|
 niteowl
GrandPaw
 
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc: 
|
 Evolutionary changes 
#3850795 - 03/01/05 04:37 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
IF the theory of evolution is correct, then all evolutionary change can only come from men.
|
 exclusive58
illegal alien
Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850831 - 03/01/05 05:08 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution has always been going on, but humans haven't always existed...therfore you are wrong, unless you have some other idea in the back of your mind?
--------------------
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850849 - 03/01/05 05:35 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What about the theory of evolution states that the only evolutionary changes can come from men?
IF the laws of gravity are true, then bowling balls should fall up. <-- Makes about as much sense.
The theory of evolution and natural selection does not claim that evolution is a straight line, or that humans are somehow the pinneacle of evolution, or that only the most complex organisms mutate, or anything even remotely like that. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here though.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 3 months, 3 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3850851 - 03/01/05 05:37 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
are there gender in viruses?
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Gomp]
#3850852 - 03/01/05 05:39 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No.
Why?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3850861 - 03/01/05 05:55 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Think about this.
Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. This is a FACT. That's why they go thru menopause. They run out of eggs.
Men produce new sperm on a daily basis.
If any genetic change is going to happen it can only come from the man. Im not being chauvinistic here, just looking at the facts.
For example....
If the weather begins to get colder and we need to adapt to the new environment the change cant come from the woman, her eggs are already formed at birth. Only the mans ability to adapt will get "programed" into his new sperm, causing his offspring to have a better ability to cope with the colder weather.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850873 - 03/01/05 06:08 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, that would be true if Darwin got it completely wrong and we didn't adapt through natural selection.
Adaptation isn't a change in response to a need. It's not like having sharp claws would help animals, therefore they grow sharp claws. It's sharp claws help animals, therefore the animals with sharp claws survive.
You might want to read up on natural selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 3 months, 3 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3850882 - 03/01/05 06:20 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phluck said:
No.
Why?
then if a virus can evolve, you got "proof" of change can not come only from men?
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Gomp]
#3850884 - 03/01/05 06:22 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yup!
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3850889 - 03/01/05 06:26 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Even Darwin said it wasnt just natural selection that produced evolutionary change.
Quote:
This theory does not make any specific claims as to how this process works, although more recent scientific discoveries in genetics explain several mechanisms that occur in the process of reproduction
Quote:
When members of a species become separated, such as geographically, they face different environments, and tend to develop in different directions.
In order to adapt to their new environment some sort of genetic change had to occur. Only the mans ability to adapt can change the genetic code of their offspring.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850899 - 03/01/05 06:41 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Darwin didn't know about genetics.
Eggs have just as many mutations as sperm do. In nature, mutations don't just happen to be advantageous. Most mutations are not useful. Every now and then there are useful ones that help a species survive, and those ones are passed on to more offspring because the creature with the advantageous mutation is better able to reproduce.
Of course when species are separated they develop in different directions... different animals will survive based on their environment.
I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk here, or sound arrogant, but you obviously don't have a full grasp of natural selection and evolution. Please don't take offense to this, it's an opportunity to learn.
Don't worry, this is perfectly normal, it seems like barely anyone has spent the time to learn it, even though it's not all that complicated. I'm thinking of making a thread that gives an explanation, and making it a sticky, because I'm constantly having to explain it in here.
Adaptation is not the magical aquisition of a trait that was needed. It is when, out of sheer dumb luck, some genes get kinda fucked up in such a way that they give the species a useful advantage. All eggs contain some little mutations(aka, little genetic fuck ups), as do all sperm. If the advantage is useful, the creature will be better at surviving and reproducing, and all of its offspring will carry that trait.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3850913 - 03/01/05 06:53 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So what your saying is that evolutionary adaptation is just "dumb luck". That their isnt any thing we do to "adapt" to our changing environment.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850923 - 03/01/05 07:03 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3850944 - 03/01/05 07:16 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds like a pretty weak theory. How can someone looking at a situation from a scientific point of view believe in "dumb luck". Their has to be some other driving force other than "dumb luck".
Sounds like the scientist cant think up a better reason so they contribute it to "dumb luck" or "coincidence" (because they are constantly trying to disprove the existence of God).
I have never believed in "coincidence". All things happen for a reason.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850958 - 03/01/05 07:23 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There are two theories of evolution. Lamarkian
http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/dse/3psy206/auteurs/lamarck.html
and Darwinian
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm
A classic example of how they differ is the explanation of how the giraffe got a long neck. Lamark said that after years of stretching its neck to reach leaves at the tops of trees, the giraffes body would change and these changes would be passed on to its offspring.
Darwin said that there is variation within a given population, the giraffe who is born with a longer neck will be able to reach the leaves at the top of the tree, and will therefor survive to produce lots of baby giraffes with long necks, while the giraffe born with a shorter neck will starve to death before he can reproduce more short-necked giraffes. Therefore over time, all giraffes will be born with long necks.
The Darwinian version is the theory of evolution accepted by scientists today. Under Darwinian evolution, the male and female are equally responsible for adaptation. The genes do not change over time in either sex; one can only pass on what one has inherited, male or female.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3850992 - 03/01/05 07:40 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds like a pretty weak theory. How can someone looking at a situation from a scientific point of view believe in "dumb luck". Their has to be some other driving force other than "dumb luck".
Well, there is, kinda, natural selection. Mutations happen all the time, this is extremely well documented.
The fact that some mutations provide an advantage IS the force that allows them to be passed on.
Sounds like the scientist cant think up a better reason so they contribute it to "dumb luck" or "coincidence" (because they are constantly trying to disprove the existence of God).
Well, also the fact that it has been observed to actually happen on various scales.
I didn't realize scientists were constantly trying to disprove God, as I've never once seen a single study which made this attempt. Care to point one out to me?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: shroomydan]
#3850996 - 03/01/05 07:42 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It should be noted that the Lamarckian version of evolution was discarded because the mechanism behind it has never been demonstrated, while Darwinian selection has.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3851004 - 03/01/05 07:48 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It should be noted that no scientist is going to call evolution a "coincidence" or "dumb luck", because that's not really an accurate description of the process.
It's actually a very rational and well laid out theory that is not only elegant, it has been observed, and it makes sense. The only way the theory of evolution could look like a cop out is if you didn't have a good grasp of what it actually is, and why scientists have this idea.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3851113 - 03/01/05 08:47 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phluck said:
It's actually a very rational and well laid out theory that is not only elegant, it has been observed, and it makes sense. The only way the theory of evolution could look like a cop out is if you didn't have a good grasp of what it actually is, and why scientists have this idea.
At least we agree that it is only a "theory" and no way to prove it. To say that we have observed "evolution" is a bit of a stretch. We have observed mutations in nature but cant prove that the mutation came from a random event or from our ability to adapt.
I believe that our ability to adapt has much more to do with our "evolution" than random mutations. That the ability to adapt to the environment is the driving force behind the mutations.
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851135 - 03/01/05 08:55 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, isn't natural selection and Darwinian evolution HIGHLY documented? I was under the impression that this moved on past pseudoscience theory into solidified fact some years ago. You got any info for this Phluck?
BTW - This thread is great.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: freddurgan]  1
#3851140 - 03/01/05 08:57 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is a theory as much as gravity is a theory. Sorry, but its a FACT.
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851153 - 03/01/05 09:03 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yep, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Quote:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3851161 - 03/01/05 09:05 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851163 - 03/01/05 09:07 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I believe that our ability to adapt has much more to do with our "evolution" than random mutations. That the ability to adapt to the environment is the driving force behind the mutations.
What are you basing this on? A guess?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: freddurgan]
#3851169 - 03/01/05 09:11 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Nice link. 
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851219 - 03/01/05 09:27 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution does not occur as fast as you seem to think it does. It does not occur in the timespan of a single generation. It takes millions of years for evolution to progress even slightly.
