Correlation vs. Causation

Correlation describes a relationship between two entities that follow a proportion. Positive correlation means that one thing increases as the other increases whereas, negative correlation is when one decreases as the other increases.
Causation describes something as the catalyst or reason for an outcome. Here's a distinction of the two:

The amount of sunlight in the sky correlates with the amount of heat felt in the air. Thus, daytime temperatures are higher than those of nighttime. So, we can say that normally the sunlight in the sky positively correlates with the amount heat felt in the air.
Now, summer temperatures are generally warmer than winter temperatures regardless of the time of day so  we cannot say that sunlight is the cause of heat. In addition, moonlight is actually a reflection of sunlight off the moon but it does not produce heat. However, on a cloudy day and occasionally during a light shower, sunlight is barely noticeable either as a bright spot in a cloud or the light of a rainbow because the sun is either faint or hidden, yet the heat is still felt in the air, especially in the summer months. And because the sun is normally out in dayttime hours and it is hottest  at noon, we can say that the sun causes people to burn up in the summer; its light however, is not the factor. No wonder peole seek shade when outdoors but still feel hot air in their cars in parking lots.
Correlation is noticeable affiliation such as studying with making good grades but causation requires empirical evidence such as justifying dating as being detrimental to school performance; there can be other unknown factors... 

Rachel Carson & Malaria

http://www.macleans.ca/science/environment/article.jsp?content=20070604_106059_106059

This page has an article that breaks down the history of Carson and how public percption was swindled into glorifying her work despite the greater issues at hand.
"Websites and op-ed pages accuse her of a straight-line responsibility for the deaths of millions of Third World malaria and yellow fever victims since the 1970s. That's when, the critics say, a Carson-inspired ban on DDT destroyed humanity's best defence against the disease-bearing mosquitoes that kill more than a million people every year. Having used DDT in the First World long enough to wipe out malaria there, they add, eco-imperialists now prevent its use anywhere, saving African birds at the cost of African children, malaria's prime victims."
According to her critics, Carson portrayed the scientists as destructive but, in reality , their mission was to defend humanity. In other words, they were playing defense not offense (or being hostile for you lacking a sports mentality). It's funny that when we were inquired about our opinions of her I stayed silent because I had a hunch that she was "guilty" of something. We must spray because a black genocide can't happen. Forget the birds, bugs and all those other creatures. Save the children! Besides, medical conditions in the long-run is better than death or illness in the short-run. This plan beats the average life expectancy for blacks in America the way our lives are going anyhow, especially males. We need to give the young a chance to live and at least grow.
The WHO program gave up on the tropics, but we need a new program and funding to overcome where they failed. "Controlling" the disease means keeping it in tropics. They're Third World and it's not their fault they're infected. Somebody needs to put international heathcare programs on blast then to work.

Animal Testing1

It's unfortunate that animals die or at least suffer from cosmetic and medical testing. Their infliction is due to a problem that isn't theirs. But doesn't that sound familiar among humans: With civilians paying for war they don't support, taxpayers funding abortions, and the general public dealing with foreign languages even when illegal immigration is a huge problem (But weren't the immigrants supposed to be the ones adapting beforehand?)? I know this sounds harsh (even on human terms) but it simply seems like a necessary but cruel matter. As humans, the "intellegent" ones, the least we could do is not jeopardize our own safety or create more complications. I do feel bad for the animals; don't get me wrong, they are scientific scapegoats . But they're just that--animals! That means beast of the Earth, food for our bodies and pieces for clothing, decorations and materials we use. There's little difference, yet, this has a productive cause; it's not a "Cruella de Vil" situation.
In reality, it's not a moral problem but perhaps a scientific problem (or more accurately, a moral problem with the scientists): what psycho would even think to or, even worse, attempt to use deadly chemicals for something as simple as hair and them distribute it? And why would poison be medicine (Ignoring the few exceptions of history, what would possess you to this in the first place)? That's the real issue, one that may deserve capital punishment by rational people. They essentially endanger everyone making them equivalent to a terrorist. So don't get mad at me "animal-lovers". They're the enemy.

Statistics

Your actual odds of winning the lottery depend on where you play, but single state lotteries usually have odds of about 18 million to 1 while multiple state lotteries have odds as high as 120 million to 1.

Chances of Playing Football in the NFL: About nine in 10,000, or 0.09 percent.
Chances of Playing Basketball in the NBA: About three in 10,000, or 0.03 percent.

