FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) I'm sitting in a basement office at a school that I chose over MIT and that likes to consider itself a pretty decent rival to that school north of Boston, and I can tell you this...these "futurists" that Juggernaut is referring to as proving ID certainly have eluded me during my time here. My reference - possibly aimed an audience of only myself - was in reference to the MIT grad student who held the first. last, and only Time Traveller's Convention last year. His argument was that there on ly needed to be a single convention ever and he didn't need to worry about making the date widely known, because the target audience would have all the time in the world to get there. As far as JUGGERNAUT's definition of intelligence, ok, I can take that at face value and know what he's talking about. I would also argue, of course, that that sort of intelligence (the capacity for rational thought) is an arbitrary and quite poor measure of evolutionary success, on our planet or anywhere else. Cockroaches are exactly as smart as they need to be to be successful cockroaches. Ditto for sharks, sequoyas, and slime molds. The only measure of evolutionary success that means anything is survival such that the best adapted members of one generation in a population is allowed to pass its genes on to the maximum number of individuals in the next generation. Cognative ability is a nifty parlour trick, to be sure, but it's not a prerequisite for evolutionary success.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 11:16 AM) Futurists from MIT & other prestigious universities will tell you as much Yeah, if you can make it to the convention, that is. Well, I guess there will always be time for that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 11:10 AM) Me, Kap, Mreye, ControlledChaos, EvilMonkey, NUKECLEVELAND, southsideirish, sox4lifeinpa... We have plenty of outspoken conservative christians on this board. Did YAS defect from the Dark Side and come over to us?!?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 10:32 AM) Life can evolve in the most harshest conditions imaginable. For the vast majority of evolutionary time spent on this planet life was mostly a primordial soup. The likelihood that such life exists elsewhere in the Universe is high. However the likelihood that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe is extremely low based on the chronology of events that brought us into being. With respect to the further evolution of the human eye we are on the road to being our own intelligent designers. Human cloning, genetic manipulation, cyborg technology are all inevitable consequences of some people's desire to live forever. The fact that we can do it will trump any discussion or barrier on whether we should do it. From here on out natural selection will have little impact on human evolution. The primary influence will be our intelligence & the technology that arises from it. Yes, photosynthesis first arose about 2.5 billion years ago, with the first primary producers scavenging oxygen from the lithosphere via the more easily oxidized rocks. And oxygen didn't begin to accduumulate in the atmosphere until about a billion years ago, before which there was no radiation of aerobic life forms, nor any ozone layer to protect from UV. (Interestingly, the verdict is still out, but the classic view of life beginning in the mathane-ammonia primordial soup ala' Orey and Miller's classic experiments is currently widely challeged.) I'll disagree with the suggestion that there's not necessarily "higer" life (the equivalent to terran multi-celled eukaryotes; I'll stay away from "intelligent" simply to avoid a side discussion on what intelligence is and what were the forst organisms to demonstrate it) elsewhere in the universe. The mere fact that the chronology of events surrounding organic evolution on earth is unlikelyy to be precisely duplicated doesn't preclude the possibility (or even the likelihood) that other chronologies begat other equally fruitful organic evolutionary pathways. Consider our own chemosynthetic deep sea communities, found near thermal vents or cold methane seeps. They are completely divorced from the need for solar input, demonstrate real heartiness as extreme thermophiles, are tolerant of levels of sulfur compounds, methane, etc., that would be incredibly toxic to most eukaryotic life, and have come up with some unique symbioses to allow the development of comples communities. Until we stumbled on these systems in the late 70s, we couldn't have conceived of their existence. I'd also reject the argument that from here on out natural selection will have little impact on human evolution, regardless of the technological advances we apply to perpetuating the species. We are want we are, and we are that because of natural selection. We enjoy the view frm quite an adaptive peak at the moment, but we may well be incredibly ill-adapted for survival is the environment were to change drastically. We will be weeded out by natural selective pressures while other organic forms that can still make the cut will live on. Technology can and will push these envelopes to be sure, but envelopes are not indefinately elastic; eventually they either snap back or they break.

