SFNQuestions

I suppose it's possible, but how can you be certain it isn't related to any background process?

I expect you to show me precisely where I said the concept I was illustrating is impossible given that I already showed how even its most exaggerated form is possible. Furthermore, Strange did say it was possible when the environment changes quickly and that the proposed scenario does happen, as illustrated, though didn't provide any reference. It's not a sensible question, it's a generalized answer. Whether or not evolution exists isn't being question, now you're just derailing the topic. You don't have the evidence to support that animals never migrated to a nearby environment that they are better suited for. No, they developed purely randomly, as far as we know, in some archaic form that happened to get lucky in a very turbulent environment and coincidentally had random mutations that made them better adapted to various circumstances. So somehow every single species starts out in a perfectly moderate climate? I know you know that's not true. There are species that start out in warmer environments and those that start out in colder environments, that shouldn't be a discussion. It is beyond reasonable that a small mutation could make a species slightly more adapted to an alternative environment nearby, and given enough time, adaptations to that environment can randomly compound with each successive generation. How do you think land animals came about exactly? There wasn't a fish that just somehow started out with perfect legs as you seem to presume, there were near-surface fish that lived very close to the land, and purely randomly they developed fins that were better equipped for scouring across small patches of land and coincidentally they had the opportunity to take advantage of those fins. Then eventually, certain members of future generations randomly developed fins for traversing moderate stretches of land which were less adapted to dwelling solely in the water, but this was offset by the advantages of being able to move across those moderate stretches of land land such as less competition, plentiful food from the terrestrial plants, avoiding predators and finding mates over a wider area. Finally after many generations of random mutations compounding off of each other providing slightly better advantages for dwelling on land, there finally came fully terrestrial animals. That requires some form of movement. What you're saying directly implies that every single species never ever moves anywhere in any way and it's only the environment that can ever possibly change. That's wrong.

Well, when I ask a general question like "why are animals the way they are?", then I'd expect a general answer and I'll come get you. When I ask a specific question like "why do most animals lack this specific attribute?" as I did in this thread, I expect a specific answer.

I guess that would explain it. You're eyelids certainly touch your eyes, but I mean, the problem is that you can stare at something pitch-black without closing your eyes, and you would still see something that resembles an organic form of camera noise. I mean literally everyone I've talked to about it also hears the same exact high pitch, are you suggesting some kind of mass hearing loss disease going around? It seems more likely that it's related to some automatic background process like phosphene, given how quiet it is.

Except for the tiny little part where I explicitly stated that there were small changes from generation to generation, multiple times. I already qualified the concept by saying it was one possibility among many others. The fact that not all species evolve in the suggested manner isn't what's being discussed. And you're also providing 0 evidence for how anything anyone has said here is wrong in any way. I see that you're a fan of the chicken or the egg paradox. "It wouldn't be in that position in the first place anyway," okay so that implies nothing has ever adapted or changed because everything started out somehow magically being automatically adapted to its environment. If a species is only now adapted to a particularly cold or warm environment, then there must have been previous generations that originally weren't as adapted. Life originally started out as something similar to photosynthetic algae, now look where it is, so clearly you're wrong. It can, you just get an airplane, get a polar bear, and fly to Africa. You also seem to be missing the point that it's an exaggeration to clearly illustrate the concept. But, it's also not wrong either, because if there was a snow-capped mountain with a sustainable ecosystem and the bear had a natural inclination to seek it out, it could survive there. It does. If the skin was thick enough to adapt to a cold environment it would imply that its thin-skinned counterparts were adapted to a warm environment which would give the thick skinned animals a relative disadvantage in a warm environment which means if the thick-skinned generations of animals were a mutation from a thin-skinned animal, it would find itself in a warm environment it wasn't as adapted to to being with. If it was a think-skinned animal that was a generational mutation from a thick-skinned animal, it would find it was wasn't as adapted to a cold environment to being with, so either way it's a contradicts what you said. How long is it going to be before you accept that animals have legs and can swim and can fly? Movement clearly plays a role in evolution to begin with, birds and fish even have instincts for migrating across entire continents. I already qualified the concept by saying it was one possibility among many others. The fact that not all species evolve in the suggested manner isn't wasn't being discussed. It's established that it is a plausible concept given the presented scenarios, the question is whether or not it's such a given that few bothered to write about it or if there's so little information that biologist can't determine that, or how, the choices/instincts of animals would allow their movement to new environments to directly impact their evolution.

No it's not like a loud ringing it's like this very subtle ringing that you can't notice unless it's dead silent and try to listen for something. You know like how when you put your hands right to your eyes and you can see all kinds of splotches? It's like that.

When there's no sound, you might tend to notice this high pitch ringing taking over your hearing. But how exactly do you hear anything without any noise? And while we're at it, how exactly can you see splotches when it's pitch black? Do the exothermic reactions from cells really produce enough light for that? Or is it like noise in a bad camera?

Damn I could have sworn I saw an article like this before...

