MonDie

Furthermore, although I only know of Xittenn through a forum, I don't think of her as any less feminine than any other woman. I thought that, if anything, the song would convey that and not anything to the contrary.

Response to next post. Distinction understood, but I failed to anticipate the song being harmful in any way. I just don't understand all the hubbub about what gender or sex people are. If I still don't understand the real problem, you can remove the unedited post from your quote.

food supply died... or food supply was more mobile than the dinos, like the sky rats. Also, we know about modern examples of smuggled, foreign species thriving due to a lack of natural predators.

How could we know the answer to that? Philosophically, I would answer no because sensation (as it was previously defined) is a material phenomenon, and the experience is a psychological phenomenon.

Is this like the logic being part of existence rather than the material being part of existence? I guess "nothing" exists in that sense, but it only exists at times, not at places. Correction, it may or may not exist for a defined area.

I meant add, not multiply.

The quality of being non-existent is an oxymoron. We define what something is by what qualities it has. If you specify some objects with certain qualities, but no objects have all those qualities, I will tell you that you are talking about an empty set. In other words, you are talking about no thing as opposed to some thing(s). It's probably not even grammatically correct to say "a nothing" because the meaning of nothing is equivalent to "no thing." " 'The chair' was no thing," makes sense. " 'The chair' was a no thing," doesn't make sense. At one point, you used the term "the chair" in contexts where it didn't apply, as when you were talking about the chopped or burnt up chair, so your "chair" must encompass more forms than our normal "chair." It's understandable that you broadened the meaning to include what the chair will become, but that isn't correct. {the chair | the chair = a chair made from that tree} was an empty set before that tree was made into a chair(s) and after the chair was burnt up. {the chair | the chair = that wood or its ashy remains} is more akin to your "the chair" because you used the term "the chair" to refer to the cut up chair or its ashy remains. Let us return to the first part of this post. If the chair is non-existent, it can't possibly have the qualities that would make it a member of a set. {chair | chair = thing with four legs made for sitting} A chair can't possibly have those qualities if it doesn't exist, so it isn't a chair. It isn't a nothing either because that's improper grammer. Rather, it is no thing because no thing meets the criteria to be it. That is, no thing meets the criteria of being the non-existent chair because all things exist and "nonexistent chair" is an oxymoron.

p⁴ + 4p³q + 2p²q² + 4p²q² + 4pq³ + q⁴ = 1 A Google search showed me that this equation is mentioned in some genetics works written in other languages. Here is my question: why aren't these values normally included with descriptions of or calculators for the HWE? You can read further to find out what these values represent. I've attached an example problem at the bottom to make all of this more understandable. Also, I accidentally used the word "paternity" with an incorrect understanding that it encompassed both maternity and paternity. I'm new to Biology, and the way I came to that equation is very simply. I used a probability grid with the values for p2, 2pq, and q2 on each axis. The grid reveals the paternity patterns one would expect by chance under equilibrium. These paternity patterns would also lead to equilibrium between generations by chance. The values of the grid can be summed up this way: (p2 + 2pq + q2)2 = 1 Apply the distributive property and simplify, but don't combine the values from (2pq)² with the values from 2(p²·q²): p4 + 4p3q + 2p2q2 + 4p2q2 + 4pq3 + q4 = 1 p4 is the value for the chance frequency of AA AA paternity (both parents are homozygous dominant). 4p3q = AA Aa 2p2q2 = AA aa 4p2q2 = Aa Aa 4pq3 = Aa aa q4 = aa aa This further proves the HWE if one takes it a step further. They would draw a punnet square for each paternity pair, and record (as decimal values) the chances of each genotype of offspring for each paternity pair. Then, for each pair, multiply the decimal value for each genotype of offspring by the decimal value for that genotype of paternity. Hypothetically, these numbers, which I will refer to as the "composite values," are the chances of any randomly chosen offspring 1) being that genotype and 2) having parents with those genotypes. For example, the Aa aa paternity pair would have 0.5 for heterozygous genotype offspring and 0.5 for homozygous recessive genotype offspring because those offspring genotypes each have a 50/50 chance of resulting from that paternity pair. Then, multiply both 0.5 and 0.5 by 4pq3. The resulting values are the composite values. In the end, if you multiply all the composite values for each genotype of offspring, you will get the original values for p2, 2pq, and q2. This means that, if the paternity pairings were in line with the values of p⁴ + 4p³q + 2p²q² + 4p²q² + 4pq³ + q⁴ = 1, then the only reasons I can think of for a different distribution of alleles in the next generation would be a small population size or a disruption in gene recombination at the molecular level. Furthermore, if one had enough in-depth data about mating patterns, they could use these maths to determine whether one particular effect can account for the extent to which gene circulation is shifted from equilibrium. Of course, there are certain conditions where the biologist would need a lot of data, like with polygynous primate populations containing many transient males, but the equation is still potentially useful. Now that I've explained the meaning and hypothetical application of these values, I am going to ask those with more experience the question from the beginning. Why aren't these values normally included with descriptions of or calculators for the HWE? Also, feel free to critique anything I said in this post, or discuss real or hypothetical applications of this math.

