I'm sure you're going to get a lot of flak from the ACs on that one, but I have to agree. Seems that whenever someone makes this argument, you get people falling back to the idea that both are "natural". Well, duh - of course they are. That's hardly the point.
The point is, only one (sex) is life-affirming and good. Violence, OTOH, is too often the inappropriate problem-solving response of the limited mind. I believe that repeatedly viewing violence, and most especially seeing it presented as an appropriate solution, makes people more likely to think that it IS an appropriate solution when it might not be.
That being said, I didn't let my kids watch TV, period. Don't watch it myself, either - IMNSHO it's brainrotting crap. YMMV of course. And I know we're talking about film/DVD here, but the parent was talking about TV. Cheers!
I don't see any convincing evidence in any of the Wikipedia sources; if you follow the links, they lead either to (1) religious writings, with an obvious reason for bias, or (2) sources that are questioned by non-Christian historians because of the possibility of tampering during transcription.
Also, I have no particular "faith" that the Christian bible is not accurate. What I said was that I don't consider it an accurate source of historical information. And by the way, it's far from "the only written account of history that goes back that far".
If this sort of thing interests you, though, may I draw your attention to an interesting book I read about today? Tom Harpur, long-time religion columnist for the Toronto Star and former Anglican priest, has written a book called _The Pagan Christ_. In it he discusses the idea that the Christ figure is a synthesis of other religious traditions. There's a Globe and Mail article on it here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNe ws/TPStory/LAC/20040408/HARPUR08/Entertainment/Idx The article makes the book sound worth reading. Cheers!
Hmmmm... the problem with that is, there aren't any historical records of Jesus' persecution by the Romans. And the Bible is a far-from-reliable source.
Right, Darwin didn't have to understand the *chemical details of genetics* to put forward a theory of evolution through natural selection. Just like Newton didn't have to understand the underlying mechanisms of light or gravity to write seminal works on optics or describe gravity.
The rest of your post is confusing nonsense, but I'll try to adress what seem to be points. Yes, you don't have to understand change at every level to comment on or describe change at a given level. Again, Newtonian physics vs. modern quantum/relativistic physics is the perfect example.
Faith, in the religious sense, has nothing to do with science. Science is about evidence. Religion offers no evidence in the scientific sense. Science and religion, rightly, should have nothing to do with each other.
Your use of the terms "theory" and "proof" suggest that you don't understand the scientific meaning of the former or the inapplicability of the latter (try "evidence", of which there is plenty). I suggest a visit to talkorigins.org and a thorough perusal of their FAQs.
As for you being a religious nut, well, it sounds that way to me, but YMMV. Your last few sentences are obviously some new cosmology; have you submitted it for peer review and publication in the journals? I'd love to hear the results.
Oh, and as for science only benefitting the scientist - since that includes technology, do you believe that technology has only helped the person who developed it? If not, you're simply using bad logic.
If that really is what you believe, though, you're a genuine wacko. Congratulations!
Didn't want you to think I've been ignoring your post, but I've become ridiculously busy. Briefly:
My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.
New genes not required to create a new species: isn't this what some folks call "micro-evolution"?
Moths: same species, sure. But species aren't discrete little boxes, with a population jumping neatly from one to another; this example of natural selection is valid. Add up enough such changes, especially in an isolated population, and you have speciation.
Anyway, I don't really have time for this. I suggest you go read the FAQs at talkorigins.org - they cover all this ground quite thoroughly. Cheers!
In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations. This is the molecular mechanism of Darwinian 'alteration of genetic material'.
Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc. Even that, though, is not the whole story; remember that every individual (broadly speaking) has a unique arrangement of genetic material. Evolutionary forces work upon both unique arrangements and the products of mutation and other forces.
An oft-quoted example of this is the pepper moth, a common insect of the British Isles. The pepper moth, like many species, has two distinct colour phases - individuals may be light or dark.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the light phase was most common, because light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.
Through mutation, selection and isolation new species are said to have evolved (macro-evolution) and within one species adaptive changes according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. But forming of a _new species_ requires formation of _new genes_.
Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient.
I don't have the time to translate all this. (At least not now)
How convenient. Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".
Micro-evolutionary processes are mostly processes of optimization.
The whole micro- vs. macro-evolution thing is one enormous red herring perpetrated by people who could not refute the inescapable, demonstrated fact of evolution through natural selection. Evolution in general (micro-, macro-, myxo-, whatever) is not a process of optimisation per se. It is a process whereby natural variation in genetic material is sifted on the basis of ability to propagate in a particular situation. Your use of the term "optimisation", which implies a goal or value, is incorrect.
Cheers!
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Overall, I agree with you. That being said, though, I've worked with people with mental disabilities for many years. The *majority* of my clients' diagnoses involve either trauma or chromosome damage/replication error. That's where I was coming from with that particular part of my post. You're bang on about the recessive thing, though, and I've often wondered how much of the replication error is DUE to recessives...
