Sure. I just used the word 'organism' in a broader sense, not as a substitute to 'individual', and avoided the word 'species' on purpose because the concept of species is very vague. This is known in biology and paleontology as the Species Problem. Sorry if I confused somebody with my choice of words.
What Darwin talked about in his day applies only in part to modern evolutionary biology - The Origin of Species is no holy scripture of evolutionary science, albeit a very important book. It is also interesting to note that the word 'evolution' didn't appear in the whole Origin of Species until later revisions. Thus, we can hardly appeal to Darwin when trying to define what evolution means. Science has progressed since then. Also, the book isn't as much about the origin of species but speciation in general after the appearance of life on Earth.
"Does this mean that whatever happens to organisms/populations is an evolutionary process?"
As far as there is a notable change compared to the ancestral organisms, by definition, yes.
"What is then "the concept of evolving" according to these "real, hardcore, scientific guys" whose knowledge you know so well?"
Evolution is the observable phenonmenon of changes in the allele frequencies of a given population.
"Your message reminds me of the Popper's objection to evolution: it is impossible to disprove it since whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionary standpoint. He concluded then that evolution is not a scientific theory according to his definition." Popper's criticism wasn't towards evolution per se, but towards darwinism (that is, natural selection as the main mechanism behind evolution). However, I didn't say anything like "whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionray standpoint". I said change in organisms/populations, whether good or bad for the evolutionary fitness of said organisms/populations, is evolution by definition.
"But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse."
"Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true."
Real, hardcore, scientific guys know that the word 'evolve' does not imply objective betterment of the organism/population in question. The idea of evolution as a process of constant improvement is a common misconception among laymen. Organisms just evolve, ie. they become different from their ancestors. Whether this change makes them more or less fit (depends on the conditions) doesn't change the concept of evolving.
A feeling of security is created by
-locking turrrrrsts (or people who just might be ones) into secret prisons and off-shore camps for an indefinite time
-wiretapping you
-taking away your basic civil rights
-manipulating the media
-bombing country X
-creating a color indicator for turrrrrr threat levels (to make you feel extra secure, they can flash orange every now and then)
-ridiculous airport safety checks ("those paper scissors are a big no-no, but the knife we give you onboard is completely safe!")
-reminding you how unsafe you'd be without all of this.
Even reptiles can and do get overheated. And when they do, it's harder for them than to us endothermic mammals to cool down again because they're ectothermic. But then again, (at least some) dinosaurs probably were sort of endothermic.
Anyhow, a very strong and sudden heat wave would be bad to all kinds of biota.
Hey! Where can you see tigers? Lions? ONLY in Kenya! Norway (and the rest of the world at that) is locked-out of the enjoyment of lions and tigers because of Kenya and their proprietary big cat DRM! (Or should that be BRM as in Biological Rights Management?) Norway should definitely outlaw Kenya.
Re:Why the propensity to acronyms genetic?
on
Apple Responds to MOAB
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
(Offtopic, but who (besides some disgruntled mod) cares...)
Acronyms and product names like XY6342w are not a 'human' thing. It's an engineer/geek thing. In fact I was thinking about this today: part of the success of the iPod, for example, could be thanks to its simple, memorable name. It really stands out in the myriad of alphabetic-numerically named 'generic' MP3 players. I'm sure the iPod would still be quite succesful if it was called Apple MP3Player E3807-92i, but that kind of names just aren't nice or 'sexy'. Real word names just hit home harder. (OK, somebody could argue that 'iPod' is not a real word, but I don't care.;P)
From TFA: "This contrasts with earlier reconstructions showing the dinosaur maintaining its wings in a tandem pattern, a bit like a dragonfly."
The idea, that the hind legs of Microraptor gui would have been spread is old, and makes less sense than this new hypothesis. To have two wings in row would be useless because of the turbulence created by the front wings. And anatomy is a very legitimate branch of science: from a skeleton, even from a fossil one when it's as well preserved as this one, you can see quite well what kind of movements the animal has been capable of. You can accurately reconstruct the musculature as well (the points of muscle attachment can be seen on bones). These critters just couldn't spread their hind legs very much. We, as primates, are blessed quite extraordinarily with our ability to rotate our arms and legs in practically any direction, and this is not at all common among animals.
Personally I'd just like to write off the hind leg feathers as devices for display, but they're asymmetrical which means they at least could have been used for flight/gliding.
They probably wouldn't release them into the wild (where they would very quickly shed their artificially selected traits like size etc. assuming they'd survive), but grow them like beef cattle instead. Beef. Hmmm, is there a special word for wabbit meat?
Apple is not a backer of DRM. Apple has DRM in iTunes because there would be no iTunes without it. It is there to keep Big Music happy and content. As soon as it becomes possible (and it will, the way DRM seems to be wilting away), Apple will drop DRM from the music it sells. But never, ever could they have made the music industry to give their goods for sale on iTunes if there had been no DRM. That's just an ugly fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt the water from the melted ice would cover Olympus Mons.
/. is late. Commissioner Kuneva has already softened her statement (linky here.
In Soviet Russia, the robot dynamically balances YOU! (Ironically, the word 'robot' comes the Slavic word 'robota/rabota', meaning 'work'.)
Oh, and I'm still waiting for the dynamically balancing Natalie Portman lookalike robot to emerge (petrified and complete with hot grits).
Sure. I just used the word 'organism' in a broader sense, not as a substitute to 'individual', and avoided the word 'species' on purpose because the concept of species is very vague. This is known in biology and paleontology as the Species Problem. Sorry if I confused somebody with my choice of words.
