Here ya go .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YryIuBxzomA

:lifter

Dusty- Watch MR2s vid and have 3-4 of the of SDiver's suggestions and you'll see the monkey alright. :D

Unless you are working in one of those knowledge gaps. Boy does that get ugly sometimes! ;)

And that is not enough. Get a copy of "Catching Cancer" (available on Amazon.com). Excellent read by a first rate author - Claudia Cornwall. I knew Barry Blumberg and have spoken at length with most of the scientists she interviewed. Their stories are enlightening but are only the tip of the iceberg.

The best analogy I have - it's a UW Op in every aspect. ;)

That is the gap in the thread and the discussion. Evolution theory isn't faith. It is just our filter theory to sort data until it doesn't work -- then it is altered. We don't have to believe in it. But if a job requires someone to know how or why something mutated, then they see if the theory helps to explain, exploit or affect it. Making it a political discussion can turn it into a belief. While this is not a thread on religion, The Catholic Church has a formal position on evolution that may be of interest: And yes Trapper John, that gap would not be desirable in most military missions. Grants may get ugly, but they only get lethal metaphorically. :o Same world. Different planets. I think it was a Larson cartoon.

Thanks for that insight into the Catholic Curch position. Couldn't agree more. The better we understand the natural world the better we understand God. Science and Theistics are not mutually exclusive - they are in fact complimentary. Great post.

As to the UW environment - what you say is true for an academic. However, operating in an entrepreneurial small business, sometimes I am not so sure the analogy is merely metaphorical. :D

Life threatening and livelihood threatening can pull out some similar hypothalamus responses -- but usually not similar end results. Note -- I said usually... :) We may need a bloodied emoticon added to the line up.

Back to the question of the thread, more from Berkeley (I went a Beach Boys concert there while attending DLI in 1979, so no academic connection). :D Paraphrasing their educational tools site, the following words have both popular and scientific definitions that are not necessarily in synch.

Function not purpose
The purpose of a hammer is to pound nails. One function of a hand is to hold a hammer. Designed tools have purposes. Structures and behaviors of living things have functions. This is an important distinction in science.

Evidence not proof
We often hear news stories in which the narrator refers to having “enough proof.” This is an example of confusing the terms, “proof” and “evidence.” In addition, the term, “proof,” is used in geometry and in courts of law, but does not belong in science. Scientists gather evidence to support or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven.

Primitive and advanced
The average person might see an opossum as more primitive than a cat. Life forms that are more highly specialized tend to be viewed as more advanced. However, even though opossums retain some conspicuous ancestral features, they are well adapted to their omnivorous habit and are every bit as successful and modern as cats. Saber-toothed cats were even more narrowly adapted than present-day cats and a change in their environment put them on the fast track to extinction.

Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.

Believe or accept
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a question often asked in debates. The most accurate scientific answer is, “No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence.

Did I say "Show me the monkey who can play tiddlywinks with bones? Chimps can still do that, after all these years. ;)

You really need to have 3-4 of SDivers concoctions - trust me you will see the monkey :D

Been in both environs. Like I said, some days I prefer the military one. At least there I have a kinetic response.:D

As to the rest of your post - most excellent :lifter

Agreed when an enemy is involved -- fight is a really good response.

Do you think the analogy in business is mostly not with competition but with internal system-driven issues? Doc Illinois example would be a systematic issue akin to a command directive that could negatively affect your unit but is not direct enemy engagement. You may want to fight it, but your options are limited in both environments.

Now I had better go look for that monkey.... :D