Random fashion thoughts

[LA Guy]



Jesus ******* Christ, man. You need to do a lot more reading about the history of evolutionary biology. Just because people didn't (and still don't) accept the Theory of Evolution doesn't mean that Darwin came up with it all on his own.

Ahem. It's just a theory, and a controversial one at that. Clearly, the responsible thing to do is to teach the controversy, and let kids decide for themselves.

 

[KitAkira]

Yes, I wouldn't have commented if i hadn't seen the collections. Some are more derivative than others.

And i agree that not all designers need to be avant-garde or even do anything knew. I own a fair but of Simon spurr and love it. Michael Bastian is a pretty unimaginative designer but i would still wear his stuff for the general quality (at least earlier seasons). Phillip lim is probably the worst of the lot but i'd still wear his ****.

Just looking at FW11 collections alone, I really fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

 

[dfagdfsh]



My point, since you missed it, is that Einstein and Darwin changed the worlds of Physics and Biology, respectively, just as you say Jobs changed the specific world of technology. Yes, Einstein and Darwin certainly have had a lot of influence on technology, medicine, etc, but I cannot fathom how you could say Jobs (i.e., Apple) has not had any influence on our daily lives outside of the phone in our pocket or how music is delivered to our ears.
Yes and no. It was an area of research that had several followers at the time. During Darwin's first trip to the Galapagos Islands, he shot a bunch of finches and threw them all in a bag. It wasn't until his ornithologist buddies back in England noticed the differences in morphology (e.g., beaks) that Darwin realized there might be a difference between finches on the different islands. Alfred Russel Wallace, in the meantime, was exploring the Indonesian Archipelago, noticing that organisms on certain islands to the south were more like those on Australia, and organisms on islands to the north like those in Asia. Wallace offered to work with Darwin, who refused, arguably 'lifted' some of Wallace's ideas, and published first. Darwin gets all the credit (at least from those outside of evolutionary biology), likely in part because he was 'university-educated' as opposed to Wallace, who was self-taught.
EDIT:
Jesus ******* Christ, man. You need to do a lot more reading about the history of evolutionary biology. Just because people didn't (and still don't) accept the Theory of Evolution doesn't mean that Darwin came up with it all on his own.

since we're talking about the history of evolutionary biology, you'd agree that the majority evolutionists during the latter half of the 19th century believed in a theory of evolution radically different than darwin, one, that, in many cases, was premised on the idea of evolution in a progressive fashion towards an ultimate goal, and that it was only in the 1920s and 30s, after the development of genetics, that darwin's theory was finally "completed", right? which leads me to my point -- darwin's theory, while clearly influenced by his surroundings, his education and existing work, was so radical, so new, that it took a **** of a long time for people to accept it. it wasn't simply a small developmental step.

and darwin had a **** of a lot bigger influence that just on the sciences.

 

[zissou]

^Again, it wasn't just Darwin's Theory. Read Island Life by Wallace and you'll realize just how much this is true.

Ahem. It's just a theory, and a controversial one at that. Clearly, the responsible thing to do is to teach the controversy, and let kids decide for themselves.

I can tell you teach in an equally conservative state Sure, it's just a theory... that has a remarkable amount of scientific evidence supporting it.

 

[indesertum]

My point, since you missed it, is that Einstein and Darwin changed the worlds of Physics and Biology, respectively, just as you say Jobs changed the specific world of technology. Yes, Einstein and Darwin certainly have had a lot of influence on technology, medicine, etc, but I cannot fathom how you could say Jobs (i.e., Apple) has not had any influence on our daily lives outside of the phone in our pocket or how music is delivered to our ears.
Yes and no. It was an area of research that had several followers at the time. During Darwin's first trip to the Galapagos Islands, he shot a bunch of finches and threw them all in a bag. It wasn't until his ornithologist buddies back in England noticed the differences in morphology (e.g., beaks) that Darwin realized there might be a difference between finches on the different islands. Alfred Russel Wallace, in the meantime, was exploring the Indonesian Archipelago, noticing that organisms on certain islands to the south were more like those on Australia, and organisms on islands to the north like those in Asia. Wallace offered to work with Darwin, who refused, arguably 'lifted' some of Wallace's ideas, and published first. Darwin gets all the credit (at least from those outside of evolutionary biology), likely in part because he was 'university-educated' as opposed to Wallace, who was self-taught.
EDIT:
Jesus ******* Christ, man. You need to do a lot more reading about the history of evolutionary biology. Just because people didn't (and still don't) accept the Theory of Evolution doesn't mean that Darwin came up with it all on his own.

since we're talking about the history of evolutionary biology, you'd agree that the majority evolutionists during the latter half of the 19th century believed in a theory of evolution radically different than darwin, one, that, in many cases, was premised on the idea of evolution in a progressive fashion towards an ultimate goal, and that it was only in the 1920s and 30s, after the development of genetics, that darwin's theory was finally "completed", right? which leads me to my point -- darwin's theory, while clearly influenced by his surroundings, his education and existing work, was so radical, so new, that it took a **** of a long time for people to accept it. it wasn't simply a small developmental step.

and darwin had a **** of a lot bigger influence that just on the sciences.

did you even read his bit about wallace? it doesnt have to have been a SMALL developmental step. it WAS a developmental step. it wasn't so incredibly radical as to be mind blowing. it was a different answer but he answered the same question with a similar answer but a different mechanism. he also was NOT the first to come up with the same concepts.

if it wasnt for lamarck and grant he wouldnt have even thought of the question.

and steve jobs had a **** of a lot bigger influence than on computers and phones

 

[dfagdfsh]



@shah and zissou. i am probably an idiot but i think you are agreeing with me.
my biggest point was alfred russel wallace who developed the theory of evolution at the same time as darwin and whom darwin admits was a big influence on his work.
-_- do you understand the concept of evolution of ideas? my god i am not saying lamarck's theory was the same as darwin's. -_- a ******* sixth grader can tell you that. what i am saying is that darwin's reading of and subsequent disagreement of lamarck's (and equally grant's) attempts at explaining similarities between species and progression of species at the university of edinburgh is one of the biggest reasons why he attempted to develop his own theory.
to say that darwin made his theory out of total thin air is idiotic. to say that BECAUSE he made his theory out of total thin air darwin's theory was world changing is beyond idiotic.
pixar didn't need to have invented cgi movies to have changed the world. escoffier didn't have to have invented dignified french cooking to have changed the world. christian dior didn't have to invented his new look to have changed the world. i could go on forever. they didn't invent it. does that matter? does that mean they didn't impact the world?
edit: just realized zissou also talked about mr. wallace. and +1 billion to his last paragraph

did you even read his bit about wallace? it doesnt have to have been a SMALL developmental step. it WAS a developmental step. it wasn't so incredibly radical. it was a different answer but he answered the same question with a similar answer but a different mechanism.
if it wasnt for lamarck and grant he wouldnt have even thought of the question.
and steve jobs had a **** of a lot bigger influence than on computers and phones

do you want me to copy and paste a bunch of points about how wallace's theory was really, really different than darwins? do you want a link to a book about this?

 

[tween_spirit]

Siri is it true that Steve Jobs was killed by wasps? Siri can you confirm that Steve Jobs was wearing a bra?

Siri how long has it been since Teger has been laid? Siri is Mikey trying to say he wants someone to RIM his stock?

 

[MIKE_JE]



man you are ******* dumb

You've posted an average of about 15 times a day on here since you joined in 2008, from your personal computer (I think you said Macbook Pro), and probably your iPhone too. I think he had a pretty big impact on your world, but i'm not sure if he changed it.

 

[noob in 89]



Ahem. It's just a theory, and a controversial one at that. Clearly, the responsible thing to do is to teach the controversy, and let kids decide for themselves.

(10)?

Any case, I will thank Mr. Jobs for showing us that SF peeps can string together paragraphs longer than two sentences, and without jpegs, to boot.

 

[dfagdfsh]



You've posted an average of about 15 times a day on here since you joined in 2008, from your personal computer (I think you said Macbook Pro), and probably your iPhone too. I think he had a pretty big impact on your world, but i'm not sure if he changed it.

so like, i know you're trying to be clever and make some subtle dig about how i post a lot on sf and how useless that is, but uh.. it's never, ever going to work. and i think you know why.

 

[APK]

Hey, did you guys hear that Steve Jobs died?

 

[dfagdfsh]

im honestly surprised he survived so long. he had pancreatic cancer, no?

 

[indesertum]



do you want to copy and paste a bunch of points about how wallace's theory was really, really different than darwins? do you want a link to a book about this?

does the book claim that the wallace's theory is so radically different from darwin's that there is absolutely no way in hell that darwin was influenced by wallace?

if so i dont think i see a point in reading something so idiotic. if not your point doesnt go anywhere.


is it a book saying that wallace's theory and darwin's theory have a different emphasis in their theories or their slightly different visions on what natural selection accomplishes?

if so i dont see point in reading something every ap bio course teaches.


my point is no invention or idea has to be completely original to have an impact on the world. my other point is that all inventions and ideas are never completely original, but this lack of originality does not mean they cannot have a big impact on the world

 

[hendrix]



Just looking at FW11 collections alone, I really fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

can't remember FW11, but pretty much everything Phillip Lim does rips on Dries. Which is cool in my book, because Dries is awesome! The sincerest form of flattery and all that jazz... Woah just read about Wallace, he sure did have pretty similar ideas as Darwin! Scandal!

 

[LA Guy]



(10)?
Any case, I will thank Mr. Jobs for showing us that SF peeps can string together paragraphs longer than two sentences, and without jpegs, to boot.

Incredible, right?

In any case, I refuse to use the sarcasm meter. It's lame, like having a laugh track.