When evolution occurs as a result of environmental pressure (say, it gets colder) it is not because a mutation happens WHEN the pressure begins...the mutation has already occured, possibly millions of years prior, and exists in a large portion of the species. The pressure then causes the members of the species who do NOT have the mutation (say, one that causes a thicker, warmer coat of fur) will either die off due to the pressure, or migrate to areas where they can still survive. In either case, we are left with a "new" species: one which is able to survive in the new environment.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3851225 - 03/01/05 09:28 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If a dog's ears are cropped short, its puppies are still born with long ears. If someone exercises every day, runs marathons, eats well, and is generally very healthy, the fitness is not passed on and the person's children still have to work just as hard to get that fit and healthy.
These are POOR examples to use to disprove Lamarck's theory of evolution. The dogs ears were cut by a person NOT the result of environmental changes. Their was no environmental need for the ears to be cut, only aesthetic. The same can be said about the exercising. It isn't a result of adapting to ones environment. We ALL have the ability to exercise.
Trying to observe evolution in 1 generation is somewhat naive.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851228 - 03/01/05 09:30 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Trying to observe evolution in 1 generation is somewhat naive.
Quote:
If the weather begins to get colder and we need to adapt to the new environment the change cant come from the woman, her eggs are already formed at birth. Only the mans ability to adapt will get "programed" into his new sperm, causing his offspring to have a better ability to cope with the colder weather.
Which one is it, then? Does evolution occur in a single generation, or not?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3851254 - 03/01/05 09:42 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
Which one is it, then? Does evolution occur in a single generation, or not?
Mutations (adaptation) can occur in a single generation. It does, however, take years for the mutation to spread to other generations.
Not all men will mutate their genetic code(sperm). Those that can adapt, pass this adaptation onto their children. Any female that he fathers, will then have the cold adaption gene added to their genetic code (eggs). Then her children will prosper in the new colder environment and have a better chance of survival.
The change came from the mans ability to adapt(change his genetic code) which he passed on to his offspring.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851264 - 03/01/05 09:45 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Those that can adapt, pass this adaptation onto their children.
Can you please explain how this occurs?
I know of no known way to cause a system-wide change in DNA coding in ANY organism beyond single-celled life. At the very most, you could cause a single sex cell to mutate however this is NOT caused by environmental pressure and the SAME thing can (and does) happen to female eggs.
The change came from the mans ability to adapt(change his genetic code) which he passed on to his offspring.
Again, please explain how an organism can change its genetic code.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851269 - 03/01/05 09:48 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Mutations (adaptation) can occur in a single generation. It does, however, take years for the mutation to spread to other generations.
Not all men will mutate their genetic code(sperm). Those that can adapt, pass this adaptation onto their children. Any female that he fathers, will then have the cold adaption gene added to their genetic code (eggs). Then her children will prosper in the new colder environment and have a better chance of survival.
The change came from the mans ability to adapt(change his genetic code) which he passed on to his offspring.
You are wrong. This doesn't occur at all. There is no mechanism that alters DNA in gametes because of environmental changes. Period.
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: looner2]
#3851291 - 03/01/05 09:55 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Has anyone ever taken the sperm from a man when he is 20 and compared it to his sperm when he is 40?
That would be the only way IMO to see if their is any change in his genetic code.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851295 - 03/01/05 09:57 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That still doesn't explain how it occurs.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851302 - 03/01/05 10:00 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah. It's the same in the sense that the specific alleles for every gene are the same. But the 23 homologous chromosomes line up and split randomly, and crossing over occurs, which creates a vast array of genetically different gametes, but again, the alleles are the same.
You really should pick up a biology book, it'll answer your questions.
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: looner2]
#3851314 - 03/01/05 10:06 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
looner2 said:
You are wrong. This doesn't occur at all. There is no mechanism that alters DNA in gametes because of environmental changes. Period.
Then how do you explain the genetic mutations near the Chernoble(sp) accident.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851329 - 03/01/05 10:10 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Then how do you explain the genetic mutations near the Chernoble(sp) accident.
I think what he meant that there is no internal cellular function for altering the DNA code.
Obviously the genetic mutations near Chernobyl are a result of irradiation from the fallout and heavy contamination of the area due to the accident. No mystery there.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851367 - 03/01/05 10:18 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
These are POOR examples to use to disprove Lamarck's theory of evolution. The dogs ears were cut by a person NOT the result of environmental changes. Their was no environmental need for the ears to be cut, only aesthetic. The same can be said about the exercising. It isn't a result of adapting to ones environment. We ALL have the ability to exercise.
But Lamarck thought that by trying to say, reach for fruits higher up, a giraffe would stretch out its neck and pass that trait on to its children.
We actually have the ability to look at DNA and how it changes. We can see what traits are passed on, and what aren't. We can see how DNA changes over the lifespan of an organism.
People certainly don't magically grow genetic changes to their advantage when they need them. Nothing like this has EVER been observed.
We actually know quite a bit about DNA. We've done tons of experiments. We're able to pinpoint genetic data for specific functions. Mix and match it. Observe changes.
Before inventing wild theories about how genetics work, you might want to do some research and see what we already know about genetics, and how we found that information out.
Once you've got a better understanding of it, you will be much more qualified to speculate about it.
Would you feel comfortable telling someone who designed microchips that their understanding of how electricity works on a microscopic level is all wrong? If not, why do you feel comfortable saying that geneticists have it all wrong and you know better than they do?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3851386 - 03/01/05 10:24 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
Obviously the genetic mutations near Chernobyl are a result of irradiation from the fallout and heavy contamination of the area due to the accident. No mystery there.
Yes but it IS a genetic change due to an environmental change. Which was stated earlier to be impossible. It is a drastic change I agree, a change that we can see in our lifetime. The question remains was the change a result of the organisms trying to adapt to the new environment or not.
I tend to think we are the ones in control of our destiny. We change and adapt to the environment, and pass these changes to our offspring.
Im not sure that this viewpoint can be proven, its just another "theory".
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851395 - 03/01/05 10:27 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes but it IS a genetic change due to an environmental change.
That's not genetic change due to environmental change, that's genetic change due to damage from radiation. It's certainly not adaptation in any sense.
The question remains was the change a result of the organisms trying to adapt to the new environment or not.
The question does not remain. We know what caused the genetic changes; damage from radiation.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851408 - 03/01/05 10:31 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The question remains was the change a result of the organisms trying to adapt to the new environment or not.
Well, no, that question doesn't remain.
Please explain how a high-energy gamma ray or other form of ionizing radiation encountering and thus damaging a DNA molecule is the same thing as "the organisms trying to adapt to the environment".
I am not, and never was, arguing that environmental pressure does not cause evolutionary change. What I am saying is that the organism itself is not the one "responsible" for the genetic mutation. In many (in fact, probably MOST) cases of genetic mutation, the mutation results in either a benign function which provides no immediate evolutionary advantage or it causes a system-wide failure of the organism containing the mutation (ie: IT DOESN'T SURVIVE).
If organisms were able to alter their own DNA to their own advantage, I would not expect to see so many DESTRUCTIVE mutations in the DNA molecule.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3851434 - 03/01/05 10:36 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phluck said:
We actually have the ability to look at DNA and how it changes. We can see what traits are passed on, and what aren't. We can see how DNA changes over the lifespan of an organism.
Have we looked at the genetic code of a man in his 20's and compared it to his code in his 40's?
Quote:
Phluck said:
People certainly don't magically grow genetic changes to their advantage when they need them. Nothing like this has EVER been observed.
I dont think that evolution has been observed either. It's still a theory.
Quote:
Phluck said:
Would you feel comfortable telling someone who designed microchips that their understanding of how electricity works on a microscopic level is all wrong? If not, why do you feel comfortable saying that geneticists have it all wrong and you know better than they do?
We didnt design DNA like we did with the microchip. We are trying to understand DNA and how it works. I think we have lots more research to do before we fully understand how evolution works.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851453 - 03/01/05 10:41 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I dont think that evolution has been observed either. It's still a theory.
Sure it has: bacteria and other single-celled organisms mutate and evolve at a much faster pace than us multicelled organisms.