How is the concept of species reliant on evolutionary biology? I know that an animal's species is defined by the boundary to producing viable offspring, but I don't know how the species of a bacteria is determined. This is along the same lines as antibiotic resistance. I think these all might be examples of antibiotic resistance, but I don't know the precise definitions and categorizations. I conceded antibiotic resistance in the OP (opening post). I had to review HWE (Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium) and learn about Ne (Effective Population Size) for the first time. I see how the genetics of a population is very much intertwined with theories about evolution. After reviewing the HWE, I derived another equation from it using basic concepts in probability. It was fun! I originally explained it here, but I've edited the post to avoid derailing the thread. I see the value of HWE to ecology. HWE relies on the same ideas that form the basis of evolution, but I'm assuming that an understanding of evolutionary history is probably more useful when one is trying to think of explanations for certain shifts in allele prevalence. I always thought evolutionary distance was closely correlated with genetic variance because I've heard of people actually using DNA samples to estimate when the blood-lines of different species had split apart. From there, I assumed that we only needed genetics and not evolution because genetics gave more accurate information than evolution without ever getting evolution involved. However, I was just reading about a worm called Caenorhabditis elegans. Apparently its genes are very similar to our genes despite it being a worm. Maybe I just don't understand exactly how differences in genomes are measured; maybe similarity and difference can exist simultaneously on different levels. According to sciencedaily, "many of its 20,000 genes perform the same functions as those in humans." That is another example involving microorganisms. Okay. Are you saying the end (and therefore the means) is different in species conservation versus the sustainment of harvesting?

My English 101 teacher told us to not put a comma before "because." However, it seems like the comma could make an important distinction when the first part of the sentence contains two verbs. I'll give an example. "Don't drink the tea that is steaming (,) because..." "Don't drink the tea that is steaming (,) because it is evaporating." I would say no comma because the because-portion is related to the latter verb, "steaming." "The tea that is steaming because it is evaporating," can be considered an independent part of the sentence. "Don't drink the tea that is steaming (,) because you already burnt your tongue once today." I would say add the comma because the because-portion isn't solely related to the latter verb, "steaming," it is related to the action of drinking steaming tea. "The tea that is steaming because you already burnt your tongue once today," is nonsense.

This is just bad English, which there is no excuse for because modern English is superior to ancient Greek. "Nothing" is only something as a concept, but the concept is not based on anything real. "Nothing" is just an empty set who's members cannot have any characteristics because the set has no members. Don't confuse "nothing" with any thing that can be a member of a set; "nothing" is not a thing. The term is only useful when it means "no thing," as in "No thing is both big and small."

What does ruminating on death have to do with pain? I doubt they have no objections to dying even if they have no precedent for what death is like, as is the case with humans. An animal that didn't instinctually avoid death wouldn't be very fit for survival (with the partial exception of species where kin selection is important). If they don't appear to object to dying, it's because they have no idea that they're about to die. If anything, it's a feat of the intellect for a person to be able to end their life willingly. http://www.scienceda...20323134531.htm Read the paragraph under "Lowing." http://www.scienceda...71008171240.htm This one is about recent mothers producing milk sooner if they have less serotonin. It just gives a better understanding of the "Lowing" section of the prior article.

