How about this: "Hey Mr. FEMA director, why don't you get some planes with food and water ready. And we'll probably need some troops to maintain order." Sounds REASONABLE to me since that's EXACTLY what previous presidents have done in the exact same situation.
You mean like EXACTLY what Bush, in fact, actually did.
The President is the head of the federal government. The government's primary purpose is to maintain law and order. They FAILED. Bush failed.
And the mayor of New Orleans, and the governor of Louisiana were briliant successes in that area?
Mutation only ALLOWS evolution, it does not cause it or "drive" it.
I have to disagree with that.
What is evolution? A scientific answer to the question, "How did we get these different species?"
What causes one species to be different from another (and therefore evolution)? Mutation. Nothing else.
I agree with you that natural selection is an important (perhaps vital) part of evolution, and is very real and certainly occurs. I took the earlier statement to mean that mutation was more important, not that natural selection was bogus (For what it's worth, there are even creationists that believe in natural selection.) However, selection does not automatically result in speciation. Different breeds of dog, people looking different in different parts of the world due to solar intensity and such (I hesitate to mention that because people are touchy on the subject of race), the gene for anemia being related to the environmental factor of malaria, moths in the UK "changing" color due to soot deposits on trees, are all examples of this (though you may argue that some of those are "artificial" selection, there's no reason to believe in any real difference in the forces and results of "natural" selection - it's still environmental pressure whether caused by human action or not). That is, of course, not that same as saying that speciation can occur without selection. I am comparing it to your statement that mutation does not automatically result in speciation, which means that selection is no more or less important than mutation in that sense, anyway.
I also think that even with "only random genetic noise." that would still cover the spectrum of geneteic diversity such that an organism of one "end" could not be the same species as the other "end". But as you said, if you completely ignore selection, I suppose there is no incentive to pass on traits through genetic code (or keep them similar, to one species). I was thinking more along the lines of traits that weren't "instant death" though I suppose that is selection of a sort. As you mentioned people being born without livers and heads and such, I can state that there are examples of such organisms in real life: plants (though they didn't "descend" from humans, of course).
If you're claiming that the differences really don't become large enough to consider organisms to be separate species without selection and thus selection is as important as mutation, I could see your point (and thus a counter to my "nothing else" statement). I don't happen to agree with it, but it doesn't really matter much to me. I'd rather find out the truth than win an argument.
I maintain that mutation is more important than selection; it's my conviction. Can I prove it? That probably depends more on one's point of view, rather than the facts (meaning it would be an opinion, and thus not provable). Is it important (practically speaking)? Perhaps only if we want to stop new species from being created or create new ones ourselves.
Here's an interesting side thought: how would we go about creating a new species? Through genetic manipulation (which is actually being done, but I don't know if we're creating new species with it). We would choose to change the genes into something else. We would selectively mutate, effectively using both "causes" in one action. Of course, that would be different that "natural" selection due to direct manipulation to achieve a desired result (as opposed to an external environmental factor).
In the vein of your analogy, I'd liken the keys to all the possible genetic variations, and the mutations to the actual pressing of the keys, and the selections to be a refinement of what keys are pressed (but not the initial choice of which keys are pressed), as in a chord (a whole musical piece would not apply as it is arranged over time). Let's assume that the note sounds as long as you keep the key pressed down. Pressing a new key would be a creation of a species (mutation) and letti
but evolution of species would not happen because there would be no species - only individuals, each divergent from every other individual.
Well, actually what I was hypothesising (and the point I was trying to emphasize) was that mutation which is different enough to cause an incompatibility between the new organism and the old could occur without selection (unless you consider that incompatibility to be a form of selection), thus creating a new species. This is something we do actually observe, as we have multiple species living in the same environment, even co-dependent ones.
