I see the problem now. You missed a very important word in the sentence. Not "species". "New species". Apples to oranges. A new species which is born of out union of two different species.
Definition of EXISTING species is much harder to make, because we lack detailed genealogical data on most species. As a result, same species can often be classified as several different ones until we find out differently and vice versa. I imagine if we were a higher life form and met humans today, we'd likely classify them into many species rather then single one based on morphology, until more detailed tests could be made.
I drew a comparison between your line of arguing, and that of a religious person pushing for intelligent design as science. I did not at any point make any claims as to knowing what your religious beliefs are.
They do have a lower poverty rate. This has to do with cheaper prices in Estonia coupled with better social support network.
(I'm a finn too).
Also worth noting that electricity they're selling us is mostly produced in Soviet era power plants burning shale rock, through we've installed some new ones as well. We also financed the grid upgrades necessary for it. Also worth noting that their harbour and the reason why St. Petersburg has to ship so much stuff through Finnish harbours is because Soviet Union planned the harbour that would supply St. Petersburg to be built in Tallinn. When USSR broke down, access to that harbour was denied while Estonia ended up with one of the most advanced harbours in the basin.
Being morphologically same does not mean being genealogically same. Also, this is turning the entire argument here on its head - the argument was that species that are genealogically same but morphologically dramatically different are same species.
So, by your measuring stick, how many species of humans exist? We have black humans, pink humans, red humans, yellowish humans, humans with dwarfism, humans with hyperactive thyroid who grow well past 2 meters tall and so on.
Fact it, your measuring stick is utterly absurd and serves only one purpose: to meet your own arbitrary requirements. Generally accepted scientific requirements are well laid out, and while it is indeed sometimes difficult to tell species apart without significant and costly genetic testing, the accepted norm of what defines species has been stated in this thread.
You're essentially that one person that tries to ram through intelligent design as a real scientific theory because it's the only one that matches his religious beliefs.
So you claim that people with dwarfism and people with uncontrolled growth due to thyroid gland issues are not the same species? The difference is largely the same as one between chihuahua and mastiff.
Mastiff and chihuahua are the same species. They merely have severe morphological differences that may cause birth defects. In fact, many of the dog "races" are so selectively bred, that their morphology is simply pushing the boundaries of what their wolf genetics allow for. So you get things like pugs with massive problems from their brain not fitting their skull and so on.
Definition of new species is "outcome of interbreeding of two different species that can interbreed among themselves and produce offspring that can also breed to produce more of the same kind".
For example mules are a species hybrid of a horse and a donkey. They are viable, but they cannot produce offspring. As a result, they are not new species.
You can on the other hand cross-breed any dog with a wolf, and get viable offspring that can produce viable offspring. That's because dogs are merely morphologically different from wolves and from one another.
There are significant morphological differences amongst humans as well. We call them "race", "height", "weight" and so on. For example, colour of skin is a morphological change within species to adapt to amount of sunlight of the region. These are different expressions of existing genome, coupled with effects of environment.
Also, a significant genealogical difference is required to make something classified as new species. For example mutation that causes sickle red cell anaemia is significant as it was used by humans to adapt against malaria parasite. But it's not enough to make humans who inherit the necessary genome into entirely new species.
I don't think you understand the numbers involved. Morphological changes are adaptation for short term. Genealogical are typically long term. In terms of evolutionary progress. "Long term" means either to nine digits of years and up.
So i a way you're correct, but you're either splitting hairs or being silly. Because you're have to "bred pooches" for at least some hundreds of thousands to millions of years for them to start to meaningfully diverge on genetic level. Dogs for example are still wolves as far as genealogy is concerned. The difference is only morphological.
Same thing with these swallows. It's highly unlikely that threat of highway cars will persist long enough to cause genealogical changes.
Just out of interest, did you just google first link that looked like it would support your hypothesis and copy paste it, or are you actively trolling?
Because one look at the paper itself tells you very clearly that it's not at all what you pretend it is. It's an analysis on household inheritance of baby boomers within USA.
Large inheritance:
1. Is very much avoided being given to people in USA and in fact in almost all Western countries - it's usually trust funds and companies. Reason for this is taxation. Therefore it's not even featured in the analysis of the paper provided. 2. Such inheritance is usually washed through tax havens and such when it has be to transferred to avoid massive taxation that would be involved.
In conclusion, you don't even know what you're linking or you are intentionally derailing the subject with a lie. But you're cool enough to accuse me of "class warfare" regardless. Ouch.
Indeed. That's why vast majority of artists, scientists and such known by history were typically only sponsored by the rich, rather then actually being rich.
