consider this, we prescribe more stringent guidlines for the use of antibiotics. Thus, less peeps get them. Then a fraction of the peeps that don't get them, die, from complications that could have been prevented by the use of antibiotics....since these people came in and were personally denied anubiotics, it really is as if you held a gun to their head and pulled the trigger
it is true that organisms do not evovle in order to better survive in an evironment. It is also true that mutations are random and are happening all the time. Again, true that it just so happens that certain mutations improve an organisms chances of reproduction.
Now, then, lets look at them all together. A particular environment exudes pressures on an organism that selects traits that improve the organisms fittness in that environment. Thus the frequencies of hte genes that allow for this greater fitness will increase in the population.
Now, lets consider an environmnet that includes the overuse of anti-biotics. The selective pressures of this environment causes bacteria with ressistances to these ani-biotics to be more fit. Therefor, the frequecies of bacterial with these genes will increase in the population. and the end result is "as if" the organism evolved in order to better survive in this environment.
Now we must consider what would happen if anti-biotics were not used as much. What would bappen is that the evolutionary pressure resulting from the presence of hte anti-biotics would lessen. THis would lead to a smaller fraction of hte population having resustance genes as well as a slower rate of change in teh frequecies of these resistance genes.
it was a clear reference to the "beggers in spain" series by nancy kress
btw, the series was so-so, the first book was OK, but the other two kinda sucked. basically the author had a great idea with poor implimentation
anywayz, at least check out the first book:)
all great questions, here is another one...
9. What do you tell the kid when he gets older. "Honey, we have something to tell you, we had you so that you could save your older brother/sister." Yeah, a teenage kid is gonna react REAL well to this.
Great issues raised bay MBcook. I guess what we have to ask ourselves is how much of another persons life do we really have a right to control?
Anyways, just my thoughts...
First of all, your argument that "life should occure anywhere given enough time" is flawed. That is the same thing as claiming that in an infinite amount of time anyting can happen. But this is just not true. Consider fractals, they are picures of chaos, however, if you were to go infinitely deep within the picture you would not be garenteed to find a picture of the Mona Lisa.
Also, in your definition of life, why draw the line at self propogating CHEMICAL reactions? What about physical ones? Then a neclear bomb is alive, as well as a nuclear plant reactor. The process of crystal formation would be alive. I am sure that are many others.
I think that trying to state that any self-propigating reacion is life is a much too broad definition. Such a definition loses any usefulness. But, that is just one man's opinion:)
It bothers me too, that people just assume that life NEEDS water.
But consider the boat scientists are in. They only have a limited amount of time and money with with to conduct there searches. Thus, they need to look in areas that they think are more likely to support life than others. For this reason, we look at planets for life, because all the life that we know of is based around a planet. However, I don't hear anyone screaming about the assumption that life needs to live on a planet. Similairly, the vast majority of life that we know of requires large amounts of water to live. Thus, while life MAY exist without water and such, we KNOW that it can/does exist where there is water and that the life we know of needs water to survive. Thus, it is just good policy to look for areas that have wa ter and the otherrequirements for life as we know it.
So, it does bother me to say that life NEEDS any one thing. But in a search for life it makes sense to load the dice, so to speak.
900 degrees is a good amount of energy - true. However, the problem with it is it is heat energy. Heat energy is a waste poduct. I cannot think of a way that we know of (caveat on that phrase) to harness energy from heat, when everything is the same temperature. This would certainly be the case on venus.
Thank you! I am also convinced that most people only know of Occam's Razor becuase of Contact. But the thing that really gets me is that most people who invoke it, use it completely inccorectly! It is ublelivable. I mean people just do not expend the effort to understand something before they try to use it. I guess that most people are just overly eager to show off their ignorance. Anywayz, Occam's razor is just a pet peeve with me, so I figured i would rant some.
What if the sender was smart and used photons that do not interact with the atmosphere (or whatever is between the sender and the reciever) such as radio waves (for the atmosphere). Then a significant loss of signal would not be chalked up to interfernece.
It is not related to the Heisenberg uncertanaty priciple. That priciple states that there are certain sets of observables (such as momentum and velocity) that cannnot both be known simultaneously to an arbitrary degree of precision.
The security of quantum communication relies on the smallness of the particles being used. When such small particles are used there is no way to observe them without altering them in some way. At small enough sizes, even detection by light will effect the object in a noticable way. Thus, any snooping whatsoever (that we know of currently) will change the particles invovled, and by way of them, the content of the message.
At least that is how I understand it...
I kinda feel like a Jackass for this relpy, but the laws of physics never change. Rather, our understanding of them changes via a series of scientific revolutions. Anyways, it may seem a bit nit-picky, but I believe that the difference is truly important and fundamental to how the entire institue of science is viewed and aprroached.
