No BS, no master, no PhD. Highschool and college classes and a whole lot of research on the side.
If that's the case, why are you regurgitating arguments against evolution against professional biologists?
My belief has really nothing to do with the science behind it.
So... Why do you have that belief? If you believe in something against all evidence, you're acting in an illogical manner.
If you counter with the argument that beliefs aren't always logical, then why are are you even in this discussion? Science is based on logic and empirical evidence. Illogical beliefs under the guise of science are called fringe science.
By 'kinds' I mean the level on the species chart which has yet to be newly created in an experiment (probably Genus, but maybe Family).
Do you understand that such a heirarchy (KPCOFGS in this case) is an arbitrary system? The levels depend on who's sorting the organisms, not on any definable differences. Hell, even the definition of a species is still undergoing debate (your Bio 100 definition of a species is not what many biologists use).
Meaning - if there has not been an experiment to observe a lifeform creating a new Genus (or Family) during experimentation, then it falls into the category of having less experimentational support than what can be observed in strict scientific experimentation.
See above, and sort out that species/genus/family mess. If I create a new polyploidy plant, is it a new species? You'd probably say yes. So what happens when if I select and breed those polyploids until they become new species (where species = definition of your chosing)? You'd probably say that I created a genus, since there's more than one species originating from one parent.
Don't tell me that we can't do stuff like this. We've been doing it for thousands of years, in the form of domesticated plants and animals. Or do you not believe in the existence of genetic clocks and genetic sequencing?
While I'm intrigued by the 50% drop, I can't help but wonder whether the number will remain stable over time. Right now the tournament is a welcome change, but what happens when people start tiring of it? It will probably be necessary to add new games and activities in order to keep the interest of the kids over a longer period of time.
You're probably a troll, but I'm going to pretend that you've made a serious post.
The difference between Zelda and DNF is that Nintendo has a history of pushing back releases, yet they always put out a solid product in the end. Zelda is a far cry from vaporware.
Also it is important to note that in Protein-Protein interactions.
Note what in protein-protein interactions? I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you're being redundant in regards to the preceding or following sentences.
There is no reason to believe that the theory won't be falsified.
Remove the double negatives and you get "There is reason to believe this will be falsified."
Further elaborated: Our current understanding of physics says that the idea is impossible, but there could be an experiment (suggested in the paper) that would allow us to test it. A positive result says that our current understanding of physics has bigger holes than we though, a negative result says that the idea is probably bunk.
I'm not complaining about the questions themselves. I'm complaining that the researchers have done the absolute worst thing possible: they faked data on an underfunded and undersupported subject. If they sought to entice greater funding from the government, they've failed. Even if they didn't fake the data, the result is the same: negative media attention and a lingering sense of doubt.
And if those ethical questions come up, why is that a problem? Or do you think ethical concerns should be swept under the rug?
I don't think ethical questions should be ignored, but this will create doubt in a system that, by and large, works fairly well. In addition, the entire body of work done on stem cell research will be targeted. Certainly it should be checked, but that should be a natural result of the scientific process, not just because a few people decided to cheat.
Should the scientists involved be punished? Without a doubt. Will unconnected researchers in the field receive a stigma due to their career? It's not fair, but it's likely to happen.
The problem, IMO, is that too many people take as truth that which hasn't been confirmed.
I'm not going to say you're wrong about that. That applies to just about everything.
This is how self-regulation in science works, regardless of the subject of research. The controversy in the lay community is irrlevant.
Bullshit. The public influences the politicians, who in turn create the laws allowing or restricting research and set the budget for the groups that fund research. In addition, voters can choose whether to endorse or reject government-funded research. See Proposition 71 in California. Public consent is essential for something like stem cell research.
While it is lamentable that a (likely) fake paper will be a setback for stem cell research, I can't help but see it as a blow for all of the sciences. There have been other instances where top science publications released falsified or outright bogus papers, but I believe that this one stands out by virtue of its controversial subject. Even if the paper was not faked, criticism will come from all sides, with questions ranging from the ethical standards/morality of scientists to the usefulness of the peer review process. Negative attention is the last thing needed by publically controversial research.
You're lucky to have bought the Micro; I've used it, and it doesn't suffer these same problems. But who was treated worse? The guy who bought the "hip" product (nothing against you) or the guy who bought the "serious" product (I obviously was planning on using this more because I got the 40GB version) and payed the serious price? I got the "serious" product, and have put this thing through some serious use...but have been treated worse than the "hip" crowd.
