What I find funny is...that you thnk that only these two groups exist. I'm an "evolutionist Christian", though I've never before, and probably will never again use that term to describe myself.
Giving me the argument he used to sell his idea to the arian race does not show that without that method he would not have found another way to sell his ideas. He would have just expanded on his "they killed christ" line, or found another one. Anyway, none of this points to Darwinism being evil or wrong, only Hitler.
Mozarts concertos are an expression of his musical talent, and emotion. As his emotions and talent evolved, so did his music.
Without the animal as a way of expressing itself, the gene would have no mechanism to express its "inherent fitness" and therefore would not evolve. Animals and genes exist in feedback with each other - they BOTH evolve.
The paper itself describes the discovery as "a plausible mechanism" for the change to six leggedness, and not a proof that this is the mechanism. I assume that they must have found the gene and fiddled with it to see its effects, but without paying money, you can only read an abstract.
Genesis was not one of the teachings of Christ. In fact Christ pointed out that not everything in the old testament was to be taken seriously - saying it was given because the people of the old testament were hard to teach. He also spoke mainly in parables. I'm just off to scatter some seed, and see what happens. Hope those nasty crows don't come again.
I couldn't care less what I'm modded at - I know that the/. mod system is flawed.
My post wasn't an attack on the parent post, more a confirmation that searching for words in the genome is completely pointless, and gracing it with a place as science news was, well, stupid.
The fact is that this body plan was caused by switching *off* a gene, and so there was selective pressure for the genes to cause this body plan, they were just accompanied by other genes before. Not that the genes that were turned off didn't code for limbs, they coded for a process that eventually gave rise to the limbs.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. Environmental factors don't produce the new species, they merely (?) select for them. The changes are caused by mutation and other forms of variation.
A malfunction in mitosis or meiosis resulting in multiple copies of a single gene being retained by one of the daughter cells. This is evident in Downs syndrome, where one of the gametes has 1 too many chromosome 21. One version of the gene mutates, which could be an advantage over it not doing so, because it could "turn it off" so that excess of a certain protein is not produced. Mutations in this redundant gene carry one through time, and eventually the gene gets turned back on. Only now it produces a different protein, which again, may or may not be an advantage or disadvantage.
Through the process of natural selection, unfit individuals are weeded out. The remaining population reproduces. Through reproduction, mutations in the genome arise. These mutations may or may not make the individual more or less "fit". When the environment changes, this new generation (or the one after that ad tedium) again undergoes natural selection. Lets assume that our mutants were better at surviving. They now dominate the gene pool. Through enough of these little changes, eventually our population is so genetically different that it can no longer breed with members of the original species. Voila, a new species. Think of the word game where you start with two words, and have to change one letter at a time to change the first word into the second word. We're not hiding behind millions of years. Its just that the small chance you're so fond of pointing to requires that number of tries.
Oh, and frogs (amphibian and therefore "older", genetically, than humans) have more genetic material than humans. You don't need to increase the size of the genome to produce a higher order being.
Just like warfarin-resistant rats. In the period following a poisoning, rats which can produce a high volume of Vitamin K are more prolific than those with a lower ability. Once the poisoning stops, however, the Special K rats, who need more food to support their K production, have a lower chance of survival, and therefore their numbers diminish, while those with lower K production make a comeback.
Nope. A species is a group that can breed and produce viable offspring (ie offspring that can then go on to breed). Thus horses and donkeys are different species, wolves and hounds are not. What you're saying is that a Newfoundland in america is a different species to one in Afghanistan because they could interbreed, if only they could afford the plane tickets.
And, after your little selection takes place, what are you left with? A different gene pool. If you're going to argue, at least give a decent argument.
BTW, you're right, NS is not evolution, but not for the reason given.
Was.
He didn't kill 200x10^6 because he was a Darwinist. He caused the deaths of 200x10^6 people because he was a very naughty boy. He may have used evolutionary theories to support his evilness, but, like all science, ToE carries no inherent moral implications. Thats up to the user. Do you really believe that if Hitler had never heard of the ToE, that he wouldn't have done what he did? He also twisted Nietzche's philosophy to his own ends, but have you ever read it?
WTF? 10 mins on/. and I'm defending Hitler!?!!?
This place _really_ scares me.
May provide answers to how creatures can survive at high temp and pressure? May?
They are the answer to how they can survive. The interesting thing will be whether they are a different evolutionary track, the origin of the evolutionary track we're on, or a different branch of the evolutionary track.