And on intelligent design, I'd say we agree. I was being conde^H^H^H^H^Hdiplomatic. I wouldn't even go so far as you do and call intelligent design a "theory" - I try to reserve that word for its proper scientific meaning.;-)
Cheers!
Persistent, aren't you? Wrong, but persistent...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
so a trait that confers survival advantage of our species is neither undesireable nor desireable? Asking as a human, why not?
Because you're talking about evolution, which is a natural force. It doesn't desire things; it doesn't even want to be anthropomorphized.;-)
If you're asking whether I consider a given trait to be desireable, you're asking a different question. Likewise, whether you consider a given trait to be desireable. Or Joe. Or Jane. But the traits that we (as fallible human beings) consider desireable are not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species". They don't particularly matter, for reasons stated already.
are you saying that we should stop using our thinking powers to present greater advantages in the long-term viability of the species?
Not at all. I'm saying that your reductio ad absurdum argument against doing so is not a valid indictment of evolutionary theory, but rather an indictment of your own suggested use of our thinking powers. It's the old bait'n'switch.
As for your opinion that "we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them": it's just that - your opinion. Or rather, in this case, a strawman (let me know if you don't know what that means).
Kant suggested that if a theory, carried out to its extreme, results in an impossible condition, then it must be wrong. While I can't totally agree with either Kant or Darwin, I think that there is value in looking at the extremes of ideas, regardless of whether those extremes actually come to pass or not. I was merely trying to show that evolution can very easily devolve into genocide.
And you figure that genocide is impossible? Ask the Jews, the Tutsi, et cetera ad nauseum. Again, you're indulging in faulty logic and bait'n'switch. You're not trying to show logical inconsistency, you're trying to derive morality from natural law and then argue against that morality.
I stand by what I said about the logical abilities displayed in your posts. Cheers!
Talk about missing the point. Darwin *didn't* see "genocide of 'inferior' races as the natural cause of his own theory". He saw genocide as a possible *effect*.
Neither did he "present natural selection as being a universally good thing". He presented it as a mechanism to explain evolution. Did Newton present his physics as a "universally good thing"? No, he presented them as an explanation. Stop trying to read morality into natural law and then attacking the resulting morality - it's moronic, and akin to insisting that gravity is evil because people hurt themselves when they fall. WTF?
Now, on to your syllogism:
A. Flawed because traits are neither desireable nor undesireable; they simply confer differing degrees of survival advantage in different situations.
B. Flawed because "reinforcement of those traits" is not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species". The species will be acted upon by whatever selection pressure exists. Period. News flash: Humans don't have to take any action for evolution to work. In fact, it worked just fine before we came along, and will work just fine after we're gone.
C. Finally you got something right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, for the record, I believe that it's not evil to prevent people with undesirable traits from passing them on. It might well be misguided, it might well be implemented badly, but I don't think it "evil" in a blanket sense.
However, that has nothing to do with evolution. Humans have no place judging whether a given set of genes are *evolutionarily viable* - and we don't need to. Evolution through natural selection will determine both viability and long-term success.
As to your notions about Darwin's racism, how do you explain the racism of the people around him, who espoused exactly the same racist ideas without agreeing with his new theory? How about his predecessors, who also had the same racist ideas? You've got cause and effect mixed up - again!
Not surprising, given the quality of the stuff you've tried to pass off as "logical" in your posts. Cheers!
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Good try. However, parsing that carefully, I read Darwin as stating two things:
1) The "civilized races", etc. (first sentence)
- Genocidal practices of the colonial era, anyone? I don't see Darwin ENDORSING this - just saying it will "almost certainly" happen. Which it has. And may continue to.
2) "...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between" etc. (final sentences)
- Again, this is already happening; most great ape species (with the exception of ourselves, if you count us) are in danger of extinction. I read this as Darwin hoping that (hu)man(ity) attains a more civilized state. Of course, he's also indulging in the Caucasion-centric view of civilization that was typical of his culture...
But so what? Although certain people like to toss around the term "Darwinism", it's a false characterization. The theory of evolution has come a long way, baby. Just because the first guy to put forward a coherent statement of evolution through natural selection had some of the same wacky ideas as his compatriots doesn't make the theory wrong.
Cheers!
I'd be happy to continue this conversation...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
...over a better medium. You can reach me at slashstuff@flyingorca.net - I may not have much time, but I'll give it a go. Cheers!
Looking for a reference? Richard Dawkins deals extensively with the evolution of the eye - numerous times, numerous mechanisms. Chapter 5 of _Climbing Mount Improbable_, entitled "Forty-fold Path To Enlightenment", is a good place to start.
