/sci/ - Science & Math

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_electrosynthesis

culture-wise, I dunno about the rest of Asia, but most families in India are just concerned with competing with each other for accolades and reputation.
there is no genuine interest in education.

in terms of education system, I imagine that if you're a developing nation training your citizenry to work in an assembly-plant or call center, then the type of education that prioritizes rote-learning and uniformity makes sense because the workforce values efficiency and discipline over creativity and individuality.

As the economy continues to develop, a greater share will constitute advanced-services industry. The workforce and thus ultimately education will (should) consequently shift focus toward encouraging creativity and individuality because a talent pool containing a wider range of intellectual perspectives is more conducive to innovative solutions.

tardigrades are consumers, so you'd need photo / chemosynthetic organisms in some food chain with them to contribute energy toward the tardigrade system.

>>6581695

Interesting, but this analogy doesn't quite work.

Capacity for conversation is being used as a surrogate for overall intelligence.

But one should also consider that unlike humans, dogs are fundamentally limited in their capacity to vocally express their intelligence by barking, because they haven't evolved the ability to control complex sounds like humans have.

The range of one's language might reflect the intelligence of a human, but the range of a dog's barking is very limited in its ability to accurately reflect its intelligence.

>>6566082

the scientific community operates on meritocratic consensus.

the 'out of Africa' theory is still overwhelmingly supported by the International scientific community.

If you want to make a point, then simply state it.

Posting an abstract doesn't definitively 'disprove' the 'out of africa' theory any more than Christians cherry picking data or global climate change deniers can do the same and then claim with any legitimacy that the consensus has been disproven.

>>6565899
Probably this.
The genotypes in all populations share common source.
One diaspora tends to look one way because their progenitors migrated from Africa and found themselves isolated.
Inbreeding 'brought out' certain recessive phenotypes over many generations.
Why did one lineage migrate to one place, and another migrate to a different place. Probably essentially random. One tribe went north. The other didn't

>>6560931

Yes, but you need to properly quote and source it.

If you write with the implication of originality, then it's dishonest to copy an old work submitted for other purposes.

Yeah, the lines between 'right' and 'wrong' here can be a bit blurry. Like, what if you wrote the original work in anticipation of using it for future assignments? Then it's technically still original. And sometimes, especially for technical subjects, it's hard to ensure consistent and true originality with every statement; there might only be so many 'best' ways to concisely say what you want to say.

Personally I think the whole concept of self-plagiarism is just difficulty for the sake of difficulty.

But, it is a thing we still have to live with for now. If you're really unsure, ask your professor. Just be clear that he's OK with whatever you're doing first.

if you are asking whether photoreceptors in our eyes generate the images we imagine in our dreams, then no.

the optic nerve is generally a one-way avenue for electrical signals. there is no way for the specialized neurons in our retina to receive or generate that information since it originates within our brain, proper.

>>6515481
It's not upside-down, it's rotated pi rad about the z-axis

natural selection doesn't happen unless there are selection pressures.

in high-tech, modern societies, everyone has an opportunity to pass on their genetic material to a new generation because resources aren't scarce enough that they may only support the subsistence of a fraction of the population.

fungi have a closer common ancestor with animals

Two fundamental reasons.

We're too different and specialized within our own niches.

Animals and plants split off relatively long ago in the process of biologic evolution on our planet. Our body plans were relatively primitive at the time.

they developed their own unique structures to cope with their unique selection pressures, and we, ours.

evolution isn't a sentient process; it doesn't have any foresight.
and the sorts of biologic diversity allowed by evolution can be sort of compared to the function of an economy.
natural selection selects for organisms that can best reproduce.
to reproduce, you need energy.
If there is some source of energy, organisms will evolve traits to better exploit it for the purposes of maximizing reproductive success.

This means most organisms will be photosynthetic; the most efficient way of getting energy. But a minority will still develop to get energy from other sources, or only indirectly from the sun's rays (e.g.: consuming other organisms).

The point of all this is, when a particular source of energy has been monopolized in a given ecosystem, then it's unlikely for any evolution to occur in which new organisms will try and compete for it.
This is because there is already established competition that is honed for the purpose of exploiting the energy resource. That niche is filled.

