PDA

View Full Version : Humans are pretty effing cool eh?



Rokstarr
01-14-2012, 07:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWCThMhr_M


and just think, they used to be monkeys!

nepila
01-14-2012, 10:37
Sounds horrible.

StrawberryClock
01-14-2012, 10:48
I'm pretty confused. Do you still legitimately not believe in evolution?

Makgyver
01-14-2012, 10:59
We didn't evolve from monkeys, humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes either. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, like gorillas and chimps.

Ragnarok Delrhe
01-14-2012, 12:41
We didn't evolve from monkeys, humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes either. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, like gorillas and chimps.

My first language isnt english but isnt monkey a synonym of ape?

Khorsy
01-14-2012, 12:46
My first language isnt english but isnt monkey a synonym of ape?

No, apes are different breeds than monkeys, but they're both primates.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-monkeys-and-apes.htm

And we humans, along with gorillas and orangoutans enter the Great Ape category, or Homonids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

At OP, we're still monkeys.

Vor'Dus[DiE]
01-14-2012, 12:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWCThMhr_M


and just think, they used to be monkeys!

who is they? Are you not a human? In that case you mean us right?

Gunther TheBlack
01-14-2012, 13:15
My first language isnt english but isnt monkey a synonym of ape?

No, but i understand it's confusing because the unevolved language of noobs aka french doesn't have a word for ape.

Khorsy
01-14-2012, 13:26
No, but i understand it's confusing because the unevolved language of noobs aka french doesn't have a word for ape.

On utilise le Grand Singe.

Et au moins, en francais, la difference n'existe pas. Ce qui est particulierement pertinent, quand on est a l'encontre de debiles se croyant etre autre chose que des animaux, ou une espece de singe superieure aux autres.

Makestro
01-14-2012, 13:54
;5290138"]who is they? Are you not a human? In that case you mean us right?

Rokstarr is an alien, he thinks some being from outer space who goes by the name of God created him.

Rokstarr
01-14-2012, 16:50
Rokstarr is an alien, he thinks some being from outer space who goes by the name of God created him.

Makestro is a monkey, he thinks a single cell which came alive in a soup of chemicals eventually created him, and that at some point in his lineage his greatgrandfather x 10^10 was a poop thrower.

Rokstarr
01-14-2012, 16:51
We didn't evolve from monkeys, humans are more similar to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes either. We share a common designer with modern apes, like gorillas and chimps.

Fixt that for ya.

Rokstarr
01-14-2012, 16:52
;5290138"]who is they? Are you not a human? In that case you mean us right?

I was already speaking about 'humans' in the third person.

GirlyMan
01-14-2012, 17:01
Evolution will turn out to be like relativity: Debunked.

The difference between humans and apes though, is the ability to think for themselves whilst apes can barely even think at all. This is the only thing that gives the current theory of evolution credence when it says we come from Apes; most of us are unable to think for ourselves and as a result believe what we're told.

This is also why the US political scene is in such bad shape.

Khorsy
01-14-2012, 17:44
Evolution will turn out to be like relativity: Debunked.

The difference between humans and apes though, is the ability to think for themselves whilst apes can barely even think at all. This is the only thing that gives the current theory of evolution credence when it says we come from Apes; most of us are unable to think for ourselves and as a result believe what we're told.

This is also why the US political scene is in such bad shape.

Go live and think for yourself in the african jungle as well as a gorilla does and survive.

Then come back, or not.

"Debunked", fucking lol...

The only difference between us and them is that they actually live with evolution much better us by feeling no imaginative pressure to question themselves with it. Whilst we're so far high in our own imaginative sky all the time, such knowledge appears like a new discovery to us, hundreds of thousands years later, having flown away from it with the aid of religion, totally decimated our environment, and thinking "it's only matter" for so long.

Rise, zombies.

Makestro
01-14-2012, 18:02
Makestro is a monkey, he thinks a single cell which came alive in a soup of chemicals eventually created him, and that at some point in his lineage his greatgrandfather x 10^10 was a poop thrower.

How is that even an insult? When we find life on Mars and Europa what is going to be your answer to that?

Khorsy
01-14-2012, 18:16
How is that even an insult? When we find life on Mars and Europa what is going to be your answer to that?

"God put them there to test our faith!"

Khorsy
01-14-2012, 18:30
Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y

Related to OP's original video...

/thread
(I hope)

GirlyMan
01-14-2012, 19:20
Go live and think for yourself in the african jungle as well as a gorilla does and survive.

Then come back, or not.

Rise, zombies.

Or the Gorilla can come live here? We left Africa for a reason. Gorillas are unable to make such decisions.

Apex Vertigo
01-14-2012, 19:41
We didn't evolve from monkeys, humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes either. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, like gorillas and chimps.

I've explained this to him at least a dozen times now, he does't want to understand what evolution actually is.

Makestro
01-14-2012, 19:42
Cracks me up so many people ignore the obvious history of this planet and pretend like God created man and the planet it's self. Hey we're watching God's work all across our galaxy right now! I guess all those forming solar systems that we're observing should be done in about a week right?

Vor'Dus[DiE]
01-14-2012, 22:08
Or the Gorilla can come live here? We left Africa for a reason. Gorillas are unable to make such decisions.

They left Africa because people wanted to live somewhere else for new adventures or new places etc, we still do it today.

GirlyMan
01-14-2012, 22:17
;5290428"]They left Africa because people wanted to live somewhere else for new adventures or new places etc, we still do it today.

Of course. They were just looking for some killer waves to ride.

Gunther TheBlack
01-14-2012, 22:26
Of course. They were just looking for some killer waves to ride.

If you mean waves as in guiding a flock of wild horses from a cliff, then yes.

Gunther TheBlack
01-14-2012, 22:30
We didn't evolve from monkeys, humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes either. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, like gorillas and chimps.

We are related to modern apes, share a common ancestor, but nooooooo we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes.

Wtf then? The retarded flying midget squirrel from which both ape and human evolved? Or did God upgrade our common ancestor with 2 different patches resulting into the apes and humans?


Religious folk have forsaken their original belief to counter science so many times it's not even funny. Stubborn folk these guys are. Isn't it funny that religion "evolves" because of science?

iza
01-14-2012, 23:15
Evolution will turn out to be like relativity: Debunked.Lol.

Khorsy
01-15-2012, 00:10
I should seriously start making youtube partner videos directly inspired from conversations in these boards. I'd be millionaire.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 00:14
Lol.

Indeed. That's what happens you assume you know the truth, eventually it gets disproven.

I'd called it Selective Adaptation & Genetic Restructuring in it's current form. Evolution in it's current form will not stand the test of time. It will require revisions as progress is made to define the processes exactly and not just hypothesize from observation.

Khorsy
01-15-2012, 00:43
Indeed. That's what happens you assume you know the truth, eventually it gets disproven.

I'd called it Selective Adaptation & Genetic Restructuring in it's current form. Evolution in it's current form will not stand the test of time. It will require revisions as progress is made to define the processes exactly and not just hypothesize from observation.

Holy shit.

You do so yourself so fucking much right now, it's hard not to think on your assumptions getting equally disproven with time.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Makestro
01-15-2012, 00:45
Indeed. That's what happens you assume you know the truth, eventually it gets disproven.

I'd called it Selective Adaptation & Genetic Restructuring in it's current form. Evolution in it's current form will not stand the test of time. It will require revisions as progress is made to define the processes exactly and not just hypothesize from observation.

I'm sure the only hole in evolution will be that high bursts of gamma radiation bombarded the planet during times of major changes or outside influence from an extraterrestrial race. God will not pop up as a legit reason to why humanity or even life thrives today.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 00:49
Holy shit.

You do so yourself so fucking much, it's hard not to think your assumptions on Evolution might get equally disproven with time.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

I can assume that assumptions are made, correct. My assumptions also are calling into question the assumptions that are being made.

Science with an agenda is not real science. Real science moves the world forward without inciting conflict. Unfortunately, the world is lack in real science and we're stuck with space-aged technology with a medieval mindset.

Keep throwing your verbal dung, chimp.

Irenor
01-15-2012, 00:56
Makestro is a monkey, he thinks a single cell which came alive in a soup of chemicals eventually created him, and that at some point in his lineage his greatgrandfather x 10^10 was a poop thrower.


Evolution will turn out to be like relativity: Debunked.

The difference between humans and apes though, is the ability to think for themselves whilst apes can barely even think at all. This is the only thing that gives the current theory of evolution credence when it says we come from Apes; most of us are unable to think for ourselves and as a result believe what we're told.

This is also why the US political scene is in such bad shape.

Evolution is a fact. To deny it simply shows clear signs of ignorance, which comes to no surprise from USA given the state of the educational system and the horribly designed textbooks by whatever Texas board of twats handles that, attempting to push an agenda (there was a story last year I recall of books not covering, let alone mentioning, certain founding fathers and other "heroes" despite their significant impact and contribution to America), or how intelligent design/creationism is taught in Science classes, while actual scientific is being downplayed to something less, etc.

Even the previous Pope, Jean-Paul II, accepted evolution, and so does many other high-ranked members of the church (Bishops, etc). To put it simply, Evolution does not deny the existence of a God, but does deny his involvement in how every creature came to life. Contrary to what some idiots may believe, Dinosaurs DID exist and proven with evidence, however humans did not live along with dinosaurs...as some christian museum would like people to believe.

That people also believe that it is impossible to evolve from a common ancestor that is related to monkeys, is ridiculous and shows yet another sign of clear ignorance of how evolution works. Evolution is the mean by which all creatures adapts to survive to our environment (two examples of this here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html) and here (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/287049/australian-sharks-battle-climate-change-breeding-greg-pollowitz) ). Our ancestors needed to find new means to survive in order to adapt to the changing environment, so they became more "able" to use their front "legs" and back legs, but it wasn't enough. They needed more than that and continued to develop to answer the constant need to survive and through centuries, we learned to stand on 2 feet, our brains got bigger, better, we discovered many things like fire and means to use it, learned to make tools to hunt, learned to harvest, etc.

All of this, is backed by evidence: Fossils, tools, drawings even, etc. What does Christianity in particular has? Virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Well it seems that virgin birth was the "in" thing to do back then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births). And let's not forget that there are MANY OTHER RELIGIONS out there, surely they can't all be right if there is supposed to be only "one god". The whole bible, and I'm talking about the real one, the one the New Testament is based on... is just ridiculous. It's filled with contradiction, a creation of man to justify the terrible and evil actions they've taken as something that should be venerated and viewed as rightful justice instead like the Crusades, the killing and/or torture of heretics (Galileo anyone?), slavery, the killing of Jews as they were perceived as the killer of the Christ, etc.

