It's only a misuse if you can show that it was used *originally* in a different manner. This is the argument used against "oxymoron." Supposedly "smart moron" was originally used to mean something completely different. Can this guy demonstrate that "steep learning curve" was ever used to mean easy and not hard? Looking at Webster's New Collegiate, the last and presumably most recent entry for steep is 4: "difficult to accept, meet, or perform." Clearly, this was the original meaning of the term. Why does this guy think it's wrong?

Yes, indeed. Actually, it makes perfect sense. "Steep" is a metaphor based on climbing a hill, where the steeper it is the harder it is to get to the top. Does this really escape some folks?

Scientists point out problems. Engineers use them to kill people overseas.

Just to put another spin on this: There is a long-term cometary-meteoric cycle whose current period is somewhere around 105 years, the last two events of which were the fall of 3000 meteorites at L'Aigle in Normandy on April 26, 1803, and the event at Tunguska, Siberia, on June 30, 1908. That would put the next event toward late August, 2013. End of the world? Probably not. Big surprise if a piece of it lands on New York City? Definitely. Did the Mayans have this particular cycle in mind when they drew up their calendar? Your guess is as good as mine. For all the data, see here: http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterEight.htm

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure what it actually looks like, too. The description was obviously written by the same guy who used to write the Sony user's manuals that talked about the "equipments."

I point out the most blatant inconsistency in the entire 9-11 cover story and I become "an idiot" in the eyes of those who confuse advanced degrees with real science. Whether or not you think, or believe, or doubt, or reject outright that WTC7 was demolished, it was necessary on a purely scientific level to look for explosives. That would have been the scientific thing to do. SCIENCE DOES NOT ASSUME ITS CONCLUSIONS. If knowing that makes me an "idiot," then we need a few more "idiots" in this world and a few less smart guys like you, sir.

Let's see, WTC 7 comes down in a manner that looks for all the world like a controlled demolition and the "scientists" investigating the event don't bother to look for explosives? And I'm supposed to accept the official government line that 19 Arabs, some of whom are still alive and flying for Saudi Airlines, really did it? At this point, how many years into the Iraq Oil War, anybody who takes any of this nonsense seriously just isn't paying attention. So what are these characters at NIST? Are they idiots? Incompetents? Accomplices after the fact? Just scared shitless that they're going to be murdered if they do a real investigation? This whole case stinks so bad, I would have to see some hard evidence that anyone on any of those four airplanes had ever even looked a photograph of Saudi Arabia. If there was any hard evidence, they would have tripped over themselves to show it to us already. There is none.

Explanation for this gap? Do you not understand that not every dead body is fossilized? That not one body in a hundred is fossilized? That not one body in 1,000,000 is fossilized? It's a crap shoot really. Sometimes you get lucky. I'd say that for a random occurrence this latest discovery is extraordinarily lucky and you should be thankful for the light it sheds on your origins. When's the last time you saw a fossil of the intermediary step between wild corn and modern corn? Do you not, therefore, believe in corn on the cob?

As someone who actually does possess all knowledge, I would just like to point out that 1) most evolutionary jumps have resulted from astronomical factors, directly or indirectly, and 2) your fly is open.

How many genes are you modifying? 8, 10, a 1000, all multiple 10s of thousands? And assuming this modified creature looked like a human, I'd have to assume it's mostly human and has human ancestry.

Did he use his froggy magic twanger or did he just invent evolution and let statistics do the work for him?

Actually, assuming the apes are descended from monkeys, we ARE descended from monkeys, just farther back.

Keep in mind that this common ancestor most likely didn't walk on two legs, wasn't hairless, and probably couldn't control its breathing, making it impossible to either talk or swim. So, yes, chimps certainly must have evolved somewhat, but not as much as humans and not in anything resembling the same direction. Therefore, this common ancestor was an ape (not a "monkey" as some insist on suggesting), though not a "modern" ape.

Also, no one seems to have pointed out, this creature bears a strong resemblance to modern yeti/sasquatch/bigfoot sightings.

I am reminded of the Star Trek TNG episode where these guys who looked like a cross between a lizard and a human refused to admit the obvious fact that they were descended from dinosaurs.

God, a doctor who understands that everybody isn't exactly the same! How the hell did you slip through medical school?