The Edge of Evolution - Page 4

Just a figure of speech.


Define mind. If you mean a "soul," whatever that means, the sense of self, thought, consciousness, then, yes. If you mean a physical brain with gray matter, nerves, neurons, and electrons connecting it all, obviously no, given what I stated before.


Yes.


Who knows. Heaven contains such delights that no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard of, no human mind has ever fathomed. Again, these are in existence outside of this physical universe.


Not sure what you're getting at?


What do you mean by "go?" Get this Judeo-Christian tradition of God as a big, old guy out of your head so we can have a meaningful conversation. Heaven and hell are creations just like this universe. God is not like unto his creation or bound by its laws and properties.


What is the source of the properties and laws by which our universe operates? Gravity, strong forces, weak forces, inertia, energy, what causes the physical behavior to be what it is? (Vibrating super-strings? In that case, what causes them to vibrate?)


Not all of us. Thankfully, I am of a religion that purposely takes very concrete steps to control this human propensity to associate God's qualities with those of his creation. It does earn us a lot of flak from other belief systems, though.


It is not consistent with the majesty of God to appear as one of his creations. God does not "carnate".

I resent your unfounded assertion in the first two-thirds of this sentence; I am, however, willing to overlook this injustice for the sake of gleaning some of your wisdom on the subject. I am, as you have correctly pointed out, woefully ignorant of the field.


I don't think you know what "match" means? If a certain mutation results in a trait that allows an organism to survive or benefit from the new ecological landscape, I would call that a match. As opposed to other random mutations which might not make any difference or be detrimental. Given a bunch of random mutations, only some of them will be in the former case. These would be referred to as "matching" the particular environmental event.

And surely you're not claiming that all the biological diversity around us has resulted from only one environmental event (although it certainly seems that is what you're claiming)? Obviously, in order for the original organism to advance and adapt and diversify, there have to be multiple pressures, one after the other, along with continual increase in population and "spread" so that not all elements of the population are affected by the same selection pressures.


I think the Christians were pretty badly battered the first time they went head to head with the evolutionist, resulting in the reluctance of most mainstream groups to try it again. I see the current furor as more a result of backlash to the adoption by atheists of the theory of evolution in its current state as a dogmatic ideology, to support their anti-religious views. If someone's personal beliefs are interfering with the scientific conclusions and observations he is making, it is obviously not healthy for good scientific endeavor. This is as true for atheists as it is for any other religion.

And I, for the record, have a problem believing that Jesus is the son of God; I also deny that evolution is as provable as the nose on my face (maybe not that on your face, I don't know ) Again, I say that it may be a good model for predicting the behavior of the world around us or for use in classification. But it doesn't qualify as a philosophical argument.

Fair enough. This definitely decreases the odds against those first living cells significantly. Without some means of quantifying the time involved, the size of the population, the extent of variation created by mutation, and the extent and frequency of environmental changes driving the selection, it is very difficult for me to come to a rational determination on the likelihood one way or another. I think, the less quantifiable facts exist, the more likely it is that conclusions will be drawn simply on personal bias, rather than on the real likelihood of the situation involved. Of course, in this respect, experienced researchers do have an advantage over laymen because observation of similar circumstances can lead to a good intuition for what is or is not likely.

I guess these are questions scientists are working on right now, though, so hopefully things become clearer as research progresses and a clearer idea develops of the earliest history of the earth.

This brings up another question I've had kicking around my mind:

Is there any example where this has actually happened, either in the wild or in a lab, where it can be proven to be advantageous mutation taking place?

Proof, I think, means two things:

1) The mutated organism must be better adapted to the conditions driving the selection than the original and be able to reproduce more organisms with this same favorable, mutated, trait.

2) The new trait must be verifiably new. That is, it is not simply a rare recessive trait, or some other scenario, in which the trait is already existent within the original population, it is just extremely rare, until the selective pressures cause that trait to become more dominant.


Sources?

Who are you?

As in, it who is it is?


doG has a soul, given to doG by doG? So doG made doG? I thought only humans had souls, heaven, limbo, and hell sound like pretty boring things, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no pets, no entertainment, can't see, can't hear, can't taste, can't feel, can't smell, Those in heaven (limbo, hell, et. al) are just twiddling there souls for all of eternity.

You'd think that those who have heard doG here on Earth, would have got around to asking such obvious questions. Eternal happiness you say, wow doG must have some major drugs to keep them all happy for all of eternity. dog is an eternal drug lord!

Does doG ever do any soul searching within itself? Perhaps goG is already in hell, considering the things he has purportedly done.


All three together, wow. Now where did goG run off to, probably searching for its soul? What is existence wrt doG?


But the universe has no outside.


