+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: You might be a nerd if... (/showthread.php?tid=3280)
Pages:
1
2
You might be a nerd if... - lazyfatbum - 11th December 2005
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're done
1.) Your photocopy/natural selection theory doesn't apply to why an arthropod looks like a specific type of plant life complete with the ability to understand why it and how it should act like a plant and actually make something that looks like an ancient cricket in to a softwood birch which is a major change as the animal now looks and acts like a completely different catagory of life. A cat turning in to a whale (using your idea of randomness with natural selection) actually makes more sense because atleast a cat and whale are both mammals but as we know, this is not found any any animal or any catagory of animal. A color change, like in a snowy area a white wolf will have better survival rates than a black wolf has merit and can be applied, but for the wolf to suddenly start looking like an Elk to fool its prey is an absurd idea, just as absurd as saying that a cricket randomly turns in to a tree-like shape over time while other crickets in the same area who have the same prey with the same predators looks like a normal cricket with just slight modifications to color and size. The fridge will always look like a fridge and have characteristics of a fridge, it will be blocky and have alot of mass. Those factors may change slightly and will look like different appliances of its ilk but the fridge will never look like a plant.
2.) All living things can (and have) evolved. While contracting a disease could be considered a more natural process towards mutation or evolution of the host genes, all cancers have been found to be caused by mostly man-made influences and could possibly lead us on to a path of discovery in new gene types that resist cancers like sharks however (like in sharks) just because you can get 'sick' doesn't mean you have the ability to evolve. Sharks cannot any type of cancer and obviously they evolve and have done for quite some time. All things evolve, even the Earth itself. In fact lets use that as a good example of mutation versus evolution; Wind will slowly erode rock formations in to a smoother shape over time that is better suited for aerodynamic characteristics so that even a strong wind wont harm the rock formation, but a sudden earthquake might drastically change its structure or topple it completely. Evolution is progress to become more suited to the environment, mutation is a drastic change internally and is usually destructive.
3.) Your robot head theory (I cant believe i'm actually still typing right now) does not explain many factors that we witness in bacteria or unicell organisms such as a need to infect, absorb, devide, process one form of energy in to another and exist functionally by itself or as part of a larger group to construct larger organisms and work in unison towards a common goal.
You are becoming random and you're making no sense. I have presented an argument (for the 78th time in this thread) and you have not given factual information to support any claim other than rediculous comparisons to a copy machine, a refridgerator and a robot head.
You might be a nerd if... - TheBiggah - 11th December 2005
lazyfatbum Wrote:2.) All living things can (and have) evolved.
Point of fact, evolution is merely a THEORY. It's a theory because it can't be conclusively proven.
Quote:you're right, it's completely random and has no structure. Oh, woops, it does. And it's documented. And the only reason it's still called a theory is because of over zealous religious fanatics who insist that we sprung from the ground by a command from God. Which is only half true.
Just one of many of your contradictions. How can the theory of intelligent design be half true and the validity of the theory of evolution be beyond question? First of all, they contradict each other. To believe that the complexities that exist in nature and the universe began without the direction of a supreme being is, in my opinion, arrogant. The regular motion of the planets and galaxy, the fact that an egg and a sperm join together and differentiate into different types of tissue (eye, lung, bone, brain, etc) and that for the most part, you don't have ears on your elbows, or eyes on your stomach. The balance that exists in nature. All things denote there is a God.
Another blatant contradiction (in another thread) was that you were taking bits of the bible and proclaiming them as fact (such as god has no form) and disputing other parts of the bible as heresay (Christ literally being the physical son of god).
You often state that something has been proven, but fail to provide the proof.
-TheBiggah-
You might be a nerd if... - Dark Jaguar - 11th December 2005
Biggah, gravity is a theory. So are germs. So is every single study of science in all of it's long history.
A theory is a collection of mechanisms designed to explain observations, which can make predictions based on these explanatory mechanisms which can be tested and falsified.
Evolution matches this definiton. So does both relativistic and newtonian gravity. Laws are contained IN theories.
The layman's definition of theory is actually closer to what scientists call a hypothesis. That's an untested explanation for a phenomenon, but which can be falsified by testing.
lazy, you are simply not being creative enough if you insist there is NO way something can just naturally evolve into a walking stick. Come on, you are a very smart person but are currently being delusional. Intelligent people have a way of intelligently convincing themselves of things they came to believe for unintelligent reasons.
Let us imagine this original bug was the color of a branch. This is a survival trait, so it is kept. Imagine over the years that another mutation makes the insect longer or thinner. These make it slightly more convincing, and so are also kept. Over time, this will eventually lead to something that looks very much like a branch. Add to this some mutations that alter it's behavior so that in the wind it will "sway" in a manner more and more similar to the way branches normally do, and you get a pretty good system going.
Of course I didn't bother explaining plant's intelligence, because I have yet to see evidence they HAVE it. You explain a phenomenon only AFTER you have evidence the phenomenon actually exists.
But here's this: evolutionary programming. Programs which base themselves on "unintelligent" design. The programmer simply sets up some basic parameters, take them as the "laws of physics" if you will. The program is designed to, far more rapidly than in nature, mutate some starting thing over and over again. The mutations that meet the standards the program was set to are kept, and those that didn't are deleted. Again, this is much more analogous to the way reality itself "dumbly" weeds out things than some intelligence. Over time, many odd mutations show up that look very little like the original. What you end up with is many "successful" strains. In this way, computers have "evolved" everything from organization charts for wine cellars to actual alterations to OTHER programs to "evolved" robots. (In the latter case, it was rather complicated as the program had to basically be a simulation of newtonian physics, with the deciding elements being "fastest moving", it made some very interesting devices, all completely without intelligence.) Indeed, this method has been used for art as well.
Randomness? Hardly. Randomness is a very small part of things. The only random element is which genes get damaged, but from there things progress at a very unrandom pace. For example, some of the damaged genes will simpy repair themselves. Some of the genes will be too critical to be altered and will produce invalid offspring. And, some of them will simply be detrimental and over time will be weeded out. If you look at the vast history of life forms, it's a gradiant. "Kinds" aren't really the right way to describe it, so much as more established variations. Life forms are more like the vast variations of light wavelengths. There's the red and the blue, but between them is a slow gradiant of wave lengths and it is namely an arbitrary thing that we picked specific wavelengths to name. (A little less since our eyes have specific cells attuned to specific wavelengths, but the fact remains that wavelengths taken at sheer numerical value are not seperated very specifically.) You keep saying I insist on it being "completely random", but no, I do not. Randomness is only an element that provides the mutations. The rest of evolution is clearly not random but is just obeying the laws of physics. Things that live, live. Things that die, die.
And by the way, I hardly see why a literal interpretation of an origin story that has two contradictory versions is needed to be a Christian. Biggah, just a small challenge to see if you might change from literal creationism to something figurative: What day was humanity created on? Read both Genesis 1 and 2 and come back to me on that.
You might be a nerd if... - lazyfatbum - 12th December 2005
Biggah/
Quote:Point of fact, evolution is merely a THEORY. It's a theory because it can't be conclusively proven.
Evolution is a theory, but how all living things change over time is fact. Evolution is how we explain it. The fact that the tides on Earth alter in unison to the movement of the moon is a fact, we theorize that it's because of gravity but whether or not that theory is correct, the tides still react to the moon's movement as a fact.
Quote:How can the theory of intelligent design be half true and the validity of the theory of evolution be beyond question? First of all, they contradict each other. To believe that the complexities that exist in nature and the universe began without the direction of a supreme being is, in my opinion, arrogant. The regular motion of the planets and galaxy, the fact that an egg and a sperm join together and differentiate into different types of tissue (eye, lung, bone, brain, etc) and that for the most part, you don't have ears on your elbows, or eyes on your stomach. The balance that exists in nature. All things denote there is a God.
I agree, and that God created a system for life to evolve over time based on need.
Half of Creationism - God is the creator of all things, science tells us that the current life on Earth came from thousands, millions, even billions of years of evolution and change. God created the first living cells and everything after that was formed by his perfect system of evolution.
