The main issue with any computer is that they can’t adapt to new situations. We can infer and work through new problems. The more variables the more “new” problems. The problem with biology is there isn’t really any hard set rules, there are almost always exceptions. The amount of functional memory and computing power is ridiculous for a computer. Driving works mostly because there are straightforward rules.
I only ment that specific person who wrote that.
Are you sure this isn’t sarcasm?
Species actually don’t have a rigid definition that works across all organisms. The most common definition is the one you gave but sometimes it simply doesn’t work, for example any organism the doesn’t use sexual reproduction doesn’t fit this definition. Clarification of extinct populations would also be an issue. Even considering organisms this is usually used with, there are exceptions. For example; domesticated cattle and American bison, coyotes and wolves, and most cat breeds with various wild species.
And many kinds of fish! Like clown fish : ]
Yes this! I hate when people say biology supports their trans/homo/ect. phobia when in reality it absolutely does not
This looks like Raft. Only with actual physics. Neat
Those some fuzzy feets
It wouldn’t really matter, there would be another reason for hate.
What the actual fuck
Yeah, it’s definitely good, for sure. I was being a bit derisive. The double standard just struck me.
It feels very much like the joker meme.
That’s not true at all. Essentially every time you have heard of any disease linked to a gene its because of the Human genome project. 23 and me, that is also thanks to HGP. Lots of cancer research has also been done, identifying markers for cancer.
You might not be aware of it, but has been vital for anyone genetic advancement.
Good. But also just doctors? I guess every woman better start training to become a doctor…
If grown as a crop I can see that. But taking from forests changes the forest permanently. I see your point, I guess I’m taking issue with what I associate with a renewable resource when talking about energy. That is is “green” and not bad for the environment.
Saying trees are carbon capures so its carbon neutral just seems crazy to me. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal for every unit of electricity produced. The older the tree the more carbon it can store, which is in its wood. Mature as in 35-75 years. Cutting down mature trees out of forests and planting new ones isn’t carbon neutral. But I can see an argument for planting tree plots in already cleared land to get a system set up for rotations.
WTF?! They burn wood pellets? Seriously? How is that even vaguely a renewable resource?
Just an inch to the right
Oh my goodness! How precious!
Wow, that is a surprisingly ugly interior
I mean there are lots of places like that?