Stop being fucking arrogant. I do not need more specialisation on what I have read. I know the story of genetics, and I know complixities, not knowing exactly by the book certain facts of a certain species, or having not studied or work in this field doesn't make me less qualified than you to make completely unsubstantiated claims and argue that my own perspective would make you claims less valid.
Your claims are perfectly valid insofar as they are based upon your knowledge. When I then point out the inaccuracies of the actual details it is in order to try to make you understand what appears as "magic" and thus show you hov the magic is actually simpler than they appear. Obviously I failed... Evolution is one of those things that seem like "magic" if one looks at the complexity of the human heart or the human eye. Stydying how the trick was performed (studying the very simple heart of a fish or an amphib and then studying the hearts of increasing complexity towards the human heart) takes away the mystery.
You haven't proven anything, except you are vary arrogant, which detracts from your 'holier than thou' I am such a model scientist who touches everything he believes.
No, you are quite right. "I" have not proven anything, all I said anything against is your claims that evolution is unproven. The proof is found in papers written by others, not me. Are these real proofs? They are more than enough that pope JP II admitted evolution to be real. Obviously you rank your level of knowledge in this field higer thant the scientific advisors of the Catholic church, I sure as hell (and I'm not a Christian) don't rank my knowledge that high. Talk about being arrogant... (and no, that the Catholic church said so does not necessarily make it so, so don't go there).
Quoting all those gay-like questions you did ammounted to nothing more than a pissing contest. 'What about the XYZ of the FoooBar thingy - exlain that'. pssteesh.
Fine, but then please never ever say that ID has adressed those questions or that evolution does not provide a satisfactory answer to them. ID working through evolution does but not ID alone.
If cancer struk a road map, where it strikes it would be like using a photoshop cloning tool on that area. If there was a river, then tributaries and shit would form, if there was a highway.. guess what!
How can you put up such a weak argument? You think by you saying something as stupid as 'self aware cancer' you coudl imply I would think of such a thing? I was talking about the complexity of a single cell, which is self aware of its own needs, inside itself.
You gave an example and claimed that it showed "self awareness" and I showed you how again how this seemingly "magic" process actually is a lot simpler than it appears. This is what I get. Look up angiogenesis, it's quite interresting.
Your argument does not cover for the fact that metastases exist.
You are saying Huxley was wrong?
Yes, with the current level of knowledge about evolution that we have today that statment is incorrect. Evolution does not work that way. There was no single cell that determined to evolve into a human. If evolution started all over from scratch tomorrow even starting with an identical single cell that ultimately was our ancestor then there is basically no way you'd eventually get a human being after a few billon years. That is what Huxley said and he was wrong in that statement. That does not mean everything else he did/said was wrong. They were based upon the available knowledge at that time (just as Lamarcks before him). Einsteins statement about quantum physics does not mean the rest he did/said was wrong.
(More offtopic than the rest) Hyxleys legacy is not a single thing he said it is the works. Hitlers legacy is not that he built autobahn. It is you how disrespects Huxley by us
I don't see how you can argue that the similarity of the makeup of animals, and the diversity of the makeup can both argue evolution...
Because you fail to recognise the important difference between function and design. You said that the similarities was because that is the "blueprint of life" and the "only" way it could work. I showed you examples where the function was the same even on closer look but at the detail (molecular) level and level of DNA you find completely different "code". That code is similar because of descent, the overall design is the result of physics. I suggest you study up on comparative physiology next time. I was being polite and explaining.
DNA between two individuals are similar because of descent. What makes you think this should only be limited to the level of individuals? Speciation has been demonstrated.
I don't even think they are relevant, lets imagine 3 possible 'ways life came about as it is, but not necessarily explaining how life came into existence' theories, random ones. We have no clue about them, any of them.
I can understand how you fail to see their relevance if you haven't studied the field, but please next time don't use arguments that seem to imply you have an understanding beyond simplistic physiology and the underlying molecular biology. Comparative physiology and advanced molecular biology and a bit of genetics is a starting point.
Your reasoning in the realm of "can we KNOW anything for sure" and that is the realm of philosophy. I work in science research and we assume what we see is for real and what we touch is real and that knowledge can be extended to gain new knowledge.
There is no pretense that would suggest any method of life being 'evolved' (lets not go into creationism, lets just say design) would have great hetrogeneity ammongst the makeup of species.
My oh my. The only way "intelligent design" is behind the way the nature looks is IF intelligent designed things to look "similar by descent" and also designed unoptimized versions of features to fit this scheme. The heart of a frog is so inefficient compared to other designs, where is the intelligence in that (no there ARE no other obstacles against a more efficient design, just compare with a reptile heart). I've never argued against an intelligence ultimately being behind evolution but we have an understanding of what that intelligence "did". That intelligence used the mechanics in evolution and descent to created all the species we see today if it did not use those mechanisms then we would not find the solutions we do in nature.
Its like me quoting 20 past slashdot stories, at random, then saying how they argue for or against the case for Apples move to intel. I dunno.
This is actually what my examples would seem to do for someone who have not studied for example comparative physiology or comparative genomics or at least know how DNA works together with genes and proteins.
But still. (lets not talk about the problems of mating when that one walked to land, so, it was able to breath with less and less water, now we talked about the macro setup of a body, being EVEN MORE (according to you) complex than the micro (you talked about digestion etc) so, evolution, that happens at a DNA level, would have to decide to change, at one point at least, the makeup of the gills to suddenly also work without dissolved oxygen in a solution.
Oh my goodness, how can you even say such a thing? Please look up how the lungfish breathes air. Please look up how frogs look in adolencent stages. Please check the amphioxus and how that compares to an adult salamander. FYI, the lungfish happends to have a lung BESIDES also having gills while the other fishes have a swim bladder. Look at the similarities/differences between those two.
Because that is the blueprint of life. Life works that way in this universe, does that make sense?
Yes, it does if you just look on the surface. However the details tells a quite different picture.
I'm gonna do this brief so please excuse the (eventual) gaps in my explanation. If we make an analogy of how eyes are constructed in different animals (just to continue my previous example). You need something that focuses light, you need a shutter to prevent excessive light under "good-light" conditions, you need something to collect the light and you need a clear medium separating the focusing tissue from the collecting tissue to get a useful resolution. This is the physical "blueprint" of what simplistically is needed to construct an eye.
Now, if we zoom in on a detail of this, the actual light sensitive pigment used in the "collecting" tissue (rods etc), called rhodopsin.