Quote:Another blatant contradiction (in another thread) was that you were taking bits of the bible and proclaiming them as fact (such as god has no form) and disputing other parts of the bible as heresay (Christ literally being the physical son of god).[quote]
The Hebrews wrote the bible and the one god ideal, all of Christianity is based on the hebrew faith with the addition of the new testament which was written by the Catholics. So since Christianity is based on the original hebrew with 'additions' it's easy to see that in the old testament (the bible) God has no form and then written by the catholics 'Christ is the son of God' (which contradicts everything written in the bible) is easily seen to be false. The old testament has many truths in it and actual history. The new testament is more lies than truth and was written by a government thousands of years later after the bible.
[quote]You often state that something has been proven, but fail to provide the proof.
http://www.google.com - I'm not your teacher, i'm here to discuss the information, not to help someone realize it who has yet to be educated of it. Have fun.
DJ/ I can see the principals of your theory but you're using mutation as a way to explain it. Mutation is random, i agree, but it is not so random as to make an animal totally different than it was. You explain that mutation made the animal longer and thinner (which would mean that the entire animal would have to change how it's body works and also canceling out any evolutionary pros it's collected up to that point and would most likely not be able to survive with such a retarded form) But why is it that the same species of arthropod in the region went seperate paths and created one that looks like a stremlined version of the original species and one looks like plant life.
One little ferret like animal (a warm blooded type of lizard) is responsible for all mammals on earth. If you look at a ferret you can see every mammal on earth, all the same principals apply aside from slight differences such as a ferret that, because of bouancy in water, is able to grow to massive size and move it's nasal passages to it's head to take gulps of air while swimming and instead of relying on teeth to breakdown heavy bone and tissues it simply scoops up millions of microscopic or small species of marine life and filters out the poisonous (if ingested) salt water. A cat is a giant ferret with slight modifications, so is a horse, but a good example of oddity that came from the tiny mammal is the ape that if you looked at its evolution you would see is clearly ferret like as a small monkey.
But at no time, in any evolution of living things, can we see a clear formulation for the animal to take on characteristics of a plant and to say that 'random mutations' brough it to that point makes absolutely no sense. You just litteraly said 'it mutated in to a stick' which simply does not happen for any reason in the world. We're not talking about color here, we're talking about specific textures, patterns of color and very odd shapes that just happen to look exactly like specific plant life in the area which means it was able to reach its current form in the same amount of time as the ice ages to now and no amount of mutation would be able to make it look that specific in that amount of time. Not even human beings evolve or changed that fast.
You might be a nerd if... - TheBiggah - 12th December 2005
Lazy, you were created in the image of God. He is truly your Heavenly Father. He is the literal father of your spirit. You will be resurrected after you leave this life whether or not you choose to believe in Christ, son of the living God. He's given that gift freely to every one of God's children who have, do now, or ever will live on this earth. However, in order to live with God again, you must exercise your agency and overcome the natural man by choosing to follow Christ's example. As the scripture says: "Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye."
Agency was Christ's plan, force was Satan's. I can't make you believe. Someday, whether in this life or the next, you will realize the error of your ways, I hope the days of your probation will not have passed. You kept your first estate, I pray you'll keep your second.
-TheBiggah-
You might be a nerd if... - etoven - 13th December 2005
Ok. How the hell did my thread spawn this massive off topic debate! Holy Crap!
Seriously!
But if you must know the total truth.
<O:p
Species evolved not from evolution, or from God, but from my dog’s anus on chili Sunday after we have all had a round of Martha Stewarts home cooking and the whole family has finished anally ingesting a roost turkey with all the stuffing’s.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
There I said it.....
You might be a nerd if... - Dark Jaguar - 13th December 2005
Any evidence of this? :D
lazy, I can only say I've explained that mutation guided by natural selection is more than enough. You claim, if I get this right, that while a single advantage can be explained well enough, continuing down a "chain" from merely a photosensitive cell to a fully working eye makes no sense. Why not mutate some other way? This assumes only one thing is evolved at a time or something. It also shows a lack of appreciation for the sheer time scales we're talking about here.
So the real question is, why wouldn't these things continue mutating down the line? It's not as though it takes some perfect path. There are a lot of dumb engineering mistakes. The human eye has an inverted retina. Relative to what? Relative to squid retina. The nerves go through the retina and attach from within the eyeball rather than between the retina and the back of the eyeball. This creates a blind spot, among other issues. A squid's retina however "got it right" and thus squids lack a blind spot. This shows not just evolution but more or less unintelligent evolution. There's no reason to think some mutation that would take a walking stick even further in the direction of a walking stick wouldn't occur at all. If the question is odds, just remember MOST creatures on this planet aren't walking sticks.
You might be a nerd if... - lazyfatbum - 14th December 2005
lmao you're comparing a primate to a squid!?
Quote:You claim, if I get this right... ...continuing down a "chain" from merely a photosensitive cell to a fully working eye makes no sense. This assumes only one thing is evolved at a time or something.
what the hell are you talking about...? You're the one claiming that there is no guided intelligence in evolution, only random mutation and natural selection which means that the evolution of eyes in animal doesn't apply to your theory and strengthens mine.
So tell me then, if there's no 'guided' intelligence in nature, why do all predatory mammals have the same eye structure with slight differences that are directly linked to their territories? Tigers have the same eye that we do with the same blind spot and the added plus of being able to absorb more light to see in the dark and cancel most of it if needed. But aside from that all predatory mammals have stereoscopic 3-D vision with eyes facing forward. All herbivore mammals have eyes to the side so that they have a full 360 range of sight.
Now which is more logical:
Animal needs to judge distance when stalking and hunting so nature gives them 3-D vision at the cost of having a larger scope of vision, since most predators are not prey, the balance is perfect. Pretyed animals develop 360 eyesight to watch out for those stereoscopic hunters.
or
DNA constantly changes the position of the eye on the skull until the animal survives, and all mammalian predators and prey just happened to all mutate along the same lines at around the same time.
When we look at a squid, we can tell this animal is predatory however its eyes are on the side and are incredibly large for the animal's size. Could this be because of mutation? Or because the animal is prey and predator simultaneously and lives at ocean depth where it could be attacked from any 3-D direction and hunt in any 3-D direction (as opposed to mammals having a much more simplified plane)?
Now cephalopods have been around since Earth got pregnant with life, it has a super-complex brain and a dynamic body that makes it perfect for ocean dwelling. Cephalopods never wanted to explore what was beyond the ocean probably because they were first introduced in to the ecosystem when there was no land available on earth and went through hundreds of millions, billions of years of evolution without the ideal of land so to introduce that idea now (within the last few hundred million years) would mean that the animal would have to go through extensive changes, meaning that a 'perfected' animal would become very weak in a new environment.
Some octopi will travel up on land to explore and look for any mollusks that might be sun bathing or looking for new homes but only does so in bursts since once it's out of the water it becomes cognitive jelly. In order to be a better suited land animal, it would have to lose its perfect ocean dwelling body - it chooses to stay in the water 99.99% of it's life so evolution never steps in to make it more land-based (such as adding internal bone structure or an exoskeleton).
You say that i'm not taking 'time' in to account but you're clearly not taking the scope of all living things in to account. To say that every animal on the planet is caused by random mutation is idiotic.
What your theory suggests is that a wolf will eventually become every color of the rainbow and will eventually find a color that best suits a high survival rate, but in reality there are grey, white, black and brown and this has never changed nor has it been recorded at all of a wolf who is purple or orange, and all these colors also represent an area - the brown wolves are found in forests, the black wolves primarily hunted at night (and had the eyes to prove it), grey and white can be found in arctic or snowy regions.
If there were good sources of food on the beaches for wolves, they would eventually become yellow or orange and gain stronger jaws for cracking open shells and webbed feet for swimming or digging through sand. And your belief says that they would reach that outcome by way of mutation over time when in fact mutation is the effect, not the cause. It still needs a direction to some end of finite possibilities otherwise the wolf would go through stages where it has a weaker jaw, stronger jaw, shorter teeth, longer teeth, shorter limbs, sturdier limbs, heavier bone structure, lighter bone structure, etc. But it doesn't do that, it evolves in one direction and progressively develops towards a goal and that goal is based on what the animal needs to survive and if it keeps pushing in the direction it wants to go the body will conform to its demands either on a chemical scale or by giving the future generations a better suited body through evolution and the conscious will to survive in any given situation.