That was an oxymoron to be sure. Just a bunch of souls, doing whatever souls do, in timeless (and spaceless and massless and energyless) eternity.


Obviously doG can be anywhere doG wants if doG so chooses, after all it is doG we are talking about isn't it?


Well basically, if doG does interact with us it's through our physical universe, otherwise doG could not interact with our physical universe (e. g. Jesus).


Actually for the vast majority of followers, a physical interpretation is necessary to solidify their beliefs.


Jesus?

It's bizarre, isn't it?

College is doing that boy good, ya hear?

By excluding (2), you are ignoring the fact that this is how evolution occurs most (all?) of the time and are instead demanding that evolution take on some sort of intentionality. Spontaneous mutations occur all of the time. You select from that pool of mutations, generally. The fact they are pre-existing to the selection pressure means nothing; do you really expect them to come about after you have already killed off the entire lot of individuals?

Of course we are at the center of OUR observation, how can we not be????

For the folks 3000 Lightyears away they are also at the center of their observation.


What was your mother smoking during pregnancy?
Now here is another little discovery: Smoking during pregnancy causes mental defects in children. This is prove that chemicals greatly influence development or does doG alter the genes of smoking mothers as punishment, oh wait the children didn't really do anything, oh wait I am getting confused, oh it's pre emptive punishment, oh no that's wrong too, it's punishment of the unborn to make the mother feel bad when it's obvious that she doesn't give a shit, oh no wait the designer decided to introduce nicotine addiction into the mother so she can have genetically alter children who can withstand massive amount of cigarettes in order create more health care costs, oh no that doesn't make any sense either, it must be that the intelligent designer forgot to take his meds and couldn't get a stiffy, oh no that seems not plausible, ...

Anyhow, I am related to the first cell to ever live on this planet and I am very happy about that and extremely proud of it. If you were intelligently designed I can only feel very sorry for you. I can still evolve and my children can be brighter than me, adapt to new challenges and discover more about evolution because there is so much more to discover, yours are always going to be dimwitted retards who are being told stories about a gargantuan Joe from nowhere who simply snaps his fingers and then there was light. That does not take a lot of brains, just like living in paradise.

Thank you. Nice to know that you are capable of such civil discourse. Why are you so defensive? I'm asking genuine questions, attempting to get a better understanding of a subject I know little about. Come down off your high-horse.


I understand this. However, a "creationist," for example, could argue that all the variation that exists in a population and is used by natural selection, has always existed. In fact what I am asking in the second point, is for proof that spontaneous mutations are, in fact, occurring all the time and the variation that exists has not always existed. How do you know that mutation is occurring all the time? Because variation exists? But maybe that variation has always existed? In order to prove that something is changing you have to show that the variation was not there before, and now it is. Understand?

Can this be shown?

You are making less and less sense every time you post something. Smoking during pregnancy causes mental defects in the child because it is poisoning the fetus and depriving it of oxygen. It has nothing whatsoever to do with altering genes, mutation, evolution or any of the topics being discussed here. Such children, provided they are not rendered sterile by said poisoning, can have perfectly normal children of their own.

I can't believe you just used this example to try to establish mutations due to chemical influence. It is beyond ludicrous. It's as if I stabbed a fetus in the eye with a knife and claimed that physical factors can alter genetic development since the child was born with only one working eye. Please try and think about what you are posting before blurting out these inane rants. It would really add to the level of discussion here. thanks.

Yes. It can be shown. It has been shown. See the ames mutagenesis test used to determine if compounds are mutagenenic and HIV as classic examples. See any number of teratogens (ones that actually do affect the genetics of the offspring or the ability of the offspring to reproduce classically (dna segregation and all that)); see Hunington's disease. But if you actually read anything about this subject you would understand this -- polymerases, those not so little proteins responsible for copying DNA aren't perfect and this has been KNOWN for DECADES.

Regardless, a creationist can set the goal post wherever he wants, he is looking to fit the data to his theory, as such any such goal post setting is a task in non-scientific banter. A true distraction from that fact that creationism is an empty explanation.

I still think you are a disingenous idiot.

Thank you for making my point.

Environmental influences do greatly influence development of living organisms. Your comparison with eye stabbing is not valid. (BTW corneas can be fixed) .

Let' s see: A fetus is gestated in 0 gravity. It's body will dissolve it's bones because bones can only develop when gravity pulls on the body. The fetus will have no need for a scull or bones in it's extremeties. Mutation caused by environmental influence that is pretty much immediate and permanent. This also happens to the body of astronauts who need to undergo exercises to prevent massive irreversible bone loss in space.
Children of individuals without bones will most likely have no bones. After just a few generations their DNA will change to no longer even include information about bones.
Just like creationists children will soon be born without brains.