Rhodopsin is derived from vitamin A and present in most species. However the protein does not have the same aminoacid sequence in all animals. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content-nw/full/19/10/3681/F1 Aminoacids can be changed without affecting the function of protein and those changes are so called neutral. When you then compare the DNA-sequence of these different variants of rhodopsin and use the differences and similarities to construct an tree/network of how these different variants are related to eachother by means of similarity then that tree/network perfectly overlays with what you would see if you compared completely unrelated morphological characters. The protein functions just fine and I'm quite certain that we could take the gene for rhodopsin in mouse, put that in a chimp eggcell and see that the chimp would see just fine (that'f be an awful experiment to actually perform tho if something goes wrong so I'd leave that to less discriminatory researchers).
Now, to make things a bit more interresting; squids have another unrelated photo sensitive pigment called retinochrome. http://www.jgp.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/6/791 Retinochrome that is thought to be what the squid eye use as their main light absorbing pigment. It overlaps rhodopsins absorption spectrum so there is more than just one way of constructing a protein that absorbs light.
If two people, in two different countries, without collaborating, design a car, guess what?
Yes this can be seen as the equivalent of "evolving" a wing in different types of animals.
Yes, 4 wheels, + 1 for steering. Doors, you know, for getting in and out of... gearing... lights (night affects quite a large portion of the world you know;-) and even windscreen wipers becuase of rain.
Yes, on the surface they look just the same but if you look at the actual implementation, the actual parts that make up the details they are quite different although they both solve the (for us) primary issue of transporting objects fast.
Now, the next model they develop will build upon what they designed first as that seems logical to not having to "invent the wheel again". But you can still tell that the new modell is built from the same manufacturer.
If you just want to transport humans then you might actually design a MC instead;)
Physics puts up certain rules that you have to follow to make an effective implementation but the details in the smallscale design can vary quite a lot and still acomplish the same results.
Just compare the fins and shape of sharks and dolphins. Water puts the limitations/rules of what is an effective solution but the actual implementations are completely different in the details (sharks have cartilage instead of bone etc). We (who study evolution) look at those details and use them and when you study
I am saying that Darwin leaves a space that is conveniently ignored, its like X + 5 = 2, and everyone assumes that X = -3, but noone is sure what values 5 has, or indeed if 2 is the right answer.
Somewhat confusing but assuming that the "answer" 2 is "life today" and 5 is evolution then I agree. X is unkown with factors almost impossible to determine (unless one manages to create life ex nihilo under conditions possible somewhere within reach of our planet).
The issue, that you correctly stated, is that the critiques of evolution puts the fire on X most of the time and tries to use that to "proove" evolution to be false.
And then you write, probably the most stuped fucking 'I hope if I say this I will win the point' sentence
To be honest, your use of fitness implied the common ignorance of the layman. But now that I know you have an understanding of the concept then I must assume that you don't think fitness and selection leads to a change in the gene pool.
It is this 'jumping to conclusion' and 'it must be right' that shows you are not keeping an open mind.
I was not jumping to conclusions altough it may seem that way. I was merely trying to cut down the length of the chain of mechanisms at work. Obviously I cut too harsh. Concepts such as speciation and reproductive barriers, drift, population genetics etc as well as other have to be adressed too but would take far too long time and obviously pointless.
The fact that mutations happen, or introduction of a new strain of life to a region, or a change in that regions eco system or climate can bring about symptoms of change in the population (because a new strain is more apt, and this fit, for the conditions) != evolution as the complete theory.
I never said it was, i thought I was quite clear of that but since english is my 2nd lingua I may be wrong (that is not an excuse not to be clear tho). You brought up the example and I simply stated just that, that such things such as colonization is not evolution. They can sometimes lead to speciation but not alone.
You cannot jump from single celled life to dinosaurs to modern man from the evidence suggested, yet there is a theory that people are trying to fit...
All I'm saying is that what we observe fits with what our hypothesis (evolution and common ancestry) predicts.
...but stop trying to weight your arguments down with sentiment of 'oh come on it must be true', and a smatter of 'oh look at me I know what I am talking about' and a pinch of straw man tactics, throwing back things at me that have not been brought up.
*sigh* Wow, you must really think I'm shaken by such heavy arguments. I try to show examples and get this?! Impressive... not. Try to adress what I have said instead so I can clarify.
Now I will do what may look like an "appeal to authority" (quite hilarious since I am quite clearly not one) but merely trying to show a bit of my background since you seem to think I'm just ignorant.
Arnason U, Gullberg A, Janke A, Joss J, Elmerot C.
Mitogenomic analyses of deep gnathostome divergences: a fish is a fish.
Gene. 2004 May 26;333:61-70.
Elmerot C, Arnason U, Gojobori T, Janke A.
The mitochondrial genome of the pufferfish, Fugu rubripes, and ordinal teleostean relationships.
Gene. 2002 Aug 7;295(2):163-72.
Those are two papers that I have published (Elmerot is my name). Both in the field of evolutionary molecular genetics and phylogeny. Currently working on two others soon to be published. Now, that is not a "winning" argument to proove I'm always right (so don't even get started) it's just there to show that I have somewhat more than a passing knowledge of what I'm talking about.
You side stepped the idea of DNA with abject sarcasm.
What I am saying is, his ideas of evolution, if traced backwards, end where? So grow a new lobe.
His "ideas" end where "life" ends (or in this context began). Evolution is a process that works on replicating organisms that have a method of passing on changes to the next generation. If you want to make claims about how that first replicating organism came about, don't ask an evolutionist, ask a biochemist because it's not what we study nor are particularly interrested in.
That is like saying 3rd degree burns have everything to do with Hydrogen bombs.
My goodness, whith a statement like that you just proved that you don't know much about what we're talking about. Please, if a biologist are talking about survival of the fittest then that does not mean survival of the strongest. Please learn the concept of biological "fitness". Look, it's is not meant as an insult, but if you're to talk about fitness in the context of evolution it sure helps to know what that concept is about for another time. Fitness is a key concept in evolutionary theory as it applies to the mechanism of natural selection.
Yes, evolution, or a state of change (not talking Evolution as it were, but lets say introducing a new species into a country for the sake of argument) can bring about state wherein a renewed batch of competition.
No, that is a process known as colonization and the environmental conditions determine the charachteristics of the population that increase in size. However, if you say that we're talking Australia and a new mammal brought there by humans then you are much more likely to se a "founder effect" due to the low number of specimens.
Now, linking them is all too convenient to say evolution makes changes, and the good changes carry on with survival of the fittest, and evolution is mutation + survival of the fittest.