The evidence for evolution is all around you. It's in every living thing, it's in the fossil record, and it's in recorded natural history. If anyone has "seriously misunderstood the issues", it's you. Your blatant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory and mechanisms demonstrate that you simply don't understand it. I'm not knocking your intellect, and I'm not trying to condescend; I'm trying to point out your obvious need for some better information.
There's no such thing as "invented evolutionary steps". There's no such thing as "the smaller steps between those steps". Evolution is a process, though the punctuated-equilibrium model posits a process that varies in "speed".
Also, Darwin didn't need to know "how complex life really was at the micro level". Scientists of his time understood the concept of heredity. At the most basic level, as you put it, it's just genes doing their thing. Many (I would think the vast majority, but I could be wrong) of evolutionary changes involve what you try to dismiss as "the selection of pre-existing traits". Minor changes to the expression of a gene can result in remarkable structural variation.
And if you think "most evolutionary explanations" are "a terrible mix of fantasy and imagination", I'd say you have misunderstood the word "fantasy". Imagination I'll grant you - most scientific theories began as the work of great imaginations. They gain "theory" status by explaining our universe better than any other explanation. If you find that "terrible" (did you mean "terrifying"?), I'd guess it's because your world-view can't handle it...
Cheers!
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I thought I made it clear that evolution and moral arguments have very little to do with one another. You seem to be looking for some kind of moral law.
I know of only one explicitly stated "moral law" based upon evolutionary theory. It's called the Law of Limited Competition, and was popularized by a guy named Daniel Quinn. It goes like this: "You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war."
The reason for the limits is that indulging in the proscribed behaviours is manifestly bad for long-term survival; species which follow the resulting, evolutionarily unstable strategy lose representation in the gene pool.
As to your next moral question, "what difference is a distant human" etc.: Can you demonstrate an evolutionarily stable strategy that results from "destroying those who are inferior"? If you're so messed up as to believe that "another race is evlutionarily inferior", I'm not about to try to change your mind. I'm going to (a) try to put some distance between you and my genes, or (b) get yours out of the pool.
Look, I can't make you care about other people. I happen to believe that we do better AS A SPECIES if we look after each other. Cannibalism can be evolutionarily stable for some species; I'm a little surprised to hear you advocating it, but hey, it's your brain (ick, prions). As I said earlier, though, YMMV. It's hardly my business to choose your morals.
It's a silly argument, anyway. Evolution != moral law. Apples and crankshafts. What response do I give? Mu.
Oh, and arrogance? I suppose the shoe fits. It's probably more impatience than arrogance, but I can see how it looks. Really, though, your arguments are based upon a lack of understanding of evolution and an attempt to apply that misunderstanding to unrelated moral philosophy. It's lame, it's tired, and it's daft. It makes me impatient.
Cheers!
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
***sigh***
OK. Anyone who says "natural selection and evolution no longer takes place for humans" is, IMNSHO, just plain wrong. And furthermore, doesn't understand the concept very well. Culture does not - repeat, does not - replace natural selection! It may alter the environment in which natural selection operates, but you can't convince me that it removes selection pressure. And since everything humans do is "natural", things humans do to change their selection environment is a change to - not the removal of - natural selection.
This is not a new use of evolution, merely the proper application of the model.
As for moral arguments, what of them? Evolution has very little to do with moral arguments of the sort you seem to seek. Try a religion. Heck, try a bunch of them and see which one fits best. My morals are rooted in ecology and the nearly universal Golden Rule, but YMMV.
You make the mistake, though, of thinking that what is good for you will increase your genes' representation in the gene pool. Say it with me, now: "What's good for the individual does not necessarily confer evolutionary advantage."
Thank you for playing. Next!
Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Bzzzt! Wrong. I've let myself be trolled twice today, and my mouth is getting sore from the hooks, but I've got to correct your idiotic post.
First, "Darwinism/evolution" has no "natural (racist) conclusion of Eugenics". Evolution, as a theory - and if you can't handle what "theory" really means, go back to school, I don't want to get into it - describes how genomes change over time. Period. Like it or not, it's working on humans just as it works on every other living thing.
Second, scientists generally do NOT "have a hard time accepting" etc. Helping the poor is quite acceptable; they have not demonstrated a genetic disadvantage in reproduction. In fact, if they are reproducing at a greater rate than those who are not poor, they are demonstrating an advantage! Short term, I would think, but still an advantage.
As for birth defects, most are not carried into the next generation, being caused by either prenatal trauma (of one kind or another) or chromosome replication error. Most people with developmental disabilities, believe it or not, will have genetically normal children if they have any at all.
Close hospitals and ban free choice in human reproduction? What on earth makes you think this is part of the theory of evolution? I suppose some deeply twisted individuals might make a logically flawed argument that this is necessary, but I've never heard it advocated. Got a citation from a reliable source?