I used to like large curd cottage cheese better than small curd, but now I believe I like them equally well.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 10:12 AM) In accordance with the new guidelines I ask that you refrain from personal references in your posts. Statements such as "you miss the point completely" will undoubtedly be followed up with "No, you have" & vice versa & flamatory remarks will escalate. It doesn't escalate if the participants don't let it. There is nothing derogatory or attacking in someone saying, 'you're missing my point,' regardless of whether their arguments are well-founded or not. If I'm missing somebody's point, they let me know and they clarify. In the end I may in no way agree with them, but I understand the argument they are trying to make. And btw, I completely see the point you are trying to make. But in thinking about the 'new rules', I think it boils down to: 1) Always respect the messenger 2) Agree or not with the message, even making efforts to expose it's flaws, but don't belittle it as ignorance if you disagree with it. 3) Don't talk about Fight Club.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 12:35 AM) That is the toughest statement to prove of all that has been posted here today. Soxy's statement is actually very much on the money. It has always been the environment that has dictated what constitutes a fit variant from an unfit variant. When the environment changes, so do the rules, and populations that were wonderfully suited to former conditions then find themselves to be poorly suited to the new ones. And the real kicker is that, since evolution has no way of knowing what a future environment will look like, entire evolutionary lines can find themselves stranded on a former adaptive 'peak' that has now become a mere adaptive 'foothil' (to use Sewell Wright's spatial analogy of a topographic 'adaptive landscape'). They are stranded, without the means to reach the new peak, because in order to do so they would have to throw out eaons of evolutionary modifications and pass through an adaptive 'valley' first, most likely resulting in extinction. Great, great stuff. And Donald Rumsfeld has given us a good analogy. Just as we 'don't go to war with the army we wish we had,' species do not evolve with the fitness ingredients they wish they had, bit only those they actually do have. And it has lead to lots of imperfect evolutionary elaborations. The vertebrate eye is a great example. As Soxy had said, the vertebrate eye will no doubt continue to evolve according to the operant environmental filters, bit it will never acheive "perfection" per se. That is because evolution is forced to proceed with what it has at hand. In the case of the eye, we have a rediculously large blind spot in the dead center of our field of vision because the optic nerve passes through the photoreceptor-bearing retina precisely at this point. Our binocular vision compensates for that, of course, but it is still not the design an optical engineer would ever select if he could tear it all down and start from scratch. And of course, vertebrate evolutionary lines cannot because blindness for several thousand generations would certainly be an insurmountable adaptive valley. Our respiratory and digestive system construction is another example. Why the heck should out trachaeas and esophagus cross one another if such an arrangment invariably leads to clogged windpipes and suffocation? Basically because evolution through natural selection has done the best it could with what it had to work with. Part and parcel to there being no preordained finish line to the whole of organic evoolution, only the goal of perpetuating the most successful forms as abundantly as possible through successive generations.

This is a good discussion. Like I had said in the other thread, I'd contend that the rapid rise of the Homo line argues quite in favor for natural selection as a driving mechanism rather than against it. Superior phenotypes successfully running the environmental gauntlet where less fit variants cannot, being rewarded by passing on those favorable traits to more and more individuals in successive generations, etc.. And though researchers haven't figured out what put the Homo evolutionary line into high gear, that's no reason to suspect natural selection was not the driving force. You suggest 25 million years was not enough time for watershed changes in brain structure and wiring to occur through natural selection, but I don't see it as being very different at all from the rapid adaptive radiation events taht occurred during the Cambrian explosion or after the mass extinction events of the Permian or K-T Boundary. In those cases, new niches opened up and evolution quickly supplied a diversity of forms to successfully fill those niches. I think Homo spp. evolution might be similar, except that it took our arrival at a stage where we could use tools before the new niches opened up. New ways of life became possible because Homo spp. had artificially extended its phenotype by becoming the only tool user in town, and evolution by means of natural selection rapidly filled available niches with a number of different Homo lines - many of which we know to have co-occurred for a good deal of time. As for Darwin calling spontaneous evolution of the vertebrate eye absurd, well, of course he was right. One of the big difficulties for evolutionary biologists has been explaining how small micromutational changes can accumulate into large changes like vertebrate eyes, snake envenomation apparatus, etc. Some of this has been addressed by getting away from Gould's 'what good is looking like half a turd' thinking (eg, when explaining the evolution of crypsis). Dawkins' counter argument is that there are times when the dailing light of dusk is just right and the 'turd bug' is right at the periphery of a predator's vision and it succesfully escapes predation because looking like half a turd was enough in that case. That is the kind of slight phenotypic advantage that can be selected for at a rate just a little more than the wild type at first, but will become increasingly dominant as selection continues, and as incipient turd bugs reproduce and displace less fit variants. And, yes, that's a much simpler story than an eye, but the same concepts apply.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 05:33 PM) I have a question also: So ALCS and World Series tickets go on sale all at the same time? And you just buy them hoping your team of choice makes it that far? Im confused When the tickets go on sale for ticketmaster... is it just the first series? Or all impeding series as well? Thanks In 2000 the Divisional and Championship series' tickets went on sale simultaneously, IIRC. At least that is how I remember it. And, yes, you hope your team makes it that far, they sell tix to 7 ALDS games even though it could be over in 4, etc. Then you have to send them back for refunds which is a pain but eventually your money gets refunded.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:34 PM) At least 1 of the phrases on that page is either wrong or out of date...they said the Klingon for "Today is a good day to die" in Episode 1 of Star Trek DS9: Season 4, and that's not the phrase they have on the page. How scary am I right now? Really, really, really scary.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'. First door on the right.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) You're having fun I see. www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html Just testing those mod boundaries. . .