Well let me put this a bit simpler and separated. We know mutations occur, most are synonymous (i.e. does not bring about any effect upon the survivability of the offspring), but a few give better and a few gives worse survivability under the present conditions. This gives that we have a lot of variations in our gene pool (just look at how different we look as an example). This process of mutation affects life. Life is hard for most species (even humans under some conditions although we've mostly removed all selective pressures except those involving diseases). So hard, that not all offspring will survive to produce offspring. If someone is better adapted and this adaptation will yield higher survivability of their offspring then these traits will be more common in future generations ( an example of this is the gene for Sickle cell anemia in southern africa). If this was not true then we'd all be standing in a layer of flyshit or dinofecies. What you just said was that since these two facts (variation and fitness) affects "life" then we cannot say they together bring about higher adaptation?! That is like saying that multiplication and addition cannot be used upon numbers at the same time or that gravity and magnetism are mutually exclusive in their effect on objects.
Combining facts and mechanisms are how science makes progress. Fact A is used together with fact B to give rise to a hypothesis and predictions which can then be tested. I sincerely recommend you to read "Origin of Species" it is a prime example of how science _should_ be done (but far too often isn't).
Now, survival of the fittest happens every day, on every traffic light, when the one guy pulls away first, when one puppy is stronger and feeds more.
Again this is NOT survival of the fittest in the biological sense as this tells you nothing about the survivability and reproducability of their offspring.
The reason they cannot be intwined, is because one says 'something that is better will succeed'
Like so many evolutionists, you don't have a clue about combinatorics.
...and you base this upon? FYI, I did do discrete maths "once upon a time"(tm) when I took computer science classes. Combinatorics is nice enough but can't help you when so many factors are unknown.
Evolutionists are always saying that any odds can be overcome with enough time and space.
No, that is not true. But evolution is not about odds and neither is life, only mathmaticians would not make that distinction. Evolution cannot be used for either predictions (then one has no clue what evolution is) about or backwards calculations about the odds that a certain even has happened. Life is inherently unpredictable and thus evolution is even less predictable (more unpredictable than unpredictable... hm nice;)).
But isn't funny that that never seem to do any actual calculations. They just wave their hands and make proclamations. Spetner and others *have* done some calculations, and they have demonstrated that it just ain't so.
Pleeeease, evolutionists doing calcs about abiogenesis?! YOU MUST SEPARATE ABIOGENESIS FROM EVOLUTION! Those are two different questions. Evolution is a fact, abiogenesis ex nihilo is not.
Without getting into technicalities, let me just try to explain this in a general way. Thomas Huxley once said something to the effect that, "given enough time, even a monkey typing randomly at a typewriter will type Macbeth." Well, not quite. It turns out that you could put a monkey with a typewriter in every cubic meter of the entire known universe for the entire estimated age of the universe, and the chances of getting past the first few lines of Macbeth would be infinitesimally small.
Of course, so what are you implying here? That an erroneous statment by Huxley should be taken as evidence evolution did not happend? Macbeth is a SPECIFIED sequence of charachters put down on paper with the intent of being readable, playable, depicture time events etc (apologies Shakespear). You cannot say that; given enough time, humans will evolve into 3 meter slim alien-looking humanoids with higher intelligence! Why? BECAUSE evolutions does not work that way. That specific change will only happend IF there is specific adaptation advantages, giving fitness increases, that "demands" natural selection in that direction. I often get the question about if I think that our pinky-toe will dissappear and I always say that this is neither likely nor unlikely as there have to be something that make selection push in that direction and right now there is not (there is of course the evolutionary process of drift but that is even far more complicated for the layman to understand so I will not even bring that up).
I never claimed that Spetner proved the existence of God. What he did was prove that, with extremely high probability, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution is false. In other words, the idea that life began and "evolved" with absolutely no intelligent guidance has been disproven.
No, it has not. I do not know what Spetner classifies as intelligent guidance but he obviously does not know enough evolution to make the distinction between a process controlled by an intellict and an "intelligent process". Natural selection is not "dumb" if you look upon the level of species survivability. Natural selection (as the name implies) is selective and directional.
In other words, I am simply saying that, from a purely "scientific" perspective, WE DON'T KNOW how we got here.
(assuming we're talking about humans and even extending that to the rest of the mammals)
But we do, not to 100% (further genomic studies is needed to give the last few %'s).
If we are talking about how life got started then you are quite correct, but that is not what evolutionists are stu
Now that's an argument to remember. Get WHAT? That god did it?! What I do get is this, god(s) may have done that, i.e. created life, but THIS is not science. The existance of god(s) is unprovable by methods that are both unrepeatable as well giving unpublishable results. As the existance of god(s) can't be scientifically tested, all other factors involved in the creation of life, have to be eliminated BEFORE we come to metaphysical explanations. It is THIS that you DON'T get.
However, I'm certainly not going to spend time trying to explain your errors since you may not even see this message.
Oh I'll see it allright. As well as any replys to this one as well...
I'll just tell you to read Spetner's book.
...what you just said was; "I don't quite know what I'm talking about so I'll use the old trick of 'appeal to authority', in this case a book and a calc by a professor IN INFORMATION THEORY. I'm working in the field of evolutionary genetics and I would certainly not attempt at any such calculations BECAUSE of all the unknown factors involved and I will not waste my time and go to the library (which most certainly doesn't have that book). Give me an excert and I sure'll read it and even point out the errors in it for you to understand. I've spent far too much time in the University structure to know for sure that the title of Professor != bright.
..and this article was published in which peer-reviewd geological paper? It even states "creationist geologist" too. *sigh* If I were a flat-earth geographist attempting to draw a map of the earth, would you not expect that earth to have an "Edge of earth" on it?
There are even several blatant misstakes and wrongful conslusions in that paper, but what'd you expect.
Because, EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT HOW LIFE WAS CREATED FFS! Evolution is about what happend(s) to life once it was created. Face the facts, evolution is a verified fact.
About being interested in reality and those pesky calcs. Fact, life is here. Fact, no creator is visible. Fact, we do not know the specifics of the environment where life supposedly was created without the intervention of a creator. Fact, calculations based upon unknown variables gives unceratain answers. Thus, ANY calculations of ANY probability for life to be created out of inanimate compounds is incorrect.
It's along the lines of "I drop a ball". Afterwards I calculate the probability that, of all places that it could be still, that it came to rest where it did. Now that will be a very small probability but still it did rest where it did. Calculations upon the safety of fission reactors were prior Three Mile Island along the same lines. "So small that it's just impossible". THe same probability calculation after the accident would be p=1.0 => Post-event calculations is just as insecure as pre-event calculations WHEN NOT ALL FACTORS ARE UNKNOWN. If Lee Spretner knows anything about probabilities then he knows this and should state that in his book. Let's just say that life was created out of random. Then Spretners calc is not just off by a little but rather alot.
Now, I'm an evolutionist and a geneticist. I do not know enough about abiogenesis and not enough is known to say what/who "created" life. Evolution does not say "there is not god(s)". In fact I would not hold it improbable that there is not a god. However, if there is A god then any calcs would state that then there is a high probability that ther is more than one such entity. (and they're henchforth known as muppets...
