studiot

Is physically passing on the evolved characteristic to a subsequent generation necessary for the change to be classified as evolution? Or is just the appearance of the change itself enough? An does this term only aplly to the first time the change occurs or can it also apply to any instance of this change? For instance if I take two petri dishes of culture and allow (stimulate) identical (evolutionary ?) changes in each and prove that they are transmitted to the next generation by allowing this to happen in one dish, but prevent transmission in the second by killing all the culture or otherwise. Do both instances qualify as being called an evolutionary change?

Swansont only does this to increase his green score. I understand the owners had to apply for more server space to accomodate it.

Mike, One last try to explain. I have drawn three figures of a frictionless block attached to a rope. In Elevation 1 the block is pulled along a horizontal ice surface at a steady speed by the rope so there is no friction. What forces would you say are acting on the block ? I say that the downward weight of the block is balanced by the upward reaction of the ice and that there is zero tension in the rope and that no other forces are acting. ************** In Elevation2 the block is now being accelerated by the pull in the rope but everything else is as before. Again what forces would you say are acting on the block ? I say that the downward weight of the block is still balanced by the upward reaction of the ice. However there is now a tension in the rope causing the acceleration and that no other forces are acting. Would you say there is any other force in this situation? ************************** Now in Plan 3 the block is being swung around by the rope, still on the ice. Note that fig3 is a plan view. So I say that the downward weight of the block is still balanced by the upward reaction of the ice. I have shown the situation where we believe that there is a centripetal tension in the rope pulling on the block, balanced by a centrifugal force, acting outwards on the block. If this is true the the resultant of the centripetal force and the centrifugal force is zero. Since the resultant is zero why does the block whirl in circle and not continue in a straight line?

Can you explain the 'wave' in your TEW theory? I say this because the 'wave' in quantum wave mechanics is not actually a wave at all, the name is a bit of a misnnomer.

Perhaps some can make it after all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22610889

Cockroach Evolution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22611143

Fair question but is discussion well served by taking too narrow a definition? For instance "discuss roads where a road is defined as having an asphalt surface" is pretty limiting.

They visited a hedgehog sanctuary and rescue service. Here the warden explained and demonstrated that the traditional defence mechanism of the hedgehog is to roll into a prickly ball and remain stationary. This action has lead to large numbers of squashed hedgehogs that do this in front of oncoming vehicles on the roads. Apparantly some hedgehogs have learned to run for their lives instead. However this makes them vulnerable to cats and dogs etc who can then attack their vulnerable undersides.

Do you genuinely want to hear my explanation? I ask because instead of just saying the above you have done something you accused others of You have dissected my post with a longer winded attempt to discredit it that the length of post#1 Further you presented your own analysis of the original as disproof of mine. However, whilst mine was complete, you missed out a significant part of post#1, stated twice both at the beginning and the end. Was this an error of omission or commission?

I am not a biologist and acept that I may have taken the term evolution in a non biological way, although I was still referring to the core idea of a change that has produced something that has not occurred before. Interestingly Darwin went on a famous long sea voyage at the time when evolution was a nuatical term that meant (and still does) something slightly different. However my post also contained some suggestions what I understand concerning the core issue of the OP to be. That is Can evolutionary change occur in (big) jumps as well as a continuous series of (very) small steps? I must apologise to Gian if my answer has led to quibbling over terms and diverted the discussion away from this. I saw the recent BBC programme (countryfile) that discussed the change in the behaviour of hedgehogs.

I think the terms 'evolution' and evolve have a wider meaning than that

Kristalris, Like myself, Bignose is a native English speaker and I suspect (without disparagement) that you are not. It may be that is why you have completely missed the point of this thread. The title tells a native English speaker to expect a discourse on a subject, but does not state what the position or opinion of the OP is. Some terms are used, but not defined. So we look at post#1 for explanation. First an example is presented of a relatively unknown person presenting a small advance in an obscure area of mathematics, with full proof. Note that the 'meaningful contribution' is not the discovery of the century and the 'unknown' not totally unheard of. So this sets allowable parameters for the discussion. The OP then presents his point which is that he is strongly advising those who post here to offer at least sound well constructed reasoning if not actually full proof, which of course cannot then be refuted. He does not say that it is impossible for someone matching his definition of unknown to achieve this - quite the opposite in fact, Nor does he say that the time for any contribution to become accepted is either important or not important, something you have made quite a fuss about. The fact remains that the main point here is to encourage better posts. Anything else is off topic.

Would you not say that the emergence of life itself, ie the event which produced the very first organism, was a pretty dramatic and sudden step in evolution? I venture to suggest that sudden dramatic steps are easier in simple organisms and happen frequently such as the evolution of drug resistant microbes. Evolution in complex organisms is more likely to proceed at a sedate pace, though sometimes the result is similar eg warfarin tolerant rats.

No comment at all by Kristalris This lack of comment unmasks your true desire here. To simply promote argument. Why else select my words and quote them but have so little interest in them that you do not either agree or disagree or ask for more information?

It is a shame that this thread has wandered so far off topic, because at the outset Bignose highlighted a serious and valid point about the increasing difficulty and unlikelyhood of a precocious genius in the modern world. Einstein was not recorded as being such a person, great though he became. Both Gauss and Ramanujan, on the other hand were, the former in the nineteenth century, the latter in the twentieth. go well

No that's not the Carnot efficiency. Have you thought about my questions?

Usually it is a shear force (parallel to the motion) The shear force imparts curvature to the sraight motion of the air. When that curvature is suffiiciently great the curve turns right back on itself and a vortex is created. The shear is created in the first place by moving air brushing past something. This may be a mountain, it may be another mass of colder or warmer air or moister or dryer air or a tree or whatever.

Well we normally express efficiencies as a % but yes you have calculated the Carnot efficiency. What about the efficiency of the inventor's machine and how does that compare to the Carnot efficiency? What else do you know about the Carnot efficiency? For the second part can you draw the Carnot cycle on a PV indicator diagram and identify the values at the corners?

Mike, does this help? http://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html

Over what range of x do you wish to work, and is u(k) a linear function of k or what? The first term on the right is linear. The second term requires a range so that you can replace the square root by a linear funtion of x(kn) The u(k) requires defining so that its linearisation can be evaluated.

Well the question is obviously about Carnot cycles and engines. So what can you say about these in relation to the problems?

I repeat my assertion that Einstein and relativity is off topic. Prior to his first two relativity papers, Einstein published three papers in 1905, one of which earned him a Phd, one of which earned him a Nobel prize. He was not an unknown and therefore not suitable as an example in this thread.

Taste is a possibility, but not conclusive. However, gwiyomi knows from a previous question that the solubility of gas decreases with temperature increase so if you heat water containg a dissolved gas, some will be evolved (that's a nice chemistry word) and may be collected and identified.

How does taste distinguish between dissolved gas and dissolved solid or dissolved other liquid?

It's not a question of fault. In your post#30 you presented a guy on a green box facing the edge of a roundabout, and subject to a red arrow from the roundabout (not the one on the green box). That, sir, is a push. When I asked if the large weight could push onthe next link outwardsI think you accepted it could not and does not. So I ask again where or why you think the end of a rotating arm could exert a push on anything. If a piston was spinning in a cylinder would it exert a radial push outward on the bore?