Take a look at antibiotic-resistant bacteria and you will see evolution in action.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851461 - 03/01/05 10:43 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
niteowl;
what is it about the word evolution that actually attracts you.
clearly you are as qualified as most here to start a thread about it, but it is obvious that you have zero understanding of the underlying science, or of the meaning of chance in science, which includes fractals, statistics, vitality of breeding populations, randomness of mutation, and the generality of survival of the fittest (which is not about fighting or sports).
is that why you chose a spirituality and philosophy platform for this thread?
--------------------
 🧠 ____ 
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851481 - 03/01/05 10:47 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Have we looked at the genetic code of a man in his 20's and compared it to his code in his 40's?
I've heard of lots of studies about how well our DNA holds up over time, so yes, I'm certain we have.
I dont think that evolution has been observed either. It's still a theory.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoNatSelWild.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
We didnt design DNA like we did with the microchip. We are trying to understand DNA and how it works. I think we have lots more research to do before we fully understand how evolution works.
I didn't ask about designing the microchip, I asked about our understanding of how electricity works, and we certainly didn't design that. However, we had to learn quite a few things about it to be able to use it the way we can now. Just like genetics, we don't know EVERYTHING about genetics, but we do know a lot more than you seem to think we know. We know how durable genes are, we know what causes them to change. We know how to make them change. We know how to mix and match genes. We know how to get all the data available in genes... and in order to do all this stuff, we've had to learn a whole lot about genes.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
is that why you chose a spirituality and philosophy platform for this thread?
HUMAN evolution is still a theory, not a fact. Single celled organisms are a far cry from the complex multicelled creatures we are. We haven't proven that we evolved yet. Thats why I put it in the S&P forum.
Do I believe that we evolved...yes.
Do I think that it was a completly random event....no.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851543 - 03/01/05 11:01 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's not random, it's actually pretty structured.
Each individual genetic change is random, but the process by which the advantageous changes are able to be passed on to subsequent generations is anything but.
Again:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoNatSelWild.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The only reason we haven't proven 100% that we evolved is because we can't go back in time.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3851671 - 03/01/05 11:31 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well what is it about humans that makes you think we are designed so elegantly? If we don't brush our teeth we get dental problems. We get cancer. We have heart attacks, strokes. We kill each other. We are full of random violence and freak occurences. The human race is a highly volatile pool of muck waiting to explode.
I like humanity though, don't get me wrong. I love humans. But you are talking like we were designed by "someone or something" and that our evolution wasn't "random". It wasn't random, but those of saying evolution isn't random are using the word random is much different sense than you.
Oh, by the way, it's actually up to someone to disprove a point, instead of having someone prove it. You can prove it for a hundred million years and be proved wrong in one sentence. So instead of telling us to tell you why evolution is right, why don't you tell us why it is wrong? With some facts?
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: freddurgan]
#3851693 - 03/01/05 11:38 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If we don't brush our teeth we get dental problems.
This is more a result of our diet (lots of refined sugars) than physiology. As well, MANY animals can get tooth decay...its just that most of them eat foods that help reduce the risk of tooth decay. We, on the other hand, go almost entirely for taste alone.
We get cancer. We have heart attacks, strokes. We kill each other.
So do most animals.
We are full of random violence and freak occurences.
Same
The human race is a highly volatile pool of muck waiting to explode.
From my point of view, the human race is pretty much the same as the rest of the Life on this planet...we just pay a HELL of a lot more attention to our OWN SPECIES than we do to any others so we get this idea that humans are inherently vile/evil/violent.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3851740 - 03/01/05 11:50 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
Take a look at antibiotic-resistant bacteria and you will see evolution in action.
Again this is an example of the organism trying to adapt to its changing environment.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851767 - 03/01/05 11:56 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes but the POINT was that single-celled organisms evolve in a far different manner from multi-celled organisms.
A SINGLE cell can experience IMMEDIATE advantage due to a change in DNA coding, because the cell only HAS a single strand of DNA - if it changes, the cell changes. Adaptation for a single cell is relatively easy because of this.
A mutlicellular organism cannot do this, however. If you change the DNA in any random cell in your body, ONLY that cell and its offspring (not YOUR children, the cells that this one cell may divide into) experience the change due to DNA. The rest of the cells in the body still all have their own DNA, and for most of them this will be the same copy of DNA that you were born with. Adaptation for a multicelluar organism MUST be system-wide to have any real effect, otherwise all you are changing is single cells.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851775 - 03/01/05 11:58 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
is that why you chose a spirituality and philosophy platform for this thread?
HUMAN evolution is still a theory, not a fact. Single celled organisms are a far cry from the complex multicelled creatures we are. We haven't proven that we evolved yet. Thats why I put it in the S&P forum.
Do I believe that we evolved...yes.
Do I think that it was a completly random event....no.
it is a theory that you may not comprehend; and it explains more than any other theory with respect to species and speciation.
It is not about humans exclusively, and until you study biology in more depth you will not have the hooks to hang the understanding of this concept upon.
randomness is another thing you could come to better grips with, both aspects of this question (human life & the randomness of its appearance) relate to a kind of beauty in the universe and its underlying processes: humans are not the pinnacle of a single purposed life force, merely one of the multitudes of expression of that potential which is still being realized.
if you are not happy about some real but accidental aspects of your existence, do take some comfort that creation is an ongoing process.
--------------------
🧠 ____
Edited by redgreenvines (03/01/05 11:58 AM)
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3851831 - 03/01/05 12:09 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
A mutlicellular organism cannot do this, however. If you change the DNA in any random cell in your body, ONLY that cell and its offspring (not YOUR children, the cells that this one cell may divide into) experience the change due to DNA.
If we can change the genetic code of our sperm(single cell) then our offspring will benefit from the change.
Thats what this thread is all about. Geneticaly changing our sperm to effect our evolution.
This can only be done in men since we produce new sperm daily. Women are "hardwired". Their eggs cant change. They were born with all the eggs they will ever have. Their genetic code in their eggs came from the genetic adaptations of her father.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851876 - 03/01/05 12:18 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But changes in our genetic code DON'T happen. "IF" is a big word, because "IF" we could just change our genetic code then this debate wouldn't be here and science would be completely different.
Just trying to adapt to an environment won't change your DNA.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851891 - 03/01/05 12:20 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If we can change the genetic code of our sperm(single cell) then our offspring will benefit from the change.
That is not "adaptation" though, because it would not benefit the father organism in any way whatsoever (other than making his children more adapted, but a lot of good that will do if the father dies due to the new environmental pressure that HE is unable to adapt to).
Again: there is no known function by which a multicelled organism can alter its own DNA in response to environmental pressures.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3851892 - 03/01/05 12:20 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
niteowl, we know what you are saying. Trendel and Phluck have tried to EXPLAIN that you are wrong, to help you understand the process of evolution.
The fact is, you are wrong. There is really no debating it. There is no "philosophy" behind your idea. It's just not true. If you want to understand evolution, read a biology book.
I just don't understand what you are trying to prove by posting the same wrong thing over and over again...?
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3852090 - 03/01/05 12:56 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This can only be done in men since we produce new sperm daily. Women are "hardwired". Their eggs cant change. They were born with all the eggs they will ever have. Their genetic code in their eggs came from the genetic adaptations of her father.
If you expose eggs to radiation, you can damage their genes as well.
When the eggs are first produced, they will have a few mutations in them as well. Mutations that are just as significant as the mutations you'll see in male sperm. The events in the life of the person will not make their mutations any more advantageous than the mutations you will see in eggs.
These are facts of genetics that we have already figured out. Just like we figured out that cows have 4 stomachs, birds can fly, and there's that nifty fish that spits at bugs to shoot them out of the air.
Then again, why am I telling you this, if learning stuff was what you were interested in, you'd be reading some biology books, not repeatedly trying to tell people on the internet that you know more about genetics than the people who discovered genes, and have been dedicating their lives to studying them, tediously running thorough tests, comparing their results with other scientists, trying new experiments and possibilities, publishing articles, considering the criticism from other scientists, etc...
It's not like science is a bunch of guys sitting around in their basement hitting the bong and then going "whoa, what if our physical growth is dictated by strands of proteins contained in our cells, wouldn't that be FUCKED you guys?"