"You see, darwin missed out the whole 'rocks grows fins/tail/legs/wings' part of his analysis."
Because Darwin and evolution is not about abiogenesis. Evolution kicks in once we have what we call life, or "the first cell". Evolution is about change not about how life was created from "nothing". Darwin could not state or say anything about what created life BECAUSE HE DID NOT STUDY IT. Needless to say most ID-proponents shouls that that hint from Darwin and learn before lecturing.
Survival of the fittest has very much somethng to do with evolution and especially natural selection. Of course I mean fitness in the biological sense as "survival of most offspring that can produce fit offspring".
While abiogenesis is not fully understood and meybe never will, evolution, natural selection sure is and is by all definitions a verified fact. It deals with the mechanics and NOT ABOUT WHAT STARTED THE WHOLE SHEBANG
Obviously you don't know enough of evolution or historic evolution to make such claims. You can make predictions about past events given a hypothesis. Hypothesis: birds evolved from dinosaurs. That hypothesis then predicts that you'd find transistional fossils from dinos to birds with varying features, and this is exactly what we find. There are now serveral fossils of different dinos that show they had either full feathers or feather precursors. You can also make the claim that since dinos are reptiles then the genome of a bird and the genes of a bird should most resemble that of a reptile. This has been investigated and found to be 100% true (numerous papers). Similar with human origins. IF humans and chimps did NOT share a common ancestor then WHY is there both transitional fossils as well as extreme genetic similarities?
If evolution was NOT a extremely thoroly verified fact then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN that the classifications according to the "Tree of Life" coincides with the genetic similarities between different species i.e. seals are classified into the order "Pinnipedia" and are carnivorous mammals. Take the genes from one species of seal and compare and you'll find that it is most similar to any other species of seals. Not only that but the order or pinnipedia have genomes that are similar to other carnivourous mammals. If evolution did NOT happend then there is NO reason for the similarities of genomes of even closely related species or even closely orders. Why on earth would one predict from morhological features and fossils that whales evolved from hoofed mammals such as hippos, pigs and camels and then much later also find that this relationship is found in their genomes as well.
Predictions about past events that are tested and found true. Again and again and again.
Sometimes morphological features have been interpreted ambigously or one scientist have placed to much emphasis of one feature over another and thus led to misses in classification but that is not evidence against evolution it's just mistakes in trying to put the puzzle together. Not all of the workers are sharp but genetics and evolution is now putting most of the pieces in their right place, just as evolution predicts.
NOTA BENE! Evolution is a fact. Evolution does not say there is no GOD(s). Evolution just points out a few litterary errors in some religious books. If you believe to the letter then you shurely must have issues with evolution but if not, then evolution just makes sense. I have a collegue that works in evolutionary genetics and she's also a very believing Catholic. Nothing wrong with that in my view.
This is most likely a publicity stunt as the previous work on such old material have been very "unscientific" and very overhyped by the researchers before.
You really need to check how DNA degrades before taking this news at face value. DNA degrades very rapidly unless preserved under extraordinary conditions. Consider that the size of DNA fragments that one has gotten from doing PCR on ancient DNA is very short (less than 300 bases) and that by using such very "recent" material as mumies. Previous results on neanderthal is most likely due to contamination through the lab work. What is even worse is that this group (at the MP institute) have almost "exclusive" rights to peer review articles done on acient DNA which means that they can block others papers. This is science at (almost) at it's worst.
5.0 through 5.2.1 was DEVELOPERS previews, FFS! I'm soo getting tired of hearing the whining about 5.0-5.2.1 as they were ONLY for early adopters. I'm sorry but sane people can't help it if you can't take a clue from the REALEAS ENOTES.
5.3 and even more 5.4 have been very stable on the hardware that we've been using it and that includes SMP machines for bioinformatics as well as UP servers for web/mail/routers.
5-STABLE is IMHO so much better than 4-STABLE that it just isn't funny anymore.
My problem is when the freeloaders start telling Linus that he can't take what is still his hobby (and now lots of other people's hobby too) in the direction he wishes to take it.
Last I checked, Linus was getting paid to do work om Linux. At one point it sure was ONLY a hobby but now (and a while back) it is his work also.
"It's much more of a tragedy"
Is Lucas coming to his senses and realising that any movie with Hayden Christiansen in the part of Anakin and Lucas himself involved is a frelling tragedy.
Not exactly. This is is a common misbelief. You can say, that these two specimen you compared, are from an equal race, but not exactly from the same species.
From an equal race?! You seriously need to brush up you knowledge in this area (I'm assuming you have that knowledge). I do research and teach this stuff at the university so *I SHOULD* know (admitting I'm not all-knowing).
Yes, I can, given two homologous sequences, say that they are from the same species. Point mutations etc do NOT factor in as changes WITHIN a species is limited to the difference between two species. The only time you might end up in trouble is when you have speciation going on in a species and then you can usually "with" high certainty determine which species a sample belongs to (all this is assuming you have referense sample from before otherwise you might as well compare carrots and humans).
Race is such an extremely vague "state" (what is a race really anyway?!) as that is given purely by phenotypical charachters that I would not use it. Phenotypical charachters such as color, length, haitype etc usually do very little to reveal true genetical relationships.
You can't compare species with their DNAs. This is a great misbelief. An animal is more than just a little DNA (the same as a human).
I don't exactly know what you put in the word "compare" here but using the common understanding then that is what we do for research. http://phylo.gen.lu.se/
You can perfectly well compare the sequence of two homologous genes from two species and knowing the function of one you can guestimate the function and domains of the other.
16S ribosomal DNA the standard "genetic bar code"?
No not really. That just types your mitochondria and is a quite bad marker. You're better off sequencing the complete mitochondrial genome, which is what we do. http://phylo.gen.lu.se/
However, the sequencing is not uniformly sampled: It is concentrated to the important model organisms and then patched out over the animals that some researcher has had an interest in.
The field is still quite young and high throughput techniques are not that old. But complete mitochondrial genomes have quite good coverage nowadays. As I work on fish I know that there are 150+ complete mitogenomes available (been a while since I chekced the exact figure).
A "16S-ribosome" project to complement the different genome projects could be pretty cool.
But quite limited in use as you're better off having good markers in the nucleus. That way you can also use blood for typing.
But being inteligent enough to do nuclear or biological massive destruction weapons may lead to just the end of your race, so it may lead to lesser fitness, isn't it?
Not really. What we've created in nuclear research and biotech is if you thing about it a little nothing different from global warming or a supernova exploding nearby i.e. extinction events.
In fact, those bright enough to build the stuff are usually the ones who are most vocal about not using it in the other end. Those pushing the button are usually a magnitude less bright (most likely off-scale stupid).