Now, personally, I'd like to see reproduction controlled, but only because there are too many people around already. However, that's irrelevant to the theory of evolution; we will be acted upon by selection pressure no matter what. It's the way things work. If we exceed our carrying capacity, a bunch of us will die; the survivors will be those whose genes (and memes, if you're into that kind of thing) confer advantage in that situation.
I'd like to see some kind of quote before I believe that Darwin "wholeheartedly believed in this sort of proposition"; I think that's complete hogwash, but I could be wrong. Again, got a citation from a reliable source?
"Rational believers of intelligent design theory"? Sorry, I don't think there IS a scientific theory of "intelligent design". A bunch of stuff promulgated by religious believers, yes, but I'm not aware of a scientific theory of that nature.
As far as "intelligent design" as a religious proposition (not scientific theory), I think you'd find that MANY scientists believe it to be quite compatible with evolution... the religious ones, anyhow. They just place the design further back in time - say, about 15 billion years further back.
Evolutionary theory describes a mechanism of great beauty and elegance; it's a shame that people's preconceptions often hide that truth from them. Still, if you can get past your prejudice long enough to read some good books on the subject, you might come away with a bit more appreciation for the subject.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
Re:Planned evolution?
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
OK, I shouldn't, but I'll bite. First, mutation is not the only (or even, necessarily, the most important) source of genetic change. Bear in mind that each individual has unique DNA. Normal variation is enough to drive a certain amount of evolution.
Second, your question about whether living on land is beneficial is incorrectly framed. It's not a question of "benefit". The question is, "Will this mutation give the individual's descendants a reproductive edge, however slight?" In the case of moving into a new ecological niche, the answer might well be, "Yes."
Your next layer of argument (mutation not surviving reproduction) is redundant. You have already eliminated harmful mutations; mutations that impair reproduction are by definition harmful. Nothing to see here except obfuscation; move along.
"The chances keep decreasing"? No, the cumulative effect is INCREASED. We're not talking about the likelihood of specific changes to one descent line; we're talking about changes that propagate laterally through a gene pool over time as new genetic combinations provide a reproductive advantage. The math is quite possible; I wouldn't call yours "impossible", just misapplied.
Finally, by what logic do you assert that the twisted bone or shortened muscle to which you refer does not make the specimen more likely to confer reproductive advantage on its progeny (NOT survival)? Your assertion is groundless and poorly stated. In fact, I can think of several ways this physical change could confer reproductive advantage. Perhaps your imagination is more limited. Regardless, the fossil record is full of species (up to and including our own) that found bone and muscle structures tuned to living on land to be useful.
I'd suggest you read some of Richard Dawkins' excellent writing for a better understanding of how evolution is thought to work. Have a nice day.
Reminds me of...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Absolutely. Fixed size at twice the amount of RAM, on a separate disk if possible. It's worked for me since NT4 (through 2K, XP, and server 2003). It's the resizing that really thrashes your disk anyway. Cheers
Hmmm, care assistants comes out top of the list. No surprise there. I've worked in developmental services (working with people with mental disabilities, and yeah, hold the jokes, I *know* we all do that) for many years.
Now I'm lucky enough to have moved out of the front line (great work, low pay) and into a management position where I get to do IT, financial stuff, HR, and more. My pay is decent by non-profit standards, and I really like my job. I still help people; I could argue that I get to help more this way than by doing direct service.
If you're chronically unhappy with your working life, consider working directly with people who need *and appreciate* your help. You might not make a ton of money, but you'll have the best odds at job satisfaction I can think of in a mainstream profession.
Uinigumasuittuq? Never heard that one before - I've always liked Sedna/Nuliaiyok's story by any name, though. I'm not familiar with the air/moon spirit bit, either - if you can post a source, I'd love to read that version. Cheers!
Interesting, my experience has been almost the opposite. I've used both over the years, started out with DSL but had major annoyances with the first generation PPPOE they used.
Switched to Shaw years ago, and found that performance varies wildly depending on location. My current location (Armstrong's Point in Winnipeg) is good during off-peak hours, but performance drops sharply during peak times.
At work, I'm using DSL and have found it fast and seamless. Yes, MTS revamped their mail servers and have had some growing pains, but they seem to be getting them worked out. And their spam and virus filtering is much better since the changes.
That being said, I can't say much about Shaw's spam and virus filtering 'cause I use a FirstClass server for my personal mail. But I haven't noted a lot of problems with MTS besides a couple of mail server outages right after the upgrades.
I'm going to consider what you've said, though, because I'm moving in a few months and was planning on going back to DSL (I'm looking at a highrise apartment building, and figure it will most likely only have one cable node and be slow as a result). Might have to reconsider.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you're going to get a lot of flak from the ACs on that one, but I have to agree. Seems that whenever someone makes this argument, you get people falling back to the idea that both are "natural". Well, duh - of course they are. That's hardly the point.
