We like sex not because some metaconcept called "the species" "wants" to survive. We like sex because we have lots of genes that make us like sex.
We're saying the same thing, only I'm saying it metaphorically. I don't mean that there is some intelligence "species" somewhere guiding our evolution.
Any gene that promoted the "greater good of the species" to the detriment of its (the gene's) survival would disappear right quick.
I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Genes are simply a mechanism that provide traits to the individuals. Together, the individuals make up a local group of a species. If the species survive, the genes were successful. If they don't, then it wasn't. It's really that simple.
Put it this way: Why do bee drones continue to bring food back to the hive when they are not going to reproduce? By your theory, the drones should evolve to keep the food for themselves so that the individual can survive. It's because the have a particular role to play in the overall mechanism of the continuing species.
God, we need to start teaching evolution correctly in our schools.
The evolution genetic evolution, but perhaps informational evolution, so I do not consider this to be applicable when discussing genetic evolution. Please let me know what you think, I find this field of inquiry to be peculiarly fascinating.
I think there are two things being discussed here, and they are mixing together. One is the mechanism of passing traits from one species to another through genetics. And the other, which is more what I'm focusing on, which is what mechanisms are used in order to maximize the success of the species, which is defined as continuing to survive in a hostile environment? I think we can agree that random mating alone is not necessarily a successful strategy for surviving over the long term.
What does a species need to survive over a large number of generations? I can think of mating, food, protection from preditors, and protection from the environment. Any one of these can cause the extinction of the species. So preventing extinction is as important as the simple act of mating, if our goal is to have a species that survives over the long term successfully. Many traits are going to evolve, genetically and perhaps even behaviorially, to take care of these non-mating needs.
I think it's obvious we don't disagree on the mechanism or historical fact of evolution, it's just a semantic quibble.
I think you're right, we're saying the same thing, but I'm focusing more on the "observable" fact of evolution, namely that the "success" of a species depends on a lot of different factors. You are focusing more on the mechanism of adaptation, that whatever happens, it takes place in the genes. Although, I made an argument that behavioral information may be passed from generation to generation.:)
I find it unfathomable that Evolution and Natural Selection are so obviously misunderstood as to make the parent post seem to be worthy of such a high rating.
I don't think you understand it as well as you think.
The theory of evolution relies upon genetic characteristics to be passed from parents to children through sexual mating (read: "requiring more than one gender")...
What? Since when? I assure you that evolution works just fine on asexual reproduction as well. Diseases adapt to new environments through natural selection all the time.
Non-mating individuals do not pass genetic material down, do not pass "Go", and do not collect $200. Period.
You are correct. They don't directly pass genetic information. But a non-mating individual can help to ensure that other individuals of the species pass their genetic material. Sheesh, trivial example: Ants. Very few ants in a hive directly reproduce, but the hive wouldn't last long without the non-breeding workers. Or how about lions: Not many male members end up reproducing, but the ones that don't are the ones who lose the fight with the other lions. The non-breeders help to prune the weak lions out of the pack, and improve the genetic lines.
You have to look at the bigger picture of what "success" means to a species.
I've never heard any evidence which supports the theory that evolution operates via means other than passing on genes through reproduction.
I didn't make any claims that traits operate by any other means other than genetic means. All I'm saying is that traits other than simple reproduction are important.
Although, thinking about it, I can easily make an argument that there are species that depend on non-genetic passing of information. For example, there are many wild animals that do not survive in captivity, and depend on being "trained" by the pack to survive. This training is presumably passed from one generation to another by behavior, not genetics. If it was genetic, then you wouldn't need the pack the pass on the behaviors.
If you think about it, this is a pretty efficient way to go, since it reduces the amount of genetic behaviors that you need to pass on, and also allows for quicker trial-and-error diversity.
Evolution has nothing to do with the differential survival of species, and everything to do with that of genes (individual organisms and close relatives, by extension).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "differential" survival, but I don't see how your quote contradicts what I said. All it says is that he believes suicide genes are not a successful strategy for a species. Which is interesting, but beside the point.
Put it this way -- Any species that don't have survival as a goal don't last very long, by definition. Any species that is still around has survived through adapting to their local environment in some novel way. Reproduction is the easy part -- continuing to reproduce in normally hostile environments is the tricky part.
There's a 25 year lifespan discrepancy, in which evolution has no effect, because the population (at least of women) can't reproduce!
