Leaderboard

I see ... You're making salad.

No, an organism does not evolve during its lifetime. Evolution proceeds by differences in reproduction rate between individuals. Over many generations this affects the genetic composition of the population of organisms. Evolution is something that changes populations, not individuals.

It's not really a good analogue. Genes are not in storage in your body. If you don't reproduce, your genes die with you when you die. (under natural conditions). If you store your semen, or eggs, and make a baby, then that might resemble a computer restore, although only partially. You can restore a computer to an identical copy, at it's exact point in life. Reproduction involves making new individuals, very different to the previous editions, that just happen to have some of the components of the previous examples.

What do you mean by taking a backup? They are passing on their genes to be mixed (at least in the case of sexual reproduction) with those of the sexual partner. So they are making a new mixture, rather than cloning themselves, if that is what you are suggesting.

Backup like computer files? I don't think this analogy is correct. You take a backup and put it aside, hoping that you will not need it. This is nothing like reproduction. In reproduction, the previous generation is replaced by the next.

Here is a shorter proof: If q is the smallest positive number, then 1/q is the largest positive number. But there is no largest positive number because we can always add another positive number. Thus, there is no smallest positive number.

To strain an analogy, when you buy a dozen eggs, there are 12 eggs in the carton. But when you open up the carton you do not find the number 12. You find 12 eggs. Likewise there are uncountably many real numbers, \( 2^{\aleph_0} \) in fact, in the interval [0,1], or in any other interval of the reals. But you will not find \( 2^{\aleph_0} \) among the real numbers. Hope this is clear. You've asked this several times, and each time you get the same answer. If you start from x = 1/2, repeating the halving process gives an infinite sequence of real numbers 1/2, 3/4, 7/89, 15/16/ 31/32, etc. None of them are the largest number in [0,1). In fact this example provides a nice intuition for the fact that in [0,1), the point at 1 is a limit point of the set. There is an infinite sequence of points getting closer and closer to 1, but there is no last point in the sequence. If it helps visualization, think of it the other way. Start with 1 and keep halving: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ... There are infinitely many numbers in the sequence. There is no "last" number. This shows in fact that there is no smallest positive real number, just an infinite sequence of smaller and smaller positive reals that approach 0 as a limit. Ok, good. Does any of this help your intuition? One purpose in studying the formal properties of the real numbers is to improve our intuitions about them. You mean it's counterintuitive, and that's normal. Many people have an intuition that there's a smallest positive real, until they are shown the proof that there isn't. But in terms of logic, it's logic that shows that there can be no smallest positive real. That's because the real numbers are a field. In a field we can add, subtract, multiply, and divide (except by 0) any two numbers. So if someone claims that, say, \( x \) is the smallest positive real number, it's immediately clear that this is false; because \( \frac{x}{2} \) is also a positive real and it's strictly smaller than \( x \). You can see that, can't you? In terms of logic, we know that there can not possibly be a smallest positive real. Another example is the sequence .1, .01, .001, .0001, etc. The sequence goes on without end. There is no smallest real number. On the contrary. The hyperreals are also a field. They are an alternative model of the exact same first-order axioms that the reals are a model of. So if you claim that x is the smallest positive hyperreal, then x/2 is a smaller positive hyperreal. There is no smallest number, not even an infinitesimal, in the hyperreals. You can always divide a hyperreal infinitesimal by 2.

Oligosacharrides in onion can't be utilized by the body's enzymes, so gut bacteria work on it, sometimes producing excessive gas liberation. Generally, in the majority of the population complex carbs are beneficial for our gut residents but some people have an adverse reaction to them. If it has been ascertained medically that there is a recurrent underlying problem, following FODMAP protocols might be appropriate. The decision to avoid food groups should be left to a medical professional to advise. Complex carbs shouldn't be avoided on a whim. I find that the stuff I eat infrequently, like those, will cause some kind of bloating but will recede with regular use. What I think is happening here is that when one introduces a new food group, the bacteria that favour using that group undergoes a population explosion, producing a rapid evolution of gas and probably other imbalances. When the population stabilises the issue diminishes... until you stop for a while and start it again.