Steven Weinberg has a nice quote on that : "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Khorsy
01-15-2012, 00:58
I can assume that assumptions are made, correct. My assumptions also are calling into question the assumptions that are being made.

Thanks for publically validating that it's considered fair-play and scientific to assume anything about something that's supposedly assuming anything about itself...and not because you haven't a fucking clue what you're assuming from to begin with.

Keep reassuring us and yourself of your stupidity, it's working.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 01:22
Evolution is a fact. To deny it simply shows clear signs of ignorance, which comes to no surprise from USA given the state of the educational system and the horribly designed textbooks by whatever Texas board of twats handles that, attempting to push an agenda (there was a story last year I recall of books not covering, let alone mentioning, certain founding fathers and other "heroes" despite their significant impact and contribution to America), or how intelligent design/creationism is taught in Science classes, while actual scientific is being downplayed to something less, etc.

Even the previous Pope, Jean-Paul II, accepted evolution, and so does many other high-ranked members of the church (Bishops, etc). To put it simply, Evolution does not deny the existence of a God, but does deny his involvement in how every creature came to life. Contrary to what some idiots may believe, Dinosaurs DID exist and proven with evidence, however humans did not live along with dinosaurs...as some christian museum would like people to believe.

That people also believe that it is impossible to evolve from a common ancestor that is related to monkeys, is ridiculous and shows yet another sign of clear ignorance of how evolution works. Evolution is the mean by which all creatures adapts to survive to our environment (two examples of this here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html) and here (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/287049/australian-sharks-battle-climate-change-breeding-greg-pollowitz) ). Our ancestors needed to find new means to survive in order to adapt to the changing environment, so they became more "able" to use their front "legs" and back legs, but it wasn't enough. They needed more than that and continued to develop to answer the constant need to survive and through centuries, we learned to stand on 2 feet, our brains got bigger, better, we discovered many things like fire and means to use it, learned to make tools to hunt, learned to harvest, etc.

All of this, is backed by evidence: Fossils, tools, drawings even, etc. What does Christianity in particular has? Virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Well it seems that virgin birth was the "in" thing to do back then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births). And let's not forget that there are MANY OTHER RELIGIONS out there, surely they can't all be right if there is supposed to be only "one god". The whole bible, and I'm talking about the real one, the one the New Testament is based on... is just ridiculous. It's filled with contradiction, a creation of man to justify the terrible and evil actions they've taken as something that should be venerated and viewed as rightful justice instead like the Crusades, the killing and/or torture of heretics (Galileo anyone?), slavery, the killing of Jews as they were perceived as the killer of the Christ, etc.

Steven Weinberg has a nice quote on that : "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I'm denying the theory in it's current form. I don't deny the concept except at certain stages; where I (And I'm not the only one) think more factors than are being explained come into play.

It is hilarious, though, as numerous times I've accepted times the basic concept and have issues with some details; which are not met with answers (because these questions haven't been answered, only asked) but with insults.

To me it doesn't matter what someone believes. They can believe whatever they feel is right. The question is how well do they tolerate what they perceive to be an attack, or criticism, on what they believe? And unfortunately, this question applies to the non-religious as well.

Valroth
01-15-2012, 10:37
Evolution is a theory. It is a real concept and it does exist in the sense that life adapts and evolves based on environmental conditions, but further than that it is very weak. Biological organs simply don't grow out of nowhere. If a species that doesn't have eyeballs needs sight in order to survive, evolutionists would have me believe it will EVENTUALLY evolve and grow eyes. To me this idea is absurd. How is it feasible for a creature to spontaneously grow an organ that uses incredibly complex organic lenses and a retina to translate light into a visual element that can be interpreted by the brain? The tiny muscles and connecting nerves and membrane etc would all have to SPONTANEOUSLY come into existence simultaneously and in the exact right configuration for it to work.

I respect science and the intellect of scientific minds, but evolution simply isn't a satisfying answer as to how life came into existence. I'm Agnostic and I think it is the only truly honest position to take, everyone who thinks they know is lying to themself.

PS If you genuinely do know then by all means tell me.

PirateGlen
01-15-2012, 10:59
Evolution is a theory. It is a real concept and it does exist in the sense that life adapts and evolves based on environmental conditions, but further than that it is very weak. Biological organs simply don't grow out of nowhere. If a species that doesn't have eyeballs needs sight in order to survive, evolutionists would have me believe it will EVENTUALLY evolve and grow eyes. To me this idea is absurd. How is it feasible for a creature to spontaneously grow an organ that uses incredibly complex organic lenses and a retina to translate light into a visual element that can be interpreted by the brain? The tiny muscles and connecting nerves and membrane etc would all have to SPONTANEOUSLY come into existence simultaneously and in the exact right configuration for it to work.

I respect science and the intellect of scientific minds, but evolution simply isn't a satisfying answer as to how life came into existence. I'm Agnostic and I think it is the only truly honest position to take, everyone who thinks they know is lying to themself.

PS If you genuinely do know then by all means tell me.

Irreducible complexity. I've never seen this debunked before. :rolleyes:

PirateGlen
01-15-2012, 11:01
It's somewhat satisfying to see Rokstarr flee a thread full of information so that he can avoid the possibility of transcending his ignorance.

Nat daprat
01-15-2012, 11:06
How the hell did a thread about a chick doing some weird shit with a flute turn into an evolutionary debate?

Also, god doesn't exist, just look at this forum. Undeniable proof that God didn't create man in 'his image'

Gunther TheBlack
01-15-2012, 13:32
It is hilarious, though, as numerous times I've accepted times the basic concept and have issues with some details; which are not met with answers (because these questions haven't been answered, only asked) but with insults.



What are some of those details? Just curious.

Makgyver
01-15-2012, 15:28
Evolution will turn out to be like relativity: Debunked.


Evolution is a fact, so no.



Evolution is a theory.
There's a difference between the common usage of the word theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the best explanation we have that has gone through intense peer reviewed science and tests over and over.

In science, a theory is the highest possible certainty. Gravity is a scientific theory, and we can test it to be true. Same as evolution

And regarding the rest of your post, you lack knowledge about evolution, get informed

Irenor
01-15-2012, 17:30
How is it feasible for a creature to spontaneously grow an organ that uses incredibly complex organic lenses and a retina to translate light into a visual element that can be interpreted by the brain? The tiny muscles and connecting nerves and membrane etc would all have to SPONTANEOUSLY come into existence simultaneously and in the exact right configuration for it to work.


I'll just stop here and repost a link from my previous post (which you've likely not read).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.
and

Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

The beauty of evolution.

Makestro
01-15-2012, 17:46
I'll just stop here and repost a link from my previous post (which you've likely not read).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

and


The beauty of evolution.

The sad thing is the lost causes in this thread will make up some excuse for that.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 18:51
What are some of those details? Just curious.

See: the other thread.

Just to be clear, Evolution as presented today is Darwinism and that is NOT the best explanation of anything. Maybe I should have said Darwinism will be debunked (wasn't really aware it was an ism) will be debunked and it looks like it being debunked right now.

Esudar
01-15-2012, 19:05
forumfall: where 150 year old theories thousands of professors and doctors worked on get debunked by 15 year old school boys that just know better.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 19:11
forumfall: where 150 year old theories thousands of professors and doctors worked on get debunked by 15 year old school boys that just know better.

Yeah Darwin is 150 years ago? Science wasn't even close to being what it is today, and the idea a fish just walked onto land and formed virtually all other life forms is the explanation when the science is lacking.

But yeah, believe the science in an era when audio recording was developed to communicate with the dead and then go back to sipping your fluoride water.

Irenor
01-15-2012, 19:30
Yeah Darwin is 150 years ago? Science wasn't even close to being what it is today, and the idea a fish just walked onto land and formed virtually all other life forms is the explanation when the science is lacking.

But yeah, believe the science in an era when audio recording was developed to communicate with the dead and then go back to sipping your fluoride water.

That fish developed organs to get used to a new environment is perfectly plausible when you look at my post above regarding lizards cecal valves to adapt to their new diet. How exactly it happened, or under what circumstances it happened is unknown to us, because we haven't been able to experience it (considering the hundreds or thousands of years it may take). After all, science as we know it today is still very young, and so is technology. DNA testing was found by mistake, so was penicillin and many other discoveries. Perhaps in 50 years we'll know, perhaps in a 100. But fish growing different organs to adapt to a new environment is very plausible when looking at how every other creatures has evolved and adapted.

Valroth
01-15-2012, 19:37
Irreducible complexity. I've never seen this debunked before. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity


Current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye. One likely chain of development is that the eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. When, via random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.

I'm not feeling it.

Makestro
01-15-2012, 19:44
Yeah Darwin is 150 years ago? Science wasn't even close to being what it is today, and the idea a fish just walked onto land and formed virtually all other life forms is the explanation when the science is lacking.

But yeah, believe the science in an era when audio recording was developed to communicate with the dead and then go back to sipping your fluoride water.

Awww, someone is mad because they're wrong.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 19:47
That fish developed organs to get used to a new environment is perfectly plausible when you look at my post above regarding lizards cecal valves to adapt to their new diet. How exactly it happened, or under what circumstances it happened is unknown to us, because we haven't been able to experience it (considering the hundreds or thousands of years it may take). After all, science as we know it today is still very young, and so is technology. DNA testing was found by mistake, so was penicillin and many other discoveries. Perhaps in 50 years we'll know, perhaps in a 100. But fish growing different organs to adapt to a new environment is very plausible when looking at how every other creatures has evolved and adapted.

Science today is much better and more developed. So much time has elapsed that the sciences that existed back then have made much progress.

So if you start with little one celled organism, but they develop into the common ancestors our life today at much earlier period than the fish, that would seem so much more reasonable to me than what Darwin would assume.

Of course some things from Darwin you can't refute; such as Man having common ancestors with Apes. That's a given. What isn't a given is a fish starting most of it. It makes MUCH more sense if these common ancestors branched out MUCH earlier to form the major types of life we have today.

And that's what the Cambrian explosion seems to show. What it shows is really not much different than Darwinism except branching would have established most major groups of animals earlier, and would've been more confined within those groups.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 19:53
Awww, someone is mad because they're wrong.

I don't get mad.

breakyourarmor
01-15-2012, 19:55
Val, unless you're an evolutionary biologist, it's incredibly arrogant to go against the overwhelming scientific consensus of the field.

Are you able to understand something like this (http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171)? It's kind of important.

edit: I find it funny that some people in this thread accept evolution, but readily reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming.

Makestro
01-15-2012, 19:56
I don't get mad.

Then how can you not see how contradicting that statement was? you bash science form 150 years ago because of the tech but believe in garbage from before we even understood science?