The part about viruses and parasites is mostly in the domain of microorganisms. However, I can see how evolution would be applied if someone was anticipating divergent evolution in a certain species. They could also apply evolution to understand the consequences of a bottleneck on a population. I made this connection between conservation ecology and evolution after reading Arete's post. I imagine that evolution especially applies in conservation ecology because many conservationists would like to promote the survival of a species in the long-term, even if that means ensuring the survival of that species into a time when humans may no longer exist. That's a good point because we still don't know exactly how genes and alleles make organisms what they are. That still doesn't show why something's evolutionary history is useful. The knowledge that people have genetic diseases because the genes actually confer resistance to other diseases is useful, but it's still in a totally different area of understanding than the knowledge that people evolved from non-human primates, for example. I'm not sure how this is an argument for usefulness of understanding evolution, but I think you might have intended to imply something along these lines. That's a good point because we still don't know exactly how genes and alleles make organisms what they are. It appears like you're saying the diseases are targeting our drugs, which might be why I don't understand the rest of the sentence or the next sentence. This sounds more like applied genetics because nothing is actually evolving in this situation. Could you elaborate? This isn't familiar territory. See the opening post. That's a good example that I wasn't aware of. Is this like the above example of species conservation?

Maybe that could be applicable to the search for life on other planets, although I'm not familiar with astrobiology. However, even though that might be one clear application of an understanding of evolutionary history, astrobiology only concerns microorganisms. At least that's the case for now, although much of what is beyond this planet is still to be explored. Wouldn't that be applied genetics? Evolution isn't about anything physically part of us.

I don't know a lot about biology yet. I know the theory of evolution applies when one is anticipating antibiotic or pesticide resistance, but what about the larger animals that reproduce less? Archaeology, ecology, physiology, and genetics contribute to our understanding of their evolutionary history, then our understanding of their evolutionary history contributes to what? Arguments against fundamentalism? EDIT: I forgot that we apply artificial selection to our domesticated plants and animals, but that itself still doesn't do much to show how understanding something's evolutionary history might be useful.

Indeed, assume you picked door one, the host opened door two, AND door two opening didn't trigger the "waah waah waaaah."

Don't worry about it. I could have more explicitly stated that those were only example questions. I derived another rule from my diagram that seems counter-intuitive. Assume you chose door one, and door two opened to reveal a goat. This is displayed in the top diagram of my previous image. One way we could explain the 1/3 2/3 split is by saying this, "If door one was right, the host could have chosen to open either door two or door three. However, if door three was right, the host could only open door two. Therefore, door three is more likely the right door." Consider another example that applies this logic in an exaggerated way. People are sending two-digit numbers to a program. The program randomly chooses a person and displays their number. You type in "62," and the program displays "62." We don't know the chances of it choosing you randomly. However, if it chose you, it would have to display "62." If it chose someone else, the chances of it displaying "62" would be 1/100. This makes it more probable that the program chose you and not someone else. This is the same logic, but it's exaggerated. The number displayed by the program is analogous to the door opened by the host.

Edited because I confused respiratory tract cilia with hair.

How will the human be "perfect"? Perfectly intelligent and moral? Perfect for raising children? Will they be a gorilla-man hybrid perfect for combat? Will perfection be as subjective as our preferences for different varieties of fruit?

I wasn't actually asking those questions, they were examples of questions. After all, this is a thread about why the problem is controversial. Some of those concerns were my concerns as I was trying to solve the problem, especially the part about redefining the choices (1,2,3 vs. stay/switch). The concern was because even though I knew it was generally better to switch, it really bothered me when I was unable to define the probabilities in terms of the individual doors rather than stay vs. switch. I solved that with my chart. There were also times when I wondered why the probabilities that generally apply over the course of many trials necessarily applied in each individual trial. I solved that with my chart too. There could be other situations in which the proportions of probability will change depending on the values of the variables (e.g. if this, 1:2 ratio of probability, if that, 2:3 ratio probability), but this is not one of those situations. This was the lesser concern of mine, although both concerns might have really been the same concern. If your chart was like mine in the ways I am assuming, did you try writing fractions below the bottom boxes? For example, in the bottom row, the small boxes would have "1/18" below them and the medium boxes would have "1/9" below them because that is the probability of them being the final outcome when no variables are known. This would emphasize the half value of the small boxes compared to the medium boxes. You could also put "1/9" by the middle row boxes and "1/3" by the top row boxes to further drive the point.

