Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
well like I said, its an arbitrary distinction between one or the other, but I tend to cut toward phenotype based on semantics.
Epigenetic effects such as nutritional input, environmental effects on phenotype, parent's environment, and other factors ultimately shape gene expression, and they often can act in a manner that ignores the genes themselves (i.e. inhibiting proteins that are already in use, blocking them from being produced, and many other ways)
Now, some say that this is all still selection acting on genes, but my counter to that is that this is really a reductionist approach...if you take that argument and extend it, there is nothing but genes. What is a gene? Is it the genetic code? Is it the trait? Is it some intermediate? A mixture of the two?
I think the simultaneous reduction and extension of the gene is a bit counter-intuitive
you're, like, a juggalo on the internet loser shit hierarchy
yup
ahahaha
I'm sorry but this is just
oh my god from you of all people
ok I'm sorry but I actually don't give a shit about this
No.
I tend to think that either situation is extremely possible, and I am certain both occur because I always feel it is silly to limit nature arbitrarily
Bring on the haters, you know I want to be a wrestler here let me find my costume while my dad pets the dog in the background.
Why must you hate your own race? We got to the moon first and we invented Lord of the Rings and we run the entire world and all kinds of other accomplishments.
but I guess it's both!
I am beginning to wonder if the entire dichotomy isn't talking past one another
EDIT: what I mean is, there is a big difference between the arguments on both sides when you look at group evolution versus developmental evolution
did that a week ago
Yes, but the reason I brought it up was that on the one hand, you have a role that generally would be handed to a black man, but was instead made for/given to a white guy. On the other hand, it might be considered racist to slot a black man as a pimp, perpetuating a negative image of black people.
It's one of those situations where someone looking for a fight can take any angle. Look at The Wire, for instance. The drug dealers are all black. There is a reason for that, but some nob's still going to go RACISM! and claim it shines a poor light on black people. Even though the show is practically a documentary of Baltimore.
And if I am considering my school year I probably don't belong in the hospital at all.
Blarrhghgh.
Oathkeeper - Updates Monday/Wednesday/Friday
Buy Issue One! >< Two! >< Three!
NEW! >< Four!
White people are fucking terrible.
Congratulations!
Oathkeeper - Updates Monday/Wednesday/Friday
Buy Issue One! >< Two! >< Three!
NEW! >< Four!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR1hI_Ikuv8&feature=related
I liked True Grit.
But you and I differ strongly when it comes to story telling so maybe
maybe you should see the exorcist thingy
If it makes you feel any better, an American you will never meet is rooting for you!
Congrats!
while i ultimately don't think it is (hence this whole conversation, anyway- until you clarified) i thank you for this post.
i think that for me it ends up at the assumption that we are friends, here, and so i try to presume good faith. i do this in general, too.
an example: one of my peeves is people who like to examine the radical aspects of a community, and from that dismiss everything. i am naturally wary when someone regularly talks about another thing a stupid 'radical feminist' did. i sometimes suspect that this is their glib, defensible way to call all of feminism into question. if i call them out on it, all they have to say is "what... i'm not saying anything about feminism is general. i'm only saying this particular thing is stupid". and i mean, i could be suspicious like that all the time. a lot of the time i'd probably be right about the person, too.
but i guess what i'm saying is we're (mostly) buddies here so when someone complains about this dumb thing or the treatment they got from that person or whatever, i don't look for the agenda behind it. it leads to long arguments where they have plausible deniability (and i'll never know whether i was right about them).
but i do sympathize with your position, here.
Is she as cute as a button?
Congratulations!
The Wire is great though because it paints those drug deals as real people you can sympathize with, and also has a bunch of other black characters who are in positive positions and who are also multi-faceted and can be empathized with
if anyone says the Wire is racist that would be p dumb
later people, no internet in my room
The reason I don't is because a day goes past pretty quickly with that game.
I would say that everything else, all the epigenetic factors, all the other gene interactions, basically everything else external to the gene itself is part of the gene's environment and is putting selective pressures on it. In which case, you may have selective pressures on the phenotype, but those pressures themselves then put selective pressures on the genes. The genes are central, then, because they are the things that are carrying any information, the selective pressures on them are the only ones that ultimately matter because they're what will be passed on and build the next organism in the generation.
Though, I have to agree with Arch and admit that this is blurred sometimes by epigenetics that manage to carry information.
just start the game without me, times likes these where i have nothing to do will be few and far beetween
Why would you ever act like only one or the other occurs? It's a silly disagreement. Obviously "fitness" is a complex thing. If an animal is in a social group, the change will need to be a net benefit, and if it is incompatible with sociability (or some other population trait), it'll need to be a big enough advantage to overcome that. I'm sure there have been cases where both have worked. At any rate, I wouldn't want to have to try and prove the negative.
I think it's a problem with almost all academic debate
But that's exactly how I feel about the colossal "nature v. nurture problem". There would probably be an acceptable consensus already if it weren't for the false dichotomy polarizing people.
but if everybody is ready and you are not, than I'll go ahead