There are other issues, social standard etc, with intelligence and fitness but higher average intelligence in a person will likely give that person higher fitness.
Changes are random like cosmic ray altering dna, if one survives them enough to breed there's nothing preventing such an evolution happening.
Not really. Random changes propagating in our gene pool are always subject to the concept of fitness. If they are neutral in terms of fitness then they spread by chance (but due to the stocastic nature of their propagation usually disappears rather rapidly). The changes required, going from human to mouse, are NOT neutral given our living environment and will therefor give lower fitness => swift elimination from the gene pool (unless the envionment changes).
You also have to remember that just being able to breed is not enough for changes to survive in the gene pool. Fitness also takes into consideration the survivability/fitness of your offspring.
Perhaps fast breeding mouses have more chance of survival than humans in some environment not so far from this.
You have to consider that you can only compare fitness between two species if they have the same food niche. Mice usually lives of of what man creates and if there were any real competition between men and mice then they'd not stand a chance.
While I mostly believe your post was supposed to be funny:
It doesn't have to change at all.
Everything always changes, it is part of the nature of life.
Suppose we become over-crowded
that's a big change
and consequently have smaller areas to live in, with less food and less hygiene.
We've already been exposed to that throughout our evolution and many are still today.
Fortune will favor the smaller.
Size matters little for overcrowding. Numbers do. Overpopulation will give us severe wars and then that issue is settled, just look at lemmings. Neither does small size help a bad hygene. Hygene btw is doubtful as a thing driving evolution, given the conditions that we're coming from. Too good hygene, most likely, are the cause of many of todays problem with allergenes and the allergics they give rise to, i.e. we're most likely tuned to a much more dirty environment than our clean homes and offices.
Throw in a few severe winters and the furrier members of our society will be the ones who reproduce.
That's a change too... but tell that to the eskimoes. Cold environment, btw, actually favors larger shapes due to surface/volume ratios being more beneficial (larger volume to produce heat and less surface to lose the heat from). Look at the arctic and sea-living mammals as a reference (seals, whales etc).
Our intellect has given us the tools to fix the short term (less that 50k years) changes in our environment without having to resort to evolution to fix it for us.
there's nothing about it being positive or accelerating
You cannot speak of evolution as being on a scale of just positive/negative. However, evolution is always "positive" in the notion that is always leads to a higher fitness (the biological term).
Evolution has certainly accelerated during certain periods of time for different species (for instance check the evolution of ray-finned fishes, teleosts).
That is a common myth in that mankind evolutions to a "higher" state being. Our race could evolution to small white mouses for all we know.
Evolution leads to higher fitness. That is the "higher state". If you by higher state mean "more intelligent" or "just better(tm)" then you are semi-correct. The thing is, that "more intelligent" or "just better" often gives better fitness.
No, given that our environment doesn't change very radically, we will not evolve into small mice. Why? Because that niche is already filled with very fit species and it is not like their niche is better for us (as it is a side-effect of our living conditions).
It is far more likely that little white mice will evolve into larger intelligent creatures than humanity going the opposite route, even given extremely radical environmental changes. We'll be extinct before such changes would be necessary.
Next time you try to debunk "myths" about something, try to know what you are talking about.
Yeah that's right emulation. Now that's a way to run a BSD... NOT! That completly nullifies every advatage of running Mac OS X at all since you are already running another system that you use PearPC on.
While Mac OS X is nice in itself. It is not a simple and clean system the way the other "pure" BSDs are.
4).../etc/rc.conf controls base-system-level startup scripts with a simple binary switch (i.e. sshd_enable="YES"). User-installed programs with startup scripts are controled by their own files in/usr/local/etc/rc.d. To activate these, generally you just move prog_name.sh.sample to prog_name.sh. The system will then start it up the next time you reboot. The scripts are also startable from the commandline by root, without need for a reboot.
Just a small correction. Renaming prog_name.sh.sample to prog_name.sh is the "old" way and not rcNG-style. Ports that are "converted" to the new rcNG-style, install rc-scripts as prog_name.sh and use the switch prog_name_enable="YES" in/etc/rc.conf just as the base system does. This makes it coherent and easier to control what's being run on startup. Otherwise excellent post.
Slashdot Mirror
Your claims are perfectly valid insofar as they are based upon your knowledge. When I then point out the inaccuracies of the actual details it is in order to try to make you understand what appears as "magic" and thus show you hov the magic is actually simpler than they appear. Obviously I failed... Evolution is one of those things that seem like "magic" if one looks at the complexity of the human heart or the human eye. Stydying how the trick was performed (studying the very simple heart of a fish or an amphib and then studying the hearts of increasing complexity towards the human heart) takes away the mystery.
No, you are quite right. "I" have not proven anything, all I said anything against is your claims that evolution is unproven. The proof is found in papers written by others, not me. Are these real proofs? They are more than enough that pope JP II admitted evolution to be real. Obviously you rank your level of knowledge in this field higer thant the scientific advisors of the Catholic church, I sure as hell (and I'm not a Christian) don't rank my knowledge that high. Talk about being arrogant... (and no, that the Catholic church said so does not necessarily make it so, so don't go there).
Fine, but then please never ever say that ID has adressed those questions or that evolution does not provide a satisfactory answer to them. ID working through evolution does but not ID alone.
You gave an example and claimed that it showed "self awareness" and I showed you how again how this seemingly "magic" process actually is a lot simpler than it appears. This is what I get. Look up angiogenesis, it's quite interresting.
Your argument does not cover for the fact that metastases exist.
Yes, with the current level of knowledge about evolution that we have today that statment is incorrect. Evolution does not work that way. There was no single cell that determined to evolve into a human. If evolution started all over from scratch tomorrow even starting with an identical single cell that ultimately was our ancestor then there is basically no way you'd eventually get a human being after a few billon years. That is what Huxley said and he was wrong in that statement. That does not mean everything else he did/said was wrong. They were based upon the available knowledge at that time (just as Lamarcks before him). Einsteins statement about quantum physics does not mean the rest he did/said was wrong.
(More offtopic than the rest) Hyxleys legacy is not a single thing he said it is the works. Hitlers legacy is not that he built autobahn. It is you how disrespects Huxley by us
Because you fail to recognise the important difference between function and design. You said that the similarities was because that is the "blueprint of life" and the "only" way it could work. I showed you examples where the function was the same even on closer look but at the detail (molecular) level and level of DNA you find completely different "code". That code is similar because of descent, the overall design is the result of physics. I suggest you study up on comparative physiology next time. I was being polite and explaining.
DNA between two individuals are similar because of descent. What makes you think this should only be limited to the level of individuals? Speciation has been demonstrated.
