Topic: Observed major evolution occurs for the first time (Read 8406 times)

  • Avatar of dom
  • Chapter Four: The Imagination And Where It Leads
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Nov 9, 2003
  • Posts: 1022
I believe that one of the objects of most debate in the process of evolution is to define what exaclty are the events that determine the prevalence of one genetic trait over other, and when is that evolution leads to developement rather than mere conditioning.... To be honest I haven't been reading a lot about it since I left school so Idk if anything has been agreed but still, I believe these are the most interesting facets of the evolution theory.
go back to school
  • Avatar of EvilDemonCreature
  • i don't like change
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jul 5, 2002
  • Posts: 1453
The funniest thing about this topic is that there really are good arguments for God's existance based on conclusions drawn from scientific inquiry. Actual arguments that stem beyond "Well we can't explain it so that means God did it". (Of course people that don't acknowledge scientific inquiry out of some compusion to not offend God aren't going to be able to come across those ideas or even be willing to accept the speculation about the nature of God that arises from it)

The core problem of this issue is people refusing to acknowledge God's role outside of "Explaining the unexplainable". Theese types of people cling onto their "God of the gaps" and therefore reject any kind of new explanation or phoenomina because that means one step closer to "disproving God".

I can easily acknowledge that God created the universe (Thanks to Einstein's relativity, all you have to do is change your frame of reference. Instead of saying "God created the universe", you can just say "Whatever created the universe is God" and then the contraversy on that matter practically evaporates).

So if that is the case, and we were created in this universe with a capacity to work towards understanding God's creation, then why would it be aganst God's will to utilize that capacity? Wouldn't trying to understand God's creation bring us closer to God? It's like finding a watch in the woods (an popular argument for intelligent design), it's obvious that someone created it and it's more than "simply there". If you encounter something as unexplainable as a watch in the woods, wouldn't taking it apart and finding out how it works tell you at least SOMETHING about what the person who made the watch was thinking (at least while he was making it)?

Intelligent design proponents people don't seem to like to think about what was God thinking when he created the processes behind complex life, because not only do they not even attempt to break down and test the processes behind their "theories about how life "formed" (if they have any at all), but they adamantly reject any consistent idea as to how those mechanisms could possibly work.

This issue is touchy with me, because it is because of theese closed additudes and rejection of understanding that turned me away from God to begin with. It wasn't until I persued scientific study to the limits of what humanity currently understands about the nature of the universe that I caught a glimpse of how God fits into that nature. Only then could I begin to reconsile my relationship with God, and start figuring out how to listen and understand his will. (before then, all I could do was close my eyes, hold my hand together, and try to request a chat with him through some instant-messaging service in heaven that connects to my soul)
  • None of them knew they were robots.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Nov 5, 2006
  • Posts: 3242
30,000 generations to metabolise citrate, how long to get rid of an appendix?

It is still there because it's absence is not really an advantage
Play Raimond Ex (if you haven't already)


I'll not TAKE ANYTHING you write like this seriously because it looks dumb
  • Avatar of Frankie
  • Phylactère Colaaaaaa!
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 25, 2002
  • Posts: 473
EDC:
I'm not sure saying "whatever created the universe is god" really solves anything, if it hints at an intelligent designer, because many people actually have a problem with the very idea of an intelligent designer, no matter what the nature of this designer would be.

The problem is simply that an intelligent designer is an horribly complex explanation for the universe, and it just seems arbitrary to believe in this rather than simply say, "I don't know where the universe comes from." Which really goes back at the "god of the gaps" argument!

Unless you just mean "whatever created the universe, no matter whether intelligent or not, could be called "god", but in this case, its not really affirming anything. Its just like, semantics. Like, simplifying the definition of god to "Whatever caused the universe". You could just as well say "lets agree to disagree" and close the argument! (Many would argue its a good idea though.)



This is getting a little off topic though, so:

(Message to religious people and creationists reading the following: don't be offended if my tone sounds condescending: keep in mind that to me your belief is as silly as is Greek mythology to you. And as silly as Greek mythology might be, ancient Greece as had many geniuses and great people, so all this is in no way an insult to your intelligence.)

I don't think revealing actual observational proof of evolution is going to do much for creationists, since that to them, this could very well have been caused by God, as a new test of their faith. You can't really convince creationists really, since any argument you could possibly conceive can be seen as a new test of their faith. Even the following argument could be actually, but I think its harder to rationalize as a test of faith than most other arguments:

The only way you can shake a very religious person's belief in creationism is by making them realize that while they can explain why they choose to believe in one god's creation story rather than science, they usually can't explain why they choose to believe in this exact creation story rather than one from some other religion.
The only possible rationalization for this is that this god makes more sense to them, that they simply like this god more than another. But this here is likely to give them a doubt, since it forces them to realize their belief is based on what they want to believe, "personal taste", rather than some sort of concrete idea. It makes them realize that they don't actually have any *reason* to believe in one creation story over another.
This doubt is unlikely to ever get anywhere, but its probably the closest one can go to "convincing" a creationist of how irrational creationism is.
It might be enough to convince anyone who is just a "creationist by default" though. People who just never really thought about it and simply believe in this because their parents told them to when they were kids, and just went on with their lives without thinking about this or even caring. I was lucky enough to be that kind of "religious by default" person myself, it is probably why I could be convinced by it in the first place.
Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 05:38:55 pm by Frankie
Bloggin' | Website | Tubin'|Tweetin'
  • Insane teacher
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 8, 2002
  • Posts: 10515
please keep this up so when I'm back up to like 100% it will be like supernova shit going off.