Its pretty cool to see a type of life that doesn't depend on sunlight for its energy source, though. Or entropy buffer.
Another point as well - will they make their mind up about USB or UCSB? Two different abbrev. in one article isn't clever.
All this tells us is that the words created are entirely arbitrary - for example d for aspartic acid.
Maybe thats the point.
Excuse me while I cut and paste something to see if I can get modded up to 3,Informative.
Hey, I wasn't arguing against you, I was just getting in before someone less friendly to your side of the story, and hopefully patching the hole that you'd be attacked through, which is irrelevant (really) to your argument.
The notorious butterfly effect says that a small change can have profound consequences later. A system can only be predicted effectively if all current states are known. God, in omniscience can do that. HOWEVER, if we have free will, then god cannot know what we are going to do, because if he did, then that would in effect predetermine our action - I could say that He could know I was going to use my left hand, and then I changed my mind, in which case he didn't know I was to use my left hand. This introduces uncertainty into the current states, and therefore future states. God cannot predict the future. He can only know all of the possible futures, and construct a probability matrix based on those possibilities.
Hehe. Not bad off the top of my head. Now I just have to construct a lightning rod, in case I'm wrong. But then again, he knows I'm going to do that, right?
Take two piles of sand. Sprinkle both randomly with some other silicon-based minerals. Cook.
Now tell me which one is a processor, and the other a pile of overcooked sand. What separates us from other lucky piles of carbon and water are our abilities, not what we are made of.
A half developed eye is useful. Being able to detect changes in light, and therefore movement, behind you can be accomplished with a very simple area of light sensitive cells. Over progressive generations, the eye in the back of the head would develop.
The genome is not always modular. You can't just take the code for an eye and stick it where it would be useful. DNA doesn't code for eyes. It codes for a process that produces eyes. And just as much of the code is contained in the interpreter (the body) as in the DNA. Take the DNA for a goat, and you can fertilize the egg of another mammal, and, non-genetic complications aside, that baby would come to term. As a goat. But thats because mammals have a very similar interpreter. Put a goats DNA into an alligator egg, and you might not have the same success.
Slashdot Mirror
What I find funny is...that you thnk that only these two groups exist. I'm an "evolutionist Christian", though I've never before, and probably will never again use that term to describe myself.
Giving me the argument he used to sell his idea to the arian race does not show that without that method he would not have found another way to sell his ideas.
He would have just expanded on his "they killed christ" line, or found another one.
Anyway, none of this points to Darwinism being evil or wrong, only Hitler.
Mozarts concertos are an expression of his musical talent, and emotion. As his emotions and talent evolved, so did his music.
Without the animal as a way of expressing itself, the gene would have no mechanism to express its "inherent fitness" and therefore would not evolve. Animals and genes exist in feedback with each other - they BOTH evolve.
Thats subtle - I'm not sure you'll get credit for it.
If you're right, though, God help us.
The paper itself describes the discovery as "a plausible mechanism" for the change to six leggedness, and not a proof that this is the mechanism. I assume that they must have found the gene and fiddled with it to see its effects, but without paying money, you can only read an abstract.
Genesis was not one of the teachings of Christ. In fact Christ pointed out that not everything in the old testament was to be taken seriously - saying it was given because the people of the old testament were hard to teach. He also spoke mainly in parables.
I'm just off to scatter some seed, and see what happens. Hope those nasty crows don't come again.
I'd love to accommodate you, but I can only read an abstract without paying money :(
I couldn't care less what I'm modded at - I know that the /. mod system is flawed.
My post wasn't an attack on the parent post, more a confirmation that searching for words in the genome is completely pointless, and gracing it with a place as science news was, well, stupid.
The fact is that this body plan was caused by switching *off* a gene, and so there was selective pressure for the genes to cause this body plan, they were just accompanied by other genes before. Not that the genes that were turned off didn't code for limbs, they coded for a process that eventually gave rise to the limbs.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. Environmental factors don't produce the new species, they merely (?) select for them. The changes are caused by mutation and other forms of variation.
A malfunction in mitosis or meiosis resulting in multiple copies of a single gene being retained by one of the daughter cells. This is evident in Downs syndrome, where one of the gametes has 1 too many chromosome 21. One version of the gene mutates, which could be an advantage over it not doing so, because it could "turn it off" so that excess of a certain protein is not produced. Mutations in this redundant gene carry one through time, and eventually the gene gets turned back on. Only now it produces a different protein, which again, may or may not be an advantage or disadvantage.
