Evolution Accelerating?

[flasher702]

This statement isn't winning you any respect.

Fidgewinkle is right. You've seen lots of these things: Porpise and Whales (air-breathing fish), Duck Billed Platypus (duck-beaver), Strawberries (kinda like a fruit... but the seeds are on the outside kinda like a pinecone), Peanuts (it's a nut, which grow on trees, only it's a bush and the nuts are in the ground like a tuber), bats (it's a rat-bird), Neuts (it breaths air like an animal, but it also breaths water like a fish, and it has legs AND fins), turtles (it has an exoskeleton like an insect and lays eggs, but wait, it has a real skeleton too and has lungs. And some of them have FINS! It's an insect-fish-lizard!). Etc etc etc.

[fidgewinkle]

By that logic, nothing you just said, or ever thought, really exists, as its just a product or your imagination in combination with perceptions of whats real from your senses (which are imperfect). That, or an invention by man.

The post is a representation of my thought rather than my thought precisely. It is a construct of language, whereas my thought is a construct of neurons. This is very analogous to the relationship between what we think of as species and what really exists out there. Species is a simplified notion of reality that helps us to communicate an idea.

[flasher702]

As an analogy, it is easier for Intel to design a brand new architecture from the ground up with higher performance. The problem is that it doesn't fly because of the legacy software issue. This is an artificial constraint that isn't part of the design process. What is God's excuse?

Ok, I must point out that this is another partially illogical rebuttal to a partially illogical argument. They are both pure conjecture and analogy. But WOW did I LOL xD

You really shouldn't have responded in the first place except to point that out. I think that brent knows that he shouldn't start trying to say what god's excuse is xD Although it might be entertaining to watch someone try!


I think one of the biggest problems with this whole evolution vs. creationism debate (after the part that they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive unless you're incredibly militant in a literal interpretation of some religious dogma) is that it's really easy to counter an illogical creationism argument with an illogical rebuttal... and then the finger pointing with the "science is just like religion" rhetoric begins and no one gets anywhere.

[hergieburbur]

My answer is brief, because I don't have the time at the moment. Quite simply, it is often not good design to share systems between a simple version and a complex version. We have a lot of legacy junk that isn't the best design choice, just like x86 does.

As an analogy, it is easier for Intel to design a brand new architecture from the ground up with higher performance. The problem is that it doesn't fly because of the legacy software issue. This is an artificial constraint that isn't part of the design process. What is God's excuse?

I will hopefully get back to this.

Uh, where do you come up with that? In design, it is usually best to try to use the simplest solution to a problem, regardless of the complexity of the overall system. It is also a good design principle to re-use simple components or systems wherever they will work, rather than re-invent a new one each time its needed. Its a rather basic design principle that the perfect design is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Your analogy also doesn't really correlate with your logic here. You start out by saying that is doesn't make sense from a design standpoint to use simple parts in complex systems (at design time), then extrapolate that to the ongoing evolution of a product during its life cycle and evolutions, which are two very different things.

As far as what is Gods excuse, that doesn't really come into play here either. If God created life and Man, where does it say that he prevented them from adapting and changing to the world around them? We KNOW we have been around here for several thousand years. We KNOW as a species (yes they do exist, ask anyone with a BIO degree), that we have changed in that time. We KNOW that evolution and response to our environment has played a part in those changes. None of those facts rules out the hand of an outside force.

I am not necessarily advocating either view, as i think they can be quite complimentary. I am just saying that you need to work on your argument if you want to attack people's views.

[tool_462]

I am a Creationist, but am willing to listen to and view others evidence, why can't Evolutionists be the same?

That is a pretty broad and sweeping statement. In my experience I would attest that Crationists are more set in their ways than Evolutionists, but you cant assume everyone is strictly on one side of the fence. Most people will go with parts of each side, depending on their personal views and beliefs. (and education)

[flasher702]

The post is a representation of my thought rather than my thought precisely. It is a construct of language, whereas my thought is a construct of neurons. This is very analogous to the relationship between what we think of as species and what really exists out there. Species is a simplified notion of reality that helps us to communicate an idea.

Famlily (plant, animal, insect) and Guiness and such are very much made up based on high-level observations. Most different "species" can't produce offspring with eachother (wolves and dogs works and perhaps they should be considered teh same species, but dogs and foxes doesn't even though they are very similar, correct?) so there is something to it at a fundamental genetic level.

