You final point is my final point. The whole pictures matters more then small victories. and if your calling me out, I mean exactly the harvestign of wood for paper which can use any tree. North american forests are harvest at a sustainable rate, but forests such as the one in the amazon and the ones in south asia are being raped to supply wood thats more expensive to get here.
Organizations such as green peace don't look at the big picture ie. If we stop this dam the people around here may cut down all the tree for fuel, or if we save 1000 acres of boreal forest we may endager 3000 acres of amazon jungle because demands is the same but supply shitfs.
Conservation may be key, but it's not a rapid proccess. You need to convince a lot of people in key positions. It's happening but slowly. Tilel then we should be advacating the smart use of our resources and not stop the use of our resources.
Many of my biology proffessors thought the boreal forest is a junk forest for conservation because it lacks bio diversity, but all oru efforts help that forest the most because it's the closest.
Kingmanic's english dictionary: Civilized: every country that does not deny evolution and has the ability to produce beer that isn't sewage (sewage see coors; budwiser).
This reminds me of the radio program on last night over here. They were discussing earth day and the issue of the ecology movement and how the current ecological moevment in north america and the wester world has done more harm to the enviroment then good, because we are so good at lobbying in the west, that industry just moves to the third world to set-up the required factories and resoure gathering. This just shifts the pollution to a place that cannot regulate the industry as well so the companies pollute more because of organizations like green peace. Also the conservation of the mostly homogenous and biological un-important boreal forest and north american forests have lead to the destruction of more important rain forests to supply us witht he nessacary wood. Tree huggers are ruining the enviroment.
The solution is to re-educate our activists to work with industry nto against it, because practically the demand will remain weather the stuff comes from Brazil or Idaho, minus well ensure it's harvested as cleanly as possible. And we shoudl value 63 unique species in a jungle mroe then 1 cute owl species in the boreal forests because owls are a diem a dozen and even spotted owls are nothign special while destroying 1 acre of jungle rain forest can destray dozen of species and elminate huge swaths of bio diversity. So clear cut the old growth forest if you want but don't touch the friigin rain forest.
Given A (we have a mixed batch of flies representing a natural mix) We apply pressure B (selection) C results(flies are less mixed).
We observe that some speciation arises from the above mechanism. We deduce that all specie may have arived otu of this very general mechanism.
Thats the resoning, with the lack of any better solution, that is the solution we conclude. Evidence? Phylogenic tree's have support our theory, and so do fossils, biological observation also support the theory. No matter how much you deny fossil evidence, phylogentic trees support evolution like the Atomic clock tests supported Special Relativity. If they did not, if Dogs have a better genetic match with snails then with sheep then mayeb your right. But Phylogenetic trees are exstremely consistant with evolution to the point where different branches of the tree's have more diversity then all of the rest of the trees and thus we can conclude these are the oldest of creatures, ie. Archea bacteria. Their simple life forms that life in extreme conditions, the fact that they represent mroe genetic diversity then the whole of the rest of the tree supports the fact that we all came from that egentic pool at one time. As well humans have a similier pattern. African people have more genetic variation then peoples farther away from africa. The continent of africa has mroe geentic variation then the entirty of the rest of the human race. Thus we can assume we all came out of africa.
PS. flies did not turn to fish, a vertibrate worm become fish, insects came from another creature. A certain strain of fish became amphibians and dog arose out of the amphibians and sheep are a close relative of dogs. All of this is supported by phylogenic trees. Dogs DNA is much closer in matching sectiosn then Fish DNA which relates more to dogs then insects. If you want proof, look up phylogentic trees on the internet or on www.nature.com
wikipedia states: The term brunette is commonly used to refer to a human (usually a female) who has black or brown (especially dark brown) hair, often with dark eyes and a relatively dark or olive complexion.
However you rarely refer to a asian person as being a brunette. Asians simply have black hair, or a more flattering term "raven" colored hair.
And brown = brunette so she may well be brunette because the image shows her havign brown hair.
Of course by the same token, doctors cannot 100% predict you have X disease. but by using some intuition and analysing the symptoms, they narrow it down to a short list then match the one that seems closests. their not 100% in this but we trust medicine. Weather prediction is nto 100% either btu it's fairly reliable.
