StringJunky

The 'single sequence' will be the sympatric one. I knew it's not really singularly linear per se but a continuum with one species fading out, in population terms, over time. I had a job trying to describe and distinguish the two scenarios properly.

We can't let lack of evidence get in the way of a ripe old yarn.

Yes of course. I think it's fair to say it's evolving out of us, IF that of-the-cuff conjecture of mine has any truth, which it may well be rubbish. . I was looking at it as a broad trend, locating a possible source, rather than an absolute demarcation of specific behaviours, which anything of this nature very rarely is. Regarding the OP, I think we need to ascertain the cognitive faculties of goldfish to see where to start getting meaningful answers. I do a lot of carp fishing for 20 year-old-plus fish - we have the strange habit in the UK of putting them back for them to get old and many are known individually - and they are smarter than most people realise. Their memories are capable of persisting for at least 3 months.

I wonder if the 'oddity effect', mentioned in Spymans post, is why humans have colour racism and still tend to striate along those lines due to a persistent evolutionary hangover from our water-dwelling ancestors?

Speciation event is probably one of those - misunderstood - expressions that causes novices to think it is a step-change in evolution. A bit like 'Big Bang' causes people to think of the inflationary epoch as an explosion in space. What do you call the evolutionary process where a species diverges (by virtue of geographical separation) concurrently into two more as opposed to over a long time in single sequence and the old species dies off first?.Actually, knowing the names of both would be good.

I hope you didn't think there was anything judgemental or harsh in my words. I don't know you but sometimes trying too hard, for fear of making mistakes, can make one seem cold and aloof. if you feel it's nothing like this, please ignore it. There's absolutely nothing with addressing your behaviour. Edit: Phi's put it across better than I did. Cross-posted with him.

That problem is your end.Never happened to me. Have you tried another browser to see if it's replicated?

Yes, there are possibilities for speciation to occur with future space colonies ...never thought of that one. Yes, evolution is a continuum. This is where most deniers seem to get it wrong; they think it's a step-change.

Doesn't the inconstencies inherent in a language like English force the developing brain into creating more novel neural pathways hence making it potentially more adaptable and inventive?

It's not size that matters but energy. Visible light has the right range of energies to interact with the concrete components so they get absorbed. The longer radio waves and very short gamma rays pass through because they don't have enough energy and too much energy respectively. Take transparent glass: when a visible light photon meets a molecule it has insufficient energy to excite an electron in its outer shell to lift it to the next quantum state and so it gets emitted until it reaches another one and the same thing happens again until it passes out the other side. If you sent a UV photon it would get absorbed because it can interact with an electron in glass, so, to a UV photon glass is opaque, like concrete is to visible light.

They'll not co-exist in the same timeframe though will they? Nevertheless, I think you are right; speciation can still occur.

This image might answer your question.Their eyes are biased upwards and they can see mirror-reflections of themselves on the underside suface.It's called internal reflection. http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-techniques/article/reflections/

As the human population becomes increasingly interconnected with fewer isolated communities, does the possibility of future speciation disappear? Is geographical isolation a necessary condition of speciation?

Stop trying to be perfect might help. I think a large part of a persons' persona is their little faults and idiosyncrasies. Being socially and behaviourily 'perfect' makes other people insecure because you may subtlely be making them feel inferior in your company.

You are living proof that they are not different species. It's not an all-encompassing definition but it's the largest group of organsims capable of having off-spring.

I think I've found a reason why Russia is fighting Ukraine with equipment and personnel not bearing Russian military insignia. If they were to acknowledge, or be formally seen, as militarily supporting the separatists they would be in breach of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed by Russia, US, UK and Ukraine in 1994.

I originally wrote: It clearly passed over your head so I simplified it for you. I totally resemble your remark, calling me an 'amateur'. I'll let your "amature" spelling mistake pass.

QFT.

I was going to put this forward but refrained because anything that causes mutagenesis in a specimen will also potentially do it to the operator and also there's the risk to eyes to think about as well.

Science can't tell you what something is, only how it behaves. Getting down to the nitty-gritty, outside of our sensory perception, what something is has no meaning. We can't know what it looks like, what it tastes like, what it smells like or what it feels like, so, what something is has no real meaning at the fundamental level because they are not amenable to our senses. When we talk about what something 'is' we relate it to our senses ...we can't in these cases but we can describe them in terms of their behaviour which is measurable.

Thinking about this, you really need a hard-surfaced sterilisable lab-environment for that kind of exercise. Apart from safety issues you will have big contamination problems which throw unknown variables into your experiments. I think the next best thing is selective breeding of a plant or plants that you like. You can learn about controlling hereditary characteristics. Later on,if you are still buzzing about it, you will be better educated by then to think about micro-organisms. You can stress plants you know with grow-lights and mess with photoperiod, nutrient deprivation/excess drought/flood etc.

That sounds plausible.

Yes isn't it?! For some strange reason, I found myself thinking of double-glazing and having moisture in the air-gap. Another possible cause is surface defects in the affected area; either minute pits/scratches or distortion in the glass not allowing the wiper-blade to touch it in parts properly, causing it to smear. I'm thinking it's a physical problem with the glass. A professional scratch-removing polish/polisher might do it but I'd be inclined to talk to a pro about it first.

Could it be the lamination has separated or become messed up in some way. A windscreen is a glass/plastic/glass sandwich isn't it?