Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by JetPilot, Aug 20, 2007.
perhaps if we have a link we dont have to pay for... we may have read it? I get:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
doubt it very much you have to pay for it.
And I tested the link at home. It's free access.
PloS stands for Public library open access in case you didn't know.
Doesn't sound like it, are you sure?
public library of science then. doesn't change the fact it is free
It means this:
Public Library of Science
Frankly Bobby's eggplant is crap and I've told him that any number of times. Cher does a much better one.
I assume the discussion on how a person fails to open a free access paper is terribly fascinating for the people who have nothing to contribute, however, I suggest that people incapable of opening a free access paper make either a post in the computer help section of whatever forum they wish, contact PloS for help, or ask someone else who is capable of opening a free access paper to send them the pdf of said paper.
I'm sure that it is incredibly interesting to focus on something irrelevant, John, however, this is supposed to be a seance forum. Allegedly.
It's a mystery to me why you even take the time to reply to this thread. Or maybe not. Maybe because it boosts your ego to destroy his, make you feel superior?
It worked just fine for me and I'm not connected to a college network. There are quite a number of articles on the Public Library of Science that look great, not least of all the Freitas et al Hox paper. Thanks for posting the link. Good stuff.
As to the OP, I think previous posts have pretty much answered your question, or rather pointed out that you're question betrayed a need for further study of basic evolutionary theory. If you are interested in understanding evolution, I would suggest going to your library and borrowing a basic biology text book or any of the books targeted at lay people. The more you learn about evolution, the more interesting the process becomes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have fun!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
wow, thanks for the plos.org link!
I read an article years ago that stated that teens thumbs where "changing" because of all the SMS's they where sending, i wonder if such trades are passed on, if so then that must be macro evolutions working overtime.
LOL, that would be an example of Lamarkian evolution wouldn't it?
Isn't that how mammals evolved to live in the ocean?
I don't expect you to be a genius. But if you're going to make profound statements about science you need to at least have a good understanding of what science is.
I spoke to this earlier. Rudimentary wings are not useless. They provide negative lift and help the animal climb steep grades and even negative grades. This is a survival advantage in evading predators. They can also be extended to absorb or radiate heat.
We're trying to make this a place where people go to learn about science. Considering that most of our members are children I see no harm in posting an answer to an FAQ.
That happened very slowly. You can see the snapshots of the evolution of marine mammals. Polar bears have only been out there for less than a hundred thousand years, and they're still well adapted to a completely terrestrial life. Go up the scale to otters, seals, and finally cetaceans, and you find animals that have been in the water for an increasingly long time and have an increasing adaptation. Whales have been out there for something like sixty million years. They started out as hippopotamus-like creatures, pretty well adapted to riparian life and not able to remain on land permanently. They still have their pelvises, although they are floating bones not connected to any other.
will someone please buy this man a box for his cornflakes?
Maybe, but you didn't post an answer. You posted the standard reply which doesn't particularly answer the question. That is because the question is invalid to start with. It cannot be simply answered. Not if you are 'serving' science.
You don't teach science to children by answering bogus questions. You expose the error in the question. You give a real answer which constitutes correcting the question. Science is asking the proper question or trying to formulate the proper question. Anything else is merely 'teaching children a farce that people think is science'. I don't think your FAQing was in the interest of teaching science. In fact it was rather like raping science by giving authority to the bogus question.
Huh??? Unless you're responding to the wrong post, the question I addressed was, in essence, "How did wings develop through evolution when there is no survival value to a partial wing that does not enable flight?" I exposed the error in the question by describing two survival values of a partial wing: negative lift and heat radiation and absorption. I don't see how this fails to promote science.
I know that you cannot see what was wrong with your response. You don't need to tell me. It's ok though. You are not a scientist after all.
Let me try to explain it in a way you might understand.
If someone tells you that he can understand why physics tells us the earth is flat, but he cannot believe physics could explain that the earth circles the sun, you do not give him an answer that explains why it is indeed possible that the earth circles the sun.
And ignore the earth is flat remark.
Doing so is a travesty of science. So you happen to know a tidbit of encyclopedic knowledge. You squirt it out. You think you served science.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Well, I will assume now that after all this explanation you have seen your error. But feel free to ask me to spell it out more. Why it is not in the interest of science to answer a bogus question with an encyclopedic answer. Unless you think that this is science of course.
You may think my replies are hostile. But then again I am not raping science and pretending serving science. Which apparently is allowed because 'kids' frequent this site, and apparently it is your duty to limit their exposure to critical thinking.
Well, be sure to think next time before you shoot off a standard reply to a standard question in the name of science.
I might even be tempted not to correct you.
Spurious: I don't understand your response because I don't see how your hypothetical two-part question about a flat earth and heliocentrism is a good analogy to the question in the OP:
It was a one-part question. The poster obviously has not thought this through very thoroughly and hypothesized possible survival benefits of partially formed wings. I gave him some.
Understanding the value to partially formed organs and appendages is fundamental to understanding evolution.
i disagree. we must realize that we are dealing with a non scientist here. therefor what you or spurious would consider valid is so much BS to the thread starter.
what is fundamental to understanding evolution is that molecules can change from one molecule to another naturally. this includes the genes of plants and animals. these changes can be passed from one generation to the next. if these changes are suitable for the evironment they will continue to exist, if not they vanish, maybe even taking the entire species with it.
Separate names with a comma.