So why won't plants grow legs?
Because they'd have to backtrack on the specialized traits they've evolved to exploit their niche, for one. Plant's anatomy and physiology can't support structures for complex motility. They'd have to sacrifice some adaptations they already have to invest energy into motility.

Secondly, they've nothing to gain. Even if they had the genes to grow legs, using up energy to develop legs would be a competitive disadvantage when they'd be competing in a new niche with already established competition; organisms that have specialized in hunting others far longer.

>college trigonometry
>so math
>wow

>>6473206

I honestly don't care even if they do, I've absolutely nothing against gypsies. But saying Gypsies descended from Indians is not the same as saying Indians are gypsies, as was the obvious implication.

>Gypsy society are full of schiesters
You would be a 'schiester' too if you were communally ostracized and grew up hating your host society. No wonder Europeans viewed the Jews much the same, and now Africans have become untrustworthy. Either every other race is at fault, or your own society has been dysfunctional at integrating migrants, whereas they seem to get along fine in the east and mid east and south asia.

http://www.rd.com/slideshows/most-honest-cities-lost-wallet-test/

IDK what to tell you. A lot of you are just plain dishonest.

>>6473185
>A better comparison though wouldn't be with British Americans and Gypsies, it would be with Amish Americans and Gypsies.

>Gypsies as well have kept a lifestyle that yes has diverged from modern indians but surely derives from the Indian Subcontinent.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Do they follow Vedic philosophy?

>Why are Indians so attracted to SJW stuff?

Still no clue.

>Admitting Gypsies come from the Indian subcontinent is racist now?

Yes, you did reply in the affirmative to his virulently racist comment.

>Wouldn't Indians not wanting to be associated with their gypsy cousings be moreso?

Stop taking pedantic tangents when you know it's invalid BS.

>Anyways, the point is Indians, not the rich bankers in Bombay but the poor gypsies and low castes love to lie for attention.

Yes, this blanket statement that certain ethnic groups love to 'lie for attention' is in no was racist. What's your motive for making such a claim? This tabloid? Where are your statistics? This is a science board, mr. stormfag.

>>6472782
>I gypsies are Indian
That's pants on the head retarded, as expected of swineskin stormfag .
That's like saying Americans are british.
Not the I e got anything against gypsies, but they must be doing something right to get a prized pig like yourself sour at them. That's assuming they as a community have actually wronged you in some way; surely it's not just keyboard bigotry.

>>6472787
Fuck off, we contribute more than any other race in your own nations. 29% of defense startups are indian. We practically drive the economy where we live.

Even where we arent, we contribute. Chinese culture is influenced about as much by Indian as any other.
Stupid racist swine don't know what's good for em.

>>6473060
It's a tabloid news article and this thread is obvious bait.

>>6472141

nah, sorry.

i didn't mean to target all Christians; I guess heated argument got the best of me.
still; we don't appreciate whites importing their abrahamic faiths, much less than you appreciate the occasional story that makes it out of some backwards village.

Keep in mind, we're one of the few democracies in Asia with a free press; people can claim and publish as they see fit personally. Dictatorships like China and Pakistan practice state censorship.

There are still hundreds of millions of backward villagers and non-reputable news sources. IMO for news from India, try indianexpress, timesofindia, or thehindu.

>>6472141
an arabic man got nailed to some sticks and hundreds of millions of westerners still believe he'll save them from nonexistance if they go to his temple every sunday

>>6471563
>they could have just
forget what "they" did; why do you get your "science" news from 'worldnewsdailyreport.com'?

>>6472025

India has loads of problems as a developing democracy in the heart of theocracies and dictatorships, but that's really untrue what's usually said online.

India is incredibly diverse as a civilization; and the oldest in Asia. You can find literally anything you're looking for here,, there's quite a range of ideologies, backgrounds, technology, income groups.

If you really believe all that defines India, then it sounds like you've just been on /int/ too long more than anything. And you say gypsies like it's a bad thing... we are at the apex of your own scientific establishments, after all :P

>>6472015
I was rounding up, and also considering the fact that there have been more humans than the ones alive today.

>>6471659
0.35 probability of death / yr at 100.
0.65^50 = ~4.42*10^(-10)
out of about 10 billion people, I guess if we extrapolate that linearly it seems likely one person might have made it to 150 yr age by now.

organized current of EM-radiation and electrons.