Leaderboard

From a conceptual level, an understanding of basic neutral theory is also a good place to start. If you can wrap your brain around the concepts of how stochastic changes occur at the molecular level in populations, it becomes easier to layer on selective evolution, game theory and other increasingly complex models of evolution. The seminal paper is Kimura 1968. http://dosequis.colorado.edu/Courses/MethodsLogic/papers/Kimura1968.pdf but this review is probably more accessible. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13650

Infinity has an end? Infinity means many different things, depending on when it is used. The word is from a Latin word, which means "without end". Infinity goes on forever, so sometimes space, numbers, and other things are said to be 'infinite', because they never come to a stop. ... For example, adding 10 to a number repeatedly. Let me know when you reach the end...

I notice that no-one has asked about your age, CuriousOne. If you are under 20, you're still in the 'learning stage' of your life, and people will cut you all kinds of slack, and try to help you. If you are between 20 and 50, people expect you to know some basics, not be so impulsive ( dare I say scatter-brained ? ) in your actions and posting style. Once pointed out, they expect you to stop the annoying behaviour and conform, or else you soon find yourself with a sac full of neg reps, suspensions, and even banning. If you are over 50, I gotta ask … How did you manage to make it so far in life ??

I see. You’re clearly just not used to having friends. These examples you gave are absurd and would never happen in practice. They also reinforce your predilection for missing the point and apparent reading comprehension challenges

See Section 5: Disclaimer and Copyright in the guidelines: https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Certainly this Forum is not adequate for young people. If it is @CuriosOne's case, I understand his reaction.

It's not uncommon, for example, to use it to refer to a substance in more than one phase. It is said that the phases coexist. I would think that that would be using the default meaning of the term for physics.

Oh, John, Fox News is pro-republican (or anti-democrats). They would support any republican's candidate no matter what he or she would represent by himself/herself (which they actually did four years ago, by not "slapping" misogynist molester of women). They are not pro-Trump-at-any-cost, they are pro-republican-candidate-at-any-cost. At least until they have a chance to win the election. So the next step will be to "slap" at J.Biden (or his relatives) or Harris, to prepare ground for a new republican's candidate in 2024.

I didn’t call you a liar. Normally, I would not share details of a report, but since you have given permission, your report says ”This person is accusing me of alteration of forum rules..” Nobody has accused you if this. I don’t think any rational person would think a non-staff member could change the rules. Rather, you were challenged to show where you had been told that posting videos was against the rules. These are very different things. The common theme here is that you seem to have some reading comprehension issues. You are interpreting statements in a way that is quite different from a plain reading of what is written. It’s not an accusation that you are lying, rather, it’s that you didn’t read carefully, or didn’t understand something that you read. Those are assessments based on what you posted, and options that do not say that you were accused of being malicious. Being identified as mistaken, or ignorant, etc. is not a violation of our civility rules. People can be mistaken, or ignorant. It does not make them bad people. Mistakes can be corrected. Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge. IOW, these are ways for you to identify shortcomings in your posts. Professional criticism, not insults. It’s rather helpful to differentiate the two. One should note that in an exchange like this: A: No, that’s wrong B: Oh, I’m a liar? It is person B who is doing the insulting, because they are making an unfounded claim that A has accused them of lying (which means there was intent to deceive). Person B would be in trouble here. It’s a bad-faith response.

Fox News interrupted broadcast from the White House conference, similar like CNN earlier this week, because of D.T.'s press secretary was lying.. https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-cut-trump-press-secretary-false-election-fraud-video-2020-11?IR=T

I dont see here a production of glycerin. Only two oils, water and salt are mixed and heated. A yellow dull mixture was formed. There is no separation process to get rid of the fat acids and the glycerin. This needs caustic soda to crack the ester bonds. At the end the whole mixture was put on the skin, not good idea.

He both is and isn't the moon, depending on who he's talking to. High self-monitoring, you see. and an ever simmering kettle to boot. ... My bad. I'm music babbling.

This is a discussion forum. Hence, we tend to discuss things. Please quit your bitching and join in, or leave. You are making a spectacle of yourself.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100305-is-it-true-about-the-us-ballot-papers/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1108258 Agreed It’s not over yet. Power hasn’t yet transitioned and they’re actively blocking intelligence briefings to Biden while firing anyone who can provide oversight (Sec Def Esper today, and head of CIA and FBI likely soon)

Or just mistaken. Or ignorant. Or suffering some handicap or mental deficit. Or some combination of those and other things.

Actually, we should be talking about Dawkin's teacup , orbiting a planet between earth and mars. Doesnt anyone here worship that?? Im the atheist, so dont blame me.

I'm waiting for the REAL religion to come around. So my faith is postponed. But he's building a temple, made of styrofoam. I'm looking forward to worship.

! Moderator Note What an ugly thing to say in a discussion about science. Nothing meaningful left here. Thread closed.

This is one of the weirdest definitions of free will I've ever heard. Without external factors there is not even a reason to act. What you want is always in a field of possibilities from which you can choose. Using a more direct, less controversial definition of free will your problem does not even arise.If you can act according your own wishes and beliefs, then you acted freely. If you can act freely, you have free will. Or let it put a little differently: given your wishes and beliefs, if you can act according to them, you have free will. The idea that you can choose what preferences you have (before you are born???) is an absurd idea. 'You' were not there, so who is doing the choosing of your preferences? And what are the preferences used to choose your preferences? Using a definition that implies an infinite regress from the beginning is a very poor move, and leads inherently to absurdities. You do not choose who or what you self are. But you can choose how to act. That is the touchstone for the question if you act freely: if you act according your own (given!) preferences, you act freely. If you are coerced, i.e. act according the preferences of somebody else, against your own preferences is a 'none-free' action.

I shudder to think. WTF are you talking about?

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard...

In other words, Post are "Integrated." Kind of which i was trying to figure out when i was asking if 4 is a coefficient or a natural number😉 What your saying makes perfect sense now... I agree, especially when speaking on ""incompleted theories"" that have not been previously published and or on its final edit process by the distribution publishers... This science forum should make a "special note" on that as there are many people whom are prematurely excited to share their ideas with the world without their copyrighted information being "actually published" released and authenticated in news papers or other publicity measures. This really is a serious issue..