I was hoping you would actually go out and do the research, but the reason why there are animals who take on the look and shape of plants is because plants are alive and made of living cells. When you live on a plant, use it as cover, mate, hide your larvae or eggs, etc, in or on the plant the DNA of the animal can 'pick-up' DNA from the plant on a molecular level. This might sound absurd to you but remember that even something as simple as a gecko interacts with molecules in order to stick to surfaces with hairs so small they create new paradigms of molecules allowing the gecko to effectively become one with the object its touching.
the color of the animal can be expressed through natural selection, the white wolves tend to survive better in snowy areas. But it doesn't explain how that animal became white. The answer is in the cellular makeup of all living things that will interact with it's environment and 'pick-up' traits from it causing the larger billion-celled organism to take on th traits of its environment (DNA is a molecule in every cell in case you forgot). If you're always hiding or sleeping in tree cover, your bright orange and yellow fur that looks like sand might take on darker shadow-spots because over time, the sun light hitting the body will do so in patterns as you hide behind the objects, causing the leopard to gain spots that look like leaves, Zebras to look like grass (as well as tigers) fish to look like coral etc etc. The outcome of the new patterns and designs is dictated by the animal - will it be used for hiding to stalk prey, will it be used to hide from predators, or will it be used to attract mates (or any combination). All the cells are doing are mimicking the surrounding environment in order to create an organism that best suits the environment. In the case of something like a peacock, you have sexual evolution. The same can be found in finches and billions of other creatures. The brighter the colors or the larger the features, the healthier that animal is, the more the opposite sex of the species is willing to mate with it. Sexual evolution is why gene pools become so strong because animals (including humans) are more attracted to a healthy animal - the healthier it is, the more attractive it is. Hence the difference between curly hair and healthy hair.
Now I had an undertstanding of these principals going in to the argument but you refused to do any research and blindly spouted off nonsense. I was just hoping you would take the enitiative and find the answers instead of making them up with crazy robot head theories. :D I dont like telling people "no, it's this way." so instead what I do is lace the conversation with ideas that get the participants to go out and find the answers but unfortunately you never did so so now i'm in the "This is how it is" mode which completely destroys the act of communicating and expressionism of ideals which is the only reason I talk to people in the first place.
Please please please, go out and do the research, there have been millions of people hundreds of times more educated than both of us put together who have devoted their lives in to the understanding of one subject and recorded all their findings so people like us can learn about how things work instead of just making things up.
You might be a nerd if... - Dark Jaguar - 18th December 2005
Again, you misunderstand. Why do you think I didn't bother doing research? It's clear you only take what the books say that you agree with and are tossing out whatever you don't. Since all mammels have a common ancestor, and that ancestor had two eyes, it FOLLOWS that our eyes are going to be very similar across species. You are overthinking this again. Mutation isn't constant, just natural selection. Mutations don't happen all that often. The idea that all creatures are going to "mutate" at will is what you are arguing. I'm arguing that when mutations occur, the harmful ones will die out while the beneficial ones will be kept. There is also breeding and the flow of genes from one population to another, which is another means of aqcuiring new genes, but that method is just as "stupid". It's not that there isn't a "design" at work. It's just that the design has absolutely no future plans. It's just the nature of nature.
A creature does not think "I think I should evolve an eye". The first thing that may occur is a mutation that causes cells to react to light. If it happens just right (and given enough time, that'll happen), this reaction will be hooked to the creature's nerves, and from there a rough sensitivity to light will be adapted. Any mutations that aid this are kept. Any that hinder this are tossed. If the creature migrates to a light-less environment, suddenly what is beneficial changes. Mutations that cut down on unneeded energy use, such as forming a functional eye, will be kept in those cases.
Once a population with some small tilt towards a certain "niche" occurs, any future mutations will be kept if they aid in that niche. It's especially slow at first to "diverse" a population into niches. However, think about it. If a creature excels at running and catching things, the mutations that make it do that BETTER will be the ones that survive. The ones that make it do that WORSE will be lost, and thus it is only natural that any niche creature will eventually streamline into a super efficient machine for it's niche.
Can you think of any reason why something resembling a cheetah would suddenly develop chameleon eyes? How would that benefit a cheetah type creature? Would a cheetah who's eyes no longer are located at the front for stereoscopic vision be more or less likely to pass on it's genes?
That's all there is to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You want an expert? How about Richard Dawkins?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Quote:You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.
That’s ludicrous. That’s ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it’s not anticipatory of what’s needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive. That’s a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do—hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging—whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It’s because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.
So, what do you take of this? Clearly this is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. Evolution is guided by natural selection to decide on which mutations to keep, and it is not anticipatory of what is needed.
Here's a pretty accurate description of evolution. NOWHERE in this article does it define an intelligent purpose to evolution. It's all just natural processes.
You say it's my fault you are saying "this is how it is"? No, it's yours. You fail to provide a single scrap of evidence for your claims and so all you have left is to say "that's just how it is". You are not obligated to provide evidence, but if you don't, I have no reason to believe this stuff you are spouting. I've backed up what I have to say with some links you should take the time to read.
That's really all there is to be said. I've basically stated this a bunch of times and all you've done is call me names and say it's the way you say it is without offering proof. How about telling me where all this proof is? Don't link to "google" by the way. Give me the name of a book I can check out of a library, an actual page online, some reference at an encyclopedia, or university, SOMETHING. I've done my research. I am going on trust that you have done yours, but I think you read everything wanting to prove a conclusion you already made before reading a single thing, whereas I read about it only wanting to find out the truth.
I WILL change my mind if you just provide some evidence of this. Until then, this is over. You are an intelligent person who can be insightful very often. Unfortunatly, in issues of science it seems you make up your mind and won't listen to anyone else once you do that... It's happened when I tried explaining how optical disks work (they only have "pit" or "not a pit" status, not multiple gradients of levels). It's happened when I tried explaining how a light gun works (no, they don't actually detect the electrons, that's physically impossible because the electrons are absorbed by the phosphors coating the screen, which release LIGHT as the reaction, plus the reason the tube in a CTR screen is a vacuum is because air would scatter the electrons anyway, so even if they did get past the screen, they would never reach your eyes). And now, it's happened with the method of introducing new genes into the process of natural selection.
You might be a nerd if... - lazyfatbum - 19th December 2005
Okay let's go to back to this subject.
Let's display the theory:
All living things mutate randomly and without purpose over time. The mutations that benefit the animal stay, while nonbeneficial mutations are weeded out through natural selection.
That is the theory presented. And you are using this to describe how all evolution works. I have no intention of trying to get you to see it my way or have an understanding from my perspective, do not think for a moment that you have proved anything to me either. You are stagnant and refuse to answer your own questions.
Quote:Why do you think I didn't bother doing research?
...what?
Quote:Since all mammels have a common ancestor, and that ancestor had two eyes, it FOLLOWS that our eyes are going to be very similar across species.
Yes, they will have two eyes. very good. Now explain why all mammals, lizards, raptors, etc evolved eyes on the side of their head or eyes in the front. You're going to say 'They mutated and caught on" to which I will say "If this is true, then mutation is boundless and cause any radical changes in any gene it wants" When this is known not to be true.
Quote:The idea that all creatures are going to "mutate" at will is what you are arguing.
I am arguing that mutation is not the cause of evolution but an effect of it. The alligator will have to change its way of life in order to change its structure. The alligator remains unchanged for millions of years and yet the only differences that are found are regional based on particular hunting patterns, nutrition and environmental differences. Based on your 'mutation is random' scenario, we would have some record of all species on this planet going through major and distinct changes such as a carnivore with 2-D vision which does not exist. We do have records of herbivores with 3-D vision (Koalas) but in every single case these animals have no large predatory threat or need 3-D vision in other apsects of its life (climbing trees). Further more, using your random idea, how is it that an animal on an island continent mutated itself a pouch to hold its young while other animals on other continents in completely different circumstances (some are predatory/carivorous, some are nocturnal, etc) still manage to come up with the same idea? Please explain to me how in a completely random event did we evolve special flaps of fluid around our eyes during the ice age? You simply do not see a much larger picture.