Slashdot Mirror
consider this, we prescribe more stringent guidlines for the use of antibiotics. Thus, less peeps get them. Then a fraction of the peeps that don't get them, die, from complications that could have been prevented by the use of antibiotics....since these people came in and were personally denied anubiotics, it really is as if you held a gun to their head and pulled the trigger
it is true that organisms do not evovle in order to better survive in an evironment. It is also true that mutations are random and are happening all the time. Again, true that it just so happens that certain mutations improve an organisms chances of reproduction. Now, then, lets look at them all together. A particular environment exudes pressures on an organism that selects traits that improve the organisms fittness in that environment. Thus the frequencies of hte genes that allow for this greater fitness will increase in the population. Now, lets consider an environmnet that includes the overuse of anti-biotics. The selective pressures of this environment causes bacteria with ressistances to these ani-biotics to be more fit. Therefor, the frequecies of bacterial with these genes will increase in the population. and the end result is "as if" the organism evolved in order to better survive in this environment. Now we must consider what would happen if anti-biotics were not used as much. What would bappen is that the evolutionary pressure resulting from the presence of hte anti-biotics would lessen. THis would lead to a smaller fraction of hte population having resustance genes as well as a slower rate of change in teh frequecies of these resistance genes.
it was a clear reference to the "beggers in spain" series by nancy kress btw, the series was so-so, the first book was OK, but the other two kinda sucked. basically the author had a great idea with poor implimentation anywayz, at least check out the first book :)
all great questions, here is another one... 9. What do you tell the kid when he gets older. "Honey, we have something to tell you, we had you so that you could save your older brother/sister." Yeah, a teenage kid is gonna react REAL well to this. Great issues raised bay MBcook. I guess what we have to ask ourselves is how much of another persons life do we really have a right to control? Anyways, just my thoughts...
First of all, your argument that "life should occure anywhere given enough time" is flawed. That is the same thing as claiming that in an infinite amount of time anyting can happen. But this is just not true. Consider fractals, they are picures of chaos, however, if you were to go infinitely deep within the picture you would not be garenteed to find a picture of the Mona Lisa.
:)
Also, in your definition of life, why draw the line at self propogating CHEMICAL reactions? What about physical ones? Then a neclear bomb is alive, as well as a nuclear plant reactor. The process of crystal formation would be alive. I am sure that are many others.
I think that trying to state that any self-propigating reacion is life is a much too broad definition. Such a definition loses any usefulness. But, that is just one man's opinion
It bothers me too, that people just assume that life NEEDS water. But consider the boat scientists are in. They only have a limited amount of time and money with with to conduct there searches. Thus, they need to look in areas that they think are more likely to support life than others. For this reason, we look at planets for life, because all the life that we know of is based around a planet. However, I don't hear anyone screaming about the assumption that life needs to live on a planet. Similairly, the vast majority of life that we know of requires large amounts of water to live. Thus, while life MAY exist without water and such, we KNOW that it can/does exist where there is water and that the life we know of needs water to survive. Thus, it is just good policy to look for areas that have wa ter and the otherrequirements for life as we know it. So, it does bother me to say that life NEEDS any one thing. But in a search for life it makes sense to load the dice, so to speak.
900 degrees is a good amount of energy - true. However, the problem with it is it is heat energy. Heat energy is a waste poduct. I cannot think of a way that we know of (caveat on that phrase) to harness energy from heat, when everything is the same temperature. This would certainly be the case on venus.
Thank you! I am also convinced that most people only know of Occam's Razor becuase of Contact. But the thing that really gets me is that most people who invoke it, use it completely inccorectly! It is ublelivable. I mean people just do not expend the effort to understand something before they try to use it. I guess that most people are just overly eager to show off their ignorance. Anywayz, Occam's razor is just a pet peeve with me, so I figured i would rant some.
What if the sender was smart and used photons that do not interact with the atmosphere (or whatever is between the sender and the reciever) such as radio waves (for the atmosphere). Then a significant loss of signal would not be chalked up to interfernece.
It is not related to the Heisenberg uncertanaty priciple. That priciple states that there are certain sets of observables (such as momentum and velocity) that cannnot both be known simultaneously to an arbitrary degree of precision. The security of quantum communication relies on the smallness of the particles being used. When such small particles are used there is no way to observe them without altering them in some way. At small enough sizes, even detection by light will effect the object in a noticable way. Thus, any snooping whatsoever (that we know of currently) will change the particles invovled, and by way of them, the content of the message. At least that is how I understand it...
I kinda feel like a Jackass for this relpy, but the laws of physics never change. Rather, our understanding of them changes via a series of scientific revolutions. Anyways, it may seem a bit nit-picky, but I believe that the difference is truly important and fundamental to how the entire institue of science is viewed and aprroached.