Thats a pretty flaky argument since the weather service can predict, with soem margin of error, when it will rain. a 80% chance of precipition ussually leads to rain. I don't know wher eyou live but my forecasts are pretty accurate.
The way I see it the wrong people are reproducing. Education and economic wealth ditate how well you can raise a child, inversly it also dictates a lower count of children. I would think we should sterilize anybody with Fetal alchohol syndrom (which many teen mothers and most criminals have) and force academics and the athletic elite to reproduce at least 6 children per couple. IT's the gene pool and as bad as eugenics sounds it's somethign that should be looked at. I'll be modded down for sure, but from a genetics stand point we have to get some sort of selective pressure on the gene pool because right now it favors traits that won't get us anywhere, namly the ones that are breeding are the uneducated, the ones who can't forsee consequences.
IT's speculated that the Alberta (canada) oil sands contain mor eoil then the whole of the middle east. We'r ein no danger of running out soon. The exploitation of the Albertan oil sands is pretty low, the cause being the higher expense of extracting oil from the oil sands. However this is a constand cost, whiel the oil in the middle east slowly gets mroe expensive due to exploitation and politics. Alberta has all the oil you'll need for next century, with no political strings.
Thats a rather naive stance. Read up on some keynesian economics. Economic pressure should not be relied upon to solve anything. Like Nixxon said we're all keynesian now. Because keynes was right, A uncontrolled free market is a disaster and will lead to hardship for the masses. We have to take initiatives and make it worth their effort to make green solutions. Ford won't stop making SUV's whiel their popular and the OIL lobby has a vested interest in having Ford make those SUV's, thus they keep the price of gas from rising too high. Toyota and Honda have developed green machine without much exsternal pressure because they see a market and because they care about such things.
If we left it up to economic prssure to get anythign done, it may be too late. I don't beleive we're in any imminent danger of destroyign the earth but I also don't beleive Industry will make the right choices by themselves.
Also, if you want a more stable world, the reduced importance of oil will passify the middle east simply because they will become less important, and have less external agencies acting on their governments.
I'll look that book up int he library. Science is political, and is as much about old men and pride as it is about finding out about the universe. However Evolution was an un-popular theory in scientific circles. It's become the principal theory because it's well supported and it's the best answer we have using the simpliest assumptions (occams razor and what not). Also if your going to use the whole fossil thing, then I'll used the cliche "mans eye is poorly designed" argument. Mans eye has a blind spot, squid eyes don't. A very basic and severe design flaw led to this. Human eyes have their blood supply in front of the membrane(retina) while squid has it behind. If we were designed and not created by chance then what is the reason for this? how about all the DNA we have turned off that resemble enzymes from other species. OR the vast amount of genetic data we share with monkeys. Why are there plants with both 3 chromosome dna and 2 chromosome dna that look the same. Why does genetics mechanism explain speciation so well.
Devious and pathetic men in palientology do nto invalidate evolution. Genetics support evolution, anthropology support evolution, so does zoology, biology, statistics, and basic logical reasoning. It may be wrong but we do not have an equivilantly strong theory to replace it and creationism isn't a option. It's not even something that contradicts religion. i'm a christian (dutch baptist) and I see evolution as being fine within the context fo my religion. Science was principally a christian persuit (science as we know it), doen by christian men to know more about gods universe. We cannot deny evidence because it contradicts our dogma. IT's about as useless as the pope denying a vaccum (which incidently, doesn't trully exsist).
Carmac is a believer in OSS. although it's good business to ensure your engine has good penetration, by the time ID releases the code, the next generation looks nothing like the code GPL'ed. The benifit is much smaller then you imply.
Quake 2 c code looks nothing like Quake which both look incredibly different from Doom.
There's always the issue of prestige and technological supremacy. When you can do somethign no one else can technologically, it's more likly other governments/researchers will defer to you on the subject. Your influence increases and your ability to make certain claims increases. It's like civilization, achievement = prestige = influence.
most large cities will have cabel internet available if cable is available. DSL where the phone line is available. Generally speaking Canada is a lot more wired up then everywhere exept some places in europe and japan. Most newer areas can be connected for sure. Older neigborhoods may not be so easy.
Cost of dial up service: 19.99 CND (varies but thats the average for unlimited us)
DSL: 36.99 CND.
Cable: 40.00 CND.