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:14 PM) It's A GIRL! Brian's sister-in-law had her baby today - 7lbs 12 oz and 21" long. We aren't sure of the spelling, but we think it is Shyla Adeline. Today is also Brian's dad's birthday! Congratulations to your sister-in-law(-in-law)!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:10 PM) Presumably, the logical thing for an admin to say is that it's fine to criticize players ability, decision making, or even the fact they're getting playing time... But it's not tolerable to insinuate that players are getting playing time in exchange for sexual favors from the manager. Ah, such a thin line between clever and stupid.

Nice knowing ya, pally.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:02 PM) That's both tactless & offensive. Well, then I have to go back to tact school. Not directed at you, btw, just an example of how you might get around the "I" word. Any way, Hab SoSlI' Quch.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) If I swear at someone...but I do so in Klingon...do I get banned for nerdiness? Hab SoSlI' Quch!!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) On the subject of SOTALK regulation are these phrases acceptable? "you are mistaken" "contrary to your opinion/belief" "nonsense" "baka" Simple tact is what is needed. I find your insights to be something I'd like to carry with me... FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:49 PM) Don't critisize the players Don't critisize other posters Then you'll be set. And Don't Talk About Fight Club.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:30 PM) The city is subsiding because of groundwater pumping from all that I've heard...the sediment supply is an issue of the coastline and how it functions (barrier islands are a wonderful protection against storm surge when they do exist) And pretty much the barrier islands don't exist anymore. Nor much of the stabilizing coastal vegitation.

You guys are like superheroes... What a gift to SoxTalk you all are.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:24 PM) My grama just sent me this... my grama!!! http://j.dollan.home.bresnan.net/JMDPic01.jpg Grama is a foul one! And the acronym for that theory turns out to be G.I.F.T. So, from now on whenever somebody is referred to as a GIFT for all of SoxTalk to enjoy, you know that's a heads up.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:20 PM) Agree.. wasn't the brightest move dropping anchor there, but back then they didn't realize I'm sure. Regardless.. as important as NO is to this countries economy you'd think it would have continued to be a priority to make it "stronger". What is it.. 20% of all goods go into or come out of there..? 20%.. of EVERYTHING... Bienville founded New Orleans where it was because of its accessibility, located right between the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain. So from that standpoint it made sense. The growth of a settlement to a metropolis on the same site, that was not so well thought out. Truth is, though, there has been a lot of land subsidence since then. The site is worse now then it was ehen it was founded.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) http://www.uchospitals.edu/ - findings on frequency of mutation in humans. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50111170714.htm Humans Are A 'Privileged' Evolutionary Lineage Lahn: "The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that's unprecedented. Our study offers the first genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of life." www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=Bruce+Lahn&topic=all&dates=1995&dates=2005&sort=relevance Thanks.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:08 PM) Personal attacks are not going to be allowed. We have had tons of discussion about this, and calling people and their opinions ignorant falls in that category. OK, but it's not being equally doled out. JUGGS' stuff has been called "hogwash" etc., in this thread, but those posts stand, and that's the same as calling his opinion ignorant. It may well be hogwash, and I'm not saying those posts should be scrubbed, but i didn't see any attacks in the missing post that warranted the deletion. Maybe I missed it, I don't know. And if the deletion was at the request of someone who was personally attacked, then ignore all of this. I don't envy you guys your jobs, especially when it comes to being arbiters of acceptability. I'm just trying to recalibrate myself, because there was nothing I read in that post that screamed DELETE to me.