That's an oversimplification of evolution. Evolution cares about maximizing survival of the species. Reproduction is only one factor in that. If reproduction were everything, we would never have split into male/female, since that obviously reduces the ease with which we reproduce.
There are many things that people can do after child bearing to help propagation, such as protection, food production, education or labor.
Good god! I didn't catch that the first time around.
That has to be the winner of the "Worst. Name. Ever."
The dude's parents should be put in jail for that.
Re:Bzzzt. Wrong again, Assumptions Lad!
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 2
...which describe Aspartame as having significant impact upon the neurochemistry of the brain. --Everything from affecting migraine headaches...
So does sugar.
...to dramatically raising serotonin levels in rats.
So do carbohydrates. Not to mention that rats != humans.
And what's with calling me a Tin-Foil Hatter?
Read again. I said, "Do you realize the tin-foil hat ravings you're parroting?". You're the one who said we should do Google searches to find information about this subject (which is guaranteed to find you the loonies). I'm the one who advocated going to reputable sources.
but the solution is NOT to tune into the corporate information feeds without criticism.
Where did I advocate that? You seemed to be positively offended by the fact that there was even a link on Snopes to Monsanto's side of the story. I guess any information that doesn't jibe with what you "already know" is automatically lies, right?
A brief look at your posting history and self proclaimed charter, seems to indicate that you've set yourself up in such a way that your ego is heavily involved before you even open your mouth around here.
"The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth." I submit that that is exactly what I'm doing. I don't emotionally and cynically believe that all corporate information is wrong. I look for factual information in order to draw my conclusions, from which you might want to take a lesson.
my signature is designed precisely to make fun of those who take themselves too seriously.
I find it highly amusing that you think that you are the only one allowed to have fun with nicks.
Skipping to the bottom, we see the phrase "...in short, we'll be living in a POLICE STATE."
In short, that's the sign that you can pretty much disregard anything he says. His tin foil is strapped too tightly to his head.
Why am I not suprised that Michael thinks this guy's ravings are "putting things in perspective"? Yeah, that's a nice, unbiased analysis of the pros and cons of balancing the rights of the music industry with fair use rights.
I've always been amazed by people's reaction to fame. Why was it so important for Carmack to waste his time signing your box? Why isn't it enough for you to just go up, say how much you enjoy his games, maybe shake his hand, and leave it at that? What is up with this autograph thing? Are you disappointed that you couldn't sell it or something?
I recall a quote by a famous author, I don't remember who it was or the quote, but it was something like, "Why must they pursue the author? Why aren't my works enough?"
Cut the guy some slack, and remember the celebrities are human.
Re:Where do guys like you come from?
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Do you even realize the multi-million dollar P.R. bullshit you're parroting?
Do you realize the tin-foil hat ravings you're parroting?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So far, the ravers have shown that they had very little scientific understanding of the processes that they claim. Show me a peer reviewed study that shows harmful effects of aspartame. You can't, because they don't exist. All we have are some pseudo-scientific bullshit that is just plain wrong.
By the way, did you know that you have Sodium Chloride every day? And the components of that are Sodium and Chlorine, both highly poisonous? GOOD GOD imagine what would happen if they ever broke down! Alert the media!
Next time, I'll alert you to the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Re:Ahh! Monsanto! Makers of Aspertame/Nutrisweet
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Do yourself a favor and spend twenty minutes with Google over this.
Or you can ignore all the ravings of web lunatics, and read this page which gives some useful information and links about this crapola.
Re:Picture of bills with US bill
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
I wonder why the US keeps this drab, slashdot theme with the currency..
I hear this lament sometimes, and personally I like the US's drab money. All other countries make their money look like colorful "disney dollars". The US's money looks like serious money, dignified, beefy and substantial. There's no mistaking that the bill is a serious document.
Which is actually the problem I have with the newer currency. The artwork is a bit lighter weight, and just doesn't seem to have the "oomph" that the old currency had.
The reason the barometric device wasn't the primary sensor was because of drift due to weather changes.
Hey! Speaking of this, something I've always wondered...
I used to have a really cool Casio watch that had a built-in pressure sensor that told altitude and water-depth. One thing that I never understood was how you can tell altitude from a barometer. Wouldn't the weather changing make it completely inaccurate? I would imagine that air pressure changes fairly dramatically depending on the weather. How can it ever be remotely accurate? Or are weather-related pressure changes actually pretty minor as a percentage of average air pressure?
However, that rule doesn't apply if you put out a shitty product squash competition and name it windows.