Selection cannot do that. It doesn't explain why there are variations. It only determines (or helps determine) viability of the result of mutation. It only explains which variations we see. What it does not account for, is why we do not see variations that never have occurred, only mutation (or the lack of it in this case) can explain that. Selection cannot create new variations, nor can it prevent a variation from occurring. It can only prevent (or encourage) propagation of those variations.
I think the confusion is that when I hear a phrase such as, "x is the driving force behind y," I tend to think of it in terms of "x is the reason behind, or cause of y," rather than "x controls y."
So put in that latter sense (as you clarified), you are correct. Mutation makes it go, selection tells it where to go.
My point was that you cannot have speciation without mutation. You can have speciation (albeit of a very different, less pronounced kind) without selection, but selection does not cause different species.
I'll give you an example. Suppose there are 2 types of flowers, and 1 type of insect, one that subsides only on one particular type of flower and not the other (let's ignore for the moment how the other flower would pollenate itself, etc.). Then, within this species of insect, there suddenly occurred a new variety which subsided soley one the other flower. The fact that there is another type of flower does not cause the mutation to occur. If the mutation occured and that type of flower did not exist, those insects would simply die off. Speciation would have occurred, but it would have been a failed species.
So selection would allow those variations to persist, while mutation allows for them to exist.
Now if you're saying that speciation requires a difference that can be selected for, and thus selection is required, you have a point; but it still requires mutation.
After all, where do you think all those intra-species variations came from except mutation, interbreeding and natural selection?
I think the point was that natural selection does not produce the variations. It is the determining factor of which variations are successful. Thus you need both variations (which are passable to offspring), and selection (of those offspring) to describe the manifestation of organisms present today.
We must remember that evolution is defined to answer the question, "How did we get all these different species of plants and animals?"
And when you get right down to it, selection isn't needed to differentiate species (unless you consider incompatibility between species to be "selection" rather than the determining factor). It is needed to weed out species.
So as mutation sews the seeds of variation, selection weeds out unsuccessful varieties, and promotes "desirable" characteristics.
Without natural selection random mutational variation would eventually populate the universe with a near-infinite number of completely different individuals.
While we don't exactly have a "near-infinite" number of completely different species, we do have a great diversity. If selection was more important than mutation, then we would have only one (or much fewer) species.
Mutation is why we have so much variation, selection is why we don't have a continuum.
natural selection is still the prime mover (in fact the only mover) in evolution.
You could have evolution without selection, but not without mutation. A variation that does not exist cannot be selected.
Certainly, both are important to evolution, but it would be more correct to say that variation drives evolution, while selection shapes it.
It's simply the mind's tendency to find a pattern that makes you think iTunes has a preference.
True, but it also illustrates the problem with the type of randomness one wants when listening to music. Normally, one does not want to hear several songs by one artist in a row (or grouped near each other) out of an eclectic (or even just a few similar artists) collection. That defeats the whole purpose of a random playlist. If I wanted a bunch of random songs by the same artist in a row, I'd select just that artist. One likes a more even (yet still varied) distributuion. While they aren't really patterns, groups of songs *do* tend to clump together in a random distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple are pretty good about that sort of thing...
But what if you just bought one at the store?
but since I was ignored, I will deem it fine for me to rip.
You were probably ignored so as to add "content" to the site (i.e. you ripping about it, and the ensuing discussion).
I would love if al tv were available pay per view.
Yeah, I would love it if Al TV was available.
Why does Pizza come from Parlours?
:)
It sure doesn't come from California, so Google must have a flaw if it found any in San Francisco.
I'm here. What to you want? :)
Who are they?
"What butt does toothpaste come from?"
I bet things revolved around her, too!
What about the Mac Mini?
Yeah, that's the implication.
Somehow, that makes it even funnier. :D
Well, at least they're being honest.
I think ";)" was my first clue, and "jokes aside" was my second.
Probably because it's the shape that human hands are designed to hold.
It's the shape that's designed to be held by human hands.
I had the same thought. I'd rather have an asteroid jumping over Earth than heading straight for it.
So basically, the short version of this comment is: "Fuck Sky, Go Beeb".
You couldn't have put that at the beginning to save us some reading time?
Nope. They failed, too. Everyone in government has failed
Agreed (all the way up the chain).
I don't care what their party affiliation is.
You could have fooled me with your, "Amoral Republicans must die," line. You conveniently didn't mention Clinton's failure with regard to 9/11.
The governor is a Republican, he failed.
Actually, the Governor of Louisiana is a Democrat, and female.
I beleive the Mayor of New Orleans is male.
Not that those things (sex, party affiliation) matter in the slightest with regard to the failures.
How about this: "Hey Mr. FEMA director, why don't you get some planes with food and water ready. And we'll probably need some troops to maintain order." Sounds REASONABLE to me since that's EXACTLY what previous presidents have done in the exact same situation.
You mean like EXACTLY what Bush, in fact, actually did.
The President is the head of the federal government. The government's primary purpose is to maintain law and order. They FAILED. Bush failed.
And the mayor of New Orleans, and the governor of Louisiana were briliant successes in that area?
Wow, you said it much better than I.
o _polls.html
Even Live Science can't get it right:
"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution -- that natural selection caused gradual biological changes over time"
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050901_ev
Mutation only ALLOWS evolution, it does not cause it or "drive" it.
I have to disagree with that.
What is evolution? A scientific answer to the question, "How did we get these different species?"
What causes one species to be different from another (and therefore evolution)? Mutation. Nothing else.
I agree with you that natural selection is an important (perhaps vital) part of evolution, and is very real and certainly occurs. I took the earlier statement to mean that mutation was more important, not that natural selection was bogus (For what it's worth, there are even creationists that believe in natural selection.) However, selection does not automatically result in speciation. Different breeds of dog, people looking different in different parts of the world due to solar intensity and such (I hesitate to mention that because people are touchy on the subject of race), the gene for anemia being related to the environmental factor of malaria, moths in the UK "changing" color due to soot deposits on trees, are all examples of this (though you may argue that some of those are "artificial" selection, there's no reason to believe in any real difference in the forces and results of "natural" selection - it's still environmental pressure whether caused by human action or not). That is, of course, not that same as saying that speciation can occur without selection. I am comparing it to your statement that mutation does not automatically result in speciation, which means that selection is no more or less important than mutation in that sense, anyway.
I also think that even with "only random genetic noise." that would still cover the spectrum of geneteic diversity such that an organism of one "end" could not be the same species as the other "end". But as you said, if you completely ignore selection, I suppose there is no incentive to pass on traits through genetic code (or keep them similar, to one species). I was thinking more along the lines of traits that weren't "instant death" though I suppose that is selection of a sort. As you mentioned people being born without livers and heads and such, I can state that there are examples of such organisms in real life: plants (though they didn't "descend" from humans, of course).
If you're claiming that the differences really don't become large enough to consider organisms to be separate species without selection and thus selection is as important as mutation, I could see your point (and thus a counter to my "nothing else" statement). I don't happen to agree with it, but it doesn't really matter much to me. I'd rather find out the truth than win an argument.
I maintain that mutation is more important than selection; it's my conviction. Can I prove it? That probably depends more on one's point of view, rather than the facts (meaning it would be an opinion, and thus not provable). Is it important (practically speaking)? Perhaps only if we want to stop new species from being created or create new ones ourselves.
Here's an interesting side thought: how would we go about creating a new species? Through genetic manipulation (which is actually being done, but I don't know if we're creating new species with it). We would choose to change the genes into something else. We would selectively mutate, effectively using both "causes" in one action. Of course, that would be different that "natural" selection due to direct manipulation to achieve a desired result (as opposed to an external environmental factor).
