OTOH, getting back to the flycatchers, there isn't just one gene involved. They've only TRACKED one gene, but there's got to be another that controls which breast color is preferred by the females.
Breast color preferred by females is likely simply due to experience.
No, Southpark has the extreme-moderatist bias of the South Park creators, who are actually pretty ignorant guys. Cynical, but generally ignorant. The Richard Dawkins episode was based on pure straw man; they made the episode after getting pissed about Richard Dawkins coming out with his most recent book when they never even read it or looked at what's inside--they get offended simply by telling people that religion is wrong. Of course, they're hypocrites when it comes to Scientology when they could be scathing, but again, they're pretty ignorant guys. Penn Jillette, who is/was friends with the South Park creators, and is an admirer of Dawkins, was pretty shocked when he saw that episode and how they treated Dawkins.
If you have a genocide chances are it's a lot more than just a few words that started the conflict, and if you have people supporting it no law is going to protect you as the people in power are going to look the other way. That's the problem, people seem to think they can magically will away the "forces of darkness" by invoking some government or god that is neutral and will always do its job. That's a far, far cry from reality.
And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to argue to go to war, even though many (innocent!) people will die or people on the wrong end of the political stick. Keep your self-righteousness to yourself.
In my experience, many DO, because they simply don't care about students enough to get involved or are charmed by the budding young sociopathic bullies.
, it's still probably beneficial to call it Kazaa, just to have some name recognition.
You forget that even the most ignorant of computer users recognizes that software becomes obsolete. If anything, it'll keep people away because they are going to think of it as an old program among a bunch of new, more up-to-date ones.
Will it bring back all the Kazaa spyware and "crappy_song.mp3.exe" files? God I miss those.
Indeed! I miss the old days of just sticking a file in my shared folder and watching the world download it. Ah, hot_lesbians.jpg, how many horny males did you introduce to goatse?
My response was to the OP who said speciation is not occuring; I was pointing out the problem in his argument is that there's different ideas of what constitutes "species" and, from that, "speciation." My intent was to show that the criteria for "speciation" has no universal definition, not to attack the idea or claiming that categorizing into species is worthless.
The "problem" I was addressing was, of course, the claim that some say speciation occured while some may claim that it did not. The OP claims that speciation MAY occur if other genetic changes are made, but conveniently doesn't state how much genetic changes need to be made and seems to ignore the importance of amount phenotypic variation.
An obvious example of what you're talking about exists with ring species. That's fine. The problem is is that there is variation within all species, and while you are not correct one could take it to the extreme and claim each and every organism is its own specie. My point is to simply show that the criteria imposed is going to be somewhat arbitrary no matter what.
(and they are not two unrelated issues. They are very much tied to each other)
Not quite. As I posted above, "speciation" is sort-of a human concept and the criteria for it is arbitrary. In fact, we do have different species that CAN reproduce with each other. Perhaps not always forming fertile offspring, but nevertheless reproduce. Domesticated dogs and wolves are a different species and can easily breed with one another. Another example is, of course, horses and donkeys producing mules. The main problem is there is no universal definition of "species" and thus no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes speciation.
Keep in mind that the criteria for speciation is, itself, somewhat arbitrary and there exist few fine borders in nature for classifying things. These birds CAN produce offspring, but behaviorally, don't. This may be where some creationists get confused, thinking of dogs and cats and fish, etc in terms of some sort of central "essence" of an animal, when in reality the borders exist mostly in human minds.
What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal. While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself. Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people. The root of this all is the War on Drugs.
So it's doubly-wrong.
(sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read)
Your argument is assuming the preferability of the small-farm farming model, which may not be the most efficient method of farming, particularly today.
If you would see the history of populistic legislation on farm subsidies you will see that its main goal was to prop up small farms even if doing so was not economically viable.
Farms would certainly go under, but this would be a corrective measure. Populist farm measures were implemented to keep farmers in business, not to prevent starvation--there are too many chefs in the pot already, and instead of letting the market correct itself (who wants poor ol' farmers to have to feel the pinch?) it's more politically expedient to prop up the excess farms and get votes.
If prices rises, farmers will likely try to increase their yields leading to eventually lower prices, or more farms will open. If the price falls, then that would almost certainly be due to supply. You say that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish if prices fell too much, but you fail to ask why prices would fall--it would almost certainly be due to an overproduction of any particular foodstuff to begin with, so farms going out of businesses would be a corrective measure. The reason small farms are subsidized is because some people find that way of life fanciful and want to protect it, and for political capital first and foremost. Price controls and farm subisides are political largesse, period.
Anyway, there is no free market, and never has been, and you both are portraying extremely unlikely and overly paranoid scenarios that are not applicable in today's economy to apologize for populist political measures. And not to mention that Americans eat too much to begin with...!
Naturally, and that process was amending the constitution, not reinterpreting based on the political whims of judges.
Anyway, you want to bring up the founding fathers, they believed that rights were inherent in individuals and governments were created to protect rights, not that rights were something granted by the government.
I also neglected the possibility of jury trials, which are 12 or so of the most ignorant, uninformed, easy manipulatible people the attorneys selected out of the selection pool, people that don't want to be there and are even more prone to bias and assuming than the police are.
But would he have been consistent towards RACISM? It's easy to prattle on about individuals rights, but a whole 'nother thing to actually be consistent about it. As we see with the mouthbreathers arguing for hate speech laws, they may not actually believe what they claim to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no more a fine line between speciation as there is "micro" and "macro" evolution.
Breast color preferred by females is likely simply due to experience.
