Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are no decent treatments for Alzheimer's available yet. Try smoking (but make sure you don't have a genetic disposition to get cancer).
It's nothing like as simple as that. For one species to diverge into two it requires a significant period of geographical isolation of two groups of individuals so that, when they two groups next meet, they have genetically diverged and interbreeding is impossible.
I concur with that first statement. But I think there remains a great deal of conusion about how "populations" are defined. Set theory can shed some light on this. Are "populations", as referred to in this context, understood to be non-overlapping sets? Are "populations" sets that are defined by enumeration (that is to say composed of individual a, individual b, individual c, etc.) or by description (i.e., set of all individuals located within space (x,y,z), at time t, and displaying physical characteristics 1, 2, and 3, and among whom there is at least one member that is an offspring of two other members of the same population)?
As for "interbreeding", well, there's another slippery criterion for species differentiation (it is even more slippery because biologists usually mean "potential to produce offspring" and not the actual production of such offspring). What do we mean when we say that two populations interbreed? First we have to answer the set theory question.
My "Adamic individual" suggestion was, of course, semi-facetious. But my main point is that every discussion of evolution I have ever witnessed has glossed over these important details, ending up with a lot of jumping to logically unfounded conclusions.
If people have a problem grasping 'evolution' as a concept, ask them to think about language evolution. Languages more obviously evolve, 'speciations', 'hybridisations' etc of English can easily be identified. The analogy with Darwinism isn't exact, but it is surprisingly close. Evolution IS a hard concept to grasp, mainly because its very definition contains equally difficult or even arguably nonsensical "concepts".
Let's start with a commonly accepted definition of "evolution" (from Wikipedia!): In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation.
Sounds simple enough, but this definition speaks about "traits of populations" and not "traits of individuals"--- big difference. The traits of a population are things like "number of individuals comprising the population", "geographical distribution", etc,. Another thing: populations don't "inherit traits", individuals do, from their progenitors.
What about "speciation"? There isn't even a consensus on the definition of a "species". But even if we arrived at a clear concept of species, speciation would mean the emergence of a new species, i.e., the CREATION of a new species. That's right, creation. I'd like to propose a scientific term for the first individual of a new species that comes into being: "Adamic individual".
Allow SMS/text messaging only. No voice. Then we can have peace and quiet, and bozo business types who're afraid to be out of touch for an hour or so can still communicate with their underlings. Allow everything. If there are enough people with the same preference as you, there WILL be flights advertising "SMS/text messaging only. No voice." (it's a feature not a bug, you see).
That risk has been deemed acceptably small by society. The risk from blasting along public roads as fast as you can has been specifically deemed unacceptably high by society. Point taken in good faith (giving you the benefit of the doubt in regard to the susceptibility to weaselly interpretations of words such as "unacceptably" and "society").
However, "Risk your neck? What the heck. Risk mine beyond a level specifically deemed unnacceptably high by society? Get lost!" doesn't sound quite as snappy.
Then the have the audacity to call this stuff intellectual property! What other species of property can you lease so many times simultaneously, without ever having to surrender your own use of it? Wicked!
However, it's total crap to predict something so complex and varied as a war. Think of the confounding factors! How can there be unbiased inclusion of geographical, political and an infinity of unknowable factors such as which side has the upper hand on intelligence?
How can we assume that future wars will be in any way conventional, or otherwise?
Believing in this stuff makes palm reading look like science.
They pulled that last one off with climate change.
Just got some mod points, but couldn't find "+1 Everything"
On second thought, -1 Redundant could have been appropriate because "USE EVERYTHING IN MODERATION" is a tautological imperative in the same way that "TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS BAD" is a tautological statement.
I think it's like writing a term paper while smoking pot. You just think you're writing great paper. Problem is, a failing grade on the expressway is fatal. Funny you should mention paper, smoking and expressway in this context. I have actually rear-ended a car (at very low speed) while rolling a cigarette with two hands and steering with my knee. Switched to regular cigs after that (at least while driving).
I'm always amazed by how easily people believe things they want to believe. I'm always amazed by supposed scientists being so confident in predicting future states of chaotic systems so far in advance. I'm even more amazed by claims that certain changes to the present state will lead to a specific changes in future outcome. I believe this is called Hubris.
Now then, "Oy vey" is Yiddish for "Oh woe is me". This is a bit premature. Let's save it for when Nemesis gets his revenge.
You know, that looks like the emoticon for an egghead with a beard, frowning. Very appropriate. Or tilting your head the other way, a monkey wearing a dunce cap... equally appropriate.
Except the ones who are communist, marxist, nationalist or just plain crazy e.g. Shining Path, FARC, ETA, LTTE, RUF, etc.
You forgot the biggest TLA-ed terrorist organization of all: USA.