Everybody I know is on broadband. There isn't anyone I know who surfs the net regularly that isn't. Over here it's cheap, ussually reliable and unlimited use. Even dl/ul ratios ar elargly ignored. I did 25 gb last month and it cost me the same as when I do 5 gb. (I'm told if I ever do 50+ gb they might send me a letter to complain).
You should be one to speak of logical fallacies. For instance you pick one interpretation of evolution to debunk. Thats called a strawman arguement. Instead of tackling the theory you attack a wide spread misconception of the theory.
hehe. You don't understand the time frame. Have you taken much university level biology? In my example you changed the frequency of the gene pool but not the contents. The genes for black eyes, normal wings, normal legs are still there but are less likly to be seen in each generation.
It has not speciated because the population you made can still mate with it's own kind, and you seem to have trouble with the time frame. In 3 weeks you can change the average phenotype of a species from one one type to another, imagine what 2.6 billion years can do.
don't iterate once, iterate for a billion years. you can get a lot of change. Look what serveral hundred generations of selection have done to dogs. They now come in such varied sizes and avarieties, while the wolves they evolved form are basically the same now as 500,000 years ago. Without pressure, there is no selection. Without a reason for a population to change, there is no change. And mutations ar eoften deadly but given the time frame it's un-important. Take computing science. Take a 1 in a million event, say getting the right key from a space of a million keys. (Ie. i'm thinking of a integer number from 1 to 1 million) have a computer guess a random integer from 1 to 1 million and have it do it once every second. although it' improbably that you will guess it the first time, eventually you will guess it. Given 1 million trials you will have a pretty high probability to get the right combination. Evolution is the same. Given enough time, it will create monkeys. And gene manipulation is unlikly. there is so much junk code in the genetic make up of all species that it's unlikly it was intentional.
lol. OK. here how evolution works. IT's a simple system.
Heriditary traits are passed on by genes. You will look somethign like yoru parents because your genes are a subset of theirs. Now, in a population there are a certain frequency of different traits. The frequency of traits are fixed unless there is some pressure to change it. New traits come in through random mutations in reproductive cells. Point mutations, substitutions, miswrites ect..
When a selective pressure is applied to a population the frequency of those genes shift, favoring some combinations over others.
Steady change over tiem is a fallacy. An idea that was popular but is nto true. Whith out a selective pressure, a population won't change. A selective pressure is something that modifies the success rate of a individual to reproduce. Some mutations will confer a benifit and this may alter the frequency that this genes occurs in the population in the long run, most do not.
A population will change little under normal circumstances, but when a selective pressure occurs, the population will have a shift in the frequency of certain genes. those that can accomadate the new pressure better become more numerous then those who cannot.
Thats all evolution is, mutation and selection over and over again. Evolution is not the steady, gradual change of species, because they don't change gradually. The T-rex only exsisted for a short period of time in the Cretaceous, about a 20 million year span from 85 mil bc to 65 mil bc. Also, the fossils we have are only their bones and imprints of their skin. Things that don't generally change much. A grizzly beara nd a polar bear share very similiar skeletons and skin btu vastly diferent features and habitat. T-rex circa 85 million BC coudl have been green and T-rex circa 65 million bc could have been florecent pink.
Evolutionists don't exsist. There isn't a sect dedicated strictly to promote evolution. anti-evolution fundementalists exsist though.
If you want to see evidence of evolution workign in a human time fram, take a large bottle of fruit flies with food and observe their average appearance. Full wings, black eyes, normal legs. Now find a tooth pick and and a rubber seal, stick the tooth pick in and start killing any with black eyes, normal wings and normal legs. Do it three times a day for a month on several generations. You will eventaully have very few normal flies being born. Keep this up and make sur eyou have good coverage of the whole bottle and eventually you'll have only 1/4 of the bottle with black eyes, normal wings, nromal legs. The rest will have red or amber eyes and/or weird shaped wings/legs. This is of course if you have a wild sample to start with/
Slashdot Mirror
You final point is my final point. The whole pictures matters more then small victories. and if your calling me out, I mean exactly the harvestign of wood for paper which can use any tree. North american forests are harvest at a sustainable rate, but forests such as the one in the amazon and the ones in south asia are being raped to supply wood thats more expensive to get here.
Organizations such as green peace don't look at the big picture ie. If we stop this dam the people around here may cut down all the tree for fuel, or if we save 1000 acres of boreal forest we may endager 3000 acres of amazon jungle because demands is the same but supply shitfs.