Khorsy
01-15-2012, 19:57
Science today is much better and more developed. So much time has elapsed that the sciences that existed back then have made much progress.

So if you start with little one celled organism, but they develop into the common ancestors our life today at much earlier period than the fish, that would seem so much more reasonable to me than what Darwin would assume.

Of course some things from Darwin you can't refute; such as Man having common ancestors with Apes. That's a given. What isn't a given is a fish starting most of it. It makes MUCH more sense if these common ancestors branched out MUCH earlier to form the major types of life we have today.

And that's what the Cambrian explosion seems to show. What it shows is really not much different than Darwinism except branching would have established most major groups of animals earlier, and would've been more confined within those groups.

Cambrian period saw the development of the Ozone and other landlife-catalystic changes in atomspheric gases, solar radiation and surface temperatures. Mutations expanded outside of sea habitat simply because environmental surface conditions at the time allowed them to, gradually.

Don't hesitate to explore the Cambrian period further and fill in any gaps of comprehension.

Irenor
01-15-2012, 20:01
Science today is much better and more developed. So much time has elapsed that the sciences that existed back then have made much progress.

So if you start with little one celled organism, but they develop into the common ancestors our life today at much earlier period than the fish, that would seem so much more reasonable to me than what Darwin would assume.

Of course some things from Darwin you can't refute; such as Man having common ancestors with Apes. That's a given. What isn't a given is a fish starting most of it. It makes MUCH more sense if these common ancestors branched out MUCH earlier to form the major types of life we have today.

And that's what the Cambrian explosion seems to show. What it shows is really not much different than Darwinism except branching would have established most major groups of animals earlier, and would've been more confined within those groups.

According to evolution, cells formed, got together into larger cells, then larger organism, then fish-looking creatures, continued to developed into the ocean while other creatures reached the earth and develop into reptiles and birds. After that we had all that dinosaurs thing, extinction through debatable cause (meteorite, volcano, etc). If I recall correctly, our common ancestors came later than that (as did most other creatures like the Rhino and Mammoth/Elephant which potentially finds roots from certain dinosaurs), when life began to flourish again on this planet. And through a continuous process of evolution have reached the point where we are now.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 20:02
Then how can you not see how contradicting that statement was? you bash science form 150 years ago because of the tech but believe in garbage from before we even understood science?

Huh? What garbage do I believe from before we understood science?

Science has been around a long time and the problem with people holding to specific doctrine has existed for a long time. Like when everyone thought the Earth was flat; but the Mayans knew the reality and you were put to death for explaining the truth.

Rokstarr
01-15-2012, 20:07
edit: I find it funny that some people in this thread accept evolution, but readily reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming.

I find it sad that anyone accepts either.

Makestro
01-15-2012, 20:19
and you were put to death for explaining the truth.

Just another example of the greatness we call religion.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 20:26
Just another example of the greatness we call religion.

You never answered the question. Which garbage do I believe do I believe from before we "understood science?"

Makestro
01-15-2012, 20:29
You never answered the question. Which garbage do I believe do I believe from before we "understood science?"

Well you believe in God.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 20:33
Well you believe in God.

Oh, you seem to know so much about me. What's my favourite colour?

Makestro
01-15-2012, 20:33
Oh, you seem to know so much about me. What's my favourite colour?

Blue.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 20:52
Blue.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJnn-wMPU9w

Makestro
01-15-2012, 20:56
Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJnn-wMPU9w

That thing is pretty cute.

Look I know what you're trying to say, that evolution alone does not explain why life forms started to form vertebrae, and I have my own theories on why life started to form it but the thing is I have no clue if another person has even done an ounce of research on it. I would go into my theory but I don't feel like having to defend it because people confuse it as me not believing in evolution.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 21:15
That thing is pretty cute.

Look I know what you're trying to say, that evolution alone does not explain why life forms started to form vertebrae, and I have my own theories on why life started to form it but the thing is I have no clue if another person has even done an ounce of research on it. I would go into my theory but I don't feel like having to defend it because people confuse it as me not believing in evolution.

I like listening to the alternatives that aren't biblically based. When you listen to people talk about stars exploding and how that radiation reaches earth, or the massive temples that were built by more primitive versions of ourselves there's nothing to do but ask questions.

I love science, personally. I wouldn't be alive without it. Something about it a lot of it though, especially when it comes to how life began and evolved, leaves much to the imagination and since this is a giant universe, there's also much room to explore those possibilities.

Makestro
01-15-2012, 21:18
I like listening to the alternatives that aren't biblically based. When you listen to people talk about stars exploding and how that radiation reaches earth, or the massive temples that were built by more primitive versions of ourselves there's nothing to do but ask questions.

I love science, personally. I wouldn't be alive without it. Something about it a lot of it though, especially when it comes to how life began and evolved, leaves much to the imagination and since this is a giant universe, there's also much room to explore those possibilities.

Well let me ask you a question that kinda define my theory. What if the vertebrae is not a byproduct of evolution, but evolution is a symptom of the vertebrae?

EDIT: I realize how dumb this sounded after reading it, what I mean is the formation of life as we know it being the symptom and not saying the evolution of non-vertebrae life forms before the cambrian period was non-existent.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 21:45
Well let me ask you a question that kinda define my theory. What if the vertebrae is not a byproduct of evolution, but evolution is a symptom of the vertebrae?

EDIT: I realize how dumb this sounded after reading it, what I mean is the formation of life as we know it being the symptom and not saying the evolution of non-vertebrae life forms before the cambrian period was non-existent.

I don't think it would change anything. Everything seems to be going a certain path and who knows what really determines such things.. could be random, various environmental factors and all that.

I mean evolution is always touted as "survival of the fittest; the weak perish" but just being human has so many questions like how does love play a role in evolution? Just being able to love your own kind instead of just having a mutually beneficial relationship to fight off predators, it becomes something more in mammals.

A fish swims in a school, a shark eats half the school and they just keep swimming like nothing has happened. When did they start to miss their fallen comrades and feel the loss on a deep emotional level, and how did it benefit them to do so, and why did it persist once it happened all the way into humans? How come our 'relatives' might not feel the same feelings; but react to death in rather unusual way compared to non-mammals?

I think answering that (and your) question requires defining evolution on much higher level than it currently is. What really is evolution and how does love, compassion, empathy factor into it?

What does it really mean to become not just bigger and more powerful, but having the ability to feel love? And do things that have no basis in survivability, like sacrificing ourself so something else can live?

Why do I feel love for my dog? Why do I even want a dog when I'd have to share my resources for it to survive, and it's not even my species.

Where is evolution headed and why is heading this way? Why do squirrels play games with eachother in my backyard and come sit beside me when I'm chilling outside? Do the squirrels trust me? How come they skim my legs when running frightened from something else and not try to avoid me as well half the time?

Makestro
01-15-2012, 22:50
I don't think it would change anything. Everything seems to be going a certain path and who knows what really determines such things.. could be random, various environmental factors and all that.

I mean evolution is always touted as "survival of the fittest; the weak perish" but just being human has so many questions like how does love play a role in evolution? Just being able to love your own kind instead of just having a mutually beneficial relationship to fight off predators, it becomes something more in mammals.

A fish swims in a school, a shark eats half the school and they just keep swimming like nothing has happened. When did they start to miss their fallen comrades and feel the loss on a deep emotional level, and how did it benefit them to do so, and why did it persist once it happened all the way into humans? How come our 'relatives' might not feel the same feelings; but react to death in rather unusual way compared to non-mammals?

I think answering that (and your) question requires defining evolution on much higher level than it currently is. What really is evolution and how does love, compassion, empathy factor into it?

What does it really mean to become not just bigger and more powerful, but having the ability to feel love? And do things that have no basis in survivability, like sacrificing ourself so something else can live?

Why do I feel love for my dog? Why do I even want a dog when I'd have to share my resources for it to survive, and it's not even my species.

Where is evolution headed and why is heading this way? Why do squirrels play games with eachother in my backyard and come sit beside me when I'm chilling outside? Do the squirrels trust me? How come they skim my legs when running frightened from something else and not try to avoid me as well half the time?

Behavior is indeed part of evolution, but most of that can be summed up as survival instincts. The squirrels don't mind you because you do not show predatory tendencies towards them, try to stalk a squirrel and see if it lets you just sneak up on it.

Khorsy
01-15-2012, 23:20
I don't think it would change anything. Everything seems to be going a certain path and who knows what really determines such things.. could be random, various environmental factors and all that.

I mean evolution is always touted as "survival of the fittest; the weak perish" but just being human has so many questions like how does love play a role in evolution? Just being able to love your own kind instead of just having a mutually beneficial relationship to fight off predators, it becomes something more in mammals.

A fish swims in a school, a shark eats half the school and they just keep swimming like nothing has happened. When did they start to miss their fallen comrades and feel the loss on a deep emotional level, and how did it benefit them to do so, and why did it persist once it happened all the way into humans? How come our 'relatives' might not feel the same feelings; but react to death in rather unusual way compared to non-mammals?

I think answering that (and your) question requires defining evolution on much higher level than it currently is. What really is evolution and how does love, compassion, empathy factor into it?

What does it really mean to become not just bigger and more powerful, but having the ability to feel love? And do things that have no basis in survivability, like sacrificing ourself so something else can live?

Why do I feel love for my dog? Why do I even want a dog when I'd have to share my resources for it to survive, and it's not even my species.

Where is evolution headed and why is heading this way? Why do squirrels play games with eachother in my backyard and come sit beside me when I'm chilling outside? Do the squirrels trust me? How come they skim my legs when running frightened from something else and not try to avoid me as well half the time?

I think people are being extra careful when trying to bring "love" and "compassion" into it, as they're highly praised concepts in Christian and most religious/spiritual circles. Rightly so, with kinship and self-preservation standing as the direct cause for all religions.

I don't think it limits itself to just mammals however. Humans happen to communicate it along their own imaginative capacities, but the core instinct, ie: self-preservation, mating and sticking together remains the same across the board, for all species.
If not for that, we wouldn't be here.

GirlyMan
01-15-2012, 23:36
Behavior is indeed part of evolution, but most of that can be summed up as survival instincts. The squirrels don't mind you because you do not show predatory tendencies towards them, try to stalk a squirrel and see if it lets you just sneak up on it.

Was I way off base with what you were thinking?

My dog though shows predatory instincts towards the squirrels; he just goes after them most of them time he sees them but other times he'll just ignore them.

They'll like jump up on the table and stuff and start chewing their nuts and looking at me, a couple feet away. It's pretty sweet. Any sudden movements and their gone though.

And a long time ago, when I had hamsters, I'd take them outside to play around and the squirrels would come and visit the hamsters and check em out and I'd be right there beside them also.

