Somebody mentioned Darwinism...
-
Gosh, I never knew so many of my friends were morons and losers. Thanks for clueing me in. :wtf:
MKJCP wrote:
Gosh, I never knew so many of my friends were morons and losers. Thanks for clueing me in.
This appears to be a very appropriate time to remind you of that well known axiom of behavior: "Birds of a feather flock together" You are encouraged to "read into that" !
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
MKJCP wrote:
Gosh, I never knew so many of my friends were morons and losers. Thanks for clueing me in.
This appears to be a very appropriate time to remind you of that well known axiom of behavior: "Birds of a feather flock together" You are encouraged to "read into that" !
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I understand it feels good to demean. There has been so much of it lately. As Gandhi said, anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding. Good luck with your path.
My path is not that of Gandhi - that was HIS path. Mine is to try, however hard, to see the humor in our existence rather than descend into it's pathos. Let me give you another philosopher's thoughts - not quite the same flavor yet real it encompasses Gandhi and Nietzsche, Vonnegut and Lennon: "I'm the one that has to die when it's my time to die" - Jimi Hendrix
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
My path is not that of Gandhi - that was HIS path. Mine is to try, however hard, to see the humor in our existence rather than descend into it's pathos. Let me give you another philosopher's thoughts - not quite the same flavor yet real it encompasses Gandhi and Nietzsche, Vonnegut and Lennon: "I'm the one that has to die when it's my time to die" - Jimi Hendrix
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Exactly. My point was that your path is NOT that of Gandhi. That's OK. Everyone chooses for themselves. I share your point of view on humor in our existence. So did George Carlin. I wish he was around to provide some commentary on our current world. Some of his thoughts were timeless though. "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - GC
-
Darwinism does not work any more. It's predicated on the weak dying but in a civilised society, that does not happen
-
OK. Any complaints about these lessons is "on you !" Stomach protects itself - prostaglandin 1 if I recall correctly. Without it, you would slowly digest your own stomach. Many NSAID's (like aspirin, but NOT acetaminophen) have a side effect of suppressing your prostaglandins and that's how chronic use can end up giving you ulcers. It's not the aspirin, an extremely weak acid, that does the damage (at least not directly). Although it doesn't have to be water, acid strength is typically considered how completely the acid ionizes in water. That is, HCL become H+ and Cl- when in aqueous solution. There is no HCL left. This is facilitated by water being very polar. Water is a bent molecule (CO2 is straight). Because it is bent, the local charges are asymmetric on the molecule even though it's net neutral. Like a magnet, in a way, it has poles (hence "polar"). The O in H2O holds the more negative charge, the H's, the more positive charge. They can thus "solvate" ionic species and stabilize their charge. It is for this same reason that salt (NaCl) dissolves in water and is only in existence as Na+ and Cl-. Solvation is a pretty powerful force as it has to, in the case of salt, break up the the salt crystal lattice. (At this point, it gets more complicated as we would talk about Gibbs vs Helmholtz free Energies and Entropy). Anyway, it's for this same reason oil and water don't mix: the water molecules are attracted to one another rather strongly and will not let the oil molecules intervene. Intermediate substances, such as alcohols are polar. Small molecules, such as methanol, ethanol, and propanol are polar enough where entropy will make the totally miscible with water. The randomization of the molecules overcomes the mutual attraction. Longer chain alcohols are not totally miscible (but are soluble) with water, less and less so as the organic part dominates its properties. Soap . . . a magic substance (look up micelles) ! Note, back to the original topic, if you were to dissolve HCL in something totally non-polar, like hexane, then it would not be ionized. Other definitions of acid in other contexts: Bronsted Acid: Based upon the ability of a substance to "donate" or "accept" protons (H+) Lewis Acid: Based upon the substance's ability to donate or accept electrons There are other definitions for other contexts - these two are often relevant in Organic chemistry. Anyway, that's more than enough for now. And then some "solvate" implies they surround the
I remembered a couple of things, others were totally new for me. Thank you.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
MKJCP wrote:
Gosh, I never knew so many of my friends were morons and losers. Thanks for clueing me in.
This appears to be a very appropriate time to remind you of that well known axiom of behavior: "Birds of a feather flock together" You are encouraged to "read into that" !
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Talking of birds and flocks ... May I recommend Charlotte Hemelrijk: The collective motion of flocks of birds[^] - a 30 minute 'Science & Cocktails' talk about the stepwise development of a simulation model of the movements of a flock of starlings. If I were teaching simulation to Comp.Sci students, I would certainly refer the students to this presentation, as an excellent example of how to model a physical phenomenon! The Science & Cocktails presentations are great! (The family name of the speaker seems appropriate when she talks about flocks of starlings :-))
-
Talking of birds and flocks ... May I recommend Charlotte Hemelrijk: The collective motion of flocks of birds[^] - a 30 minute 'Science & Cocktails' talk about the stepwise development of a simulation model of the movements of a flock of starlings. If I were teaching simulation to Comp.Sci students, I would certainly refer the students to this presentation, as an excellent example of how to model a physical phenomenon! The Science & Cocktails presentations are great! (The family name of the speaker seems appropriate when she talks about flocks of starlings :-))
trønderen wrote:
I would certainly refer the students to this presentation, as an excellent example of how to model a physical phenomenon!