Conservation may be key, but it's not a rapid proccess. You need to convince a lot of people in key positions. It's happening but slowly. Tilel then we should be advacating the smart use of our resources and not stop the use of our resources.
Many of my biology proffessors thought the boreal forest is a junk forest for conservation because it lacks bio diversity, but all oru efforts help that forest the most because it's the closest.
Now bow down and and shien my boots hoser.
And have a nice day eh.
Kingmanic's english dictionary:
Civilized: every country that does not deny evolution and has the ability to produce beer that isn't sewage (sewage see coors; budwiser).
This reminds me of the radio program on last night over here. They were discussing earth day and the issue of the ecology movement and how the current ecological moevment in north america and the wester world has done more harm to the enviroment then good, because we are so good at lobbying in the west, that industry just moves to the third world to set-up the required factories and resoure gathering. This just shifts the pollution to a place that cannot regulate the industry as well so the companies pollute more because of organizations like green peace. Also the conservation of the mostly homogenous and biological un-important boreal forest and north american forests have lead to the destruction of more important rain forests to supply us witht he nessacary wood. Tree huggers are ruining the enviroment.
The solution is to re-educate our activists to work with industry nto against it, because practically the demand will remain weather the stuff comes from Brazil or Idaho, minus well ensure it's harvested as cleanly as possible. And we shoudl value 63 unique species in a jungle mroe then 1 cute owl species in the boreal forests because owls are a diem a dozen and even spotted owls are nothign special while destroying 1 acre of jungle rain forest can destray dozen of species and elminate huge swaths of bio diversity.
So clear cut the old growth forest if you want but don't touch the friigin rain forest.
Given A (we have a mixed batch of flies representing a natural mix)
We apply pressure B (selection)
C results(flies are less mixed).
We observe that some speciation arises from the above mechanism. We deduce that all specie may have arived otu of this very general mechanism.
Thats the resoning, with the lack of any better solution, that is the solution we conclude. Evidence? Phylogenic tree's have support our theory, and so do fossils, biological observation also support the theory. No matter how much you deny fossil evidence, phylogentic trees support evolution like the Atomic clock tests supported Special Relativity. If they did not, if Dogs have a better genetic match with snails then with sheep then mayeb your right. But Phylogenetic trees are exstremely consistant with evolution to the point where different branches of the tree's have more diversity then all of the rest of the trees and thus we can conclude these are the oldest of creatures, ie. Archea bacteria. Their simple life forms that life in extreme conditions, the fact that they represent mroe genetic diversity then the whole of the rest of the tree supports the fact that we all came from that egentic pool at one time. As well humans have a similier pattern. African people have more genetic variation then peoples farther away from africa. The continent of africa has mroe geentic variation then the entirty of the rest of the human race. Thus we can assume we all came out of africa.
PS.
flies did not turn to fish, a vertibrate worm become fish, insects came from another creature. A certain strain of fish became amphibians and dog arose out of the amphibians and sheep are a close relative of dogs. All of this is supported by phylogenic trees. Dogs DNA is much closer in matching sectiosn then Fish DNA which relates more to dogs then insects. If you want proof, look up phylogentic trees on the internet or on www.nature.com
wikipedia states:
The term brunette is commonly used to refer to a human (usually a female) who has black or brown (especially dark brown) hair, often with dark eyes and a relatively dark or olive complexion.
However you rarely refer to a asian person as being a brunette. Asians simply have black hair, or a more flattering term "raven" colored hair.
And brown = brunette so she may well be brunette because the image shows her havign brown hair.
Of course by the same token, doctors cannot 100% predict you have X disease. but by using some intuition and analysing the symptoms, they narrow it down to a short list then match the one that seems closests. their not 100% in this but we trust medicine. Weather prediction is nto 100% either btu it's fairly reliable.
Still ,thats weather prediction. and it's accurate. thus his little argument is rebuted.
Thats a pretty flaky argument since the weather service can predict, with soem margin of error, when it will rain. a 80% chance of precipition ussually leads to rain. I don't know wher eyou live but my forecasts are pretty accurate.
