Evolution: the Facts.

[steenkh]

First, and before we can go anywhere with your post, do you know what a Scientific Theory means? Do you know what The Theory of Evolutions means? By your first post it doesn't seem so.

* cough * He quoted a letter posted at his university, and he wanted help in dealing with it. He did not state his own views.

 

[kaleidome]

*cough* she quoted a letter.
Yeah thanks for the links and help guys.

I sent my reply in. Because of limited space I Just hammered in the definition of a scientific theory, the definition of evolution, and also its possibility to exist alongside religion (excluding Creationism of course). I suspect I might start a trolling war in the magazine, but hey bring it on. I hear the same misunderstandings about evolution all the time amongst people my own age so anything I can do to remedy that is fine with me.

 

[six7s]

So there you have it. A confusing, contradicting ramble by somebody who totally has misunderstood what evolution is all about. I have some ideas about what to say in response (definition of a theory, scientific evidence, proving the non-existence of God etc) but can't get the flow exactly right. It would be my first attempt at arguing for evolution so I figured I'd ask for help.

Kia Ora kaleidome!

I reckon that, with minor tweaks, what you have already written is a worthy response:

A confusing, contradicting ramble by somebody who [has totally] misunderstood what evolution is all about.​

 

[Robo Sapien]

"Then why are there still monkeys?"

Because human evolution will eventually need to start all over again when we all kill each other.

 

[Kumar]

Sorry to interrupt.

I was just thinking in view of that every live being would like to surrvive then if pathogens & cancer cells can die on our death, why they will/should kill us?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Sorry to interrupt.

I was just thinking in view of that every live being would like to surrvive then if pathogens & cancer cells can die on our death, why they will/should kill us?

Things do not want to survive...they want to replicate. If they have to kill us to replicate, they will. Cancer cells only replicate within the body (not from generation to generation). Thus, they will never get passed on whether or not they kill us (so it doesn't matter to them if we die). Pathogens only need to keep us alive long enough for them to spread to another host.

 

[Taffer]

Sorry to interrupt.

I was just thinking in view of that every live being would like to surrvive then if pathogens & cancer cells can die on our death, why they will/should kill us?

Country X is a great and powerful country, with the most powerful military force in the world. They have the most advanced technology, and the most advanced training. How can boys with guns still kill them, then?

 

[Kumar]

Things do not want to survive...they want to replicate. If they have to kill us to replicate, they will. Cancer cells only replicate within the body (not from generation to generation). Thus, they will never get passed on whether or not they kill us (so it doesn't matter to them if we die). Pathogens only need to keep us alive long enough for them to spread to another host.

Thanks.

Some confusion.

Even though cancer cells want to replicate, still will they not want to survive?

How we can we suffer or die if pathogens will pass on to other host?

 

[Kumar]

Country X is a great and powerful country, with the most powerful military force in the world. They have the most advanced technology, and the most advanced training. How can boys with guns still kill them, then?

Really, your reply is not clear to me.

 

[Taffer]

Really, your reply is not clear to me.

Evolution is an arms race. Just like between countries, organisms try to out compete each other. Sometimes they can get technological advantages (better immune systems, for example), but they may still be vulnerable to other traits (kids with guns). Just because we have been evolving together for millions of years doesn't mean that we should be affected by them.

 

[Kumar]

Evolution is an arms race. Just like between countries, organisms try to out compete each other. Sometimes they can get technological advantages (better immune systems, for example), but they may still be vulnerable to other traits (kids with guns). Just because we have been evolving together for millions of years doesn't mean that we should be affected by them.

Thanks. Rest we are discussing in my topic "Survival".

 

[Harpyja]

How we can we suffer or die if pathogens will pass on to other host?

Well, the more we suffer the less likely a pathogen passes on. If you're not feeling well, you don't move around too much. I'd imagine this is why cold sores are so successful. However, you have to balance damage and spread - a virus that doesn't do that much damage isn't going to proliferate as much, but a virus that does too much never gets passed on to another host before it dies. It's the age old dilemma of moderation.

Imagine you're stuck out in the desert with a pail of water. You have to moderate how much you drink to get out. If you drink all of it at once, you'll be able to go farther, but eventually you'll pass out. If you don't drink any of it, you won't get that far either. If you moderate, you'll have enough to get out of the desert.

 

[refamat]

The facts:

1. Some animals aren't exactly the same as others.
2. Some of those differences are inheritable.
3. Some of those differences affect the probability that the animal will reproduce.
4. In the case where both 2 and 3 apply, a circular effect is set up in which a difference affects the probability of the animal reproducing, which in turn affects the probability that the difference will show up in the next generation, which means the difference affects the probability of itself existing.
5. In case 4, the differences which decrease the probability of reproduction will create feedback loop which tends to eliminate them from the population. The differences that increase the probability, a feedback loop is created which tends to cause them to spread through the population.
6. As a result, animals tend to have properties that help them reproduce.
7. With the introduction of mutation, the possibilty exists for one species to slowly turn into another.

