On 13 Jul 2014, at 01:47, "P.J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually it seems that Human's haven't evolved in about 10,000 years. Actual > evolution requires death before reproduction, and even the most primitive > societies can keep all but the most sickly of their members alive long enough > to reproduce.
If that were true it would just mean that it's selecting for things other than the ability to survive long enough to reproduce. It's an obvious fact that not all people who are physically to reproduce do so, so selection is working on something other than the mere fact of survival to breeding age. However, I'm not convinced that your statements are true - why do you think we haven't evolved? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/david-attenborough-humans-still-evolving Furthermore, the idea that all societies can keep everyone alive long enough is just nonsense. Look back over the last 100 years and count the war dead, the people who've died in famines, and the people, the children, who are dying now from preventable causes. B > >> On 7/12/2014 6:02 PM, steve harley wrote: >> on 2014-07-11 17:19 Bipin Gupta wrote >>> Every camera generation is an improvement just like new generation of >>> human beings. >> >> quite an optimist you are; evolution in humans has been superseded by >> societal transmission and it's not clear to me that at this point we are >> passing on our best to the next generations >> >> on topic: when i had to replace my K-5, i bought … another K-5; a >> low-mileage used one in beautiful shape with a few extras, $400 shipped >> >> if i had thought it worth the money i could have afforded a K-5II or IIs, or >> even a K-3, but the more i tossed it around i realized the incremental value >> was not there (for me) for the cost; the IQ of the II should be the same, >> period, the IIs, only a tiny bit better in sharpness, but otherwise same; >> this tiny bit is probably dwarfed by my own faults and practices, though it >> might make a difference on macro shots; auto-focus improvements aren't a >> major value for me as i am most often using manual focus >> >> the K-3, as i understand it, gives a larger amount of raw picture data, >> which might help when cropping, but does not improve significantly in >> dynamic range or low light; it may be a better build and nicer to operate, >> but at a price >> >> so i decided (for me) there was a significant opportunity cost to paying >> more for just a little bit better camera > > > -- > A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, > crazier. > > - H.L.Mencken > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