But, I think vertebrates obviously added many more dimensions to evolution. So it's sorta hard to understand what you're getting at with the question?

Valroth
01-16-2012, 00:12
Val, unless you're an evolutionary biologist, it's incredibly arrogant to go against the overwhelming scientific consensus of the field.

Are you able to understand something like this (http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171)? It's kind of important.

No I don't understand that article. It doesn't interest me so much that I'm prepared to get educated, I'd rather just sit back and form an opinion in ignorance. Really though, while I follow the logical sequence of evolution, it requires a certain willingness to believe. Lack of a better alternative isn't a good enough reason to speak in absolutes when it comes to theory. Bottom line is that the origin of the universe and everything in it is a mystery. I'll keep an open mind thanks.

PirateGlen
01-16-2012, 00:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity



I'm not feeling it.

That's nice, caveman. Go beat rocks.

Makestro
01-16-2012, 03:14
Was I way off base with what you were thinking?

My dog though shows predatory instincts towards the squirrels; he just goes after them most of them time he sees them but other times he'll just ignore them.

They'll like jump up on the table and stuff and start chewing their nuts and looking at me, a couple feet away. It's pretty sweet. Any sudden movements and their gone though.

And a long time ago, when I had hamsters, I'd take them outside to play around and the squirrels would come and visit the hamsters and check em out and I'd be right there beside them also.

But, I think vertebrates obviously added many more dimensions to evolution. So it's sorta hard to understand what you're getting at with the question?

What I was getting at is we look at early evolution as a single species evolving into many when I personally think it was different. I have a few examples without going into major details, being as it's just a personal theory and I didn't pull it out of a book or another source, I kinda came up with it while tripping on mushrooms to be honest lol.

Theory 1 is vertebrae are to early organisms as cancer are to us. It started out as a defect that plagued early forms of life, and the life forms evolved to adapt to the defect and use it to it's advantage. It could of originated from gamma radiation bombarding the planet causing defects or growths to a meteor crashing into the planet bringing a new form of life that infected the current forms of life. I think it makes sense

Theory 2 is vertebrae were their own life form in the time period, and lesser forms of life colonized them because they were a superior/ more resistant form than the rest. Since we as beings are basically made up of many forms of smaller life as a whole this also makes sense when you think about it.

I think the way we look at early evolution is we're not really looking at the big picture and that is why people find holes in the theory. I'm kinda drunk right now and playing a game so I wrote this in a rush.

GirlyMan
01-16-2012, 04:34
What I was getting at is we look at early evolution as a single species evolving into many when I personally think it was different. I have a few examples without going into major details, being as it's just a personal theory and I didn't pull it out of a book or another source, I kinda came up with it while tripping on mushrooms to be honest lol.

Theory 1 is vertebrae are to early organisms as cancer are to us. It started out as a defect that plagued early forms of life, and the life forms evolved to adapt to the defect and use it to it's advantage. It could of originated from gamma radiation bombarding the planet causing defects or growths to a meteor crashing into the planet bringing a new form of life that infected the current forms of life. I think it makes sense

Theory 2 is vertebrae were their own life form in the time period, and lesser forms of life colonized them because they were a superior/ more resistant form than the rest. Since we as beings are basically made up of many forms of smaller life as a whole this also makes sense when you think about it.

I think the way we look at early evolution is we're not really looking at the big picture and that is why people find holes in the theory. I'm kinda drunk right now and playing a game so I wrote this in a rush.

I don't think it's too extreme. If we all started from a single lifeform there should really be no need to eat eachother to survive or any desire to. It's essentially competition on such a dramatic scale it makes you wonder. Yet at the same time it's cooperation on such a dramatic scale.

Theories are pretty creepy though. Like an eternal war. A predator is introduced into a peaceful environment, adaptations are made to infect the predator; predator starts preying on itself while the former prey seek refuge inside the very thing preying on them?

Essentially it makes some sense to me. Why even bother to become more advanced when the complications of becoming more advanced means more can go wrong and the very act of existing is that much more taxing on your body and you require more food just to live.

It does some like a disease or attack to some extent; forced, anyways. I've talked about something similar before: If you are floating around in the water soaking up nutrients and can reproduce from yourself why would you need change? Why would you want it? Of course it doesn't matter what you would want, it happens anyway and thus it's forced on us, by some outside influence.

AND so essentially we start as single cell that reproduces itself and hardly exerts any energy to survive, and end up with what? A multi-billioned celled creature that needs so much water and food, needs to brave the cold and heat, can only eat specific things, gets sick from eating the wrong things and needs to find a mate of the opposite gender to reproduce, the child needs to survive in the womb for 9 months, the mother needs to drag it along to keep it alive...

All of this seems to contradict the survival aspects of evolution.. if you were getting better why wouldn't you make it easier to survive instead of more challenging?

Dankdafied
01-16-2012, 05:51
Who said animals don't love or feel loss?

How do you know what those other fish are thinking when their cousins got eaten?

granted a minnow probably doesn't have the brain capacity to both flee for it's life and worry about cousin Bob, or the memory to remember what happened 5 min ago.

Ever had a dog? If yes, then I need not continue.

PirateGlen
01-16-2012, 08:46
AND so essentially we start as single cell that reproduces itself and hardly exerts any energy to survive, and end up with what? A multi-billioned celled creature that needs so much water and food, needs to brave the cold and heat, can only eat specific things, gets sick from eating the wrong things and needs to find a mate of the opposite gender to reproduce, the child needs to survive in the womb for 9 months, the mother needs to drag it along to keep it alive...

All of this seems to contradict the survival aspects of evolution.. if you were getting better why wouldn't you make it easier to survive instead of more challenging?

Net reproductive success. You think it's harder for us to live compared to amoebas? I kill single celled organisms on accident. I'm smart enough to develop the technology to exterminate things that are a mere nuisance to me. Asserting being a smaller less complex inferior organism be the SUPERIOR option might be the stupidest thing you've said on the topic so far.

Kraven
01-16-2012, 08:48
An Asian playing the flute? Is there some way this can be more stereotypical? Beatboxing? Perfect...

Color me unimpressed.

GirlyMan
01-16-2012, 19:19
Net reproductive success. You think it's harder for us to live compared to amoebas? I kill single celled organisms on accident. I'm smart enough to develop the technology to exterminate things that are a mere nuisance to me. Asserting being a smaller less complex inferior organism be the SUPERIOR option might be the stupidest thing you've said on the topic so far.

There would be no need to develop, is my point, unless there were some motivation to do AKA defend yourself.

Again you jump to conclusions, due to a lack of understanding. Same way you think a distant start exploding would cover the earth in some sort of green ooze ;l. Brilliant, sir.

Civilization
01-16-2012, 19:27
There would be no need to develop, is my point, unless there were some motivation to do AKA defend yourself.


There does not need to be a reason to develop, mutations happen spontaneously.

GirlyMan
01-16-2012, 19:36
There does not need to be a reason to develop, mutations happen spontaneously.

Depends on the mutation. Lactose intolerance is a result of not drinking milk, as drinking the milk causes the mutation that allows us to drink milk and metabolise the lactose. That's not a spontaneous mutation.

UV Radiation from the sun, not spontaneous.

Many factors that cause mutation are not spontaneous. Actually most mutations I can think of have a reason. Babies aren't born with two heads spontaneously.

Apex Vertigo
01-16-2012, 19:46
There would be no need to develop, is my point, unless there were some motivation to do AKA defend yourself.

Again you jump to conclusions, due to a lack of understanding. Same way you think a distant start exploding would cover the earth in some sort of green ooze ;l. Brilliant, sir.

Even without a reason, like defense, to develop, the fact that developing gives you an advantage means that when that mutation eventually does happen you are more likely to survive and prosper ahead of the rest of your species. I can see this happening more often with something that benefits its ability to reproduce, given your scenario.

I've already explained this to you before though and you ignored my post.

GirlyMan
01-16-2012, 20:00
Even without a reason, like defense, to develop, the fact that developing gives you an advantage means that when that mutation eventually does happen you are more likely to survive and prosper ahead of the rest of your species. I can see this happening more often with something that benefits its ability to reproduce, given your scenario.

I've already explained this to you before though and you ignored my post.

I'm not being scientific in my post, we're philosophizing here. I don't need to be explained the minute details of everything because they wouldn't really factor into the "bigger picture".

Obviously things mutate; obviously things change. I think when you're dealing with simple lifeforms they are adapting to absolutely everything and thus changing their progression in a certain way. If you were a simple organism and were exposed to the sun you would adapt differently than one that spends it's life in darkness.

Humans obviously have great survivability, but what comes back to is the theory I was responding to. What humans are vulnerable against is simple life like bacteria, viruses. The Spanish Flu took out how many millions? And the Flu continues to change, as we adapt to it.

I don't think life was ever a joy ride. Obviously competition entered into the scenario and changed the factors immensely. Life eventually begins feeding on things that once was it's kind.

Ziegler
01-16-2012, 21:16
All this talk about god and evolution........you're both wrong and right at the same time. (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/small/000/158/329/9189283.jpg?1312526309)

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 00:57
There would be no need to develop, is my point, unless there were some motivation to do AKA defend yourself.

Again you jump to conclusions, due to a lack of understanding. Same way you think a distant start exploding would cover the earth in some sort of green ooze ;l. Brilliant, sir.

It has nothing to do with what you need. Mutations are not a response to problems, they either help or hinder you. If they help they will enhance your net reproductive success, if they hinder they will reduce your net reproductive success. They will occur either way. The mutations retained are based on the organism's ability to cope with bad mutations or excel with good mutations.

It would seem you're ignorant in more ways that I could have imagined. The green ooze reference is based on the teenage mutant ninja turtles version of mutation, where it happens fast and it's awesome. I never said the world would be covered with ooze, especially not from a distant star explosion. Holy shit. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

Apex Vertigo
01-17-2012, 01:15
I'm not being scientific in my post, we're philosophizing here. I don't need to be explained the minute details of everything because they wouldn't really factor into the "bigger picture".


Eh, sry then, didn't read this entire thread. Not a fan of determining facts through philosophy, no fun to argue using a method that can not be proven false.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 03:50
Eh, sry then, didn't read this entire thread. Not a fan of determining facts through philosophy, no fun to argue using a method that can not be proven false.

No one's determining facts. It's asking questions.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 03:50
It has nothing to do with what you need. Mutations are not a response to problems, they either help or hinder you. If they help they will enhance your net reproductive success, if they hinder they will reduce your net reproductive success. They will occur either way. The mutations retained are based on the organism's ability to cope with bad mutations or excel with good mutations.

