"How long can you survive without food/water"?
We've had lots of data from people getting lost in the wilderness, from well before the Nazi's.
Why did the Nazi doctors think it was worth testing on human subjects?
1. Their primary purpose was to kill prisoners.
2. They were sadistic fucks.
3. The previous information was not the result of controlled experiments.
Ones which come to mind:
Tolerance limit of humans to extreme cold.
Tolerance limit of humans to extreme sound intensity.
How to dispose of large quantities of human bodies.
In the first two examples we didn't need testing to destruction to know the relevant limits.
The third example was included as something of a jest, as it really was more of an engineering problem.
In any case, not exactly a "very very large portion" of current medical knowledge.
eh. these days in reasonable societies, intersex babies are allowed to make their own decision after they reach puberty. Why? Because gender isn't just a physical thing dealing with your genitals, but instead also involves specific brain differences.
It really depends on the nature of the fossils in question. If actual keratin is retained, rather than just the shape of the presumed keratin, then there is good reason to say the fossils are feathers.
2ft to infinity = infinity.
5ft to infinity = infinity.
You're stating, "infinity > infinity", which is not the case.
If the cardinality of these two scenarios was different, you would have a bit of wiggle room in the argument (as infinity of an larger cardinality could indeed be referred to as larger than infinity with a basal cardinality). Not the case here.
--
The focal length of a lens is the distance at which parallel light (ie, rays from infinity) focuses past the lens. Long focal length lenses have a greater magnification because they make a small real image into a larger virtual image. Short focal length lenses have a lesser magnification because they make a large real image into a smaller virtual image.
Small lenses have a large depth of field, but allow in less light due to the smaller aperture.
In most microscopes, you need a very small diameter lens to get a useful depth of field comparable to a cell depth. The problem of low light is compensated for by a powerful light source.
In telescopes, you need a large diameter lens to allow in as much light as possible. The very small depth of field resulting from this lens is of little importance, since the telescope is focused at infinity.
Your 6mm focal length telescope eyepiece does improve magnification of the system. The overall focal length is found by dividing the main optic focal length by the objective focal length (decreasing the objective focal length increases overall focal length). This is not the same as with camera lenses which calculate out more like simple theoretical lenses.
Magnification does not relate to size of lens and relates to focal length of a lens in the reverse of how you described.
The telescope objective example fails because you're modifying the overall optic system opposite to the way you think. (Is this where your intuition comes from?)
The macro mode designed into your lenses don't have anything to do with the power of the focal length. The macro mode on my 300mm rig is no doubt much more powerful than your 55mm lens (of course my lens is no longer stock).
The main difference in macro ability across lenses with different focal lengths is that the longer lenses focus further away from the lens. With some 50mm lenses, the close focus range falls to within the lens itself. (you can image a fingerprint on the front surface of the lens.)
And the zoom range... um no. 2 ft to infinity (50mm lens) is not a greater zoom range than 5 ft to infinity (62mm). It looks like more, but you're contradicting a mathematical fact.
Of course, he could have an allergy to something his body produces, or a genetic disorder effecting the histone release system. In either case, steroid or other immunosuppressive therapy would be indicated. To the parent: what specialists and what sort of therapies have been tried?
A minor byproduct of alcohol metabolism is formaldehyde. There is some methanol produced in reactions to make ethanol. The methanol is converted to formaldehyde by an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase. Formaldehyde exposure causes bad headaches and other symptoms normally associated with a hangover. (reference, pay attention to the symptoms not caused by external exposure.)
Treatment for formaldehyde exposure (or hangover)? Consume lots of water to help flush the toxin out of your system... or consume lots and lots of ethanol to swamp out your alcohol dehydrogenase, so it won't have the opportunity to metabolise the methanol before it gets flushed out of your system.
The profuse vomiting often involved in a hangover your body convulsively shedding the destroyed surface of your stomach. This is caused directly by high concentrations of alcohol killing the cells of your stomach lining.
I take it you haven't read any of the software patents which have been discussed here?
They generally refer to "a method for doing [blah] with a computer", without actually stating what the method is.
The standard method of identification of bacterial species is to determine what compounds they can eat. E. coli is defined as not being able to eat citrate. They evolved something from E. coli which can eat citrate. The new bacteria is not E. coli by the standard method of identification.
But I guess you're right... it's still just some random nigh-invisible animalcule that nobody really cares about. I mean it didn't turn into a dolphin, did it?
Your final sentance is the point. You do have the same amount of random mutations. What differs is the number of those random mutations which survive.
Early on, very few flourished. Later, many did.
If there are only a few mutations which are advantageous or have no effect, you will only see the few (the adaptive mutations). If there are many, you will see many (the random mutations).
Why is there this pattern? Earlier conditions were more stressful, for whatever reason.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like those evolving ribozymes are, by your definition list, alive. Nifty.
and you missed the important part where we call that attribute life.
oh, sorry. I didn't address your example.
"How long can you survive without food/water"?
We've had lots of data from people getting lost in the wilderness, from well before the Nazi's.
Why did the Nazi doctors think it was worth testing on human subjects?