Dawkins is an unfortunately an idiot, not only does he base his work on other people without permission or atleast credit, he's also hell-bent on denouncing anything that has anything to do with the idea of any kind of higher power or that anything is beyond the reach of man. He was big in the 70's and i've read all his books years ago. His big claim to fame was a theory that all people are inherently evil and want to kill eachother over ideals. big discovery there. I completely agree with his views on natural selection, in fact it's proven. But to buy in to HIS ideal, you have to assume that mutation is random which is just dumb. Again, if it were, you would think that after a total of 4 million years you would see some human beings that dont look like human beings, whether they died without offspring or not.
Quote:it's happened when I tried explaining how optical disks work (they only have "pit" or "not a pit" status, not multiple gradients of levels). It's happened when I tried explaining how a light gun works (no, they don't actually detect the electrons, that's physically impossible because the electrons are absorbed by the phosphors coating the screen, which release LIGHT as the reaction, plus the reason the tube in a CTR screen is a vacuum is because air would scatter the electrons anyway, so even if they did get past the screen, they would never reach your eyes). And now, it's happened with the method of introducing new genes into the process of natural selection.
......you're using conversations about CD's and the NES zapper to.... stregthen your claims of mutation?
1.) The pits are of different lengths, perhaps you didn't know this or I didn't explain it in enough (or too much) detail.
2.) Electrons create light, or more specifically, what cause light in a tube television. The gun would detect (like a camera) if it was looking at a white box or not. I only used the reference of electrons to be more technical. Though now that I think about it, i do remember reading up on why the zapper doesn't work on projection televisions and that one web page talked about the lack of electrons being shot at the screen and that's why it doesn't work. You are also wrong that electrons do not pass beyond the phosphurs, there's a reason your eye sight gets weaker and your skin takes on a pasty glow. Though it's probably more due to lack of physical activity and being a potato.
3.) Quoting a child-like view of evolution, admitting to not furthering your research and then bringing up past debates that have nothing to do with the current conversation only proves that this conversation is dead. As I have said many times, I am not your teacher, do the research yourself. If you choose not to do the research, than why am I talking to you in the first place? Did you go out and do any research on the structure of walking sticks and the how's and why's it evolved? did you find anything else out about cellular structure? I'm guessing no.
Say what you want, believe what you want (it means nothing to me). Just let me know when you deicde to actually do some research and create a better understanding of what you're talking about. It is amazing to me that you trying to persuade me to your views on a subject that has yet to be proven in HOW it works. We know it does, we see it. But we dont know how it does it, and you think you found the answer because you read a few web pages?
I dont see a reason to continue this dicussion if you're going to stay so closed minded and/or believe that you have found answers when the top minds of this entire century can only make working theories at best and out of all the working theories out there you choose the one with the most holes as your strongest opinion? Gosh! You have sucked all the fun out of this DJ.
You might be a nerd if... - Dark Jaguar - 19th December 2005
First, I didn't express myself correctly. What I meant is I didn't do research on your various claims because I already did research on the nature of evolution. Your claims contradict those and I can't for the life of me find ANYTHING that leads to what you claim.
Tell me, what should I read? You say "I am not your teacher", but if that's the case then why the heck did you even open your mouth to begin with? If you are going to make a claim you better be prepaired to back it up. I ask, perhaps not as kindly as I could, for you to tell me what I can look at. You have provided nothing but excuses. What am I supposed to think?
Everything I've read says one thing about evolution. Mutation is the main provider of new genes and natural selection is the means by which any existing genes are, well, selected.
Every single flaw you think you find isn't really a flaw. Why aren't there a billion types of everything? Why should there be? Natural selection is going to weed out a LOT of stuff, and MOST species are simply not going to be preserved. Humanity has only been around for an eyeblink. What changes do you really expect there to be? Mutation, and it's not so random as all that (it's rare), is not going to provide all possiblities. You keep acting as though evolution is claiming something it's not.
But anyway, I just thought I'd clear one thing up. Sorry, but yeah, bringing up those old technical arguments has nothing to do with this one. Why did I bring it up? Well, this is Tendo City? Well really I was just getting annoyed with your utter refusal to even take a look at anything I provide you online.
I already posted information on optical disks. Here's a link for you.
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/russell.html
Quote:Russell envisioned a system that would record and replay sounds without physical contact between its parts; and he saw that the best way to achieve such a system was to use light. Russell was familiar with digital data recording, in punch card or magnetic tape form. He saw that if he could represent the the binary 0 and 1 with dark and light, a device could read sounds or indeed any information at all without ever wearing out. If he could make the binary code compact enough, Russell saw that he could store not only symphonies, but entire encyclopedias on a small piece of film.
Battelle let Russell pursue the project, and after years of work, Russell succeeded in inventing the first digital-to-optical recording and playback system (patented in 1970). He had found a way to record onto a photosensitive platter in tiny "bits" of light and dark, each one micron in diameter; a laser read the binary patterns, and a computer converted the data into an electronic signal --- which it was then comparatively simple to convert into an audible or visible transmission.
Clearly there are only two levels of height to be found. Have you ever watched a single documentary on how they form CDs? It's very revealing. All data on a computer is either 1 or 0. It's amazing how much you can store, even "simultaneous" sounds in a massive orchastra, when there are only large strings of 1's and 0's.
And regarding light guns, I've discussed that before too. Again, you are partially right. SOME light guns need a CRT screen to work correctly.
Unfortunatly the only link I have is one to howstuffworks and directly lifted text at Wikipedia stating the same thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gun
Still, it's pretty concise.
Quote:How light guns work
The "light gun" is so named because it uses light as its method of detecting where on screen you are targeting. The name leads one to believe that the gun itself emits a beam of light, but in fact all light guns actually receive light through a photoreceptor diode in the gun barrel. The diode uses light reception to do its targeting, in conjunction with a timed mechanism between the trigger of the gun and some rather smart graphics programming.
There are two versions of this technique that are commonly used, but the concept is the same: when you pull the trigger of the gun, the screen is blanked out to black, and the diode begins reception. All or part of the screen is painted white in a way that allows the computer to judge where the gun is pointing, based on when the diode detects light. The user of the light gun notices little or nothing, because the period in which the screen is blank is very short.
[edit]
Method one
The first detection method, used by the Zapper, involves drawing each target sequentially in white light after the screen blacks out. The computer knows that if the diode detects light as it is drawing a square (or after the screen refreshes), that is the target the gun is pointed at. Essentially, the diode tells the computer whether or not you hit something, and for n objects, the sequence of the drawing of the targets tell the computer which target you hit after 1 + ceil(log2(n)) refreshes (one refresh to determine if any target at all was hit and ceil(log2(n)) to do a binary search for the object that was hit).
An interesting side effect of this is that on poorly designed games, often a player can point the gun at a light bulb, pull the trigger and hit the first target every time. Better games account for this by not using the first target for anything.
The second method, used by the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's Super Scope and computer light pens is more elaborate but more accurate.
[edit]
Method two
The trick to this method lies in the nature of the cathode ray tube inside the video monitor (it does not work with LCD screens, projectors, etc.). The screen is drawn by a scanning electron beam that travels across the screen starting at the top until it hits the end, and then moves down to update the next line. This is done repeatedly until the entire screen is drawn, and appears instantaneous to the human eye as it is done very quickly.
When the player pulls the trigger, the game brightens the entire screen for a split second, and the computer (often assisted by the display circuitry) times how long it takes the electron beam to excite the phosphor at the location the gun is pointed at. It then calculates the targeted position based on the monitor's horizontal refresh rate (the fixed amount of time it takes the beam to get from the left to right side of the screen).
The guns detect light, not electrons. Light is NOT made of electrons. That is clear when you realize that electrons have MASS, and nothing with a mass greater than 0 can ever reach the speed of light (which by definition light travels at). Light however has a mass of 0, and anything with 0 mass will immediatly go at the fastest possible speed. This is relativity here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Light is electromagnetic radiation. There is an electrical element, but it doesn't involve electrons. It is electrical force and magnetic force at right angles which constantly become each other over and over at a wavelength determined by the amount of energy in it. Light in some ways does behave like a particle, but it is totally without mass and is not an electron.
Some electrons may very well get past those phosphors, as static charge, but that's about it. They are scattered by all the charges of the matter in the air and thus can never dive into your eyes and thus you don't go blind watching TV too much (that's just an old wive's tale). Why would someone go pale watching it? Well, assuming that's actually true, maybe it's because they can't get a tan indoors? Sorry, but often the more mundane answers tend to suffice.