I suspect that you got shafted because the Micro came afterwards, when they realized that lots of people didn't like the scroll speed. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that they must have had poor testing in order to let the through in the first place, and that they've been lazy to not release firmware that fixes it, given that a) customers want that fix and b) the distance:song ratio can be changed on other devices.
BTW, I bought the smaller one because, quite simply, I don't have more than 7 or 8 gigs of music on my computer, and I regularly listen to less than half of it.;)
If cancer typically hit the majority of humans in their teens and twenties over the millenia, perhaps natural selection would have then "weeded" out the bad genes that lead to cancer and current humans would be cancer free for the most part.
Sorry to nitpick, but you can't "weed out" "genes that lead to cancer." Cancer is a result of errors creeping into genes.
However, if cancer was a major problem during the first 50 years of life, there would have been very strong selective pressure towards lower copying errors (and greater repair rates), as well as an immune system better equipped to fight tumors. Use this and you're a bit better off.;)
Perhaps natural selection would have then "weeded out" the genes resposible for poor immune reactions to cancerous tumors and would increase the accuracy in copying and checking the genes responsible for cell regulation.
Anecdotes are not statically valid. I own their Micro and am perfectly happy with it (even after having dropped it multiple times). Your data could be valuable, as you've bought multiple products from them, but without giving information on what they specifically are (and how you might have abused them), your data isn't usuable.
Now, if you were to find some data on the % of units that have experienced problems (other brands too), that would be a different story. Consumer Reports does that for appliances as well as computers, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some real data come out in a few years.
I haven't played with a Zen Touch, but here's how you do it on the Micro:
System -> Player Settings -> TouchPad -> Sensitivity (High, Medium, Low)
According to the Zen Touch firmware page release 1.01.03 "improves the display order of the Touch Pad sensitivity settings," so there must be sensitivity setting buried somewhere.
If you've already tried that and the lowest setting is still too sensitive, maybe you should gather some like-minded people from the web (they're easy enough to find) and send some e-mails to Creative. It might not get them to pay attention, but it's worth a shot if you plan to use the Touch for a while longer.
what competitive / evolutionnary advantages does this spreading of cancer bring?
An organism's evolutionary success is determined by the reproductive success of its offspring. However, there is a difference between short-term and long-term success.
Metastatis is an evolutionary advantage in that the "parent" cancer cells have a high number of (surviving and reproducing)offspring. However, it is a short-term advantage, given the intrinsic nature of cancer; it cannot overcome the facts that cancer can become fatal to the host organism and that it cannot easily jump from one host to another.
In comparison, the common cold is an organism that has many long-term evolutionary advantages: it is not fatal to the host organism, it can jump easily between the host organisms, and it mutates too fast to be wiped out by medicine.
While metastasis is an evolutionary advantage, a mutation that allowed cancer to spread to a new host would be an even better one.
When does one species no longer count as its former kind, but a new kind?
Welcome to one of the debates of modern biology. Here are some definitions that have been used, courtesy of Wikipedia (my notes in italics):
Typological species: A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties. Fossils are usually grouped in this way.
Morphological species: A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other populations. The layperson says, "It's a duck, not a gull."
Biological / Isolation species: A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is the definition that most students learn in bio 101, but its failings have prompted the following definitions.
Mate-recognition species
A group of organisms that are known to recognise one another as potential mates. Under this, wolves and dogs would be one species. Chihuahuas might be removed from this.;)
Phylogenetic / Evolutionary / Darwinian species:
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. Under this, dogs would be recently removed from the wolf grouping, and it could be said that purebred dogs are actually species. Out of all the definitions here, this is the most useful for separating bacteria.
Microspecies:
Species that reproduce without meiosis or mitosis so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation. Usually applied to plants.
While I don't think it may be correct for all companies, it certainly is applicable to those that have a high number of procedural delays (the sciences, for example). While I'm usually killing between 15 minutes and 2 hours, I once spent a full week in front of the computer, waiting for someone in another department to hand me a working program.
I asked my father about this, as he's worked in spectroscopy for roughly 25 years. He's thus far unaware of anything that could penetrate that deep.
Unless you know something the military isn't telling their outsourcing...
You mean the problem would be solved if parents were more proactive and responsible in raising their children? You speak of pipedreams!