There are actual very rigorous processes for testing ideas before they are accepted as interesting possibilities.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
mutilation is not mutation, [Re: niteowl]
#3852227 - 03/01/05 01:24 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
ironically even if you did it right you would not have exerted much control over anything if you use any human egg cells that have not also been tampered with too.
now that I know what you are trying to say it is even a lamer topic than the title suggests.
it is way way harder to change the contents of a sperm cell than an egg cell since it is so much tinier.
and there is no evolutionary supremacy to male or to female, (we are one species) and tampering with testes is not evolutionary progress.
what a dumb topic, I feel almost embarrassed commenting, but it would be criminal to let it just go.
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3852338 - 03/01/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phluck said:
It's not like science is a bunch of guys sitting around in their basement hitting the bong and then going "whoa, what if our physical growth is dictated by strands of proteins contained in our cells, wouldn't that be FUCKED you guys?"
That was the funniest shit I've ever read.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3852395 - 03/01/05 02:06 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Phluck said:
It's actually a very rational and well laid out theory that is not only elegant, it has been observed, and it makes sense. The only way the theory of evolution could look like a cop out is if you didn't have a good grasp of what it actually is, and why scientists have this idea.
At least we agree that it is only a "theory" and no way to prove it. To say that we have observed "evolution" is a bit of a stretch. We have observed mutations in nature but cant prove that the mutation came from a random event or from our ability to adapt.
I believe that our ability to adapt has much more to do with our "evolution" than random mutations. That the ability to adapt to the environment is the driving force behind the mutations.
We can adapt our behavior to our surroundings, and teach that behavior to each new generation, but we cannot purposefully adapt our genes. That comes about through mutation.
--------------------
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3852570 - 03/01/05 02:37 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
We can adapt our behavior to our surroundings, and teach that behavior to each new generation, but we cannot purposefully adapt our genes. That comes about through mutation.
So you saying that the sperm that I produced when I was 18 is identicle to the sperm that I will produce when Im 45.
I would like to see a link to the results of that study.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3852619 - 03/01/05 02:45 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So you saying that the sperm that I produced when I was 18 is identicle to the sperm that I will produce when Im 45.
Where did he say that? He didn't. He said we can not "purposefully adapt our genes".
Now if you've been reading the thread, you would notice that it was already pointed out that your sperm ARE different from eachother. It is not a function of how long you have been living, because ALL your sperm are different from eachother in some small way.
I suggest you go read up on "meiosis", which will explain the process by which sperm/eggs obtain a similar yet different copy of DNA from the parent.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3852631 - 03/01/05 02:47 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3852760 - 03/01/05 03:06 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
I suggest you go read up on "meiosis", which will explain the process by which sperm/eggs obtain a similar yet different copy of DNA from the parent.
>>>Meiosis is a process to convert a diploid cell to a haploid gamete, and cause a change in the genetic information to increase diversity in the offspring.
How do you know that their isnt a "divine" influence on the genetic structure. If it is real cold and I 'pray' to God not to be cold. How do you know that God isnt answering my prayers by altering the genetic code of my sperm so that my offspring can handle the cold better.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3852786 - 03/01/05 03:12 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know that their isnt a "divine" influence on the genetic structure. If it is real cold and I 'pray' to God not to be cold. How do you know that God isnt answering my prayers by altering the genetic code of my sperm so that my offspring can handle the cold better.
Well how do you know it is God answering your prayors?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3852807 - 03/01/05 03:17 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
We can adapt our behavior to our surroundings, and teach that behavior to each new generation, but we cannot purposefully adapt our genes. That comes about through mutation.
So you saying that the sperm that I produced when I was 18 is identicle to the sperm that I will produce when Im 45.
I would like to see a link to the results of that study.
No two sperm are identical. The millions of sperm you produce when you are 18 are as different from one another as they are from the millions of sperm you produce when you are 45.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3852835 - 03/01/05 03:20 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
We can adapt our behavior to our surroundings, and teach that behavior to each new generation, but we cannot purposefully adapt our genes. That comes about through mutation.
So you saying that the sperm that I produced when I was 18 is identicle to the sperm that I will produce when Im 45.
I would like to see a link to the results of that study.
I'm back with more and I'm truly astonished at how little information is in the common knowledge base .
yes it is the same sperm (genetically)- possibly with less vigor (less fertilization potential) and possibly some degradation to telomeres (end caps of the chromosomes - nto a good thing for offspring) but genetically it is always 100% identical except if you expose yourself to deadly radiation or other extreme and usually fatal DNA corruptive hazard.
NOTE:Some biologically uneducated people have voiced their opinion (this is a free speech world) that they can change their chromosomes, but it a completely unfounded claim, and these people do not even know what a chromosome actually is or why they have them.
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3852861 - 03/01/05 03:25 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
No two sperm are identical. The millions of sperm you produce when you are 18 are as different from one another as they are from the millions of sperm you produce when you are 45.
technically this is true but it is unrelated to the erroneous assumption of the thread.
the sperm which are produced by meiosis come from the same male germ cells that are unchanged genetically from birth till end of life
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
|
A key point here is that there is ALWAYS genetic diversity in a quantitative sense, but in a FUNCTIONAL sense, everybody is the same. So, of course there are little changes between people, like hair color, or exactly how much HCl the stomach secretes, but the fact that you grow hair, and your stomach secretes HCl at all and is attached to your esophagus and intestines, is a functional adaptation that will not change for millions of years.
Quantitative vs. Qualitative.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: freddurgan]
#3853126 - 03/01/05 04:16 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Excellent point!
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3853998 - 03/01/05 07:08 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How do you know that their isnt a "divine" influence on the genetic structure. If it is real cold and I 'pray' to God not to be cold. How do you know that God isnt answering my prayers by altering the genetic code of my sperm so that my offspring can handle the cold better.
This is a distinct possibility which science cannot refute. The providence of God may well be at work in the formation of sperm cells, however it is important to note that variation occurs in the formation of egg cells as well, and there is nothing to indicate that divine providence does not come into play in their formation. The only difference is the timing, but for an eternal being, time is not an obstacle.
For instance if a man living at the beginning of an ice-age prayed "not to be cold", God could easily effect the formation of his wife's egg cells to produce the desired characteristic in her offspring. Of course this would be done retroactively because as you mentioned all the eggs or formed at the beginning of a woman's life. In effect the request to not be cold would be answered before the prayer was made. Such is the eternal nature of divine providence.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: shroomydan]
#3854012 - 03/01/05 07:12 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
well if you go for immaculate conception
the magick went on with just an egg -
sperm were superfluous in that story.
and when it comes to god influencing something, well, what can't he do?
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
'Immaculate Conception' actually refers Mary being born without original sin, not to the virgin birth of Christ. But you bring up a good point about what God can do. Catholic doctrine states that Mary was born without original sin due to a special grace merited by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Of course the grace appeared chronologically prior to the sacrifice which produced it, but this is not illogical because the sacrifice was an eternal act, and all moments in time are simultaneous with eternity. This is the same principle I was speaking about above. A cause (prayer) can produce an effect which is prior to it in time, provided that it acts through an eternal pathway (God).
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3854195 - 03/01/05 08:14 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
OK
Already we have at least two "scientific" views that conflict
Quote:
Paradigm said:
No two sperm are identical. The millions of sperm you produce when you are 18 are as different from one another as they are from the millions of sperm you produce when you are 45.
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I'm back with more and I'm truly astonished at how little information is in the common knowledge base .
yes it is the same sperm (genetically)- possibly with less vigor (less fertilization potential) and possibly some degradation to telomeres (end caps of the chromosomes - nto a good thing for offspring) but genetically it is always 100% identical except if you expose yourself to deadly radiation or other extreme and usually fatal DNA corruptive hazard.
Now who is right?
The primary point that I have been trying to make is that the "mutation/adaptation/evolution" is NOT a random occurrence.
I am not trying to debunk any science (contrary to popular belief). Your telling me that evolution is completely random, and Im saying that "God" is the one responsible for the direction that the evolution takes.
