Church would modify a modern human genome so that its DNA matches the Neanderthal version. [...] this Neanderthal genome would not be inserted into a human cell but instead into a chimpanzee cell. This chimp cell would be reprogrammed to an embryonic state, and then introduced into a chimpanzee's womb where it would develop into a Neanderthal infant.
But do you think a chimpanzee carrier makes it okay to inflict (with reasonably high likelihood) mutations and health problems on animals you are expecting will have near-human, or even human, levels of intelligence?
do you think a chimpanzee carrier makes it okay to inflict
What is the test for "okay"?
okay to inflict (with reasonably high likelihood) mutations and health problems on animals you are expecting will have near-human, or even human, levels of intelligence?
for example, the most highly evolved plants reproduce by means of seeds, and, in the most advanced of all plants (angiosperms), a reproductive organ called a flower is formed.
The existence of higher mammals and higher animals implies the existence of lower mammals and lower animals, and therefore possible devolutionary directions.
I suggest you read the wikipedia link? The terms higher and lower are, as far as I understand, mostly just there for classifying the amount of complexity present in an organism - there's not some "these organisms are better than these other ones" thing going on.
Unless you mean something entirely different than what most people mean when they say "devolution", what you are referring to is just evolution. The same way that "reverse racism" is just racism.
evolution can be both 'progressive' and 'regressive'. [...] if a population deteriorates genetically it certainly is something like 'devolution', and this article completely ignores this issue. [...] deterioration, misconceptions aside, is a real thing, and we need to stop giving people the impression that it is only a 'fallacy'.
I said "Devolution is a nonsense concept" because, as I stated before, what is referred to by "devolution" is just evolution. The term, as used commonly, implies some sort of objective heirarchy to evolution, and although organisms may get labeled with terms describing their complexity, that does not mean that one has somehow "devolved" if it evolves into an organism with less complexity. It has just evolved.
Edit:
There's not much disagreeance on the page. There are people talking about using the term to describe something that actually happens, but they aren't talking about what most people mean when they say "devolution".
Von Baer has defined advancement or progress in the organic scale better than any one else, as resting on the amount of differentiation and specialisation of the several parts of a being [...] In accordance with this view it seems, if we turn to geological evidence, that organisation on the whole has advanced throughout the world by slow and interrupted steps. In the great kingdom of the Vertebrata it has culminated in man.[...]
Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality. The world, it has often been remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man [...] The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiassed mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties. [...]
no animal voluntarily imitates an action performed by
man, until in the ascending scale we come to monkeys [...]
this is the first case known to me in the ascending scale of the animal kingdom [...]
It is generally admitted, that the higher animals possess memory, attention, association, and even some imagination and reason. If these powers, which differ much in different animals, are capable of improvement, there seems no great improbability in more complex faculties, such as the higher forms of abstraction, and self-consciousness, etc., having been evolved through the development and combination of the simpler ones. It has been urged against the views here maintained that it is impossible to say at what point in the ascending scale animals become capable of abstraction, etc.; [...]
He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. [...]
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form [...]
In the lower divisions of the animal kingdom, sexual selection seems to have done nothing: such animals are often affixed for life to the same spot, or have the sexes
combined in the same individual, or what is still more important, their perceptive and intellectual faculties are not sufficiently advanced to allow of the feelings of love and jealousy, or of the exertion of choice. When, however, we come to the Arthropoda and Vertebrata, even to the lowest
classes in these two great Sub-Kingdoms, sexual selection has effected much. [...]
Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition [...] and if he is to advance still higher [...] Otherwise he would sink into indolence [...]
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. [...]
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. [...] with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system--with all these exalted powers--Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.
Look, I don't know if you're drunk, or if you just want to argue, or why this is so important to you, but I'm done arguing this.
If you seriously think that we haven't changed our theories of evolution since Darwin, there's not much I can do about that.
I'm not a biologist, but it seems to me that evolution refers to combined mutations over time and not much more, regardless of the perceived "direction" of those mutations. I imagine I would be more frustrated than I am already if I were a biologist.
