Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or witness the global example we have on our doorsteps. Omicron is replacing delta because it is "better" - spreads faster, spreads more easily, doesn't kill as many hosts. It's won the lottery. (And it's not even alive!)If they give you an advantage, and generations of your offspring pass on this advantage to their offspring, and so are more successful in producing and raising young than average, over many generations those genes may spread through the population, becoming the new successful standard. That is evolution (simplified).
It's a good example - although killing hosts is not a selective disadvantage in the short term, since it is most infectious in the period before severe illness & death occurs (even before symptoms appear). Severe illness and death typically occur in the post-viral period after the infection has subsided, as a result of immune over-reaction.Or witness the global example we have on our doorsteps. Omicron is replacing delta because it is "better" - spreads faster, spreads more easily, doesn't kill as many hosts. It's won the lottery. (And it's not even alive!)
Agreed, but if the virus doesn't kill the host, the host is available for possible reinfection at a later date. (That's implicitly covered by your reference to the short term.)It's a good example - although killing hosts is not a selective disadvantage in the short term, since it is most infectious in the period before severe illness & death occurs (even before symptoms appear). Severe illness and death typically occur in the post-viral period after the infection has subsided, as a result of immune over-reaction.
This means that this virus could evolve to be more rather than less lethal, and we've been lucky with Omicron - although I suppose it's possible that mutations for virulence and infectiousness are antagonistic for some reason.
Yes; the point for us today is that there appears to be no reason why a highly lethal variant, at least as infectious as Omicron, could not arise...Agreed, but if the virus doesn't kill the host, the host is available for possible reinfection at a later date. (That's implicitly covered by your reference to the short term.)
Or a virus could mutate to the point where it is almost harmless. HSV-1 comes to mind. Once you have that it tends to be for life but the most serious negative drawback appears to be unsightly cold sores. Between HSV-1 and HSV-2 over half of the population of the world is infected. Actually higher. 66% with HSV-1 alone and about 13% with HSV-2:Agreed, but if the virus doesn't kill the host, the host is available for possible reinfection at a later date. (That's implicitly covered by your reference to the short term.)
But who's to blame if you adapt? you or nature?If you adapt first, you are able to adapt more.
If you adapt more, you are able to adapt adaptation (Evolutionarily as is productive).
This is an irreducibly complex statement.
But who's to blame if you adapt? you or nature?
And who's to blame if you mutate? you or nature?
Just by way of observation on my part, it looks like you are using the term "to adapt" in the same sense as "to learn."Put another way: multiple mutations pointing to adapting first, do not need to be adapted.
Just by way of observation on my part, it looks like you are using the term "to adapt" in the same sense as "to learn."
If you go back and read your posts and substitute "adapt" with "learn," they make more sense.
To me anyway.
If you adapt first, you are able to adapt more.
If you adapt more, you are able to adapt adaptation (Evolutionarily as is productive).
This is an irreducibly complex statement.
Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?
I argue against LSD, and all I know about it is what the letters stand for.I am constantly amazed at how eager some people are to draw attention to the fact that they have not bothered - ever - to actually try to understand the things they argue against.
I know you are American, but is that really sufficiently reason to be opposed to Sterling as a currency: librae, solidi, and denarii?
Pre-decimialisation in the UK our currency was pounds, shilling and pence. 20 shillings to the pound, ten pennies to the shilling. These were identified as librae, solidi, and denarii, L.s.d. thus £4 2s. 4d (My first week's wage in a summer job as a 14 year old.)
1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.Pre-decimialisation in the UK our currency was pounds, shilling and pence. 20 shillings to the pound, ten pennies to the shilling. These were identified as librae, solidi, and denarii, L.s.d. thus £4 2s. 4d (My first week's wage in a summer job as a 14 year old.)
I am constantly amazed at how eager some people are to draw attention to the fact that they have not bothered - ever - to actually try to understand the things they argue against.
*SNIP*
I would rather not argue, over some thing that lacks substance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?