The point is, only one (sex) is life-affirming and good. Violence, OTOH, is too often the inappropriate problem-solving response of the limited mind. I believe that repeatedly viewing violence, and most especially seeing it presented as an appropriate solution, makes people more likely to think that it IS an appropriate solution when it might not be.
That being said, I didn't let my kids watch TV, period. Don't watch it myself, either - IMNSHO it's brainrotting crap. YMMV of course. And I know we're talking about film/DVD here, but the parent was talking about TV. Cheers!
I don't see any convincing evidence in any of the Wikipedia sources; if you follow the links, they lead either to (1) religious writings, with an obvious reason for bias, or (2) sources that are questioned by non-Christian historians because of the possibility of tampering during transcription.
e ws /TPStory/LAC/20040408/HARPUR08/Entertainment/Idx
Also, I have no particular "faith" that the Christian bible is not accurate. What I said was that I don't consider it an accurate source of historical information. And by the way, it's far from "the only written account of history that goes back that far".
If this sort of thing interests you, though, may I draw your attention to an interesting book I read about today? Tom Harpur, long-time religion columnist for the Toronto Star and former Anglican priest, has written a book called _The Pagan Christ_. In it he discusses the idea that the Christ figure is a synthesis of other religious traditions. There's a Globe and Mail article on it here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleN
The article makes the book sound worth reading. Cheers!
Yikes! Where is that? I've been an election scrutineer in Manitoba and haven't seen anything but hand-counted paper ballots.
Hmmmm... the problem with that is, there aren't any historical records of Jesus' persecution by the Romans. And the Bible is a far-from-reliable source.
That was my middle children's fave film when they were, like, 3 and 5 respectively. Scary or what?
Of course, maybe you knew that...
Right, Darwin didn't have to understand the *chemical details of genetics* to put forward a theory of evolution through natural selection. Just like Newton didn't have to understand the underlying mechanisms of light or gravity to write seminal works on optics or describe gravity.
The rest of your post is confusing nonsense, but I'll try to adress what seem to be points. Yes, you don't have to understand change at every level to comment on or describe change at a given level. Again, Newtonian physics vs. modern quantum/relativistic physics is the perfect example.
Faith, in the religious sense, has nothing to do with science. Science is about evidence. Religion offers no evidence in the scientific sense. Science and religion, rightly, should have nothing to do with each other.
Your use of the terms "theory" and "proof" suggest that you don't understand the scientific meaning of the former or the inapplicability of the latter (try "evidence", of which there is plenty). I suggest a visit to talkorigins.org and a thorough perusal of their FAQs.
As for you being a religious nut, well, it sounds that way to me, but YMMV. Your last few sentences are obviously some new cosmology; have you submitted it for peer review and publication in the journals? I'd love to hear the results.
Oh, and as for science only benefitting the scientist - since that includes technology, do you believe that technology has only helped the person who developed it? If not, you're simply using bad logic.
If that really is what you believe, though, you're a genuine wacko. Congratulations!
Didn't want you to think I've been ignoring your post, but I've become ridiculously busy. Briefly:
My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.
New genes not required to create a new species: isn't this what some folks call "micro-evolution"?
Moths: same species, sure. But species aren't discrete little boxes, with a population jumping neatly from one to another; this example of natural selection is valid. Add up enough such changes, especially in an isolated population, and you have speciation.
Anyway, I don't really have time for this. I suggest you go read the FAQs at talkorigins.org - they cover all this ground quite thoroughly. Cheers!
I'm with you, except for the Fort Garry. Big Rock rules my world, unless I'm in the UK!
In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations. This is the molecular mechanism of Darwinian 'alteration of genetic material'.
Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc. Even that, though, is not the whole story; remember that every individual (broadly speaking) has a unique arrangement of genetic material. Evolutionary forces work upon both unique arrangements and the products of mutation and other forces.
An oft-quoted example of this is the pepper moth, a common insect of the British Isles. The pepper moth, like many species, has two distinct colour phases - individuals may be light or dark.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the light phase was most common, because light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.
Through mutation, selection and isolation new species are said to have evolved (macro-evolution) and within one species adaptive changes according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. But forming of a _new species_ requires formation of _new genes_.
Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient.
I don't have the time to translate all this. (At least not now)
How convenient. Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".
Micro-evolutionary processes are mostly processes of optimization.
The whole micro- vs. macro-evolution thing is one enormous red herring perpetrated by people who could not refute the inescapable, demonstrated fact of evolution through natural selection. Evolution in general (micro-, macro-, myxo-, whatever) is not a process of optimisation per se. It is a process whereby natural variation in genetic material is sifted on the basis of ability to propagate in a particular situation. Your use of the term "optimisation", which implies a goal or value, is incorrect.
Cheers!