Lets go back to the cold adaptation example. Lets say the temp gets drastically cold and the people of the earth "pray" for it not to be cold; "Oh my God its fugin cold! Why oh why is it so cold?"
God (or Mother Nature) hears our pain and "fans the flames of change". Guiding our evolution. The easiest way to make the needed "evolutionary change" is to alter the genetic code of the MALES.
His code is being written all the time.
A little nudge in the right direction and BAM the code is altered. Now the offspring will have a higher tolerance for the cold.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854318 - 03/01/05 08:39 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The easiest way to make the needed "evolutionary change" is to alter the genetic code of the MALES.
It seems to me that any way would be easy for God. He could alter the males as you say, he could alter the females as I explained above, or maybe he set it up from the beginning to reach his desired end by working through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Maybe a combination of all three, or even something we have not thought of yet.
What may seem easiest from a human perspective is not necessarily the way an infinitely powerful being would go about accomplishing his plan.
PS: If you really want a scientific view, then you are better off reading a reliable source than second hand info presented here. (there are several good links posted earlier in this thread) I don't think we have any doctors of biology who post here frequently.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada 
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854351 - 03/01/05 08:48 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe this is a confusion of terms?
In this case I would use "random" to mean it is not possible to predict when a mutation occurs. Mutations do have a direct cause, but individual events are unpredictible with current knowledge. From our point of view, they occur randomly.
We seem to agree that evolution does occur and does so through mutation. We differ in what we think causes the mutation, that's all 
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3854487 - 03/01/05 09:22 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Now I'm determined to shed some light on the subject. I'll post the links that I'm reading with rather enthusiastic gusto, and come back for more tomorrow.
Everyone that was part of this thread that still cares should read this link to their hearts desire.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854528 - 03/01/05 09:32 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Now who is right?
Paradigm is, but only because RedGreenVines meant something slightly different.
Sperm are pretty much the same at any stage of life, only they're all slightly different.
God (or Mother Nature) hears our pain and "fans the flames of change". Guiding our evolution. The easiest way to make the needed "evolutionary change" is to alter the genetic code of the MALES.
Actually, it's JUST AS EASY to alter the genetic code of the females. Eggs are still prone to genetic damage.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: shroomydan]
#3854548 - 03/01/05 09:36 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said:
It seems to me that any way would be easy for God. He could alter the males as you say, he could alter the females as I explained above, or maybe he set it up from the beginning to reach his desired end by working through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
"God" set the universe in motion. He gave it, its own set of "laws". (Laws that we are just now begining to understand.)
Their are some "laws" that even "God" cant break.
He too has to work within a set of "rules". He is watching over us. If we need some help....He will assist in any way that He can,.....IF WE ASK FOR IT.
Once we ask then he will help in the easiest meathod that he can......and the males are the ones whose genes are the easiest to manipulate.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854663 - 03/01/05 09:57 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Once we ask then he will help in the easiest meathod that he can......and the males are the ones whose genes are the easiest to manipulate.
Why are male's genes easier to manipulate? Eggs can still undergo genetic changes.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3854741 - 03/01/05 10:13 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
He has no idea what hes talking about.
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Phluck]
#3854749 - 03/01/05 10:15 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
True, but they are already made
Look at it from a productivity POV.(Occam's Razor?) The eggs are already made, wrapped and ready to go. The sperm are in a constant state of production.
It would take much less energy to "alter" the genes that are in production, than it would be to go thru every egg and unwrap, rewire, re-wrap and put back into production.
Face it men are easier to manipulate. 
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854781 - 03/01/05 10:22 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It would take much less energy to "alter" the genes that are in production, than it would be to go thru every egg and unwrap, rewire, re-wrap and put back into production.
Well, this doesn't make any sense though. We know that the changes in the sperm aren't consistant. No 2 sperm change in the same way, genetic damage is just as easily done to eggs as to any other cell... and you don't need to unwrap, rewire, and rewrap to make a genetic change.
Seriously though, if you're really interested in speculating on genetics, get some books out, and read about it.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854820 - 03/01/05 10:29 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Now who is right?
Both are, actually. The sperm all come from the same genetics, so redgreenvines is correct in that, but they all have different configurations, so I'm right in asserting that they are all different. No conflict here.
The primary point that I have been trying to make is that the "mutation/adaptation/evolution" is NOT a random occurrence.
You have offered no evidence for this point, so it is moot.
I am not trying to debunk any science (contrary to popular belief). Your telling me that evolution is completely random, and Im saying that "God" is the one responsible for the direction that the evolution takes.
As no one can agree on exactly what God is, this statement is meaningless.
Lets go back to the cold adaptation example. Lets say the temp gets drastically cold and the people of the earth "pray" for it not to be cold; "Oh my God its fugin cold! Why oh why is it so cold?"
Just like I've prayed for a million dollars? God never answered my prayers.
God (or Mother Nature) hears our pain and "fans the flames of change". Guiding our evolution. The easiest way to make the needed "evolutionary change" is to alter the genetic code of the MALES.
Even supposing that God guided our evolution, there is no reason why he would choose males over females in this manner.
His code is being written all the time.
Wrong. The sperm a man can produce is already determined by his genes. It does not take a big evolutionary leap within his testicles.
A little nudge in the right direction and BAM the code is altered. Now the offspring will have a higher tolerance for the cold.
Doesn't work that way. Sorry. Evolution is a much more gradual process than that.
--------------------
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette
Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854866 - 03/01/05 10:40 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
heh, god...not by chance
here's some infor on meoisis, mitosis, and darwins theory and some questions that arise that can be cleared up.
darwins theory is based on three propositions
1) the ability for a population of a species to expand is infinite, while the world around it that can sustain this expansion is finite.. this is what causes the struggle between species.
2) organisms vary in physical qualities, this has to do with the reproduction and how well each species can reproduce.
3) these variations are inherited by offspring from their "parents"
back when the theory first appeared. the theory was very contriversial because of variation and inheritence could not explained thorougly at that time. back then they thought the idea of "blending" as good, but this would effectively deplete a population of organisms of all variation. at first, blending looked like a good idea, but as time would go on, blending would have bad consequences for any kind of variation, as decendencts merely lose their variation (we'd all become grey )
Mr gregor mendel showed that while physical characteristics may show some blending, the inherited material, mainly genes, remains the same. since this is the case, how would a blending mode of inheritance ever result in anything other than a population of greys?
here's how you know there are discrete traits, my mom has blue eyes while my father has brown eyes. this doesn't mean I have bluish brownish eyes, I have blue. in this case my MOTHER had the dominate gene, not my father. so clearly here your theory goes out the window. but lets look closer at what Mr Gregor Mendal found.
Meosis is the production of sex cells and mitosis is cell division. Mitrotic divisions occur throughout the body. the result of the split are two cells containing a set of chromosomes each. meosis only occurs within the sex cells. this process divids one cell into two, each with a diploid set of chromosomes. this cell divids once again without a corresponding division DNA, thus resulting in the final sperm or egg. again further showing your theory of changing a man's cell as irrelevant.
also, during meiosis, similar chromosomes may change material in the genetic recombination even called "crossing over" its liek a deck of cards, it provides a constant variation in the cell shuffle 
this process has been observed.
so great, genes exist....then what?
how does this impact the organisms living here.
what is known is that all the processes which goern and organisms growth, development, and maintanence are ultimately based in a code located in the chromosomes. this is called DNA (for short)
i must stop here so I know you clearly understand what is being defined and what is going on before we continue.
--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3854943 - 03/01/05 11:04 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Lets go back to the cold adaptation example. Lets say the temp gets drastically cold and the people of the earth "pray" for it not to be cold; "Oh my God its fugin cold! Why oh why is it so cold?"
Just like I've prayed for a million dollars? God never answered my prayers.
God could care less about your personal gain, only your spiritual growth. His/Her main interest is in helping us become better souls. Life is a series of challenges, if some challenges get to great we may need help.
Quote:
Paradigm said:
His code is being written all the time.