You're happy. Different things. Notably rich people tend to be quite unhappy throughout history, due to having extra worry of "who's out to get me for my wealth" which is constant.
As I said, there are different people. There's a handful who actually did work for their money, and who tend to get used to working long hours. These certainly exist, but they're few and in between.
Our culture celebrates those that came to money all on their own, and generally keeps quiet about the sad fact that they are a small minority. Most people classified as rich either inherit or marry into money. As a result, their motivation to work is typically of the level of "minimal needed to keep the money coming and keep relatives satisfied". Hence you get the "country club" types of wealthy people who "work" at those clubs. Which is often actual work, as they are arranging deals in their own way.
However the actual process is typically similar to that of exchanging drinks in a bar for poorer folk.
But many apes survived in spite of not being smart enough and competing for the same biological niche (at some point). Why?
The answer is most likely in the energy requirement indeed. Homo Sapiens are exceptionally energy efficient, from our gastrointestinal tract which is optimized to eat cooked food (we lack entzymes needed to break down raw meat and pathogens it may contain properly for example) to our build (we lack a lot of musculature that Neanderthals had) to our sensory organs (we have terrible sense of smell, our eyesight and hearing is also lacking in comparison to wild animals and so on). These were likely necessary to enable us to be efficient enough to feed our overgrown brain, which is our single most energy-hungry organ.
Essentially we as species likely made a heavy bet on our brain being able to "carry" us to victory. Neanderthals appear to be more of "jack of all trades" kind of an approach with more powerful muscles, more capable gut and better sensory organs. But they could not support all of that energy efficiently in face of competition from highly specialized "one trick pony" Homo Sapiens that specialized in one aspect which turned out to be superior to being a jack of all trades.
That's those who hope to make it rich. Those who actually are rich AND smart delegate and "work" by browsing the internet or go golfing to "foster customer relations". Which can sometimes be hard work, but most of the time amounts to similar effort as average man's leisure. Of course, they often get the extra stress of "I have a lot, how do I not lose it" so their position is not necessarily an enviable one.
Can't blame them for it either, that's what I would do in their position.
"Little punishment"? US justice system is draconian when it comes to punishing crime. These guys are going to have a stigma of "sex offender" for their entire lives on them now.
What the hell happened to rehabilitation? You know, getting both the victim and criminals rehabilitated to be able to live good lives without the spectre of rape hanging over them? Now victim gets "vengeance" which solves absolutely nothing for her, and two guys went from low grade passion criminals to having completely destroyed lives coupled with likely recidivism due to problems with US incarceration system. Hooray for more victims. Get the rope, I hear hanging solves all the problems in frontiersman's land.
Same thing could have been used in the crime of that guy. Instead of throwing him into jail, have him fined and have him have face to face meetings with people who he basically fucked by giving all spammers and scammers in the world their email addresses. Let him hear about actual, real and tangible effects of his "gray hacking" or whatever it is that his lawyers tried to dress it up as. And lastly, have him see the impact on the company he was supposed to be working for, perhaps have him do the work to secure all of their servers for a while under threat of prison for pennies. Perhaps then he would have found a much greater insight as to how difficult it is to manage a huge infrastructure company and next time forward his finds up the ladder instead of pretending to be a wannabe hero.
I will ask you again: if your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the fact that people live en masse near coal power plants, smelters with their own metallugry-grade coal burners and so on, and property prices are largely unaffected by such proximity. This in spite of the fact that they expose themselves to a significantly greater risk of lung cancer by living in such a location, which is one of the most debilitating, painful and lethal cancers that humans can get?
Here's another, even nastier question: why are so many people living on the old bedrock (which has deep storages of uranium, such as Scandinavia, Canada and so on) still by large value living in their own house rather then in apartment building in spite of the fact that living in your own house massively increases your risk of getting lung cancer due to radon issues? It is in fact well researched that the only time people by large start to care about radon in such places is when they have a child coming into the family.
Fact is, people care far, FAR more about property then even about risk of slow, torturous death. Something thyroid cancer is pretty unlikely to provide, unlike lung cancer.
As a result, I conclude that property damage is in fact the worst consequence.
Slashdot Mirror
I see the problem now. You missed a very important word in the sentence. Not "species". "New species". Apples to oranges. A new species which is born of out union of two different species.
Definition of EXISTING species is much harder to make, because we lack detailed genealogical data on most species. As a result, same species can often be classified as several different ones until we find out differently and vice versa. I imagine if we were a higher life form and met humans today, we'd likely classify them into many species rather then single one based on morphology, until more detailed tests could be made.