Back offtopic :D, only very specific light gun setups use the second method listed above. And, it doens't actually detect electrons. It detects the light. It merely uses the precalculated exact time when the phosphors will degrade and the position of the electron beam on the screen in order to tell where the light SHOULD be coming from. NES zappers don't work on that principle, and that's why I can play duck hunt on an LCD screen.
But anyway, it's clear you are confusing "theory" with whatever it is you are claiming. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin (for example, genetics is now involved), but seriously, involving something like "will" into it, trying to explain something that doesn't even need explaining, don't even try pulling stuff like that.
By the way, I AM willing to find the truth. Remember me? I USED to be a creationist until I decided to look into the issue and do research. I did a lot, a LOT of it. I eventually had to face the fact that evolution was inescapable, and it being a natural process unguided by intelligence was inescapable too.
Let me ask you something. Is part of this a need to defend a religious believe of yours? If this is religion, then simply admit it is as such and I'll leave it at that. I've no desire to get into a debate on religion.
On scientific grounds though, your offering is about as meaningless as any other form of intelligent design I've seen. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Problem is, you haven't provided anything it can be tested with. A proper hypothesis can be falsified. What test do we perform where, if you are incorrect, the test will show that to be the case? If it can't be falsified, this is not science.
Okay, one other addition, ANOTHER link, and I'll basically be adding them for a while now as I do many searches on google.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18
Quote:Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
To clarify your examples of things like an alligator, it is very interesting that some species go through a lot more changes than others with the same breeding rate. However, the alligator is pretty well adapted to it's environment. If that environment changes only slightly, it only needs to change very slightly. If that change is very rapid, evolution can't speed up. Why aren't there a million variations of everything? I said it before and I'll say it again, only the mutations themselves are random. The effect can be either major or minor. Anything that aids the creature in it's survival is kept, anything that doesn't is lost. Anything that does nothing tends to stay in a small subset.
There is also breeding, which shuffles DNA in a pretty random way as well. Well, half random. It will always pick half from one mate and half from the other, unless there's a mutation involved :D.
There's also population interbreeding, but that's almost an extension of the previous two methods in a sense (the sense that for those two previously seperated but still breedable populations had to develop those different genes somehow).
And by the way, why are humans so very identical? Why isn't there a non-human human? What do you think we are exactly? We're non-apish apes! Mutations being as they are mean that there isn't a straight line, there is a constant branching. Things that don't survive don't survive and the odds of us discovering their remains are pretty slim if they didn't last so long. Things that do survive do, and those branches are the ones we are more likely to see in the fossil records.
Why does will need to be involved? What causes the creature to mutate? Well, maybe it's something as simple as an error in DNA replication? DNA does not self correct perfectly, namely because in species that do self correct perfectly (let's assume a species that asexually reproduces), the ability to evolve is drastically cut down to radiation, meaning any change they aren't able to survive in, no matter how slowly this change occurs, will outright eliminate the species when it finally reaches lethal levels unless a much MUCH smaller chance of radiation based mutation occurs that is beneficial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
Quote:"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
Again, it's random mutation as well as mixing of previously seperate populations and sexual reproduction randomly shuffling sets of DNA together.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exhibitions/genes/180.asp This one even has a stuck up british woman telling it to like "like it is".
Now then, I've provided a large number of sources indicating this IS the current scientific view. Currently, there are no scientists in disagreement here (don't bother mentioning non-biologists, as their opinions are worth about as much as ours on the subject).
The next step is providing evidence that this explanation is correct.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml
Here's an experiment for you. Try it yourself, though I must confess it's not like it's EASY to perform.
Quote:In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.
Here is the experimental set-up for the Lederberg experiment. All you really need to know in terms of background information is that bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates, and that you can reproduce the colonies from an original plate to new plates by “stamping” the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.
The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure.
Of course there is the possibility that they misinterpretted their findings. :D
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
You have the second hypothesis, that the lice shampoo actually was what CAUSED the mutations.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm
Yeah, I linked to howstuffworks again... But, I'm just making it clear you ARE the one making the new hypothesis here.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/ucl-wta120505.php
Here's a recent discovery. Evolution IS incomplete. Holes, as you put it. However, gaps in knowledge shouldn't be taken as a sign to throw the whole thing out. Do you toss out the ENTIRE theory of relativity because it doesn't work at the quantum level? Do you toss out the ENTIRE concept of gravity because of gaps in knowledge about what occurs inside the horizen of a black hole? No, you fill in those gaps with more knowledge! If that knowledge contradicts the existing theory, you either modify that theory or you throw it out completely. Simple as that.
Gaps don't mean the theory is wrong. Evidence it is wrong mean the theory is wrong.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/cats_candy_and_evolution/
Here's a lovely explanation of a particular mutation that I wish I didn't suffer from (I'm a cat remember?). Why would any intelligent design, cell based or otherwise, lead to this? No, it only makes sense if the mutation was random but "not harmful" as judged by environment. Since cats don't eat sweet things, the ancestor's lack of this ability would not have affected it's life. By chance, since a neutral mutation is pretty much now on the whims of fate, this was what got passed on to all future species. Also, and this is part of what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis. After testing a number of cat species and noting the same error, we can make a TESTABLE PREDICTION (say that in a 1950's educational video style when important words appear on screen when the narrator talks) that other cat species not yet tested will also have the same defect. We can test this and see whether or not we are correct. That's science right there, and it is wonderous that we are actually lucky enough to be capable of doing that.
Well, you may wonder why we don't splinter off in a million neutral mutation directions. Perhaps you forget ONE other thing. Some species have sex. They have to have certain features to allow this. Similar genetic code, for example, so they can't splinter off all that well. What about the asexual creatures? Guess what? They do exactly what you predict in that less bounded situation. They DO splinter off in a lot of different mutational directions. In fact, when it comes to single celled creatures, "species" as a concept falls apart pretty quickly. It's hard to define a species when, almost by the generation, each new creature has a new genetic code, and seperate cultures can develop pretty differently. Spread this out over a long period of time and you have the vast variations of bacteria we have today.
lazy, you are smart, and I'm not just saying that to lull you into a false sense of security or to brainwash you. I'm basically saying science, at it's basic level, doesn't really need all that much mental power. You impress me very often with the insight you have. Every sarcastic comment you make seems to have some deeper meaning, and when I think I've figured it out (and I'm never sure), I tend to laugh. However, you really seem to have never been taught critical thinking skills. Those are learned skills which a lot of people don't have. They are skills which lead to being willing to find out the truth, not just willing to further your own hypothesis whether the evidence agrees with it or not.
So please, I've done my part here. I can't find anything trying to state your idea. I've found a few nonsense sites mind you, but they don't really show your specific version of intelligent design. No, it's the typical "christian" version of which I'm sure you don't agree with.
You might be a nerd if... - lazyfatbum - 20th December 2005
You're getting there.
Now start cross referencing what you have: The idea of mutation (DNA altering) with what we DONT know. The first thing you have to realize is that single celled organisms are why we evolve, why things change. A giraffe doesn't change, it's genetic material does.
Single celled organisms have been on Earth for billions of years. Now as we know, the longer a life form exists the more evolved it is. Or in other words, the better at its function it is. In fact they're so good at what they do they can survive in many extremes.
It is a fact that mutation is usually lethal. We see mutation all around us. My dog 6 toes on his back feet, my wife has blue eyes, there are people born missing vital organs or doubled-up organs, these are things we find out of sequence in the genetic material where an amino acid failed to connect on the molecular level or tried to compensate by connecting more than one to itself.
We also understand that by introducing new genes to an animal that has already been birthed will cause it to change. If for example you have genes that say your lungs are malformed we can introduce good genes that contain good lungs and slowly make your lungs better. This is called gene therapy and it's mostly a type of experimental alchemy and has caused more oddities than we understand.
Now take in to account the ideal of gene pools. A gene pool is a collection of genetic material. It's why there are different species, they have a gene pool that only contains what that species has been formed from. Mammals come from a long line of change and we contain in our gene pool just about every life form on this planet. You can even see this in the stages of a fetus.
