JillSwift

As I said, nature is under no obligation to make sense. The bottom line is, the situation works. It does not have to be optimal, it just has to work. Yes, it was necessary. You aren't grasping some concepts and I was pointing out a possible reason why. It was an attempt to help. The statement was the one I quoted - that statement assumed that your logic was being ignored by nature. Which is a problematic viewpoint. It was not an attempt to belittle you. It was not personal in nature. Stop assuming you are under attack, it's really gettin' annoyin'.

You are making a value judgment about "strength". Evolution makes no value judgments - what survives does so because it can, and for no other reason. Humans have developed a set of phenotypes we label "intelligence" and "social behavior". This is a potent combination that has allowed our species to adapt to new environments without waiting on the right set of mutations to come along. To claim that this somehow "impedes" evolution is to assume that evolution has some sort of purpose or direction to it. Unless someone can show evidence of this, the only conclusion that fits the observed facts is that is it impossible to impede evolution.

That statement is the core of your problem understanding this stuff. Nature is under no requirement to meet our ideas of what is logical. All life is doing is existing within the parameters that allow it to exist. (That is, the only reason life does not exist outside those parameters is because it's impossible.) One of the most fascinating aspects of the cosmos as a whole, and DNA in particular, is emergence. The "information" in a strand of DNA is not simply the pattern of nucleotides, but how each part interacts with the other parts. In this way an allele can be lost, and a phenotype gained. Also, if you look at DNA more as a "recipie" for an organism, you can see how environment plays a more direct role on individual organisms. For instance, height is a trait that sees an 85% inheritance in groups with constant good nutrition and health care, while seeing only 60% in groups with variable access to nutrition and health care. Hope this helps.

No. Making it pure sexual selection would require ignoring all the species that also adapt to environment but reproduce by mitosis or other asexual/non-sexual reproduction. The proto-equine ancestors of the giraffes moved into an area where trees were more common than the grasses and bushes they originally fed on. Those proto-equines who could not reach the leaves could not get enough food from the harder grasses of the area, and so either did not survive to mate, or were too weak to successfully mate. Whether or not the females of this species were allowing only the stronger males to mate with them or not, there would have still been a selection pressure for taller proto-equines, and proto-equines with longer necks. Melanin (a skin pigmentation) is functional as part of the cellular mechanism that produces vitamin D. If you look at a chart of melanin predominance over the world, you will find a pretty clear connection between overall exposure to direct sunlight and the presence of melanin in the skin of long-term populations. Again, whether or not skin color was considered "attractive" or not, there is still selection pressure from the environment. Sexual selection itself is just another factor in the environment in which a set of phenotypes is operating.

Nope. The environment is the template doing the selecting. As organisms spawn phenotypes ill suited for their environment, they are "selected out". That would not be evolution (natural selection), it would be artificial selection - a sort of generating an environment for the intended outcome. Environment is part and parcel to life, and therefore to evolution.

I think that changing the rules of evidence was the only really scary thing to come out of the previous administration. I would love to see that reigned back in.

You mean, like having it in a quote box? (As it was.) Communications is something of a two-way street. The communicator must be clear, and the communicatee must understand the standards of the communications medium. No one said sexual reproduction harmed anything. It just makes the spread of mutations slower, possibly drowning them out. You have some very odd ideas about evolution, and I think those odd ideas are getting in your way of understanding the criticisms of your idea here.

I did just that, and what do you know? CharonY argued against that, just as he said. (The quote "May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information" in that post is from Mr. Skeptic, here.)

Ok, being nice isn't cutting it, let's try blunt: Evidence is everything. It makes no difference whether an idea is uttered by a Nobel Laureate or a high school dropout - without evidence the idea is valueless. Why are your ideas, and the ideas you bring with you from others, so heavily questioned? Well, let's see: Arguments from authority - meaning you think that just because a "scientist" said it, it immediately has validity. Extrapolation from one or a very few data points. That is, coming to conclusions before you can really know anything from the evidence at hand. Arbitrary measurements. Taking any factor and labeling it indicative of all other factors is a fabulous way to end up with a lot of incorrect conclusions. Uncorrectable assumptions. Assuming that evolution is all about going from the simple to the complex in the face of the fact that it is a trend only, and examples of simplification can be found - albeit "complex" and "simple" are arbitrary judgments anyway. On top of that, you take criticisms of your ideas personally, as if the only reason your ideas are being criticized is because "no one likes you". Science isn't social networking, it's a methodology. As one of my professors said to me once, "Get over it."

