9th December 2005, 12:36 AM
DJ, we're talking about something that was only discovered in the last few hundred years that is infinitely thought upon and is still a mystery. We dont know everything about the workings of everything, what you cannot prove must be theorized and in the creation of theory the more you base it on existing principals and knowledge the closer to the truth you can get.
To say that cells only act out of stimulation is a huge misunderstanding. All brains, even the most complex, react from stimuli. since all living things react from stimuli, and all living things have a conscious awareness, it is not difficult to make th leap that unicell organisms carry the same traits on a much more simplified scale. A neuron is basically a true/false stopping point for information to stop on. each neuron (out of billions) is connected to something like 25 thousand. So as you're generating thought, it's making pit stops at the true/false stations before going on a new path. the end result is a fully defined thought pattern or signal. The basis of the workings being the true/false stations is a perfect example of how we react to stimuli, we can react to our OWN mental stimuli. It takes one thought to cause every neuron in our heads to light up like a Christmas tree processing the vast amount of instincual designs and acquired knowledge to reach a point where we are satisfied.
Now, since the neuron is a living cell we can use it like a standard, it could be that all cells act as a true/false station in the same way. The larger the group of cells, the more it is able to process to formulate massive plans of infection. in that way, it's sorta like ants. As a group, the queen can dictate order but an ant alone will simply wander around looking for food. We can witness the same principal in unicell organisms though there doesn't seem to be a queen or lead cell, instead each cell brings with it the ability to work and react to a stimulous such as "I'm hungry" and performs its act in a chain of order that produces a result (be it beneficial or harmful to the host). If the organism needs a living host, it will try not to kill the host, an organsm that doesn't need a living host will just continue to eat with no guiding principals.
in cases of mutation (not evolution) a virus can suddenly become a death warrant to the host, such as AIDS. There were no cases of AIDS (and its symptoms) until the early 60's. So, just like th bird flu, it suddenly mutated in to something different. This mutation was probably brought on because of it trying to infect new typs of hosts. Apes cannot contract full blows AIDS, they can only carry it yet never get any of the symptoms, the virus probably mutated after trying to infect a different species (like reptiles or birds) that eat the dung or dead bodies of the apes. Virus enters new host, tries to live in it, mutation kicks in (the express route to evolution) and within a few months/years we have a new strand.
Mutation is usually pointless, like different colored eyes and hair, hair thickness or length (though some of these things are arguable). Evolution only exists to create a form of perfection, evolution will give the same fish in different parts of the world a larger tail to swim faster and the other fish a larger mouth to eat more; They are specific changes, the fish with the larger tail probably couldn't catch its prey in the new environment and the fish with the larger mouth probably couldn't eat its prey in the new environment. The reason these changes happen is because the fish (with a small mouth and tail) kept trying to catch the prey, become faster with each day they try catching it. The fish who needed a larger a mouth tried to eat the large prey as best it could, it tried every day, and evolution will step in to make existence easier, but if the fish didn't change environments, or if it found different food sources, it wouldn't have changed, it would have stayed the same for millions of years to come. The will to live, and a conscious choice, dictate the flow of evolution.
Mutation is a half-assed evolution of sorts, mutation can mean in a single generation the DNA is changed. A birth defect is a mutation - it is common knowledge that native americans (who dont smoke or drink) have less birth defects than whites. Native americans have a strong gene pool, only the strong survived. European culture helped the sick, tried to give passage to the disabled - if a person was born with a defect, it was cared for and nurtured. Not the same with the native american culture of yesterday. If the baby was sick and deformed, their medicines wouldn't be able to save it and th baby would die. Any mutation would be erraticated and very little of it would be present in the gene pool. Evolution doesn't really try to change DNA though in many cases it does. What evolution tries to do is reform structure, it borrows from here or there to make another aspect stronger.