I can understand how you fail to see their relevance if you haven't studied the field, but please next time don't use arguments that seem to imply you have an understanding beyond simplistic physiology and the underlying molecular biology. Comparative physiology and advanced molecular biology and a bit of genetics is a starting point.
Your reasoning in the realm of "can we KNOW anything for sure" and that is the realm of philosophy. I work in science research and we assume what we see is for real and what we touch is real and that knowledge can be extended to gain new knowledge.
My oh my. The only way "intelligent design" is behind the way the nature looks is IF intelligent designed things to look "similar by descent" and also designed unoptimized versions of features to fit this scheme. The heart of a frog is so inefficient compared to other designs, where is the intelligence in that (no there ARE no other obstacles against a more efficient design, just compare with a reptile heart). I've never argued against an intelligence ultimately being behind evolution but we have an understanding of what that intelligence "did". That intelligence used the mechanics in evolution and descent to created all the species we see today if it did not use those mechanisms then we would not find the solutions we do in nature.
This is actually what my examples would seem to do for someone who have not studied for example comparative physiology or comparative genomics or at least know how DNA works together with genes and proteins.
Oh my goodness, how can you even say such a thing? Please look up how the lungfish breathes air. Please look up how frogs look in adolencent stages. Please check the amphioxus and how that compares to an adult salamander. FYI, the lungfish happends to have a lung BESIDES also having gills while the other fishes have a swim bladder. Look at the similarities/differences between those two.
Yes, it does if you just look on the surface. However the details tells a quite different picture.
/3681/F1 Aminoacids can be changed without affecting the function of protein and those changes are so called neutral. When you then compare the DNA-sequence of these different variants of rhodopsin and use the differences and similarities to construct an tree/network of how these different variants are related to eachother by means of similarity then that tree/network perfectly overlays with what you would see if you compared completely unrelated morphological characters. The protein functions just fine and I'm quite certain that we could take the gene for rhodopsin in mouse, put that in a chimp eggcell and see that the chimp would see just fine (that'f be an awful experiment to actually perform tho if something goes wrong so I'd leave that to less discriminatory researchers).
I'm gonna do this brief so please excuse the (eventual) gaps in my explanation. If we make an analogy of how eyes are constructed in different animals (just to continue my previous example). You need something that focuses light, you need a shutter to prevent excessive light under "good-light" conditions, you need something to collect the light and you need a clear medium separating the focusing tissue from the collecting tissue to get a useful resolution. This is the physical "blueprint" of what simplistically is needed to construct an eye.
Now, if we zoom in on a detail of this, the actual light sensitive pigment used in the "collecting" tissue (rods etc), called rhodopsin.
Rhodopsin is derived from vitamin A and present in most species. However the protein does not have the same aminoacid sequence in all animals. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content-nw/full/19/10
Now, to make things a bit more interresting; squids have another unrelated photo sensitive pigment called retinochrome. http://www.jgp.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/6/791 Retinochrome that is thought to be what the squid eye use as their main light absorbing pigment. It overlaps rhodopsins absorption spectrum so there is more than just one way of constructing a protein that absorbs light.
Yes this can be seen as the equivalent of "evolving" a wing in different types of animals.
Yes, on the surface they look just the same but if you look at the actual implementation, the actual parts that make up the details they are quite different although they both solve the (for us) primary issue of transporting objects fast.
;)
Now, the next model they develop will build upon what they designed first as that seems logical to not having to "invent the wheel again". But you can still tell that the new modell is built from the same manufacturer.
If you just want to transport humans then you might actually design a MC instead
Physics puts up certain rules that you have to follow to make an effective implementation but the details in the smallscale design can vary quite a lot and still acomplish the same results.
Just compare the fins and shape of sharks and dolphins. Water puts the limitations/rules of what is an effective solution but the actual implementations are completely different in the details (sharks have cartilage instead of bone etc). We (who study evolution) look at those details and use them and when you study
Somewhat confusing but assuming that the "answer" 2 is "life today" and 5 is evolution then I agree. X is unkown with factors almost impossible to determine (unless one manages to create life ex nihilo under conditions possible somewhere within reach of our planet).
The issue, that you correctly stated, is that the critiques of evolution puts the fire on X most of the time and tries to use that to "proove" evolution to be false.
To be honest, your use of fitness implied the common ignorance of the layman. But now that I know you have an understanding of the concept then I must assume that you don't think fitness and selection leads to a change in the gene pool.
I was not jumping to conclusions altough it may seem that way. I was merely trying to cut down the length of the chain of mechanisms at work. Obviously I cut too harsh. Concepts such as speciation and reproductive barriers, drift, population genetics etc as well as other have to be adressed too but would take far too long time and obviously pointless.
I never said it was, i thought I was quite clear of that but since english is my 2nd lingua I may be wrong (that is not an excuse not to be clear tho). You brought up the example and I simply stated just that, that such things such as colonization is not evolution. They can sometimes lead to speciation but not alone.
All I'm saying is that what we observe fits with what our hypothesis (evolution and common ancestry) predicts.
*sigh* Wow, you must really think I'm shaken by such heavy arguments. I try to show examples and get this?! Impressive... not. Try to adress what I have said instead so I can clarify.
Now I will do what may look like an "appeal to authority" (quite hilarious since I am quite clearly not one) but merely trying to show a bit of my background since you seem to think I'm just ignorant. Arnason U, Gullberg A, Janke A, Joss J, Elmerot C.
Mitogenomic analyses of deep gnathostome divergences: a fish is a fish.
Gene. 2004 May 26;333:61-70.
Elmerot C, Arnason U, Gojobori T, Janke A.
The mitochondrial genome of the pufferfish, Fugu rubripes, and ordinal teleostean relationships.
Gene. 2002 Aug 7;295(2):163-72.
Those are two papers that I have published (Elmerot is my name). Both in the field of evolutionary molecular genetics and phylogeny. Currently working on two others soon to be published. Now, that is not a "winning" argument to proove I'm always right (so don't even get started) it's just there to show that I have somewhat more than a passing knowledge of what I'm talking about.
His "ideas" end where "life" ends (or in this context began). Evolution is a process that works on replicating organisms that have a method of passing on changes to the next generation. If you want to make claims about how that first replicating organism came about, don't ask an evolutionist, ask a biochemist because it's not what we study nor are particularly interrested in.
My goodness, whith a statement like that you just proved that you don't know much about what we're talking about. Please, if a biologist are talking about survival of the fittest then that does not mean survival of the strongest. Please learn the concept of biological "fitness". Look, it's is not meant as an insult, but if you're to talk about fitness in the context of evolution it sure helps to know what that concept is about for another time. Fitness is a key concept in evolutionary theory as it applies to the mechanism of natural selection.