No, Southpark has the extreme-moderatist bias of the South Park creators, who are actually pretty ignorant guys. Cynical, but generally ignorant. The Richard Dawkins episode was based on pure straw man; they made the episode after getting pissed about Richard Dawkins coming out with his most recent book when they never even read it or looked at what's inside--they get offended simply by telling people that religion is wrong. Of course, they're hypocrites when it comes to Scientology when they could be scathing, but again, they're pretty ignorant guys. Penn Jillette, who is/was friends with the South Park creators, and is an admirer of Dawkins, was pretty shocked when he saw that episode and how they treated Dawkins.
If you have a genocide chances are it's a lot more than just a few words that started the conflict, and if you have people supporting it no law is going to protect you as the people in power are going to look the other way. That's the problem, people seem to think they can magically will away the "forces of darkness" by invoking some government or god that is neutral and will always do its job. That's a far, far cry from reality.
And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to argue to go to war, even though many (innocent!) people will die or people on the wrong end of the political stick. Keep your self-righteousness to yourself.
In my experience, many DO, because they simply don't care about students enough to get involved or are charmed by the budding young sociopathic bullies.
You forget that even the most ignorant of computer users recognizes that software becomes obsolete. If anything, it'll keep people away because they are going to think of it as an old program among a bunch of new, more up-to-date ones.
Indeed! I miss the old days of just sticking a file in my shared folder and watching the world download it. Ah, hot_lesbians.jpg, how many horny males did you introduce to goatse?
My response was to the OP who said speciation is not occuring; I was pointing out the problem in his argument is that there's different ideas of what constitutes "species" and, from that, "speciation." My intent was to show that the criteria for "speciation" has no universal definition, not to attack the idea or claiming that categorizing into species is worthless.
The "problem" I was addressing was, of course, the claim that some say speciation occured while some may claim that it did not. The OP claims that speciation MAY occur if other genetic changes are made, but conveniently doesn't state how much genetic changes need to be made and seems to ignore the importance of amount phenotypic variation.
An obvious example of what you're talking about exists with ring species. That's fine. The problem is is that there is variation within all species, and while you are not correct one could take it to the extreme and claim each and every organism is its own specie. My point is to simply show that the criteria imposed is going to be somewhat arbitrary no matter what.
(and they are not two unrelated issues. They are very much tied to each other)
Not quite. As I posted above, "speciation" is sort-of a human concept and the criteria for it is arbitrary. In fact, we do have different species that CAN reproduce with each other. Perhaps not always forming fertile offspring, but nevertheless reproduce. Domesticated dogs and wolves are a different species and can easily breed with one another. Another example is, of course, horses and donkeys producing mules. The main problem is there is no universal definition of "species" and thus no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes speciation.
Keep in mind that the criteria for speciation is, itself, somewhat arbitrary and there exist few fine borders in nature for classifying things. These birds CAN produce offspring, but behaviorally, don't. This may be where some creationists get confused, thinking of dogs and cats and fish, etc in terms of some sort of central "essence" of an animal, when in reality the borders exist mostly in human minds.
*laughs*
Metal, not so much, except maybe nu-metal kids that are close to goths.
They are a sort of (annoying!) culture. They just aren't as much like hippies.
Got no problem with that, 'cept I think the hippie part applies to ravers moreso than any other. Neon and pastel colors are the new tye-dye.
Raves are more than just bad techno. It's a type of culture.
Well, if you want your silver lining then there's always the slutty girls at raves. Slutty girls are a big plus anywhere. Just be sure to wrap it.
What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal. While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself. Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people. The root of this all is the War on Drugs.
So it's doubly-wrong.
(sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read)
Your argument is assuming the preferability of the small-farm farming model, which may not be the most efficient method of farming, particularly today.
If you would see the history of populistic legislation on farm subsidies you will see that its main goal was to prop up small farms even if doing so was not economically viable.
Farms would certainly go under, but this would be a corrective measure. Populist farm measures were implemented to keep farmers in business, not to prevent starvation--there are too many chefs in the pot already, and instead of letting the market correct itself (who wants poor ol' farmers to have to feel the pinch?) it's more politically expedient to prop up the excess farms and get votes.
If prices rises, farmers will likely try to increase their yields leading to eventually lower prices, or more farms will open. If the price falls, then that would almost certainly be due to supply. You say that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish if prices fell too much, but you fail to ask why prices would fall--it would almost certainly be due to an overproduction of any particular foodstuff to begin with, so farms going out of businesses would be a corrective measure. The reason small farms are subsidized is because some people find that way of life fanciful and want to protect it, and for political capital first and foremost. Price controls and farm subisides are political largesse, period.
Anyway, there is no free market, and never has been, and you both are portraying extremely unlikely and overly paranoid scenarios that are not applicable in today's economy to apologize for populist political measures. And not to mention that Americans eat too much to begin with...!
*yawn* back to waiting for the KOTOR MMO, which I know WILL be innovative (Bioware usually doesn't let us down).
OK, ignoring the bullshit rootkit, what sets Aion apart from other MMOs?
Naturally, and that process was amending the constitution, not reinterpreting based on the political whims of judges.
Anyway, you want to bring up the founding fathers, they believed that rights were inherent in individuals and governments were created to protect rights, not that rights were something granted by the government.
ah, quite true.
I also neglected the possibility of jury trials, which are 12 or so of the most ignorant, uninformed, easy manipulatible people the attorneys selected out of the selection pool, people that don't want to be there and are even more prone to bias and assuming than the police are.
But would he have been consistent towards RACISM? It's easy to prattle on about individuals rights, but a whole 'nother thing to actually be consistent about it. As we see with the mouthbreathers arguing for hate speech laws, they may not actually believe what they claim to believe.