Through the process of natural selection, unfit individuals are weeded out. The remaining population reproduces. Through reproduction, mutations in the genome arise. These mutations may or may not make the individual more or less "fit". When the environment changes, this new generation (or the one after that ad tedium) again undergoes natural selection. Lets assume that our mutants were better at surviving. They now dominate the gene pool. Through enough of these little changes, eventually our population is so genetically different that it can no longer breed with members of the original species. Voila, a new species.
Think of the word game where you start with two words, and have to change one letter at a time to change the first word into the second word.
We're not hiding behind millions of years. Its just that the small chance you're so fond of pointing to requires that number of tries.
Oh, and frogs (amphibian and therefore "older", genetically, than humans) have more genetic material than humans. You don't need to increase the size of the genome to produce a higher order being.
Just like warfarin-resistant rats. In the period following a poisoning, rats which can produce a high volume of Vitamin K are more prolific than those with a lower ability. Once the poisoning stops, however, the Special K rats, who need more food to support their K production, have a lower chance of survival, and therefore their numbers diminish, while those with lower K production make a comeback.
Nope. A species is a group that can breed and produce viable offspring (ie offspring that can then go on to breed). Thus horses and donkeys are different species, wolves and hounds are not. What you're saying is that a Newfoundland in america is a different species to one in Afghanistan because they could interbreed, if only they could afford the plane tickets.
BTW, you're right, NS is not evolution, but not for the reason given.
He didn't kill 200x10^6 because he was a Darwinist. He caused the deaths of 200x10^6 people because he was a very naughty boy. He may have used evolutionary theories to support his evilness, but, like all science, ToE carries no inherent moral implications. Thats up to the user. Do you really believe that if Hitler had never heard of the ToE, that he wouldn't have done what he did? He also twisted Nietzche's philosophy to his own ends, but have you ever read it?
WTF? 10 mins on /. and I'm defending Hitler!?!!?
This place _really_ scares me.
But its there nonetheless.
To take the analogy further, its everywhere, its just when you get close to it, you can only see the bits further away.
They are the answer to how they can survive. The interesting thing will be whether they are a different evolutionary track, the origin of the evolutionary track we're on, or a different branch of the evolutionary track.
Its pretty cool to see a type of life that doesn't depend on sunlight for its energy source, though. Or entropy buffer.
Another point as well - will they make their mind up about USB or UCSB? Two different abbrev. in one article isn't clever.
While funny, kilter is not a scottish word.
All this tells us is that the words created are entirely arbitrary - for example d for aspartic acid.
Maybe thats the point.
Excuse me while I cut and paste something to see if I can get modded up to 3,Informative.
Hey, I wasn't arguing against you, I was just getting in before someone less friendly to your side of the story, and hopefully patching the hole that you'd be attacked through, which is irrelevant (really) to your argument.
The notorious butterfly effect says that a small change can have profound consequences later. A system can only be predicted effectively if all current states are known. God, in omniscience can do that. HOWEVER, if we have free will, then god cannot know what we are going to do, because if he did, then that would in effect predetermine our action - I could say that He could know I was going to use my left hand, and then I changed my mind, in which case he didn't know I was to use my left hand. This introduces uncertainty into the current states, and therefore future states. God cannot predict the future. He can only know all of the possible futures, and construct a probability matrix based on those possibilities.
Hehe. Not bad off the top of my head. Now I just have to construct a lightning rod, in case I'm wrong. But then again, he knows I'm going to do that, right?
Take two piles of sand. Sprinkle both randomly with some other silicon-based minerals. Cook. Now tell me which one is a processor, and the other a pile of overcooked sand. What separates us from other lucky piles of carbon and water are our abilities, not what we are made of.
A half developed eye is useful. Being able to detect changes in light, and therefore movement, behind you can be accomplished with a very simple area of light sensitive cells. Over progressive generations, the eye in the back of the head would develop.
The genome is not always modular. You can't just take the code for an eye and stick it where it would be useful. DNA doesn't code for eyes. It codes for a process that produces eyes. And just as much of the code is contained in the interpreter (the body) as in the DNA. Take the DNA for a goat, and you can fertilize the egg of another mammal, and, non-genetic complications aside, that baby would come to term. As a goat. But thats because mammals have a very similar interpreter. Put a goats DNA into an alligator egg, and you might not have the same success.