No, that is a process known as colonization and the environmental conditions determine the charachteristics of the population that increase in size. However, if you say that we're talking Australia and a new mammal brought there by humans then you are much more likely to se a "founder effect" due to the low number of specimens.
Well let me put this a bit simpler and separated. We know mutations occur, most are synonymous (i.e. does not bring about any effect upon the survivability of the offspring), but a few give better and a few gives worse survivability under the present conditions. This gives that we have a lot of variations in our gene pool (just look at how different we look as an example). This process of mutation affects life. Life is hard for most species (even humans under some conditions although we've mostly removed all selective pressures except those involving diseases). So hard, that not all offspring will survive to produce offspring. If someone is better adapted and this adaptation will yield higher survivability of their offspring then these traits will be more common in future generations ( an example of this is the gene for Sickle cell anemia in southern africa). If this was not true then we'd all be standing in a layer of flyshit or dinofecies. What you just said was that since these two facts (variation and fitness) affects "life" then we cannot say they together bring about higher adaptation?! That is like saying that multiplication and addition cannot be used upon numbers at the same time or that gravity and magnetism are mutually exclusive in their effect on objects.
Combining facts and mechanisms are how science makes progress. Fact A is used together with fact B to give rise to a hypothesis and predictions which can then be tested. I sincerely recommend you to read "Origin of Species" it is a prime example of how science _should_ be done (but far too often isn't).
Again this is NOT survival of the fittest in the biological sense as this tells you nothing about the survivability and reproducability of their offspring.
No, that is not true. But evolution is not about odds and neither is life, only mathmaticians would not make that distinction. Evolution cannot be used for either predictions (then one has no clue what evolution is) about or backwards calculations about the odds that a certain even has happened. Life is inherently unpredictable and thus evolution is even less predictable (more unpredictable than unpredictable... hm nice ;)).
Pleeeease, evolutionists doing calcs about abiogenesis?! YOU MUST SEPARATE ABIOGENESIS FROM EVOLUTION! Those are two different questions. Evolution is a fact, abiogenesis ex nihilo is not.
Of course, so what are you implying here? That an erroneous statment by Huxley should be taken as evidence evolution did not happend? Macbeth is a SPECIFIED sequence of charachters put down on paper with the intent of being readable, playable, depicture time events etc (apologies Shakespear). You cannot say that; given enough time, humans will evolve into 3 meter slim alien-looking humanoids with higher intelligence! Why? BECAUSE evolutions does not work that way. That specific change will only happend IF there is specific adaptation advantages, giving fitness increases, that "demands" natural selection in that direction. I often get the question about if I think that our pinky-toe will dissappear and I always say that this is neither likely nor unlikely as there have to be something that make selection push in that direction and right now there is not (there is of course the evolutionary process of drift but that is even far more complicated for the layman to understand so I will not even bring that up).
No, it has not. I do not know what Spetner classifies as intelligent guidance but he obviously does not know enough evolution to make the distinction between a process controlled by an intellict and an "intelligent process". Natural selection is not "dumb" if you look upon the level of species survivability. Natural selection (as the name implies) is selective and directional.
(assuming we're talking about humans and even extending that to the rest of the mammals) But we do, not to 100% (further genomic studies is needed to give the last few %'s). If we are talking about how life got started then you are quite correct, but that is not what evolutionists are stu
..and this article was published in which peer-reviewd geological paper? It even states "creationist geologist" too. *sigh* If I were a flat-earth geographist attempting to draw a map of the earth, would you not expect that earth to have an "Edge of earth" on it?
There are even several blatant misstakes and wrongful conslusions in that paper, but what'd you expect.
Because, EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT HOW LIFE WAS CREATED FFS! Evolution is about what happend(s) to life once it was created. Face the facts, evolution is a verified fact.
About being interested in reality and those pesky calcs. Fact, life is here. Fact, no creator is visible. Fact, we do not know the specifics of the environment where life supposedly was created without the intervention of a creator. Fact, calculations based upon unknown variables gives unceratain answers. Thus, ANY calculations of ANY probability for life to be created out of inanimate compounds is incorrect.
It's along the lines of "I drop a ball". Afterwards I calculate the probability that, of all places that it could be still, that it came to rest where it did. Now that will be a very small probability but still it did rest where it did. Calculations upon the safety of fission reactors were prior Three Mile Island along the same lines. "So small that it's just impossible". THe same probability calculation after the accident would be p=1.0 => Post-event calculations is just as insecure as pre-event calculations WHEN NOT ALL FACTORS ARE UNKNOWN. If Lee Spretner knows anything about probabilities then he knows this and should state that in his book.
Let's just say that life was created out of random. Then Spretners calc is not just off by a little but rather alot.
Now, I'm an evolutionist and a geneticist. I do not know enough about abiogenesis and not enough is known to say what/who "created" life. Evolution does not say "there is not god(s)". In fact I would not hold it improbable that there is not a god. However, if there is A god then any calcs would state that then there is a high probability that ther is more than one such entity. (and they're henchforth known as muppets...
"You see, darwin missed out the whole 'rocks grows fins/tail/legs/wings' part of his analysis."
Because Darwin and evolution is not about abiogenesis. Evolution kicks in once we have what we call life, or "the first cell". Evolution is about change not about how life was created from "nothing". Darwin could not state or say anything about what created life BECAUSE HE DID NOT STUDY IT. Needless to say most ID-proponents shouls that that hint from Darwin and learn before lecturing.
Survival of the fittest has very much somethng to do with evolution and especially natural selection. Of course I mean fitness in the biological sense as "survival of most offspring that can produce fit offspring".
While abiogenesis is not fully understood and meybe never will, evolution, natural selection sure is and is by all definitions a verified fact. It deals with the mechanics and NOT ABOUT WHAT STARTED THE WHOLE SHEBANG
Obviously you don't know enough of evolution or historic evolution to make such claims. You can make predictions about past events given a hypothesis. Hypothesis: birds evolved from dinosaurs. That hypothesis then predicts that you'd find transistional fossils from dinos to birds with varying features, and this is exactly what we find. There are now serveral fossils of different dinos that show they had either full feathers or feather precursors. You can also make the claim that since dinos are reptiles then the genome of a bird and the genes of a bird should most resemble that of a reptile. This has been investigated and found to be 100% true (numerous papers). Similar with human origins. IF humans and chimps did NOT share a common ancestor then WHY is there both transitional fossils as well as extreme genetic similarities? If evolution was NOT a extremely thoroly verified fact then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN that the classifications according to the "Tree of Life" coincides with the genetic similarities between different species i.e. seals are classified into the order "Pinnipedia" and are carnivorous mammals. Take the genes from one species of seal and compare and you'll find that it is most similar to any other species of seals. Not only that but the order or pinnipedia have genomes that are similar to other carnivourous mammals. If evolution did NOT happend then there is NO reason for the similarities of genomes of even closely related species or even closely orders. Why on earth would one predict from morhological features and fossils that whales evolved from hoofed mammals such as hippos, pigs and camels and then much later also find that this relationship is found in their genomes as well. Predictions about past events that are tested and found true. Again and again and again. Sometimes morphological features have been interpreted ambigously or one scientist have placed to much emphasis of one feature over another and thus led to misses in classification but that is not evidence against evolution it's just mistakes in trying to put the puzzle together. Not all of the workers are sharp but genetics and evolution is now putting most of the pieces in their right place, just as evolution predicts. NOTA BENE! Evolution is a fact. Evolution does not say there is no GOD(s). Evolution just points out a few litterary errors in some religious books. If you believe to the letter then you shurely must have issues with evolution but if not, then evolution just makes sense. I have a collegue that works in evolutionary genetics and she's also a very believing Catholic. Nothing wrong with that in my view.