Wrong. Windows is not a "shitty" product in the areas that matter, as IBM found out. IBM used to bundle OS/2 and Win 3.1 (yes, 3.1). You had to go out of your way to delete OS/2 and install 3.1. Yet almost EVERYONE did it.
The areas that Windows ruled are:
1) Backward compatibility with DOS apps,
2) Software availability (MS courted developers like anything),
3) Hardware availability
And your ignorance of why Windows is successful is exactly why Linux never will be a competitor to Windows on the desktop.
My opinion is that telling people they shouldn't make decisions based on their personal beliefs is moronic.
He didn't say you shouldn't make decisions based on your personal beliefs, he said your personal beliefs themselves (i.e., choosing open source regardless of quality) are ridiculous. Which may disagree with, but it's a perfectly valid point to make.
I agree with you and the parent poster. It's one thing if you return something that's defective or doesn't fit right, it's another thing to automatically "cash out" anything you get. That's a sign of a selfish person who doesn't give any thought to other people's feelings. [no offense intended to your girlfriend, although I personally would take that as a sign to look elsewhere. I bet looking closely, that's only one symptom of an overall disease.]
there must be a bunch of people who don't mind since I saw a poster at the entrance of a big retail store yesterday saying "Christmas returns to the right".
All that proves is that there are a lot of selfish, thoughtless people in the world, which really should come as no surprise.
I personally don't donate to ANY organization unless the overhead expenses are clearly stated in their donation literature. On SPI's site for example, I can't find any record of how much of donations go to administration or how much the leaders of the organization are paid.
I think a lot of people would be shocked by how corrupt a lot of high-profile organizations are, and how small the percentage of donations go to the intended receivers. If SPI or any other organization has nothing to hide, then let them state the facts so I know I'm not getting ripped off.
Here we go: The book about the autistic teacher is called Thinking in Pictures" by Temple Grandin. I've read this book, too and it's incredibly fascinating. The title reminds me of how her brain works. She literally thinks in pictures, and has to "translate" the pictures into words through a methodical process that she had to learn by rote.
Slashdot Mirror
We like sex not because some metaconcept called "the species" "wants" to survive. We like sex because we have lots of genes that make us like sex.
We're saying the same thing, only I'm saying it metaphorically. I don't mean that there is some intelligence "species" somewhere guiding our evolution.
Any gene that promoted the "greater good of the species" to the detriment of its (the gene's) survival would disappear right quick.
I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Genes are simply a mechanism that provide traits to the individuals. Together, the individuals make up a local group of a species. If the species survive, the genes were successful. If they don't, then it wasn't. It's really that simple.
Put it this way: Why do bee drones continue to bring food back to the hive when they are not going to reproduce? By your theory, the drones should evolve to keep the food for themselves so that the individual can survive. It's because the have a particular role to play in the overall mechanism of the continuing species.
God, we need to start teaching evolution correctly in our schools.
I'm beginning to agree with you.
The evolution genetic evolution, but perhaps informational evolution, so I do not consider this to be applicable when discussing genetic evolution. Please let me know what you think, I find this field of inquiry to be peculiarly fascinating.
I think there are two things being discussed here, and they are mixing together. One is the mechanism of passing traits from one species to another through genetics. And the other, which is more what I'm focusing on, which is what mechanisms are used in order to maximize the success of the species, which is defined as continuing to survive in a hostile environment? I think we can agree that random mating alone is not necessarily a successful strategy for surviving over the long term.
What does a species need to survive over a large number of generations? I can think of mating, food, protection from preditors, and protection from the environment. Any one of these can cause the extinction of the species. So preventing extinction is as important as the simple act of mating, if our goal is to have a species that survives over the long term successfully. Many traits are going to evolve, genetically and perhaps even behaviorially, to take care of these non-mating needs.
I think it's obvious we don't disagree on the mechanism or historical fact of evolution, it's just a semantic quibble.
I think you're right, we're saying the same thing, but I'm focusing more on the "observable" fact of evolution, namely that the "success" of a species depends on a lot of different factors. You are focusing more on the mechanism of adaptation, that whatever happens, it takes place in the genes. Although, I made an argument that behavioral information may be passed from generation to generation. :)
I find it unfathomable that Evolution and Natural Selection are so obviously misunderstood as to make the parent post seem to be worthy of such a high rating.
I don't think you understand it as well as you think.
The theory of evolution relies upon genetic characteristics to be passed from parents to children through sexual mating (read: "requiring more than one gender")...