Wrong. The sperm a man can produce is already determined by his genes. It does not take a big evolutionary leap within his testicles.
Let me refer you to this
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Now who is right?
Both are, actually. The sperm all come from the same genetics, so redgreenvines is correct in that, but they all have different configurations, so I'm right in asserting that they are all different. No conflict here.
It is these different configurations that God can influence, aiding in our evolution.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: kaiowas]
#3854959 - 03/01/05 11:07 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kaiowas said:
so great, genes exist....then what?
how does this impact the organisms living here.
The genetic codes your are refering to......only show us HOW things work not WHY
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3854987 - 03/01/05 11:15 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Lets go back to the cold adaptation example. Lets say the temp gets drastically cold and the people of the earth "pray" for it not to be cold; "Oh my God its fugin cold! Why oh why is it so cold?"
Just like I've prayed for a million dollars? God never answered my prayers.
God could care less about your personal gain, only your spiritual growth. His/Her main interest is in helping us become better souls. Life is a series of challenges, if some challenges get to great we may need help.
With a million dollars, I could donate large amounts to charity, relieving great amounts of suffering. Being warm is petty compared to that spiritual gain.
Quote:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
His code is being written all the time.
Wrong. The sperm a man can produce is already determined by his genes. It does not take a big evolutionary leap within his testicles.
Let me refer you to this
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Now who is right?
Both are, actually. The sperm all come from the same genetics, so redgreenvines is correct in that, but they all have different configurations, so I'm right in asserting that they are all different. No conflict here.
It is these different configurations that God can influence, aiding in our evolution.
The different configurations are essentially the same is if chosen at random. If God is influencing it, then he sure is indecisive.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3855015 - 03/01/05 11:24 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
kaiowas said:
so great, genes exist....then what?
how does this impact the organisms living here.
The genetic codes your are refering to......only show us HOW things work not WHY
In order for there to be a why(purpose), then you have to presuppose that there is some entity which gave it that purpose. There is no reason, other than wishful thinking, to think that such an entity had some purpose in mind. To try to answer the question "why," or even to ask it, is pure speculation.
--------------------
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3855254 - 03/02/05 12:23 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
With a million dollars, I could donate large amounts to charity, relieving great amounts of suffering.
Quote:
Paradigm said:
If God is influencing it, then he sure is indecisive.
I think He has done a pretty good job(with our physical form)
Our spirit is what we need to work on now.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3855298 - 03/02/05 12:33 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
To try to answer the question "why," or even to ask it, is pure speculation.
What?
Dont ask why?
Isnt that the driving force behind science/life?
WHY
How can you not ask why?????
Asking why is how we learn....
The sun comes up every day right.
Sure.
Why?
Because everything is revolving around the earth. Thats why.
If no body ever questioned the "facts of the times"(by asking why) we would still be in the stone age.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette
Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3855354 - 03/02/05 12:47 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
To try to answer the question "why," or even to ask it, is pure speculation.
What?
Dont ask why?
Isnt that the driving force behind science/life?
WHY
How can you not ask why?????
Asking why is how we learn....
The sun comes up every day right.
Sure.
Why?
Because everything is revolving around the earth. Thats why.
If no body ever questioned the "facts of the times"(by asking why) we would still be in the stone age.
different than the why as paradigm described as "purpose"
see when you said "everything is revolving around the earth," I think you mean the earth (not everything) is revolving around the sun (not earth as you stated). and this isn't why, this is how. sure the earth revolves the around the sun...but you are asking, why does it revolve around the sun.
who knows
--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: kaiowas]
#3855388 - 03/02/05 12:59 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
alls i know is im getting dizzy!  
--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3855422 - 03/02/05 01:12 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
With a million dollars, I could donate large amounts to charity, relieving great amounts of suffering.
What's so funny? Do you not recognize the vast amounts of good that could be achieved with large amounts of money?
Quote:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
If God is influencing it, then he sure is indecisive.
I think He has done a pretty good job(with our physical form)
Over time, the random results we get with our genetic configurations end up working in our favor, the same way that the random results of casino slot machines end up working in the casino's favor when they're all added up. This is no indication of a divine will. If God exists, he is quite the gambler, despite Einstein's objections.
Quote:
Our spirit is what we need to work on now.
Starting with the definition thereof.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3855435 - 03/02/05 01:15 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
What?
Dont ask why?
Isnt that the driving force behind science/life?
No. As kaiowas pointed out, science asks "how" not "why." "Why" is the question for religion and philosophy. Science has no use for it, as it cannot be measured.
Quote:
If no body ever questioned the "facts of the times"(by asking why) we would still be in the stone age.
Questioning facts has indeed gotten us far, but science cannot tell us why, only how.
--------------------
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3855704 - 03/02/05 02:52 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Questioning facts has indeed gotten us far, but science cannot tell us why, only how.
I never said science could tell us why.
I just told you a theory of how and why that you cant disprove.
Arent all theories, facts untill they are disproved?
Isnt the theory of gravity still holding up? Yea, no one had disproved it yet.
Prove my "theory" wrong.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856029 - 03/02/05 06:53 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
what a verbal scrapper you are.
well at least you are getting a lot of attention without threatening to leave every other tuesday.
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856072 - 03/02/05 07:12 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I just told you a theory of how and why that you cant disprove.
Arent all theories, facts untill they are disproved?
Isnt the theory of gravity still holding up? Yea, no one had disproved it yet.
Prove my "theory" wrong.
Prove my theory wrong - the universe was created when a small, pink 12 dimensional flea named cyril burped. Is that fact?
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
I like to get some new ideas stirring around.
None of the post I have made in the past few days were "flights of fancy". I have talked to many people about these things, and wanted to bring them here, to see what kind of response I would get.
Ohyea.....
I will still be here next tuesday.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: deafpanda]
#3856146 - 03/02/05 07:34 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deafpanda said:
Prove my theory wrong - the universe was created when a small, pink 12 dimensional flea named cyril burped. Is that fact?
How cute.....a whole universe in a small space.
Have you ever read "A Brief History of Time", by Stephen Hawking. You could very well be right. The pink, 12 dimensional flea, and the universe in a burp.
However, I have taken a existing theory (evolution) and expanded upon it. In a fairly clear and simple way. I havent disagreed with any of the existing science behind their theory, just "tweaked" it a little.
Your "universe in a burp theory" is possible acording to some of the big thinkers of our time.
But.......
it sounds more like a "flight of fancy" you just came up with to sound witty.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856151 - 03/02/05 07:37 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just demonstrating that theories are not facts until proved wrong, they are theories until they have amassed significant corroborative evidence.
|
uriahchase
Skinny White Boy
Registered: 09/25/04
Posts: 675
Loc: SoCal
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856197 - 03/02/05 07:59 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i only read about the first four replies....Gomp proved you wrong ...
and besides evolution is just a theory never any proof of it has been found. nor ever will. i think this is a good post to end this thread.
--------------------
Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are -Kurt Cobain
Hotter than the left sink handle.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: deafpanda]
#3856204 - 03/02/05 08:01 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deafpanda said:
Just demonstrating that theories are not facts until proved wrong, they are theories until they have amassed significant corroborative evidence.
I never said that your "theory" was not true, just not well thought out.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: uriahchase]
#3856215 - 03/02/05 08:05 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
uriahchase said:
i only read about the first four replies....Gomp proved you wrong ...
and besides evolution is just a theory never any proof of it has been found. nor ever will. i think this is a good post to end this thread.
You need to read the WHOLE thread.
Evolution has been witnessed and documented. Just not in "human" evolution.
Again back up and read the thread.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856400 - 03/02/05 09:04 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You need to read the WHOLE thread.
Evolution has been witnessed and documented. Just not in "human" evolution.
Again back up and read the thread.
Can I suggest you do the same? Every question or wrong assumption you had about evolution has been answered. You refused to read it or just ignored it, sticking to your "theory" as if it has any grounding in science at all. It doesn't. You realize you are completely wrong? If you read a biology book you would realize this. The mechanisms of what you speak of have been figured out a long time ago. You aren't thinking up anything new or interesting here, and frankly, I am amazed you refuse to learn when people are teaching you something.