Many viscosity models for mixtures employ terms that resemble in form those that characterise entropy of mixing. So if your model indicates a homogenous viscosity, it implies that the entropy is also homogenous which is as good an indicator of complete mixing as you could wish for. You will be on fairly safe ground when dealing with say mixtures of liquid alkanes where the components are fully miscible in all proportions and where much of the research on this subject has been focussed. Don't rely on it for say a suspension of cellulose fibres.

"Humanity, Post Humanity, A.I & Aliens"

These JCVI-syn3.0 bacteria (that are able to replicate) are not truly synthetic. They are obtained by genome transplantation into already existing cell (top-down approach). Bottom-up approach (using phospholipid bags filled with synthetic compounds) is still in its infancy.

Been reading some interesting stuff about Jupiter's moon Io and nobody has posted here in a while so, here goes. Only a little bigger than Earth's moon, Io is the densest object, not actually a planet (Earth is densest), in the solar system. It is also the most volcanically active and has the least water of any bodies in our neighborhood. Surface temperature is about -130C but lava flows have been measured to over 1200C and may exceed 1700C (about 3 times the hottest temps on Mercury). The gravities of Jupiter and sister moons Ganymede and Europa can cause "tides" of over 100m. Since there is no water, those tides are of rock! The magnetic field of Jupiter can generate lightening discharges of 400,000 volts and 3,000,000 amps, discharging from the moon into the upper atmosphere of the planet. (is this the reason the moon glows when eclipsed by Jupiter?) The magnetic field of Jupiter ionizes and pulls about a ton of material from Io into space every second, creating a plasma torus around the moon, fueling auroras on the planet, and doubling the size one would expect Jupiter's magnetosphere to be. (IMO) Conditions there will be a survival challenge for any organisms, even the most radical extremophiles from Earth so it is unlikely humans will ever get anything other than raw materials from there and certainly not anytime soon

Here is a guru's answer (Thorne, Kip. Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy (pp. 400-401):

Thanks for the warning I will seek to avoid eating insulating materials.

SF writer, Greg Bear (http://www.gregbear.com/blog/display.cfm?id=982), pointed me out that we need viruses - the point is that we use some parts (eg capsid) of REV (retrovirus which is in our DNA) in some essential mechanisms, so we can't replace it to something neutral. But over this millions of years, this capsids have been optimized for our purposes. Maybe it's good point for viruses to begin evolution, but there is still a long way, counted in thousands-millions of years. Viruses for evolution requires friendly environment - cells. Ours has quite good protection, much better then when viruses evolved last time. We can also think about transforming only eg human, and use original bacterial flora, which could be compatible (after teaching the immune system)? I've received a long letter from Steve Winter. One of many things he mentioned was that " there was a study where a group fed some bacteria chiral food, and it eventually evolved the ability to eat the food". It's large problem, but I think they should have much more problems with evolution of interactions (like aggressiveness) with chiral organism, and in supported by us chiral ecosystem, they should be dominated... And they usually die with the carrier. But the largest benefit from chiral life are viruses - let's say that we can manage with microorganisms, but elimination of viruses looks hopeless http://virology.wordpress.com/ And the lack of them should slow down the evolution of bacterias, making the creation of stable ecosystem easier. What are the costs of such project? The most of the cost is to transform a few cells of each needed specie - I think that required technology should be standard in a few dozens of years. Then we have to replace seeds for a few fields, clone some cattle ... and humans for adoption... The replacement process can be very slow. And the income ... HEALTH ... crop production ... pests ... maybe to be or not to be for natural Martian life until terraforming

There is a problem - for example we have human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) in our DNA. Before transforming organisms, we should identify any dangerous parts in our introns, virus's capsids, and replace them with something neutral. If not - they can be used as a good start for evolution... I was thinking about projecting ecosystem based on harmony - there are maaaany problems to take under consideration - I've decided to start new thred. Generally - let's say we can manage with most of microorganism, there are some concetps for viruses too, http://virology.wordpress.com/ but they looks a bit hopeless for me...

