/sci/ - Science & Math

Ability to resist instinct.

Define movement.

He's a lot better than Kaku for sure.

TIDES GO IN
TIDES GO OUT
SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT

>>2621632

Actually, I should really have used brackets:

2^-1 = 2/(2*2) = 1/2
2^-2 = 2/(2*2*2) = 1/4

The easiest to follow is:

2^3 = 2*2*2 = 8
2^2 = 2*2 = 4
2^1 = 2
2^0 = 2/2 = 1
2^-1 = 2/2*2 = 1/2
2^-2 = 2/2*2*2 = 1/4

>implying this is an answerable expression

I think I might be tetrachromatic.

Either people have incredibly lax definitions of colours or I can actually differentiate better than them.

People will often claim oranges are reds, yellows are oranges, blues are greens etc. when they're very distinctly and clearly not.

It could just be that I have a more rigorous definition of each colour, but it used to infuriate me.

5 grass
4 red
3 psychic
2 water
2 fighting
1 electric

That's the maximum of each if you want 14 repeating patterns. There's no perfect ratio is this circumstance as these numbers don't all share a common divisor.

You're going to have to not use a few cards.

It will reach equilibrium.

>>2613870

≠

The glass is mostly empty.

It doesn't matter how much water you put in it, it's still pretty much empty.

Not sure what I just watched.

Looked like a load of information I already knew.

x axis is clearly time.

Why not use the money to buy a new thread topic instead of recycling this tired old one?

>>2609479

A computer program I suppose.

>>2609444

Evolution doesn't "try" to do anything. There's just random mutations which happen to be good or bad.

Good mutations benefit a species, leading to it's increased survivability and thus these mutations propagate.

Bad mutations disadvantage a species, reducing it's survivability and thus are eliminated.

Our current eyes are very good and very specialised, any mutation is statistically likely to make them less fit for purpose, so they've stayed pretty much the same for a long time.

It's simply a matter of decreasing probability of getting a beneficial mutation due to increasing complexity of a system.

If you throw a pack of cards, the more cards there are, the less ordered they will land.

I think this principle is called "degrees of freedom".

>>2609375

It doesn't.

It's an equilibrium.

Increasingly beneficial forms will be selected for, so the organism gradually gets better at surviving. This also means that any mutation is more likely to be negative to a species the more evolved it gets.

Only beneficial or negligible mutations will ever be selected for, so the organism will keep features that work until a more beneficial progression is found.

The eye for instance doesn't really change beyond what current species have as any change is usually for the worse due to the complexity of the system.

We're potentially actually making human eye sight worse, as short sighted humans who wouldn't have seen well in the wild and thus would have been at risk can now survive and reproduce due to glasses. We've removed the selection process that stops the eye evolving into something less fit for purpose.

>>2609349

To an extent.

The steps in the eye are something like:

photoreceptor -> directional photoreceptor -> focused photoreceptor

The transitions along the 2nd and 3rd steps are selectable as you can get an increasing degree of directionality and focus.

One can only assume that a useful photoreceptor is extremely easy to evolve as before you have one there's no selection process toward an eye.

>>2609293

Are you implying the propagation of genes that aren't currently useful, but may be in the future, is likely?

There's no selection process for a gene that does not advantage a species and transition states will not advantage a species.

The only alternative are these transition states do just happen at random and occasionally the progress toward something, entirely by chance, and a useful gene is the product.

>>2609239

You misunderstand.

Please reread my post.

Firstly, I don't disbelieve this (as the alternatives are more absurd), but here's a potential problem:

Only milestone mutations are beneficial. The transition states don't give any survivability to the organism. Lets take the example of the eye, the first milestone is a photoreceptor of any variety:

What about the steps to form that first photoreceptor? It is the product of many individual mutations, none of which are beneficial, until it can detect light it's just a useless structure. Do we assume the mutations just happen to occur and survive until each beneficial milestone is reached? Seems awfully improbable.

How can favourable transition states be selected for when they provide no benefit, thus no selection, making them effectively random?

>>2592257

Sweetcorn will go off if uncanned. If it's in a sealed can though it will last an extremely long time.

Pastries go off in a matter of days. That one is retarded.

Noodles last a very long time, provided they're dried.

The gummy bears will degrade very slowly.

Gelatin makes the main structure and no enzymes exist in nature that can attack such substance effectively.

In that respect they will last a very long time indeed, possibly hundreds of years.