It would seem you're ignorant in more ways that I could have imagined. The green ooze reference is based on the teenage mutant ninja turtles version of mutation, where it happens fast and it's awesome. I never said the world would be covered with ooze, especially not from a distant star explosion. Holy shit. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

Mutations are responses to problems. You get bombarded with radiation, you get mutations. No point on even responding to the rest since you don't understand the nature of mutation.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 05:02
Mutations are responses to problems. You get bombarded with radiation, you get mutations. No point on even responding to the rest since you don't understand the nature of mutation.

The real irony is that you are the one who doesn't understand the nature of mutations. A mutation is an "error" in the sense that an organism did not EXACTLY copy genetic code. It's not a response to anything, it is an error.

Organisms sometimes do this themselves, chemicals can cause this error, radiation can cause this error. Seriously... you either need to accept that you don't understand the topic and therefore accept information given to you, or you need to get a real education.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 05:13
The real irony is that you are the one who doesn't understand the nature of mutations. A mutation is an "error" in the sense that an organism did not EXACTLY copy genetic code. It's not a response to anything, it is an error.

Organisms sometimes do this themselves, chemicals can cause this error, radiation can cause this error. Seriously... you either need to accept that you don't understand the topic and therefore accept information given to you, or you need to get a real education.

You're grasping at straws.

You place a lizard on a new island, mutations occur as response to the new habitat. Now it always has to be an error?

Dude there's so many different kinds of mutations you can't sum it up in a sentence.

Mutations occur all the time in response to the environment. You're saying there are no beneficial mutations due to adaptations? It's just an error that makes the lizards jaw better at chewing the new types of food?

Stick to arguing economics. You can't invent new theories for every response and get away with it.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 05:55
You're grasping at straws.
You're proving yourself to have LESS than high school understanding of evolution.


You place a lizard on a new island, mutations occur as response to the new habitat. Now it always has to be an error?
The mutations are RETAINED in response to the new habitat. The mutation is an error. If it were not an error it would never mutate and be the exact same forever. Stop confusing error with the normative meaning you want to ascribe to it.


Dude there's so many different kinds of mutations you can't sum it up in a sentence.
I didn't imply that my sentence was exhaustive. You keep trying to say it's your magic star causing mutations when there are a wide variety of mutation sources and that radiation is one amongst many.


Mutations occur all the time in response to the environment. You're saying there are no beneficial mutations due to adaptations? It's just an error that makes the lizards jaw better at chewing the new types of food?
Yes! It is an ERROR. The environment only dictated net reproductive success. The mutation could've been a better or worse jaw. The environment did not dictate which direction the mutation would go. If it was worse the lizard would be more likely to die, if it was better, it would be more likely to succeed. The better jaws get passed on to offspring because the inferior jaw means the lizard is more likely to die before producing offspring.


Stick to arguing economics. You can't invent new theories for every response and get away with it.

This is not invented. I'm being forced to educate you because you are so ignorant on the subject.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 06:09
You're proving yourself to have LESS than high school understanding of evolution.


The mutations are RETAINED in response to the new habitat. The mutation is an error. If it were not an error it would never mutate and be the exact same forever. Stop confusing error with the normative meaning you want to ascribe to it.


I didn't imply that my sentence was exhaustive. You keep trying to say it's your magic star causing mutations when there are a wide variety of mutation sources and that radiation is one amongst many.


Yes! It is an ERROR. The environment only dictated net reproductive success. The mutation could've been a better or worse jaw. The environment did not dictate which direction the mutation would go. If it was worse the lizard would be more likely to die, if it was better, it would be more likely to succeed. The better jaws get passed on to offspring because the inferior jaw means the lizard is more likely to die before producing offspring.



This is not invented. I'm being forced to educate you because you are so ignorant on the subject.



Once again I'll simply educate you.


"mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. They can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation."

YOU DO NOT INDUCE MUTATIONS YOURSELF IN ERROR. IT IS ADAPTATION; A RESPONE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation


"Genetic mutations – contribute to the genetic variability within a population and can have positive, negative, or neutral effects on a fitness.[6]This variability can be easily propagated throughout a population by natural selection if the mutation increases the affected individual's fitness and its effects will be minimized/hidden if the mutation is deleterious. However, the smaller a population and its genetic variability are, the more likely the recessive/hidden deleterious mutations will show up causing genetic drift.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability


What causes mutations?
“Mutations can be caused by errors in replication, transcription, cell division, or by external agents.” (ex: radiation) Some mutations seem to just happen, perhaps as a mistake in base pairing during DNA replication. However, many mutations are caused by factors in the environment.”
Prentice Hall Biology, 2006, Pg. 301

No words needed really. Debunks your entire post.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 06:33
Good mutations are retained. Bad are lost. I get it; you're claiming it's a blind, random thing, though?

You introduce lizards to a new island, and they thrive and change and adapt.

That's not a mistake; that's not random. That's selective, that's adaptation; that's a factor that forces a response from you to either 1) Fix it or 2) Keep it.

You take the lizards home after awhile? They will fix it. You keep them there, there will keep it.

That's not an accident, that's not a random occurrence that they thrive. They thrive because they can adapt.

You throw a fish onto dry land they die. They CANNOT adapt to that.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 06:41
The question I have for you Glen, is how outdated is YOUR education?

Jedicake
01-17-2012, 06:46
You throw a fish onto dry land they die. They CANNOT adapt to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 06:49
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Extinct. Was probably better off in the water.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 07:01
Once again I'll simply educate you.

YOU DO NOT INDUCE MUTATIONS YOURSELF IN ERROR. IT IS ADAPTATION; A RESPONE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
You should have taken the time to click the link for hypermutation. This is a cell-level adaptation that is not passed on to offspring that, while useful to an organism, does not represent the type of mutation we're talking about in evolution... the type that defines a species.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability

This is consistent with what I said.

Yes... environmental factors like radiation can cause mutation. It does not dictate the direction of that mutation.


No words needed really. Debunks your entire post.

You should try some words. Hell... maybe trying to learn something.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 07:03
I'm aware hypermutation doesn't pass on. You are saying mutation is ERROR when it is not always so.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 07:07
Yes... environmental factors like radiation can cause mutation. It does not dictate the direction of that mutation.


That's a very broad statement. Yes it does, and no it doesn't.

A creature exposed to UV will adapt and evolve differently than those exposed to no light. The question of what the mutation can do is limited by genetics and so forth but most creatures will have the genetics already to deal with UV radiation.

Apex Vertigo
01-17-2012, 07:10
This is painful to read, watching someone explain the bare fundamentals of evolution and the other guy continue to prattle on, completely unaware that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

EDIT: And for god's sake man, mutation is always an error in the sense that it is not something that is suppose to happen within the biological constraints of an organism. It is, by definition, an error because it is something abnormal, going against how genes usually are transferred. For the purposes of this debate, they are always errors. They may be beneficial to the organism but they are still errors regardless of rather it was environmentally inspired or not.



You introduce lizards to a new island, and they thrive and change and adapt.


Their descendants may "thrive" but if you introduce a lizard to a new environment it will have to be a hospitable in the first place for it to survive. A species "Adapts" as the offspring is produced and the best fit lives on. However, the lizard itself that you put on the island isn't changing at all. It's not adapting just like you wouldn't "adapt" to living in a tundra or on the equator, the human body doesn't "change" just like nothing else does (individually).

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 07:31
This is painful to read, watching someone explain the bare fundamentals of evolution and the other guy continue to prattle on, completely unaware that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

EDIT: And for god's sake man, mutation is always an error in the sense that it is not something that is suppose to happen within the biological constraints of an organism. It is, by definition, an error because it is something abnormal, going against how genes usually are transferred. For the purposes of this debate, they are always errors. They may be beneficial to the organism but they are still errors regardless of rather it was environmentally inspired or not.

"For the purpose of this debate they are always errors"

Hah. No. DNA reacts to mutagens by restructuring, deletions. If it decides that this change is a problem it will try to fix it. If it decides it's good it will keep it. That's not an error.

Unfortunately it can't always fix a problem; and unfortunately you can't blindly develop mutations that would have no structural basis in your own genetics.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 07:42
Good mutations are retained. Bad are lost. I get it; you're claiming it's a blind, random thing, though?

You introduce lizards to a new island, and they thrive and change and adapt.

That's not a mistake; that's not random. That's selective, that's adaptation; that's a factor that forces a response from you to either 1) Fix it or 2) Keep it.

You take the lizards home after awhile? They will fix it. You keep them there, there will keep it.

That's not an accident, that's not a random occurrence that they thrive. They thrive because they can adapt.
They will only "thrive" if the environment is suited to them. If they are poorly adapted to the environment they will either die or they will be sufficiently adapted to the environment so that the species will live long enough for ancestors to grow better adapted to the environment through natural selection.



You throw a fish onto dry land they die. They CANNOT adapt to that.

Just as the lizard cannot adapt to the ocean. You should try learning about the intermediate stages that show which fish can handle the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 07:52
That's a very broad statement. Yes it does, and no it doesn't.

A creature exposed to UV will adapt and evolve differently than those exposed to no light. The question of what the mutation can do is limited by genetics and so forth but most creatures will have the genetics already to deal with UV radiation.

Do you think your children will have darker skin if you stay out in the sun more?

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 07:57
They will only "thrive" if the environment is suited to them. If they are poorly adapted to the environment they will either die or they will be sufficiently adapted to the environment so that the species will live long enough for ancestors to grow better adapted to the environment through natural selection.




Just as the lizard cannot adapt to the ocean. You should try learning about the intermediate stages that show which fish can handle the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish

Just barely handle the land. We already know what would happen if they stayed out for more than brief periods. If they environment doesn't kill them, predators will.

Lizards have adapted to water. Probably not salt water, no. The reptiles that can swim are better on land and water than any amphibian or fish would be.

Reptiles > Amphibians

Fish are pretty sweet though.

Apex Vertigo
01-17-2012, 07:59
"For the purpose of this debate they are always errors"

Hah. No. DNA reacts to mutagens by restructuring, deletions. If it decides that this change is a problem it will try to fix it. If it decides it's good it will keep it. That's not an error.

Unfortunately it can't always fix a problem; and unfortunately you can't blindly develop mutations that would have no structural basis in your own genetics.

Again demonstrating that you thoroughly have no idea what you're talking about and skimming Wikipedia for answers 5 seconds before posting is not doing yourself any favors. First of all, mutagens are not a driving force behind evolution. Second, a body doesn't "decide" anything, that's silly. In fact, nothing you just said makes much sense at all. You desperately need to find some literature on this subject if you want to talk about it, your educational institution(s) clearly failed you. I'm not saying this to belittle or insult you. I really think, if you honestly want to understand this, you'd be doing yourself a huge benefit by actually doing some honest learning rather than pretentiously speaking "philosophically" when you don't want to argue something and then come back "scientifically" with inaccurate and asinine examples and terms that you don't use correctly.

