|
Christian Graus wrote: It's predicated on the weak dying but in a civilised modern society, that does not happen
FTFY
civilised is way too nice for our society.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, sure, society has become increasingly sh*t. But the underlying principles that stop darwinism are still intact.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that why they created Covid-19?
|
|
|
|
|
You're confusing evolution and end-of-life. Yes, you can "hurry" the last one.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: [Go to Parent]
Darwinism does not work any more. It's predicated on the weak dying but in a civilised society, that does not happen
It's still in force; it's based on natural selection, and in some environments being "weak" (for whatever definition of "weak" you want to use) is not necessarily the same as "being selected against".
This whole idea I've been seeing that Darwinism is not in effect anymore is based on the misguided notion that it works by weeding out the weak. It doesn't. It works by weeding out the less suitable characteristics for a particular environment.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: [Go to Parent]
OK, so you're saying the most desirable people still get to breed more? I still think the less desirable elements still get to breed now
But I didn't say that. Desire has nothing to do with suitability. Darwinism is "survival of the fittest", where fittest means "those characteristics most suitable to the environment".
Those characteristics may have nothing at all to do with how strong/weak/tough/etc an individual is. The environment exerts a selection pressure, and in civilised society there is no selection pressure against weak individuals. None at all.
In fact, in civilised society there are very few selection pressures on the human population - an individual who is a weak midget with slight mental retardation will still pass on their genes. That's because there is no selection against weak midgets with slight mental retardation - we take care of everyone, young, old, weak, helpless, etc.
That doesn't mean Darwinism isn't in effect, it just means that it is not selecting for th characteristics you think it should.
|
|
|
|
|
They have to do with capacity to survive and thrive. But people who can't do that, are not stopped from existing and therefore breeding.
The only selection going on is that some people are more likely to find a mate. But no one is having lots of kids and most people can find someone to have kids with
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13301679 wrote: Darwinism is "survival of the fittest", where fittest means "those characteristics most suitable to the environment".
More specifically, fittest is defined as those individuals who successfully produce the next generation. Once that's done, their death has no impact on evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
There are times when I feel the gene pool could use some chlorine ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Increasingly true. I have come to hate the world over the past 5 years or so
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: There are times when I feel the gene pool could use some chlorine ...
didn't you want to say clorhidric acid?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I can't even pronounce that, let alone buy it ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I think you meant "Chloric acid", and no, the gene pool can do quite well without it. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I think you meant "Chloric acid"
Not sure. In Spanish we have "ácido clórico" (HClO3) and "ácido Clorhídrico" (HCl)
I meant the second one. If I got the translation wrong, then I stand corrected.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I was wrong, too. In English, HCl is Hydrochloric Acid. 
HClO3 is Chloric Acid.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: HCl is Hydrochloric Acid.
Interesting. I did a check in google and my version was identified / suggested in the search bar, I supposed it was right.
Clicking on search, there is a high number of site titles with you option.
But I found this:
chlorhydric acid[^]
Looks like "Hydrochloric acid" is the official name (and the most extended one) but "chlorhydric acid" (I wrote it wrongly in the previous message) is accepted as a synonym too.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to worry . . . Chloric acid is extremely unstable and will likely blow the owner to itty bitty pieces almost immediately. It's sister, Perchloric acid (HCLO4 is stable enough to keep in bottles - also highly explosive on its own. Something I've actually worked with. It makes an insoluble potassium salt (rather rare) and is a very strong oxidizing acid - used to "fume" things, i.e., break them down chemically by boiling them in the acid. If something organic falls in during this process, well, it tends to crumble things when it goes off with astounding violence. Salts of both of these are common fireworks ingredients. Shock sensitive, although you usually need a hammer (unless mixed with red phosphorus as in matches).
Hydrochloric acid (HCL)? Who's got a stomach to handle that? Actually, all of us - diluted quite a bit it's the acid in your stomach used for digestion. Concentrated (=37% 12.0 molar) is how it's sold. One of the strongest acids known - but I'm sorry to say it doesn't work like acid in the movies. Not at all. Acid strength is based upon degree of ionization in solution and this stuff is about 100% ionized.
Way more than you need to know but it brought back my very early youth, when I used to make my own fireworks.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the info.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Hydrochloric acid (HCL)? Who's got a stomach to handle that? Actually, all of us - diluted quite a bit it's the acid in your stomach used for digestion.
That's something I still remembered from the biology lessons.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: One of the strongest acids known
I knew it, that's why I "suggested" it, but... I might have thought wrongly (based on your following comment)
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: but I'm sorry to say it doesn't work like acid in the movies. Not at all. Acid strength is based upon degree of ionization in solution and this stuff is about 100% ionized.
I don't know exactly what you mean, care to expand?
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Way more than you need to know
I don't mind learning new things in "conversations". Thanks
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
OK. Any complaints about these lessons is "on you !"
Stomach protects itself - prostaglandin 1 if I recall correctly. Without it, you would slowly digest your own stomach. Many NSAID's (like aspirin, but NOT acetaminophen) have a side effect of suppressing your prostaglandins and that's how chronic use can end up giving you ulcers. It's not the aspirin, an extremely weak acid, that does the damage (at least not directly).
Although it doesn't have to be water, acid strength is typically considered how completely the acid ionizes in water. That is, HCL become H+ and Cl- when in aqueous solution. There is no HCL left. This is facilitated by water being very polar. Water is a bent molecule (CO2 is straight). Because it is bent, the local charges are asymmetric on the molecule even though it's net neutral. Like a magnet, in a way, it has poles (hence "polar"). The O in H2O holds the more negative charge, the H's, the more positive charge. They can thus "solvate" ionic species and stabilize their charge. It is for this same reason that salt (NaCl) dissolves in water and is only in existence as Na+ and Cl-. Solvation is a pretty powerful force as it has to, in the case of salt, break up the the salt crystal lattice. (At this point, it gets more complicated as we would talk about Gibbs vs Helmholtz free Energies and Entropy). Anyway, it's for this same reason oil and water don't mix: the water molecules are attracted to one another rather strongly and will not let the oil molecules intervene. Intermediate substances, such as alcohols are polar. Small molecules, such as methanol, ethanol, and propanol are polar enough where entropy will make the totally miscible with water. The randomization of the molecules overcomes the mutual attraction. Longer chain alcohols are not totally miscible (but are soluble) with water, less and less so as the organic part dominates its properties. Soap . . . a magic substance (look up micelles) ! Note, back to the original topic, if you were to dissolve HCL in something totally non-polar, like hexane, then it would not be ionized.
Other definitions of acid in other contexts:
Bronsted Acid: Based upon the ability of a substance to "donate" or "accept" protons (H+)
Lewis Acid: Based upon the substance's ability to donate or accept electrons
There are other definitions for other contexts - these two are often relevant in Organic chemistry.
Anyway, that's more than enough for now. And then some
"solvate" implies they surround the charged particle (ion) and diffuse it's charge and thus stabilize it.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I remembered a couple of things, others were totally new for me. Thank you.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone's pulling out the chloric acid, I'll be over there --->
hiding in a steel reinforced bunker.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: There are times when I feel the gene pool could use some chlorine
Didn't Trump already try that? Hey guys, drink bleach to protect yourself from the virus! 
|
|
|
|
|
� Forogar � wrote: so we are stuck with millions of idiots
74+ million by chance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
