A note on Evolution

[scribble]

Oh, is this to imply that some of us are on the lower rung of the evolutionary ladder then?

Heh - if you've listened at all, you knwo why that cannot be true.

Abysmally stupid? Come on now ...

Sorry if you consider yourself a Fundie. Do what I do: whenever someone slanders a group I might consider myself part of, I just think, "yeah, but they didn't mean *me*."

If it helps to know who I have in mind when I say "fundies are abysmally stupid," I have in mind myself, back when I was a fundamentalist.

 

[Iacchus]

Heh - if you've listened at all, you knwo why that cannot be true.

Heh, well it sounds like you're putting someone at a "lower level" than you. And then there's the saying which says, "Some of us are more equal [regarding equal rights] than others." Ever hear of that one?

Sorry if you consider yourself a Fundie. Do what I do: whenever someone slanders a group I might consider myself part of, I just think, "yeah, but they didn't mean *me*."

No I don't consider myself a "fundie." Just pointing out the contradiction here.

If it helps to know who I have in mind when I say "fundies are abysmally stupid," I have in mind myself, back when I was a fundamentalist.

Do you think maybe this is why Hitler despised the Jews so much? Because he was part Jewish himself? (or, at least this is what I have heard).

 

[scribble]

Heh, well it sounds like you're putting someone at a "lower level" than you. And then there's the saying which says, "Some of us are more equal [regarding equal rights] than others." Ever hear of that one?

Absolutely. however, the truth is exactly as I said the first time: fry cooks and garbagemen are a *necessity*. I would not want to live life without someone else to make my food and clean up my mess.

So you can think of them as "lower" than me if you wish. Am I "higher" than they are? My own philosophical views don't really allow me to view people in those terms. I'm surprised yours do.

No I don't consider myself a "fundie." Just pointing out the contradiction here.

No contradiction, as I've explained. But I'm open to hearing why you think otherwise.

Do you think maybe this is why Hitler despised the Jews so much? Because he was part Jewish himself? (or, at least this is what I have heard).

You're lucky I consider Godwin's Law to be bulls**t.

 

[Iacchus]

Am I "higher" than they are? My own philosophical views don't really allow me to view people in those terms. I'm surprised yours do.

Yeah, and I can't remember the last time I called someone abysmally stupid either.

You're lucky I consider Godwin's Law to be bulls**t.

Godwin's Law? Who or what is that?

 

[Dancing David]

How would they adapt if there was no environment to adapt to though? So yes, the sun has very much to do with providing a suitable environment.

Iachus:

Thanks you have just stated one of the grossest of the errors in thinking about evolution. And it is one that I hadn't even thought of until I was reading this thread. So thanks! Because it is an error that people make all the time in talking about evolution.

The theory of 'natural selection' says that an organism will breed more successfully and will pass on it's genes if it does breed more sucessfully.

It is an error of thought to think that organisms directly adapt to the enviroment.

1. Organism goes through a change.
2. Change is beneficial to reproductive success.
3. Change is not beneficial to reproductive success.
4. Change is detrimental to reproductive success.

In case 2 and 3 the organsism is likely to continue passing on it's genes. But either way the changes are blind to the enviroment that the organism fins themselves in.

A. The organism's reproductive success has little to do with an enviromental exploitation.
B. The organism's reproductive success has a lot to do with an enviromental exploitation.
C. The organism's reproductive success is related to it being able to exploit an enviroment that it doesn't find itself in.


This will bear thinking, but it would be a form of determisnism to think that evolution casuses organsisms to adapt to thier enviroment. It is just a beneficial to think that organisms will move into enviroments they can exploite.

Thanks again Iachuss, I hadn't realised this error until IO read your post.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, my opposable thumbs and ability to walk upright often come in handy.

Fordama

I agree the traits that allow us to manipluate objects are crucial to human survival, over the intelligence that arose.

 

[Dancing David]

I was just at the zoo, and so I can tell you at least *some* primates (ie: the ones I saw) can walk upright, no problem. I didn't get to look at their thumbs up close but I always assumed they were opposable.

Ah, but can they walk upright for extended distances and can they run?

 

[scribble]

Yeah, and I can't remember the last time I called someone abysmally stupid either.

Well, perhaps you cannot see the worth in abysmally stupid people, despite my illustrations.

Scribble said
I would not want to live life without someone else to make my food and clean up my mess.

So you can think of them as "lower" than me if you wish.

Ask yourself, Iacchus, which you consider the "higher" being: the one capable of feeding itself and cleaning up it's own mess, or the one that relies on others to perform these basic tasks?

Godwin's Law? Who or what is that?

It's a little "internet rule" that says if you mention Hitler, the conversation is over. You can look it up.

 

[Doctor X]

Ever the pendant:

Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely recognised codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Computing-Dictionary

Here is a nice discussion of the history of the law and Michael Godwin:

World IQ

--J.D.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, perhaps you cannot see the worth in abysmally stupid people, despite my illustrations.

Well, if you were to say "abysmally deluded" people (reagarding the "fundies") I might understand that, but that doesn't necessarily imply stupidity. Quite often it's a cultural thing, and most people can't help but be brought up under the circumstances they were born under.

Ask yourself, Iacchus, which you consider the "higher" being: the one capable of feeding itself and cleaning up it's own mess, or the one that relies on others to perform these basic tasks?