"Improvement" is a word suggesting a value judgment. All evolution describes is what functions in a given environment and what does not. That function does not even have to function "well" or "perfectly" it just has to function. What is being fought for "tooth and nail" is your understanding of the theory. Reality doesn't change because you've made a clever argument against it.

That's unfair, Syntax. Science is about questioning everything, checking every little detail to make sure it all fits. It's not personal in the least, but it is rather brutal for ideas - and that is why it works so well. Mokele isn't doing anything mean, he's just asking some good questions and pointing out some weak spots in your reasoning. I gently suggest that, if you really mean to go somewhere with this acceleration hypothesis, you need to take the time to get all your ducks in a row - meaning do the research and shore up your idea.

Eh? The topic is "How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity".It's not about making a judgment about the validity of those beliefs, it's about how those beliefs likely came about. Until and unless we establish the universe has a "mind", there's no point in worrying about what goes in inside it. Which simply means that purpose is something we grant the universe. It's called "purposeful thinking", and relates only to our own perspective.

Sperm isn't stored in the testes. There's a seminal vessel for that, and the resupply is constant so the little gametes will be able to swim their 7 inch swim at full power. Huh. I had no idea. Cool

Well, that's what you get for not being specific. Ok, sure. it's easier to kill using a gun that a plastic spoon. And? Some get their guns legally. Some get them by stealing them. Some get them by buying them from someone who stole them. Some... well, you get the point.

I've committed a property offense. Theft.* I got my gun at a local pawn shop. * $0.25 candy bar, when I was 5 years old. I did my time, earned that quarter by cleaning the store owner's car.

Perhaps, but is this the best way to leave the galaxy? Seriously, the comparison between capitalism and socialism is viable only if there's some reason to think there's a "best" way to go about things, instead of a vast array of options that need to be considered individually against current goals. Isn't that on topic? At least a little bit? Within the galaxy by some measure?

Cwap. "Only 24 years" is easy for you spring chickens. I wanted to see fusion power come to fruition, but I probably won't live that long Never the less, it's fantastic to hear that nuclear fusion has been getting the attention it deserves, and I hope for its success.

None of this supports your conclusion. Manuscript format: Arbitrary format, followed only to keep to an industry standard. Nothing about it is proven to be the smartest or best way to produce a manuscript. Peeling garlic: Two different techniques? Which is the proper way and which is the faulty one? Seriously, doesn't this suggest there are more options than one? My point here being; The "best" way to go about something is a value judgment and is often dependent on the specific goal. It's still a collection of "things that work well enough most or some of the time".

The Mayans made no such prophecy. All that happens with the Mesoamerican Mayan long-count calendar is that the 13th B'ak'tun ends and the 14th B'ak'tun begins. The movie, on the other hand, looks like it'll be usual Roland Emmerich fare: Total fantasy with little care for reality, but rather fun despite that.

I didn't make a claim. I can't make any specific claim in your case, there just isn't any evidence to do so. Equally, you can't make any claim either. I know you believe you can because it's your life, but you don't have any evidence to demonstrate where your final decision came from. That being said, I do not actually dispute that you made your choices on your own. I don't want this to get feeling personal. No need for thankies, mistakes must be dealt with ==

¡ɯoɹɟ ǝsooɥɔ oʇ ʎuɐɯ os *plotz*

It sounds like you have some bad memory on the card, honestly. There's a program to test GPU memory for users of the nVidia Folding@Home program: http://folding.stanford.edu/English/DownloadUtils hope this helps _____EDIT_____ Cwap. That's for CUDA capable cards only

What's your power supply's rated wattage?

Heh. I am suddenly reminded of "Dark Star" Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me? Bomb #20: Of course. Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts? Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions. Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist? Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist. Doolittle: But how do you know you exist? Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious. Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist? Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am. Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists? Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.

Well, that's just it: That you didn't become "one of them" doesn't suggest that you were not influenced by them. It just means you didn't duplicate their beliefs. _____EDIT_____ It just hit me that my example of why I can't believe in god really doesn't apply. You've been clear it's a deistic belief, which omits personal relationship. This stands as example of the complexity of it, and how it really is a discussion of trending and predisposition, not absolutes.