Let's make it super simple starting with life in the ocean:
From the get go there are two major schools of life. One that says the small and the quick and the other that says the large and the powerful. (we find this on a cellular level as well). Giant arthropods ruled the oceans, huge and crab like and were probably the first things to explore land which brought on the on set of insect species (a crab is the same as a cock roach) and started looking for food, since the small and quick haven't really tried to explore land, the arthropods found themselves looking at mass amounts of vegitation. Meanwhile in the oceans, the small and quick were doing their best to stay away from the arthoropods finding ways to mate, lay eggs and continue a survival pattern. That survival pattern eventually lead to the idea of spawning outside the realms of the predatory arthropods which meant laying eggs in shallow waters or swimming up streams in to lakes of fresh water and finally on land.
By the time the small and quick fish started evolving ways of locomotion on land the arthropods were watching their empire degrade. Because of the lower oxygen levels and their huge exoskeletons they became smaller and smaller. They in turn became the small and quick while the fish slowly grew in to the idea of spending more time on land than the water. The simple reason is that the plant life on land was in such over abundance that it would be stupid not to try to spend more time on land.
Within a few million years fish were already walking and adapting lungs (the same principal of gills) and even caught on to the idea of eating other fish, amphibian or the newest animal type; reptiles or 'permanent land based fish'
Now:
- Arthorpods are small and quick insects
- Because massive arthorpods have evolved on or died off, the ocean is becoming a very large bullying system for fish.
- Amphibians have to stay close to water and mostly adapt the small and quick lifestyle (though there are 'hippo-like' amphibians) who now deal with predators from arthropods and fish
- Reptiles run amok with no predator and eat fish, amphibian and mostly arthropods and vegitation.
And then the nature invented the perfect creature. A tiny reptile that worked on a completely new system of being able to generate it its own heat and become EXTREMELY predatorial. It ate small insects and rarely ate vegitation (vegitation wouldn't sustain its internal workings and the ability to keep the body burning energy). It was the first warm blooded animal and it had many features never thought of before. It's hips were backwards meaning that the legs are backwards making the animal extremely springy (perfect for jumping and catching insects as well as running for long periods and fast speeds) it also had the ability to use its hands for grabbing, ripping and even carrying.
This particular animal evolved out of the ideal of a paradise with bounties of fast-moving food. With no natural predators around and the ability to escape most dangers it hit the big time. This was the first dinosaur and what would eventually lead to mammals.
There is now a huge eco system on land. With an order from lower to higher predators and prey with one little exception; the dinosaurs. But we're no where near T-Rex or anything like that. The jurassic period is hundreds of millions of years away. The warm blooded reptiles adapted in every way possible. You had lone hunters, pack hunters, herd followers, grazers and of course super predators who simply ate everyone. Go forward in time a little bit and Earth looked pretty much like it is now except instead of mammals being king, it was the warm blooded reptiles.
Then it happened, a major droubt. It killed everything, well almost. The only things that survived were the small and the quick who had other ways of gaining water. The reign of the mammal-like lizards was over and the dinosaurs took control. As the plant eaters grew in size so did the meat eaters. Why did the plant eaters grow? That's easy, ever seen a sumo wrestler?
Take one average Japanese baby. Now normally it would grow to be around 5 foot and pretty lanky like a normal human being is expected to look. But if you continue feeding that baby in vast quanities, foods huge in proteins and fats, as the baby develops it will grow a larger body. By the time it's an adult, you'll be looking at a 7 foot tall 600 pound human being with the strength of 20 men. Now if you did this to every baby on Earth and did it over and over and over eventually we would be born with these new body types without having to force it. All human beings would look like sumo wrestlers (which is exactly what happened during the last ice ages). So dinosaurs with no predators sitting in vast amount of vegitation did nothing but eat all day and grow to obscene sizes. Meat eaters started developing packs to take down the huge prey. Over time the meat eaters got larger and the packs got smaller until eventually you had a meat eater that could take down one of these behemoths by itself. Some plant eaters grew smaller with better defenses like armor plating, horns, etc, while others took the route of growing so large that nothing could take them down and then we have seizemasaur and ultrasaur who are basically living Empire State buildings. Nothing could take these things down.
And the super predators kept growing, these were invincible animals. Perfect in every way, but the worst possible thing happened: change. Plant life was evolving too, altering itself to survive the onslaught of things that eat them. These massive perfect plant eaters could only eat specific plant types and with none of it easy to find they slowly, over hundreds of thousands, millions of years, die off. The predators tried to stick around but without the major food sources they simply could not sustain themselves.
The world returned to the small and the quick. And during this huge era of dinosaurs, those small warm blooded reptiles had been evolving too. They were extremely resourceful and could hide and evade like nobody's business. Their heart rates were faster, they ate anything, almost entirely omnivorous and they could be found everywhere on Earth. These were the first mammals. Small and kind of rodent like, they were the new kings and they hunted and killed the warm blooded reptiles, though most of the smaller predatory dinosaurs started messing with the idea of living in trees and eventually trying to glide instead of jump. Skip ahead and you have birds (warm blooded reptiles) but for now they're just frightened raptors.
Just like the first dinosaurs the mammals had a world to itself. No specific predators and all the food in the world and no where to go but up. The tiny rodents exploded, the more food you gave them, the bigger they got. But it's hyper eccelerated now. A fast heart with tons of oxygen meant a super factory for cells. So when the animal needed a new way of life, evolution could happen faster and more precise. A mouse in what became Kenya started jumping from tree top to tree top in search of large insects to feed it's super metabolism, it gained stretches of skin to glide and started to find it could control it's glide, within a mere few hundred thousand years it's a flying mammal with absolute flight control. Reptiles adopted the same means, but having a cold blooded system meant it would never have enough of an energy spurt to have controlled flight, so it stuck with gliding.
Some of these tiny mammals grew in to a family called Hylobatidae. Imagine a mouse with a huge brain and the ability to use its hands for just about anything it needed even the creation of simple tools such as using a tree branch to hit predators from a distance. Eventually these guys would hit Hominidae which is where we came from. These were simply a form of Hylobatidae on a larger scale, more lethargic and relaxed but much much bigger.
Now back to the gene pool thing. Looking at our own genes we can see everything:
* single celled organisms and multi celled, plant life, simple organisms etc
* Simple fish forms (at one point during pregnancy, you can actually see the fetus with gills) First brain is formed. "fish brain"
* More complicated structure, lungs are formed here, the amphibian - lizard phase. "Reptile brain" (the fetus will also take on characteristics in this stage that are related to birds, we're litteraly watching the history of our DNA)
* Mammalian properties are introduced to include the largest base of the structure of genetic property in the hylobatidae family "mammal brain"
* Final Homo genus properties mostly to do with final layer of brain, a small patch on the frontal lobes. "Human brain"
Inside the egg of a lizard, we can watch it go through the stages of simple organisms to a fish stage, through amphibian and then forming the final structures of lungs and a more complciated digestive system. It never goes in to mammalian forms because lizard were never mammals at any time, they are 'land based fish'.
So since our gene pool contains just about everything save for arthorpods (this is because we come from a long line of DNA history going all the way back to the best survivors of the small and quick mentality being the fish and first complex organisms of Earth and arthropods designed from completely different structures) we have a massive library to work with. But since all the genes are there how does it know to make a specific animal type? That's easy, in the cells they have a thumbprint that makes them unique. That thumbprint is a data string that dictates what genes are turned off and what's turned on. Taking the DNA of a person, you could hypothetically make just about every animal on Earth. Taking DNA of an insect, you are limited to arthopods. Arthropods have always been arthropods, you of course have a shit ton of arthropods to deal with in the genes everything from fleas to spiders to mantids to you name it, every bug in the world comes from one specific gene pool which is why they're so much better than us and will outlive us long after we evolve on or die off.
Every change we ever went through whether it be extreme or subtle is in our genes which we can look at like rings on a tree. If the thumbprint that says 'build a human being' fails, it might end up using a throwback gene or a 'off' gene. Since the human isnt designed for that older structure, it falls apart. If that restructured DNA is not harmful it can be passed on but may lead to eventual problems. For example, blue eyed people are far more likely to need prescription glasses.
But in the end, mutation is formed from what is already there and is retarded. Frogs with multiple limbs is a good example. All schools of thinking will tell you that mutation is almost always harmful or fatal, and to suggest that such a retardation of existing genes would lead to a new gene sequence is rediculous. new gene sequences come from slow development, not sudden retardation. That slow development is as easy as doing something over and over and getting better at it. That is evolution.