Note that in 4, the circularity is often attacked as a fallacy, with such inanities as it's a "tautology". There is nothing fallacious about a circular effect.

All species are intermediate.

which zebra species leads to the next?

I support evolution, but love a good laff too. zebras present a great problem to explore

 

[refamat]

Evolution is an arms race. Just like between countries, organisms try to out compete each other. Sometimes they can get technological advantages (better immune systems, for example), but they may still be vulnerable to other traits (kids with guns). Just because we have been evolving together for millions of years doesn't mean that we should be affected by them.

not sure its compete as much as it's just survive. compete implies knowledge of the other. some virus linking into a chemically suitable strand of dna isn't competing.

 

[refamat]

I believe a creationist can duck argument of science you can put in their way, because they don't believe in the scientific method. The scientific method is to examine the evidence before making a conclusion. The creationist method is to examine the evidence only if it supports their conclusion.

Therefore I offer this simple analogy: evolution is like a poker game. If you expect to draw a royal flush by random chance, it's about 649740 to 1 against. That's almost like saying "it could never happen." Now throw away the cards that don't work for a royal flush and draw again. Repeat until you get a royal flush. This will happen within 10 hands or less.

what is usually missing in arguments about how creationists try to use science to prove themselves right is that they have an absolutists mentality of things. There has to be a beginning and there has to be an end. The refinement of this thinking is that evolution strives to "perfect" itself. That there should be a perfect creation as a result of evolution. As flawed as this is, and very open to so seriously snide comments about monkey's uncles and such, the sad truth is that they think evolution prefects itself. When, in reality, any change is a crap shoot, it might be viable, it might be fatal, it could have no effect at all (during the current generation and environment).

 

[refamat]

I think there is possibly no better place to start by suggesting they actually read Darwin's acutal words and his actual thinking as he tries to work it all out. The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, 6th Edition is downloadable from http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009 (and it is also avaible there in various "talking book" audio formats for those that can't read).

I have had a hard cover copy for many years. It's not an easy read (because Charles says things that are so damn obvious ) but can be dipped into almost anywhere.

I've read most of the Bible. How many ID supporters have read Darwin? Most get their input from the lying ID quote miners.

That's the problem...getting them to read a non-christian "authority" (inject a possible high school drop out minister here or swaggart) approved text of any kind. you realize that the rest are just the devil's handywork to mislead the faithful.

 

[Darkhole]

Thanks.

Some confusion.

Even though cancer cells want to replicate, still will they not want to survive?

How we can we suffer or die if pathogens will pass on to other host?

Cancer cells do not want to replicate, they are just your own cells, but broken.

 

[shadron]

not sure its compete as much as it's just survive. compete implies knowledge of the other. some virus linking into a chemically suitable strand of dna isn't competing.

Beg to differ. Genomes exist only to replicate; survival, as a tool to further that replication, is desirable to that extent only, and no further. Competition does not imply any knowledge; it implies only faster, stronger, more flexible, whatever will allow one organism to get the food/water/oxygen/sulfides and leave another without, so that the first can replicate. Knowledge may be part of that; smarter is a good strategy in many cases, but in others it may be worthless. A virus has no "desire" to link into a genome; it does what its chemistry demands. A virus inside a cell is not competing because it has won the current round, it is in survival mode; outside the cell, the quality of its protein coat is a competition with other viruses and with the host.

 

[shadron]

which zebra species leads to the next?

The one that can hide most successfully from the lion in the environment it inhabits, so it can make more copies of itself.

I support evolution, but love a good laff too. zebras present a great problem to explore

Actually, coloration and such are the easiest, most obvious cases which evolution can explain. Camouflage and the needs of sexual selection make it easy.

 

[shadron]

ThunderChunky][/B]Things do not want to survive...they want to replicate. If they have to kill us to replicate, they will. Cancer cells only replicate within the body (not from generation to generation). Thus, they will never get passed on whether or not they kill us (so it doesn't matter to them if we die). Pathogens only need to keep us alive long enough for them to spread to another host.

Thanks.

Some confusion.

Even though cancer cells want to replicate, still will they not want to survive?

How we can we suffer or die if pathogens will pass on to other host?

Actually, they want neither. They want nothing; they only respond to the chemistry they find around them with their own internal chemistry. In the case of cancer cells, they have a momentary competitive advantage over cells in their immediate environment because inhibitions that exist in other cells have been lifted for them. In the longer run they will kill their host (unaware that they are doing so) and thus themselves ultimately die when the host stops supplying them with water, sugars and oxygen.

A genome, if it can be said to want anything, wants to reproduce. Survival may be useful for that, but we humans know what happens after we have attained an age beyond reproduction; individual survival, as far as the genome sees it, has become a negative factor.

It is said that malignant pathogens are poorly adapted to their hosts. A well adapted organism will never be noticed; it will sneak in, exist, reproduce, and never cause harm. Even better, it could enable the host to live longer, allowing for more reproduction. This is symbiosis. It might even entwine it's genome with the host, so that it is automatically reproduced; this is the case with mitochondria and chloroplasts, as well as some viruses.