11 May 09
Originally posted by znshoThe whole (correct) premise of natural selection is survival of the fittest. Members of a population that were unfit to survive would not be allowed to reproduce because they would die. Now, with things like hospital care, we can actually keep these people alive long enough to reproduce, thus killing any beneficial mutations that could be passed on and increasing the risk of bad mutations.
Yes it is!
I'm actually not sure if it's a good or bad thing, to be honest. The best, I think, would be true natural selection, but I don't think that's possible. So between governmental or societal selection (eugenics) and the current system, I'll go with the current system.
11 May 09
Originally posted by scherzoNo, evolution is not solely about 'survival of the fittest'. It is about the 'tendancy to survival of the fittest'.
The whole (correct) premise of natural selection is survival of the fittest. Members of a population that were unfit to survive would not be allowed to reproduce because they would die. Now, with things like hospital care, we can actually keep these people alive long enough to reproduce, thus killing any beneficial mutations that could be passed on and incre ...[text shortened]... l or societal selection (eugenics) and the current system, I'll go with the current system.
Sometimes, crap genes survive, sometimes really good genes die out, by pure chance.
11 May 09
Originally posted by znshoMy late father took me to see this movie when I was in high school. He was a scientist and introduced me to the fiction of Arthur C. Clarke, whom he enjoyed.
I do not find the film incomprehensible. The message is clear, though scientifiaclly flawed.
My question is simply pragmatic, designed to cause trouble. A bit like FMF.
but he wasn't all that impressed by the storyline. All he said in his usual bemused, slightly dismissive tone when we left the theater was "So, God is a black box ..."
Now the film he really liked was Return of the Jedi, for it was replete with sight gags aimed at his youthful devotion to the movie serials and pulp fiction and comics of Terry and the Pirates, whatisname Armstrong, buck rodgers, flash gordon, and so on. He got a lot of amusement especially out of the Donald Pleasance character of Jabba's monster caretaker, dressed like a Nazi torturer and crying like a baby when his hideous charge wound up crushed by the cage door. That made him laugh outright, something he very rarely did, perhaps because he never really got over growing up fatherless during the Depression.
11 May 09
Originally posted by ScriabinHe must have been impressed by 'The Sentinel' which is what 2001 is really based upon.
My late father took me to see this movie when I was in high school. He was a scientist and introduced me to the fiction of Arthur C. Clarke, whom he enjoyed.
but he wasn't all that impressed by the storyline. All he said in his usual bemused, slightly dismissive tone when we left the theater was "So, God is a black box ..."
Now the film he really lik ...[text shortened]... y did, perhaps because he never really got over growing up fatherless during the Depression.
2001 is tedious. At the same time, it is mesmorising. I can understand people not liking it. I can also understand people thinking it genius.
Maybe that's the brilliance of the film - tedious and boring and, at the same time, mesmorising and fascinating, answering questions (at least, to some extent).
12 May 09
Originally posted by divegeesteryes, I think the only movie to really prevent that problem was Alien -- the first one. It was enough to put me off shellfish for quite a while.
The waltzing space stations are the best scenes, but none of it explains why popcorn gets stuck between your gums and teeth - I hate that!