Once again, I'm shown that I'm not pessimistic enough for the real world. I suppose having two parents who take an interest in raising their children is getting a bit rare nowadays.
And the older generations wonder why "young folks are so cynical."
The thing is, the people complaining here are not normal parents. They are professional whiners and prudes. They basically don't want anyone having fun. I think kids would be more traumatized by the "clean" indoctrinal media that members of the National Institute on Media and Family would be showing their kids.
That's true, but you still haven't addressed why these parents are unable to comprehend that the first step should educating parents as to the ratings system and what current video games can be like. Perhaps it's because they believe all parents are as dysfunctional/incompetent as themselves?
I don't understand why it's so hard for parents to check out the games that their kids want. It's a simple matter of hitting Google to pull up a rating, and any decent review will mention the level of blood/sex/whatever. If you're worried that your kids are going to the store without you and hiding the games, find what's stored around the console/computer. No, this won't solve the problem 100%, but it should help.
I don't see a downside to carding people who buy games similarly to the way that teenagers are carded when going to or renting a movie. Can anyone give a sensible reason?
(In defense of my statement, carding happens at all stores and theaters where I live, but I obviously can't speak for every theater/rental chain in the country.)
I hate the fact that hospitals can make hundreds of thousands of dollars over a transplant's life (anti-rejection drugs, therapies, surgery, actual sale of the organ) and the person it was taken from is left with jack for their family.
Given how much money hospitals are losing right now on end-of-life care, I can't say that I'm surprised.
The mutations themselves may be small, but the implications can be enormous. See regulatory genes. Also, see various species of plants (hybrids and polyploids).
Yes, but almost all such changes are harmful. Evolution is a process of fine-tuning. A sudden change is extremely unlikely to result in a more optimal organism.
And if it doesn't work, the organism dies and it stops right there. I believe the current thought on numbers are 97% harmful, 2% neutral, 1% beneficial. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it never happens (see: winning the lottery).
That is simply because new species probably arise in small isolated populations under stress (which is where there is selection pressure). This makes discovery of intermediate fossils very unlikely.
That too, but let's not give them too much info to work with. After all, we have to continue hiding the truth so that our amoral experiments can continue.
Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry? Where are the missing links? In this particular case, evolution, in my opinion, flies in the face of science by ignoring some of the obvious missing pieces of evidence.
Did you know that we can make a chicken with teeth by simply switching on a gene that already exists in their genome?
Here is the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Simply stated, the "missing links" that so many creationists demand (and then dismiss, asking for the one before that) are missing because they don't exist. Not all evolutionary changes are small ones. When there is a large change (such as switching a gene on or off, leading to a presence or lack of teeth), it can often be accomplished in a single generation. As a result, there are few intermediate species showing the progress of quantitative changes (macroevolution). Examples of qualitative changes (microevolution) are quite abundant, but I'm guessing that you'll say that doesn't count.
Evolution has been seen. Take a fertile plant seed, double the number of chromosomes, and voila! Instant new species, and one which is possibly hardier than the original. It can breed with itself, but not with its parent(s).
You're working from the biological species concept, which states that the definition of a species is a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. I suggest you examine the phylogenetic species concept, which states that a species is a group of organisms that descended from a shared ancestor species. The PSC recognizes that the ability to produce fertile offspring is not always directly correlated to the genetic distance between organisms.
All biologists recognize the concept of species. They just don't always agree on how to define it
There are a number of indications that many important DNA mutations are not the result of simple base substitutions or insertions/deletions. For instance, the whole duplication of chromosomes, which are then allowed to accumulate mutations without causing damage to the organism. Mitochondria are also an excellent example.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, why are you regurgitating arguments against evolution against professional biologists?
So... Why do you have that belief? If you believe in something against all evidence, you're acting in an illogical manner.
If you counter with the argument that beliefs aren't always logical, then why are are you even in this discussion? Science is based on logic and empirical evidence. Illogical beliefs under the guise of science are called fringe science.
Do you understand that such a heirarchy (KPCOFGS in this case) is an arbitrary system? The levels depend on who's sorting the organisms, not on any definable differences. Hell, even the definition of a species is still undergoing debate (your Bio 100 definition of a species is not what many biologists use).
See above, and sort out that species/genus/family mess. If I create a new polyploidy plant, is it a new species? You'd probably say yes. So what happens when if I select and breed those polyploids until they become new species (where species = definition of your chosing)? You'd probably say that I created a genus, since there's more than one species originating from one parent.
Don't tell me that we can't do stuff like this. We've been doing it for thousands of years, in the form of domesticated plants and animals. Or do you not believe in the existence of genetic clocks and genetic sequencing?
While I'm intrigued by the 50% drop, I can't help but wonder whether the number will remain stable over time. Right now the tournament is a welcome change, but what happens when people start tiring of it? It will probably be necessary to add new games and activities in order to keep the interest of the kids over a longer period of time.
You're probably a troll, but I'm going to pretend that you've made a serious post. The difference between Zelda and DNF is that Nintendo has a history of pushing back releases, yet they always put out a solid product in the end. Zelda is a far cry from vaporware.
You appear to be missing something.
Note what in protein-protein interactions? I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you're being redundant in regards to the preceding or following sentences.
Remove the double negatives and you get "There is reason to believe this will be falsified."
Further elaborated: Our current understanding of physics says that the idea is impossible, but there could be an experiment (suggested in the paper) that would allow us to test it. A positive result says that our current understanding of physics has bigger holes than we though, a negative result says that the idea is probably bunk.
Oh, if only I had some mod points. +1 Funny, +1 Insightful for you.
I'm not complaining about the questions themselves. I'm complaining that the researchers have done the absolute worst thing possible: they faked data on an underfunded and undersupported subject. If they sought to entice greater funding from the government, they've failed. Even if they didn't fake the data, the result is the same: negative media attention and a lingering sense of doubt.
I don't think ethical questions should be ignored, but this will create doubt in a system that, by and large, works fairly well. In addition, the entire body of work done on stem cell research will be targeted. Certainly it should be checked, but that should be a natural result of the scientific process, not just because a few people decided to cheat.Should the scientists involved be punished? Without a doubt. Will unconnected researchers in the field receive a stigma due to their career? It's not fair, but it's likely to happen.
I'm not going to say you're wrong about that. That applies to just about everything.
Bullshit. The public influences the politicians, who in turn create the laws allowing or restricting research and set the budget for the groups that fund research. In addition, voters can choose whether to endorse or reject government-funded research. See Proposition 71 in California. Public consent is essential for something like stem cell research.
While it is lamentable that a (likely) fake paper will be a setback for stem cell research, I can't help but see it as a blow for all of the sciences. There have been other instances where top science publications released falsified or outright bogus papers, but I believe that this one stands out by virtue of its controversial subject. Even if the paper was not faked, criticism will come from all sides, with questions ranging from the ethical standards/morality of scientists to the usefulness of the peer review process. Negative attention is the last thing needed by publically controversial research.
I suspect that you got shafted because the Micro came afterwards, when they realized that lots of people didn't like the scroll speed. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that they must have had poor testing in order to let the through in the first place, and that they've been lazy to not release firmware that fixes it, given that a) customers want that fix and b) the distance:song ratio can be changed on other devices.
BTW, I bought the smaller one because, quite simply, I don't have more than 7 or 8 gigs of music on my computer, and I regularly listen to less than half of it. ;)
Perhaps natural selection would have then "weeded out" the genes resposible for poor immune reactions to cancerous tumors and would increase the accuracy in copying and checking the genes responsible for cell regulation.
Anecdotes are not statically valid. I own their Micro and am perfectly happy with it (even after having dropped it multiple times). Your data could be valuable, as you've bought multiple products from them, but without giving information on what they specifically are (and how you might have abused them), your data isn't usuable.
Now, if you were to find some data on the % of units that have experienced problems (other brands too), that would be a different story. Consumer Reports does that for appliances as well as computers, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some real data come out in a few years.
I haven't played with a Zen Touch, but here's how you do it on the Micro:
System -> Player Settings -> TouchPad -> Sensitivity (High, Medium, Low)
According to the Zen Touch firmware page release 1.01.03 "improves the display order of the Touch Pad sensitivity settings," so there must be sensitivity setting buried somewhere.
If you've already tried that and the lowest setting is still too sensitive, maybe you should gather some like-minded people from the web (they're easy enough to find) and send some e-mails to Creative. It might not get them to pay attention, but it's worth a shot if you plan to use the Touch for a while longer.
An organism's evolutionary success is determined by the reproductive success of its offspring. However, there is a difference between short-term and long-term success.
Metastatis is an evolutionary advantage in that the "parent" cancer cells have a high number of (surviving and reproducing)offspring. However, it is a short-term advantage, given the intrinsic nature of cancer; it cannot overcome the facts that cancer can become fatal to the host organism and that it cannot easily jump from one host to another.
In comparison, the common cold is an organism that has many long-term evolutionary advantages: it is not fatal to the host organism, it can jump easily between the host organisms, and it mutates too fast to be wiped out by medicine.
While metastasis is an evolutionary advantage, a mutation that allowed cancer to spread to a new host would be an even better one.
Welcome to one of the debates of modern biology. Here are some definitions that have been used, courtesy of Wikipedia (my notes in italics):
Typological species: A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties. Fossils are usually grouped in this way.
Morphological species: A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other populations. The layperson says, "It's a duck, not a gull."
Biological / Isolation species: A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is the definition that most students learn in bio 101, but its failings have prompted the following definitions.
Mate-recognition species A group of organisms that are known to recognise one another as potential mates. Under this, wolves and dogs would be one species. Chihuahuas might be removed from this. ;)
Phylogenetic / Evolutionary / Darwinian species: A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. Under this, dogs would be recently removed from the wolf grouping, and it could be said that purebred dogs are actually species. Out of all the definitions here, this is the most useful for separating bacteria.
Microspecies: Species that reproduce without meiosis or mitosis so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation. Usually applied to plants.
While I don't think it may be correct for all companies, it certainly is applicable to those that have a high number of procedural delays (the sciences, for example). While I'm usually killing between 15 minutes and 2 hours, I once spent a full week in front of the computer, waiting for someone in another department to hand me a working program.
I asked my father about this, as he's worked in spectroscopy for roughly 25 years. He's thus far unaware of anything that could penetrate that deep. Unless you know something the military isn't telling their outsourcing...
You mean the problem would be solved if parents were more proactive and responsible in raising their children? You speak of pipedreams! Once again, I'm shown that I'm not pessimistic enough for the real world. I suppose having two parents who take an interest in raising their children is getting a bit rare nowadays. And the older generations wonder why "young folks are so cynical."
That's true, but you still haven't addressed why these parents are unable to comprehend that the first step should educating parents as to the ratings system and what current video games can be like. Perhaps it's because they believe all parents are as dysfunctional/incompetent as themselves?
I don't understand why it's so hard for parents to check out the games that their kids want. It's a simple matter of hitting Google to pull up a rating, and any decent review will mention the level of blood/sex/whatever. If you're worried that your kids are going to the store without you and hiding the games, find what's stored around the console/computer. No, this won't solve the problem 100%, but it should help.
I don't see a downside to carding people who buy games similarly to the way that teenagers are carded when going to or renting a movie. Can anyone give a sensible reason?
(In defense of my statement, carding happens at all stores and theaters where I live, but I obviously can't speak for every theater/rental chain in the country.)
Given how much money hospitals are losing right now on end-of-life care, I can't say that I'm surprised.
The mutations themselves may be small, but the implications can be enormous. See regulatory genes. Also, see various species of plants (hybrids and polyploids).
And if it doesn't work, the organism dies and it stops right there. I believe the current thought on numbers are 97% harmful, 2% neutral, 1% beneficial. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it never happens (see: winning the lottery).
That too, but let's not give them too much info to work with. After all, we have to continue hiding the truth so that our amoral experiments can continue.Did you know that we can make a chicken with teeth by simply switching on a gene that already exists in their genome?
Here is the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Simply stated, the "missing links" that so many creationists demand (and then dismiss, asking for the one before that) are missing because they don't exist. Not all evolutionary changes are small ones. When there is a large change (such as switching a gene on or off, leading to a presence or lack of teeth), it can often be accomplished in a single generation. As a result, there are few intermediate species showing the progress of quantitative changes (macroevolution). Examples of qualitative changes (microevolution) are quite abundant, but I'm guessing that you'll say that doesn't count.
Is that good enough?
All biologists recognize the concept of species. They just don't always agree on how to define it
There are a number of indications that many important DNA mutations are not the result of simple base substitutions or insertions/deletions. For instance, the whole duplication of chromosomes, which are then allowed to accumulate mutations without causing damage to the organism. Mitochondria are also an excellent example.