Mutations are completely random. Mutagens are not the mutations in question... unless you live in a science fiction novel where a race of people is turned into monsters.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 08:00
Do you think your children will have darker skin if you stay out in the sun more?

We've already been established as having this colour. Our genetics are already settled in this regard.

We tan.

Interestingly enough Europeans, Asians, South Americans and Middle-Easterners have Neanderthal Ancestry. White Skin could very well be a Neanderthal trait; and the regions that didn't interbreed with them as much would have darker skin.

Africans do not have Neanderthal ancestry.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 08:01
Again demonstrating that you thoroughly have no idea what you're talking about and skimming Wikipedia for answers 5 seconds before posting is not doing yourself any favors. First of all, mutagens are not a driving force behind evolution. Second, a body doesn't "decide" anything, that's silly. In fact, nothing you just said makes much sense at all. You desperately need to find some literature on this subject if you want to talk about it, your educational institution(s) clearly failed you. I'm not saying this to belittle or insult you. I really think, if you honestly want to understand this, you'd be doing yourself a huge benefit by actually doing some honest learning rather than pretentiously speaking "philosophically" when you don't want to argue something and then come back "scientifically" with inaccurate and asinine examples and terms that you don't use correctly.

Mutations are completely random. Mutagens are not the mutations in question... unless you live in a science fiction novel where a race of people is turned into monsters.

Well yeah I did use mutagen pretty clumsy but I was getting tired of typing "factors inducing mutation" and such.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 08:07
"For the purpose of this debate they are always errors"

Hah. No. DNA reacts to mutagens by restructuring, deletions. If it decides that this change is a problem it will try to fix it. If it decides it's good it will keep it. That's not an error.

Unfortunately it can't always fix a problem; and unfortunately you can't blindly develop mutations that would have no structural basis in your own genetics.

This is false. All changes are "problems" in terms of the cell's analysis of dna replication. The organism fixes and fails to fix some errors but that's not based on whether it's "good" or not.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 08:12
This is false. All changes are "problems" in terms of the cell's analysis of dna replication. The organism fixes and fails to fix some errors but that's not based on whether it's "good" or not.

Everything's a problem. It doesn't mean it's an error. Eating too much food is a problem, not an error. Smoking is a problem, not an error.

Interestingly enough smoking passes down through your genetics. Native Americans have much lower cancer rates in smokers than any other race. Definitely not an error.

If you had an error in your DNA, you would know it. You'd either be dead or disabled.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 08:15
Just barely handle the land. We already know what would happen if they stayed out for more than brief periods. If they environment doesn't kill them, predators will.

Lizards have adapted to water. Probably not salt water, no. The reptiles that can swim are better on land and water than any amphibian or fish would be.

Reptiles > Amphibians

Fish are pretty sweet though.

Ya... I don't care what you think is "better". The point is there is a full spectrum of life following the path of water---->half water----> land rendering the idea of a fish out of water or a lizard in the ocean moot.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 08:20
Everything's a problem. It doesn't mean it's an error. Eating too much food is a problem, not an error. Smoking is a problem, not an error.

Interestingly enough smoking passes down through your genetics. Native Americans have much lower cancer rates in smokers than any other race. Definitely not an error.

If you had an error in your DNA, you would know it. You'd either be dead or disabled.

Is english your second language? Error has no normative implications. An error is a mistake as in it did not EXACTLY copy DNA as the cells were supposed to. The cell is SUPPOSED to copy the DNA exactly. Anything else is an error by definition. Whether the error produces good or bad results is based on the environment.

If I board the wrong flight and my intended flight crashes. Boarding the wrong flight is still an error regardless of the result, good or bad.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 08:33
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Mutation

point out where it says it's an error.

(general)

A change in or the process of changing, e.g. nature, form or quality.

(1) A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome; the process in which such a change occurs in a gene or in a chromosome.

(2) A mutant, or an individual exhibiting such a change.

Error, mistake, are not found.

The closest is "faulty" which isn't synonymous with error.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 08:49
And before you try to make up more shit about faulty being related to causing errors (which is true)

consider: functional insertions and deletions.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 09:20
And my native language is Saxon. I usually type in English but when I'm tired the Saxon starts seeping in.

Jedicake
01-17-2012, 09:34
And my native language is Saxon. I usually type in English but when I'm tired the Saxon starts seeping in.

Saxon makes me think of a black jazz guy playin a saxophone

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 10:04
And before you try to make up more shit about faulty being related to causing errors (which is true)

consider: functional insertions and deletions.
This is only means that a gene continues to function after having an erroneous insertion or deletion.


And my native language is Saxon. I usually type in English but when I'm tired the Saxon starts seeping in.

Maybe you should take it from a native english speaker. A faulty action produces errors.

Here's a pretty decent explanation of the process:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

88Chaz88
01-17-2012, 11:08
What the fuck? 8 pages of arguing with someone too stupid or ignorant to get that evolution exists?

What the fuck are you guys trying to prove at this point? That your knowledge is just as much as 90% of everyone else who lives in civilised society on the subject?

Makestro
01-17-2012, 16:54
Do you think your children will have darker skin if you stay out in the sun more?

No but if they watched jersey shore they will.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 18:56
This is only means that a gene continues to function after having an erroneous insertion or deletion.



Maybe you should take it from a native english speaker. A faulty action produces errors.

Here's a pretty decent explanation of the process:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

If it's functional it's not erroneous. If it's detrimental. it's not evolution.

I already said faulty insertions lead to errors. However "May be" is not "limited to" and functional insertions are not mentioned.

I can understand though why you would say mutations are always errors. It would go against your belief in the "Blind Watchmaker" theory. Obviously, evolution is not blind and any positive mutation would be kept, not fixed. Meaning your DNA would accept it, and thus it is not an error in this scenario.

Of course when bad mutations are introduced they lead to errors. That's never been the question. You stated simply, all mutations are errors which is not true and to believe such is believe evolution is an error - which it is not.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 19:01
And I'm aware I'm arguing against extreme ignorance. Too many reputable scientists have come out saying what they teach in schools is wrong. It's like trying to help people think their way out of a cult, here.

iza
01-17-2012, 19:39
If it's functional it's not erroneous. If it's detrimental. it's not evolution.

I already said faulty insertions lead to errors. However "May be" is not "limited to" and functional insertions are not mentioned.

I can understand though why you would say mutations are always errors. It would go against your belief in the "Blind Watchmaker" theory. Obviously, evolution is not blind and any positive mutation would be kept, not fixed. Meaning your DNA would accept it, and thus it is not an error in this scenario.

Of course when bad mutations are introduced they lead to errors. That's never been the question. You stated simply, all mutations are errors which is not true and to believe such is believe evolution is an error - which it is not.
I think you are just misunderstanding each other. All mutations in replication are errors in the sense that the cell normally makes an identical copy of its DNA; any mutation is the result of a non-perfect copy, whether it is beneficial or not.

Edit: didn't realize PG already said the same thing here. How do you not understand this?

Is english your second language? Error has no normative implications. An error is a mistake as in it did not EXACTLY copy DNA as the cells were supposed to. The cell is SUPPOSED to copy the DNA exactly. Anything else is an error by definition. Whether the error produces good or bad results is based on the environment.

If I board the wrong flight and my intended flight crashes. Boarding the wrong flight is still an error regardless of the result, good or bad.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 19:54
I think you are just misunderstanding each other. All mutations in replication are errors in the sense that the cell normally makes an identical copy of its DNA; any mutation is the result of a non-perfect copy, whether it is beneficial or not.

Edit: didn't realize PG already said the same thing here. How do you not understand this?

There would be no evolution without the capacity to change. If the cell considers something usable it uses it. That's simply not an error.

Just because it is different from you "native" DNA doesn't mean it's an error. It's a change; most of the time being detrimental.

We just have ideological differences, and that's why he picks apart philosophical debate to assert things that have no relevance in the discussion.


Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or (OR - NOT EXCLUSIVELY) errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats[citation needed]). Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA (splice site mutation), or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element.

So you can see not every mutation is an error, caused by errors.

You cannot universally say, all mutations are errors. They lead to change, errors. Not just errors, and not simply caused by errors but also many other factors.

Just like you cannot say, all mutations are spontaneous.

I've never said mutations do not involve errors. I've simply said not all mutations are related to error.

Civilization
01-17-2012, 20:07
Lactose intolerance is a result of not drinking milk, as drinking the milk causes the mutation that allows us to drink milk and metabolise the lactose. That's not a spontaneous mutation.



Drinking milk does not cause a mutation to occur. You have the order mixed up. Mammals usually grow lactose intolerant after weaning, humans are no exception to this. However, when we started domesticising animals some 10.000 years ago our daily lactose intake surged. A then random mutation allowed us to withstand higher intakes of lactose than previously. However, that mutation does not really "solve" lactose, as about 3/4 of all human adults still show signs of lactose intolerance today.
Neither is lactose intolerance a result of not drinking milk. Lactose intolerance is the result of lack of the lactose enzyme, wich may be caused by a mutation on the respective genome. It really does not matter how much milk you drink or not drink.

In fact, the phenomenon that today's humans are lactase resistance is proof that even humans are susceptible to evolution. The autosomal alleles associated with prolonged lactose restiance beyond childhood can be traced some 10 thousand years ago, as I pointed out above. In fact, if you map out the distribution of the gene across the globe (it's not homogenous) it matches the spread of domesticated cattle and dairy farming. Consequently, this hablotype came under strong selective pressure in Europe, as dairy products where important for the survival of the population in europe. Natural selection favored those more lactase resistant. The end.



UV Radiation from the sun, not spontaneous.


The radiation levels from the sun are inherently spontaneous but that's a completely different topic. What you wanted to say is that cancer caused by UV radiation is not spontaneous. It is. The ionizing radiation passes your skin into the cells, into the nucleus and destroys the DNA there. Which base pair or which section of the DNA is obviously as spontaneous and random as it gets. Now your cells are pretty clever and can repair damaged DNA. The problem is, that process isn't foolproof and a DNA can be repaired wrong. Another random process.
So, what UV radiation essentially does is increasing the frequency at wich random mutations occur.



Many factors that cause mutation are not spontaneous. Actually most mutations I can think of have a reason. Babies aren't born with two heads spontaneously.

You don't understand what the term spontaneous means. In the context of chemistry it refers to the ability of reactions happening without a catalyst, i.e. "they just happen". Yes, mutations can occur as a consequence of e.g. ionizing radiation, but they don't have to. DNA can be damaged by entropic effects, spontaneous hydrolysis, the many species of radical oxygens that are produced various cell processes and so on.
That is why people distinguish between spontaneous and and induced mutation.