In the vein of your analogy, I'd liken the keys to all the possible genetic variations, and the mutations to the actual pressing of the keys, and the selections to be a refinement of what keys are pressed (but not the initial choice of which keys are pressed), as in a chord (a whole musical piece would not apply as it is arranged over time). Let's assume that the note sounds as long as you keep the key pressed down. Pressing a new key would be a creation of a species (mutation) and letti
... the terrorists have already won.
but evolution of species would not happen because there would be no species - only individuals, each divergent from every other individual.
Well, actually what I was hypothesising (and the point I was trying to emphasize) was that mutation which is different enough to cause an incompatibility between the new organism and the old could occur without selection (unless you consider that incompatibility to be a form of selection), thus creating a new species. This is something we do actually observe, as we have multiple species living in the same environment, even co-dependent ones.
Selection cannot do that. It doesn't explain why there are variations. It only determines (or helps determine) viability of the result of mutation. It only explains which variations we see. What it does not account for, is why we do not see variations that never have occurred, only mutation (or the lack of it in this case) can explain that. Selection cannot create new variations, nor can it prevent a variation from occurring. It can only prevent (or encourage) propagation of those variations.
I think the confusion is that when I hear a phrase such as, "x is the driving force behind y," I tend to think of it in terms of "x is the reason behind, or cause of y," rather than "x controls y."
So put in that latter sense (as you clarified), you are correct. Mutation makes it go, selection tells it where to go.
My point was that you cannot have speciation without mutation. You can have speciation (albeit of a very different, less pronounced kind) without selection, but selection does not cause different species.
I'll give you an example. Suppose there are 2 types of flowers, and 1 type of insect, one that subsides only on one particular type of flower and not the other (let's ignore for the moment how the other flower would pollenate itself, etc.). Then, within this species of insect, there suddenly occurred a new variety which subsided soley one the other flower. The fact that there is another type of flower does not cause the mutation to occur. If the mutation occured and that type of flower did not exist, those insects would simply die off. Speciation would have occurred, but it would have been a failed species.
So selection would allow those variations to persist, while mutation allows for them to exist.
Now if you're saying that speciation requires a difference that can be selected for, and thus selection is required, you have a point; but it still requires mutation.
After all, where do you think all those intra-species variations came from except mutation, interbreeding and natural selection?
I think the point was that natural selection does not produce the variations. It is the determining factor of which variations are successful. Thus you need both variations (which are passable to offspring), and selection (of those offspring) to describe the manifestation of organisms present today.
We must remember that evolution is defined to answer the question, "How did we get all these different species of plants and animals?"
And when you get right down to it, selection isn't needed to differentiate species (unless you consider incompatibility between species to be "selection" rather than the determining factor). It is needed to weed out species.
So as mutation sews the seeds of variation, selection weeds out unsuccessful varieties, and promotes "desirable" characteristics.
Without natural selection random mutational variation would eventually populate the universe with a near-infinite number of completely different individuals.
While we don't exactly have a "near-infinite" number of completely different species, we do have a great diversity. If selection was more important than mutation, then we would have only one (or much fewer) species.
Mutation is why we have so much variation, selection is why we don't have a continuum.
natural selection is still the prime mover (in fact the only mover) in evolution.
You could have evolution without selection, but not without mutation. A variation that does not exist cannot be selected.
Certainly, both are important to evolution, but it would be more correct to say that variation drives evolution, while selection shapes it.
It's simply the mind's tendency to find a pattern that makes you think iTunes has a preference.
True, but it also illustrates the problem with the type of randomness one wants when listening to music. Normally, one does not want to hear several songs by one artist in a row (or grouped near each other) out of an eclectic (or even just a few similar artists) collection. That defeats the whole purpose of a random playlist. If I wanted a bunch of random songs by the same artist in a row, I'd select just that artist. One likes a more even (yet still varied) distributuion. While they aren't really patterns, groups of songs *do* tend to clump together in a random distribution.
Agreed. I recently purchased the complete Lost in Space (three seasons) for $120. That's about the same number of episodes as the original Star Trek.