Overall, I agree with you. That being said, though, I've worked with people with mental disabilities for many years. The *majority* of my clients' diagnoses involve either trauma or chromosome damage/replication error. That's where I was coming from with that particular part of my post. You're bang on about the recessive thing, though, and I've often wondered how much of the replication error is DUE to recessives...
;-)
And on intelligent design, I'd say we agree. I was being conde^H^H^H^H^Hdiplomatic. I wouldn't even go so far as you do and call intelligent design a "theory" - I try to reserve that word for its proper scientific meaning.
Cheers!
so a trait that confers survival advantage of our species is neither undesireable nor desireable? Asking as a human, why not?
;-)
Because you're talking about evolution, which is a natural force. It doesn't desire things; it doesn't even want to be anthropomorphized.
If you're asking whether I consider a given trait to be desireable, you're asking a different question. Likewise, whether you consider a given trait to be desireable. Or Joe. Or Jane. But the traits that we (as fallible human beings) consider desireable are not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species". They don't particularly matter, for reasons stated already.
are you saying that we should stop using our thinking powers to present greater advantages in the long-term viability of the species?
Not at all. I'm saying that your reductio ad absurdum argument against doing so is not a valid indictment of evolutionary theory, but rather an indictment of your own suggested use of our thinking powers. It's the old bait'n'switch.
As for your opinion that "we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them": it's just that - your opinion. Or rather, in this case, a strawman (let me know if you don't know what that means).
Kant suggested that if a theory, carried out to its extreme, results in an impossible condition, then it must be wrong. While I can't totally agree with either Kant or Darwin, I think that there is value in looking at the extremes of ideas, regardless of whether those extremes actually come to pass or not. I was merely trying to show that evolution can very easily devolve into genocide.
And you figure that genocide is impossible? Ask the Jews, the Tutsi, et cetera ad nauseum. Again, you're indulging in faulty logic and bait'n'switch. You're not trying to show logical inconsistency, you're trying to derive morality from natural law and then argue against that morality.
I stand by what I said about the logical abilities displayed in your posts. Cheers!
Talk about missing the point. Darwin *didn't* see "genocide of 'inferior' races as the natural cause of his own theory". He saw genocide as a possible *effect*.
Neither did he "present natural selection as being a universally good thing". He presented it as a mechanism to explain evolution. Did Newton present his physics as a "universally good thing"? No, he presented them as an explanation. Stop trying to read morality into natural law and then attacking the resulting morality - it's moronic, and akin to insisting that gravity is evil because people hurt themselves when they fall. WTF?
Now, on to your syllogism:
A. Flawed because traits are neither desireable nor undesireable; they simply confer differing degrees of survival advantage in different situations.
B. Flawed because "reinforcement of those traits" is not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species". The species will be acted upon by whatever selection pressure exists. Period. News flash: Humans don't have to take any action for evolution to work. In fact, it worked just fine before we came along, and will work just fine after we're gone.
C. Finally you got something right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, for the record, I believe that it's not evil to prevent people with undesirable traits from passing them on. It might well be misguided, it might well be implemented badly, but I don't think it "evil" in a blanket sense.
However, that has nothing to do with evolution. Humans have no place judging whether a given set of genes are *evolutionarily viable* - and we don't need to. Evolution through natural selection will determine both viability and long-term success.
As to your notions about Darwin's racism, how do you explain the racism of the people around him, who espoused exactly the same racist ideas without agreeing with his new theory? How about his predecessors, who also had the same racist ideas? You've got cause and effect mixed up - again!
Not surprising, given the quality of the stuff you've tried to pass off as "logical" in your posts. Cheers!
Good try. However, parsing that carefully, I read Darwin as stating two things:
1) The "civilized races", etc. (first sentence)
- Genocidal practices of the colonial era, anyone? I don't see Darwin ENDORSING this - just saying it will "almost certainly" happen. Which it has. And may continue to.
2) "...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between" etc. (final sentences)
- Again, this is already happening; most great ape species (with the exception of ourselves, if you count us) are in danger of extinction. I read this as Darwin hoping that (hu)man(ity) attains a more civilized state. Of course, he's also indulging in the Caucasion-centric view of civilization that was typical of his culture...
But so what? Although certain people like to toss around the term "Darwinism", it's a false characterization. The theory of evolution has come a long way, baby. Just because the first guy to put forward a coherent statement of evolution through natural selection had some of the same wacky ideas as his compatriots doesn't make the theory wrong.
Cheers!
...over a better medium. You can reach me at slashstuff@flyingorca.net - I may not have much time, but I'll give it a go. Cheers!
Looking for a reference? Richard Dawkins deals extensively with the evolution of the eye - numerous times, numerous mechanisms. Chapter 5 of _Climbing Mount Improbable_, entitled "Forty-fold Path To Enlightenment", is a good place to start.
