Green Baron

Got me. But people are aware and working on it ! I mean the whole thing is in the status "postulated", right ? Here's another one: String (M-) theory

Had to press ctrl-+ a few times because reading glasses ... ... exactly. A hypothesis that cannot be tested is worth nothing. That is critical rationalism, correct ?

And if Wikipedia says it a thousand times, the Chicxulub alone was not enough for the K/Pg extinction event, though it had immediate continental effects and was probably the drop it needed to fill the cask of a highly stressed environment and lowered global temps from a large igneous province, the deccan trapp basalts. The extinction wiped out approx 30% of marine spp. It did not wipe out the Dinosaurs, at least Hadrosaurs survived. Most of the land living plants were reduced and thus the base of the food pyramid for large land living animals taken away.

Well, i would consider it balancing on a pretty brittle limb to say that life was dropped from outside ...

What ? Who said that ? Grabs saw for the limb ...

If this is a misunderstanding @kerbiloid, then because your writing style is - like in your last post - frequently ironic/sarcastic, quick judging, and slightly personal. I probably could write that on my own flag :-) But you said that a smell only signals a presence of a person, i said that it does far more than that. If you care to look deeper into it you will see that the sense of smelling is as important as that of seeing and hearing, in evolution (here: sexual selection, that was the initial question) it even plays a central role. Slight differences in species that have a preference in one of their senses do exist. You also said in an ironic way that immune system compatibilities are not signaled. In the above links you can find studies that show that even the presence of specific genes are part of olfactory communication, which is a direct evidence of the role of smells in the human selection process. I agree with you in that we are off topic, but i had to point the above out. And i do not use Google :-)

Not at all. In principle "olfactory communication" does actually signal that, well not "get away" but "i rather like this girl/boy than the other one". These are of course no "hard rules", statistics play a role. Not everybody is equally receptive or strong signaling and not everything is signaled at all. Genetic deficiencies like hemophilia happen significantly more often in populations where the choice is limited. But i quit now, there is libraries full of work on this, in medicine, psychology and cosmetics as well, i'd prefer the first two. If you like you can look it all up. If not, no problem :-) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347214003017 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211504004749

No problem :-) Nothing simple or complicated in the question alone. It is only that in my opinion that what you call artificial (girl's makeup) is natural and it is modification because i doesn't affect the genes, only the lifetime aspects. The bar is higher for artificial selection in my understanding. Examples below. Nope. It does far more than that. Haven't you noticed yet :-) ? SeeSmell pheromones for example ! Edit: just one example of many, body symmetry. But it goes deeper, resistances for example, immune system compatibilities, and more is signaled through smells. Besides a hard working day ;-) Cats and dogs are human made and their reproduction is under human control. If they stride around abandoned they are frequently killed. Yes, it does. For days the females. When they come home they are pregnant. Ask a veterinary about the merits of sterilization. And no, i try not to :-) A sterilized cat will rarely go to street (it will as well from time to time) it'll stay close if there is a nice garden to play in. A grass blade can be so exciting :-) Sterilization in cats for example makes them stay at home so they aren't too easy killed on the road. Cat's and dogs "design" like color etc. is artificially selected by humans under the application of natural laws. Which results in many cases in a huge reduction in "fitness" but that'll lead too far here. But of course the same rules apply to humans and everything else as well. Btw., domesticated species behave completely different than their wild ancestors. Clinic tests with guinea pigs have revealed this scientifically, achaeological observation of the size of sheep, goat, pigs and horses show how they get smaller in the beginning of the domestication process (human selected, the smaller ones are easier to control) and then bigger again when the natural nastiness has gone (pigs and horses)and the work force or meat is needed. 'Nother example of artificial selection because it takes several (not many) generations for the effect to show. Edit: but of course i completely agree with you guys in saying that the differences between artificial and natural selection are not clear and drawn with a ruler.

That would be political. But rockets without warheads are so cute ... :-)

Gawd is it really necessary to show weapons of potential mass murder here in this little game forum ? Kindly asking for a little sensibility .... :-)

lol Bobby Fisher, eh ?

I played chess (in a low league) when Kasparov was defeated by Deep Blue. No, an average player has no chance against even a mediocre chess algorithm. Like an average human has no chance calculating Pi to [insert n element N] digit against even a Zilog Z80 with a simple little program. So, the engines are playing against each other now ? Like car racing ... Mercedes against Ferrari without drivers ? Wake me when the same program gets up, cooks a meal, chats with a friend, draws a picture, plays the guitar, etc. pp. what a human does during the course of a day. I am not 100% serious here, i love technology !

