Phi for All

I think you're right, the critic from Amazon phrased it badly. I think the circular logic argument would more correctly be: "Creatures with adaptive traits are selected." "Adaptive traits cause evolution to select them." It may sound circular, but since that isn't the only argument for natural selection, then the point is moot. The fact that adaptive traits make a creature more successful in surviving to reproduce is the overwhelming argument.

To me, it seems like they're claiming it's circular reasoning to say that adaptive traits cause selection while also saying that evolution selects adaptive traits. However, I think the logic that adaptation gives a higher chance of surviving to mate overrides any seeming tautology. I don't see how you could argue that adaptive traits aren't preferable over irrelevant ones. The authors use of "densely technical" and "murky" arguments makes me think they haven't found a theory that answers more questions or gives a better explanation than natural selection.

Please forgive us if we seem skeptical, but we've spent years on this forum trying to figure out why some people think they don't have to study science and yet somehow have some sort of "outside the box" insight into it. You are by no means the first person to come here with just enough science to form some hasty judgments which you then toss about as if they're fact. I'm not making fun of you. You have the hubris of youth which makes you feel like anyone older than you doesn't understand you and your way of thinking. But trust me on this, your unique perspective will never trump the time and effort that has been spent in the last 150 years on the theory of evolution. I'm certainly not telling you to sit down and shut up, but I think you need to listen a little harder before you start making your mind up about what established science has to teach you. Again, no one here is making fun of you, no one is calling you any names. This is science and if someone makes a mistake, it gets pointed out so future members can get it right.

Judgment is unavoidable, I'm afraid, but I think you're over-reacting here. Just because someone suggests you're looking at something in the wrong way doesn't mean they're calling you a moron, or that you don't know what you're talking about. We often fixate on a certain perspective and it's one of the great merits of a discussion board to have other perspectives pointed out. I think it's quite obvious when people are being patronizing, arrogant and rude, and I see none of that here. It's important to be civil, yes, but it's also important to not be so sensitive to correction or disagreement. Learning from differing perspectives is just as valid as learning by teaching, or learning from making mistakes.

Welcome, and thanks for introducing yourself.

Not true. Bartering happened before currency, and you need numbers for that as well. Even early hunters needed a numbering system.

We are also a pack animal capable of recognizing authority from higher tiers on the pack structure, authority that we often have never actually encountered. We can acknowledge that our presidents/prime ministers/kings (even gods) can dictate what happens to us ultimately, and we allow that authority even though we've never come in contact with the individuals wielding it.

QFH*. *Quoted for hilarity.

Wow, it's easy to see how that's... a number. You forgot the 93rd day of the year is April 3rd, which is just two days after... the birthday of American professional wrestler, Randy Orton.

People with a "half-empty glass" outlook frustrate me to no end. It's pretty easy to focus on what's NOT being done, and much more difficult to acknowledge what IS being done. It's easy to see the starving kids and hard to see organizations like Kids Against Hunger that are helping thousands of people around the globe. Instead of focusing on terrorists and corrupt governments, you could acknowledge the wonderful work of the Central Asia Institute, an organization that builds schools for boys AND girls in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan so the extreme religious madrassas are not the only schooling these kids get. I think the next evolution of mankind (not the biological kind, more the social kind is what we've been talking about here) is going to be one of hope and peace instead of fear and despair. It starts when people get a well-rounded education that teaches them to think FOR themselves instead of ABOUT themselves. As a species, we need to acknowledge our successes and revel in them instead of constantly creating crises to fix. If we can stop complaining and start realizing how far we've come in a relatively short time, maybe we can be around for a relatively long time.

Here's one thing you can do with a lighter and an Orange: Orange, CA, October 2007

From toads to frogs to fish to insects, I've never heard of anything but the venom being the psychoactive ingredient. As I said, all psychoactives are basically toxins that alter your mood, whether it's tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, opioids, cocaine, etc. It's only the dosage that determines whether it's pleasurable or deadly or somewhere in between.

Ooh, that's a great example. The Pygmalion process has been glorified in many films. We see a drab person transformed by an extreme makeover that makes them more attractive. The lesson we learn, however, is that it's the confidence bestowed by an elevated expectation level that truly makes this person beautiful, not the shallower physical aesthetics. True dat, moo.

I guess it's like the Japanese fugu puffer fish, which has a lethal toxin that produces an hallucinogenic effect in small amounts. Everything that gets you high is basically a poison, it just depends on the balance between euphoria and death.

I remember reading about some Central and South American native tribes eating red harvester ants for their medicinal and hallucinogenic effects. I don't remember how many they had to consume for the effect. I do remember thinking how the ant's venom causes a very painful, hemolytic reaction when you get bitten, and I couldn't imagine it would be any better if ingested.

"Attractive" is simply too subjective a term to have any real meaning scientifically. What kinds of traits do you think are universally attractive? You might list them (let's imagine there are 10 of them) but if someone has only 2 from the list, I don't think that will necessarily make them less attractive to the population as a whole than someone who has 6. I think there is a lot more to "attractiveness" than physical features.

Are you spamming for teh Googs? Why even link to that otherwise? And you would need to give a lot more detail about the "errors" before anyone could help. The slowness is probably Vista running with low memory resources.

Since crownedconquern is the only person to understand his system, I suggest he be the only poster to this thread until he can explain himself sufficiently.

You can make a carmelized citrus peel garnish for a Negroni. http://www.chow.com/stories/10931

Generalizations are ALWAYS wrong, including this one.

If you're thinking of becoming a "moving planner", remember that most people in the market you're targeting are moving because of work, and their companies pay for relocation. It would be smart to target the companies that relocate professionals and see if you can come in from that angle. You may actually save them money by outsourcing that part of what they do. It might be interesting to see if your service fee could be rolled into the loan process for non-corporate moves. That might make it more attractive to the average family, since they wouldn't have any out-of-pocket expenses. $1000/week might be steep though. There's a lot to do in a move, but you don't spend 8 hours/day * 5 days/week * 13 weeks on it. Remember that you could easily be handling 5-6 of these simultaneously by yourself. If your service were around US$5000, you'd have more luck getting a seller to agree to pay the fee for the buyer to move into the home. US$13,500? Not even in this buyer's market, I don't think.

I'm fairly certain that if you dunk canines or felines they will hold their breath. Rats swim well and I remember hearing about Rattus invictus being able to dive underwater (they'd have to hold their breath for that, wouldn't they?). Many birds can hunt briefly underwater also. But you're right, it does seem to be the one autonomic system we can control to a fair degree due to the need for the occasional override to prevent noxious substances from being inhaled.

Mephistopheles gave Faustus 24 years of supermajority and he did the same thing with it.

Yo?

This reminds me of a waverly slithe. Nomen with the parthglen could summich thasterdly, but then my soraldic herfek got caught on Frunstin's beamish torgenfetzen. Talk about your soppy walwum!