Miscellaneous desk
< October 5	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 6

Essay on goldfish and pine trees

Does anybody know of an essay analyzing goldfish and pine trees to argue a Creator of the universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon83 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but you are aware, right, that gold fish look the way they do because of hundreds of years of deliberate human intervention? Using them as an example of either Creationism or Evolution is problematic because they aren't in any sense "natural". They are a great example of selective breeding (or artificial selection), but that's about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting breeding is simply a much faster way of pushing evolution along. What the OP is probably getting at is the typical creationist argument that life as we know it "couldn't have happened by accident". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, selective breeding is not "pushing evolution along," any more than topiary is "pushing along" the growth of a tree. It has nothing to do with naturalistic evolution except as an analogy. It's just genetic tinkering. That's not the same thing as evolution at all! (And savvy Creationists are aware of that...) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Savvy creationists?" Look under oxymoron. Anyway, we now have the capability of doing genetic manipulation as well as artificial selection, and it's surprisingly easy when you know what you're doing. So genetic manipulation by mother nature is not surprising either. As with natural selection, it simply takes a lot longer, because it's trial and error rather than deliberate manipulation. But God has lots of time. :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The savvy creationists (e.g. the ones who know how to integrate genetics into Creationism) are clever enough to argue that what you're seeing is variation within a type, not variation between types. (Thus all dogs are still in the same species, after thousands of years of artificial selection.) They don't buy that increasing the time scale would change that, arguing that the total amount of information is basically constant, etc. I don't buy it, but it's more clever than the "God did it, let's just believe" it sort. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is evolution - it is a species adapting to become better able to reproduce in their environment. The fact that it is us determining which animals can and can't reproduce is irrelevant - we are part of the environment. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting down to splitting hairs over whether "artificial" is really "natural". (Which, either way, is not the same thing as "evolution", if we're going to split hairs even further). The whole purpose of making the division between "artificial" and "natural" is to be able to distinguish between intelligent intervention and what happens without an intelligent agent, and playing with that only muddies the water further on other evolution/creation debates, IMO. I think we can take a page from Darwin here and say that making the distinction between humans deliberately molding animals to their wills and the sort of naturalistic, non-interventionist evolution do represent somewhat different mechanisms, end up with very different results, and have profound philosophical distinctions for most people. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a difference, but I would say that selective breeding is just a type of evolution. Evolution is inherited traits with random mutations combined with natural selection leading to organisms that can reproduce better in their current environment. Humans are part of nature, so human selection is a type of natural selection. To exclude humans from nature is arbitrary, anthropocentric and, I would argue, unhelpful. It is easy enough to say "non-human influenced evolution" in the rare cases where it is necessary to exclude it. --Tango (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No gold fish, although there might be a pine tree in the background, but there is the banana... The Atheist's Nightmare! Ooooohhhh.... Scary! Dismas|^(talk) 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pine trees are mentioned here. I haven't found anything about goldfish, other than the usual "this animal doesn't turn into that animal before our eyes therefore evolution is wrong" (goldfish into seahorses in this case).

The two arguments involving pine are that pine debris from Mount St Helens has formed coal in an unpredicted way (too fast and in a lake-bed rather than a swamp), and that pine pollen is present in 1.5 billion year old shale deposits despite pine trees first appearing ~350 million years ago. Here and here are possibly the most relevant entries on the Index to Creationist Claims AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subscription of united states patents quarterly

How can my Philippine based company subscribe to United States Patents Quarterly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahlyn (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email customercare@bna.com and ask them - see [1]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best smoking utensil?

not the be criticised, but i was wandering, being a recreational smoker. other then a vaporizer, what would be the best smoking utensil to use in order to get the most out of what ever your smoking? my best guess would be a waterpipe? User:DanielTrox

