Balta1701

Probably worth noting the trend lines in that poll...July13-18 poll in () Lieberman: 49 (51) Lamont: 38 (27) Schlesinger: 4 (9)

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) Shouldn't that definition also include a gain of information? For example, to evolve from a single-celled organism to a multi-celled organism would require a gain in information.A gain in information, if we want to call it that (I'm not a fan of that term since there's no real great definition for the total amount of information contained within a DNA Unit) would also fit...anything which changes the ratio of alleles in a population would fit that definition, including the appearance of new mutations. Well, yeah, the big problem you run into in providing a concrete example is time, in that significant changes in species, to the point where 2 formerly joined populations will be unable to breed if they rejoin each other, simply does take quite a few generations. It has been observed in plants, however, with the classic example being wheat, where a series of mutations led to the development of the modern-day grain from older plants. It has also been observed in the laboratory...just one example, using the classic fruit flies that a lot of scientists play with because they do reproduce quickly...Rice and Salt (1988) placed originally genetically matching groups of fruit flies under different conditions of food, water, light, and so forth, and after several generations, they brought the groups back together, and found that they were different enough that the two groups did not interbreed. Here and here are some short lists of examples where scientists have in fact observed speciation, or what you might call macro-evolution, taking place.

A U.S. District Judge in Michigan has ruled Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it stopped. Glenn Greenwald is of course on top of it. Notably, this is now 2 courts in a row who have ignored the "This trial cannot happen because of national security" defense.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 08:58 AM) I know, I just think the label gets used like the guy leads off 4-5 times a game. As long as that player is a high OBP guy he should be able to leadoff. I'm willing to take either a high OBP or a guy with a moderate OBP but really good speed. The high OBP guy gets himself on base for the guys behind him and allows them to hit the ball out of the park, the guy with the speed gets himself on base less, but when he gets on base, he's immediately in scoring position, and the 2-3 guys behind him can knock him in with a hit or even a sac fly. Problem with Podsednik right now is he's neither.

I still think Ross Gload has it in him to be the starting 1st baseman for a big league team if he ever gets the shot. He controls the bat really well, doesn't have the power of our guys, but should be able to hit .300+ with moderate power over a full season if he's given the shot. It's sort of a shame that the 2 guys in front of him are just so bloody good.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 07:54 AM) I am curious about what people think of the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. An example of micro-evolution would be moths changing their wing color to live in a darkening forest, or the birds on an island changing their beak size based upon different environmental influences. An example of macro-evolution would be the jump from ape to man. Do you make that distinction or not? Personally, I think there is a distinction, but the distinction is unimportant. The entire difference between them is a result of the size of the population you're allowing to evolve. The most strict definition of evolution would be any change in the frequency of alleles in a population. This can happen through random chance even (i.e. you go from 51% of a population being blonde to 52% just through the number of children conceived in a generation or something like that) or it can happen due to selective pressures. What you refer to as "Micro-evolution" would be anything that impacts such a large group of individuals so as to not really produce 2 distinct populations. What you'd define as "Macro-evolution" is something that actually leads to division and reproductive isolation between 2 groups of what was formerly a single species, where one group adopts a characteristic not present in the other group. The reality of this is, it's all a matter of population size and isolation. If you have a small population of a species with enough diversity to be able to keep itself going, it is vastly more likely that mutations which arise within this group will be adopted within a short amount of time. However, if you have a large population, it is going to take much longer and much larger selective pressures for a new trait to be adopted throughout the population. In one case, the isolation of a smaller group will encourage more rapid "Macro-evolution", while in the other case, the breeding of a larger group will lead to the adoption of new traits in what you'd call "Micro-evolution". I for one see it as a distinction without a difference. The only real dividing line is one of population size. The larger a population is, the more likely its genetic makeup is to stay steady, while the smaller a population is, the more likely it is that traits can be adopted throughout a group.

Vulcan Mind Meld.

Mark Buehrle needs to show some Marbles. That is all.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 05:49 AM) The funny thing about the leadoff hitter is that they are only guaranteed to leadoff once a game. If the Sox move Pods, they will more than likely pickup a leadoff hitter at another position (SS). Yes, they only lead off once per game, but they also quite often have the chance to set the table for your 2-5 hitters. Their performance in front of those guys directly impacts the performance of your big guns.

Well, I have no more use for this game. Night folks!

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) This is a f***ing joke. All the momentum we had over the weekend has been shat with our great showing against the worst road team in baseball. How horrible is this. The twinks just swept this garbage team in their house. And we are looking at losing 3 of 4.. Fixed. Tigers up 4-3 on a home run by Clevlen.

Podsednik can't even get a bunt to work as a sacrifice.

3-1 boston on a home run by Ortiz.

Don't worry, Mackowiak's in there! Instant offense, I tells ya what!!!!

Wonderful.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) Let me ask this....are people still rooting for the Red Sox over the Tigers? 100% yes.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) Twins already off and running against the Indians in the first. Don't forget, the Tribe get to hit against Carlos Silva as well.

Det/Boston now 1-1, bottom 3. Yankees down 3-0 to Baltimore in the 3rd (Lidle on the mound). QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) anyone who knows MLB.TV, how do u start watxhing the game live? right now, i am like a couple minutes back, but i want to catch so i can post simultaneously. Usually with Gameday Audio, I just stop it and reload it.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) Brian Anderson is definitely going to be well-rested this offseason. If you want to play Gload in RF, you better make sure you have a good CF out there. They're resting him up for winter-ball. You still haven't responded on my worst outfield

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) This is the worst possible defensive outfield we can have, which is quite the accomplishment with our roster. Ok, after a second, got you beat. Ozuna, Podsednik, Gload. Pick your location.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) This is the worst possible defensive outfield we can have, which is quite the accomplishment with our roster. Pods

Pods, LF Gooch, 2b Thome, DH Konerko, 1B Pierzynski, C Crede, 3b Gload, RF Cintron, SS "Free Run" Mackowiak, CF DeJesus, LF Grudzielanek, 2B Teahen, 3B Brown, RF Sanders, DH Shealy, 1b Bako, C Berroa, SS Gathright, CF. The Good News? Mike Sweeney is not in that lineup.

You have to work pretty hard to find a leadoff hitter with a lower on base percentage than Podsednik. The Tigers have found one. ANd somehow, he leads off the game with a walk.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 04:09 PM) Gload in RF and Mackowiak in CF according to the score. I wonder if Ozzie realizes that Mack can play the LF position and doesnt need to take out our young, currently hitting well, great defensive CF. Defense in the Outfield tonight is going to be terrible. Well, there goes Jose's scoreless innings streak.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) Freddy throwing 88 in the post season? Sing me up! It's worked better than what Vazquez has been throwing lately.