seriously someone just respouted Aquinas's argument lmao.
brian chemicals
  • Avatar of alfungo
  • A fungi is a mushroom who likes to party!
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: May 9, 2005
  • Posts: 144
I love how people will believe in God. Many years ago it was agreed (by believers) God created the heavens and the earth, animals and what not. Now, as always happens when science faces religion in some context; religion fails, people will believe in theories of, for example, the big bang, but wait! God created that too! They have wriggled and wrapped their God around the science that defeated the old belief. Of course this is a simplified idea but it illustrates the point that religion will always fail when in contest with science.
Science is built on irrefutable fact. Religion doesn't have a scrap of fact to call it's own and has always been defeated in contest with science. That's why the church fears science and has, in the past, tried to discredit discoveries and punish scientists.

Also, it seems that from reading this thread, a lot of people don't have a good understanding of the theory of natural selection or have invented their own ideas around what they percieved it to be.

I do not respect beople's belief in God. If it gives you some kind of comfort like a fairy story does a child, fair enough, I can't say that's a bad thing but it's not worthy of any kind of respect. I don't want to offend anyone, you probably don't even want my respect (it's not worth much anyway).
  • Avatar of Dale Gobbler
  • Meh.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Dec 24, 2003
  • Posts: 2079
If early man knew about science and shit, we wouldn't have religion or god. They created god and religion to explain things like that big ball of fire movin' all up in that big blue sky.
m
ohap
  • Avatar of Lars
  • Fuck off!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Apr 7, 2003
  • Posts: 2360
If early man didn't have psychedelics, we wouldn't have religion or god. They created god and religion to explain crazy shit like that groovin' tree that spoke in tounges while shifting in colours.
  • None of them knew they were robots.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Nov 5, 2006
  • Posts: 3242
If early man didn't have mental illness, we wouldn't have religion or god. They created god and religion because they heard voices in their heads.
Play Raimond Ex (if you haven't already)


I'll not TAKE ANYTHING you write like this seriously because it looks dumb
  • Avatar of 4Dsheep
  • 4Dsheep at your service!
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 25, 2003
  • Posts: 367
- This discovery about bacterium does not prove that evolution created everything there is today. Can you actually think of a reason/argument why we evolved into the only intelligent beings, instead of whopping my posts around? Why aren't there variations to humans, like intelligent humans with large arms and hands? Or jaws? Or whatever? Surely that would help that species survive natural selection. If the chance that only ONE species evolves into intelligent beings exists, then the chance of humans evolving into stronger beings surely exist too.
One annoyed biologist rant coming up!

Dude, why don't you just use that brain you've been so randomly endowed with.

Important principle in just about anything: trade-off. Basically, "cheap, fast, good, pick any two". There are strong, long-armed humanoids with big jaws. We call those gorillas. The point is: if you're at the top of the food chain already, why change? What good are big brains if you don't need them to thrive? Somehow evolving them for the heck of it will only cost you huge amounts of resources, and the chance you'll fuck up big-time is so large, it's best to, you know, not take the risk, and therefore evolution doesn't work that way right now. And huge dumb primates they remained, or whatever gets the Aesop across.

Humans, on the other hand, have worked themselves into a bit of a pickle. Not only are we weak, we also go reeeeal slooooooow relative to everyone else, evolutionarily speaking. It takes us over a decade, sometimes two decades to pass on our genes to very little offspring. We simply couldn't rely on natural selection to take us out of the mess we worked ourselves in genetically. What else was left? That's right, memetics. Now, we know animals use it, and primates in particular (knowing which stuff is food and then showing your children). It's cheap, easy, and improving it doesn't always require the death of over half of the population. You can just pass it on without the squick. Sure, it's not perfect, but it works, just like gorillas work. Consider this: If the gorilla gets by without brains but with brute strength, why wouldn't the human get by without brute strength but with brains? Claws are irrelevant once you have spears. Fur is irrelevant once you have clothing. Being super-fit physically is irrelevant once you're super-fit mentally, and a waste of resources. That's why.

And we're not the only intelligent beings. We've just out-lasted our competitors (Neanderthals et al). Apparently, sapience is a very narrow niche, and if you were educated you'd know what happens when two species inhabit the same niche: competition, usually leading to the (nigh) extinction of one and the survival of the other. It's how these things work. Evolution isn't a steady progression from bacterium to homo sapiens -- it's littered with the corpses of innumerable failures. Extinct species outnumber living species a trillion to one-trillionth. Evolution is speciation and extinction (creating new species and destroying old species, respectively), whatever works at the time lives, and what doesn't work dies, until something different works, wash, rinse, repeat.

