 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition is
wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for the
other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for someone to
claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong without actually
being able to specify what they think the definition is.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:50:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, I particularly liked "Hit me with your Battle Hymn", but they all
>> were outstanding.:-) It's rare for that game not to be good, unless
>> Jeremy's involved.;-)
>>
>>
> Oh! No! Jeremy's great.
s/great/grate - fixed that for you. ;-) (Seriously, though, he's very
funny because he knows he can't sing and has fun with it - and that *is*
funny.)
>> It's funny that you mention Beethoven's 5th, because we've started
>> listening to ISIRTA again as well, and as you know, that's a regular
>> feature of that show.
>
> No I didn't. I listened to ISIRTA live when it was broadcast. And that
> was a long time ago.
:-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"?
>> I probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
>> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>>
> S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
> I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
> If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
> is a bit iffy on some of them.
That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they originated
from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you know the
broadcast date on that one?
> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
well.
> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
reference to that site. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 8:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> :-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
> around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
> song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>
To be honest, I find ISIRTA dated now and I’ve never been a fan of John
Cleese.
>>> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"?
>>> I probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
>>> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>>>
>> S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
>> I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
>> If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
>> is a bit iffy on some of them.
>
> That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they originated
> from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you know the
> broadcast date on that one?
>
Yes.
>> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
>
> Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
> well.
>
Have you sceen "do not adjust your set" or "At lat the 1948 show"?
>> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
>> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>
> LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
> reference to that site. :-)
>
Just to make sure you read to the end :-P
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 9:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior"
>> is genetic, but your counter example is not.
>
> What counter-example do you think I'm claiming?
>
> > Thus, it cannot represent
>> either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was
> wrong in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond
> "it's genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same
> species.
>
>> Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or
>> otherwise altered, without changing the genetics,
>
> Well, you take a homogenous group of fruit flies. You put them in a two
> different environments for a while. You bring them back together. Their
> behavior is changed. I don't know if the change is genetic or not. It
> would seem to me that fruit flies have very little behavior that isn't
> dictated genetically - it's not like you can train them to do tricks. I
> didn't see anything in the reference I gave that said the fruit flies
> were still genetically compatible. Warp seems to be asserting that the
> fruit flies are still genetically compatible, and it's just that they're
> not sufficiently friendly with the other group any more or something.
>
> I'm simply asking Warp to tell me what test he would use to find out if
> two individuals are the same species. You can't just say "it's genetic."
> Yes, we understand that, but the details are what we're arguing about.
>
The distinction here would be, "Its genetic, but the genetics involve
purely 'behavior', not development." Obviously, the combination of
genetics from two individuals is a "developmental" issue, such that you
could have compatibility on that level, but not in the behavior level.
You could have the opposite (not terribly uncommon, despite the ick
factor) where the developmental aspects are 100% incompatible, but
behavior, for some reason, is driven wrong. For simpler species, which
could be a tiny flaw in a pheromone receptor, which suddenly "reacted"
to the wrong species. For complex ones, it can be a result of plasticity
in the behavior, resulting in what amount to false associations with the
target species. In either case, the "genetics" on the developmental
level simply won't allow it to work.
That behavior "can be" driven by genetics is not the key factor. It is
*if* the genetic driven characteristics actually result in changes
either behaviorally, or developmentally, which prevent cross breeding.
The fruit fly case is unusual, in that the deviation is purely, for now,
in the behavioral aspects, but it wouldn't take too many tweaks in the
rest of the genome, once trading of such changes no longer take place,
to make it *both* behavioral and developmental.
Its still "genetics driven", either way. Its just more.. reversible, of
other factors in the developmental process itself do not yet derail
cross breeding. I would argue things like Ligers and the like, do not
qualify the two species as "same", since the result can't produce more
of its own, or of either of its parent species. The developmental code
has changed sufficiently that even if the behavior can be overcome, the
other aspects *cannot*. But, there was certainly, at some stage, a point
where this wasn't true, or where it was only true for a larger
percentage of offspring than it was successful.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition
> is wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for
> the other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for
> someone to claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong
> without actually being able to specify what they think the definition is.
>
Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of
what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the
definition can get fuzzy, since some might argue that producing "any"
offspring, sterile or not, makes for the same species. Others that this
isn't any where near sufficient.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of
> what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the
> definition can get fuzzy,
Yes. That's what I'm saying. That seems to be what Warp is denying. Hence my
question to him.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong
> in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's
> genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.
No, that's actually your claim. I'm talking about genetics. You are
talking about everything else other than genetics, including behavior,
gender and whatnot.
The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
Let me put it this way: Why are dogs and horses different species?
Is it because they simply won't mate because of behavioral and physical
differences, or is it because even if you tried to fertilize a horse
ovum with a dog sperm, nothing will happen because they are genetically
incompatible?
You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-1-2011 9:27, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong
>> in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's
>> genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.
>
> No, that's actually your claim. I'm talking about genetics. You are
> talking about everything else other than genetics, including behavior,
> gender and whatnot.
>
> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
There is no universal acknowledged definition of species, nor can there
be. As working 'hypothesis' both the behavioral and the your more
restricted definition are used.
The fact that we now have 3 species of elephant is because the African
forest species did not interbreed with the savanna one for millions of
years even though it genetically still can*. The definition of species
is part of what is behind the still raging discussion. See also the wiki
pages on elephant and african elephant.
> Let me put it this way: Why are dogs and horses different species?
> Is it because they simply won't mate because of behavioral and physical
> differences, or is it because even if you tried to fertilize a horse
> ovum with a dog sperm, nothing will happen because they are genetically
> incompatible?
>
> You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
I am sure you are aware that you have not answered his question. Even if
there is no universal accepted definition of species, for the sake of
the discussion you could still provide him with yours.
*) yet on the African Elephant page there is also 'but hybrids between
the two species commonly occur.' If that happened and the offspring is
fertile the genetic pool should be mixed, yet it apparently isn't.
Consult your resident elephant expert for more information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
Also, just as an aside, I'm not sure that the behavior of the fruit flies
isn't genetic. I didn't see anything in any of the descriptions I've read
where the scientists later tried to do artificial insemination to see if it
worked. You're jumping to conclusions that because there's only 16
generations between the two sets of fruit flies that it isn't enough to
cause a genetic incompatibility.
> You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
No, I never said anything like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:29:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 8:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> :-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
>> around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
>> song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>>
>>
> To be honest, I find ISIRTA dated now and I’ve never been a fan of John
> Cleese.
It is fairly dated, but we find it interesting because of that.
With Cleese, I'm kinda "on again/off again" as a fan. Some of his stuff
is really good, other bits, not so much.
>> That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they
>> originated from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you
>> know the broadcast date on that one?
>>
> Yes.
Do you want to share it? ;-)
>>> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
>>
>> Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
>> well.
>>
> Have you sceen "do not adjust your set" or "At lat the 1948 show"?
I haven't. :-)
>>> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
>>> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>>
>> LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
>> reference to that site. :-)
>>
> Just to make sure you read to the end :-P
>
> 1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball
>
> :-D
Of course I read to the end. Just not when I'm composing (as you can
probably tell <g>). I don't seem to have anything from 1976 in my
collection <shame>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