The way I see it the wrong people are reproducing. Education and economic wealth ditate how well you can raise a child, inversly it also dictates a lower count of children. I would think we should sterilize anybody with Fetal alchohol syndrom (which many teen mothers and most criminals have) and force academics and the athletic elite to reproduce at least 6 children per couple. IT's the gene pool and as bad as eugenics sounds it's somethign that should be looked at. I'll be modded down for sure, but from a genetics stand point we have to get some sort of selective pressure on the gene pool because right now it favors traits that won't get us anywhere, namly the ones that are breeding are the uneducated, the ones who can't forsee consequences.
IT's speculated that the Alberta (canada) oil sands contain mor eoil then the whole of the middle east. We'r ein no danger of running out soon. The exploitation of the Albertan oil sands is pretty low, the cause being the higher expense of extracting oil from the oil sands. However this is a constand cost, whiel the oil in the middle east slowly gets mroe expensive due to exploitation and politics. Alberta has all the oil you'll need for next century, with no political strings.
Thats a rather naive stance. Read up on some keynesian economics. Economic pressure should not be relied upon to solve anything. Like Nixxon said we're all keynesian now. Because keynes was right, A uncontrolled free market is a disaster and will lead to hardship for the masses. We have to take initiatives and make it worth their effort to make green solutions. Ford won't stop making SUV's whiel their popular and the OIL lobby has a vested interest in having Ford make those SUV's, thus they keep the price of gas from rising too high. Toyota and Honda have developed green machine without much exsternal pressure because they see a market and because they care about such things.
If we left it up to economic prssure to get anythign done, it may be too late. I don't beleive we're in any imminent danger of destroyign the earth but I also don't beleive Industry will make the right choices by themselves.
Also, if you want a more stable world, the reduced importance of oil will passify the middle east simply because they will become less important, and have less external agencies acting on their governments.
You must not forget, you also have to download data from all those DVD's onto computers. Add 2 min or read time for each DVD to yoru calculations.
I'll look that book up int he library. Science is political, and is as much about old men and pride as it is about finding out about the universe. However Evolution was an un-popular theory in scientific circles. It's become the principal theory because it's well supported and it's the best answer we have using the simpliest assumptions (occams razor and what not). Also if your going to use the whole fossil thing, then I'll used the cliche "mans eye is poorly designed" argument. Mans eye has a blind spot, squid eyes don't. A very basic and severe design flaw led to this. Human eyes have their blood supply in front of the membrane(retina) while squid has it behind. If we were designed and not created by chance then what is the reason for this? how about all the DNA we have turned off that resemble enzymes from other species. OR the vast amount of genetic data we share with monkeys. Why are there plants with both 3 chromosome dna and 2 chromosome dna that look the same. Why does genetics mechanism explain speciation so well.
Devious and pathetic men in palientology do nto invalidate evolution. Genetics support evolution, anthropology support evolution, so does zoology, biology, statistics, and basic logical reasoning. It may be wrong but we do not have an equivilantly strong theory to replace it and creationism isn't a option. It's not even something that contradicts religion. i'm a christian (dutch baptist) and I see evolution as being fine within the context fo my religion. Science was principally a christian persuit (science as we know it), doen by christian men to know more about gods universe. We cannot deny evidence because it contradicts our dogma. IT's about as useless as the pope denying a vaccum (which incidently, doesn't trully exsist).
Carmac is a believer in OSS. although it's good business to ensure your engine has good penetration, by the time ID releases the code, the next generation looks nothing like the code GPL'ed. The benifit is much smaller then you imply.
Quake 2 c code looks nothing like Quake which both look incredibly different from Doom.
25 cents for 10 min too much for you? you musn't travel much. In some places on the beach in California it's 1 dollar US per 10 min.
There's always the issue of prestige and technological supremacy. When you can do somethign no one else can technologically, it's more likly other governments/researchers will defer to you on the subject. Your influence increases and your ability to make certain claims increases. It's like civilization, achievement = prestige = influence.
1. Shut up
2. Make me a sandwich
3. ??
4. Profit
most large cities will have cabel internet available if cable is available. DSL where the phone line is available. Generally speaking Canada is a lot more wired up then everywhere exept some places in europe and japan. Most newer areas can be connected for sure. Older neigborhoods may not be so easy.
Cost of dial up service: 19.99 CND (varies but thats the average for unlimited us)
DSL: 36.99 CND.
Cable: 40.00 CND.