Case in point - it is well know that that every animal pumps a certain amount of energy at peak levels in every part of the body for every function. Apes divert a TON of energy to the stomach and digestive system, they need this because they eat things like bark, insects and rotten fruits. An ape, in contrast, can eat mayonaise that has been sitting out for days and not get sick. One of the major key factors that gave human beings a swift kick in to stardom is the fact that our stomachs are extremely weak. We must eat fresh foods and cant even touch some things even though they're rich in minerals and vitamins (like tree bark). It messes up our digestive system and makes us very ill. Why is it that every primate on earth (except us) has this cast iron stomach that we dont? Because we made a trade off, we gave up our super digestive system in order to have an extra layer on top of the mammalian brain that is packed with even more neurons than any primate. Our bodies, through evolution, diverted the energy from our super digestive system to our brain so that it became stronger. Why did it become stronger? who knows, i'm willing to bet it had alot to do with the fact of being lumbering awkward primates in a world filled with super predators like 15 feet long cats and alligators the size of a bus, we got smart real quick to figure out ways to escape them and eventually, to hunt them. But maybe it was because we were competing with other races of primate, perhaps even the species called neanderthal would wage battles with us over territory and since they were larger and stronger than us we went the route of thinking.
In mutation, the effects are always clumbersome and nasty. Evolution is streamlined, perfected. It's easy to spot once you know what you're looking for.
Giant wide noses are found in alot of negroid and mongoloid people. Is this evolution or mutation? Why didn't it happen to caucasions? The answer might be that the heavy air in a tropical area that is saturated with humidity was so hard to breath that nature provided larger nasal passages. But what about the mongoloid? Japanese people dont have large wide noses, but some Chinese cultures (mainly, mongolians) do. Could it be that because of the cold air being hard to breath that they got the larger nasal passages? How do we prove this?
There are animals in these areas (tropical and freezing tundra) and we can find very smiliar traits when you compare them to the same family of species in different areas. Their nasal passages will be larger than an animal who lives in a neutral climate. So we can make the logical leap that the larger noses are needed by nature in order to have a comfortable life. Whatever life needs, nature will provide.
The polar bear didn't become more aero-dynamic and less bouyent because of mutation. It happened because in order to survive, it had to swim in deep freezing waters... every day, for hundreds of thousands of years. With each generation, they get better and better at swimming (their bodies becoming 'built' for it, because they want it - it will make hunting easier for them.
Now for some reason, you believe these ideals to be too complicated (yet we can witness it over and over even in controlled environments) but what I propose is that you state your opinions and then prove them. Show me how you're way is fact. The only things you have put forth is opinion and then tell me to prove my points. But no matter how many times I prove it, you say its not enough. So now i'm asking you to prove your points. From here on out, only legitimate factual data can be used in the arguments put forth.
To say that cells only act out of stimulation is a huge misunderstanding. All brains, even the most complex, react from stimuli. since all living things react from stimuli, and all living things have a conscious awareness, it is not difficult to make th leap that unicell organisms carry the same traits on a much more simplified scale. A neuron is basically a true/false stopping point for information to stop on. each neuron (out of billions) is connected to something like 25 thousand. So as you're generating thought, it's making pit stops at the true/false stations before going on a new path. the end result is a fully defined thought pattern or signal. The basis of the workings being the true/false stations is a perfect example of how we react to stimuli, we can react to our OWN mental stimuli. It takes one thought to cause every neuron in our heads to light up like a Christmas tree processing the vast amount of instincual designs and acquired knowledge to reach a point where we are satisfied.
Now, since the neuron is a living cell we can use it like a standard, it could be that all cells act as a true/false station in the same way. The larger the group of cells, the more it is able to process to formulate massive plans of infection. in that way, it's sorta like ants. As a group, the queen can dictate order but an ant alone will simply wander around looking for food. We can witness the same principal in unicell organisms though there doesn't seem to be a queen or lead cell, instead each cell brings with it the ability to work and react to a stimulous such as "I'm hungry" and performs its act in a chain of order that produces a result (be it beneficial or harmful to the host). If the organism needs a living host, it will try not to kill the host, an organsm that doesn't need a living host will just continue to eat with no guiding principals.
in cases of mutation (not evolution) a virus can suddenly become a death warrant to the host, such as AIDS. There were no cases of AIDS (and its symptoms) until the early 60's. So, just like th bird flu, it suddenly mutated in to something different. This mutation was probably brought on because of it trying to infect new typs of hosts. Apes cannot contract full blows AIDS, they can only carry it yet never get any of the symptoms, the virus probably mutated after trying to infect a different species (like reptiles or birds) that eat the dung or dead bodies of the apes. Virus enters new host, tries to live in it, mutation kicks in (the express route to evolution) and within a few months/years we have a new strand.