Apex Vertigo
01-17-2012, 20:16
If it's functional it's not erroneous. If it's detrimental. it's not evolution.

Again, wrong. If an organism has offspring that has a mutation that happens to be detrimental it is still considered evolution. All that matters is that a mutation occured and changed the organism from its predecessor. Evolution doesn't mean "changed to adapt or to better itself" it just means "to change." How you can keep getting this wrong after so many pages of people explaining is beyond me.

However, this is probably not a great way to educate you. You come into an environment and are told "You are wrong" as I just did above and a person's natural reaction is to defend themselves, even when its something as simple as getting the definition of a word wrong. Really, this kind of "debate" polarizes people, it's sad to see someone who might otherwise be an intelligent person retreat further and further back into ignorance. I've seen this a lot and I've been a victim of it several times but I try my best to recognize when I'm wrong and I've been aware enough to admit to it a few times on this forum. I really encourage you to have someone knowledgeable and intelligent explain this to you thoroughly some day. Not on a forum where you have to defend yourself and you can never admit that you don't understand something because so far you've proven you don't know what mutations are and you don't know what the theory of evolution entails and how can you really have an intelligible discussion if you aren't even willing to understand the core of the subject?

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 20:21
That is why people distinguish between spontaneous and and induced mutation.

Except you; when you assert all mutations are spontaneous.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Scientists-identify-lactose-intolerance-mutation


Ten to twelve thousand years, when humans started to use dairy culture - cattle, goats - around that time the mutation happened and made some individuals lactose tolerant," Peltonen said.

Sure, it can happen spontaneously. It's definitely induced, though.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 20:23
Again, wrong. If an organism has offspring that has a mutation that happens to be detrimental it is still considered evolution. All that matters is that a mutation occured and changed the organism from its predecessor. Evolution doesn't mean "changed to adapt or to better itself" it just means "to change." How you can keep getting this wrong after so many pages of people explaining is beyond me.

However, this is probably not a great way to educate you. You come into an environment and are told "You are wrong" as I just did above and a person's natural reaction is to defend themselves, even when its something as simple as getting the definition of a word wrong. Really, this kind of "debate" polarizes people, it's sad to see someone who might otherwise be an intelligent person retreat further and further back into ignorance. I've seen this a lot and I've been a victim of it several times but I try my best to recognize when I'm wrong and I've been aware enough to admit to it a few times on this forum. I really encourage you to have someone knowledgeable and intelligent explain this to you thoroughly some day. Not on a forum where you have to defend yourself and you can never admit that you don't understand something because so far you've proven you don't know what mutations are and you don't know what the theory of evolution entails and how can you really have an intelligible discussion if you aren't even willing to understand the core of the subject?

Again, we have very different opinions on what evolution is. Devolution would be what you are thinking of - something getting worse - like an amphibious fish walking onto land and going extinct.

Apex Vertigo
01-17-2012, 20:26
Again, we have very different opinions on what evolution is. Devolution would be what you are thinking of - something getting worse - like an amphibious fish walking onto land and going extinct.

No, because devolution isn't actually a thing. Devolution may be what you want to describe it as and that's fine, but its not scientifically accurate. Evolution is merely change, simple as that.

EDIT: It's not a thing because that would assume that these random processes have a goal. They don't have a goal, they just happen and the environment dictates who gets to stick around and have more offspring. There is no such thing as "Devolution" in the sense that it's "bad" or "backwards". I have used the term to describe modern humanity, but I'd never say that it was an actual biological step backwards.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 20:31
No, because devolution isn't actually a thing. Devolution may be what you want to describe it as and that's fine, but its not scientifically accurate. Evolution is merely change, simple as that.

EDIT: It's not a thing because that would assume that these random processes have a goal. They don't have a goal, they just happen and the environment dictates who gets to stick around and have more offspring. There is no such thing as "Devolution" in the sense that it's "bad" or "backwards". I have used the term to describe modern humanity, but I'd never say that it was an actual biological step backwards.

Well we disagree. I would agree with your basic premise that all change is evolution - agreed. But I mean technically, if a fish walks on land it's going to die and I personally would consider that devolution even it's using the same evolutionary mechanics as everything else.

Again, I simply don't believe evolution is blind and random. I think it all depends on the various factors. I don't buy the "Blind Watchmaker Theory" even if I still believe in evolution.

We're arguing on idealogical grounds and we'll never agree.

Apex Vertigo
01-17-2012, 20:35
Well we disagree. I would agree with your basic premise that all change is evolution - agreed. But I mean technically, if a fish walks on land it's going to die and I personally would consider that devolution even it's using the same evolutionary mechanics as everything else.

Ok, but what relevance does that definition have? I don't mind if you want to call something devolution, subjectively, but just realize that "devolution" is not a conscious product of nature in any way.

Khorsy
01-17-2012, 20:36
Well we disagree. I would agree with your basic premise that all change is evolution - agreed. But I mean technically, if a fish walks on land it's going to die and I personally would consider that devolution even it's using the same evolutionary mechanics as everything else.

I say,

This little grain of rice appears...bigger than this one?

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 20:43
Ok, but what relevance does that definition have? I don't mind if you want to call something devolution, subjectively, but just realize that "devolution" is not a conscious product of nature in any way.

It's subjective. I have the capacity to judge that sort of thing. Fish don't do well on land. They hardly have any defensive mechanisms. Just because nature can't judge what is good or bad doesn't mean I can't.

It's like the article that was posted showing lizards thrive when introduced to a new island habitat. They don't go through nonsense changes that drag them down - they adapt extremely quickly and that to me shows if nature doesn't have a direction - the organism has the mechanical capacity to better itself and through adaptation. It doesn't mean it's a concious thing; but a reactionary process more or less.

Civilization
01-17-2012, 21:29
Except you; when you assert all mutations are spontaneous.


I didn't and more over, specifically the examples you brought up against spontaneous mutation are prime examples for spontaneous mutation.

Civilization
01-17-2012, 21:30
Again, we have very different opinions on what evolution is. Devolution would be what you are thinking of - something getting worse - like an amphibious fish walking onto land and going extinct.

There is no devloution. A fish walking onto land and going extinct isn't good or bad. It's evolution.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 21:44
There is no devloution. A fish walking onto land and going extinct isn't good or bad. It's evolution.

We've already discussed this.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 21:52
I didn't and more over, specifically the examples you brought up against spontaneous mutation are prime examples for spontaneous mutation.

I never made an argument against spontaneous mutation.

We have lactose intolerance today because of a spontaneous mutation in a gene that was once induced to be able to digest milk in adulthood.

Also if you don't have much ancestry (South Americans, Africans) with drinking milk you are more likely to be lactose intolerant. As far as I know you don't spontaneously begin to metabolise lactose; apparently it takes generations.

GirlyMan
01-17-2012, 21:59
And yes, UV radiation induces mutation. UV rays are known mutagens.

Jedicake
01-17-2012, 22:19
God damn, this thread is getting old.

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 23:23
And yes, UV radiation induces mutation. UV rays are known mutagens.

You never answered... if you did I didn't see it. Do you believe that if you hang out in the sun more your children will have darker skin?

PirateGlen
01-17-2012, 23:34
There would be no evolution without the capacity to change. If the cell considers something usable it uses it. That's simply not an error.
The cell has no idea what is useful or not. The environment is what dictates utility.


Just because it is different from you "native" DNA doesn't mean it's an error. It's a change; most of the time being detrimental.
By definition it is an error.


We just have ideological differences, and that's why he picks apart philosophical debate to assert things that have no relevance in the discussion

There's nothing philosophical about this. You have an ignorant understanding of basic biology and evolution.

Civilization
01-17-2012, 23:51
We have lactose intolerance today because of a spontaneous mutation in a gene that was once induced to be able to digest milk in adulthood.


Well that does sound alot different from



Lactose intolerance is a result of not drinking milk, as drinking the milk causes the mutation that allows us to drink milk and metabolise the lactose.


As far as I understand it, you want to demonstrate that you have learned something now. Good.



As far as I know you don't spontaneously begin to metabolise lactose; apparently it takes generations.

You would, if the respective gene would mutate.

Civilization
01-18-2012, 00:02
And yes, UV radiation induces mutation. UV rays are known mutagens.

Ionizing radiation happens all the time. At no point in your life are you not penetrated by UV light. In this sense a mutation caused by UV radiation is very much spontaneous as it belongs to the ususal "background bombardment".
I agree, that this is not a clear cut case; but this is semantics not really relevant to the discussion anyway.
What's important here is that drinking milk does not cause mutations to occur and that mutations are always random.

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 00:20
Ionizing radiation happens all the time. At no point in your life are you not penetrated by UV light. In this sense a mutation caused by UV radiation is very much spontaneous as it belongs to the ususal "background bombardment".
I agree, that this is not a clear cut case; but this is semantics not really relevant to the discussion anyway.
What's important here is that drinking milk does not cause mutations to occur and that mutations are always random.

...
Spontaneous mutations are naturally occurring mutations within the organism. By definition, a mutagen does not cause spontaneous mutations.

And no, mutations aren't always random. You can predict which mutations will occur with certain agents such as drugs and therefore actually design and predict how certain mutations will affect an organism. You can say, "If I feed fruit flies this drug, their offspring will suffer these consequences with these particular changes being observed".

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 02:06
The cell has no idea what is useful or not. The environment is what dictates utility.


By definition it is an error.



There's nothing philosophical about this. You have an ignorant understanding of basic biology and evolution.

The cell doesn't know. The DNA does, however.

You don't give enough credit to DNA. It got us here, and we helped it.

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 02:23
The cell doesn't know. The DNA does, however.

You don't give enough credit to DNA. It got us here, and we helped it.

The DNA knows less than the cell and the cell doesn't know shit. The DNA is just a chain of base pairs that act as instructions for the cells of your body. DNA doesn't do anything but store the information that defines you as an organism.

You're still dodging the question. Do you think your children will have darker skin if you are in the sun more?

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 02:35
The DNA knows less than the cell and the cell doesn't know shit. The DNA is just a chain of base pairs that act as instructions for the cells of your body. DNA doesn't do anything but store the information that defines you as an organism.

You're still dodging the question. Do you think your children will have darker skin if you are in the sun more?

I already answered the question.

Your body is very complex. Just like it knows when you don't have cortisol, and produces Adrenocorticotropic hormone to bring the levels up to normal. Just like when exercise it knows to produce cortisol to feed your cells with fuel regardless of whether or not you've eaten recently - just like it knows when you're frightened to increase adrenaline - so do your genetics, your DNA, know how what is best for your body.

And no it doesn't mean it thinks. It just knows.