I was suggesting that the simpler explanation doesn't do enough to instill a secure understanding. I'll edit that. Maybe I should read my probability book before talking more.

I know that diagram was meant to be a simple explanation for simple people, but, now that I think about it, that diagram doesn't cover the concept fully. It glosses over how to evaluate the probabilities for each door by considering each variable (known or unknown), and it does so by reducing the choices from 1,2,3 to stay/switch. A critical viewer might think, "Well, I see that when the situation is repeated, it's better to repeatedly switch rather than repeatedly stay. However, what does it have to say about each particular instance? That is, the diagram shows that it's generally best to switch, but is there always more justification for switching? How would my choosing of a door impact the probabilities for each door in each instance?"

That diagram is basically the same except that it takes into account less variables. I made the prior diagram because I was trying to think about how the probabilities could be different from different perspectives. I was also trying to prove that my method of diagramming works by using it to get accurate probabilities.

I haven't studied probability yet, but I think I thought of a good way to explain the problem. I haven't read the whole thread yet, but it doesn't look like anyone has tried this. In the image below, the boxes decrease in size to show decreasing probability. For example, there is an equal chance that the contestant will choose any door. But if they choose the right door, there are two doors that could open. If they choose the wrong door, there is only one door that could open. So, the two possible outcomes after choosing the right door each have only half the probability of choosing the right door in the first place. On the other hand, the one possible outcome that can occur after choosing a wrong door is as likely as choosing that wrong door. For example, if door 1 is correct, there is a 1/6 chance that the contestant will choose door 1 and door 2 will open, and there is also a 1/6 chance that they will choose door 1 and door 3 will open. This is because the 1/3 chance of choosing door 1 (the correct door) is split into 1/6 portions when we are considering the two different events that might follow. However, there is a 1/3 chance that the contestant will choose door 2 and door 3 will open, and there is a 1/3 chance that the contestant will choose door 3 and door 2 will open. This is because there is only one door that can open after you choose a wrong door. In both of the following examples, door 2 was opened to reveal a goat. The first map represents the viewpoint given in the problem. The contestant knows which door they chose, so they can use that information to deduce the possibilities. They chose door one, and door two was revealed to be a goat door. This leaves them with two lit up squares on the bottom (two possibilities). One of those possibilities has half the chance of having occurred than the other, which is why it is represented by a smaller box. This is the reasoning behind the 1/3, 2/3 split. The second one represents a situation in which the first contestant chooses a door, but then that contestant is replaced by another contestant who knows the rules, but does not know which door the first contestant chose. The second contestant only knows that door two has been opened to reveal a goat. Based on the information this second contestant has, each door is equally likely ( 50/50 ). This is represented by the four lit up boxes at the bottom of their possibilities map. These two viewpoints don't contradict one another. Each person calculates the best they can with the information they have, but the ultimate reality does not lie within their calculations. A door cannot be two-thirds right or half right; the right door is the right door irrespective of these imagined concepts. I thought of a better way I could have drawn it. I could have made the possible number(s) for each row lit. e.g. For the second map, I'd light up all 1&2's in row 1, all 12&3's in row 2, and all 2's in row 3. Then I could have changed the color of any paths that were completely lit up to show that nothing invalidated them as possibilities.

I decided to look for any statistics on people who become irreligious. I found this. http://www.pewforum....th-in-Flux.aspx There is some relevant information under "Key Findings" "Entering and Leaving the Ranks of the Unaffiliated," but I didn't read the rest. Although I first got the impression that the site was run by a religious organization, that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll have to look into it more. That site only concerns one of the projects run by the Pew Research Center, which studies U.S. trends. http://en.wikipedia....Research_Center