I drew a comparison between your line of arguing, and that of a religious person pushing for intelligent design as science. I did not at any point make any claims as to knowing what your religious beliefs are.
Basic genetics: all of these people may have the same genes, just expressed differently. Cross-breeding creates new expressions of existing genes.
They do have a lower poverty rate. This has to do with cheaper prices in Estonia coupled with better social support network.
(I'm a finn too).
Also worth noting that electricity they're selling us is mostly produced in Soviet era power plants burning shale rock, through we've installed some new ones as well. We also financed the grid upgrades necessary for it.
Also worth noting that their harbour and the reason why St. Petersburg has to ship so much stuff through Finnish harbours is because Soviet Union planned the harbour that would supply St. Petersburg to be built in Tallinn. When USSR broke down, access to that harbour was denied while Estonia ended up with one of the most advanced harbours in the basin.
Because nothing solves an argument between humans like good old fashioned murder. Survivor is always right.
Being morphologically same does not mean being genealogically same. Also, this is turning the entire argument here on its head - the argument was that species that are genealogically same but morphologically dramatically different are same species.
So, by your measuring stick, how many species of humans exist? We have black humans, pink humans, red humans, yellowish humans, humans with dwarfism, humans with hyperactive thyroid who grow well past 2 meters tall and so on.
Fact it, your measuring stick is utterly absurd and serves only one purpose: to meet your own arbitrary requirements. Generally accepted scientific requirements are well laid out, and while it is indeed sometimes difficult to tell species apart without significant and costly genetic testing, the accepted norm of what defines species has been stated in this thread.
You're essentially that one person that tries to ram through intelligent design as a real scientific theory because it's the only one that matches his religious beliefs.
We're listening. You're just spouting ridiculous claims.
For example, by your own words, a human with hyperactive thyroid and person with dwarfism are in fact two different species.
Just wondering how long it will take you to realise that none of these changes make them different species.
So, in your opinion "stupidity" equals "not picking up bomb making and terrorism"?
So you claim that people with dwarfism and people with uncontrolled growth due to thyroid gland issues are not the same species? The difference is largely the same as one between chihuahua and mastiff.
Mastiff and chihuahua are the same species. They merely have severe morphological differences that may cause birth defects. In fact, many of the dog "races" are so selectively bred, that their morphology is simply pushing the boundaries of what their wolf genetics allow for. So you get things like pugs with massive problems from their brain not fitting their skull and so on.
Definition of new species is "outcome of interbreeding of two different species that can interbreed among themselves and produce offspring that can also breed to produce more of the same kind".
For example mules are a species hybrid of a horse and a donkey. They are viable, but they cannot produce offspring. As a result, they are not new species.
You can on the other hand cross-breed any dog with a wolf, and get viable offspring that can produce viable offspring. That's because dogs are merely morphologically different from wolves and from one another.
There are significant morphological differences amongst humans as well. We call them "race", "height", "weight" and so on. For example, colour of skin is a morphological change within species to adapt to amount of sunlight of the region. These are different expressions of existing genome, coupled with effects of environment.
Also, a significant genealogical difference is required to make something classified as new species. For example mutation that causes sickle red cell anaemia is significant as it was used by humans to adapt against malaria parasite. But it's not enough to make humans who inherit the necessary genome into entirely new species.
I don't think you understand the numbers involved. Morphological changes are adaptation for short term. Genealogical are typically long term. In terms of evolutionary progress. "Long term" means either to nine digits of years and up.
So i a way you're correct, but you're either splitting hairs or being silly. Because you're have to "bred pooches" for at least some hundreds of thousands to millions of years for them to start to meaningfully diverge on genetic level. Dogs for example are still wolves as far as genealogy is concerned. The difference is only morphological.
Same thing with these swallows. It's highly unlikely that threat of highway cars will persist long enough to cause genealogical changes.
No. The change is likely morphological rather then genealogical. As a result they will stay the same species, just like dogs do.
Just out of interest, did you just google first link that looked like it would support your hypothesis and copy paste it, or are you actively trolling?
Because one look at the paper itself tells you very clearly that it's not at all what you pretend it is. It's an analysis on household inheritance of baby boomers within USA.
Large inheritance:
1. Is very much avoided being given to people in USA and in fact in almost all Western countries - it's usually trust funds and companies. Reason for this is taxation. Therefore it's not even featured in the analysis of the paper provided.
2. Such inheritance is usually washed through tax havens and such when it has be to transferred to avoid massive taxation that would be involved.
In conclusion, you don't even know what you're linking or you are intentionally derailing the subject with a lie. But you're cool enough to accuse me of "class warfare" regardless. Ouch.