Whether or not a species can have any amount of fur in a hot environment isn't what's being debated, its a given for this topic that an animal species has enough fur to offset whatever other adaptions it has and threaten its survival, like a polar bear in the Sahara for instance. So, if a mammal like a bear did find itself with too much fur, what's it going to do in the day time in the scolding hot desert? Well, either find some place to cool off, or it's going to die. Thus, it seems reasonable to presume that there are circumstances where animals could willfully or coincidentally migrate to an environment they are more appropriately adapted to. How about all land animals for instance? Starting from fish in the ocean, fish randomly evolved these more sturdy maneuverable fins. When a fish coincidentally moved into the land either to try and escape a predator, find a mate or because a wave knocked it onto the land, it found it was able to maneuver on the land better than other fish (though probably not consciously aware of that fact), but with each generation of fish that relied on that technique, there were random members of each successive generation of fish that mutated from that initial mutation that then mutated even long and stiffer fins, which were even more adapted to moving to land and a little less adapted to water, thus creating the circumstance that migrating to land lead to more optimal survival for those members that would eventually evolve to form a land-dwelling animal.

If it was un-adapted to a cold environment, how would it be able to survive long enough to evolve a thick coat in the first place? Your own statement contradicts itself. "If it had skin, it would evolve...if it had skin, it wouldn't evolve..." What you're saying depends entirely on how exactly the cold came about, what I'm saying is that there's a possible circumstance among many that allows a species to evolve from its ancestors migrating to an environment that they were more adapted to. The traditional theory would state something along the lines of a species un-adapted to the cold randomly develops a mutation, like fur or feathers, and then the weather chaotically becomes cold, eventually killing off the members of the species without fur or feathers and allowing those with the proper adaption to live on. But, maybe the evolution of every single species isn't exactly the same. Perhaps, for instance, there was a litany of fish species that were adapted to the near-surface, low pressure water in an ecosystem. Then, coincidentally, a fish adapted the ability to survive better in deeper, higher-pressure water, and if it randomly made the decision to move to that lower depth of water, it would experience more room to run from predators that typically dwell near the surface and individuals would face less competition from other species.

Right but I'm looking for a general answer for any function.

It seams pretty reasonable to presume that it's possible for an organism to move to or coincidentally find a geographical location where its survival is more optimal after mutating from a different species. Like for instance, if an mammalian animal in an often hot environment evolved a thick coat of fur that could regularly cause its internal temperature to increase out of its range of functionality, wouldn't it make sense for it to simply seek out a cooler environment like a cave or underground or gradually wander north towards the tundra with each generation and form a new species? But, I've never heard of that in evolution before and I want to know why.

Like if I have a parabola of velocity versus time or position versus time, is there any physical meaning to the arc length of that function?

I think I have my own methodology but I'm curious to see what the formal definition of this is. I'm looking for an x-value of a function where its integral is the same on both sides of the x-value over some interval [a,b]. With some testing it doesn't seem like the average value theorem directly relates to the answer, but it seems like the general answer should be something close to that. The answer I got is [math]x=F^{-1}(\frac{F(a)+F(b)}{2})[/math] where F(x) is the integral of f(x).

The problem isn't that the answer is cohesive, it's that it's so vague that it could be true of anything, it contributes absolutely nothing. Any animal species is exactly the way it is because it evolved that way, there's no other explanation unless you're a creationist.

It by it does you mean it doesn't, then I'd agree. There are other other fungal species that do not fit into the Dikarya sub-kingdom, it's simply the case that their classification isn't visible within what I've researched with respect to the rest of the fungus kingdom, it only requires someone who's actually knowledgeable enough in biology,

Is it just the most structurally stable ratio or something? Why do so many things evolve to have golden proportions?

That doesn't answer anything?

From what I can tell, there's only one subkingdom in the fungi kingdom, the "Dikarya." For whatever obscure reason, numerous sources hint at another subkingdom that possess flagella, but never remotely explain anything about it, and there's no point in having a "subkingdom" if it's only one category. All that's said is that Dikarya is divided into Ascomycota and Basidiomycota. All I'm looking for is the most general taxon rank for a fungi just below the actual kingdom of fungi that includes the Dikarya and whatever this mystery category is. What about molds? They're a fungus aren't they?

Obviously. What about the rest of the animal kingdom? This is nothing new.

I mean you realize your movement is from your muscles right? A skeleton can't push on anything, cause it has no muscles...If astronauts don't work out into space, it doesn't matter that their skeleton still exists, their muscles will atrophy and they won't be able to walk...because of the loss of muscle tissue. There's a better explanation for the lack of homogeneity somewhere out there seeing as how it's completely plausible that a layer of tissues harder than mammalian skin but softer than arthropod exoskeleton can easily compress enough to maintain an upright form, which already happens to some extent anyway (because if it didn't people would form a puddle of bones whenever they walked).

Okay? But there's plenty of terrestrial animals that are light weight, so why aren't those animals more homogeneous? If the tissues compress at a certain point it would eventually create enough of a normal force for something to stay upright.

It seems like most or all animals have a very firm structure of their body followed by a very soft structure of their body, whether it's a bug or a mammal or a snail...but why? What would happen if an animal was moderately soft/hard throughout it's entire body? It seems like having such a body works for an octopus.

Who's to say it's not really a solution? Seems like just the kind of idea the current administration would implement.

I think I have to ask you to further clarify what you are referencing, because there are rational reasons to burn sections of a forest. Who's igniting these forests? And why? Anyway, here's how to solve global warming. Now all you have to worry about is global flooding. Besides that, every now and then there's some scientists in the news who have built machines for liquefying carbon dioxide which they then store below ground, but it doesn't appear those machines will have a meaningful impact. The best way to stop it is to prevent it from getting worse and shift to sustainable agricultural practices, relying on renewable energy wherever possible. Whether or not that will work isn't debated so much, but rather whether or not it is economically feasible to carry out before it's too late.