Yeah, sure, genes define the extent to which an organism can modify itself during the lifetime. And of course the material in use, you can't overstress bones too much or they'll break, and muscles atrophy if overused, but you can stimulate growth or decay by activity or inactivity. That is called modification. Only if it becomes fitness-defining in a sense that the individual has a better chance to over his contemporaries then the feature will have a chance to be traded to the next generation. But, you know, some like these, others like those, or in simple words, for every pot there is a lid. Sexual selection, be it through willingly or unwillingly provoked modification, is clearly natural selection. I think the question natural/artificial arises when we for example breed and bring up individuals who would otherwise not have survived or even been born. Don't get me wrong ! I were not here if we did not have these abilities ! @kerbiloid, this isn't simple at all. In contrary ... :-) How does your partner smell ? And how smell the arbitrary people in a subway ? There is a lot going on with these signals, and a lot of work to be found about it, actually. I am thinking of disease resistance or immune system in-/compatibility. I am too lazy to search, but clinic work on this exists.

I can calculate that too ... and probably everybody else here :-)

Looking at the mere data of the engine it seems quite well suited for the last push. Could have a little less around the waist. Let me play the fool: and for the last 1-2km/s ... if the alternative is falling back down :-)

Snow goose

Grizzly

Shai-Hulud

Sure, try to catch an asteroid in Kerbin's SOI ... as a training

If you only look at selection then the difference between artificial and natural is important, for example when looking for a cure for a disease. Or when artificially breeding animals like aquarium fish or silly looking dogs with coiled tails and hanging ears or cats with no snout at all because brain has shrunk to the size of their former prey. Of course, this all is only the application of the rules nature has set. The girl painting herself because she tries to appeal or the boy spending the whole day in the gym and finally looking like those Romans from the Asterix cartoons, immense chest and arms but ... forget it :-), these examples are not selection, these are modifications during lifetime of an individual. Neither the girl's paint or even silicon insets nor the boy's muscles are traded to the next generation. The offspring might just be a couch potato. It becomes interesting though when we actually edit the genome to favour or cancel features or abilities ... will it have a lasting effect or be canceled out ? If you want to change the genetic code of a population for whatever reason you must hit all individuals or exclude those unaltered ones from the carousel, or the change will be "repaired" as a bad mutation during procreation. And that actually makes me and others worry for the far future, because politics. Edit: your example @Nikolai, sexual attraction, is actually signaled through posture and body chemistry between individuals signaling "Hey, i am compatible !". So that is absolutely natural selection. Let' see if somebody calls for a proof :-)

And in the nineteenth century it was all steam and rivets (Jules Verne), before that transmission lines and all kind of mills. These stories are all mirrors of the broad masses' imagination of the future, based on slightly flexed, bent and extended current possibilities.

Yeah, thanks for the efforts, that's the model calculation i posted above, suggesting that the shift can be explained with a thick liquid asthenosphere rather than a solid one. My question was were the "200 times as much" is from, but i stop the nitpicking :-) Edit: Wikipedia is not acceptable as a valid source, sorry :-) Iamgine, i could write an article Imagine further that i had look before i asked ;-)

Well, as always, where's that from ? Not that i want to attack you, just know who said that, where and based on what, and is it some kind of research or just a claim out of the blue ? The first question i'd have: what's Io's composition and how much radioactive decay is there ? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/22 Model calculation, speculative, and depending on assumptions that can neither be negated no verified atm. Edit: In a study i can't find now it was inferred that the distribution of Io's Volcanoes does not support the assumption that the volcanism is caused by tidal heating ... but this may be outdated meanwhile.

My guess was wrong :-) Volcanic surface activity is a different thing, also it is not sure if Io's volcanoes result from tidal heating i think ? Who would expect life on Io ? What they want to rectify a mission is a nice little constant energy and nutrient source in a shielded environment with enough solvent around, and they have their examples from earth, these vents. Earths extremely steady inner dynamics produce these vents at middle ocean ridges, along transform cracks (plate tectonics needed), over hot spots ...

That would be the first Sikhsithsmith i ever heard of ...