Ultimately, probably an iron lung. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP doesn't say exactly what the "best" is in smoking but if it is the addictive stimulant nicotine then using a Nicotine patch is a way to get the euphoria without polluting the air for everyone around. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show MANswers answered this, the consensus was that vaporizers were far and away the most efficient way to get the "active compounds" from smoking mateterial. The OP's smoking methods imply that he is searching for ways of smoking Cannabis, and the other standard methods (pipe, joint, water-pipe, bong) all provide considerably less than 30% or so of the active compounds from the material into your lungs; vaporizers apparently provide more than 80% of the active compounds. So basically, it takes something around 1/3 to 1/4th as much material to get you the intended effect. This is all as reported in the MANswers show, I have no idea the reliability of their data. Also, given the illegality of Cannabis in most jurisdictions, the OP is reminded to obey all local laws, less this happens to them... --Jayron32 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that, given the social and legal stigmae associated with smoking, that there are some new joints[2] that make a ceremony of it. I find that a briar pipe, stoked with British-style tobacco, is quite pleasant. PhGustaf (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a nitpick, PhGustaf, but it's useful to know that "stigmata", usually used in reference to the wounds of Christ that appear on saintly people's bodies, is also the ~~(irregular)~~ plural of the ~~Latin~~Greek word "stigma". There's no such word as "stigmae". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the plural of stigma is stigmas. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a plural is stigmas, not the plural. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick Google came up with "my 10 tepal polytepals have five stigmae!" So either "stigmae" is accepted by some, or someone is even better at making words up than I am. PhGustaf (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's dead right. I myself assumed stigma was Latin, but it's Greek. See English plural#Irregular plurals from Latin and Greek. Were it Latin, the plural might be "stigmae", or (as I assumed) it might have an irregular plural, hence stigmata. But it's not Latin, so "stigmae" is right out, as was my original theory. You can use either a normal English plural "stigmas", or go to the original Greek plural "stigmata". Those google hits all assume it was Latin with a regular plural "stigmae". Wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cognate Latin word, if there were one, would likely be –men, plural –mina. —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends where you live. In Egypt, a water pipe. In America, cigarettes... Vranak (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic problem about intervals

I have encountered the following sentence in the article of Penobscot River: "Flow here has ranged from 37,000 to 77 cubic feet per second.". I am not sure about the meaning. Does it say that the flow has ranged from 37,000 downto 77 cubic feet per second (so, naming the bigger end of the interval first) or from 37,000 to 77,000 cubic feet per second (using an abbrevation, therefore naming smaller end of the interval first then writing down the second number in a kind of short form)? - Xbspiro (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is says means the former, it could be a mistake and intended to mean the latter, but 77 is not a valid abbreviation for 77,000 in that context. It is common to say "37-77,000" to mean "37,000-77,000", but I've never seen that expressed as "37,000-77" (it might happen in spoken language where the way it is said can make it clear what is meant, but not in writing). --Tango (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the URL it is referenced to is broken, so I can't check which it is (if you want to, try googling the title given - if you find a working URL please edit the article!). --Tango (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found one. (It's a way away from either previous figure.) - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cited figures are no longer in the article, so I assume you've changed it. But the second "flow has ranged" reference has the same problem -- a large number followed by a much smaller number. And the large number seems impossibly large given the size of the river's drainage basin (compared to, say, the Niagara River). There still seems to be a problem here, although it's not really a Reference Desk problem any more. --Anonymous, 19:18 UTC, October 6, 2009.

With some of the rivers around here, 37-77,000 could very well mean "37 cfs to 77,0000 cfs". --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interview tips

What are the competencies they may check to appoint me as a manager in a BPO it is an opening within the organisation i work for and i am a team leader for in other department, are there something specific i need to prepare or know for a sales and customer service department? any advise is appreciated

From the top of this page: " if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. " BrainyBabe (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen this sort of question before. Think about what the manager's boss is looking for. Probably he or she wants a "self-starting" manager who will run the department well, on his/her own initiative, without constantly bothering the manager's boss. Somebody who knows the employees' current jobs thoroughly, who can mentor the employees, help them do a better job, meet (and possibly help set) the goals set for the department by the manager's boss, and identify and solve problems of every sort in the department. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are already in the organisation you have an advantage - you can seek out the person that used to have the job and ask them about it. They will know what the job entails better than anyone and once you know that you just have to convince the interviewer that you can do it best. --Tango (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest learning how to write a proper sentence, with appropriate capitalizations and punctuation as an excellent place to start? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good writing might well help get an interview, but it's not likely to be of much use in the interview. —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Smell