The evidence for evolution is all around you. It's in every living thing, it's in the fossil record, and it's in recorded natural history. If anyone has "seriously misunderstood the issues", it's you. Your blatant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory and mechanisms demonstrate that you simply don't understand it. I'm not knocking your intellect, and I'm not trying to condescend; I'm trying to point out your obvious need for some better information.
There's no such thing as "invented evolutionary steps". There's no such thing as "the smaller steps between those steps". Evolution is a process, though the punctuated-equilibrium model posits a process that varies in "speed".
Also, Darwin didn't need to know "how complex life really was at the micro level". Scientists of his time understood the concept of heredity. At the most basic level, as you put it, it's just genes doing their thing. Many (I would think the vast majority, but I could be wrong) of evolutionary changes involve what you try to dismiss as "the selection of pre-existing traits". Minor changes to the expression of a gene can result in remarkable structural variation.
And if you think "most evolutionary explanations" are "a terrible mix of fantasy and imagination", I'd say you have misunderstood the word "fantasy". Imagination I'll grant you - most scientific theories began as the work of great imaginations. They gain "theory" status by explaining our universe better than any other explanation. If you find that "terrible" (did you mean "terrifying"?), I'd guess it's because your world-view can't handle it...
Cheers!
I thought I made it clear that evolution and moral arguments have very little to do with one another. You seem to be looking for some kind of moral law.
I know of only one explicitly stated "moral law" based upon evolutionary theory. It's called the Law of Limited Competition, and was popularized by a guy named Daniel Quinn. It goes like this: "You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war."
The reason for the limits is that indulging in the proscribed behaviours is manifestly bad for long-term survival; species which follow the resulting, evolutionarily unstable strategy lose representation in the gene pool.
As to your next moral question, "what difference is a distant human" etc.: Can you demonstrate an evolutionarily stable strategy that results from "destroying those who are inferior"? If you're so messed up as to believe that "another race is evlutionarily inferior", I'm not about to try to change your mind. I'm going to (a) try to put some distance between you and my genes, or (b) get yours out of the pool.
Look, I can't make you care about other people. I happen to believe that we do better AS A SPECIES if we look after each other. Cannibalism can be evolutionarily stable for some species; I'm a little surprised to hear you advocating it, but hey, it's your brain (ick, prions). As I said earlier, though, YMMV. It's hardly my business to choose your morals.
It's a silly argument, anyway. Evolution != moral law. Apples and crankshafts. What response do I give? Mu.
Oh, and arrogance? I suppose the shoe fits. It's probably more impatience than arrogance, but I can see how it looks. Really, though, your arguments are based upon a lack of understanding of evolution and an attempt to apply that misunderstanding to unrelated moral philosophy. It's lame, it's tired, and it's daft. It makes me impatient.
Cheers!
***sigh***
OK. Anyone who says "natural selection and evolution no longer takes place for humans" is, IMNSHO, just plain wrong. And furthermore, doesn't understand the concept very well. Culture does not - repeat, does not - replace natural selection! It may alter the environment in which natural selection operates, but you can't convince me that it removes selection pressure. And since everything humans do is "natural", things humans do to change their selection environment is a change to - not the removal of - natural selection.
This is not a new use of evolution, merely the proper application of the model.
As for moral arguments, what of them? Evolution has very little to do with moral arguments of the sort you seem to seek. Try a religion. Heck, try a bunch of them and see which one fits best. My morals are rooted in ecology and the nearly universal Golden Rule, but YMMV.
You make the mistake, though, of thinking that what is good for you will increase your genes' representation in the gene pool. Say it with me, now: "What's good for the individual does not necessarily confer evolutionary advantage."
Thank you for playing. Next!
Bzzzt! Wrong. I've let myself be trolled twice today, and my mouth is getting sore from the hooks, but I've got to correct your idiotic post.
First, "Darwinism/evolution" has no "natural (racist) conclusion of Eugenics". Evolution, as a theory - and if you can't handle what "theory" really means, go back to school, I don't want to get into it - describes how genomes change over time. Period. Like it or not, it's working on humans just as it works on every other living thing.
Second, scientists generally do NOT "have a hard time accepting" etc. Helping the poor is quite acceptable; they have not demonstrated a genetic disadvantage in reproduction. In fact, if they are reproducing at a greater rate than those who are not poor, they are demonstrating an advantage! Short term, I would think, but still an advantage.
As for birth defects, most are not carried into the next generation, being caused by either prenatal trauma (of one kind or another) or chromosome replication error. Most people with developmental disabilities, believe it or not, will have genetically normal children if they have any at all.
Close hospitals and ban free choice in human reproduction? What on earth makes you think this is part of the theory of evolution? I suppose some deeply twisted individuals might make a logically flawed argument that this is necessary, but I've never heard it advocated. Got a citation from a reliable source?