This is actually something that is a bit anti-evolutionary (at least as I understand it). "Why aren't more living creatures DNA compatible if they all evolved from a common source?" Well, we can splice arctic trout into tomatoes (you get tomatoes that you can put in the freezer!) so the DNA itself is compatible, but shouldn't more closely-related species be able to cross-breed if evolution splitting into different species is a source of biodiversity?

Species do exist. Larger organizations probably exist and will be re-arranged into a more evolution-friendly order once we get a better genetic understanding of how things are really related at a genetic level as opposed to looking at traits that are easier to see. Unless evolution is bogus in which case the larger groups don't really exist outside of being an easy way to organize like things together.

[tool_462]

Famlily (plant, animal, insect) and Guiness and such are very much made up based on high-level observations. Most different "species" can't produce offspring with eachother (wolves and dogs works and perhaps they should be considered teh same species, but dogs and foxes doesn't even though they are very similar, correct?) so there is something to it at a fundamental genetic level.

This is actually something that is a bit anti-evolutionary (at least as I understand it). "Why aren't more living creatures DNA compatible if they all evolved from a common source?" Well, we can splice arctic trout into tomatoes (you get tomatoes that you can put in the freezer!) so the DNA itself is compatible, but shouldn't more closely-related species be able to cross-breed if evolution splitting into different species is a source of biodiversity?

Species do exist. Larger organizations probably exist and will be re-arranged into a more evolution-friendly order once we get a better genetic understanding of how things are really related at a genetic level as opposed to looking at traits that are easier to see. Unless evolution is bogus in which case the larger groups don't really exist outside of being an easy way to organize like things together.

Linnaeus agrees.

[verndewd]

I am of the opinion that both evolution and intellgent design are true. But not in the way that it totally supports the core of both arguments.

As was stated before ,too many transitional models of man have been found to say there is not sufficient hard data that could back up evolution, But I do believ that man is more than an accident since the formation of the earth was such a violent and unliveable event and thinking about the basis of life coming from water bearing comets and meteors seems like a stretch.

Interestingly there is no attempt to tie in the extra sensory abilities in ways that are believeable. I for one think that the metaphysical attributes of humans points to something greater. I just dont know that we will ever define that.

I do also believe that the recurrence of what we call religions or spirituality is an attempt by man to connect to the metaphysical source and that its body is stunted by the restrictions of understanding.

[brentpresley]

Famlily (plant, animal, insect) and Guiness and such are very much made up based on high-level observations. Most different "species" can't produce offspring with eachother (wolves and dogs works and perhaps they should be considered teh same species, but dogs and foxes doesn't even though they are very similar, correct?) so there is something to it at a fundamental genetic level.

This is actually something that is a bit anti-evolutionary (at least as I understand it). "Why aren't more living creatures DNA compatible if they all evolved from a common source?" Well, we can splice arctic trout into tomatoes (you get tomatoes that you can put in the freezer!) so the DNA itself is compatible, but shouldn't more closely-related species be able to cross-breed if evolution splitting into different species is a source of biodiversity?

Species do exist. Larger organizations probably exist and will be re-arranged into a more evolution-friendly order once we get a better genetic understanding of how things are really related at a genetic level as opposed to looking at traits that are easier to see. Unless evolution is bogus in which case the larger groups don't really exist outside of being an easy way to organize like things together.

This is all so wrong on so may ASSUMED scientific principles, I just don't know where to start.


1) you can't splice ANIMALS and PLANTS - doesn't happen. EVER. The DNA may consist of the SAME building blocks (ATGC), but the chromosomes are entirely different is size and structure and will not arrange themselves properly into dividing cells so that the DNA is split evenly with 2 copies in the two daughter cells.

2) only members of the SAME SPECIES and produce VIABLE offspring (i.e. offspring that themselves can reproduce). It is possible for a FEW members of different species to breed, but their offspring are NOT sexually viable. For example - horse and donkey and mate to create a mule, but mules are sterile. That's it - you can't cross two mules. End of the line.

[tool_462]

I am of the opinion that both evolution and intellgent design are true. But not in the way that it totally supports the core of both arguments.