I would think that's all a matter of perspective.

It's a little "internet rule" that says if you mention Hitler, the conversation is over. You can look it up.

I think it's a load of BS too but I'll try not to bring it up again. Thanks.

 

[Iacchus]

Iachus:

Thanks you have just stated one of the grossest of the errors in thinking about evolution. And it is one that I hadn't even thought of until I was reading this thread. So thanks! Because it is an error that people make all the time in talking about evolution.

The theory of 'natural selection' says that an organism will breed more successfully and will pass on it's genes if it does breed more sucessfully.

Thanks. I guess? ...

It is an error of thought to think that organisms directly adapt to the enviroment.

However, I'm not sure this is entirely untrue either, because I was just reading somewhere that under severe conditions (environmental stress) animals will begin to undergo hormonal changes and begin to adapt to the harsher conditions at that point. Of course whether this is something which is passed on through the genes or not I don't know?

 

[hammegk]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the sun. It simply says that life forms adapt to their environment.

Hmm. Yeah, life may be evolving like crazy in deep space (fueled by zero-point energy and the few non-virtual photons that would be available ).

That's like saying math wouldn't exist if you took away human fingers...

Worthy of a thread. Is math an existent or does math require that sentience be a prior existent?

WTF: this is a Philosophy Forum ...

 

[Eos of the Eons]

And yet when they died off, it wasn't due to anything of their own accord was it? Wasn't it because an asteriod or a comet hit the earth?

The asteroid or comet caused climate change. The change was drastic enough that it changed the whole world. The largest dinos didn't have the traits (genes) needed in order to survive in the colder world with different vegetation.

They didn't have the intelligence to farm what they needed, or change food to suit their needs like we can.

They just plain couldn't cope on their own accord.

 

[Doctor X]

Of course whether this is something which is passed on through the genes or not I don't know?

It is not.

--J.D.

 

[Iacchus]

You'll never understand evolution if you cloud your thinking with words like advanced. Evolution only cares about fitness. Our perception of 'advanced' or 'higher' life forms has absolutely nothing to do with it and is entirely based on criteria we create.

Sorry to bring this up again, but there's nothing terribly "fit" about human beings compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Albeit we certainly have a way of sitting on our laurels and deliberately taking advantage of most everything else we see now don't we? So, by virtue of the fact that we've brought the whole world under our subjegation make us more adanced or not? Or, does that just make us ecological freaks?

Also, do you think mother nature would be willing to fess up to this? If, in fact it was her mistake? Or, would she disavow any knowledge of us entirely?

 

[Doctor X]

"What but design of darkness to appall,
If design govern in a thing so small."

--Robert Frost, Design

--J.D.

 

[Iacchus]

Of course whether this is something which is passed on through the genes or not I don't know?

It is not.

--J.D.

However, the human body adapts all the time, for example, in its ability to develop an immunity to certain diseases, it's just that it doesn't show up in the gene pool, right? The "proclivity" will show up, but not necessarily the fact that the body itself has made the adaptation. Correct? Or, what exactly does that entail? Do the cells actually generate a mutation within themselves or, does it have more to do with the anti-bodies which are built up in the bloodstream?

 

[Doctor X]

However, the human body adapts all the time, for example, in its ability to develop an immunity to certain diseases, it's just that it doesn't show up in the gene pool, right?

The ability for the stem cells that eventually produce plasma cells that make antibodies ultimately to recombine DNA as part of cell division--to make a complicated story short--is a part of the system that is inhereted.

However, the results are not. In otherwords, one cannot pass-on immunity--unless you transplant the antibodies which give limited and transient immunity--or transplant the cells--which lasts as long as the cells last. The person to whom this transfer has happened will not pass this on to offspring.

Do the cells actually generate a mutation within themselves or, does it have more to do with the anti-bodies which are built up in the bloodstream?

The cells that generate the antibodies essentially were selected to divide. This is done--long story short--by the antigen--foreign protein--being processed by another cell that then can "present" the "recognizable bits" to trigger cells that can respond to such to divide and become plasma cells that produce antibodies.

Now, all an antibody is is a complex protein with variable areas. The variable areas vary based on recombination of genes. This allows them to "stick" to the antigen on Mr. Nasty Bacteria. The "sticking" does nothing--unless it blocks a antigen which is a protein the Nasty Bacteria uses as part of its virulence.

The "stuck on" antibodies do signal other cells/proteins to "do in" the Nasty Bacteria.

Natural selection in a test tube . . . some bacteria have been selected to have a coat the antibodies cannot "recognize" or "stick too." Also, a bacteria that mutates its gene for the antigen may no longer be recogized by the antibody . . . or antibiotic for that matter.

--J.D.

 

[jimlintott]

So, by virtue of the fact that we've brought the whole world under our subjegation make us more adanced or not? Or, does that just make us ecological freaks?

This is by your criteria. Evolutionary criteria would say that we are very successful.

 

[Darat]

...snip... So, by virtue of the fact that we've brought the whole world under our subjegation make us more adanced or not? Or, does that just make us ecological freaks?

...snip...

Sorry to bring the pesky blighters up again but bacteria have much more the world under "subjugation" then humans do. Even using your definition of "advanced" we are beaten by little critters that you and I can't even see with our own eyes.