What Darwin talked about in his day applies only in part to modern evolutionary biology - The Origin of Species is no holy scripture of evolutionary science, albeit a very important book. It is also interesting to note that the word 'evolution' didn't appear in the whole Origin of Species until later revisions. Thus, we can hardly appeal to Darwin when trying to define what evolution means. Science has progressed since then. Also, the book isn't as much about the origin of species but speciation in general after the appearance of life on Earth.
"Does this mean that whatever happens to organisms/populations is an evolutionary process?"
As far as there is a notable change compared to the ancestral organisms, by definition, yes.
"What is then "the concept of evolving" according to these "real, hardcore, scientific guys" whose knowledge you know so well?"
Evolution is the observable phenonmenon of changes in the allele frequencies of a given population.
"Your message reminds me of the Popper's objection to evolution: it is impossible to disprove it since whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionary standpoint. He concluded then that evolution is not a scientific theory according to his definition."
Popper's criticism wasn't towards evolution per se, but towards darwinism (that is, natural selection as the main mechanism behind evolution). However, I didn't say anything like "whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionray standpoint". I said change in organisms/populations, whether good or bad for the evolutionary fitness of said organisms/populations, is evolution by definition.
And the English came up with evolution (or the mechanism driving it). The irony...
"But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse."
"Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true."
Real, hardcore, scientific guys know that the word 'evolve' does not imply objective betterment of the organism/population in question. The idea of evolution as a process of constant improvement is a common misconception among laymen. Organisms just evolve, ie. they become different from their ancestors. Whether this change makes them more or less fit (depends on the conditions) doesn't change the concept of evolving.
It's The Land of the Free(TM), as long as you don't mess with God(TM). Sad. I thought we had already passed the Dark Ages.
Take your modified stick posing as a weapon off me you damn dirty ape!
...and that's how the Leopard got its Spotlight.
It's GECK.
A feeling of security is created by
-locking turrrrrsts (or people who just might be ones) into secret prisons and off-shore camps for an indefinite time
-wiretapping you
-taking away your basic civil rights
-manipulating the media
-bombing country X
-creating a color indicator for turrrrrr threat levels (to make you feel extra secure, they can flash orange every now and then)
-ridiculous airport safety checks ("those paper scissors are a big no-no, but the knife we give you onboard is completely safe!")
-reminding you how unsafe you'd be without all of this.
Burn karma, burn...
The paleontologists delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Flores... The FSM.
"I thought Windows Vista was the most stable and secure version of Windows ever!"
The problem is, it might actually be. Because the next problem is, that just isn't very stable or secure in comparison to other OS's.
I know. You may not be aware of this?
Even reptiles can and do get overheated. And when they do, it's harder for them than to us endothermic mammals to cool down again because they're ectothermic. But then again, (at least some) dinosaurs probably were sort of endothermic.
Anyhow, a very strong and sudden heat wave would be bad to all kinds of biota.
Hey! Where can you see tigers? Lions? ONLY in Kenya! Norway (and the rest of the world at that) is locked-out of the enjoyment of lions and tigers because of Kenya and their proprietary big cat DRM! (Or should that be BRM as in Biological Rights Management?) Norway should definitely outlaw Kenya.
(Offtopic, but who (besides some disgruntled mod) cares...)
;P)
Acronyms and product names like XY6342w are not a 'human' thing. It's an engineer/geek thing. In fact I was thinking about this today: part of the success of the iPod, for example, could be thanks to its simple, memorable name. It really stands out in the myriad of alphabetic-numerically named 'generic' MP3 players. I'm sure the iPod would still be quite succesful if it was called Apple MP3Player E3807-92i, but that kind of names just aren't nice or 'sexy'. Real word names just hit home harder. (OK, somebody could argue that 'iPod' is not a real word, but I don't care.
From TFA:
"This contrasts with earlier reconstructions showing the dinosaur maintaining its wings in a tandem pattern, a bit like a dragonfly."
The idea, that the hind legs of Microraptor gui would have been spread is old, and makes less sense than this new hypothesis. To have two wings in row would be useless because of the turbulence created by the front wings. And anatomy is a very legitimate branch of science: from a skeleton, even from a fossil one when it's as well preserved as this one, you can see quite well what kind of movements the animal has been capable of. You can accurately reconstruct the musculature as well (the points of muscle attachment can be seen on bones). These critters just couldn't spread their hind legs very much. We, as primates, are blessed quite extraordinarily with our ability to rotate our arms and legs in practically any direction, and this is not at all common among animals.
Personally I'd just like to write off the hind leg feathers as devices for display, but they're asymmetrical which means they at least could have been used for flight/gliding.
But yeah, the picture is bad.
Any parents who respect their children let them enjoy their pr0n in privacy!
They probably wouldn't release them into the wild (where they would very quickly shed their artificially selected traits like size etc. assuming they'd survive), but grow them like beef cattle instead. Beef. Hmmm, is there a special word for wabbit meat?
Apple is not a backer of DRM. Apple has DRM in iTunes because there would be no iTunes without it. It is there to keep Big Music happy and content. As soon as it becomes possible (and it will, the way DRM seems to be wilting away), Apple will drop DRM from the music it sells. But never, ever could they have made the music industry to give their goods for sale on iTunes if there had been no DRM. That's just an ugly fact.
Jobs: "iForOne welcome our new suing overlords."
Except that I didn't say that. I said females are more often scared of computers than males, on the average.