If you put fleas in a jar filled with water and gave them a food source and left them there for a few thousand years, they would become water bugs. They would be adapted to swimming and have physical characteristics such as longer 'rowing' legs. If you deer on an open plain where the best food is found in high tree tops, they would develop longer necks (the length of deer necks changes constantly through the world, some have short necks because the ground is at their feet, some have longer necks because the food is up higher and then ultimately you have giraffes which are deers with the longest neck in the animal kingdom). But far more interesting is that completely different species (dinosaurs) evolved to the same conclusion. We know this because there are species on this planet that are genetically near 100% matches but have physical characteristics that are different because of difference in environment. The differences on a genetic level are so small that it's baffling us and often difficult to find. Mutation is easy to find because it's a retardation of existing genetic structure, evolution between environment of the same species produces a change that is so small on the genetic level, but huge on the physical side of things that we simply cannot explain it with science yet, our tools have only uncovered the first few thousand layers of it all of an infinitely layered subject.
from BBC news:
'New' giant ape found in DR Congo
A mountain gorilla and infant, AP
The new ape has some gorilla (pictured) characteristics
Scientists believe they have discovered a new group of giant apes in the jungles of central Africa.
The animals, with characteristics of both gorillas and chimpanzees, have been sighted in the north of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
According to local villagers, the apes are ferocious, and even capable of killing lions.
A report about the mysterious creatures is published in this week's edition of the UK magazine New Scientist.
If they are a new species of primate, it could be one of the most important wildlife discoveries in decades.
The discovery of these apes "reveals just how much we still have to learn about our closest living relatives," New Scientist says.
'NEW' GIANT APE
Large, black faces (like gorillas)
Up to two metres tall (6.5ft)
Weigh 85kg-102kg (187lb-224lb)
Males make nests on the ground (like gorillas)
Diet rich in fruit (like chimps)
They stand up to two metres tall, the size of gorillas, and like gorillas, they nest on the ground, not in trees.
But they live hundreds of km away from any other known gorilla populations, and their diet is closer to that of chimpanzees.
Primatologist Shelly Williams is thought to be the only scientist to have seen the apes.
During her visit to DR Congo two years ago, she says she captured them on video and located their nests.
She describes her encounter with them: "Four suddenly came rushing out of the bush towards me," she told New Scientist.
"If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."
Mystery
The discovery has baffled scientists. There are three controversial possibilities to explain the origin of the mystery apes:
* They are a new species of ape
* They are giant chimpanzees, much larger than any so far recorded, but behave like gorillas
* They could be hybrids, the product of gorillas mating with chimpanzees.
So far, researchers have little to go on, but they now plan to return to northern DR Congo to study the apes further.
In the meantime, there are fears that unless measures are taken to protect them, poaching could threaten this new group of primates before the mystery of their identity is resolved.
"This is a lawless area," says Kenyan-based Swiss photographer Karl Ammann, who tipped Ms Williams off about the apes.
"The government has practically no control over hunting. If we found something interesting it would attract more investment. People would be more interested in conserving it."
From Wikipedia:
New Species?
Also in 2002, a new giant ape troop was discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo. These apes share many features of both chimpanzees and gorillas. According to a report from BBC News Online [1], the apes have large black faces, are two meters tall and make nests on the ground, all like gorillas. However, they live hundreds of kilometers from any other gorilla troops, and their diet is high in fruits, similar to the chimpanzee diet.
Subsequent molecular investigation of hair and pelt samples showed them to be common chimps who had individually adapted to local conditions.
Obviously, this is being researched and studied up the whazoo. It is a previously unknown type of ape. Now, in order for a chimp to breed with a gorilla, we have to throw out everything we understand of inter-species mingling of DNA. We know for example, a cat cannot mate with a dog, the sperm will enter the egg, but nothing will form. But there are records of a false killer whale/dolphin hybrid formed in captivity. This is more founded since false killer whales and dolphins are essentially the same thing, but a monkey and ape are not the same thing, they have way too many differences in the genetic make-up to be compatible for offspring and even if it somehow did work, it would be a fluke just as the dolphin/false killer whale hybrid animal is. It should be noted that the false killer whale is classified as dolphin in its own family called Pseudorca.
Now full blown killer whales did split from one dolphin species many moons ago, but they have become genetic polar opposites. The same is found in bears and dogs, at one time there was one animal: called a beardog. It split and went on to form wolves or bears depending on the area and environment. if you put wolves in the mountains with sparse food, it wouldn't focus on hunting in packs, it would focus on finding new food sources. Fishing in the streams, springing an ambush on the occasional lone deer, looking in the trees for berries or bee hives full of honey and would become a loner. Eventually on this path, the wolf will grow larger, less agile and more bear like. This is what's happened to these chimps. They found themselves in the same mind set of gorillas and decided that living on the jungle floor was more beneficial than living in the trees. Over time, this 'less active, more food intake' lifestyle will make the animal larger - living on the jungle floor without the protection of trees cause the animal to consciously become more aggresive as they are attacked by more predators and engage them instead of using natural cover.
Again, all signs point to all life on Earth eminating from the first forms of life. It is true that the DNA changes, but mutation is not the answer. In the time of 300 thousand years, all mutations recorded from human beings occuring in human beings have been devastating and today we can see it happening and stop it before it's 'locked' so we can introduce different genes in to the fetus so that it wont be physically retarded. Evolution is th building of progression, everthing within the being works towards a common goal. if the food is fast, the animal becomes faster. Over time, it becomes physically faster. If the food requires strategy, the animal works in groups and out-thinks the food, over time, the animal becomes physically smarter.
Evolution is precursor to survival, evolve or die. Mutation is the precursor to death. We can mate a horse with a donkey and make a mule, but all mules are sterile and cannot reproduce.
You say "I am not your teacher", but if that's the case then why the heck did you even open your mouth to begin with? If you are going to make a claim you better be prepaired to back it up. I ask, perhaps not as kindly as I could, for you to tell me what I can look at. You have provided nothing but excuses. What am I supposed to think?
Yes, you're supposed to think. I'm not going to fetch websites for you as if i'm trying to prove anything because I dont have to, go think, go find. you're doing a good job without someone handing you the info. The reason I opened my mouth or typed out a post was because i want to share my knowledge and opinions and hopefully find good conversation with a sharing of ideals. Not a soap box yelling match where we have to prove what we say, especially when we're talking about something all based on theories other than the fact the results can be proven but the how and why cannot.
You insist on showing me other people's opinions like it matters somehow when what i'm looking for is yours. The best minds can produce theories full of unexplained holes and the popular ones (or the least controversial) are brought to light, i'm asking you to use your judgement and fill those holes with something that does work instead of preaching the values of someone else's proposed theories. Then we can discuss how it could work and create our own theory. Not once have you tried to disprove my theory, you simply regurgitate other people's opinions which are full of shit and barely explain anything. Instead, show me how it doesn't or does work in your own judgement and opinion. Then, and only then, do we start comparing notes from what other people have figured out.
What i'm saying has nothing to do with religion or faith, it can be seen every day, you can watch it happen, it is palpable and real. It doesn't involve any kind of unexplained syndrome where you need to place trust in something that cannot be proven or disproven.
To say that random acts of mutation that occur for unknown reasons will 'eventually' cause an animal to become more suited to its environment is simply rediculous and requires a type of faith in order it for it to work. Single celled organisms and viruses can do it damn near instantly because they're perfect little machines that hold DNA. They start dying out, they face extinction and whoosh, they're airborne within a few years or even hours. Every mammal is at best around 200 million years old (not officially) so the process is much slower and not nearly as effective so i wouldn't be using cells or viruses as a good base of theory in the evolution of complicated organisms.
You might be a nerd if... - Dark Jaguar - 20th December 2005
We don't have the tools to actually form any new theories. We can only properly do that when we actually understand the already gathered knowledge. So, you claim mutation always leads to death. Not really. Most mutations aren't even noticable. In fact, the only mutations that matter to evolution are the ones that happen in reproductive cells. Someone who has skin cancer won't be passing on skin cancer.
After the completely unnoticable mutations there are the harmful ones. Good job, except you forgot something. Things with harmful mutations will die out. Every now and then, a mutation actually benefits a creature. THAT is kept. You are refusing to acknowledge that a mutation can EVER be beneficial. Typical.