Now, personally, I'd like to see reproduction controlled, but only because there are too many people around already. However, that's irrelevant to the theory of evolution; we will be acted upon by selection pressure no matter what. It's the way things work. If we exceed our carrying capacity, a bunch of us will die; the survivors will be those whose genes (and memes, if you're into that kind of thing) confer advantage in that situation.
I'd like to see some kind of quote before I believe that Darwin "wholeheartedly believed in this sort of proposition"; I think that's complete hogwash, but I could be wrong. Again, got a citation from a reliable source?
"Rational believers of intelligent design theory"? Sorry, I don't think there IS a scientific theory of "intelligent design". A bunch of stuff promulgated by religious believers, yes, but I'm not aware of a scientific theory of that nature.
As far as "intelligent design" as a religious proposition (not scientific theory), I think you'd find that MANY scientists believe it to be quite compatible with evolution... the religious ones, anyhow. They just place the design further back in time - say, about 15 billion years further back.
Evolutionary theory describes a mechanism of great beauty and elegance; it's a shame that people's preconceptions often hide that truth from them. Still, if you can get past your prejudice long enough to read some good books on the subject, you might come away with a bit more appreciation for the subject.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
OK, I shouldn't, but I'll bite. First, mutation is not the only (or even, necessarily, the most important) source of genetic change. Bear in mind that each individual has unique DNA. Normal variation is enough to drive a certain amount of evolution.
Second, your question about whether living on land is beneficial is incorrectly framed. It's not a question of "benefit". The question is, "Will this mutation give the individual's descendants a reproductive edge, however slight?" In the case of moving into a new ecological niche, the answer might well be, "Yes."
Your next layer of argument (mutation not surviving reproduction) is redundant. You have already eliminated harmful mutations; mutations that impair reproduction are by definition harmful. Nothing to see here except obfuscation; move along.
"The chances keep decreasing"? No, the cumulative effect is INCREASED. We're not talking about the likelihood of specific changes to one descent line; we're talking about changes that propagate laterally through a gene pool over time as new genetic combinations provide a reproductive advantage. The math is quite possible; I wouldn't call yours "impossible", just misapplied.
Finally, by what logic do you assert that the twisted bone or shortened muscle to which you refer does not make the specimen more likely to confer reproductive advantage on its progeny (NOT survival)? Your assertion is groundless and poorly stated. In fact, I can think of several ways this physical change could confer reproductive advantage. Perhaps your imagination is more limited. Regardless, the fossil record is full of species (up to and including our own) that found bone and muscle structures tuned to living on land to be useful.
I'd suggest you read some of Richard Dawkins' excellent writing for a better understanding of how evolution is thought to work. Have a nice day.
the epaulette shark:
p ro files/orectolobiformes.htm
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/shark_
(scroll down)
It uses its limbs to "walk" around, and will even "walk" away when threatened rather than swimming (which would be faster, one thinks).
Absolutely. Fixed size at twice the amount of RAM, on a separate disk if possible. It's worked for me since NT4 (through 2K, XP, and server 2003). It's the resizing that really thrashes your disk anyway. Cheers
1
Hmmm, care assistants comes out top of the list. No surprise there. I've worked in developmental services (working with people with mental disabilities, and yeah, hold the jokes, I *know* we all do that) for many years.
Now I'm lucky enough to have moved out of the front line (great work, low pay) and into a management position where I get to do IT, financial stuff, HR, and more. My pay is decent by non-profit standards, and I really like my job. I still help people; I could argue that I get to help more this way than by doing direct service.
If you're chronically unhappy with your working life, consider working directly with people who need *and appreciate* your help. You might not make a ton of money, but you'll have the best odds at job satisfaction I can think of in a mainstream profession.
Sure you can. Just design and code for standards, and make sure you do it in such a way that IE isn't too badly broken. It's quite doable. Cheers!
Uinigumasuittuq? Never heard that one before - I've always liked Sedna/Nuliaiyok's story by any name, though. I'm not familiar with the air/moon spirit bit, either - if you can post a source, I'd love to read that version. Cheers!
Interesting, my experience has been almost the opposite. I've used both over the years, started out with DSL but had major annoyances with the first generation PPPOE they used.
Switched to Shaw years ago, and found that performance varies wildly depending on location. My current location (Armstrong's Point in Winnipeg) is good during off-peak hours, but performance drops sharply during peak times.
At work, I'm using DSL and have found it fast and seamless. Yes, MTS revamped their mail servers and have had some growing pains, but they seem to be getting them worked out. And their spam and virus filtering is much better since the changes.
That being said, I can't say much about Shaw's spam and virus filtering 'cause I use a FirstClass server for my personal mail. But I haven't noted a lot of problems with MTS besides a couple of mail server outages right after the upgrades.
I'm going to consider what you've said, though, because I'm moving in a few months and was planning on going back to DSL (I'm looking at a highrise apartment building, and figure it will most likely only have one cable node and be slow as a result). Might have to reconsider.
Cheers!