This is most likely a publicity stunt as the previous work on such old material have been very "unscientific" and very overhyped by the researchers before. You really need to check how DNA degrades before taking this news at face value. DNA degrades very rapidly unless preserved under extraordinary conditions. Consider that the size of DNA fragments that one has gotten from doing PCR on ancient DNA is very short (less than 300 bases) and that by using such very "recent" material as mumies. Previous results on neanderthal is most likely due to contamination through the lab work. What is even worse is that this group (at the MP institute) have almost "exclusive" rights to peer review articles done on acient DNA which means that they can block others papers. This is science at (almost) at it's worst.
AFAIK it isn't closed yet.
5.0 through 5.2.1 was DEVELOPERS previews, FFS! I'm soo getting tired of hearing the whining about 5.0-5.2.1 as they were ONLY for early adopters. I'm sorry but sane people can't help it if you can't take a clue from the REALEAS ENOTES. 5.3 and even more 5.4 have been very stable on the hardware that we've been using it and that includes SMP machines for bioinformatics as well as UP servers for web/mail/routers. 5-STABLE is IMHO so much better than 4-STABLE that it just isn't funny anymore.
"It's much more of a tragedy" Is Lucas coming to his senses and realising that any movie with Hayden Christiansen in the part of Anakin and Lucas himself involved is a frelling tragedy.
Yes, I can, given two homologous sequences, say that they are from the same species. Point mutations etc do NOT factor in as changes WITHIN a species is limited to the difference between two species. The only time you might end up in trouble is when you have speciation going on in a species and then you can usually "with" high certainty determine which species a sample belongs to (all this is assuming you have referense sample from before otherwise you might as well compare carrots and humans).
Race is such an extremely vague "state" (what is a race really anyway?!) as that is given purely by phenotypical charachters that I would not use it. Phenotypical charachters such as color, length, haitype etc usually do very little to reveal true genetical relationships.
You can perfectly well compare the sequence of two homologous genes from two species and knowing the function of one you can guestimate the function and domains of the other.
But being inteligent enough to do nuclear or biological massive destruction weapons may lead to just the end of your race, so it may lead to lesser fitness, isn't it?
Not really. What we've created in nuclear research and biotech is if you thing about it a little nothing different from global warming or a supernova exploding nearby i.e. extinction events.
In fact, those bright enough to build the stuff are usually the ones who are most vocal about not using it in the other end. Those pushing the button are usually a magnitude less bright (most likely off-scale stupid).
There are other issues, social standard etc, with intelligence and fitness but higher average intelligence in a person will likely give that person higher fitness.
Changes are random like cosmic ray altering dna, if one survives them enough to breed there's nothing preventing such an evolution happening.
Not really. Random changes propagating in our gene pool are always subject to the concept of fitness. If they are neutral in terms of fitness then they spread by chance (but due to the stocastic nature of their propagation usually disappears rather rapidly). The changes required, going from human to mouse, are NOT neutral given our living environment and will therefor give lower fitness => swift elimination from the gene pool (unless the envionment changes).
You also have to remember that just being able to breed is not enough for changes to survive in the gene pool. Fitness also takes into consideration the survivability/fitness of your offspring.
Perhaps fast breeding mouses have more chance of survival than humans in some environment not so far from this.
You have to consider that you can only compare fitness between two species if they have the same food niche. Mice usually lives of of what man creates and if there were any real competition between men and mice then they'd not stand a chance.
While I mostly believe your post was supposed to be funny:
It doesn't have to change at all. Everything always changes, it is part of the nature of life. Suppose we become over-crowded
that's a big change
and consequently have smaller areas to live in, with less food and less hygiene.
We've already been exposed to that throughout our evolution and many are still today.
Fortune will favor the smaller.
Size matters little for overcrowding. Numbers do. Overpopulation will give us severe wars and then that issue is settled, just look at lemmings. Neither does small size help a bad hygene. Hygene btw is doubtful as a thing driving evolution, given the conditions that we're coming from. Too good hygene, most likely, are the cause of many of todays problem with allergenes and the allergics they give rise to, i.e. we're most likely tuned to a much more dirty environment than our clean homes and offices.
Throw in a few severe winters and the furrier members of our society will be the ones who reproduce.
That's a change too... but tell that to the eskimoes. Cold environment, btw, actually favors larger shapes due to surface/volume ratios being more beneficial (larger volume to produce heat and less surface to lose the heat from). Look at the arctic and sea-living mammals as a reference (seals, whales etc).
Our intellect has given us the tools to fix the short term (less that 50k years) changes in our environment without having to resort to evolution to fix it for us.
Evolution has certainly accelerated during certain periods of time for different species (for instance check the evolution of ray-finned fishes, teleosts).
Evolution leads to higher fitness. That is the "higher state". If you by higher state mean "more intelligent" or "just better(tm)" then you are semi-correct. The thing is, that "more intelligent" or "just better" often gives better fitness.
No, given that our environment doesn't change very radically, we will not evolve into small mice. Why? Because that niche is already filled with very fit species and it is not like their niche is better for us (as it is a side-effect of our living conditions). It is far more likely that little white mice will evolve into larger intelligent creatures than humanity going the opposite route, even given extremely radical environmental changes. We'll be extinct before such changes would be necessary.
Next time you try to debunk "myths" about something, try to know what you are talking about.
Yeah that's right emulation. Now that's a way to run a BSD... NOT! That completly nullifies every advatage of running Mac OS X at all since you are already running another system that you use PearPC on. While Mac OS X is nice in itself. It is not a simple and clean system the way the other "pure" BSDs are.
That's fine, however, IF one already has a x86-machine then your answer is completely and utterly inadequate.