As was stated before ,too many transitional models of man have been found to say there is not sufficient hard data that could back up evolution, But I do believ that man is more than an accident since the formation of the earth was such a violent and unliveable event and thinking about the basis of life coming from water bearing comets and meteors seems like a stretch.

Interestingly there is no attempt to tie in the extra sensory abilities in ways that are believeable. I for one think that the metaphysical attributes of humans points to something greater. I just dont know that we will ever define that.

I do also believe that the recurrence of what we call religions or spirituality is an attempt by man to connect to the metaphysical source and that its body is stunted by the restrictions of understanding.

Thank you for bringing intelligent design into the discussion, I think it is a much better description of what we have been broadly calling "creationism."

I think we would all do good to listen to---Tool - 46 and Two at this time. Listen and analyze

[BaldEagle]

This is all so wrong on so may ASSUMED scientific principles, I just don't know where to start.


1) you can't splice ANIMALS and PLANTS - doesn't happen. EVER. The DNA may consist of the SAME building blocks (ATGC), but the chromosomes are entirely different is size and structure and will not arrange themselves properly into dividing cells so that the DNA is split evenly with 2 copies in the two daughter cells.

2) only members of the SAME SPECIES and produce VIABLE offspring (i.e. offspring that themselves can reproduce). It is possible for a FEW members of different species to breed, but their offspring are NOT sexually viable. For example - horse and donkey and mate to create a mule, but mules are sterile. That's it - you can't cross two mules. End of the line.

Applause........ Well put.

[BaldEagle]

Thank you for bringing intelligent design into the discussion, I think it is a much better description of what we have been broadly calling "creationism."

I think we would all do good to listen to---Tool - 46 and Two at this time. Listen and analyze

Strictly speaking creationism is literally the book of Genesis. Intelligent design is a movement to discredit science which the church believe to be athiestic. Intelligent design was crafted to end run the legal rulings that allowed evolution in schools but banned creationism based on the separation of church and state. They do this by teaching essentially creationism without specifically naming the creator as god.

[verndewd]

Opinion.
Thats probably got alot of truth in it BE. Although for my sake I dont claim affiliation to the establishment on god or intelligent design. Maybe loosely as a christian but thats not saying Ill abide in their misleadings.

Once such things become a tool for lobbyists its time to look within. On both sides of the argument.

[DaSickNinja]

I asked this in the box, but I'll put it out there to anyone that wants to ponder it. With regards to survival of the fittest, if this theory is indeed true, how does one explain natural law, and the pervelance of morality and a sense of right and wrong? If DNA is constantly driving us to go one up on one another, how does this mesh with the quality of humanness?

Not taking a side, just putting out a view point question.

[BaldEagle]

Opinion.
Thats probably got alot of truth in it BE. Although for my sake I dont claim affiliation to the establishment on god or intelligent design. Maybe loosely as a christian but thats not saying Ill abide in their misleadings.

Once such things become a tool for lobbyists its time to look within. On both sides of the argument.

My opinion is nobody is right yet. Yes science has evidence that species evolve even man is still evolving we appear to be get taller and less hairy with sucessive generations although on an evolutionary scale so in 20,000 years assuming we don't sanitize the planet with nukes we probably will be looking a whole lot different.

So then going back billions of years where did life evolve from? A random combination of chemicals that formed protiens which then evolved into organisms that then evolved into every species that has ever walked the planet?

So why is science's answer that it's a convient accident a better answer than somebody put life here? It's not. Religion serves the purpose it always has to fill in the blanks where did we come from?, why are we here?, and what happens when you die? Science then explores those questions and many more to get answers to those questions but has yet to conclude definitive answers. So some day we may all worship a volcano where those protiens formed and consider gene mutations as the miracles of life but it isn't today.

[flasher702]

This is all so wrong on so may ASSUMED scientific principles, I just don't know where to start.


1) you can't splice ANIMALS and PLANTS - doesn't happen. EVER. The DNA may consist of the SAME building blocks (ATGC), but the chromosomes are entirely different is size and structure and will not arrange themselves properly into dividing cells so that the DNA is split evenly with 2 copies in the two daughter cells.

Will China Drive Investment In Bio Clean-Up Companies? « Earth2Tech

Their trees, pumped up with a rabbit gene for producing enzymes...