Lamarck anyone? Lamarckian evolution was discredited a long time ago. Has it made a comeback while I wasn't paying attention?

At least we now know what your trouble is. You can send your check to me for your psychiatric evaluation or pay via paypal, what do you prefer?

jamac, you really aren't helping your cause.

while meelash is clearly playing games here -- he has doggedly pursued you because your arguments are the weakest -- you should stop providing him fodder for continued harassment.


and meelash, anyone who knows the term Lamarck is lying when they say they don't know anything about evolution. so just stop.

Wow, that is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. You're treating genes and environment like they got in trouble in class so the teacher makes them sit 4 rows apart.

Genes and environmental factors (such as tobacco smoke) interact in a incredibly complex tapestry. Smoking during pregnancy will have differing effects upon a child depending upon the child's genotype, the mother's genotype, and a whole host of other gene-environment / gene-gene interactions.

For instance, smoking during pregnancy by the mother is a risk factor for asthma. That risk can be ameliorated or exacerbated depending upon the genotype of the child.

Smoking during pregnancy is also a risk factor for orofacial clefts. This risk has been shown in studies to be modified by detoxification gene variants in the child as well as in the mother.

Those are just off the top of my head.........

The Common Man

Must be one of them born agains or something...

Hopefully, you intended for this "sentence" to be unintelligible.


hmmm... h'Okaaay.....



How would you know that the universe hasn't an outside? The universe as we know it, is a collection of matter (and/or energy) that obeys certain physical laws, relating to mass, forces, etc. Anything in existence which does not obey those physical laws would be completely undetectable by the physical human body which is itself composed of matter and thus bound by those same physical constraints.


Just because there is not mass and space and energy in the terms that we are familiar with, does not mean that there is nothing. There may be other constructs of existence more suited for manipulation by souls. After all, a soul would probably be pretty useless at manipulating physical objects in this universe.


Not true. God does whatever he wants, but he only does God-ly things which behoove his being.


Okay. (RE: Jesus, see below.)


Not true. The religion with the most followers in the world forbids any physical interpretation of God.


Just a man. A special man (a Man among men, so to speak), but just a man. He says so himself.

Seriously. People like you are hurting the case of "evolutionists" everywhere. You clearly don't even have an elementary understanding of modern evolutionary theory and yet you insist on attacking "disbelievers" with your "logic." Why? Have you got some belief system that depends on evolution as its basis?


Actually, I think you can see that I've done my best to answer everyone who's made a comment with regard to one of my posts, even franksargent whose posts, as you can see, are fairly irrelevant and often insulting. I have begun considering just ignoring the blind followers like Jamac and Flounder who clearly know even less than I about evolution, but I was worried they might think that they've "stumped" me or something. I will admit that his arguments were the easiest to shoot down.



Would you relax?

I don't think I've stated explicitly that I know nothing about evolution and I certainly didn't intend to imply that. Instead, in response to assertions by several early on (I don't remember if you were one of them?) that people who don't agree with evolution are just unlearned and haven't really understood it, or studied biology, etc., I intended to point out that I am indeed, guilty as charged, a layman with little to no formal education in the field. I was hoping to be able to ask critical questions, without being attacked by the evolution-istas as I've seen happen many times before for questioning the great wisdom of thousands of scientists. Unfortunately, it didn't work well, as you decided that I was trying to bait you into a trap or something. On the other hand, I feel we did get somewhere, and I did learn something from your last post, so, if you're willing I'd like to continue the discussion? I just feel it's much more productive for everyone, if it doesn't become a mud-slinging debate as it was earlier in the thread; in fact, your last post, which I looked up, forced me to reconsider the veracity of some of my reading on the subject, which is a very good thing IMO.

Just for your peace of mind:

DISCLAIMER

My parents are both biologists (my dad's a PhD). Obviously, it didn't wear off on me, as I'm a mechanical engineer, although they did pass on a love of the natural world, and natural curiosity about these matters. I haven't taken a biology course since honors biology in High School, which was a total joke. I think we learned to use a microscope and built models of DNA or something. I took a Chemistry w/ application to Biosystems course in undergrad but it was more a chemistry course than anything else. As such, most of my knowledge about the issues involved in this debate comes from outside reading ( I will admit, at great risk of scorn, to having read a book on evolution by a creationist) and casual (well, sometimes they get a little heated) conversations with my dad. To the best of my knowledge, that is the extent of my education on the subject.

Talkin' about me? How insulting!

(not that born agains are not good people, they're usually very sincere and genuinely nice, but the premises of their beliefs seem to me to be frankly, quite ridiculous. No offense intended)

It just is. It is? Yes! \.

Are we all talking here about the real or the imaginary?

I'd prefer to keep it real, what is versus whatever.

PS - It is good that you found your way!