The idea is that it's the beginning of everything interpretable, anything we know of e.g numbers,it's source of information it's self,that's the best I could arrange the diagram. The interplay of consciousness and emptiness,leads to that.what consciousness is doing at that boundary to emptiness becomes information. Let's go first to definition of consciousness...it's knowing there is emptiness...how? By containing it. It's contained by warping it,warping becomes a process,this process becomes information,initiation and continuation of this process becomes events,and flow of events become time completion of the process giving rise to a virtual particle therefore space emerge. Therefore,information is generated concurrently with formation of virtual particles.information is therefore coded in the sequence events that lead to formation of virtual particles,these events become time and the virtual particles become space it's self. Virtual particles give rise to Spacetime fabric. Information,time and space are embedded on virtual particle. Don't ask me what is consciousness the idea is,it's synonymous to existence,is only there because without it,is emptiness...nothing,zero.the intial part is philosophical.. Don't throw me to the rubbish bin that is the best I can explain here.

Ah autism. That accounts for it. Possibly.

bla bla. Observation? Ya dude it is my entire existence. It is my curse in life is observing

super clever. Or wait, super stupid. I guess they mean the same thing depending on the realm, eh?

Who? Or what ? Are words used by you to pass information to me in form of a question,you expecting an answer. That 'information' is predated by consciousness and emptiness.How can I answer about that? We talk of emptiness...using a word empty...that which we don't know about...what is it? But there is a word for it.in my case consciousness is synonymous with existence,and I happen to exist because I know there is no existence (emptiness).from that diagram consciousness and emptiness is fundamental.we know of consciousness cause we happened to be conscious. The question should be how does that lead to Spacetime fabric,dark energy,dark matter,normal matter and the four fundamental forces of the universe.

please please don't do that.....hhhh...oo.... my..am 🙈... its a whole big issue up to wave function collapse ,spacetime curvature to cosmic filaments,cosmic web.I was told to take baby step,,,it might be gibberish to some,but don't cut my legs,if i get stuck up on consciousness i won't move anyway,being thrown to the trash bin,its too much,without that how can i explain spacetime curvature using the concepts being displayed on the diagram,i think if i was given time the whole idea will emerge...short of words...u could have tolerated plain language,just for a while till am done,then someone reformulate it using proper science terms and jargon. they is follow up concepts and diagrams that could have helped me settle this thorny uncomfortable thing that many fear going near it or even handle just a bit of it...its good if i was looked at, as a straw man looking for away.the problem is that they are major issues to deserve a topic but they are interrelated. after the full picture emerge i could have been asked for clarification....i just posses plain language, am ...i don't know

no dude. You dont understand anything but certain aspects. i dont care. You see things in one way. It is false. You think things are one way. So funny to me

And im not really sure why you call it 'mechanics'. Folks are trying to create something that isn't actually there. There are no mechanics in quantum. That is the whole point of quantum. No matter how hard you try it will NEVER happen It aint your fault. The string will not allow us to figure it out And no i have not watched the marvel ant movie. i feel all they are gonna do is f up what quantum actually is I know everyone will just say im crazy. Story of my life dont care. My entire life is th e quantum. i somehow exist in both at the same time

No. You are wrong. Ya know why? Cause im an absolute master of logic and all the physical IS is logic. a leads to b leads to c. . It is how the universe works. Sorry i have autism and i know i cant talk to people right. But calling me wrong is so funny

there is no discussion. I dont give one F if the world sees anything. I just wanted to get it out of me. Im right, you are wrong, period end of story. clever in the physical but unclever in the quantum. See how that works? No? That is a shame and must suck for you Big bang.is "A". Everything next is "B". See? Logic is the key