Evolution is just so fucking obvious, and if there's one thing I just can't grasp is how the majority of the human population isn't sentient enough to understand it. What works, works, and what stays, stays. It's nice to know why specific things work and stay, but it is not necessary to come to such an obvious conclusion as this. Natural selection seems to be one of the most basic principles of the universe. Maybe it even evolved that way, and there's hundreds of lifeless, entropic, failed universes scattered about. Be happy you live in this one.


Also: Scientists watch Darwin's finches evolve

tl;dr version: Invasive species of finch nearly makes native, comparable species of finch extinct, which then changes its niche (something called character displacement) and is now going strong again, only entirely different, in just two decades' time, and is documented start to finish. Evolution, right in your face.
"Field Marshal Haig is about to make yet another gargantuan effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches close to Berlin."

Sam: "What assurance do you give, Taraka, that this bargain will be kept?"
Taraka: "My word? I shall be happy to swear by anything you care to name--"
Sam: "A facility with oaths is not the most reassuring quality in a bargainer..."
  • Avatar of losc
  • Also known as Pinecone
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Aug 9, 2005
  • Posts: 177
good job 4d sheep. No seriously that pretty much sums it up, thank you.
  • Avatar of Lars
  • Fuck off!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Apr 7, 2003
  • Posts: 2360
also evolution has no counsciousness a lot of people seem to not get this

"well if evolution is true why do xxx have xxx useless abilities?"

abilities or genetically traits that are irrelevant to that species' survival will randomly pop up as time passes, also traits that are potentially dangerous can survive if it doesnt affect the ability to reproduce and raise children (like people dying at 50 isn't a big problem if you start having kids at 20 and raise them until they're adults) (this can technically also be a benefitial trait since it stops overcrowding SO YEAH EVOLUTION IS WHAT KILLS YOU!)

so ye evolution isnt a POSITIVE WORD or anything much like DEVOLUTION isnt a biological term at all, what people consider devolution is actually evolution, and genetical offspring that will make humans increasingly stupid overall is still evolution even if it doesnt benefit us at all!!

LOL
  • Avatar of Ragnar
  • Worthless Protoplasm
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 15, 2002
  • Posts: 6536
Yeah fuck my little toe
http://djsaint-hubert.bandcamp.com/
 
  • Avatar of the_bub_from_the_pit
  • Power to the flowers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Dec 17, 2005
  • Posts: 1608
"well if evolution is true why do xxx have xxx useless abilities?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
It is still there because it's absence is not really an advantage

my point was 30,000 generations is a really really long time. the appendix used to digest cellulose or something.
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Avatar of `~congresman Ron paul~~
  • Legio Morbidius
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 18, 2006
  • Posts: 2653
my point was 30,000 generations is a really really long time. the appendix used to digest cellulose or something.

The appendix is still around because it serves as a breeding ground for intestinal bacteria which can replenish the bacteria in your intestines if they are wiped out by sickness, ingesting toxins, parasites, etc.

This is also why the appendix can get toxic.

That’s right, you have the young gaming with the old(er), white people gaming with black people, men and women, Asian countries gaming with the EU, North Americans gaming with South Americans. Much like world sporting events like the Wolrd Cup, or the Olympics will bring together different nations in friendly competition, (note the recent Asian Cup; Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia, no violence there) we come together. The differences being, we are not divided by our nationalities and we do it 24-7, and on a personal level.

We are a community without borders and without colours, the spirit and diversity of the gaming community is one that should be looked up to, a spirit and diversity other groups should strive toward.
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
yeah my point was only 30,000 generations is a really long time i don't care about the appendix, substitute it for any other trait humans have evolved
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Avatar of `~congresman Ron paul~~
  • Legio Morbidius
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 18, 2006
  • Posts: 2653
yeah my point was only 30,000 generations is a really long time i don't care about the appendix, substitute it for any other trait humans have evolved

clothing has made hair unnecessary :fogetgasp:

That’s right, you have the young gaming with the old(er), white people gaming with black people, men and women, Asian countries gaming with the EU, North Americans gaming with South Americans. Much like world sporting events like the Wolrd Cup, or the Olympics will bring together different nations in friendly competition, (note the recent Asian Cup; Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia, no violence there) we come together. The differences being, we are not divided by our nationalities and we do it 24-7, and on a personal level.

We are a community without borders and without colours, the spirit and diversity of the gaming community is one that should be looked up to, a spirit and diversity other groups should strive toward.
  • Avatar of Fatboys #4
  • My username is Tekk, I have the Fatboys virus
  • Pip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2002
  • Posts: 198
Meh. Evidence for evolution is exactly that, not evidence for the nonexistence of Big G. There was a show about dinosaurs or some shit where they did experiments with chickens and they were able to make some with teeth, hair, etc. by fucking around with some genes and  bypassing the switch that turns on or off certain genes. Pretty cool stuff.
Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 02:34:23 am by Fatboys #4
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
clothing has made hair unnecessary :fogetgasp:

CAN YOUR MOTHER NOT AFFORD CLOTHES????
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S