Ray H.

Guzzybone, Mutations are thought to be random in the sense that they occur without regard to their cost or benefit. They are produced without direction. Copy mutations and chemical/radioactive mutations have no intent. They aren't a response to environmental pressures. They just happen and the mutations are either beneficial, detrimental, or null. That's what is meant by random. It's not that scientists don't understand how they come about. They do. The copy and repair mechanisms in the cell aren't perfect and make mistakes. The resulting mutations are then, possibly, acted on by the environment. Mutations that are beneficial increase in the population, and vice versa. Of course, genetic recombination should not be forgotten as the other driver of evolution.

There are many intermediate forms of light-sensing tissues and organs throughout the animal kingdom. The "leap" from one to the next is not that hard to fathom over the course of over 3.5 billion (>3,500,000,000) years. In fact, the eye has developed in several evolutionary lines independently. Molluscs, insects, and vertebrates each have a separate path to the modern eye.

RE: the eye: "especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied." I'm not sure why you say this is a given. What stage of optical improvement wouldn't lead to a survival advantage?

Mike, it's already my favorite call ever.

This topic doesn't seem to neatly fit in one of the other forums, so here ya go. This study found that people have higher expectations but lower evaluations of individuals with high-self control. Since high-self control is correlated with higher personal and interpersonal success, this means those that are achieving the most have more expected of them, but are judged to be not trying hard enough. I've experienced this in every job I've had.

I reached my quota for positive votes today. Negative votes are up for grabs.

You were entirely personal in that second quote. You called me out by name, and falsely claimed that I had negative emotional reactions. This thread is highly valuable, folks.

"I take great pains to avoid using personal-language, always instead referring to YOUR ARGUMENT?" "(Didn't you read my argument to Ray H showing how he didn't comment about the Truth / Falsehood of my argument, because he focused primarily on his negative emotional reactions to it?)"

I'm not biting.

"saying words like "my shortcomings" and "your shortcomings" is personal-in-nature" Not within the context of this thread; it certainly isn't. I've been clear that I'm talking about the content of your posts. You can reasonably assume that I wasn't questioning your character since I said outright that I don't think you're a bad guy. Once again, you're removing context and reframing with an interpretation.

Your premise is wrong. I haven't focused on my negative emotional reactions to your posts. Because I don't have negative emotional reactions to your posts. I'm not angry at you. Really and for true. You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about my shortcomings instead of your own. Framing downvoting in a moral context is farcical. This is a messageboard. No harm has been done to you or anyone else.

I would wager that this type of rhetoric is the exact reason why you are being downvoted. You are asserting absolute knowledge of the mindstate of others. You have no such knowledge. And, in fact, you have accused of others of wrongfully doing this to you, so this behavior is hypocritical. This seems to indicate a lack of self awareness on your part, which is also something you color-codedly accuse others of. I've downvoted you, rarely, for these reasons. I can't recall upvoting you, because your posts overwhelmingly, contain this approach to whatever conversation you're participating in. You don't seem like a bad guy. I don't think you deserve any kind of harsh ostracism, but I also think you're intelligent enough to take the downvotes as an indication that, maybe, just maybe, your tone and style aren't facilitating whatever it is your intentions are for posting. Perhaps, that's an area you should work on, instead of doubling down (something else you point out in others.) My guess is that changing your tone from a lecturing, proselytizing style to a more sincere, casual one would work wonders for getting others to see the value in the viewpoint that you have.

I watched Letterman, without fail, throughout the 90's into the 00's, until I finally admitted to myself that the show just wasn't the same snarky send-up of show bidness that it used to be. I agree with the people who praise him, and I agree with the critics. Without exception they're commenting on different Daves: NBC Dave and CBS Dave. I pine for NBC Dave. For those youngsters or weirdos that didn't catch Late Night with David Letterman, here's a youtube channel a guy has of his taped collection of Late Nights. This was not the same show as the Late Show, by any means. Here's something close to late night perfection from 1987

Should the government recognize that its management of the economy has failed? Should it be obliged to cease failed policies? Should it fulfill its stated obligation to citizens and unborn citizens to uphold their right to self-determination? Or should we call these people "dictators" that did not choose to comply with principles of liberty?

Starts slow; stick with it.

The OP reappeared, so I'm bumping this.

Fixed the link. Thanks.

This article, in Nature, freely admits that climate models have serious flaws, and they could use the help of physicists to sort out major issues involving cloud convection. But physicists in the article admit that the most talented in their field tend to gravitate towards the rock star specialties like cosmology and quantum physics over the less sexy business of dealing with real world problems. Status trumps relevance, apparently. Gotta get that nerd pussy.

More like Terror Mullet Theory! Amiright?

It's unknown, because there is no such encoded information. Structure and location are determined by the chemical composition of the protein created and its interaction with the other intercellular chemicals such as enzymes, growth factors, hormones, etc. The cytoskeleton you refer to is structured largely, if not entirely, by aligning microtubules by their polarity. This involves the assistance of a growth factor which is also a protein encoded in the DNA. Each kind of protein has a very specific manner of folding depending on what it is chemically bound to at the moment. This folding limits the other proteins and chemicals that it can be bound to, and, so, natural selection has exploited this predictability to create structure. There's no need for encoded information about location and structure. That "information" is inherent in the chemical properties of the proteins produced.

I can watch this over and over.

I wrote what I intended to write. You're welcome.

Here's a chart combining the evidence and popularity of many supplements.

Perhaps, horror? It seems to encapsulate a fearful, moral repulsion towards some act.