What? Since when? I assure you that evolution works just fine on asexual reproduction as well. Diseases adapt to new environments through natural selection all the time.
Non-mating individuals do not pass genetic material down, do not pass "Go", and do not collect $200. Period.
You are correct. They don't directly pass genetic information. But a non-mating individual can help to ensure that other individuals of the species pass their genetic material. Sheesh, trivial example: Ants. Very few ants in a hive directly reproduce, but the hive wouldn't last long without the non-breeding workers. Or how about lions: Not many male members end up reproducing, but the ones that don't are the ones who lose the fight with the other lions. The non-breeders help to prune the weak lions out of the pack, and improve the genetic lines.
You have to look at the bigger picture of what "success" means to a species.
I've never heard any evidence which supports the theory that evolution operates via means other than passing on genes through reproduction.
I didn't make any claims that traits operate by any other means other than genetic means. All I'm saying is that traits other than simple reproduction are important.
Although, thinking about it, I can easily make an argument that there are species that depend on non-genetic passing of information. For example, there are many wild animals that do not survive in captivity, and depend on being "trained" by the pack to survive. This training is presumably passed from one generation to another by behavior, not genetics. If it was genetic, then you wouldn't need the pack the pass on the behaviors.
If you think about it, this is a pretty efficient way to go, since it reduces the amount of genetic behaviors that you need to pass on, and also allows for quicker trial-and-error diversity.
Evolution has nothing to do with the differential survival of species, and everything to do with that of genes (individual organisms and close relatives, by extension).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "differential" survival, but I don't see how your quote contradicts what I said. All it says is that he believes suicide genes are not a successful strategy for a species. Which is interesting, but beside the point.
Put it this way -- Any species that don't have survival as a goal don't last very long, by definition. Any species that is still around has survived through adapting to their local environment in some novel way. Reproduction is the easy part -- continuing to reproduce in normally hostile environments is the tricky part.
There's a 25 year lifespan discrepancy, in which evolution has no effect, because the population (at least of women) can't reproduce!
That's an oversimplification of evolution. Evolution cares about maximizing survival of the species. Reproduction is only one factor in that. If reproduction were everything, we would never have split into male/female, since that obviously reduces the ease with which we reproduce.
There are many things that people can do after child bearing to help propagation, such as protection, food production, education or labor.
Good god! I didn't catch that the first time around.
That has to be the winner of the "Worst. Name. Ever."
The dude's parents should be put in jail for that.
So does sugar.
So do carbohydrates. Not to mention that rats != humans.
And what's with calling me a Tin-Foil Hatter?
Read again. I said, "Do you realize the tin-foil hat ravings you're parroting?". You're the one who said we should do Google searches to find information about this subject (which is guaranteed to find you the loonies). I'm the one who advocated going to reputable sources.
but the solution is NOT to tune into the corporate information feeds without criticism.
Where did I advocate that? You seemed to be positively offended by the fact that there was even a link on Snopes to Monsanto's side of the story. I guess any information that doesn't jibe with what you "already know" is automatically lies, right?
A brief look at your posting history and self proclaimed charter, seems to indicate that you've set yourself up in such a way that your ego is heavily involved before you even open your mouth around here.
"The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth." I submit that that is exactly what I'm doing. I don't emotionally and cynically believe that all corporate information is wrong. I look for factual information in order to draw my conclusions, from which you might want to take a lesson.
my signature is designed precisely to make fun of those who take themselves too seriously.
I find it highly amusing that you think that you are the only one allowed to have fun with nicks.
Skipping to the bottom, we see the phrase "...in short, we'll be living in a POLICE STATE."
In short, that's the sign that you can pretty much disregard anything he says. His tin foil is strapped too tightly to his head.
Why am I not suprised that Michael thinks this guy's ravings are "putting things in perspective"? Yeah, that's a nice, unbiased analysis of the pros and cons of balancing the rights of the music industry with fair use rights.
I've always been amazed by people's reaction to fame. Why was it so important for Carmack to waste his time signing your box? Why isn't it enough for you to just go up, say how much you enjoy his games, maybe shake his hand, and leave it at that? What is up with this autograph thing? Are you disappointed that you couldn't sell it or something?
I recall a quote by a famous author, I don't remember who it was or the quote, but it was something like, "Why must they pursue the author? Why aren't my works enough?"
Cut the guy some slack, and remember the celebrities are human.
