How does the moon have military value? I'm no expert, but doesn't it take like six days to go up there? Not to mention the costs. From a military perspective, wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?
"Discover what pseudonyms your candidate uses online. Look at the archives at SlashDot and other online locales. Does your candidate hide behind secret pseudonyms to trash other individuals? Is there passion without condemnation?"
Hmm, I dunno. Sounds like someone might get disqualified just the project-manager doesn't like their opinions./. writes about more than just OSS you know.
Re:Opportunity costs too high
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
But couldn't we just use something that's already up there? I mean, there's gotta be lots of crap floating around in orbit around mars, so why not equip a small lightweight probe-thingy with some sort of "push"-device. That way, we wouldn't have to drag the 500 pound would-be meteorite all the way from home.
All right! Creationists accept half the theory of evolution! We'll have you guys believing we're all monkeys' uncles yet.
Let's take a look at some terms. Creationists consider microevolution to be small changes within a species. A prime example is the often-cited case of the moths in England changing colors to blend in better with pollution-covered trees. The moth species stayed the same, but there were changes within that species. As you rightly note, Fred, this was an instance of survival of the fittest--the moths that blended in better with the trees were more likely to elude predators and thus pass along their coloring to their offspring.
Macroevolution is said to be the change from one species to another. This naturally leads to discussions beyond species and into genus, family, etc., and ultimately leads to the question of whether we humans share a common ancestor with apes. So you got that right too.
The problem is in your attempt to separate the two. Macroevolution, far from being "an entirely different story" from microevolution, is actually the same story, just on a larger scale. Creationists have not come up with a reasonable explanation why evolution should stop at the boundary of a species, rather than include the process that changes one species to another over time. Fact is, there is no such reason. No hard and fast distinction can be drawn between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's all one process.
A new book by Niles Eldredge (who co-authored the famous paper explaining the theory of punctuated equilibrium with now more well-known colleague Stephen Jay Gould) discusses this very topic, among many others. It's called The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, and I encourage everybody to go out and buy a copy. Maybe two. Guys like this need all the support they can get.
One of Eldredge's statements in the book summarizes the main point here: "There is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution)" [p. 119].
Here are some of the other things he had to say on the microevolution/macroevolution topic:
Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3].
Patterns of evolutionary change within species seem no different in principle just milder in degree from the sorts of changes we see between closely related species. All evolutionary changes are produced by natural selection working each generation on the variation presented to it [p. 76].
The evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described--primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection--going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary chan
As an example of this, since 2000 I believe, South Dakota has had at least a T1 running into each and every public elementary, middle and high school in the state.
Sounds like a good idea. You never can have too much sex education in our schools.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one getting the feeling that this is all just going to escalate untill some sort of social revolution will be necessary?
We already have that. It's called SPEWS.
How does the moon have military value? I'm no expert, but doesn't it take like six days to go up there? Not to mention the costs. From a military perspective, wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?
Then why is RIAA/MPAA still making money?
I'm offended :( He left out Pegasus mail.
"Discover what pseudonyms your candidate uses online. Look at the archives at SlashDot and other online locales. Does your candidate hide behind secret pseudonyms to trash other individuals? Is there passion without condemnation?" Hmm, I dunno. Sounds like someone might get disqualified just the project-manager doesn't like their opinions. /. writes about more than just OSS you know.
Stupid submit button :''(
The guy's point was important, not his grammar.
Go figure. An arogant grammar-nazi with a
But couldn't we just use something that's already up there? I mean, there's gotta be lots of crap floating around in orbit around mars, so why not equip a small lightweight probe-thingy with some sort of "push"-device. That way, we wouldn't have to drag the 500 pound would-be meteorite all the way from home.
I can't smell, you insensitive clod!
I wonder how long it will be before the PIAA (Perfume Industry Association of America) sues...
"Newsflash! In order to prevent copyright issues, Mandrake has now changed name to M--- (pronounced "MASH")"
The straight Dope says
All right! Creationists accept half the theory of evolution! We'll have you guys believing we're all monkeys' uncles yet.
Let's take a look at some terms. Creationists consider microevolution to be small changes within a species. A prime example is the often-cited case of the moths in England changing colors to blend in better with pollution-covered trees. The moth species stayed the same, but there were changes within that species. As you rightly note, Fred, this was an instance of survival of the fittest--the moths that blended in better with the trees were more likely to elude predators and thus pass along their coloring to their offspring.
Macroevolution is said to be the change from one species to another. This naturally leads to discussions beyond species and into genus, family, etc., and ultimately leads to the question of whether we humans share a common ancestor with apes. So you got that right too.
The problem is in your attempt to separate the two. Macroevolution, far from being "an entirely different story" from microevolution, is actually the same story, just on a larger scale. Creationists have not come up with a reasonable explanation why evolution should stop at the boundary of a species, rather than include the process that changes one species to another over time. Fact is, there is no such reason. No hard and fast distinction can be drawn between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's all one process.
A new book by Niles Eldredge (who co-authored the famous paper explaining the theory of punctuated equilibrium with now more well-known colleague Stephen Jay Gould) discusses this very topic, among many others. It's called The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, and I encourage everybody to go out and buy a copy. Maybe two. Guys like this need all the support they can get.
One of Eldredge's statements in the book summarizes the main point here: "There is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution)" [p. 119].
Here are some of the other things he had to say on the microevolution/macroevolution topic:
Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3].
Patterns of evolutionary change within species seem no different in principle just milder in degree from the sorts of changes we see between closely related species. All evolutionary changes are produced by natural selection working each generation on the variation presented to it [p. 76].
The evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described--primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection--going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary chan
I totally agree. These day, whenever I use google, I always include "-search" in my search. Cleans it right up :)
As an example of this, since 2000 I believe, South Dakota has had at least a T1 running into each and every public elementary, middle and high school in the state.
Sounds like a good idea. You never can have too much sex education in our schools.
No, you're thinking of Stephen King.
The official site is in Japanese. Not the technology.