Mutation is usually pointless, like different colored eyes and hair, hair thickness or length (though some of these things are arguable). Evolution only exists to create a form of perfection, evolution will give the same fish in different parts of the world a larger tail to swim faster and the other fish a larger mouth to eat more; They are specific changes, the fish with the larger tail probably couldn't catch its prey in the new environment and the fish with the larger mouth probably couldn't eat its prey in the new environment. The reason these changes happen is because the fish (with a small mouth and tail) kept trying to catch the prey, become faster with each day they try catching it. The fish who needed a larger a mouth tried to eat the large prey as best it could, it tried every day, and evolution will step in to make existence easier, but if the fish didn't change environments, or if it found different food sources, it wouldn't have changed, it would have stayed the same for millions of years to come. The will to live, and a conscious choice, dictate the flow of evolution.
Mutation is a half-assed evolution of sorts, mutation can mean in a single generation the DNA is changed. A birth defect is a mutation - it is common knowledge that native americans (who dont smoke or drink) have less birth defects than whites. Native americans have a strong gene pool, only the strong survived. European culture helped the sick, tried to give passage to the disabled - if a person was born with a defect, it was cared for and nurtured. Not the same with the native american culture of yesterday. If the baby was sick and deformed, their medicines wouldn't be able to save it and th baby would die. Any mutation would be erraticated and very little of it would be present in the gene pool. Evolution doesn't really try to change DNA though in many cases it does. What evolution tries to do is reform structure, it borrows from here or there to make another aspect stronger.
Case in point - it is well know that that every animal pumps a certain amount of energy at peak levels in every part of the body for every function. Apes divert a TON of energy to the stomach and digestive system, they need this because they eat things like bark, insects and rotten fruits. An ape, in contrast, can eat mayonaise that has been sitting out for days and not get sick. One of the major key factors that gave human beings a swift kick in to stardom is the fact that our stomachs are extremely weak. We must eat fresh foods and cant even touch some things even though they're rich in minerals and vitamins (like tree bark). It messes up our digestive system and makes us very ill. Why is it that every primate on earth (except us) has this cast iron stomach that we dont? Because we made a trade off, we gave up our super digestive system in order to have an extra layer on top of the mammalian brain that is packed with even more neurons than any primate. Our bodies, through evolution, diverted the energy from our super digestive system to our brain so that it became stronger. Why did it become stronger? who knows, i'm willing to bet it had alot to do with the fact of being lumbering awkward primates in a world filled with super predators like 15 feet long cats and alligators the size of a bus, we got smart real quick to figure out ways to escape them and eventually, to hunt them. But maybe it was because we were competing with other races of primate, perhaps even the species called neanderthal would wage battles with us over territory and since they were larger and stronger than us we went the route of thinking.
In mutation, the effects are always clumbersome and nasty. Evolution is streamlined, perfected. It's easy to spot once you know what you're looking for.
Giant wide noses are found in alot of negroid and mongoloid people. Is this evolution or mutation? Why didn't it happen to caucasions? The answer might be that the heavy air in a tropical area that is saturated with humidity was so hard to breath that nature provided larger nasal passages. But what about the mongoloid? Japanese people dont have large wide noses, but some Chinese cultures (mainly, mongolians) do. Could it be that because of the cold air being hard to breath that they got the larger nasal passages? How do we prove this?
There are animals in these areas (tropical and freezing tundra) and we can find very smiliar traits when you compare them to the same family of species in different areas. Their nasal passages will be larger than an animal who lives in a neutral climate. So we can make the logical leap that the larger noses are needed by nature in order to have a comfortable life. Whatever life needs, nature will provide.
The polar bear didn't become more aero-dynamic and less bouyent because of mutation. It happened because in order to survive, it had to swim in deep freezing waters... every day, for hundreds of thousands of years. With each generation, they get better and better at swimming (their bodies becoming 'built' for it, because they want it - it will make hunting easier for them.
Now for some reason, you believe these ideals to be too complicated (yet we can witness it over and over even in controlled environments) but what I propose is that you state your opinions and then prove them. Show me how you're way is fact. The only things you have put forth is opinion and then tell me to prove my points. But no matter how many times I prove it, you say its not enough. So now i'm asking you to prove your points. From here on out, only legitimate factual data can be used in the arguments put forth.