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: looner2]
#3856585 - 03/02/05 10:08 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I am amazed you refuse to learn when people are teaching you something.
Don't be amazed, looner. Pride and Ignorance are two conditions we humans are not likely to lose any time soon
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3857427 - 03/02/05 01:32 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Questioning facts has indeed gotten us far, but science cannot tell us why, only how.
I never said science could tell us why.
I just told you a theory of how and why that you cant disprove.
Arent all theories, facts untill they are disproved?
What? No. They're theories until they're disproved, and frankly, your ideas fit more under the category of "dogma" than theory.
Quote:
Isnt the theory of gravity still holding up? Yea, no one had disproved it yet.
Wrong again. Einstein's general theory of relativity proved Newton wrong about gravity.
Quote:
Prove my "theory" wrong.
You clearly don't understand the concept of the burden of proof. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove your idea to be true.
--------------------
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3857488 - 03/02/05 01:50 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I have never mentioned any kind of "dogma" or ritual, just the concept of "divine intervention".
I haven't even tried to dispute our current views of science.
I never told anyone that their theory was wrong.
I didn't even say that "random" mutations in our evolution never happen.
All I said was that some of the mutations could have been given a "nudge" toward one direction or other.
Here is another example.
When proto-man had to "adapt" from living in a jungle/forest environment to the savanna. We had to learn to walk upright on our back 2 legs. This would have caused "major" lower back pain and made the proto-human (us) miserable. He had to make a major adaptation to this new environment.
God/Mother Nature, hears our misery and nudges our genetic makeup in a direction that would make walking on 2 legs less painful.
Meanwhile the tail and appendix that we used to rely on slowly disappears. We made that change on our own.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3857556 - 03/02/05 02:05 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Don't even bother, eh. He obviously doesn't want to learn anything new. Arguing with a person who believes that God himself "nudges" our genetic makeup in certain directions isn't likely to go very far
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3857583 - 03/02/05 02:11 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Here is another example.
When proto-man had to "adapt" from living in a jungle/forest environment to the savanna. We had to learn to walk upright on our back 2 legs. This would have caused "major" lower back pain and made the proto-human (us) miserable. He had to make a major adaptation to this new environment.
God/Mother Nature, hears our misery and nudges our genetic makeup in a direction that would make walking on 2 legs less painful.
Meanwhile the tail and appendix that we used to rely on slowly disappears. We made that change on our own.
God you are so wrong. We wouldn't have started to walk on two legs until we COULD walk on two legs. Even IF the quadripedal people just "decided" to start standing up on two legs, which they wouldn't have because that's rediculous, they COULDN'T because like you said it would be highly unnatural and would be a detriment to survival.
Now, the way it actually works is that some of the quadripeds were born better at walking on two legs. Not much better, but better. A better sense of balance, maybe a stronger back? This would give an obvious survival advantage and so this particular animal/animals (probably more than one at a time given population numbers) reproduced, causing their offspring to be better at walking on two legs. Over THOUSANDS of years these more adept, but not completely bipedal creatures became more and more prevalent. And eventually they were the majority, and eventually more were birthed that were better at walking, and AGAIN the cycle repeated. And evenutlaly, after all those thousands and thousands of generations, millions of years have passed and those that were once bipedally-gifted have given rise to those that are indeed bipedal.
They didn't become bipedal because they WANTED to, or TRIED to, they became bipedal because they COULD.
Even your last statement is wrong and it's for the same reasons as you've been wrong this WHOLE time. They aren't adapting in the sense that you say they are. They didn't force themselves to adapt so they could live in the savannahs, instead, they COULD live in the savannahs because over the years enough evolution occured that allowed them to do so.
You keep putting the whole scenario backwards. That's just not how it works.
And the appendix and tail aren't going away because we don't need it. It's going away because the ones that were born with a different/lesser/modified tail survived better than the bipedals that had tails, so they reproduced more and made less people with tails.
Once again, you're doing it backwards.
Edit : Trendal, I hear ya. This is getting sad. But I'm learning alot about evolution and am enjoying this thread because of it.
Edited by freddurgan (03/02/05 02:13 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3858875 - 03/02/05 06:05 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
I have never mentioned any kind of "dogma" or ritual, just the concept of "divine intervention".
Which is a dogma, not a theory. A theory can be tested.
Quote:
I haven't even tried to dispute our current views of science.
I never told anyone that their theory was wrong.
I didn't even say that "random" mutations in our evolution never happen.
All I said was that some of the mutations could have been given a "nudge" toward one direction or other.
Which cannot be tested or measured, and thus does not qualify as a theory.
Quote:
Here is another example.
When proto-man had to "adapt" from living in a jungle/forest environment to the savanna. We had to learn to walk upright on our back 2 legs. This would have caused "major" lower back pain and made the proto-human (us) miserable. He had to make a major adaptation to this new environment.
The transition from jungle to savannah did not happen overnight. It took millions of years of living on the edge of the forest.
Quote:
God/Mother Nature, hears our misery and nudges our genetic makeup in a direction that would make walking on 2 legs less painful.
Complete speculation. There is no indication from the fossil record(nor could there be) that such an event took place.
Quote:
Meanwhile the tail and appendix that we used to rely on slowly disappears. We made that change on our own.
We got rid of the tail long before that.
--------------------
|
uriahchase
Skinny White Boy
Registered: 09/25/04
Posts: 675
Loc: SoCal
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3859868 - 03/02/05 09:14 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
okay i read the whole fuckin thing..now i think ive pulled my retina,andf spraned my cornea...hehe yah i still agree with my previous reply my veiw hasn't changed.
*why hasn't our bodies "evolved" since there has been record of history<~~~~~??
*did that make any sense to you???? hmmm..i need better writting skills.
any way why haven't humans eveolved enough to no longer have weak immune systems that are suceptical(?) to the common cold? or does human kind take its precious time gettin' started on this..?
traits are carried from parent to child some reccesive some dominate. but i don't beleive that we as humans have or will ever "develope" new traits or through evolution "change" our genetic blueprints..
AMANAPLANACANALPANAMA
--------------------
Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are -Kurt Cobain
Hotter than the left sink handle.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: uriahchase]
#3860201 - 03/02/05 10:14 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Natural selection doesn't take its full course on humans. The sick, deformed, brain-dead, and weak all get to mate and have kids.
--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: uriahchase]
#3861578 - 03/03/05 08:40 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
*why hasn't our bodies "evolved" since there has been record of history<~~~~~??
Because recorded history is FAR shorter of a time span than evolution occurs in. We have a few thousand years of recorded history. Evolution takes millions of years.
any way why haven't humans eveolved enough to no longer have weak immune systems that are suceptical(?) to the common cold?
Don't forget that the common cold is mutating constantly and thus is MUCH more able to adapt to our immune systems than our immune systems are able to adapt to the cold virus.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: freddurgan]
#3861756 - 03/03/05 09:59 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
freddurgan said:
God you are so wrong.
Again someone said that my theory is wrong with no "concrete proof"
Quote:
Now, the way it actually works is that some of the quadripeds were born better at walking on two legs.
Im guessing that you were there to record these evolutionary changes. (doubt it) You are basing your "theory" on scientific events that have only been discovered in the past 100 years or so.
What really happened millions of years ago is still only speculation....a "theory".
So my "theory" of divine intervention holds as much water as your "theory" of only random mutations.
You can no more prove your theory than I can prove mine.
That's why its called a THEORY
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3861779 - 03/03/05 10:05 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
any way why haven't humans eveolved enough to no longer have weak immune systems that are suceptical(?) to the common cold?
Don't forget that the common cold is mutating constantly and thus is MUCH more able to adapt to our immune systems than our immune systems are able to adapt to the cold virus.
Also the single-celled, cold virus can "evolve" much faster than the highly complicated mulit-cellular entities that we have become. That is why no one can prove the theory of "human evolution".
