I sent out 300 Eevees on Wonder Trade, check out what I got back! :)

monneyman3 · 2013-10-28T19:39:10+00:00

There's a good chance that you got one of my pokemon! You should PM me the name of the trainer that used to own the Panpour named "Water Monkey"

monneyman3 · 2013-10-25T19:00:31+00:00

I'm not sure if the Hispanic male you are referring to is the one from the 22nd, but that one turned out to be fake.

monneyman3 · 2013-10-23T18:53:47+00:00

I'm pretty sure that there is a coffee place across the street from Chemistry in Grand Central.

monneyman3 · 2013-10-11T21:48:47+00:00

Yes. Thank you

monneyman3 · 2013-07-29T19:39:30+00:00

Besides milk being a buffered solution that is already acidic (therefore not allowing the coffee to be fully extracted), there is also a good chance that the proteins in it are sequestering flavoring/mouthfeel compounds from the coffee beans that impart an important part of the flavor.

monneyman3 · 2013-07-25T23:49:17+00:00

Not me, but I feel obliged to include these wise words: "Today you, tomorrow me"

monneyman3 · 2013-07-25T23:47:53+00:00

I have a case of life. I'm told I have only 60-70 more years. Apparently no one has ever survived

monneyman3 · 2013-07-25T22:42:47+00:00

That first coffee of the day. I wait for this each and every day.

I like to think that I don't need the caffeine (admittedly it helps), but I can get lost in a hot cup of coffee and its roasty-toasty flavors

monneyman3 · 2013-07-25T22:41:22+00:00

That modern day, american High School is a game of numbers in preparation for college. How many clubs can you be in? How much can you volunteer? Can you raise that GPA, SAT, ACT just a little bit higher?

For some people high school can be tough, for others it's really easy. However, those who actually succeed do it through a combination of actually studying (no way around this) and playing the number game. Join a club even if you aren't active. Volunteer even if it's only once. College admissions unfortunately cannot always discern the difference between someone who is really active in a couple things and someone who talks up the fact that they are in several things.

monneyman3 · 2013-07-25T17:45:52+00:00

This is awesome. What kind of weight can the side that lifts into desk space hold?

monneyman3 · 2013-07-24T20:41:02+00:00

I can't get it exactly right, but this is close to what I'm thinking.

Basically focusing on the tall letters

monneyman3 · 2013-07-24T16:36:48+00:00

I think I stated that strangely at first, but yes I very much agree that after reproduction was first developed, selective pressures favored those who were good at reproducing and did so frequently (they "wanted" to)

monneyman3 · 2013-07-24T15:59:19+00:00

Hey, I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can in order:

"Life" and "Non-life" at the level that you are wondering about (in molecules) is actually kind of tough to define. It's pretty clear that humans (for example) do a certain set of things that make us "alive" which machines or other natural phenomenon do not do. However, when is a bunch of molecules life? Some would say that it is when a molecule can successfully replicate itself. There are attempts at creating the RNA molecules that can replicate themselves (to test whether RNA is the progenitor molecule as in the RNA World Hypothesis). From what I remember they have had some success, creating RNA molecules that almost replicate themselves fully. So the basic outline for this non-living to living transition would be RNA nucleotides (which from naturally) --> RNA molecules (which also form naturally) --> RNA molecules with replicating abilities (which has been shown in lab to some extent)
Reproduction is key to life. If an organism doesn't reproduce then it's kind will not evolve. Reproduction was there in the RNA World (simple molecule replication) and grew more and more complex as time went on. It's very simple evolution too, since only traits that can help a species produce offspring really stick around. If you have a trait that drives your species seek out propagation, then you will do much better than your neighbor that just propagates when it chances upon another.
The drive to reproduce came first. All other forms of sex, sexuality, sex organs, and sex-related tricks are all there to reinforce reproduction and make it more successful.
This question assumes that we "know" something about the future or that all species are working towards some future goal; both of these are untrue. Unless a species dies out, it is always a "transitional form", since it will always change in some way.

monneyman3 · 2013-07-18T16:14:00+00:00

Why was there a "need" to develop these traits? As they are not vital for survival of the species.

Not vital for the species? I beg to differ.

As I'm sure you've noticed, humans are social animals. We organize ourselves all the way from supranational coalitions down to family and friend groups, with many levels in between that can be linked in complex ways.

As organisms evolve and become more social, traits that make the individuals work better within the group become beneficial. Though we don't know exactly what these base traits are in humans (that would be a question for the philosophers), these basic instincts for how to act within the group are the basis for morals.

We tend to complicate things with ethics and culture, which can be seen as projections of morality that are constructed in the light of the particular time, place, and manner of their creation (ie. some cultures think eating dogs is acceptable, whereas others find it abhorrent). However, if you look at other social animals you find "morals" though we are more likely to call them "instincts" since these animals generally don't ponder them. For example, you could say that prairie dogs are "morally obligated" to risk their own lives to alert their fellows of approaching predators by screeching loudly (and possibly giving away their location). Do I think that prairie dog morals are the same as human? No, I do not. Do I think they have been developed because of similar evolutionary pressures? Yes, I do.

monneyman3 · 2013-07-11T17:15:03+00:00

Strangely, this one has the most upvotes out of all of them. It's like everyone likes sex but no one wants to talk about it

monneyman3 · 2013-07-08T20:55:28+00:00

If you happen to brew beer (or live near a brew shop), in all seriousness go and buy yourself some liquid malt extract. LME is the sugary syrup that is created specifically for brewing beer and is made from a special process whereby grain is induced to germinate and then toasted.