1. Their primary purpose was to kill prisoners.
2. They were sadistic fucks.
3. The previous information was not the result of controlled experiments.
Which medical advances are you referring to?
Ones which come to mind:
Tolerance limit of humans to extreme cold.
Tolerance limit of humans to extreme sound intensity.
How to dispose of large quantities of human bodies.
In the first two examples we didn't need testing to destruction to know the relevant limits.
The third example was included as something of a jest, as it really was more of an engineering problem.
In any case, not exactly a "very very large portion" of current medical knowledge.
eh. these days in reasonable societies, intersex babies are allowed to make their own decision after they reach puberty. Why? Because gender isn't just a physical thing dealing with your genitals, but instead also involves specific brain differences.
It really depends on the nature of the fossils in question. If actual keratin is retained, rather than just the shape of the presumed keratin, then there is good reason to say the fossils are feathers.
2ft to infinity = infinity.
5ft to infinity = infinity.
You're stating, "infinity > infinity", which is not the case.
If the cardinality of these two scenarios was different, you would have a bit of wiggle room in the argument (as infinity of an larger cardinality could indeed be referred to as larger than infinity with a basal cardinality). Not the case here.
--
The focal length of a lens is the distance at which parallel light (ie, rays from infinity) focuses past the lens. Long focal length lenses have a greater magnification because they make a small real image into a larger virtual image. Short focal length lenses have a lesser magnification because they make a large real image into a smaller virtual image.
Small lenses have a large depth of field, but allow in less light due to the smaller aperture.
In most microscopes, you need a very small diameter lens to get a useful depth of field comparable to a cell depth. The problem of low light is compensated for by a powerful light source.
In telescopes, you need a large diameter lens to allow in as much light as possible. The very small depth of field resulting from this lens is of little importance, since the telescope is focused at infinity.
Your 6mm focal length telescope eyepiece does improve magnification of the system. The overall focal length is found by dividing the main optic focal length by the objective focal length (decreasing the objective focal length increases overall focal length). This is not the same as with camera lenses which calculate out more like simple theoretical lenses.
Magnification does not relate to size of lens and relates to focal length of a lens in the reverse of how you described.
The telescope objective example fails because you're modifying the overall optic system opposite to the way you think. (Is this where your intuition comes from?)
eh... symmetry is easier for evolution to work with. I don't know about "loves", but you've got the idea.
Except you're wrong.
The macro mode designed into your lenses don't have anything to do with the power of the focal length. The macro mode on my 300mm rig is no doubt much more powerful than your 55mm lens (of course my lens is no longer stock).
The main difference in macro ability across lenses with different focal lengths is that the longer lenses focus further away from the lens. With some 50mm lenses, the close focus range falls to within the lens itself. (you can image a fingerprint on the front surface of the lens.)
And the zoom range... um no. 2 ft to infinity (50mm lens) is not a greater zoom range than 5 ft to infinity (62mm). It looks like more, but you're contradicting a mathematical fact.
The fly's wings aren't blurry. Your perception is blurry. Perhaps you should upgrade your eyes.
Of course, he could have an allergy to something his body produces, or a genetic disorder effecting the histone release system. In either case, steroid or other immunosuppressive therapy would be indicated. To the parent: what specialists and what sort of therapies have been tried?
A minor byproduct of alcohol metabolism is formaldehyde. There is some methanol produced in reactions to make ethanol. The methanol is converted to formaldehyde by an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase. Formaldehyde exposure causes bad headaches and other symptoms normally associated with a hangover. (reference, pay attention to the symptoms not caused by external exposure.)
Treatment for formaldehyde exposure (or hangover)? Consume lots of water to help flush the toxin out of your system... or consume lots and lots of ethanol to swamp out your alcohol dehydrogenase, so it won't have the opportunity to metabolise the methanol before it gets flushed out of your system.
The profuse vomiting often involved in a hangover your body convulsively shedding the destroyed surface of your stomach. This is caused directly by high concentrations of alcohol killing the cells of your stomach lining.
I take it you haven't read any of the software patents which have been discussed here? They generally refer to "a method for doing [blah] with a computer", without actually stating what the method is.
There's a difference between "edible" and "you'll pass it through like sand".
besides, wtf does "within the same genetic parameters" mean?
Dear Sir/Madam,
Evolution does work that way. You're talking about genetic drift, which is not a separate thing.
Kthxbai
The standard method of identification of bacterial species is to determine what compounds they can eat. E. coli is defined as not being able to eat citrate. They evolved something from E. coli which can eat citrate. The new bacteria is not E. coli by the standard method of identification.
But I guess you're right... it's still just some random nigh-invisible animalcule that nobody really cares about. I mean it didn't turn into a dolphin, did it?
Your final sentance is the point. You do have the same amount of random mutations. What differs is the number of those random mutations which survive. Early on, very few flourished. Later, many did. If there are only a few mutations which are advantageous or have no effect, you will only see the few (the adaptive mutations). If there are many, you will see many (the random mutations). Why is there this pattern? Earlier conditions were more stressful, for whatever reason.