 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Simulacron 3
I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't been
turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie. (I had
already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to turn
into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
--
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 17/01/2011 1:21 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Simulacron 3
>
> I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't
> been turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie.
I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
hardly remember anything about it other than the plot. I agree that it
would make a good film but SF films in those days were either “cowboys
in space” or horror movies like “The Thing”.
Another good story of his is “Dark Universe” but that would have made a
better radio play than a movie.
> (I had already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to
> turn into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
>
They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but you
are probably right.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 1:12 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Do you want to share it?;-)
A list of the Series 5 episodes that I have:
1976-03-06 - s05e01 - Footballers Ball 11,150,312
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball 13,483,870
1976-03-20 - s05e03 - Astronomers Ball. 12,735,844
1976-03-27 - s05e04 - Geographers Ball. 10,838,435
1976-04-03 - s05e05 - Electrical Goods and Allied Ind. 12,793,629
1976-04-10 - s05e06 - Tailors Ball 26,607,153
Here are the series 1 episodes. Farmers' Ball only has one song to the
tune..
1972-04-11 - s01e01 - Dr Finlays Casebook 12,726,325
1972-04-18 - s01e02 - Plumbers Ball 27,906,884
1972-04-25 - s01e03 - Clothing Manufacturers Ball 25,472,818
1972-05-02 s01e04 Zookeepers' Ball 14,127,516
1972-07-04 - s01e13 - Geographical Society Ball 23,535,199
X-1972-05-16 s01e06 Farmers' Ball 2,472,576
I’ve got 6 episodes from series 2, 1 from series 3 and 6 from series 4.
If you let me know what you want I can send them to you. BTW I’ve lost
your email address so you can use mine in the header.
"Do not adjust your set" and "At last the 1948 show" were TV shows,
precursors to Monty P. The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band were the resident
group on "Do not adjust your set". I may have something there too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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*.
Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
it isn't.
Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
(even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly. A group of humans
deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
species.
The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
behavior.
> > 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.
You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
role of behavior in the definition of "species".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it tha
t I can
> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie, wi
th
both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical overtones.
> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The S
entinel” but you
> are probably right.
Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
fun
movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