Chances of Playing Basketball in the WNBA: About one in 5,000, or 0.02 percent.
Chances of Playing Baseball in the MLB: About one in 6,600, or 0.015 percent.
Chances of Playing Hockey in the NHL: About one in 250, or 0.4 percent.

So are you feeling lucky or talented?

Animal Testing

I think it is very unfortunate for animals to die or at least suffer from cosmetic and medical testings. They are victims of a problem that isn't theirs. But doesn't this sound familiar here in America: with taxpayers funding abortions by reckless females, young males facing the "call to duty" for a war that they did not start or agree with, or the general public having to adjust to foreign languages to cater to immigrants, even illegals in social security, despite their failure to pay taxes (But wait: aren't foreigners supposed to adapt to us? They came here uninvited, right?). Don't get me wrong, I'm a humanitarian with foreign friends and American pride but peopla as a whole should be considerate, even on the burden they cause. The point is this: as humans, the "intelligent" ones, we shouldn't put animal lives before our own or make our lives more difficult than necessary. So what about animals? I hear too many people that have a passion for supporting and defending animals but in elections or discussion, treat humans and their problems like "animals". By "animals" I  mean beasts of the Earth, food for us and themselves, and pieces for clothing, and materials we use daily--simply insignificant to humans. I can't stand the role reversal. I've seen the beast in dogs, for instance, plenty of times with vicious growls and barks so they aren't hard to belittle in  significance. However, I do feel bad for animals. Once again,  they are victims. But I will add this: I cannot disapprove of the testings in theory b/c they're directed toward a beneficial cause instead of one like the "need" for a new fur coat...(selfish).

There is a huge moral issue at hand, but it is not abuse toward animals. It's an internal issue with the scientists: What kind of psycho would think to use or, even worse, attempt to use deadly chemicals for something as simple as hair and then distribute it to the masses? And, ignoring the few exceptions in history, what would possess you to try poison as medicine in the first place (They're opposites, right?)? This kind of person endangers everyone's lives and is equivalent to a terrorist. Capital punishment anyone? This is who you "animal-lovers" and others who oppose my earlier views should direct your frustrations at.     

Organisms, Viruses and Prions

An organism is any living thing. It must grow, develop, reproduce, maintain homeostasis, and demonstrate adaptation. Overall, a living thing is a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes and evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. They lack genes but have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. However, they do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products (although some bacterial species are considered living organisms despite the same limitation). Furthermore, accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells.
A prion is a disease-causing agent that is neither bacterial nor fungal nor viral and contains no genetic material. It is a protein (not an organism) that occurs normally in a harmless form. By folding into an aberrant shape, the normal prion turns into a rogue agent. It then coopts other normal prions to become rogue prions.

Amphioxus

From Èlia Benito-Gutiérrez http://www.biolsci.org/v02p0149.htm (Rearranged in her words):

Since the evolution of the nervous system in the Animal Kingdom is currently under major debate in Evolutionary Developmental Biology and Comparative Embryology, the elaboration of extremely complex nervous systems is a major success of evolution; however, little data have helped yet to unravel how a nervous system develops and evolves to complexity thus making the amphioxus a key position to tackle this exciting issue. Whatever its actual position, as the sister group of vertebrates, as the earliest chordate, or as (less likely) the earliest deuterostome, its privileged phylogenetic position sets amphioxus in the appropriate place to cast light on some of the main transitions that occurred during animal evolution: the origin of deuterostomes, the origin of Chordates, or the origin of vertebrates, all of them correlated with novel evolutionary features, and some of them linked to the elaboration of the most complex nervous systems.

"Amphioxi are seldom more than 8 cm (3 inches) long and resemble small, slender fishes without eyes or definite heads." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/21580/amphioxus

Polywater

"Polywater was supposed to be an alternate form of ordinary H2O in which the molecules were linked to produce a strange new substance, denser and far more viscous than water, which remained a liquid all the way from -70 degrees Fahrenheit to almost 500 degrees."
-Felix Franks
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/author/default.asp?aid=2272

"Several polywater samples were prepared by the standard methods and have the same physical and spectroscopic properties as those made in other laboratories. However, a variety of chemical analyses show high concentrations of impurities which may account for many of the anomalous properties."
-D. L. Rousseau
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Sci...167.1715R

Fake website

www.eafpdragonballaf.com/news/news.html

No contact info (after 2 years!), an ad to an unheard of pokemon game (Don't they release in pairs anyway?)
a storyline that is shallow as others who claim to be fake, the series layout "isn't done" and the contents isn't w/ the producers.