Cap'n Refsmmat

Awesome. Hope you enjoy SFN.

Let me get a handle on your position. If I'm not mistaken, you're saying: Evolution does happen. We have indeed observed organisms to evolve new behaviors and abilities. Random mutation and natural selection can't be the sole cause. Is this accurate?

It was split to this thread. Further discussion can continue there.

And what decimal value does "half of 0" have?

Should be under Change Profile Information. But I turned it off a while ago anyway.

North Korea has no legal authority over the ocean that the United States is doing its exercises in. There is, of course, a slight risk that North Korea will follow through with their threats; however, this is mitigated by the facts that (a) North Korea threatens and blusters with great regularity, while doing very little; and (2) the function of a carrier battle group (like the one exercising near North Korea) is to protect the group against possible attacks. There are very specific anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-submarine defenses that I'm sure are on high alert. Is your ethical qualm with the intimidation of North Korea, or with the risk that they will detonate a nuclear device and kill thousands of sailors?

The same acidity is responsible for the prevention of infection; acidity makes the area less hospitable to any potentially harmful bacteria. (See here, under Mutualism.) Baking soda would neutralize some of that lactic acid and make an infection more likely. On the other hand, semen is a natural protector of the sperm, by providing a less acidic environment for the sperm to live in. In a sense, then, nature has already provided a safe delivery vessel. Now, there are conditions (PDF) that can mess with the natural acidity and make it even worse, causing problems which can be solved with baking soda. But I'd not mess with it unless you know you have such a condition. For further reference, here's an applicable WomensHealth.gov article, which suggests that women would try the same method to prevent pregnancy, and recommends against trying it for fear of causing bacterial vaginosis (which would put a damper on any attempts at conception): http://www.womenshea...aq/douching.cfm

You would do well to read the TalkOrigins articles on information theory rather than dismissing Sisyphus directly. Incidentally, you are aware of the Lenski experiment, yes? You earlier dismissed it as off-topic, but now that you've asked directly for something matching its characteristics. (Particularly the directly observed two-step evolution of citrate metabolization.) TalkOrigins does a good job of citing other studies in which evolution increases information within a population, through novel biological activities, increased biological variety, and so on. You are free to browse through the citations as well. The prime point of the article, that Shannon-Weaver information theory shows that random mutation maximizes information, is supported by an open-access PNAS paper cited in Further Reading. Have a gander. I'm sure it'll be interesting. I'll read it when I have the time as well. (I think I'll just be sticking it on my Kindle later...)

As David Hume says in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. A past pattern does not guarantee future behavior. You cannot say "everything I can think of follows these rules" and use that to conclude "everything in existence must follow these rules" because inductive arguments do not work. You must deductively establish that your rules are necessary.

Similarly, the world doesn't have to end in 2038 just because some computer clocks "stop" at that point.

Okay. Suppose there was space and matter, up and down, so on and so on.... but there was only a left eye? What would happen?

Why?

Is there any particular reason everything must follow these rules?

It's also worth noting that evolutionary processes work in parallel; millions of different organisms (or puddles of chemicals, or whatever) can be mutating and naturally selecting beneficial attributes simultaneously. Combine this with billions of years of timespan and you're going somewhere.

Indeed. I'm trying to point at why some people would call it "divine." The fact that it pops up in so many disparate places leads some people to use that name.

But why is it the peak of efficiency for so many completely different things?

The big question is why is the Golden mean so efficient in so many places? Sure, we could evolve for maximum efficiency, and that adjusts ratios... but why does the ratio end up being the golden mean in so many cases? That's why people ascribe it some special meaning.

Waiiit a minute. I re-read the blog post and it's doing this: [math]\frac{0}{2} = \infty, \, -\infty[/math] That's not division by zero! The blog post is specifically false in claiming that mathematicians say the above operation is impossible -- it's quite possible: [math]\frac{0}{2} = 0[/math] It would not "mean the end of the world or the end of everything" as the blog post claims. There's absolutely no problem with dividing 0. Nobody says it's impossible. I think the blogger doesn't quite get what the division by zero problem is. He invents a new answer to a question that already has a valid answer: 0. I'm also unsure of the final formulas: How do we determine the value of the answer? If I want to do [imath]\frac{0}{x}[/imath], what is n?

Could we move back to the topic, please?

The actions of others do not justify your own actions. "But someone else might've broken the rules!" gives you no license to do the same yourself. There is, incidentally, a difference between jokingly mocking and deliberately insulting. If you want to argue further, do it in PM. Let's not drag this thread off-topic.

You would do well to pay attention to the SFN Forum Rules, rule #8.

What planet do you come from, where mocking other people's cancer is an acceptable debate tactic? If you insist on mocking other members this way for much longer, you will no longer have access to SFN.

The inability to divide by zero is part of the definition of division. It's not a matter of "discovering" a way to do it. It's already defined to be impossible. It's like I were to say, "mughubble is a new word. I define it to mean 'the shape of the Earth,'" and then someone later said "new research suggests that the Earth actually isn't mughubble!"

Post #78, this link: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-16/news/ct-met-0616-riley-fox-clues-20100616_1_riley-fox-partial-dna-sample-deputy-scott-swearengen