How exactly is knowledge passed on genetically? Just doing something over and over again and getting better at it, as you put it, isn't QUITE enough. That has to be passed on somehow. The answer so far discovered is through reproductive cells. Reproductive cells are not altered by the brain.
You fatten up a bunch of humans all across the planet and you think that this will create people who are already born beefed up? How did that alter the DNA exactly? Evolution may occur after some time. Perhaps only those with body types that can withstand that without dying of heart disease will survive.
You say you want to see what MY theory is eh? I don't have one! Neither do you! You seem to think you are actually qualified to come up with one but you don't even properly understand the existing theory. Whether it's what I think or what another has come up with is irrelevent. What matters is this. Is the existing theory of evolution, which DOES use mutation as one of the chief mechanisms of introducing new genes, one that accuratly describes what we have found? So far, yes.
Some mutations only affect one gene. Some mutations may actually change the structure of the genome, like mutating a chromosome. Over time, a whole new chromosome may be added to the structure and passed on. Over time, the Y chromosome has deteriorated as it's data has been reduced to only needing a select few genes on it.
You can't seem to imagine how mutation could ever lead to more complex genetic structures, but I've explained it in detail.
And it's a very standard ploy of the intelligent design proponents to say it takes "some type of faith" to think that mutation could be the source of new genes. Well, we've OBSERVED it. Experimentation SHOWS that this is the method and NO experimentation seems to show otherwise.
Again, what predictions does this hypothesis of yours make that we can test for? Where are the tests? Show me the tests!
http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/niches/evolution/mutation.shtml
By the way, I checked into the ol' croc. It's not so "unchanged for millions of years" as a lot of people seem to think. There are many variations of the croc in fact. In the past there were even herbavore crocs.
Come to think of it, your idea reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Which has long since been discredited.
You might be a nerd if... - lazyfatbum - 23rd December 2005
I knew you'd eventually find it. Now take a look at why it was disproven. Pretty lame way of disproving something dont you think? "We cant cause it to happen."
This means that human beings cannot find a way to send the knowledge and personal traits of a living thing in to the development of its offspring or another living thing.... right? :D
That's the best part. We did prove that it can be done on a very simple level, we feed the brain of an animal to another animal of its kind and that animal acquires its traits and knowledge. But we cant find where in the DNA this stuff is kept, so since we cant find it (it should be noted, we have not completely mapped any DNA of any complex organisms 100%) we see the most obvious choice - mutation.
Mutation is 99.9% of the time lethal. Tiny changes (which are still huge on a genetic scale), as I said, often lead to obstruction of progression over time as the genes are inter-bred with other mutated genes or even healthy genes. I agree that this is a type of 'evolution' but it's more of a circumstancial thing that all living things have to take in to account. Which is why all living things are programmed to only find the healthy ones attractive. The healthier you are, the more they want to make a baby with you. Females are almost always healthier than males because their genes are more 'true'. Remember Jurassic Park? All living things are female until at early development the fetus is altered. That alteration is imperfect and usually very nasty, more male babies are born with birth defects than females, etc. So because of this, the males are the ones that always have to prove how healthy they are to the females.
This is nature trying to AVOID retardation and mutation, no living thing will seek out a retarded or mutated mate. We know this, in any group of animals if the animal has an 'off' trait such as malformed legs it will be killed or, in higher mammals, allowed to live in the society but withdrawn from mating rituals. It's found time and time again of structures of ape families where a mutated or defected ape will not be allowed to mate with females. The whole tribe gets on him and beats him off the females no matter how hard he tries because they instinctively know that he will dirty the gene pool and cause that entire tribe to lose their gene pool eventually leading to extinction. In lower mammals like mice, they have no problem with killing off an entire litter of pups if they possess bad genes. Mice are 'older' and more adapted to existence, so they are much, MUCH more involved with the gene pool cleansing.
And what was that about cancer not being passed on in the genes? Are you sure you want to claim that? :D Of course it is, if your dad got prostrate cancer when he was 45, you have a pretty good chance of getting it around the same age. If you dont get it, it's still there in the genes, and your son may get it, or his son, etc. Until the gene can eventually be wiped out by intoducing healthier genes from the females as they progress.
You're very close. Look at some cultures around the world and look more specifically at certain towns. If the town had a huge mining export business that's been going on for hundreds of years but has since stopped, those people are adapted to it. They have more lubricant produced in the eyes than 'average people' they have sturdier bones, more resistant skin and its all extremely subtle however it's passed on to the baby. People continue to be born with 'miners genes' even though mining has stopped in the passed generation or two. Why is this? The same can be found in animals all over the world. Did you watch Animal Planet last night? They were showing the drunk monkeys from costa rica. This a group of monkeys that steal alchohol from tourists in the open bars. I studied these little guys for years and get this: They're actually born with higher resistances to acohols and the same gene found in human beings of european decent that dictates alchoholism not present in most people of mongoloid decent.
Why? because of doing something over and over, the body will try to compensate so that whatever that action is gets easier to do for the animal. If you have a job where you move alot of heavy furniture your fingers will spread and became thicker making grabbing easier. The opposite is that if you play an instrument your fingers will become thinner and with more dexterity and this is somehow passed on. My sister has thicker fingers, my mom has short fingers, my dad has thicker fingers as well - no one in my family all the way back to great great grandparents played a musical instrument and yet I play 8 different instruments, leaning more to piano and keyboard and I compose music. My fingers are long and I have alot of dexterity. But all my genes tell my body I should have thicker 'working man's' hands but I dont. But after working on a film set for 3 months where i need alot of stregth in my hands you can actually see the finger tips spreading out becoming thicker and stronger and all of these things can be passed on. So here I am, a musician, in a family gene pool of non-musicians... of which all of them enjoy singing. The gene that allows the brain to hear slight variation and depth of sound is present in all living things however its level of complexity differs and my family has it on a large scale. Why does it differ? It's the same reason why some people love listening to music and some people dont.
If you drink alot, you gain a resistence, the same is applied to disease. If you had chicken pox once, you'll never get it again. The body evolved. The difference is that things of a complex working nature cannot be dictated by DNA, it needs a catalyst, however the stregth of the body's immune system can be. So if you already had chicken pox your kid will still be able to get it, but he will also be able to get over it faster when just a few hundred years ago it was lethal. Our bodies are recording what we do and trying to make things easier for us because that is the entire point to progression.
I guess you didn't do any more research on walking sticks but a really awesome thing was found: They found a walking stick that could fly which is not uncommon, but the fact that it was recorded just a few hundred years ago without wings raised many eyebrows. This creature suddenly gained the ability to fly in this region, a little more research would uncover that this creature had the ability to fly before... then got rid of it, then brought it back... and did this 3 more times through it's evolution. They tried to figure out why and it turns out that the walking stick had spikes in population and every time it spiked down the creature would give birth to winged walking sticks so that they can leave the area and find more waliing sticks to repopulate. As soon as the spike was corrected, they start producing wingless walking sticks again. This is not random and has nothing to do with mutation. As the population went down, the gene pool became thinner to the point of being dangerous (mom's with sons, sisters with brothers, etc) which would mean eventual extinction. So when the sticks mated and the genetic material was introduced to eachother the body viewed it as a warning sign and dipped in to prior unused genes that have a larger population growth (as dictated by the 'rings') so it gives the new generation these 'high population' genes in an effort to save its existence. Once the gene pool reached levels that were acceptable for the walking stick to survive the gene is turned back off and suddenly walking sticks are wingless again almost over night. Why return back to wingless? Because the wingless walking sticks have a harder carapace and are more likely to survive an attack and nothing detracts from camoflage more than doing something the object you're trying to immitate cant do. :D
This is more of a social change but it's dictated by a physical change in the animal. this is called a 'controlled geneology', and its found in many living things, when the animal faces extinction, it dips in to previously unused genes with higher population growth (larger gene pools were present) in order to sustain survival of the species.
You're extremely close, try cross referencing the ideals of evolution and what it's history is, why it became accepted (or not accepted) and the changes it's gone through (and why those changes were added). You'll get a pretty good idea of why people want to use random mutation as the catalyst to natural selection (or vice versa) and I think you'll be surprised why the 'random but ordered' theory exists.