Do you even realize the multi-million dollar P.R. bullshit you're parroting?
Do you realize the tin-foil hat ravings you're parroting?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So far, the ravers have shown that they had very little scientific understanding of the processes that they claim. Show me a peer reviewed study that shows harmful effects of aspartame. You can't, because they don't exist. All we have are some pseudo-scientific bullshit that is just plain wrong.
By the way, did you know that you have Sodium Chloride every day? And the components of that are Sodium and Chlorine, both highly poisonous? GOOD GOD imagine what would happen if they ever broke down! Alert the media!
Next time, I'll alert you to the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Do yourself a favor and spend twenty minutes with Google over this.
Or you can ignore all the ravings of web lunatics, and read this page which gives some useful information and links about this crapola.
I wonder why the US keeps this drab, slashdot theme with the currency..
I hear this lament sometimes, and personally I like the US's drab money. All other countries make their money look like colorful "disney dollars". The US's money looks like serious money, dignified, beefy and substantial. There's no mistaking that the bill is a serious document.
Which is actually the problem I have with the newer currency. The artwork is a bit lighter weight, and just doesn't seem to have the "oomph" that the old currency had.
The reason the barometric device wasn't the primary sensor was because of drift due to weather changes.
Hey! Speaking of this, something I've always wondered...
I used to have a really cool Casio watch that had a built-in pressure sensor that told altitude and water-depth. One thing that I never understood was how you can tell altitude from a barometer. Wouldn't the weather changing make it completely inaccurate? I would imagine that air pressure changes fairly dramatically depending on the weather. How can it ever be remotely accurate? Or are weather-related pressure changes actually pretty minor as a percentage of average air pressure?
However, that rule doesn't apply if you put out a shitty product squash competition and name it windows.
Wrong. Windows is not a "shitty" product in the areas that matter, as IBM found out. IBM used to bundle OS/2 and Win 3.1 (yes, 3.1). You had to go out of your way to delete OS/2 and install 3.1. Yet almost EVERYONE did it.
The areas that Windows ruled are:
1) Backward compatibility with DOS apps,
2) Software availability (MS courted developers like anything),
3) Hardware availability
And your ignorance of why Windows is successful is exactly why Linux never will be a competitor to Windows on the desktop.
My opinion is that telling people they shouldn't make decisions based on their personal beliefs is moronic.
He didn't say you shouldn't make decisions based on your personal beliefs, he said your personal beliefs themselves (i.e., choosing open source regardless of quality) are ridiculous. Which may disagree with, but it's a perfectly valid point to make.
I agree with you and the parent poster. It's one thing if you return something that's defective or doesn't fit right, it's another thing to automatically "cash out" anything you get. That's a sign of a selfish person who doesn't give any thought to other people's feelings. [no offense intended to your girlfriend, although I personally would take that as a sign to look elsewhere. I bet looking closely, that's only one symptom of an overall disease.]
there must be a bunch of people who don't mind since I saw a poster at the entrance of a big retail store yesterday saying "Christmas returns to the right".
All that proves is that there are a lot of selfish, thoughtless people in the world, which really should come as no surprise.
I personally don't donate to ANY organization unless the overhead expenses are clearly stated in their donation literature. On SPI's site for example, I can't find any record of how much of donations go to administration or how much the leaders of the organization are paid.
I think a lot of people would be shocked by how corrupt a lot of high-profile organizations are, and how small the percentage of donations go to the intended receivers. If SPI or any other organization has nothing to hide, then let them state the facts so I know I'm not getting ripped off.
Considering my wife runs Office 2000 on an old K6 233Mhz PC with Win/98 -- and the speed is fine -- you are just spreading more Microsoft FUD.
Maybe you should actually know what you're talking about before posting.
I couldn't remember, but according to this page (found through a Google search), it's in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.
Oops, that should be "Awakenings".
I think my Amazon link was bad above. Try this link. Amazon lists the ISBN numbers for the books, but here's a couple if you have trouble:
0684853949: The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a hat
0679756973: An Anthropologist on Mars : Seven Paradoxical Tales
0375704051: Amakenings
Hmmm. Apparently my Amazon link was fubar. How about this one: Oliver Sacks.
Here we go: The book about the autistic teacher is called Thinking in Pictures" by Temple Grandin. I've read this book, too and it's incredibly fascinating. The title reminds me of how her brain works. She literally thinks in pictures, and has to "translate" the pictures into words through a methodical process that she had to learn by rote.