Everybody I know is on broadband. There isn't anyone I know who surfs the net regularly that isn't. Over here it's cheap, ussually reliable and unlimited use. Even dl/ul ratios ar elargly ignored. I did 25 gb last month and it cost me the same as when I do 5 gb. (I'm told if I ever do 50+ gb they might send me a letter to complain).
Fed up with your connection: move to canada.
In my experience in 98 and above, it just give you an error. And if you have the right sound card, it plays both, you just need more sound channels.
Comparing Linux now to Windows 95 is like comparing Windows XP to Mac OS 7.
You should be one to speak of logical fallacies.
For instance you pick one interpretation of evolution to debunk. Thats called a strawman arguement. Instead of tackling the theory you attack a wide spread misconception of the theory.
hehe. You don't understand the time frame. Have you taken much university level biology? In my example you changed the frequency of the gene pool but not the contents. The genes for black eyes, normal wings, normal legs are still there but are less likly to be seen in each generation.
It has not speciated because the population you made can still mate with it's own kind, and you seem to have trouble with the time frame. In 3 weeks you can change the average phenotype of a species from one one type to another, imagine what 2.6 billion years can do.
don't iterate once, iterate for a billion years. you can get a lot of change. Look what serveral hundred generations of selection have done to dogs. They now come in such varied sizes and avarieties, while the wolves they evolved form are basically the same now as 500,000 years ago. Without pressure, there is no selection. Without a reason for a population to change, there is no change. And mutations ar eoften deadly but given the time frame it's un-important. Take computing science. Take a 1 in a million event, say getting the right key from a space of a million keys. (Ie. i'm thinking of a integer number from 1 to 1 million) have a computer guess a random integer from 1 to 1 million and have it do it once every second. although it' improbably that you will guess it the first time, eventually you will guess it. Given 1 million trials you will have a pretty high probability to get the right combination. Evolution is the same. Given enough time, it will create monkeys. And gene manipulation is unlikly. there is so much junk code in the genetic make up of all species that it's unlikly it was intentional.
Prove your de-evolution. Give evidence.
Actually, you've heard "Democrat good, Republican bad", because it's largly true. With bush being the biggest story, there's little else to the issue.
lol. OK. here how evolution works. IT's a simple system.
Heriditary traits are passed on by genes. You will look somethign like yoru parents because your genes are a subset of theirs. Now, in a population there are a certain frequency of different traits. The frequency of traits are fixed unless there is some pressure to change it. New traits come in through random mutations in reproductive cells. Point mutations, substitutions, miswrites ect..
When a selective pressure is applied to a population the frequency of those genes shift, favoring some combinations over others.
Steady change over tiem is a fallacy. An idea that was popular but is nto true. Whith out a selective pressure, a population won't change. A selective pressure is something that modifies the success rate of a individual to reproduce. Some mutations will confer a benifit and this may alter the frequency that this genes occurs in the population in the long run, most do not.
A population will change little under normal circumstances, but when a selective pressure occurs, the population will have a shift in the frequency of certain genes. those that can accomadate the new pressure better become more numerous then those who cannot.
Thats all evolution is, mutation and selection over and over again. Evolution is not the steady, gradual change of species, because they don't change gradually.
The T-rex only exsisted for a short period of time
in the Cretaceous, about a 20 million year span from 85 mil bc to 65 mil bc. Also, the fossils we have are only their bones and imprints of their skin. Things that don't generally change much. A grizzly beara nd a polar bear share very similiar skeletons and skin btu vastly diferent features and habitat. T-rex circa 85 million BC coudl have been green and T-rex circa 65 million bc could have been florecent pink.
Evolutionists don't exsist. There isn't a sect dedicated strictly to promote evolution. anti-evolution fundementalists exsist though.
If you want to see evidence of evolution workign in a human time fram, take a large bottle of fruit flies with food and observe their average appearance. Full wings, black eyes, normal legs. Now find a tooth pick and and a rubber seal, stick the tooth pick in and start killing any with black eyes, normal wings and normal legs. Do it three times a day for a month on several generations. You will eventaully have very few normal flies being born. Keep this up and make sur eyou have good coverage of the whole bottle and eventually you'll have only 1/4 of the bottle with black eyes, normal wings, nromal legs. The rest will have red or amber eyes and/or weird shaped wings/legs. This is of course if you have a wild sample to start with/