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 02:42
The DNA knows less than the cell and the cell doesn't know shit. The DNA is just a chain of base pairs that act as instructions for the cells of your body. DNA doesn't do anything but store the information that defines you as an organism.

You're still dodging the question. Do you think your children will have darker skin if you are in the sun more?

The DNA knows less about the cell than cell yet it has the information to make the cell.

I'm sorry but :lmao:

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 03:02
The DNA knows less about the cell than cell yet it has the information to make the cell.

I'm sorry but :lmao:
You're really clueless. The DNA does not interact with the outside world. It's a list that defines you as a species. The cell, on the other hand, can actually interact with the world through chemical changes in the body. The DNA does not react to the environment. It doesn't "just know". The DNA only changes if the cells fail to reproduce it exactly or it is altered by environmental damage (like radiation).

Every post your make further clarifies how ignorant you are of basic biology.

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 03:02
I already answered the question.

Your body is very complex. Just like it knows when you don't have cortisol, and produces Adrenocorticotropic hormone to bring the levels up to normal. Just like when exercise it knows to produce cortisol to feed your cells with fuel regardless of whether or not you've eaten recently - just like it knows when you're frightened to increase adrenaline - so do your genetics, your DNA, know how what is best for your body.

And no it doesn't mean it thinks. It just knows.

It's a yes or no question. Do you think your children will have darker skin if you are in the sun more?

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 03:09
You're really clueless. The DNA does not interact with the outside world. It's a list that defines you as a species. The cell, on the other hand, can actually interact with the world through chemical changes in the body. The DNA does not react to the environment. It doesn't "just know". The DNA only changes if the cells fail to reproduce it exactly or it is altered by environmental damage (like radiation).

Every post your make further clarifies how ignorant you are of basic biology.

Does not interact with the outside world? I have no idea where you are going with this gibberish.

DNA is everything. Without it there is nothing.

And.. I already answered that question. Feel free to go back in the post history.

Look, DNA isn't static. It's always working to perform it's functions, which are extremely broad. It's more than just a list.

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 04:12
Does not interact with the outside world? I have no idea where you are going with this gibberish.
That's because you don't know anything about biology.


DNA is everything. Without it there is nothing.

Look, DNA isn't static. It's always working to perform it's functions, which are extremely broad. It's more than just a list.
Wrong. The cell's functions are broad. The DNA does nothing but provide information determined at birth to the cells. It does not change regularly. It's is predominantly permanent throughout your life with the exception of the few rare mutations that occur and are not corrected.


And.. I already answered that question. Feel free to go back in the post history.
I've seen 2 posts in response to it that are ambiguous. Will your child's skin be darker because you were in the sun more, yes or no?

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 06:57
Wrong. The cell's functions are broad. The DNA does nothing but provide information determined at birth to the cells. It does not change regularly. It's is predominantly permanent throughout your life with the exception of the few rare mutations that occur and are not corrected.




Again, the only thing to say is: :lmao: You wouldn't be alive without it.

Of course the cell's functions are broad. They're there because of DNA. Providing information to cells, repairing mutations. Evolution. All because of DNA. Which is constantly being damaged and repaired. Stretches in and out, and is essential for life.

And.. minor mutations happen all the time, which is why it's always being repaired. How many mutations do you think we suffer in a lifetime?

Or is damage not change in your dictionary?

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 07:49
I've seen 2 posts in response to it that are ambiguous. Will your child's skin be darker because you were in the sun more, yes or no?

Do you think we'll spontaneously grow wings if me and my descendants try to fly for millions of years?

Or will they just gradually start appearing after a couple hundred thousand?

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 08:32
Again, the only thing to say is: :lmao: You wouldn't be alive without it.
I never said you could live without it. :rolleyes:



Of course the cell's functions are broad. They're there because of DNA. Providing information to cells, repairing mutations. Evolution. All because of DNA. Which is constantly being damaged and repaired. Stretches in and out, and is essential for life.
DNA doesn't repair other DNA nor does it repair itself. DNA doesn't take actions like cells do. It's just a collection of information that tells the cells what to do. Cells will use DNA to compare new dna with but the DNA doesn't really take an action.


And.. minor mutations happen all the time, which is why it's always being repaired. How many mutations do you think we suffer in a lifetime?

Or is damage not change in your dictionary?

We suffer about 30 permanent mutations in a lifetime.
http://www.hhmi.org/genetictrail/d100.html

We suffer about 120,000 errors that are repaired every time a cell divides per the link I provided earlier. Cell divide at different rates but we're looking at ~10^16 in terms of error count per day with just one type of cell.

I found this using error and mutation synonymously in case you still care about the semantics:
"The punches come in the form of errors, or mutations, in DNA that damage a gene and result in the production of a faulty protein."
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insidethecell/chapter4.html

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 08:33
Do you think we'll spontaneously grow wings if me and my descendants try to fly for millions of years?

Or will they just gradually start appearing after a couple hundred thousand?

Still dodging the question I see.

Will your child's skin be darker because you were in the sun more, yes or no?

Makestro
01-18-2012, 08:43
Of course the cell's functions are broad. They're there because of DNA. Providing information to cells, repairing mutations. Evolution. All because of DNA. Which is constantly being damaged and repaired. Stretches in and out, and is essential for life.

You should really learn about DNA before you try to educate anyone in this thread on it.

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 08:49
You should really learn about DNA before you try to educate anyone in this thread on it.

I know what DNA is. There is nothing without it.

And I'm not educating anyone.

I'm well aware your responses were posted to attempt to ensnare me. Believe me, it didn't work.

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 08:50
Still dodging the question I see.

Will your child's skin be darker because you were in the sun more, yes or no?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours in a manner you'd find acceptable.

Will humans ever grow wings?

Makestro
01-18-2012, 08:53
I know what DNA is. There is nothing without it.

And I'm not educating anyone.

I'm well aware your responses were posted to attempt to ensnare me. Believe me, it didn't work.

You know what it is, but that is it.

Also humans already grew wings, they're called airplanes.

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 09:02
You know what it is, but that is it.

Also humans already grew wings, they're called airplanes.

I can pretend to know, though.

I can pretend to know I have the answers to life, based on the delusions of an inbred racist, and teach these theories in a classroom, well beyond the point they've been proven wrong.

And humans construct airplanes. They don't grow them.

griM'
01-18-2012, 09:10
Lol.

The thought of people arguing about god is painful, because honestly? Not a thing can sprout from nothing.

BUT!

Where does thought come from? How do we think?

Also, why does this guy have to make it so god damn literal about god? What if a god just placed the fucking chemical juice that made that single celled organism. And then what if he just sat back and stroked his godly cock?

And another thing. Who the fuck really NEEDS to care? Why don't you just embrace each other and explore the world/universe together?

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 09:16
Lol.

The thought of people arguing about god is painful, because honestly? Not a thing can sprout from nothing.

BUT!

Where does thought come from? How do we think?

Also, why does this guy have to make it so god damn literal about god? What if a god just placed the fucking chemical juice that made that single celled organism. And then what if he just sat back and stroked his godly cock?

And another thing. Who the fuck really NEEDS to care? Why don't you just embrace each other and explore the world/universe together?

It's all just an error in mutation, bro. Nothing special about it at all, jeez. Learn the science. :rolleyes:

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 21:39
You answer my question and I'll answer yours in a manner you'd find acceptable.

Will humans ever grow wings?

They could grow anything with enough time and if mutations go in that direction. There's no way of knowing if they ever will (ignoring the semantics of continuing to call something that mutated a human).

PirateGlen
01-18-2012, 21:40
Lol.

The thought of people arguing about god is painful, because honestly? Not a thing can sprout from nothing.

BUT!

Where does thought come from? How do we think?

Also, why does this guy have to make it so god damn literal about god? What if a god just placed the fucking chemical juice that made that single celled organism. And then what if he just sat back and stroked his godly cock?

And another thing. Who the fuck really NEEDS to care? Why don't you just embrace each other and explore the world/universe together?

What created god?

GirlyMan
01-18-2012, 23:58
They could grow anything with enough time and if mutations go in that direction. There's no way of knowing if they ever will (ignoring the semantics of continuing to call something that mutated a human).

No, I don't believe my children's skin colour would be influenced my exposure to the sun.

Gunther TheBlack
01-19-2012, 00:02
Not a thing can sprout from nothing.


Actually, it can. That's something hard to comprehend, just like people thinking the earth wasn't flat.

GirlyMan
01-19-2012, 00:27
Man created God. Even if there is a God it's likely just some feeling or emotion induced by sex which at one point we could only explain as God: That feeling that feels like nothing else. Man has definitely been very creative with the word.

The idea of what God is obviously influenced by the culture that's creating it. Even if God were simply revealing to that culture the idea of God that works for that culture, unless God wanted different cultures to war the idea of what it is wouldn't conflict between the cultures.

There's just no good reason to believe in a power that has divine authority over you. I think if the universe even had a beginning it would've been life trying to manifest itself. It would've had to have been essentially supernatural. Life is a collective though, no one thing sits on the throne of life.

Gunther TheBlack
01-19-2012, 00:35
No, I don't believe my children's skin colour would be influenced my exposure to the sun.

Just an intermezzo :)

Different skin colors developed because of ligther or darker skins having less or longer chances of survival in certain climates.

Light skinned people create more vitamines than darker skins in a climate with little sunhours but create cancers more quickly in warmer climates. Dark skinned people get vitamine deficiency in a colder climate but are better protected from health hazards in warm climates.

Pretty cool how mankind adapted over time. This was a form of forced(some being unhealthy or dying too soon) selective breeding.

Ziegler
01-19-2012, 00:43
Man created God. Even if there is a God it's likely just some feeling or emotion induced by sex which at one point we could only explain as God:

The only problem with being an athiest is there is nobody to yell to during an orgasm........


Oh god!!!....err.....oh NOTHING!!!!

GirlyMan
01-19-2012, 01:19
The only problem with being an athiest is there is nobody to yell to during an orgasm........


Oh god!!!....err.....oh NOTHING!!!!

Just don't tell that to their wife.

GirlyMan
01-19-2012, 01:27
Just an intermezzo :)

Different skin colors developed because of ligther or darker skins having less or longer chances of survival in certain climates.

Light skinned people create more vitamines than darker skins in a climate with little sunhours but create cancers more quickly in warmer climates. Dark skinned people get vitamine deficiency in a colder climate but are better protected from health hazards in warm climates.

Pretty cool how mankind adapted over time. This was a form of forced(some being unhealthy or dying too soon) selective breeding.

Yup. Even whiter people can have something called "lentigo" which is little round, brown spots caused by enlarged melanin cells. Freckles are just more melanin cells in certain areas.

Freckles are much sexier than lentigo though.

Little hints of our past, imo.