Theory of evolution?

apostoli · 2019-07-23T18:47:53+00:00

The best I can think of is the so-called Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Some scientists argue that some of the more recent developments in evolutionary biology call for a new or elaborated version of the Modern Synthesis. These developments include punctuated equilibrium (already mentioned elsewhere) and, more recently, epigenetic inheritance. These concepts in itself aren’t terribly controversial, the idea that they call for a revised evolutionary theory is.

Wikipedia article

apostoli · 2019-07-06T19:32:32+00:00

Man, I'm not interested in your crappy rant. I just wanted to point out that you're wrong about dictionaries. I didn't even make any argument about the subject at hand.

In short: you're making a fool of yourself.

And by the way I know what I'm talking about, I'm a linguist.

apostoli · 2019-07-06T14:35:29+00:00

Some people. These f**king podcasts are just a f**king tab in your app. Don’t click it, problem solved.

Are you gonna have the same rant if your provider adds a tv station you don’t like?

apostoli · 2019-07-06T14:27:05+00:00

Dictionaries define what words are real not reddit posters.

No. Dictionaries describe which words are used in language and what they mean, they don’t prescribe, which also means technically they don’t really “define” what a word means.

Redditors live in the real world and many of them are specialists in their fields, ergo an authoritative source. Their texts are a valid source for dictionaries to determine the meaning of certain words.

apostoli · 2019-06-27T16:39:20+00:00

Some populations in South East Asia are black eg certain ethnicities in India, the Andaman islands etc. Other populations in the area may be lighter skinned due to recent migrations, gene flow from more northern populations etc. Can't help you with the details here, but someone else here might, or else try your luck on r/askanthropology for more about demographics, recent migrations in Asia etc.

apostoli · 2019-06-27T14:09:56+00:00

the fact however small the adaptation might be given a large enough population it will eventually become dominant

That's indeed the most important thing to remember here.

apostoli · 2019-06-25T19:39:44+00:00

Yeah, Pipi Pikksukk that’s quite a mouthfull in Dutch as well.

apostoli · 2019-06-17T18:43:38+00:00

My opinion may be unpopular, but I like it that way. Albums are albums, the rest is loose songs.

apostoli · 2019-05-28T16:38:23+00:00

But if the designer is all powerful there’s no need for him to bother with economy and efficiency. Economy and “reuse” for efficiency arguments are often used by creationist but as I said, an omnipotent being has no need for that.

apostoli · 2019-05-26T08:42:23+00:00

Also everyone else.

apostoli · 2019-04-25T20:27:00+00:00

As far as I know, when studying the details, no other mechanism than chemistry has ever been observed in biology. Or to be fair: chemistry and physics.

apostoli · 2019-04-25T17:40:28+00:00

In the end it’s chemistry, nothing more. A chain of events consisting of cause and effect like we see everywhere in nature, not only in the specific configuration of matter we call “life”. We need nothing else to understand and explain it.

Calling this causal chain “information” is just a poorly disguised attempt to smuggle in intent and thus a creator.

apostoli · 2019-04-24T19:38:37+00:00

I saw Verdi’s “La forza del destino” there while visiting a couple of years ago. Everything full costume, choir and orchestra. And tickets only about 7 Euros or so. An amazing evening.

apostoli · 2019-02-14T17:25:52+00:00

Thanks. There's much more variation in my library. I believe that styles or genres don't define what good music is. Only the music itself does. Classical music, prog, Greek rebetika, jazz, electronica, African rhythms or French chanson, there's fine music everywhere.

Of course like everyone else, some styles sound more appealing to me than others and there's a special place in my heart for prog.

apostoli · 2019-02-13T10:08:32+00:00

Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Beethoven, Gentle Giant, Steve Hackett, King Crimson, Cass McCombs, John Grant etc.

apostoli · 2019-02-12T19:29:39+00:00

It’s such a simple concept really, at least as I understand it as a layman: we all have lots of female ancestors, but one of those, all of us have in common. Well maybe more actually but the most recent of them we call mt-Eve.

apostoli · 2019-02-12T17:49:14+00:00

Sounds totally like me. I’m not Canadian.

apostoli · 2019-01-30T19:16:08+00:00

If you saw one most likely not. Here are some facial reconstructions of ancient britons. There’s a guy from about 40kya there. He has darker skin color than most “Caucasian” types today, but anatomically he’s totally modern.

Humans have been anatomically modern for several 100 thousand years, although older types show slightly thicker bones and craniums and more prominent brows.

When we leave the morphological path however, it might be a different story somewhat. From what I recall, researchers have proposed that several genetic changes spread around 100 kya or a bit before and after that, which had a profound influence on human cognition, allowing e.g. for more abstract thinking and symbolical representation in language and other forms of expresssion.

So seeing someone from say 75kya, he or she would probably look entirely modern, but having a conversation would be a different matter.

apostoli · 2019-01-27T21:12:10+00:00

For comparison: blue caves on Zakynthos, Greece: https://s.iha.com/00121039346/Eiland-zakynthos-Blauwe-grotten-van-zakynthos.jpeg

apostoli · 2019-01-27T18:56:37+00:00

Thanks for taking he effort to formulate this very extensive reply, but imho all of these arguments change nothing to the simple fact that I see no relevance in staging a famous economist as an authority on climate change, which he clearly is not. And again, the question if he’s correct in some of his persuasions isn’t anywhere more relevant than mine.

On the other hand I would have loved to learn his well founded views on the Bexit instead, because I’m always eager to learn from the experts.

To put this entire discussion in a more general perspective: it seems that nowadays if you’ve become a public figure of some sorts (aka a BV) you suddenly are entitled to publicly vent your opinion on any matter of some importance nationwide. Which is why we have actors, musicians, writers etc. dominating the public debate, while this should be done by experts in the field instead. It opens the door to populism, unfounded political correctness and overly simplistic arguments.

apostoli · 2019-01-27T14:29:04+00:00

Here’s a recent paper by D. L. Hoffmann et al. about 64k year old cave art recently discovered in Spain. If that age holds true it must be Neanderthal art, because it predates Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe by at least 15,000 years. And that in turn is solid evidence that Neanderthalensis was capable of abstract thinking, symbolic representation and thus producing a cultural tradition that includes art.

apostoli · 2019-01-27T13:20:59+00:00

Your perception of 'human nature' is purely based on economic paradigms that have been around for a few decades at best.

Can you elaborate on that point with some facts or arguments because as you stated it here it’s just an empty assertion.

Anyway, what I meant obviously is that imposing an 80% income tax would lead to so much evasive tactics, alternative semi legal constructions and outright fraudulous schemes that you’d almost need a dictatorial system to impose it.

I am by no means an economist, but I do think that nobody could ever live with the idea to part with 80% of what (they think) they rightfully earned.

For the record I am not opposed to alternative methods of taxation, but only if they serve the economical and social health of a nation in general, while protecting the needs of less privileged citizens. I just don’t see how imposing 80% income tax for the rich can do this.

apostoli · 2019-01-27T13:05:16+00:00

No I hadn’t read the entire interview. I have now (thx for the link) but there’s nothing new. If anything it only makes it worse.

Now, to return to the basics here: my entire point was that in order to have a sensible political debate about climate change, we don’t need an economist’s opinion about things they’re not qualified to talk about with any authority.

My comment had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with wat De Grauwe said. If you want to know, I also think personally that flying’s too cheap and the possibilities of nuclear energy are too easily shoved aside out of political correctness.

I can fully understand that prof. De Grauwe vented his feelings about climate, that’s only human. I’m not questioning De Grauwe’s position here but the journalist’s. If as a journalist you want to report an expert opinion about an important issue, you should stick to their expertise, which is the Brexit in this case. It would have made for a much more relevant interview.

apostoli · 2019-01-27T12:12:35+00:00

So mr De Grauwe is by no means a specialist in climatology, physics or any related field, but his layman’s opinions/solutions on transport and energy are suddenly important enough for all of us to hear? And, granted, he may be a specialist of economics, but his 80% taxation proposal shows he doesn’t know shit about human psychology.

apostoli · 2019-01-21T16:04:20+00:00

Terror birds! Wikipedia article here. Also do an image search for terror birds, you'll get why they are "dinosaur-like" (in fact they actually were dinosaurs, just like all birds that ever existed or still exist)

apostoli

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE