Survival Case Chino Hills California

Comparison Of Survival Foods With Long Shelf Life

Survival skills in Chino Hills are techniques that a person may use in order to sustain life in any type of natural environment or built environment. These techniques are meant to provide basic necessities for human life which include water, food, and shelter. The skills also support proper knowledge and interactions with animals and plants to promote the sustaining of life over a period of time. Practicing with a survival suit An immersion suit, or survival suit is a special type of waterproof dry suit that protects the wearer from hypothermia from immersion in cold water, after abandoning a sinking or capsized vessel, especially in the open ocean.

The Best Survival Habits Of The Soul In San Bernardino

Survival skills are often associated with the need to survive in a disaster situation in Chino Hills .

[1] Survival skills are often basic ideas and abilities that ancients invented and used themselves for thousands of years.

[2] Outdoor activities such as hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, fishing, and hunting all require basic wilderness survival skills, especially in handling emergency situations. Bush-craft and primitive living are most often self-implemented, but require many of the same skills.

Progression-free survival

Will Ark Survival Evolved Be Free To Play Jump to navigation Jump to search Progression-free survival (PFS) is "the length of time during and after the treatment of a disease, such as cancer, that a patient lives with the disease but it does not get worse".[1] In oncology, PFS usually refers to situations in which a tumor is present, as demonstrated by laboratory testing, radiologic testing, or clinically. Similarly, "disease-free survival" is when patients have had operations and are left with no detectable disease. Time to progression (TTP) does not count patients who die from other causes but is otherwise a close equivalent to PFS (unless there are a large number of such events).[2] The FDA gives separate definitions and prefers PFS.[3] PFS is widely used in oncology.[4] Since (as already said) it only applies to patients with inoperable disease[dubious – discuss] that are generally treated with drugs (chemotherapy, target therapies, etc.) it will mostly be considered in relation to drug treatment of cancer. A very important aspect is the definition of "progression" since this generally involves imaging techniques (plain radiograms, CT scans, MRI, PET scans, ultrasounds) or other aspects: biochemical progression may be defined on the basis of an increase in a tumor marker (such as CA125 for epithelial ovarian cancer or PSA for prostate cancer). At present any change in the radiological aspect of a lesion is defined according to RECIST criteria. But progression may also be due to the appearance of a new lesion originating from the same tumor or to the appearance of new cancer in the same organ or in a different organ, or due to unequivocal progression in 'non-target' lesions—such as pleural effusions, ascites, leptomeningeal disease etc. Progression-free survival is often used as an alternative to overall survival (OS): this is the most reliable endpoint in clinical studies, but it will only be available after a longer time than PFS. For this reason, especially when new drugs are tested, there is a pressure (that in some cases may be absolutely acceptable while in other cases may hide economical interests) to approve new drugs on the basis of PFS data rather than waiting for OS data. PFS is considered as a "surrogate" of OS: in some cancers the two elements are strictly related, but in others they are not. Several agents that may prolong PFS do not prolong OS. PFS may be considered as an endpoint in itself (the FDA and EMEA consider it such) in situations where overall survival endpoints may be not feasible, and where progression is likely or very likely to be related to symptomatology. Patient understanding of what prolongation of PFS means has not been evaluated robustly. In a time trade off study in renal cancer, physicians rated PFS the most important aspect of treatment, while for patients it fell below fatigue, hand foot syndrome, and other toxicities. <Park et al> There is an element that makes PFS a questionable endpoint: by definition it refers to the date on which progression is detected, and this means that it depends on which date a radiological evaluation (in most cases) is performed. If for any reason a CT scan is postponed by one week (because the machine is out of order, or the patients feels too bad to go to the hospital) PFS is unduly prolonged. On the other hand, PFS becomes more relevant than OS when in a randomized trial patients that progress while on treatment A are allowed to receive treatment B (these patients may "cross" from one arm of the study to the other). If treatment B is really more effective than treatment A it is probable that the OS of patients will be the same even if PFS may be very different. This happened for example in studies comparing tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) to standard chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring a mutation in EGF-receptor. Patients started on TKI had a much longer PFS, but since patients that started on chemotherapy were allowed to receive TKI on progression, OS was similar. The relationship between PFS and OS is altered in any case in which a successive treatment may influence survival. Unfortunately this does not happen very often for second-line treatment of cancer, and even less so for successive treatments.[citation needed] The advantage of measuring PFS over measuring OS is that PFS appears sooner than deaths, allowing faster trials and oncologists feel that PFS can give them a better idea of how the cancer is progressing during the course of treatment. Traditionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has required studies of OS rather than PFS to demonstrate that a drug is effective against cancer, but recently[when?] the FDA. has accepted PFS. The use of PFS for proof of effectiveness and regulatory approval is controversial. It is often used as a clinical endpoint in randomized controlled trials for cancer therapies.[5] It is a metric frequently used by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence[6] and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to evaluate the effectiveness of a cancer treatment. PFS has been postulated to be a better ("more pure") measure of efficacy in second-line clinical trials as it eliminates potential differential bias from prior or subsequent treatments.[citation needed] However, PFS improvements do not always result in corresponding improvements in overall survival, and the control of the disease may come at the biological expense of side effects from the treatment itself.[7] This has been described as an example of the McNamara fallacy.[7][8] Jungle Survival Drivers Training Fulton Street East Ada Mi

Plant physiology

This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 16 August 2018. Jump to navigation Jump to search Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest". "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1] Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868.[1][2] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[3][4] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[5][6] Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology of 1864[7] in which he drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin's biological, evolutionary ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."[1] In July 1866 Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to Darwin about readers thinking that the phrase "natural selection" personified nature as "selecting", and said this misconception could be avoided "by adopting Spencer's term" Survival of the fittest. Darwin promptly replied that Wallace's letter was "as clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of 'the survival of the fittest'. This however had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb". Had he received the letter two months earlier, he would have worked the phrase into the fourth edition of the Origin which was then being printed, and he would use it in his "next book on Domestic Animals etc.".[1] Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity". He defended his analogy as similar to language used in chemistry, and to astronomers depicting the "attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets", or the way in which "agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of selection". He had "often personified the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,—and by laws only the ascertained sequence of events."[2] In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had used the phrase "natural selection".[8] In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[3] Darwin implies again the synonym: "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".[4] By "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for the immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape" (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete).[5] In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[9] In The Man Versus The State, Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to justify a plausible explanation of how his theories would not be adopted by "societies of militant type". He uses the term in the context of societies at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a general principle.[10] "Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever".[11] Though Spencer’s conception of organic evolution is commonly interpreted as a form of Lamarckism,[a] Herbert Spencer is sometimes credited with inaugurating Social Darwinism. The phrase "survival of the fittest" has become widely used in popular literature as a catchphrase for any topic related or analogous to evolution and natural selection. It has thus been applied to principles of unrestrained competition, and it has been used extensively by both proponents and opponents of Social Darwinism.[citation needed] Evolutionary biologists criticise the manner in which the term is used by non-scientists and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The phrase also does not help in conveying the complex nature of natural selection, so modern biologists prefer and almost exclusively use the term natural selection. The biological concept of fitness refers to reproductive success, as opposed to survival, and is not explicit in the specific ways in which organisms can be more "fit" (increase reproductive success) as having phenotypic characteristics that enhance survival and reproduction (which was the meaning that Spencer had in mind).[citation needed] While the phrase "survival of the fittest” is often used to refer to “natural selection”, it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, “survival” is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word “fit” is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning “fitness” is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.[13] The phrase can also be interpreted to express a theory or hypothesis: that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals or species, in some sense of "fit", will survive some test. Interpretations of the phrase as expressing a theory are in danger of being tautological, meaning roughly "those with a propensity to survive have a propensity to survive"; to have content the theory must use a concept of fitness that is independent of that of survival.[5][14] Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[15] In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental and biological change, the factor determining survival is often not superiority over another in competition but ability to survive dramatic changes in environmental conditions, such as after a meteor impact energetic enough to greatly change the environment globally. The main land dwelling animals to survive the K-Pg impact 66 million years ago had the ability to live in underground tunnels, for example. In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is little evidence that intrinsic, biological factors such as competition have been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors such as expansion as the driving factor on a large evolutionary scale. The rise of dominant groups such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds occurred by opportunistic expansion into empty ecological niches and the extinction of groups happened due to large shifts in the abiotic environment.[15] It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However, these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[16][17] Critics of theories of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[18] However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is–ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour – co-operating with others and treating them well – might improve evolutionary fitness.[16][19] Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the fittest" as supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the best at competing individually, but often the community made up of those best at working together. He concluded that In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense — not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. Applying this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as one of the dominant factors of evolution, the other being self-assertion, and concluded that In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle – has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race. "Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology.[20] The reasoning is that if one takes the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving". Furthermore, the expression does become a tautology if one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.[20] However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection).[20] If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection." On the other hand, if the characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)[20] Momme von Sydow suggested further definitions of 'survival of the fittest' that may yield a testable meaning in biology and also in other areas where Darwinian processes have been influential. However, much care would be needed to disentangle tautological from testable aspects. Moreover, an "implicit shifting between a testable and an untestable interpretation can be an illicit tactic to immunize natural selection [...] while conveying the impression that one is concerned with testable hypotheses."[14][21] Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer addresses the tautology problem in his 1997 book, Why People Believe Weird Things, in which he points out that although tautologies are sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and that scientific principles like natural selection are testable and falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power. Shermer points out, as an example, that population genetics accurately demonstrate when natural selection will and will not effect change on a population. Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same geological strata as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural selection.[22] ^ a b c d "Letter 5140 – Wallace, A. R. to Darwin, C. R., 2 July 1866". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 12 January 2010. "Letter 5145 – Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., 5 July (1866)". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 12 January 2010.  ^ "Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444, wrote: 'This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called "natural selection", or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.'" Maurice E. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy, retrieved 29 August 2007 , citing HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac. 2002.) ^ a b "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity." Darwin, Charles (1868), The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, 1 (1st ed.), London: John Murray, p. 6, retrieved 10 August 2015  ^ a b Freeman, R. B. (1977), "On the Origin of Species", The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (2nd ed.), Cannon House, Folkestone, Kent, England: Wm Dawson & Sons Ltd  ^ a b "This preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest." – Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th ed.), London: John Murray, pp. 91–92, retrieved 22 February 2009  ^ a b c "Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Untimely Burial", 1976; from Philosophy of Biology:An Anthology, Alex Rosenberg, Robert Arp ed., John Wiley & Sons, May 2009, pp. 99–102. ^ "Evolutionary biologists customarily employ the metaphor 'survival of the fittest,' which has a precise meaning in the context of mathematical population genetics, as a shorthand expression when describing evolutionary processes." Chew, Matthew K.; Laubichler, Manfred D. (4 July 2003), "PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE: Natural Enemies — Metaphor or Misconception?", Science, 301 (5629): 52–53, doi:10.1126/science.1085274, PMID 12846231, retrieved 20 March 2008  ^ Vol. 1, p. 444 ^ U. Kutschera (14 March 2003), A Comparative Analysis of the Darwin-Wallace Papers and the Development of the Concept of Natural Selection (PDF), Institut für Biologie, Universität Kassel, Germany, archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2008, retrieved 20 March 2008  ^ Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th ed.), London: John Murray, p. 72  ^ The principle of natural selection applied to groups of individual is known as Group selection. ^ Herbert Spencer; Truxton Beale (1916), The Man Versus the State: A Collection of Essays, M. Kennerley  (snippet) ^ Federico Morganti (May 26, 2013). "Adaptation and Progress: Spencer's Criticism of Lamarck". Evolution & Cognition.  External link in |publisher= (help) ^ Colby, Chris (1996–1997), Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 22 February 2009  ^ a b von Sydow, M. (2014). ‘Survival of the Fittest’ in Darwinian Metaphysics – Tautology or Testable Theory? Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. (pp. 199–222) In E. Voigts, B. Schaff & M. Pietrzak-Franger (Eds.). Reflecting on Darwin. Farnham, London: Ashgate. ^ a b Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. and Ferry, P.A. (2010), "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land" (PDF), Biology Letters, 6 (4): 544–547, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024, PMC 2936204 , PMID 20106856. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ a b John S. Wilkins (1997), Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism – Does evolution make might right?, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 21 November 2007  ^ Leonard, Thomas C. (2005), "Mistaking Eugenics for Social Darwinism: Why Eugenics is Missing from the History of American Economics" (PDF), History of Political Economy, 37 (supplement:): 200–233, doi:10.1215/00182702-37-Suppl_1-200  ^ Alan Keyes (7 July 2001), WorldNetDaily: Survival of the fittest?, WorldNetDaily, retrieved 19 November 2007  ^ Mark Isaak (2004), CA002: Survival of the fittest implies might makes right, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 19 November 2007  ^ a b c d Corey, Michael Anthony (1994), "Chapter 5. Natural Selection", Back to Darwin: the scientific case for Deistic evolution, Rowman and Littlefield, p. 147, ISBN 978-0-8191-9307-0  ^ Cf. von Sydow, M. (2012). From Darwinian Metaphysics towards Understanding the Evolution of Evolutionary Mechanisms. A Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Gene-Darwinism and Universal Darwinism. Universitätsverlag Göttingen. ^ Shermer, Michael; Why People Believe Weird Things; 1997; Pages 143–144

http://freebreathmatters.pro/san-bernardino/

Survival Tips for Survival Habits Of The Soul