Are you purposefully using a different definition of "splice" (possibly a more scientifically accurate one, albeit) to change what I said into a false statement? That's not very nice :P They put animal DNA in plants... they do it lots. It's pretty freaking cool. Jellyfish DNA is in almost every GMO as a phosphorescence marker (well... if you can call a jellyfish an "animal"... but it's not a plant).

2) only members of the SAME SPECIES and produce VIABLE offspring (i.e. offspring that themselves can reproduce). It is possible for a FEW members of different species to breed, but their offspring are NOT sexually viable. For example - horse and donkey and mate to create a mule, but mules are sterile. That's it - you can't cross two mules. End of the line.

Half-wolves *are* viable. And I said that most species can't create cross breeds at all... which is true. Otherwise I would totally breed myself an octocatmonkey and sick it on you for misrepresenting my arguments. That's a ball of cuteness with 8 legs with claws and opposable thumbs. Unstoppable.

[BaldEagle]

Otherwise I would totally breed myself an octocatmonkey and sick it on you for misrepresenting my arguments. That's a ball of cuteness with 8 legs with claws and opposable thumbs. Unstoppable.

Yea well that octocatmonkey wouldn't stand a chance against my rinodillaeel 3 tons armor plated and electrified.

[brentpresley]

Will China Drive Investment In Bio Clean-Up Companies? « Earth2Tech

Are you purposefully using a different definition of "splice" (possibly a more scientifically accurate one, albeit) to change what I said into a false statement? That's not very nice :P They put animal DNA in plants... they do it lots. It's pretty freaking cool. Jellyfish DNA is in almost every GMO as a phosphorescence marker (well... if you can call a jellyfish an "animal"... but it's not a plant).



Half-wolves *are* viable. And I said that most species can't create cross breeds at all... which is true. Otherwise I would totally breed myself an octocatmonkey and sick it on you for misrepresenting my arguments. That's a ball of cuteness with 8 legs with claws and opposable thumbs. Unstoppable.

Be more specific next time.

You didn't say GENE splicing, you inferred GENOMIC splicing: and they are completely different. One involves taking part of ONE gene and expressing it in another organism for the express purpose of adding a specific trait to the recipient organism, the other involves taking the ENTIRE 50-200,000 genes and expressing them as a WHOLE in another organism.

[brentpresley]

Half-wolves *are* viable. And I said that most species can't create cross breeds at all... which is true. Otherwise I would totally breed myself an octocatmonkey and sick it on you for misrepresenting my arguments. That's a ball of cuteness with 8 legs with claws and opposable thumbs. Unstoppable.

This example is flawed, and here is why:

Dogs did not exist more than 2000 years ago. They were selectively bread from wolves over that time-frame to select for certain genes.

Technically speaking, they are still essentially the SAME genome (same EXACT number of genes, and use of those genes, just different phenotypic variants and expression).

Wolves and dogs can interbreed because they are genetically the same species (even if man feels like he must sub-divide them into 50 million named "breeds")


BTW, the logistics of a Chiwawa and something the size of a wolf breeding are mind boggling.

[flasher702]

Religion serves the purpose it always has to fill in the blanks where did we come from?, why are we here?, and what happens when you die? Science then explores those questions and many more to get answers to those questions but has yet to conclude definitive answers. So some day we may all worship a volcano where those protiens formed and consider gene mutations as the miracles of life but it isn't today.

There are many things that used to have made-up "religious" answers that we now have definitive scientific answers for. "Where does disease come from?" is a good example. People used to think they were curses and the like (there are also a number of incorrect sanitation guidelines in the bible. ex: menstrual fluid will not make people sick any more than the person in question would normally despite the bible repeatedly claiming otherwise). It's really better to just admit when you don't know than fight over religion I think. Fanatic religion is a convoluted way of saying "I don't know" only being pretentious and ignorant about it at the same time.

How did we get here? Well, I don't know. Neither does anyone else. *Scientists* are working on it but really... I don't care. It doesn't really matter and we're all stuck here for now so we should stop fighting about it already Maybe in 1000 years I can launch inter-planetary nukes at people who annoy me with nonsense like this but until then I'm really all about harmony. It's pragmatic!

(fyi: slight amounts of sarcasm sprinkled in there. And I'm really not trying to pick on BE specifically, I promise... even though it is like the 3rd time today, sorry. Hopefully we can get back to agreeing on something back in the economics thread soon buddy. )