Yipes. Another trip to my youth earlier days in real life. I modeled surface chemistry, in particular nearest neighbor interactions of adsorbates, on transition metal surfaces. Monte-Carlo simulation. As it turned out, it explained phenomena oft seen but not yet explained (per one of the referees of the publication). Actually, a big enough deal of an idea, that, had I know in graduate school that I'd have such an idea I would have tried to get an academic position. As an aside: the model was proven experimentally. Practical Application: Induced Surface Ensembles on Transition Metal Surfaces. Applied to catalytic process (like petroleum chemistry) it would greatly improve efficiency of the reactions. US Gov't, my employer at the time, patented it. Oh my ! What could have been!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
For humans, as a group, only intelligence allowed the group to survive. We lack fangs. We lack claws. We cannot run very fast. Basically, an easy meal and the carnivore's don't even get much hair stuck in their teeth. Until the clever one figured out how to pick up a stick and sharpen the ends . . .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
All you say is true, as far as it goes. My fear is that intelligence has become for us what the peacock's display has become for it - contra-survival, but the females of the species expect it to be displayed...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I think you meant "Chloric acid", and no, the gene pool can do quite well without it. :)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Darwinism does not work any more. It's predicated on the weak dying but in a civilised society, that does not happen
Quote:
[Go to Parent] Darwinism does not work any more. It's predicated on the weak dying but in a civilised society, that does not happen
It's still in force; it's based on natural selection, and in some environments being "weak" (for whatever definition of "weak" you want to use) is not necessarily the same as "being selected against". This whole idea I've been seeing that Darwinism is not in effect anymore is based on the misguided notion that it works by weeding out the weak. It doesn't. It works by weeding out the less suitable characteristics for a particular environment.
-
Quote:
[Go to Parent] Darwinism does not work any more. It's predicated on the weak dying but in a civilised society, that does not happen
It's still in force; it's based on natural selection, and in some environments being "weak" (for whatever definition of "weak" you want to use) is not necessarily the same as "being selected against". This whole idea I've been seeing that Darwinism is not in effect anymore is based on the misguided notion that it works by weeding out the weak. It doesn't. It works by weeding out the less suitable characteristics for a particular environment.
OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
-
OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
Quote:
[Go to Parent] OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
But I didn't say that. Desire has nothing to do with suitability. Darwinism is "survival of the fittest", where fittest means "those characteristics most suitable to the environment". Those characteristics may have nothing at all to do with how strong/weak/tough/etc an individual is. The environment exerts a selection pressure, and in civilised society there is no selection pressure against weak individuals. None at all. In fact, in civilised society there are very few selection pressures on the human population - an individual who is a weak midget with slight mental retardation will still pass on their genes. That's because there is no selection against weak midgets with slight mental retardation - we take care of everyone, young, old, weak, helpless, etc. That doesn't mean Darwinism isn't in effect, it just means that it is not selecting for th characteristics you think it should.
-
Quote:
[Go to Parent] OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
But I didn't say that. Desire has nothing to do with suitability. Darwinism is "survival of the fittest", where fittest means "those characteristics most suitable to the environment". Those characteristics may have nothing at all to do with how strong/weak/tough/etc an individual is. The environment exerts a selection pressure, and in civilised society there is no selection pressure against weak individuals. None at all. In fact, in civilised society there are very few selection pressures on the human population - an individual who is a weak midget with slight mental retardation will still pass on their genes. That's because there is no selection against weak midgets with slight mental retardation - we take care of everyone, young, old, weak, helpless, etc. That doesn't mean Darwinism isn't in effect, it just means that it is not selecting for th characteristics you think it should.
They have to do with capacity to survive and thrive. But people who can't do that, are not stopped from existing and therefore breeding. The only selection going on is that some people are more likely to find a mate. But no one is having lots of kids and most people can find someone to have kids with
-
...in a recent reply to a post. The only problem I have with Darwinism is that it doesn't work fast enough so we are stuck with millions of idiots we can't get rid of! Note: This post may seem to be political (and therefore verboten) but it isn't meant to be; just a sad reflection on the human race today.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Darwin wrote another book, which the popular discussions on Darwinism pretty much always ignore. In this book, he talks about how there is another factor on which genes get passed on - sexual attraction. Male birds have big, bright feathers, which make them easier targets for predators, but females like them, so they get passed on. In civilized society, sexual attraction is the number one driver of gene selection. If football player physiques are fashionable, then that's what the other sex wants. So, that's what increases in the gene pool. And don't forget, evolution, in most cases, can take 10's of thousands of years to make significant changes in the ratios of genes. Of course horrific events, like the holocaust or a volcanic eruption, can speed up the process. Bond Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
-
Quote:
[Go to Parent] OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
But I didn't say that. Desire has nothing to do with suitability. Darwinism is "survival of the fittest", where fittest means "those characteristics most suitable to the environment". Those characteristics may have nothing at all to do with how strong/weak/tough/etc an individual is. The environment exerts a selection pressure, and in civilised society there is no selection pressure against weak individuals. None at all. In fact, in civilised society there are very few selection pressures on the human population - an individual who is a weak midget with slight mental retardation will still pass on their genes. That's because there is no selection against weak midgets with slight mental retardation - we take care of everyone, young, old, weak, helpless, etc. That doesn't mean Darwinism isn't in effect, it just means that it is not selecting for th characteristics you think it should.
Member 13301679 wrote:
Darwinism is "survival of the fittest", where fittest means "those characteristics most suitable to the environment".
More specifically, fittest is defined as those individuals who successfully produce the next generation. Once that's done, their death has no impact on evolution.