My 5 month old daughter recently fell ill, and since then I've noticed a strange smell. We think the illness is the flu, but all the blood tests and urine tests say she's negative of any bacterial infections, so we figure she's got the flu or something and we're treating the symptoms. She seems to be recovering, but my question isnt about the illness. It's about the smell. I think it has something to do with the mucus, but it's really weird. Smells kind of like used hospital sheets. Not pleasant at all. Any ideas where the smell is coming from?

75.128.118.91 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a medical question, and we cannot answer those here -- you have a doctor who ordered those tests, and that's who you need to talk to. --Anonymous, 19:21, October 6, 2009.

I'm not going to even offer a guess at an answer to the question but I'm curious... What do used hospital sheets smell like?! Dismas|^(talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why has the OP been going around smelling used hospital sheets? --Tango (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, does that matter? Hospitals have their aroma which comes from regular cleaning e.g. with chlorine bleach. We aren't going to answer the question anyway. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't we? Surely it depends on who used the sheets (presume clean ones smell the same). Men and women have different smells, and so do different illnesses. So the sheets must carry some distinctive smell before being sterelised and washed.Froggie34 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some inborn errors of metabolism there can be a distinctive body odor (examples: "mouse-like" odor in phenylketonuria, "maple syrup" odor in maple syrup urine disease, "sweaty feet" odor in isovaleric acidemia, "male cat urine" odor in multiple carboxylase deficiency, "cabbage" or "rancid butter" odor in type I tyrosinemia). These are very rare disorders. Most would be picked up by newborn screening (depending on where you live) but not by the usual blood and urine tests ordered on a child with a flu-like illness. However, we clearly can't make a diagnosis over the internet so you might want to discuss with your daughter's doctor whether any of these conditions could be a possibility. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research: The smell of a baby on breast milk was different from the same baby once formula supplemented breast milk. This is just noting that what is happening in a baby can affect the smell of, say the baby's scalp (aside from cleanliness, shampoos, baby oil fragrance, etc). Per the others, a good pediatrician is the appropriate place for advice and diagnosis. One is also free to search for general information at sites such as the Mayo Clinic. Libraries will have the latest editions of home medical guides such as the Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, or the American Medical Association Family Medical Guide, and your doctor can recommend baby books in the tradition of Dr. Spock or Dr. Brazelton. Edison (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many illnesses create smells. A few of these odours can be detected by us humans. Dogs, on the other hand, can detect cancer (presumably by smell). "The documentary reveals the results of an astonishing new scientific study that suggests the dog could be better at diagnosing cancer than current technology. " [3] BrainyBabe (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow flag! "Dogs can detect cancer" is a long way from what your link says, which is that there has been a "study that suggests the dog could be better at diagnosing cancer than current technology." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the sentence I quoted also said -- "could be better". Here's a lay-language overview of several promising trialsfrom the Science Blog of Cancer Research UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image use question

Is it legal to use book cover images (small images from ex. Amazon) for Wikipedia stubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.57.162 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This question is really in the domain of the Help desk or Media copyright questions, but I'll answer it here anyway.) Any copyrighted image can be used on Wikipedia, provided the copyright status, source, and original author is properly documented, a sufficient fair use rationale is written, and the image is only used in articles. The full list of criteria is at Non-free content criteria. Remember that you must register to upload images. Xenon54 / talk / 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if registered you will not be able to upload immediately. You can use WP:IFU to make a request in the mean time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's nothing legally special about the Amazon covers. They're just covers, they happen to be on Amazon. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr 98 - I think the OP is asking if he can use the actual images from Amazon. DB 103245^talk 06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments. Very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.57.162 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]