We nave observed "evolution" in these single-celled organisms and made a big "leap of faith" and said that human evolution must evolve in the "exact" same manner as the single celled creatures.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3861793 - 03/03/05 10:11 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
probably what is at the root of confusion and disagreement here is the nature of randomness or god.
it is presumed that we are in a fractal universe and that all representations are statistically turbulent and at the same time co-relative on several scales of examination (teh patterns repeat gloriously).
this relative aspect of fractals and their tendency to repeat at jumps in scale according to their unique signatures makes one feel as if in the hands of a greater being.
this great one either is the fractal essence (randomness) or creates with the principle of randomness in every stroke.
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
probably what is at the root of confusion and disagreement here is the nature of randomness or god....
this great one either is the fractal essence (randomness) or creates with the principle of randomness in every stroke.
I believe that for the most part it is a random system, that can be manipulated by a "higher conscience" if "it" deems it necessary.
And their is no way to prove or disprove either theory. 
Arguing about who is right and who is wrong is pointless.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3862073 - 03/03/05 11:23 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If you cannot prove/disprove your idea, it is not a theory. It is dogma.
Hasn't this already been pointed out, several times?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
gnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 5 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3862085 - 03/03/05 11:25 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
google: lamarckism
--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3862086 - 03/03/05 11:25 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I would give in to that and would definitely be on guard about that meddling "higher consciousness" which can manipulate randomness.
but that has nothing to do with your testicles
that part was really really ridiculous unless you have an unique relationship with the higher consciousness and or randomness itself
Edited by redgreenvines (03/03/05 11:26 AM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: gnrm23]
#3862153 - 03/03/05 11:40 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Lamarckism:
"A discredited theory of evolution developed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck in the 19th century."
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
but that has nothing to do with your testicles
that part was really really ridiculous unless you have an unique relationship with the higher consciousness and or randomness itself
Let say that this "higher conscience" is nothing more than the "collective conscience" of the planet (Mother Nature if you will).
When WE as a species have randomly mutated to a point of stagnation and need an evolutionary nudge to continue our evolution.
The EASIEST way to make minor genetic adjustments (on a large scale), to our genetic make-up, is to "tweak" the sperm as its being made.
"God/Mother Nature" could show up for a minute, assess the situation, see where we needed to go and "alter" the chemical soup of the whole human race, in a very drastic way, in a very short time frame, with very little energy.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3862223 - 03/03/05 12:00 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:
If you cannot prove/disprove your idea, it is not a theory. It is dogma.
Hasn't this already been pointed out, several times?
For those of you who do not know how to use a dictionary........
dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines formally proclaimed by a religion
theory: 1 abstract thought: 2 the general principles of a subject: hypothesis, conjecture
untill someone can prove my theory of "divine intervention thru manipulation of sperm" wrong it isnt dogma it is still just a theory.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3862296 - 03/03/05 12:16 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
When WE as a species have randomly mutated to a point of stagnation and need an evolutionary nudge to continue our evolution.
The EASIEST way to make minor genetic adjustments (on a large scale), to our genetic make-up, is to "tweak" the sperm as its being made.
"God/Mother Nature" could show up for a minute, assess the situation, see where we needed to go and "alter" the chemical soup of the whole human race, in a very drastic way, in a very short time frame, with very little energy.
assessing stagnation in evolution is a nonissue - not done never done among evolution scientists, not a factor in the whole thing altogether - it isn't part of the understanding of evolution.
evolution is the process conceived while looking back at history of survivors of mutation. It helps understanding emerge (sometimes).
(makes me think what a dumb guy am I being involved in this thread again)
the sperm at creation (meiosis) tweak you are surmizing is not easier than any other method of introducing mutation -
course an omnipotent creator could do anything, so why would you have dreamed up this supposedly easy way (NOT EASY AT ALL) for HIM/HER to fool around with genetics - wouldn't a direct and spontaneous approach be delicious.
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
course an omnipotent creator could do anything....
Not if he is bound by a set of natural laws.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3863003 - 03/03/05 02:47 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You know there IS evidence of missing links. Bones from older humans. There -is- evidence of this stuff.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
Read the link "Evidence for Human and Ape Common Ancestry", and his rebuttal on the bottom. You act like we have no evidence when really we have tons. We ARE proving our theory and disproving yours.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3863424 - 03/03/05 03:46 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
course an omnipotent creator could do anything....
Not if he is bound by a set of natural laws.
then what does omnipotent mean?
I assure you it is nothing to do with testicles
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
freddurgan said:
Read the link "Evidence for Human and Ape Common Ancestry", and his rebuttal on the bottom. You act like we have no evidence when really we have tons. We ARE proving our theory and disproving yours.
I never said that we didn't evolve from an ape like creature.
NEVER.
I believe that our evolutionary theory is correct.
All I'm saying is the "random" mutations may not be random but "divinely inspired".
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
then what does omnipotent mean?
I never made reference to an "omnipotent being".
I said "God/Mother Nature".(another "term" is "Great Spirit")
You assumed I was talking about an "omnipotent/all powerful being", and I wasn't. The thought of anything being "omnipotent" is some what barbaric.
I believe their are spiritual beings that are more "spiritually evolved" than we are. That only exist in spirit form.
The collective power of these "spirits", forms a "Great Spirit". These things (spirits) are not separate from the system but part of it. They are bound by the same "natural laws" that we are.
When the "Great Spirit" sees that we need to make have an evolutionary change. He "wills/nudges" it to happen in a certain way. The "Great Spirit" isn't worried about the male/female issue.(unlike some people here). His concern is to try and help us along the way.
Knowing how we humans "reproduce". The quickest, easiest, most energy efficient way to make a quick change in the genetic code of these humans is to "WILL" a change which ever gender would be easier to manipulate. In humans is the men.
It is just a theory about how "god" may influence our evolution.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34,960
|
hold on to them gonads [Re: niteowl]
#3864018 - 03/03/05 05:52 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
you have a very specific theory then of slightly superbeings that got their degrees in molecular biology and who are compelled to evolve humans
sounds like a plot for the x-files
--------------------
🧠 ____
|
ninjapixie
newbie
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 417
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3864158 - 03/03/05 06:16 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
When the "Great Spirit" sees that we need to make have an evolutionary change. He "wills/nudges" it to happen in a certain way. The "Great Spirit" isn't worried about the male/female issue.(unlike some people here). His concern is to try and help us along the way.
Help us along the way to what?
Your view of evolution implies direction towards something, some final god-like organism, but all evolution evolves are organisms capable of surviving in their future environments.
--------------------
Put that monkey back in the oven.
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: ninjapixie]
#3864249 - 03/03/05 06:34 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ooh, ok. So you think that everything is correct except for the way mutation works. You think instead of mutation working the way our highly refined data says it does, that God just helps us mutate.
I'm out of this thread =( This is stupid. I thought you didn't believe in human evolution at all.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#13684621 - 12/25/10 09:34 PM (12 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#13696364 - 12/28/10 02:30 PM (12 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Come on now, some one needs to accept the fact that I was right about how a mans sperm CAN STRONGLY influence his offspring.
Trendal.....
Quote:
To test their hypothesis that environmental influences experienced by the father can be passed down to the next generation in the form of changed epigenetic information, Rando and colleagues fed different diets to two groups of male mice. The first group received a standard diet, while the second received a low-protein diet. To control for maternal influences, all females were fed the same, standard diet. Rando and colleagues observed that offspring of the mice fed the low-protein diet exhibited a marked increase in the genes responsible for lipid and cholesterol synthesis in comparison to offspring of the control group fed the standard diet.
Genetic change DOES happen in men faster than women......due to the fact that men make new sperm daily. Sperm is a mini copy of who that man is at that moment.
If that man makes significant changes to himself....those changes get passed down to his kids.
--------------------
Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 7,938
Last seen: 16 hours, 34 minutes
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#13696704 - 12/28/10 03:53 PM (12 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
epigenetic influences don't change what DNA is there, it changes what DNA gets expressed
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Red Vein Kratom 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
trendal
exclusive58
butter_flyfish
Moonshoe
Middleman
SpecialEd
Ped
Silversoul