Jump to content

Endy0816

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Endy0816

  1.  

    Let's consider the "gap" in question here.

     

    Whenever we talk about the theory for the evolution of man, the chart that shows the 1st primitive ape, followed by the 2nd and so on until the modern man today comes into mind. In brief, evolution would tell us it happened as a result of natural selection, and other naturally occurring modes of change from our environment that favoured us to walk more upright and also for our brains to be more tuned towards increased intelligence.

    It seems highly plausible at 1st glance, but things get a bit tricky if we put it into a realistic background to consider:

    1) If intelligence was the preferrential trait at the time of the "1st ape", the concept of natural selection should expect those born with better wired brains would statistically survive better.

    2) Evolution assumes these "higher species" will definitely have offspring in order to pass them to the next generation, but that is not always the case

    3) we need to remember also these "intelligent" offsprings do not naturally come in batches at 1 go, or in other words, they are usually the minority (very very few in the large pool of his lesser brethrens)

    If we put this theory into today's context, it could be like saying Albert Einstein is the 1st of "its kind" (the intelligent one). Say he did marry another woman of the same IQ, so will his children be born "better equipped" than the rest of us already, such that his line, will survive better and even outbreed the rest of us?

    To take the examination of this theory further, we see the apes progressed from 1st to the 2nd and so forth, as if the previous one was replaced by the latter.

    In today's world, we only see the modern man, and the apes. For this to happen, it would mean the entire groups of ape1,2,3 etc somehow all died out or got entirely interbreeded.

    Considering how people move from places to places, and also geographical isolations, the possibility to be able to outbreed all the previous ape kinds of man in the entire world would be.. near impossible (unless perhaps our ancient ancestors lived in very small groups and do not travel around for at least the past 100 thousands of years).

     

     

    2) Evolution didn't assume. A mutation occurred and the circumstances favored that mutation.

     

    3) Here you are assuming the individual didn't use their intelligence to the fullest extent. Out compete others for food, kill off competition, take multiple partners. Likely there was an environmental threat as well that the individual's intelligence and later the group's intelligence gave them greater ability to cope with.

     

    There is evidence of interbreeding. Probably wasn't as nice as people make it out to be, but evidence nonetheless.

     

    Was probably more a result of time and tides than anything deliberate. Push a group to the marginal areas, famine, disease, genetic isolation start taking their toll. Eventually all that remains are traces.

  2.  

    Do you have any evidence for your assertion that we are omnivores?

     

    Well "we" is presumptive, but humans in general are omnivorous eating both meat and plants.

     

    You also may not need to kill an animal to obtain it anymore, so meat is the correct term.

  3. Generally results are only used to show possible risk factors. They make these drugs for the lowest common denominator anyways, I doubt it'd be a major difference. Even then the drug's literature should reference anything that could impact efficiency.

     

     

    You may want to look for better prices elsewhere if that will put your friend's mind at ease.

     

    This link: http://mashable.com/2013/05/15/personal-genetics-resources/

     

    has several cheaper options. Not sure how on how much analysis they provide or for how much.

     

    Note: 23andMe is unavailable at present.

  4. I was just using the term as a catchall to reference man-made materials with properties not found in nature.

     

    OP was asking about a way to generate power from a magnet without any motion occurring in the system.

  5. There are obvious genetic and epigenetic components of intelligence, but barring that it comes down to environment. It makes rational sense to find someone who shares your ethos but genetics shouldn't(and likely won't) be a factor.

     

    Just to put it out there, I feel IQ and similar test results can cause problems. Either superiority or inferiority complexes. Personally speaking I try and downplay all my own results and praise others for whatever they are good at. If nothing else this is the most intelligent thing you can do. You have to shine sometimes, but you don't need to be the only star in the sky.

  6. Best guess would be to go with the conduction taking place in the heat sinks themselves. Found a number of potential papers just with a search for "conduction heat sinks".

     

    Discussion of the material differences(thermal conductivity), would easily give you a good amount of material. Especially with the more exotic types(diamond, composites). Corrosion resistance, pricing, should also make for good points. Might also be able to talk about the conduction taking place in heat exchangers for liquid refrigerant based cooling, not sure if that would be applicable or not though.

     

    I'm sure there are more scholarly papers you can also find depending on what resources your school gives you access to.

  7. Would need to be some sort of new metamaterial. Provided the energy to switch came from the magnet's energy or physical composition it would still be within the laws of conservation of energy.

     

    Considering some of the latest metamaterials out there(cloaking, memory metals, etc) not a huge stretch to think it'll become a reality.

  8. I think you are confusing an attack on an idea with an attack on your person. The first is allowed and expected here, the second is against the rules.

     

    As far as terminology goes, most of the time you can head over to Wikipedia and research it there.

  9. Only things I've ever heard of undergoing magnetic field self reversal are stars and some planets. Probably some moons as well. Even then there is a large degree of internal motion.

     

    Real world you would need something which undergoes cyclic changes within its own structure which affect the state of the magnetic field produced.

  10. There's repulsion and attraction. I'm sure some contraption could be made to remove energy from magnets using those effects, but it'd be somewhat pointless.

     

    You can steal the same energy with just a moving conductor in a magnetic field or alternatively rotating the magnetic field and keeping the conductor stationary.

  11. Yeah, I was thinking religion would be the most viable reason. Possibly for economic motives(novelty items/genes/tech).

     

    Realistically any invading force would probably do some version of an asteroid attack. Not that hard to sling a rock at us while bleeding off some speed. Wait for the inevitable social collapse and only then launch aerial and land based mop up teams. If biosphere recovery is an issue for them, they have the outer planetary resources to occupy their attention in the meantime.

  12. No such choice is offered. Not only do GMOs depend on the full chemical gamut of industrial agriculture aside from the specific benefits of the engineering, but the two major -cides being engineered in are two of the most benign -cides: as their effectiveness is destroyed by this kind of irresponsible abuse the replacements will in most cases be worse in their environmental, medical, and economic effects.

     

    Well, we're going to require -cide rotation either way to prevent resistance from occurring. That much is common sense. Could just rotate modified organisms in the same fashion.

     

    I'd really rather we focus on the rest of field and bring that on board. Guardian insects, precision pollinators, improved soil microbes, far more lasting options I think.

  13. I just see it as being far riskier to keep dousing our fields in assorted -cides. More damaging to the environment and likely to impact human health in my mind.

     

    Ultimately I think it'll become a non-issue. Countries, groups or even individuals are going to release deliberately modified organisms into the wild. Considering our lackluster record in dealing with natural invasive species and the amount of economic damage possible it is a near certainty. What is going to matter more is how these different traits fair in evolutionary terms.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.