Indeed. That's why vast majority of artists, scientists and such known by history were typically only sponsored by the rich, rather then actually being rich.
Those fucking stupid people.
You're happy. Different things. Notably rich people tend to be quite unhappy throughout history, due to having extra worry of "who's out to get me for my wealth" which is constant.
I like how you completely ignore the important part of the post, and just pick one line to build an effigy off, burn the effigy and claim victory.
As I said, there are different people. There's a handful who actually did work for their money, and who tend to get used to working long hours. These certainly exist, but they're few and in between.
Our culture celebrates those that came to money all on their own, and generally keeps quiet about the sad fact that they are a small minority. Most people classified as rich either inherit or marry into money. As a result, their motivation to work is typically of the level of "minimal needed to keep the money coming and keep relatives satisfied". Hence you get the "country club" types of wealthy people who "work" at those clubs. Which is often actual work, as they are arranging deals in their own way.
However the actual process is typically similar to that of exchanging drinks in a bar for poorer folk.
We all carry "a percentage of neanderthal DNA" because we share well over 99% of our DNA with them. In fact, we share well over 90% with most mammals.
But many apes survived in spite of not being smart enough and competing for the same biological niche (at some point). Why?
The answer is most likely in the energy requirement indeed. Homo Sapiens are exceptionally energy efficient, from our gastrointestinal tract which is optimized to eat cooked food (we lack entzymes needed to break down raw meat and pathogens it may contain properly for example) to our build (we lack a lot of musculature that Neanderthals had) to our sensory organs (we have terrible sense of smell, our eyesight and hearing is also lacking in comparison to wild animals and so on). These were likely necessary to enable us to be efficient enough to feed our overgrown brain, which is our single most energy-hungry organ.
Essentially we as species likely made a heavy bet on our brain being able to "carry" us to victory. Neanderthals appear to be more of "jack of all trades" kind of an approach with more powerful muscles, more capable gut and better sensory organs. But they could not support all of that energy efficiently in face of competition from highly specialized "one trick pony" Homo Sapiens that specialized in one aspect which turned out to be superior to being a jack of all trades.
That's those who hope to make it rich. Those who actually are rich AND smart delegate and "work" by browsing the internet or go golfing to "foster customer relations". Which can sometimes be hard work, but most of the time amounts to similar effort as average man's leisure. Of course, they often get the extra stress of "I have a lot, how do I not lose it" so their position is not necessarily an enviable one.
Can't blame them for it either, that's what I would do in their position.
"Little punishment"? US justice system is draconian when it comes to punishing crime. These guys are going to have a stigma of "sex offender" for their entire lives on them now.
What the hell happened to rehabilitation? You know, getting both the victim and criminals rehabilitated to be able to live good lives without the spectre of rape hanging over them? Now victim gets "vengeance" which solves absolutely nothing for her, and two guys went from low grade passion criminals to having completely destroyed lives coupled with likely recidivism due to problems with US incarceration system. Hooray for more victims. Get the rope, I hear hanging solves all the problems in frontiersman's land.
Same thing could have been used in the crime of that guy. Instead of throwing him into jail, have him fined and have him have face to face meetings with people who he basically fucked by giving all spammers and scammers in the world their email addresses. Let him hear about actual, real and tangible effects of his "gray hacking" or whatever it is that his lawyers tried to dress it up as. And lastly, have him see the impact on the company he was supposed to be working for, perhaps have him do the work to secure all of their servers for a while under threat of prison for pennies. Perhaps then he would have found a much greater insight as to how difficult it is to manage a huge infrastructure company and next time forward his finds up the ladder instead of pretending to be a wannabe hero.
But hey, prisons must make profits.
And guy who picks the lock doesn't break in either. He just uses a publicly available tools to access the door lock.
Next.
I will ask you again: if your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the fact that people live en masse near coal power plants, smelters with their own metallugry-grade coal burners and so on, and property prices are largely unaffected by such proximity. This in spite of the fact that they expose themselves to a significantly greater risk of lung cancer by living in such a location, which is one of the most debilitating, painful and lethal cancers that humans can get?
Here's another, even nastier question: why are so many people living on the old bedrock (which has deep storages of uranium, such as Scandinavia, Canada and so on) still by large value living in their own house rather then in apartment building in spite of the fact that living in your own house massively increases your risk of getting lung cancer due to radon issues?
It is in fact well researched that the only time people by large start to care about radon in such places is when they have a child coming into the family.
Fact is, people care far, FAR more about property then even about risk of slow, torturous death. Something thyroid cancer is pretty unlikely to provide, unlike lung cancer.
As a result, I conclude that property damage is in fact the worst consequence.