adapt to its absence.


Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean it will develop in every species. Adding gills to humans would certainly benefit us, for example. Not having gills wasn't enough of a problem to wipe us out, is all.

Religion's existence doesn't prove its necessity, either. As a form of control it might have been beneficial to society in general. You can do something illegal and potentially get away with it, but you can't hide from God so it's a more effective deterrent than any legal system. That doesn't guarantee that we wouldn't have made it with just laws, though.

There are lots of unique examples of altruism in nature, but not every animal or living thing displays altruism. The only ones that display altruism do so because it benefits the species in the long run. Just because altruism can exist without manmade laws doesn't mean it always does.

If you took a step farther back, you would see that religion and laws are a part of nature in the sense that they're a part of culture, and we require culture to survive. Of course that's very different than saying any of the religions are right.

It's more strange to suggest that religion was unnecessary for our survival. If it wasn't necessary, it would not have existed (and persisted). Whether it's necessary for our future survival is another topic. It's not yet as vestigial as our tailbones, and in any case, it needs to shrink naturally just as our tailbones did while we adapt to its absence.

Other tough questions:

-Revelations: Why would a loving God engage in this kind of genocide?
-Noah's Ark: Again, what's up with God mass murdering 99.9 percent of his creations?
-The Fall: Why would a loving God punish all humans for the flaws of his prototypes?
-Jesus: What was the point of all that pomp and circumstance?
-Jealous God: Why is God described in the Bible as Jealous? Isn't that a petty emotion for such a powerful being? Why would God overlook the good deeds of people who do not believe in him because of this jealously?
-Cultures: Why did the Judeo/Christian God not make himself known to all cultures?
-Tower of Babel: Do you really believe that all humans at one time spoke the same language? Did God create Esparanto? What about Kingon?
-Eating shellfish, wearing garments of more than one type of cloth are abominations in the eyes of the Lord; do you engage in these activities?
-No new miracles: God used to do awesome shit all the time in Bible days; why hasn't he done cool shit lately, within the last 2 millenia?
-Why do we have 'tailbones'? Why do some people have vestigial tails?
-Does God send people that are unaware of Christianity to hell?
-Suffering, disease, starvation, birth defects, Dinosaur bones, Christian rock, etc......

>> ^cybrbeast:
Why did the technology die with him? Surely more could be built?


One person with extraordinary vision, coupled with technological know-how, engineering brilliance and the ability to get his hands dirty and plain-and-simple build what he imagines is a rare thing.

In the case of the Britten bike, this is a partial list of what made his bike special:

1) Partial girder-link front suspension with adjustable anti-dive properties.
-fork-type suspensions compress under braking and extend during acceleration, changing the geometry and handling characteristics of the machine quite drastically during the different driving modes. Britten's suspension design allowed him to control pretty much all variables of suspension geometry under changing load, making the bike behave however the rider wished.
- The rear suspension, while perhaps not as revolutionary, was a beautiful piece. It was essentially a carbon-fibre banana swing-arm with a linkage to the adjustable shock/spring assembly. If you look at the bike you'll see that there's no spring/shock assembly near the rear suspension, rather note the spring/shock assembly directly behind the front wheel- this is for the rear suspension! The front shock assembly is hidden in the front suspension linkage and cowling.

2) The engine itself was a stressed-member.
-While certainly not unheard of, Britten took the concept to an extreme, essentially eliminating the frame from the motorcycle. The front and rear suspensions essentially bolted directly to the engine, thus saving many kilos over contemporary designs. Take a look at any current MotoGP or Superbike- most use the engine as a partial stressed-member, but they all have frame members linking the engine, steering heads and seat-assemblies. Britten really only had a vestigial sub-frame for the rider's seat.

3) Well-controlled aerodynamics and fully-ducted cooling system
-Britten paid close attention to airflow over, around and through his bike. Look how cleanly the rider's body tucks into the bodywork. He paid close attention to details, notice how clean the entire assembly is- no exposed wiring, nothing dangling into the airflow, that incredibly sleek rear swing-arm and rear tire hugger. This keeps the airflow smooth and un-disturbed. Motorcycles aren't terribly aerodynamic machines in the first place, but a wise man once said God is in the details.
-The engine itself is a water cooled design, but where's the radiator? It's in a fully-sealed duct directly beneath the rider's seat. High-pressure air is inlet from the front of the bike, through the radiator and is exhausted into the low pressure area beneath the rider and above/ahead of the rear wheel. Greater cooling equals higher power potential.

4) The motor
- 999cc 60 degree V-Twin, belt-driven DOHC design, twin injectors per cylinder, sophisticated electronic ignition, hand-made carbon fibre velocity stacks, wet sump. The motor was designed to breathe hard, pumping out torque and horsepower (166 hp @ 11800 rpm- not sure about the torque figures), and run cool and reliably under racing conditions. Nothing here that any other manufacturer couldn't have figured out on their own, but Britten had the insight and the will to make the best motor in the world at the time. The 60 degree configuration was, I assume chosen for packaging reasons. Normally this configuration would have bad primary balance characteristics, but Britten engineered his to such tight tolerances that the engine ran smoothly right up to redline (12500 rpm) without using a balance shaft.
I'll also point out here that Britten wasn't above using someone else's part if it was better than he could make himself- the gearbox was from a Suzuki superbike, and the cylinder liners and voltage regulator (both of which failed at the Daytona race in '92- the latter costing Britten the win) were from Ducati.

5) Carbon Fibre
- While Carbon Fibre had been around for 2 decades or so at this point, nobody had used it so extensively. Britten used the material for bodywork, wheels, engine parts, suspension girders and the rear swing-arm. There is still no other bike, not even the current Ducati Desmosedici MotoGP bike, that uses so much of this exotic material. The stuff then, as it is now, was hugely expensive and challenging to engineer for different applications. Britten made everything himself, in his garage, figuring it out as he went. This kept the total weight of the bike to a hugely impressive 138 kg.

Keep in mind that he did all of the above in 1991 and 1992, with the help of several neighbors and one part-time machinist, in his backyard shed! He made the bodywork by hand, using a wire frame and hot melt glue, crafting the wind-cheating shape and cooling ducting purely by eye. He cast the aluminum engine parts himself, heat-treating them in his wife's pottery kiln, and cooling the heat-treated parts with water from his swimming pool!

Ducati, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki... any one of these manufactures could today reproduce and expand on what Britten accomplished almost single-handedly. None of them will- there's too much at stake for them. It's far safer to stick with the tried-and-true, making small evolutionary changes over the years. A true visionary achiever (to coin a term) like Britten comes along only every once in a great while.

I suppose that this is what was really lost when John Britten died... vision, engineering acuity, hands-on knowledge, and pure will. Touched with a little craziness.