GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Because you didn't spend the lifetime studying it and by now can't! The flu does not mutate to get around the antibiotics it evolves. Like education:-(;—)‽!?.
Because you didn't spend the lifetime studying it and by now can't! The flu does not mutate to get around the antibiotics it evolves.
Mutations are believed to be the basis for evolution. "Evolution" being a combination of mutation and natural selection.
But – an influenza virus is only (so far as we know ...) "a rogue strand of RNA." So, does it "evolve?" Or should there be a different term for it? Furthermore, why does a virus always produce another strand that is always capable of propagation even though it is not always identical to its 'parent?' I don't know.
- - -
I also suspect that "there is more to natural evolution (of organisms) than meets the eye," because it seems that only a limited number of mutations are allowed to occur. We've never observed a mutation that caused a firefly to produce an ant. The mutations that occur always seem to stay within the bounds of what we call, "species." The process isn't random. The process that leads to "natural selection" appears to be, itself, "very selective."(How? Why?)
On the one hand, we can readily observe and verify the existence of this natural process, and we can readily see the advantages that the existence of such a natural adaptation process confers. But, there's still an awful lot that "we just don't know™" about it. It would seem that the natural world is not in a hurry to reveal her many mysteries to ever-inquisitive man.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-02-2017 at 01:30 PM.
I guess you didn't read my previous post regarding Abstract and Actual Infinity. Thanks for the url, cool video, but doesn't apply to the Abstract only to the Actual where, in Mathematics, it is used as a number instead of a concept.
Re: misstype where "instinct written where "extinct" was meant
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx
prob did without even going back and checking it.
So is this the level of accuracy we should expect from you? It is one thing to use "fitted" where "fit" is proper grammar or to typo, say "sorry it was a 'tupo'" where it is obvious that since "y" is right next to "u" on a qwerty keyboard and it's just an over reach, but something quite a bit more when an actual whole word that doesn't apply to the sentence, or worse, applies with an entirely different meaning, is used and not corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx
.
see included image as testimony that the monkey is the whole basis for the start of the argument. Man evolved from ape.
No it is not a testimony on anything but the more recent ancestry not anywhere close to "whole basis".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx
me personally not really AS GOD created every living creator and ever seed bearing plant. Who then us to say the God did not create other living creators after the flood. as far as the water living creators they should not have died off in a flood. per se' one still needs to take into account that sea or salt water and fresh water.
Yet again God just like man if man can build a car once then he can do it again, and has. therefore by that proof so can God.
You don't say? Hmmm odd that isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
Evolution is not a "belief system" but actually Scientific Fact
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx
,that is where you fail drastically it is too a belief system.
That is what you believe to be true therefore it is part your belief system that you use to live by.
Live by? LOL How does it affect my life? I have confidence that the theory is accurate because almost 200 years of the deepest scrutiny have failed to falsify it, DNA being one huge possible threat that instead only bolstered it by orders of magnitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx
your strong hate for God and anything to do with Him drives your mind to not think clearly. Because that right there proves it. Denying it is a belief system. that is a truth and you denying this truth can only replace it with a lie instead. Because that is all that is left to replace it with.
I can't hate god any more than I can hate the tooth fairy. I don't have any confidence in the existence of either.
your denial of a basic truth already proves to me that you are not thinking clearly therefore as a result of it you can by no means make any real rational thoughts. You are not plumb.
I re-read that entire post you linked and it is a proof of nothing but how you dance around with semantics to maintain your belief system which requires no evidence, just blind, unquestioning loyalty utterly resistant to any manner of dissent.
Incidentally this is beginning to drift way OT into what belongs in the Faith and religion Mega Thread. The Topic statement "One = Infinity" has nothing to do with religion.
On the subject of "grammar" here\now I suck and really don't car (unless I get my a$s back to skool,) if you can figure or point it out?!.
Leads me to another concept in my head, in this thread: digital infinity(.) Is there one way to say "no—there's not real magic" (outside the laughs you get watching, say: Happy Endings or "tricks" &c) but are there of course infinite ways and on to be made up?
——————————————————————————————————————————————— It is funny now/here we use "cardinal" for when 1 =! ∞ as that bird* can be crazy!
Last edited by jamison20000e; 05-03-2017 at 09:17 AM.
You're absolutely correct (i suppose) what was I thinking? Though I do wonder why anyone would even worry about knowing anything about infinity when they will never even have a chance to experience it?
when one dies and just rots in a hole I suppose taking about infinity is just like talking about the weather. It is just something to talk about when you have nothing else to talk about.
Knowing about infinity and thinking you'll experience it (outside of a moment ) is even sadder, just look around,,, fairy tales need woe oh and sucker$! ☢.☢
Some of my very wise oriental teachers made it a point to make us all aware that " honestly searching inside ourselves was a way of exploring infinity "!! This is not as easy as it sounds because " all human beings are beset with egos, emotions, beliefs, etc. etc. " that cloud and distort our every perception!! Your own mind is the most effective deceiver you will ever encounter!!
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.