We know of no IPS screens in current-model laptops, ThinkPads or otherwise, and it's a shame, because our T60's FlexView display has some killer attributes.
But that is a technology-based comparison, rather than a performance-based comparison. There are no intrinsic reasons OHV engines can't outperform OHC (overhead cam) engines; spray-on fireproofing can't outperform concrete fireproofing; or TN panels can't outperform IPS/PVA/MVA.
If you yearn for a laptop display that rises above acceptable, one whose colour accuracy matches a good desktop display, there's only one in this test: the ThinkPad W700. In fact, for us, it could just about replace a desktop display for colour critical work and even soft proofing for print in Photoshop
AFAIK TN-based displays are 6-bits per color, i.e. (2^6)x3 total output, not sure if that's a limitation of TN technology or just an unfortunate tradition.
But that is a technology-based comparison, rather than a performance-based comparison. There are no intrinsic reasons
I clearly see an abrupt color cut-offs in smooth skin gradations when working in Photoshop unless my head is positioned perfectly [speaking of MBP, arguably the best TN-based laptop LCD]. So... intrinsic reasons or not, I haven't seen a usable TN-based display yet.
W700 costs almost 3 grand. For that kind of money I don't need yet another "best TN laptop display", something like my 6-year old 17" Samsung with a true 8bit panel will do.
there is a reason OHV engines can't perform OHC engines, mass. With OHV engines you need pushrods, which add mass to the valve train, these aren't needed in OHC engines. Generally to get more performance out of a given displacement engine, rpms are increased. When rpms are increased with OHV engines, you run into problems controlling the valves because you have a much larger mechanical system, which requires larger springs, pushrods also flex. All of this ends up mattering in a big way. F1 engines have overhead cams for specifically this reason.
F1 is not relevant to the world outside racing, where there are no displacement limits. Important engine metrics in the consumer world are size, weight, reliability, repairability, fuel economy, and capex economy.
Smithfield says the union, the United Food and Commercial Workers International, and its officials violated RICO by issuing press releases, contacting civil rights and environmental groups, organizing protests and calling for boycotts.
There are thousands of agencies in the United States that provide assistance for people with developmental disabilities. They include state-run, for-profit, and non-profit, privately run agencies.
Most crack dealers work in large organizations with only one or a few entrepreneurs at the top. Does working at Microsoft or Google make one an entrepreneur?
As the article said:
Felipe Dias is one of the convicts Catherine plans to redirect into a legitimate enterprise.
He was once a lieutenant of the Mexican Mafia gang and made tens of thousands of dollars a month importing drugs and selling firearms and stolen cars.
Can you elaborate? Unfortunately for some reason there aren't that many firsthand accounts of what is required to become a lieutenant in a drug cartel. If you can find time to write about your experiences, it would be a substantial contribution to the public discourse.
What's so scary about the Neanderthals is not that they were bigger or stronger, but that their brain volume was bigger then ours and from the skull shape we can tell the brain was shaped just like our brains. [...] So they might have been smarter.
The larger an animal, the larger the vegetative parts of its brain needs to be. Controlling for body size (and possibly even neglecting body size * ), Neanderthals did not have larger brains than do modern humans. An even greater advantage for modern humans would be seen in terms of neocortex size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex#Evolution
The neocortex is the newest part of the cerebral cortex to evolve (hence the name "neo"); the other parts of the cerebral cortex are the paleocortex and archicortex, collectively known as the allocortex. The cellular organization of the allocortex is different from the six-layer structure mentioned above. In humans, 90% of the cerebral cortex is neocortex. [...]
The neocortex is part of the cerebral cortex (along with the archicortex and paleocortex, which are cortical parts of the limbic system). It is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and, in humans, language.
a 1993 analysis of 118 hominid crania concluded that the cranial capacity of H.s. neandertal averaged 1412cc while that of fossil modern H.s. sapiens averaged 1487cc.
In March 2008, YouTube's bandwidth costs were estimated at approximately US$1 million a day. [...]
In June 2008 a Forbes magazine article projected the 2008 revenue at US$200 million