"Terrorism" is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Shock and awe, check. Regime change, check. No Congressional declaration of war, check. "Making the world safe for democracy", check. Yup, I think the USA qualifies.
Slashdot Mirror
1811 called, they want their non sequitur back.
I concur with that first statement. But I think there remains a great deal of conusion about how "populations" are defined. Set theory can shed some light on this. Are "populations", as referred to in this context, understood to be non-overlapping sets? Are "populations" sets that are defined by enumeration (that is to say composed of individual a, individual b, individual c, etc.) or by description (i.e., set of all individuals located within space (x,y,z), at time t, and displaying physical characteristics 1, 2, and 3, and among whom there is at least one member that is an offspring of two other members of the same population)?
As for "interbreeding", well, there's another slippery criterion for species differentiation (it is even more slippery because biologists usually mean "potential to produce offspring" and not the actual production of such offspring). What do we mean when we say that two populations interbreed? First we have to answer the set theory question.
My "Adamic individual" suggestion was, of course, semi-facetious. But my main point is that every discussion of evolution I have ever witnessed has glossed over these important details, ending up with a lot of jumping to logically unfounded conclusions.
Let's start with a commonly accepted definition of "evolution" (from Wikipedia!): In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation.
Sounds simple enough, but this definition speaks about "traits of populations" and not "traits of individuals"--- big difference. The traits of a population are things like "number of individuals comprising the population", "geographical distribution", etc,. Another thing: populations don't "inherit traits", individuals do, from their progenitors.
What about "speciation"? There isn't even a consensus on the definition of a "species". But even if we arrived at a clear concept of species, speciation would mean the emergence of a new species, i.e., the CREATION of a new species. That's right, creation. I'd like to propose a scientific term for the first individual of a new species that comes into being: "Adamic individual".
However, "Risk your neck? What the heck. Risk mine beyond a level specifically deemed unnacceptably high by society? Get lost!" doesn't sound quite as snappy.
But regardless of driver training, nothing can prepare you for some idiot coming up behind you at twice your speed.
I'm sure you've survived many instances of an idiot coming up behind you at an INFINITE multiple (divide-by-zero error) of your speed.Risk your neck? What the heck. Risk mine? Get lost!
Besides, if you just want to cross the country quickly with a stock gasoline engine, there are seriously faster, safer, and more fun ways to do it!!!
The risk to my neck by you flying an airplane is still greater than 0. So, should I tell you to get lost?
Compare to this incident: Oklahoma Police Kill 5-Year Old Boy While Shooting at Snake
Then the have the audacity to call this stuff intellectual property! What other species of property can you lease so many times simultaneously, without ever having to surrender your own use of it? Wicked!
Money (see:Fractional Reserve System)Suggestions for who is at risk follow....
I make my living as a translator, you insensitive clod!
obligatory Blue Rodeo reference is in order:
Don't tell me I'm wrong,
'Cause I've been watching every move that you make.
Oh you got to CRIA, CRIA, CRIA.
Ah don't you know you've got to CRIA,
CRIA, CRIA. Oooh
Oh baby you CRIAAA..
Even the marbles-in-a-jug thing is easily falsifiable since anyone with two marbles gets two votes, let alone with a hundred marbles.
Baloney! Anyone who bothers to vote has obviously lost all his marbles already.
"Hey guys, watch this!"
None more black.
YMB(R)NH (You Must Be (Really) New Here)
The obligatory reference for HD density stories is Perpendicular
However, it's total crap to predict something so complex and varied as a war. Think of the confounding factors! How can there be unbiased inclusion of geographical, political and an infinity of unknowable factors such as which side has the upper hand on intelligence?
How can we assume that future wars will be in any way conventional, or otherwise?
Believing in this stuff makes palm reading look like science.
They pulled that last one off with climate change.Just got some mod points, but couldn't find "+1 Everything"
On second thought, -1 Redundant could have been appropriate because "USE EVERYTHING IN MODERATION" is a tautological imperative in the same way that "TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS BAD" is a tautological statement.
No harm, no foul.
Meh. I Can Read with My Eyes Shut!
I'm always amazed by supposed scientists being so confident in predicting future states of chaotic systems so far in advance. I'm even more amazed by claims that certain changes to the present state will lead to a specific changes in future outcome. I believe this is called Hubris.
Now then, "Oy vey" is Yiddish for "Oh woe is me". This is a bit premature. Let's save it for when Nemesis gets his revenge.
Except the ones who are communist, marxist, nationalist or just plain crazy e.g. Shining Path, FARC, ETA, LTTE, RUF, etc.
You forgot the biggest TLA-ed terrorist organization of all: USA."Terrorism" is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Shock and awe, check. Regime change, check. No Congressional declaration of war, check. "Making the world safe for democracy", check. Yup, I think the USA qualifies.