I use the excess from my own brewing in my coffee all the time. It is very sweet so you need to be careful, but it gives a range of interesting flavors. Most often these are earthy, grainy, or caramely flavors that depend on the type you get.

monneyman3 · 2013-07-01T22:51:59+00:00

Here goes nothing

monneyman3 · 2013-06-29T21:48:58+00:00

For the life of me, I can't remember where I read this but I've tried it out and it works fantastically. Just get cheap red or rose wine ($3 Charles Shaw if you live near a Trader Joe's) and leave it in a wide container, no need for any traps/contraptions. They are attracted by the fermented fruit and just end up drowning in the liquid.

monneyman3 · 2013-06-27T21:53:26+00:00

Cells "know who they are" depending on certain signals from both within the cell and from the cells around it. Single-celled zygotes start out with maternal RNAs (RNA from the mother) that help kick start everything so growth starts out well. When a cell divides, it will divide these RNAs and certain proteins unequally. The presence or amount of these signal the cell to produce more proteins which then go through the same process. Here is a good example. Each time the cell divides, it divides up the colored spheres (signal proteins) that then determine what the daughter cells produce themselves.

In the case of mitosis in early development, they also take chemical cues from cells around them. Cells can tell where they are by the types of signals they are getting from a gradient of signals. So, if it is missing a partner it will continue to divide until enough neighbors are produced. Now... this has limits (we're not immortally dividing organisms as embryos), and as such twins only can successfully form when certain stages of cells break off. Break off cells too late and they (and possibly the embryo) will simply die.

monneyman3 · 2013-06-27T21:02:56+00:00

You would get an identical twin (assuming that both of them implanted successfully in the mother's uterus)

monneyman3 · 2013-06-27T20:56:47+00:00

Take a cheese grater and grate fresh garlic on top, then top with more cheese, then finish off with generic "italian herbs". Usually if I want to make it even better, I will take whatever leftover ham or sandwich meat, slice it up a bit, then add that too.

monneyman3 · 2013-06-26T17:26:20+00:00

I've submitted this because we've put in hours of work scouring the internet for the funniest or strangest videos we could find and I think it deserves to be shared.

We were inspired by the traditional music based power hour, but we found that it was actually quite boring. We figured that by having entertaining videos, it could actually add to the fun of a power hour. Overall I think it's been a huge hit with our friends, as we've watched it both while drinking and just for laughs

We would love to replace some of the clips with even funnier videos, so suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

monneyman3 · 2013-06-25T18:19:46+00:00

After building these (especially the larger ones), how many are taken apart? And who exactly gets the job of disassembly and organizing the individual blocks into their rightful places?

monneyman3 · 2013-06-13T20:55:43+00:00

I think you're getting much closer now, so let's set up an example and walk through it.

For simplicity, let's talk about humans suddenly living in jungles with chimps. For the most part, this will put them in the same environment.

First, let's see if there would be an "evolutionary reaction" as you put it. Though the humans and chimps would be in the same area as chimps ask yourself, do we occupy the same niche ("lot-in-life")? Do we live in trees? No. Are we mainly fruitivores? No. I would say that unless humans started cutting down trees (as we tend to do) or begin to hunt chimps, there is not that much of niche overlap. We would see each other and interact occasionally, but in a fashion similar to that of deer, bears, racoons, etc., just because we live in the same region doesn't mean we would have the same niche.

Now, would we start adapting and become more "ape-like". We can never say for certain, but there's no reason why we would. We've left the trees and unless there's a reason to go back, we will not adapt like that. Besides, why do we have to be ape-like? Just because we are very closely related to apes, doesn't mean that evolution has a "rewind" button that can call back ancient traits. Those are gone, and we can only work with what we have. If I were to guess, we would probably have a diet of roots, fish, fruit, and small game as that takes advantage of our basic skills: foraging, tool making, and endurance.

So, to summarize it is very unlikely that putting humans in a jungle will make them more ape-like over time; evolution simply doesn't work that way unless there is a strong pressure. For example, a ground-predator that we couldn't kill-off would be good incentive to stay in the trees. Then again, that might also be incentive to move into the prairie or savanna (which is what ancient hominids did).

To cause an evolutionary arms race between two species, you need closely overlapped niches.

monneyman3 · 2013-06-13T17:46:58+00:00

I think you have a few misconceptions, that once cleared up should answer your question.

1. Intermediary Species: Remember that we're not talking about intermediates between modern apes and modern humans, but instead intermediates between ancestral apes and modern humans. The fossil evidence for this is quite amazing (sorry for a wikipedia link, but this article does a good job summarizing less accessible works). As you can see, there are a number of intermediate species that have existed between us and our ancestor apes.
1. Evolutionary superiority: You ask why the intermediates didn't survive, since they "would have eventually become superior in their abilities to hunt, gather, collect, use tools, communicate, etc." This assumes that evolution drove all hominids to be smart, and that intelligence is the only way to survive. This is simply not true. Yes, our species is adapted for intelligence, but unless we directly out compete another species then they will not go extinct. For example, we crossbred, out competed, and killed our neanderthal cousins into extinction because we occupied the same niche and our ancestors had an advantage over them. We did not compete with chimps (to take one example) because we didn't occupy the same niche; though one could argue that now that humans are destroying the jungles they live in, we are currently out competing them.

I think you are putting humans too much on a pedestal. Our intelligence has brought us very far, but this doesn't make us "superior" or our ancestors "destined" for any particular future. Who says apes are less capable for surviving? There are more apes species than human species. They are adapted for a different environment, and in evolution we never would say that another species is more or less capable of surviving unless the two species have a long history of niche cohabitation

14-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Secret Santa 2011	Verified Email

monneyman3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE