Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
Do you think evolution is blind?
    #9340617 -

Or do you think it overcomes chance?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9340625 -

I dont understand the question, but would love to throw my opinion in the ring.  (like always)

What do you mean?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9340658 -

Is it possible for complex structures to evolve without any sort of guiding intelligence, or did we and everything else come into being in the way an image of Jesus appears on the wall after using an uncovered blender?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9340681 -

Quote:
Is it possible for complex structures to evolve without any sort of guiding intelligence


Absolutely.  This has been witnessed by man made computer programs (artificial life).  They replicate themselves, random mutations are introduced (in the form of bit flips), they compete for resources (CPU time) and viola! you get complexity right before your eyes.

Im actually preparing a little presentation on artificial life right now, so its fresh in my mind :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9340692 -

"Do you think evolution is blind?"

Without question.  Evolution has no foresight, nor does there seem to be any particular goals or eventual outcome that it is striving towards.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9340731 -

Aren't we part of the process? We certainly are not blind.  We can change the course of evolution.

I'd say evolution isn't necessarily blind, but it needs no guidance to work.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9340740 -

Isn't the computer program, in some sense, guiding the formations though?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Sleepwalker]
    #9340778 -

Cool thread!

Is the theory of evolution strictly causal? If so, this would suggest either:

A. Some divide between existence and evolution as we know it, such that there are aspects of my being that are not defined by this theory of evolution. In this sense "I" am not evolution, because I have free will. This might be contrary to evolution, if evolution is supposed to define me.

B. Our being is reduced to blind cause and effect, in the typical reductionist argument of "no free will".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9340914 -

bradley said:
Isn't the computer program, in some sense, guiding the formations though?


No, the analog of the computer program is an organism.  It competes with other programs/organisms for CPU time, and mutates when it self-replicates.  No guiding at all, only random mutations and a selection process.

I made a thread on it a while back, but it wasnt to interesting to people.... Ill dig it up, maybe you will find it interesting.

edit - http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9145544#Post9145544

Edited by Qubit (11/30/08 10:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: daytripper23]
    #9340931 -

Evolution and free will are not mutually exclusive.  If we have free will, we evolved that ability by gaining added complexity over the generations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9340970 -

bradley said:
Or do you think it overcomes chance?


          I often wonder myself…thinking of the sperm ÂżDo they know where they going? So fast…so fast. In a matter of time all dead but one. ÂżDo they know about life? A lifeline they are; alive they are; hundreds of thousands years old they are; they came out of me and I hardly know them… except I see myself in the creature/the one that could be and the one it was. They existed before I could think and now I think about them/me/... us.  All dead but one. The One that Creation has chosen. I… and you got no chance for I think.


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9340994 -

Quote:
If we have free will, we evolved that ability by gaining added complexity over the generations.


With this statement though, you artificially impose a line between conscious evolution and unconscious evolution. If our free will is part of the evolutionary process, then evolution is at least partially conscious.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9341007 -

DieCommie said:
Evolution and free will are not mutually exclusive.  If we have free will, we evolved that ability by gaining added complexity over the generations.


And if we have free will, it will continue to exert pressure on the evolutionary process towards certain outcomes.  We are the newly-born eyes and ears of life itself, hoorah!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9341028 -

bradley said:
With this statement though, you artificially impose a line between conscious evolution and unconscious evolution. If our free will is part of the evolutionary process, then evolution is at least partially conscious.


Sure, if we have fee will it plays a role in what species get selected and which do not.  But from your original question, it is not a prerequisite to evolution.  That is, complex structure can evolve without a guiding intelligence (in fact, intelligence itself is one such complex structure)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9341043 -

"Blindness" and "chance" are exclusively human ideas. Evolution has no purpose, other than as a theory to clarify how we came to be what we are.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9341134 -

DieCommie said:
bradley said:
With this statement though, you artificially impose a line between conscious evolution and unconscious evolution. If our free will is part of the evolutionary process, then evolution is at least partially conscious.


Sure, if we have fee will it plays a role in what species get selected and which do not.  But from your original question, it is not a prerequisite to evolution.  That is, complex structure can evolve without a guiding intelligence (in fact, intelligence itself is one such complex structure)


I read your post on the program, pretty fascinating. It makes me think there must be some problem solving applications to it.

Still, since a programmer has to write some code to start it out, can you reasonably say consciousness is not a prerequisite?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9341271 -

Also, the program emulates evolution in behaviors and creation of "organisms", but can you say that the random chance that simulates biological system interactions, can also simulate system content? We are talking span versus depth. Can a computer program evolve molecules into a cell, by chance? That would entail enormous organization and structure arising from chance, whilst the organisms in the program, if comparing to real biological structures, are black boxes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9341420 -

Quote:
Still, since a programmer has to write some code to start it out, can you reasonably say consciousness is not a prerequisite?


Yea, I suppose you could (in this case).

Quote:
It makes me think there must be some problem solving applications to it.


I was thinking the same thing, but its not anything I mentioned in the assignment.  Algorithms like this that use random mutation and a selection mechanism, as opposed to current ones which are deterministic, could offer novel solutions to R&D problems that would otherwise not be had.

I see no reason to think that a system like this, with enough time and computational power, couldnt evolve an intelligence.  Maybe like ours in some small way, with fears, hopes, irrationality, the whole shebang.  If we dont kill ourselves first...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9341502 -

Evolution does not act upon individuals; it acts upon populations.

It is the product of a universal force called Natural Selection. Natural Selection is not random; It is also not 'guided' and does not have an agenda. Rather, it selects for the alleles (genes) in a population (group of a certain species living together) that allow that population to pass on their DNA the most successfully.

For instance, if an individual in a certain species of fish that lives around a green environment acquired a mutation in its DNA that made its scales develop a green color, it would be better camouflaged and would probably have a better chance of passing on those more successful alleles. Thus, Natural selection decided, simply by all the forces of nature coming together and acting upon the fish, that this mutation in the DNA should be passed on, and so it will probably be. The children of that fish will now have green scales and be better suited for their environment and to escape from predators.

Coming from a long background in Biology, ecology, and evolution, I am saying this as fact and not really something that can be debated. Though if there are any Creationists on this board, I apologize for undermining your belief system.


--------------------
EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Patisotagami]
    #9341582 -

No one is debating whether natural selection occurs, its a question of whether random chance can produce the level of complexity we have. Either way, a mal-adapted species isn't going to thrive.

DieCommie - do you think there is a fundamental subatomic particle from which all things emerge?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9341597 -

bradley said:
No one is debating whether natural selection occurs, its a question of whether random chance can produce the level of complexity we have. Either way, a mal-adapted species isn't going to thrive.

DieCommie - do you think there is a fundamental subatomic particle from which all things emerge?


IMO "random chance" is also a human idea, as is "intention," "intelligence," and everything else used to frame the debate. None of these things exist outside of our collective human attempts to understand a universe that we are only a small part of.

The difference between evolution and intelligent design is that the former is based on hard science and critical analysis of the facts in the properly scientific occam's razor fashion, whereas the latter is a shallow excuse to ignore fact in favor of religious dogmatism.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Edited by Tchan909 (12/01/08 12:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #9341681 -

Quote:
IMO "random chance" is also a human idea, as is "intention," "intelligence," and everything else used to frame the debate. None of these things exist outside of our collective human attempts to understand a universe that we are only a small part of.


Sure they do. Other animals have no intelligence, no intention?? If a mountain goat falls off a cliff and a fluffy bush breaks its fall, was that its intention, or was it random chance?

Quote:
The difference between evolution and intelligent design is that the former is based on hard science and critical analysis of the facts in the properly scientific occam's razor fashion, whereas the latter is a shallow excuse to ignore fact in favor of religious dogmatism.




Just because fundamentalists adopt what seem to be creative aspects in the universe to support their dogma, doesn't mean those aspects don't exist. There's nothing in the law of natural selection that rules out the creative possibility; while it fully explains how patterns dissolve, it is far from proven that "random" (i have to use random, or else it is conscious, intentional) mutations are solely responsible for the emergence of patterns.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9342547 -

While a large part of evolution is organism vs. environment natural selection, there is also the element of sexual selection, which is intraspecies, organism vs. organism competition for mates.

This sort of evolution is a conscious, minded evolution.  The female decides which traits are the most attractive and should be passed on.  Understanding evolution from this point of view, we did not come to exist solely due to random happenings but also due to the decisions and desires of our ancestors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9342584 -

neither chance nor evolution are single processes
both chance and evolution are words that pertain to unravelling what happenned.
they are neither forces nor intelligences
they are structured afterthoughts
they are like the index which can be found at the back of the book where you locate the mysteries through the story that is written before the index.

in a way chance and probability is more of a basis for decision making than evolution, since you can predict the outcome of a card game.

you cannot predict the outcome of evolution except in the instance of extinction, which is guaranteed when all members of a group are annihillated.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9342679 -

redgreenvines said:
you cannot predict the outcome of evolution except in the instance of extinction, which is guaranteed when all members of a group are annihillated.


:thumbup:


--------------------
Goodbye Shroomery.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9342751 -

bradley said:
Is it possible for complex structures to evolve without any sort of guiding intelligence, or did we and everything else come into being in the way an image of Jesus appears on the wall after using an uncovered blender?


:thumbup: All signs point to this. Unless of course you are uncomfortable with your unspecialness. Then you can come up with all kinds of irrational ideas about evolution.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Sleepwalker]
    #9342759 -

Oweyervishice said:
Aren't we part of the process? We certainly are not blind.  We can change the course of evolution.

I'd say evolution isn't necessarily blind, but it needs no guidance to work.


We have never changed the course of evolution. To do that we would need to be outside the process. We are evolving like everything else. It so fucking human to think we are not part of the process.:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9342872 -

Of course we have changed the course of evolution.  Every single species, and every individual creature/plant does this to some extent.  We alter the surroundings, change the environment and thus change the fitness landscape which in turn changes what is considered fit and what is considered unfit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9342903 -

IMO it's evolution that is changing itself by adapting to the environment that is in constant flux. We are part of the evolution process as is everything else.

To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution. Sort of like God. Another fantasy of the human mind it seems.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9342950 -

Quote:
To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution.


How so?  Surley we cant deny that we have changed the course of evolution by driving some animals to extinction.  We also subsidize species that without us would be quite unfit (farm animals, pets, endangered megafauna).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9342987 -

Icelander said:
IMO it's evolution that is changing itself by adapting to the environment that is in constant flux. We are part of the evolution process as is everything else.

To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution. Sort of like God. Another fantasy of the human mind it seems.


  I am therefore I exist. Determinism meets freedom and whether we are responsible for anything.


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9343227 -

Icelander said:
IMO it's evolution that is changing itself by adapting to the environment that is in constant flux. We are part of the evolution process as is everything else.

To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution. Sort of like God. Another fantasy of the human mind it seems.


I don't think you are paying attention
or else we are using this word in a "New Age - Mckenna fashion"
scientifically speaking,
evolution is not a process, it is a summary of history.
history is not a process, it is all the stories all together.
it never even got into a single book.
the editors have always excluded the unsavory bits.

at least with evolution,
much of the world - the unexcavated part
still had bones.

in new age terms, every moment can be called evolution
but that is also like saying every moment is history.

evolution needs a timescale that is way bigger than a single lifetime.
scientifically a single lifetime is not part of evolution except for the odd significant MUTANT,
and
you know who you are (only if you are really weird and sexually prolific).
(not until your progeny compete sucessfully on a large scale)


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9343232 -

bradley said:
Is it possible for complex structures to evolve without any sort of guiding intelligence, or did we and everything else come into being in the way an image of Jesus appears on the wall after using an uncovered blender?


more data is needed

I mean, it's not like "we" came about spontaneously one day.

Eukaryotic cells weren't "evolutionarily" first.  supposedly, cells in the beginning were relatively simple.  Then, through complex environmental and genetic interactions and many deleterious mutations with the occasional rare, "beneficial" mutation... you could write a book on the matter... you get what you have today.  Throw in ummm millions and millions of years to get from point A to B and you got yourself evolution.


I don't understand why, if this is what you're getting at or if you're just asking a question, there needs to be some type of "intelligent" reason behind all this "life".  Would it make you feel better if I said yes? 

There's a paleontologist named Neil Shubin who "discovered" an intermediate organism that was one of the first to hit land.  Let me clarify the intermediate comment.  THERE'S NO MISSING LINK.  If we think about "missing links" then there's an endless void to fill as far "missing links" are concerned.  So this is one of many intermediates.  The species is called Tiktaalik.  Do a search, check it out.  The man wrote a book about "the evolutionary journey onto land".  Good shit, I'd check it out if you're interested. :smile:


BUT, now that I remember your question, yes, I think evolution is blind.  It's not an overnight sensation as there's many deleterious mutations that cause instant death or some terminal torment.  The beneficial, "adaptive" mutations are extremely rare but their presence gets the recognition for terms like "evolution".


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9343255 -

bradley said:
Do you think evolution is blind?


Show me it's eyes...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9343264 -

DieCommie said:
Quote:
To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution.


How so?  Surley we cant deny that we have changed the course of evolution by driving some animals to extinction.  We also subsidize species that without us would be quite unfit (farm animals, pets, endangered megafauna).


This is all a part of the evolution process, we are not outside of it. Our affect on animals an the environment is a part of the whole. We are just an animal that thinks it's not an animal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Cracka_X]
    #9343272 -

for further info on this, check this

The Luria-Delbruck fluctuation test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria-Delbr%C3%BCck_experiment


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Patisotagami]
    #9343400 -

smmu said:
It is the product of a universal force called Natural Selection.


Evolution is supposed to happen exclusively through natural selection?

So in cold countries, the whiteness of peoples skin is caused by random mutation of the genes, leading to accidental white skin, and this accidental white skin gives them better chance at surviving? Thus, according to survival of the fittest, that would be the reason why in cold countries, people have white skin, because only with white skin you can survive. Is this how natural selection would explain it?

But how about another theory, that organisms, somehow, not through random mutation of genes, intelligently adapt to their environment. Skin turns white in cold environments, it turns dark in warm environments? So my question is, what do you call this other mechanism of evolution, or is there only one mechanism, natural selection?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9343669 -

DieCommie said:
Quote:
To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution.


How so?  Surley we cant deny that we have changed the course of evolution by driving some animals to extinction.  We also subsidize species that without us would be quite unfit (farm animals, pets, endangered megafauna).


Sure we have but we are just part of a natural process and not in control of it. Your point being that somehow we are more of an influence then the rest of nature which I see no evidence of. Evolution just adapts to the environment and we are part of that environment.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9343687 -

Right it's not a process and that was incorrect. It's just adapting and changing. :thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9343745 -

Icelander said:
IMO it's evolution that is changing itself by adapting to the environment that is in constant flux. We are part of the evolution process as is everything else.

To say we were guiding the process puts us outside of evolution. Sort of like God. Another fantasy of the human mind it seems.


we = god

to answer diaboleros, I would remind him that natural selection is usually not evident in such cases... what you are referring to is more a case of sexual selection than natural selection. Perhaps it is an advantage in countries where the climate is very cold to have very white skin because females find it more attractive... so the males with fairer skin will pass their alleles on to their progeny more often.

natural selection is evident over millions of years, usually not the thousands of years that humans have been around will we be able to notice significant changes like what we are discussing.

and also, evolution is NOT RANDOM. It is also NOT GUIDED. It simply happens. It happens due to the interacting forces of an organism in an environment that leads to progeny with certain alleles at a higher frequency than other alleles. The alleles that make it to the next generation at a higher frequency are more apt to help the species and allow it to live longer and fight off predators, thus we have Evolution!


--------------------
EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Cracka_X]
    #9343931 -

Quote:
There's a paleontologist named Neil Shubin who "discovered" an intermediate organism that was one of the first to hit land.  Let me clarify the intermediate comment.  THERE'S NO MISSING LINK.  If we think about "missing links" then there's an endless void to fill as far "missing links" are concerned.  So this is one of many intermediates.  The species is called Tiktaalik.


So what? I'm not proposing that evolution didn't actually occur or that we magically appeared on Earth. Sheesh, I wouldn't even argue that a an amino acid sequence magically appeared. I'm saying maybe everything evolves against all odds. Maybe you should check out this:

Quote:
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed:

    The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.[8]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9344612 -

Hoyle's Fallacy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Patisotagami]
    #9345067 -

smmu said:
to answer diaboleros, I would remind him that natural selection is usually not evident in such cases... what you are referring to is more a case of sexual selection than natural selection. Perhaps it is an advantage in countries where the climate is very cold to have very white skin because females find it more attractive... so the males with fairer skin will pass their alleles on to their progeny more often.

natural selection is evident over millions of years, usually not the thousands of years that humans have been around will we be able to notice significant changes like what we are discussing.



How do you explain the perfect correlation between color of skin and the amount of sunlight in the according environment through natural selection?

According to natural selection, everyone who's skin doesn't match the amount of sunlight, isn't able to reproduce, or isn't able to survive?! According to natural selection, people don't gain a certain skin, but people with the wrong skin just simply get extinct? And the gaining of the correct skin doesn't happen through intelligent adaptation, but through random mutation of the genes? What a coincidence huh, that random mutation leads to perfect correlation between skin color and sun exposure?

Wouldn't it be more logical the other way around, that people actually intelligently adapt to the amount of sunlight? Isn't tanning a good indication that we actually do so?

How can you be so sure, that natural selection is the only mechanism behind evolution? Why couldn't there possibly be more mechanisms behind this complex process?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9345097 -

Please, read some Richard Dawkins.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9345108 -

often the reason for members of a cultural group in a locality having a high simmilarity to eachother
such as in regions of scandinavia, china or africa etc.
is that the strangers (who did not appear like the rest) were told to leave and those that remained beyond their welcome were killed;
probably raped robbed and then killed.

this is consistent with what we know about xenophobia, superstition, and dominant alpha male type bullies.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9345149 -

deCypher said:
Please, read some Richard Dawkins.


I'm not questioning natural selection or evolution, I just really fail to see how natural selection can explain everything about evolution. If you do, please explain my example to me...
redgreenvines said:
often the reason for members of a cultural group in a locality having a high simmilarity to eachother
such as in regions of scandinavia, china or africa etc.
is that the strangers (who did not appear like the rest) were told to leave and those that remained beyond their welcome were killed;
probably raped robbed and then killed.

this is consistent with what we know about xenophobia, superstition, and dominant alpha male type bullies.


Yes ok, but according to evolution, and according to history, all of mankind originated from the same race, and migrated all over the globe. So there had to be an adaptation to the color of skin somewhere along the way?

So this adaptation happened through random mutation and natural selection, and not through intelligent adaptation to the environment? How do you explain this process happening through natural selection?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9345210 -

you may be confusing mutation with adaptation
we carry lots of mutation that is not adaptive and not lethal
freckles and skin color are not particularly adaptive in 99% of cases.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9345235 -

Diaboleros said:
According to natural selection, everyone who's skin doesn't match the amount of sunlight, isn't able to reproduce, or isn't able to survive?! According to natural selection, people don't gain a certain skin, but people with the wrong skin just simply get extinct? And the gaining of the correct skin doesn't happen through intelligent adaptation, but through random mutation of the genes? What a coincidence huh, that random mutation leads to perfect correlation between skin color and sun exposure?

Wouldn't it be more logical the other way around, that people actually intelligently adapt to the amount of sunlight? Isn't tanning a good indication that we actually do so?


It isn't that people whose skin doesn't match the amount of sunlight aren't able to reproduce or aren't able to survive--it's that those people whose skin does match the amount of sunlight have a higher likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.  Presumably skin color gives an advantage in this way (there are higher incidences of skin cancer in white-skinned, blond people than there are with dark-skinned people).

If intelligent adaptation were to explain skin color, it would be the capacity for intelligent adaptation itself that was evolved via natural seleciton.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9345255 -

are freckles ever adaptive?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9345297 -

a good batch of freckles can be combat camoflauge to the exotically naked among us.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9345318 -

:lol: of course.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9345347 -

This article provides more information about natural selection & melanin:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9345586 -

if you read that article you will understand that the people that wrote it do not really understand selection nor the reality of human cruelty in social esthetics.

the article has the same sophistication and tone as a high school health class.
I love the part about the esquimaux being an exception to the rule.
that is because the rule is made up - ther is no such rule.
it's fake

the selection due to melanonin via skin cancers would not set in early enough to affect reproduction - i.e. it would not be effectively adaptive to population dynamics, which is selective for evolution.

however,
ruthless primitives would kill those who had exposed scary moles or melanoma like growths for fear of contamination.
the old shamans were really evil that way.
the result was much more beautiful people.
funny.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9345668 -

And now plastic surgery and dieting to death is ruining all that.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9345743 -

Since Vitamin D is linked to immune function, I think that it is a reasonable explanation for selection related to melanin.  Do you have any sources for your xenophobia assertions?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9345863 -

no you must be right
there never was any death to outsiders in all of human history.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9345889 -

bradley said:
Is it possible for complex structures to evolve without any sort of guiding intelligence, or did we and everything else come into being in the way an image of Jesus appears on the wall after using an uncovered blender?


You are asking for an objective answer, to a subjective  question. A paradox it seems. All you will get because of the structure of this question, is opinions treated as facts.. Science says it is possible, while religious folk argue that you know who, pulled all this off in six days. I guess the answer depends on your degree of gullibility.


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9346350 -

bradley said:
Quote:
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed:

    The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.[8]






For some reason I distrust those who overly use statistics to prove theories wrong.

I have a bit more faith in the obscure chance that such outrageous consequences would occur. Then lets throw billions upon billions of years for this to "occur" and I think it wouldn't sound too outlandish.


For further reading...

Quote:
The Luria-DelbrĂĽck experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrates that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selection, rather than being a response to selection. Therefore, Darwin's theory of natural selection acting on random mutations applies to bacteria as well as to more complex organisms. Max DelbrĂĽck and Salvador Luria won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in part for this work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria-Delbr%C3%BCck_experiment


First you spoke about evolution(in a speciation sense), but I guess you're really talking about the evolution of the first proteins or building blocks to life??

Edited by Cracka_X (12/01/08 07:00 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Cracka_X]
    #9346768 -

Pan-theist right here


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9347137 -

So to what extent am I evolution? Am I within, or without?

I do not understand how the prospect of freedom can arise from a causal principal (evolution)?

-------------

How does evolution relate to human creativity, and what does it mean?

Here's something I read this morning that reminded me a bit of this thread. Its from David Lynch's book Catching the Big Fish: meditation, consciousness, and creativity.

Quote:
The idea just needs to be enough to get you started, because, for me, whatever follows is a process of action and reaction. It's always a process of building and then destroying. And then, out of this destruction, discovering a thing and building on it. Nature plays a huge part in it. Putting difficult materials together - like baking something in sunlight, or using one material that fights another material - causes its own organic reaction. Then its a matter of sitting back and studying it and studying it and studying it; and suddenly, you find you're leaping up out of your chair and going in and doing the next thing. That's action and reaction.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Cracka_X]
    #9347188 -

Quote:
First you spoke about evolution(in a speciation sense), but I guess you're really talking about the evolution of the first proteins or building blocks to life??




I never restricted it to development of species. I don't see at all why the content of what is evolving makes a difference.

Anyway, I don't really care about this topic anymore.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: daytripper23]
    #9347256 -

daytripper23 said:
So to what extent am I evolution? Am I within, or without?

I do not understand how the prospect of freedom can arise from a causal principal (evolution)?
...
How does evolution relate to human creativity, and what does it mean?
....



to no extent - unless you are personally recorded accross a large time scale as fossil residue.
evolution is not causal nor a pricipal, it is a way of seeing relationships accross time between species of life forms, many of which have become extinct before life forms that resembled us roamed the earth.

evolution is one of the creative syntheses of the human mind to understand the world around us.

the pursuit of creative endeavours has been of an adaptive advantage for our kind; we are less specialized than other creatures, so we must be creative with what we have to compete in nature.

David Lynch, on the other had is a great fossil.
what a relief!


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9347292 -

Why is David Lynch a great fossil?
Whatever movie I saw of his I really didn't like.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9347325 -

I like this dude lots
but he is a great fossil because of the imprint he is leaving in everybody's minds
his fame is like the preserved bones of dinosaurs in rock.
and I called him a relief because he stands out from the rest of the rock as if in relief.
it's a bit twisted but it suits him.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9347385 -

haha
now can you explain why everyone here likes using puns so much?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: daytripper23]
    #9347457 -

daytripper23 said:
I do not understand how the prospect of freedom can arise from a causal principal (evolution)?


Causal principal?  Like, deterministic?  I dont think the mutations that facilitate evolution are deterministic.  The mutations are random, even if the selection mechanism is somewhat deterministic. 

So if you started a second universe in the exact same manner as this, then it wouldnt be identical to this one.  Life on earth could be different, or even not exist.

Back on topic... Systems like our body and mind are just very hard to understand, I dont think anybody has enough evidence and insight to claim that free will exists or not.  And I see no reason why the theory of evolution and natural selection would entail that it doesnt...  Understanding 1 particle or an infinite amount of particles is easier than understanding the the moderate amount in the mind oddly enough.  But I know philosophers claim to have alot of understanding about it, I just dont believe them usually.  :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9347676 -

Quote:
Anyway, I don't really care about this topic anymore.


hahaha
I'll take that into account.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Patisotagami]
    #9349485 -

smmu said:
Coming from a long background in Biology, ecology, and evolution, I am saying this as fact and not really something that can be debated. Though if there are any Creationists on this board, I apologize for undermining your belief system.


First, your distinction between evolution acting on a population vs a smaller group is just semantics.

Second, you didn't address creationism at all, so I don't know why you think this requires an apology.  Where we came from has nothing to do with evolution unless you want to expand that word to include non living things which I don't think you were doing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9349557 -

redgreenvines said:
the selection due to melanonin via skin cancers would not set in early enough to affect reproduction




why not?

I think the average age of onset is around middle age right now.  Given the presumably higher-exposures during most of the evolutionary period of relevance I would think it could be relevant.  And though you didn't say it, it seems that you are implying if a trait doesn't stop the individual from reproducing that it can't be relevant, which is obviously wrong.  It is the species that matters not the individual.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Nexion]
    #9349780 -

Nexion said:
bradley said:
Do you think evolution is blind?


Show me it's eyes...


We can not show you its eyes, however we can show you its arse.

Quote:
evolution is not a process, it is a summary of history.
history is not a process, it is all the stories all together.
it never even got into a single book.
the editors have always excluded the unsavory bits.



aka the boring bits...

But never fear, natural selection shall ensure this train of thought's prompt extinction.

yeah, it's 3:45am, I needed a laugh, what are you gonna do?


--------------------
Goodbye Shroomery.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: johnm214]
    #9350061 -

johnm214 said:
redgreenvines said:
the selection due to melanonin via skin cancers would not set in early enough to affect reproduction




why not?

I think the average age of onset is around middle age right now.  Given the presumably higher-exposures during most of the evolutionary period of relevance I would think it could be relevant.  And though you didn't say it, it seems that you are implying if a trait doesn't stop the individual from reproducing that it can't be relevant, which is obviously wrong.  It is the species that matters not the individual.


true the individuals will reproduce, get sick and die
their children will reproduce get sick and die
same as now, just no internet and health care or environmental crises

in my opinion, the enclaves of look-alikes in regions of the world are largely due to RACIAL CLEANSING which is a flaw in mentation and social behavior that we still suffer. (gang related violence and bullying is also related to this low brow social issue)


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9350136 -

Tribes fighting for land and resources so they can procreate. In our minds most still are being chased by tigers, just blindly trying to survive in the way they always have. Not realizing it no longer works.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9350171 -

on the contrary. It does work. And it works with out drastic concequences. If people could wake up and realzie that they do not need money to live. That they still can grow all there food, and trade with others. There was nothing flawed about this. We are constantly fed flawed lies about progression. Ie. medical, and industrial advances. Keeping people alive longer, is to many important, but can we really keep sustaing a rapidly growing population? Answer, probably not. The quality of life, in the  wilderness is probably a great deal higher, if you get rid of the idea that luxeries, define quality of life. They don't have to worry about the same shit, someone living in a civilized nation or state has to.


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350239 -

I'm sorry but you totally didn't get what I was saying.

I'm replying in agreement with RGV's statement about racial cleansing.

I was in no way addressing what you are talking about.:shrug:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9350245 -

Oh, no worries then. I have been randomly looking for things to respond to, cause the subject is way to big to try and do a sweeping attack of.. Peace


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350274 -

Quote:
If people could wake up and realzie that they do not need money to live. That they still can grow all there food, and trade with others.


So you grow all your own food or you are just waiting for everyone else to?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9350277 -

Im waiting like the first person at the buffet line." you guys go first, this was my idea":rabble:


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350285 -

So life would be cool if 'others woke up', but not you. Do you realize how pathetic an outlook this is?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9350332 -

just mildly average pathetic
not like darwin award pathetic


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9350342 -

not like darwin award pathetic


I already gave that award out in one of my ratings.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9350362 -

I want a Darwin Award, but without having to kill myself in some retarded fashion. :hissyfit:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9350372 -

Well then rate my sarcasm Orgoneconclusion. It is something to aspire and work towards. It is what us planners like to refer to as a "G-O-A-L"


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350385 -

Goats Or Alien Landscape?


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9350398 -

Well, that would obviously be the most deserving way, howabout some shrooms instead, for the connery in ya... I am a firm believer, that everyone has a little.


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350411 -

as in the light sean forth?


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350413 -

I'm eating san pedro these days.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9350422 -

The Hispanic preacher at the local church?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9350431 -

DieCommie said:
daytripper23 said:
I do not understand how the prospect of freedom can arise from a causal principal (evolution)?


Causal principal?  Like, deterministic?  I dont think the mutations that facilitate evolution are deterministic.  The mutations are random, even if the selection mechanism is somewhat deterministic. 

So if you started a second universe in the exact same manner as this, then it wouldnt be identical to this one.  Life on earth could be different, or even not exist.

Back on topic... Systems like our body and mind are just very hard to understand, I dont think anybody has enough evidence and insight to claim that free will exists or not.  And I see no reason why the theory of evolution and natural selection would entail that it doesnt...  Understanding 1 particle or an infinite amount of particles is easier than understanding the the moderate amount in the mind oddly enough.  But I know philosophers claim to have alot of understanding about it, I just dont believe them usually.  :tongue:


Evolution is not random, nor is it pre ordianed. It is a reponse to enviormental changes. Which is far from random. You are an intelligent person, I can tell. But that was far from a thought out proclimation.


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9350452 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
The Hispanic preacher at the local church?


no no no that was Juan pedro...



--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350460 -

Genetic mutations are not responsive to environmental changes (unless you're referring to mutagenic toxins.)  The environment determines which random mutations will win the evolution lottery & be passed on to the next generation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350477 -

Your super powers are merely a fluke?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350478 -

So, colder weather, does not promote, thicking of the skin, more hair, and a more concetrated fatty content?? I think you are proclaiming something that you can't prove. Animals, adapt to there enviornmet. And when it changes, overtime, the either change to survive in the new enviorment, or perish.. Tried and proven.


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350495 -

Are you talking about adaptation or mutation?


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350504 -

Not proven whatsoever.  Evolution does not occur within the individual organism, but over generation after generation of organisms.  This is the difference between a guitar player developing calluses during his/her lifetime due to daily practice & a giraffe evolving to have a long neck due to the survival advantage this offered to generations of giraffes.

If the change is not heritable, then it has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350546 -

The original topic was evolution. The above state thickening of the skin, hair growth, and fatty content, is an example of evolution, neither random, nor pre-set, but merely a reaction. And enviornmental changes before human involvement were rarely random, and held much order. Therefore I am finding this topic quite paradoxal. Let's talk about an example of genetic mutations.. In England, there are a large number of people with longer noses. Started as a mutation stimulated by prolonged inbreeding of the royal families, but now hereditary..


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350579 -

Let's make sure we're on the same page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Evolution is not about our genetic code altering itself in response to the environment.  In the example you've given, traits such as thicker skin, hair growth & tendency to store body fat are selected because of the survival advantage they offer to generations of humans.  These traits are the result of random genetic mutations, which are then passed on via sperm or egg to the next generation.

These traits are NOT the result of a particular individual's DNA altering itself on the spot in response to lowered temperatures.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350594 -

Veritas said:
Genetic mutations are not responsive to environmental changes (unless you're referring to mutagenic toxins.)  The environment determines which random mutations will win the evolution lottery & be passed on to the next generation.


this is the way mutations work, i.e. not stimulus response.

flip3084 said:
So, colder weather, does not promote, thicking of the skin, more hair, and a more concetrated fatty content?? I think you are proclaiming something that you can't prove. Animals, adapt to there enviornmet. And when it changes, overtime, the either change to survive in the new enviorment, or perish.. Tried and proven.


I think you are allowing the idea of stimulus response WRT adaptation to collide with what really happens WRT mutation.

evolution is the history of changes in life forms encorporating effects of reproductive genetics and both adaptation and mutation in the face of (not response to) natural selection.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350603 -

Modern science hates teleology. And yet science concedes there is order at the atomic level, order at the molecular level, order at the biological level, order at the organismal level... but when it comes to humans: we're supposedly "trendlessly fluctuating", magically outside the boundaries of everything else. [See Mckenna, Understanding in the Light of Nature].

As if the increasing complexity that is so obviously an inherent part of space and time is some random fluke. Evolution, if it is blind, is only blind in our limited interpretation. We don't know much, but is seems fairly straight-forward that nothing is random, which much to the dissatisfaction of intelligent designers still doesn't necessarily imply there is purpose, or even a benevolent controller. What was previously assumed to be "blind" and/or random in physics and quantum mechanics is now being mapped out in fractal geometry, algorithms, and curves. Hmmm, there is a pattern!

Quote:
Evolution does not occur within the individual organism, but over generation after generation of organisms.



Veritas, do you know where (or how) epigenetic material is stored? Beats me. I do think, however, that explicit change may take generations, but that doesn't reduce the importance or role of the individual. Experiences, memories, ideas, etc. that are seemingly far removed from chromosomes still have an equal impact on the environment through behavioral expression and sociobiology.

Edited by Arden (12/02/08 11:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350629 -

In the origin of Hutus and Tutsis we find the same thing. Noses and paper. And how about tracing the word londine, thames/thamuz  and put it together with nose and VI. Somehow the nose is always an issue.


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Arden]
    #9350649 -

Epigenetics describes the manner in which genetic expression is regulated.  It has nothing to do with "Experiences, memories, ideas, etc."  What is your point?  :confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350656 -

flip3084 said:
The original topic was evolution. The above state thickening of the skin, hair growth, and fatty content, is an example of evolution, neither random, nor pre-set, but merely a reaction. And enviornmental changes before human involvement were rarely random, and held much order. Therefore I am finding this topic quite paradoxal. Let's talk about an example of genetic mutations.. In England, there are a large number of people with longer noses. Started as a mutation stimulated by prolonged inbreeding of the royal families, but now hereditary..


again some confusion about cause and effect and a healthy measure of speculation.
long noses are not mutations genetically stimulated by inbreeding.
long noses appeared much earlier in recorded history.
Roman coins bear the stamp of this.

veritas may have alluded to the fact that most mutations are actually fatal, but some mutations are adaptively helpful (by pure chance) and these may contribute to altering the members of a population faced by selective pressures.

the cause of those mutations can be worked back (speculatively) to cosmic radiation (very random but very frequent adn still prevailing) chemical toxins (much less usual in teh past but more common now) and genetic practice (the failure of some chromosomes to operate well (not a true mutation) when homologously formed - from inbreeding)


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9350705 -

Quote:
veritas may have alluded to the fact that most mutations are actually fatal, but some mutations are adaptively helpful (by pure chance) and these may contribute to altering the members of a population faced by selective pressures.


Indeed.  Let's not forget the neutral mutations, which are still quite heritable, and which may become helpful or fatal under particular environmental demands.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350720 -

I am still waiting for the male-pattern baldness gene to become helpful.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350761 -

Veritas said:
Quote:
veritas may have alluded to the fact that most mutations are actually fatal, but some mutations are adaptively helpful (by pure chance) and these may contribute to altering the members of a population faced by selective pressures.


Indeed.  Let's not forget the neutral mutations, which are still quite heritable, and which may become helpful or fatal under particular environmental demands.


neutral mutations are non-fatal
I have no numbers on this but it is a small percentage of all genetic mutations that are non-fatal.
genetic mutations are heritable mutations (pre-zygotic) as opposed to the mutations that occur in non-germ tissues which can be non-fatal or cancerous - disease forming, and these are non-heritable post zygotic mutations.

(i find it hard to write a sentence that encapsulates every word combination - so thanks for clarifying this important issue.)


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350764 -

Quote:
Epigenetics describes the manner in which genetic expression is regulated.  It has nothing to do with "Experiences, memories, ideas, etc."  What is your point?

 

My point is though you stated this:

Quote:
If the change is not heritable, then it has nothing to do with biological evolution.


The truth is that biological evolution is certainly influenced by changes in the organism that do not directly involve heredity. "[To] be epigenetic, something must 1) be heritable and 2) not be attributable to DNA sequence."

I used memory as an example because it is juxtaposed between being an entirely psychological function and exerting measurable changes on the environment. Alterations to phenotypic expression like brain structure can be altered within the individual's lifetime, via synaptic formation, neuroplasticity, lesioning, etc. which positively impact survival behavior. Thus ideas, arising from cortical activity that structurally resembles the past, simultaneously creates and impacts the future through interactions with the organism and the environment.

I guess we could list some Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields, but that would get a bit superstitious.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9350767 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
I am still waiting for the male-pattern baldness gene to become helpful.


it is very helpful to the hair club for men
- great opportunity - wish I thought of it.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Arden]
    #9350803 -

Quote:
The truth is that biological evolution is certainly influenced by changes in the organism that do not directly involve heredity. "[To] be epigenetic, something must 1) be heritable and 2) not be attributable to DNA sequence."



If a trait is heritable, whether through epigenetics or DNA sequence changes, then it is part of biological evolution.  If it is NOT heritable, then it is not part of biological evolution.

Alterations to the neural network caused by ideas are NOT heritable, and thus NOT part of biological evolution. 

From my linked article:

Quote:
In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.


Perhaps you are referring to progress, which can certainly improve survival & reproduction, but which is not heritable.  If we must learn something, then it is part of progress & not evolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Arden]
    #9350866 -

Arden said:
Quote:
Epigenetics describes the manner in which genetic expression is regulated.  It has nothing to do with "Experiences, memories, ideas, etc."  What is your point?

 

My point is though you stated this:

Quote:
If the change is not heritable, then it has nothing to do with biological evolution.


The truth is that biological evolution is certainly influenced by changes in the organism that do not directly involve heredity. "[To] be epigenetic, something must 1) be heritable and 2) not be attributable to DNA sequence."

...


I really can't handle that kind of TRUTH
(anything with McKenna in it is not going to fly as evolutionary science)

if it is evolutionary, and if it is not genetic, then it is among the environmental selective conditions.
THINKING and MEMES can be real environmental evolutionary selective conditions, but we won't know it unless we witness something like racial cleansing, or an effective eugenics program that eliminates a trait in favor of another.

there is a vicious aspect to evolution such that the form of creatures are changed. to do this some traits are eradicated. all members with the trait have to be neutered or killed prior to reproductive activity.

at our stage in evolution we are acquiring mutative traits but we are not evolving.  to evolve or change form, the trail we leave through time will necessarily include some forms being discontinued.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: flip3084]
    #9350883 -

flip3084 said:
Evolution is not random, nor is it pre ordianed. It is a reponse to enviormental changes. Which is far from random. You are an intelligent person, I can tell. But that was far from a thought out proclimation.


flip3084 said:
So, colder weather, does not promote, thicking of the skin, more hair, and a more concetrated fatty content?? I think you are proclaiming something that you can't prove. Animals, adapt to there enviornmet. And when it changes, overtime, the either change to survive in the new enviorment, or perish.. Tried and proven.


You are confusing mutations, natural selection and evolution.  Each have very different and specific meaning, which can be east to do.  I think veritas already sorted you out, so Ill refrain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9350902 -

Quote:
The truth is that biological evolution is certainly influenced by changes in the organism that do not directly involve heredity.


Quote:
Alterations to the neural network caused by ideas are NOT heritable, and thus NOT part of biological evolution.


Everything is part of biological evolution. This realization is becoming the whole point of modern science and the latent discovery of philosophy--everything is indirectly connected and influenced in some way by everything else. It can be as practical as systems theory, or as new-age and superfluous as the "butterfly effect". From Edward O. Wilson's consilience, to Thich Nhat Hanh's interbeing, to the Gaia hypothesis, there are many different ways to understand it, and many different ways to classify biology, but the interactive push of events seems undeniable to me.

This typifies yet another flaw of modern science which tries to isolate and particulate every kind of phenomena. This is beneficial because it aids in understanding and defining the specifics. But when it comes to elaborating complex ideas like cognition and evolution, I think it becomes a limitation and falls short of explaining the whole picture.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9350910 -

Quote:
all members with the trait have to be neutered or killed prior to reproductive activity.


Or rendered less attractive to the opposite sex.  Sexual selection is quite important, though perhaps not so influential as death or infertility.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Arden]
    #9350924 -

Quote:
(anything with McKenna in it is not going to fly as evolutionary science)


Argumentum ad hominem.

Stick to the content please. I included his name to credit an idea, not to summon his reputation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Arden]
    #9350942 -

Changing the definition of "evolution" to include "everything" is overstepping.  When we are describing a specific aspect of biology, it makes sense to utilize a term which actually defines that aspect.  If you want to discuss human progress, then you can certainly include "everything" under that broad & non-scientific umbrella.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9351019 -

progress is also a bit of a leap
trajectory is more telling
and it is a wiggly route to be sure.


aint i a woim.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9351025 -

1.-*      To transubstantiate things/freedom and to create out of nothing. Wanting the appetite for purity and for the absolute.
 
    2.- Essence eternally seen; properties of creative knowledge. I rest on words like pure and very secret nihilation. Evil in decrees and permissions…formative.


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9351029 -

Yes, I would not typify all aspects of human society as "progress" by any stretch of the imagination, yet this is clearly a more-subjective term than "evolution."  One could claim that everything is progress, and garnish it with an "IMO" to seal the deal. :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9355847 -

I would say evolution is completely blind. Whatever direction we may have, it is fair to say that no creature can last for an infinite amount of time. Life is simply trying to exist wherever it can.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: MindGorilla]
    #9356732 -

The whole of science is based on the standard assumption that there are underlying laws governing the universe. Meaning, for every effect, there is a cause. Chance is nothing but a law undiscovered. But then, for some reason, suddenly, science changes his mind and goes, oh wait, indeed, everything in the universe is governed by underlying laws, EXCEPT evolution. Yes, evolution is the result of random mutation. There is no underlying cause. No. Random is the answer.

Mutations being random goes against everything science stands for. How can anyone accept that as a valid explanation?

Science is the study that shows us nothing is random. But still people claim science has proven that mutations are random. What the hell?

Quote:
Microbiologist James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago has done extensive research on this very question and has published a number of papers confirming that yes, there is an adaptation mechanism in DNA that is marvelously sophisticated. Mr. Shapiro has discovered that a protozoa, subjected to extreme environmental stress, can splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces (!), re-arrange them in a highly systematic fashion, producing new protozoa that inherit a new set of characteristics.

In other words DNA can be likened to a computer program that re-writes itself on the fly. In fact this is how our own immune systems adapt to a nearly infinite range of possible threats and ward off attackers - through this kind of sophisticated adaptation.

Mr. Shapiro published a fascinating paper in the Journal of Biological Physics called "A 21st Century View of Evolution." In this paper, the failed "Random Mutation" view is discarded and replaced with a much more sophisticated, engineered process. Instead of seeing DNA as a static database that is acted on by outside random forces, it is now seen as being more like a intelligent operating system that repairs files, corrects errors, and adapts to changing circumstances. It's nothing short of amazing.

Shapiro's work clearly shows that evolution, however it may be understood, is anything but a random process.



http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9356748 -

what the hell indeed.


--------------------


Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9356752 -

Diaboleros said:
Mutations being random goes against everything science stands for.


What the hell?  This in no way follows.  There are plenty of random events in science; just look at radioactive decay or at probability waveforms in quantum mechanics.

In the second place, science has not proven that mutations are random: there is no such thing as proof in science, only disproof.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9356832 -

"Nay, that I am spared, O Queen,"  "The servant of the stars
marks not the smaller light of woman's eyes, and therein is he happy!"


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9356894 -

deCypher said:
Diaboleros said:
Mutations being random goes against everything science stands for.


What the hell?  This in no way follows.  There are plenty of random events in science; just look at radioactive decay or at probability waveforms in quantum mechanics.



They only seem to be random because the underlying cause hasn't been discovered yet. But like I said, this is the basic assumption of science, that there is always an underlying cause. Random is nothing but an illusion created by our ignorance.

On top of that, not only is it already obvious that randomness doesn't exist, it has already been scientifically verified that evolution is not caused by random mutation. Read the article I provided. Nonetheless, even when scientific evidence is provided, this urban legend will persist because people are proud of their beliefs, no matter how unlogical they may seem.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9356965 -

Diaboleros said:
They only seem to be random because the underlying cause hasn't been discovered yet.


Possibly true.  Or maybe everything's random; it's just that our human minds attempt to impose an illusory order onto the fundamental chaos.  The point is that we can't say for certain either way.

Quote:
But like I said, this is the basic assumption of science, that there is always an underlying cause.


I believe you're mistaken.  Science assumes nothing; the whole point of the scientific method is to develop a model of reality that fits past observations and allows us to make successful predictions in the future.  An underlying cause has nothing to do with it--if we observe apparently random phenomena, science is fine with accepting this until a pattern is found.

Quote:
Random is nothing but an illusion created by our ignorance.


Again, this is a wholly unjustified assumption.  Regardless, however, the fact remains that in our current state of knowledge, mutations are essentially random.  (Random in the sense that we can't find a pattern, to be sure, but random nonetheless).  Can you predict when the next gamma ray will strike a strain of DNA and alter the structure?  No, and in fact even if you knew the positions of every particle in the Universe we still would not be able to predict when this would happen (see Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle).

Quote:
it has already been scientifically verified that evolution is not caused by random mutation.


Interesting article.  You might be correct in that random mutation is not the dominant factor in spurring genetic change, but this does not imply that evolution is not caused by random mutation--it still plays a role, albeit fairly small.

Edit: Apparently Shapiro's view is not held by most microbiologists as he attempts to support a radical theory halfway in between evolution and creationism (the "third" way).  An orthodox interpretation of evolution still holds that mutation is the accepted mechanism by which natural selection acts.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357128 -

Science is the search to predict. Randomness is unpredictable. Meaning, randomness is not an explanation science is looking for. Using randomness to explain unexplainable phenomena is like using God to explain unexplainable phenomena.

Everything is predictable, nothing is random. Including evolution. Believing in randomness is like believing in fairies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357146 -

Belief in order is like belief in Santa Claus.

Read up on Discordianism.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357157 -

Yes indeed, but the belief in order is what science is based on. So if you want to belief in science, you'll be forced to assume this belief. That's why I said, that believing in randomness goes against the core belief that science is based on... those two beliefs contradict eachother, you can't believe in science AND belief in randomness without contradicting yourself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357164 -

Again, this is a faulty understanding of the scientific method.

Order is not a presupposition of science.  If this were true, radioactive decay would have to fall into the realm of philosophy.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357180 -

Like I said before, we only perceive radioactive decay to be random because we haven't found the underlying causes yet.

But, ok, you seem to honestly believe such a thing as randomness exists? Please explain to me how any event could be random? How any event could exist without any prior cause?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357234 -

Random does not mean acausal, it means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  The mutation of DNA is caused by errors in replication OR damage from environmental elements.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

The fact that we have identified the cause in no way indicates that this mutation is predictable.  This is what is meant by "random mutation."  The errors in replication occur unpredictably, as does damage from environmental elements.

Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357266 -

randomness is not meant to explain evolution.
evolution is just how to understand the history of forms changing.
most of heritable mutation causes death
Sexual reproduction especially egg cell and sperm cell production is not the same as protazoan chromosomal response to environmental conditions.

Microbiologist James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is not telling us something relavent to evolution.

as far as completing the story of how species, over millions of years, evolved yielding the species that we now share this planet with, we use the term random WRT mutation, to save the trouble (I am sure some people would be thrilled to attempt to reconstruct a fascimile of all cosmic rays that ever radiated on this planet).

working out the "randomness" of cosmic rays affecting the germ plasm of all creatures involves working out the positions in which they stood at all moments throughout their lives.

I am not saying that degree of accuracy will never be possible; it would be strange to declare that it is a reasonable task.

I don't even know how to plot the entire history of my own testicles; let alone the source and frequency of all cosmic rays that have disturbed the planet's path through the past million years.

when scientists ask questions and make theories, reasonableness, doableness, testableness figure largely in what they do.

Note Shapiro's work is entirely speculative, the article referenced is a review of other people's work, and a reattribution of other peoples' findings to support his little idea.

He especially confuses the kind of genetic engineering that does occur in bacteria, with the changes that occur during differentiationand growth, in which "enabled" codons are re-configured by environmental conditions (i.e. how a blastula grows from a dividing cell and into a human child...)

some genetic bacterial adaptation is not evolution, and some is, but this is not intelligent adaptation - it is effectively random, i.e. in a small culture of bacteria (a million cells) thousands of changes may occur due to teh Shapiro effect, and one might produce the next million cells while the rest die.

he is merely re-introducing known "random" mechanisms.

I hate that kind of fake science and popularization.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9357490 -

Veritas said:
Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 


Nothing is random. All car accidents can be predicted if you have all the possible data.  Even when they will occur. It's perfectly predictable. But the accumulation of all possible data is not yet possible, that doesn't make the events random nonetheless. It's simply nothing more than lack of data.

Give me one example of an event that exists, without any prior cause?

You'll never find an example to my answer, which is the proof that randomness doesn't exist. Because as soon as an event has a cause, it becomes predictable, and not random.


Hence evolution is not random. Random is not an explanation. Random is just a word for mechanics not yet discovered because of the lack of data.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357584 -

Diaboleros said:
.... that doesn't make the events random nonetheless. It's simply nothing more than lack of data.
.... Random is not an explanation. Random is just a word for mechanics not yet discovered because of the lack of data. 


data is not mechanics
randomness is even the essence of quantum mechanics
the probability of a sub atomic particle being in any place at any time.

Unfortunately for you,
having all the data, just like having all the money, is not an option.

nobody, no computer, no model (approaching mechanics)
has "All the data".

some arguments are just to make a disturbance.
of course I do not have even 1/10000000th of the data to suggest this, but I am aware of the probability of that mechanical likelihood.

I love mechanix
I tolerate data


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357586 -

As I said, random does not mean acausal.  Random means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  Car accidents are random, DNA mutation is random, weather is random, and so on.  We can analyze past data to attempt to predict future random events, but the prediction will be a guess & not a certainty. 

We could input data regarding car accidents & generate predictions as to where & when they will occur.  Does this mean that we can state with certainty that a VW will rear-end a Toyota at 11:15 a.m. on December 22nd at the stop sign at 24th and Lexington?  No.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357632 -

Diaboleros said:
Nothing is random. All car accidents can be predicted if you have all the possible data.


:nonono:

Probability waveforms are fundamentally unpredictable.  If there is no precise location for an electron, then there is no way to predict a car accident with 100% certainty even if we had all the "data".


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9357684 -

redgreenvines said:
randomness is even the essence of quantum mechanics
the probability of a sub atomic particle being in any place at any time.



Randomness is the essence of quantom mechanics? Eventho they use probability equations to predict the place of the sub atomic particles? Can't you see, how these sub atomic particles are completely not random, or they wouldn't be able to be predicted through probability equations?

You can keep claiming this and that is random, but at the same time, you will never be able to come up with an example of an event that does not have a prior cause. If something has a prior cause, it can be predicted. If something can be predicted, it is not random.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357694 -

deCypher said:
Diaboleros said:
Nothing is random. All car accidents can be predicted if you have all the possible data.


:nonono:

Probability waveforms are fundamentally unpredictable.  If there is no precise location for an electron, then there is no way to predict a car accident with 100% certainty even if we had all the "data".


Probability waveforms are unpredictable? Thats why they use probability equations to predict them? LOL. The electrons move in a predicted electron-cloud. They are everything but random.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357701 -

Fundamentally unpredictable in the sense that there is no specific location of an electron; instead, there is only the probability that the electron is in a particular area.

Thus, there is only a probability that a car crash will take place at such and such time, NOT a certain prediction.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357715 -

Quote:
If something has a prior cause, it can be predicted.


No, this is incorrect.  With random events, we can identify the cause after the fact, and utilize probability to GUESS when it might reoccur.  This in no way changes the fact that the vent is "without pattern, purpose or objective."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357734 -

Also, hard determinism is a fundamentally flawed theory in that cause and effect are mere illusions.

All we can ever observe is the constant conjunction of two spatiotemporally contiguous events; we say that A causes B if B has happened after A every time that we've observed A.  But this in no way guarantees that B will happen if A happens at some point in the future.

Cause and effect can only be applied in retrospect; there is no such thing as something causing something else.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357843 -

You see random as something without purpose. But nothing has purpose, purpose is something we give to it as human beings.

I see random as something unpredictable. And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357869 -

Veritas said:
Quote:
If something has a prior cause, it can be predicted.


No, this is incorrect.  With random events, we can identify the cause after the fact, and utilize probability to GUESS when it might reoccur.  This in no way changes the fact that the vent is "without pattern, purpose or objective."


evolution also is a thing that we can talk about after the fact.

would it be silly to repeat that you cannot have all the facts.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357901 -

Diaboleros said:
You see random is something without purpose. But nothing has purpose, purpose is something we give to it as human beings.

I see random is something unpredictable. And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


everything can be predicted is not a basic underpinning of science at all.
that is an ignorant thing that soothsayers and fortune tellers use to subjugate people.

science and engineering do employ models, and formulae to help create reliable systems, such as the mars landers which as you may know did not all go well.

even a moon shot is not based upon ALL the facts, just a good helping of useful ones.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357909 -

We may not be able to prove causality, but the unerring juxtaposition of A and B indicate that there is a strong relationship.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357914 -

Quote:
Diaboleros said:And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


You seem to be repeating the same tired phrase over and over.  That everything can be predicted is NOT the basic assumption of science.  We can certainly try to predict various phenomena, and science does a damn good job at it, but in no way does this exclude random events or events that are governed by pure probability.  Again, radioactive decay certainly falls under the scope of science, and yet this is still essentially a random phenomena.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357924 -

Veritas said:
We may not be able to prove causality, but the unerring juxtaposition of A and B indicate that there is a strong relationship.


Strong only if the laws of the Universe continue to hold.  We have no guarantee that they will continue to do so, however.  There is simply no logical inference that allows us to conclusively know that B will happen if A happens, or even one that allows us to predict with a certain probability--as a probability's validity is only seen via retrospect.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357949 -

That's the great thing about science, if the events vary from our existing model, we go back to the drawing board!  :grin:

If what we observe about the relationship between A and B ceases to be predictable, then we can question the cause-and-effect nature of their interaction.  Until such time, this model is the most accurate.

In terms of practicality, it is necessary to rely upon this prediction model so long as it continues to be predictive.  If I continually question whether events will adhere to the previously-established laws of physics, I will have little attention left for the less-predictable elements of my daily life. 

Will my foot land on the ground when I take that next step, or will I be instantaneously catapulted into space?  Will the atoms which compose my physical form continue to cooperate in a peaceable manner, or will they suddenly fly apart?  Will pressing the power button on my computer result in my computer turning on, or will it detonate all the nuclear missiles in the world?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357979 -

This is true.  Cause and effect are linguistically pragmatic, certainly.

Now I have a disturbing ontological fear of the laws of gravity suddenly ceasing to hold.  :eek:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358075 -

deCypher said:
Quote:
Diaboleros said:And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


You seem to be repeating the same tired phrase over and over.  That everything can be predicted is NOT the basic assumption of science.


Yes it simply is. You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

In order to have a system of beliefs, in this case science, you need some basic assumptions, some basic axioms that are decided in general to be true, without any proof whatsoever. This is simply how science works, you can keep denying it, but it won't make it go away.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358085 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358113 -

Quote:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.



Did you even read what you linked? You are only supporting my claims..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358131 -

On the contrary... even though these systems are deterministic, they are still overwhelmingly sensitive to fluctuations in the original condition, making it almost impossible to predict the outcome, like you were trying to argue should be possible for every phenomena.

Besides which, there are certain chaotic phenomena for which it is impossible to predict the outcome.  Determining whether a specified point is in the Mandelbrot set, for instance... it's only do-able via algorithm, not through a predictive formula.

In addition, you have completely ignored the example of radioactive decay and quantum probability waveforms, both of which are physical phenomena and yet wholly unpredictable.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358149 -

Diaboleros said:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Diaboleros said:And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.


You seem to be repeating the same tired phrase over and over.  That everything can be predicted is NOT the basic assumption of science.


Yes it simply is. You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

In order to have a system of beliefs, in this case science, you need some basic assumptions, some basic axioms that are decided in general to be true, without any proof whatsoever. This is simply how science works, you can keep denying it, but it won't make it go away.


the link you include as corroborative has the following -
but does not include any wild resemblance to "everything can be predicted"


From your link
Quote:
Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))


1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)



--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358164 -

Diaboleros said:
In order to have a system of beliefs, in this case science, you need some basic assumptions, some basic axioms that are decided in general to be true, without any proof whatsoever.


You're thinking of mathematics, not science.

I suppose the one assumption that people who use science tend to make is that the laws of Nature are consistent from one day to the next.  However, if this proves not to be the case, like Veritas said science will adjust accordingly.

There are NO faith-based axioms in science.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358233 -

No I'm thinking of science, and I'm just stating things how they are. You just need to google a bit on this subject and you'll see for yourself. There's no point in discussing this. This is simply how things are.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9358266 -

What about turbulent water flow? Water is a Newtonian fluid; any particle can be looked be analyzed and predicted based on the forces acting on it. Yet, if you choose one particle in a turbulent stream and try to predict its location 5 seconds later, its near impossible. However, over a very short amount of time, you could predict the direction and distance that particle would travel with great accuracy.

Also, note that nothing behaves exactly according to physical laws; there are small errors in determining constants, small perturbations in the environment, etc. which make the laws at best very good estimates.

Therefore when you use deterministic laws on a chaotic (or turbulent) system, what you really have isn't so much randomness, as an exponential propagation of predictive error. (i.e. 99% accurate * 99% accurate *99%*99%*....)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9358578 -

"The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9358633 -

You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

I think I heard a fundamentalist Christian say this once.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Icelander]
    #9358684 -

Icelander said:
You can keep denying it all you want, but this is reality.

I think I heard a fundamentalist Christian say this once.


I don't believe you. :nono: I would wager heavily that you heard that a multitude of times.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9358948 -

bradley said:
Also, note that nothing behaves exactly according to physical laws; there are small errors in determining constants, small perturbations in the environment, etc. which make the laws at best very good estimates.


I dont think so.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9360195 -

Can you name a law within Newtonian physics that you think has exact predictive value?

Edited by Epigallo (12/03/08 05:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9360338 -

Of course not, 'Newtonian physics' is known to just be an approximation.  Why only 'Newtonian physics' and not any physical law?  Other physical laws or theories have excellent predictive ability, some to the point they have never been shown to be violated.  But they are not 'Newtonian physics'...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9360584 -

Well, the nature of my example was of Newtonian physics which showed that "randomness" could equally be construed as error propagation. Secondly, my education is in mechanical engineering so Newtonian physics is all I'm really qualified to speak on. But, out of curiosity, could you name a physical law (preferably simple) that has exact predictive value? (I don't even know what else there is besides quantum physics)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9360694 -

Well, seeing that this is not a science forum, Ill probably have to concede since I may not quite know what 'exact predictive' means exactly (and is that the same as "behaves exactly according to physical laws"?). :strokebeard:

My thinking was of theories that have always been shown to hold - and never otherwise.  Like the quantum you mention, from what they say one branch of quantum (QED) has accurately described every interaction observed to more accuracy than any other theory.  Thats what 'they' claim at least.  More down to earth, things like thermodynamics are also never deviated from.

Now I dont know if that qualifies for exact predictive or not.  To me they certainly dont seem like approximations at this point... but they do each have their own regimes where they apply.  Namely small system of one or two particles or large systems with nearly an infinite amount of particles.  For most other systems that exist in between, there is no predictive theory at all.  Only ad hoc descriptive theories.

So I guess I think you're right in that no theory has exact predictive ability, but I disagree that things dont behave exactly according to physical laws.  I realize however that in the realm of philosophical debate, this isnt much more than conjecture.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9361118 -

why do you need the term exact in those sentences?


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9361486 -

Well, I was using his phrase to remove ambiguity.  But it makes sense to have it in there I think... there is a big difference between an approximate prediction and an exact prediction of course.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9363788 -

are things together exactly enough when things are apart by just a few centimeteres, or must the difference be less than a nanometer.

can things be connected if they happen within 3 seconds of eachother or are things unrelated until they occur within the same nanosecond?

is nano the required accuracy or does exact go beyond immeasureable and unnattainable difference?

is red even red if it has the tiniest twinge of blue in it?

in that way, I think the idea "exact" is a trap.

there are limits to detection in accuracy and to enforcement of that accuracy on a huge plurality of issues.

so I think it is best, and a free-er way of thinking to use our mental probes a bit more generally, but to work hard at using words with clear definitions.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9364540 -

I could answer those questions, but since they are rhetorical to Ill abstain.

There is a simple difference, an exact predictive theory would be limited only by the apparatus and a regular predictive theory would be limited by both the apparatus and the theory.  Thats it.  If you deny the use of the word exact, then you limit your ability to differentiate between the two. 

More words free human thought, not less.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9366162 -

Veritas said:
Random does not mean acausal, it means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  The mutation of DNA is caused by errors in replication OR damage from environmental elements.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

The fact that we have identified the cause in no way indicates that this mutation is predictable.  This is what is meant by "random mutation."  The errors in replication occur unpredictably, as does damage from environmental elements.

Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 



I love you

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9366196 -

redgreenvines said:
johnm214 said:
redgreenvines said:
the selection due to melanonin via skin cancers would not set in early enough to affect reproduction




why not?

I think the average age of onset is around middle age right now.  Given the presumably higher-exposures during most of the evolutionary period of relevance I would think it could be relevant.  And though you didn't say it, it seems that you are implying if a trait doesn't stop the individual from reproducing that it can't be relevant, which is obviously wrong.  It is the species that matters not the individual.


true the individuals will reproduce, get sick and die
their children will reproduce get sick and die
same as now, just no internet and health care or environmental crises

in my opinion, the enclaves of look-alikes in regions of the world are largely due to RACIAL CLEANSING which is a flaw in mentation and social behavior that we still suffer. (gang related violence and bullying is also related to this low brow social issue)


Yeah, the individual will die, but I'm saying that for socialy dependant creatures that illness and premature death can be a disadvantage even if the individual is sterile.  If human ancestors lived socially, than a sick or dead member does less work and therefore is a disadvantage, and it that way a trait that has no effect on individual reproduction could still be relevant.

Like if worker bees all got sick and died in a particular group.  These are sterile animals and never reproduce, however; the impact would be massiave on the remaining bees irregardless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: johnm214]
    #9366251 -

johnm214 said:
Veritas said:
Random does not mean acausal, it means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  The mutation of DNA is caused by errors in replication OR damage from environmental elements.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

The fact that we have identified the cause in no way indicates that this mutation is predictable.  This is what is meant by "random mutation."  The errors in replication occur unpredictably, as does damage from environmental elements.

Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 



I love you


Isn't she something!


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: johnm214]
    #9366478 -

johnm214 said:
...Yeah, the individual will die, but I'm saying that for socialy dependant creatures that illness and premature death can be a disadvantage even if the individual is sterile.  If human ancestors lived socially, than a sick or dead member does less work and therefore is a disadvantage, and it that way a trait that has no effect on individual reproduction could still be relevant.

Like if worker bees all got sick and died in a particular group.  These are sterile animals and never reproduce, however; the impact would be massiave on the remaining bees irregardless.


they would cull
even in modern day
the esquimaux would allow the sick and elderly to go take a walk on the iceflow,
a bit of weeping, but
for the greater good...

or a harpoon is something they might have an accident with.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9370549 -

I think that asking whether or not evolution is blind and whether or not complex structures can evolve without intelligence guidance are different questions.  If we take intelligent guidance in evolution to mean the response to anticipation of some adverse condition, then I think evolution can be explained without it.

Evolution is really trial and error.  The organisms that just didn't happen to acquire advantages letting them outcompete other organisms (or merely to survive and propagate) became extint.  This can happen blindly merely because with enough guesses, some organism will just happen to acquire some benefit by accident, such as by mutation.  In the cases of what some refer to as "irreducibly complex" systems, I think all that has happened is that evolution has advanced far enough that redundant pieces of systems get dropped and dropping those redundancies ends up being advantageous.  Thus, we see evolved systems which we can explain as having arisen in one step.  That's no surprise after 3.5 billion years of evolution.

In another thread in this forum, someone spoke of a "pinnacle" of evolution and I stated that they were "seriously underestimating bacteria."  I am often amazed that scientifically illiterate people can believe in intelligent design, but when I look through my textbooks, it strikes me that the living world is very orderly and structured, so any scientifically illiterate mind would likely be more convinced at the "obvious truth" of intelligent design.  The promise of nanotechnology is a result of the amazing capabilities of nature on a nanometer scale.

Being trained as a physical chemist, I often look at evolution as being a measure of how matter can locally decrease entropy (I know that's really nerdy, but I am a chemist).  Get down to the nanometer scale and after billions of years of evolution, self-replicating matter has been able to arrange itself into localized systems for generating order and reducing entropy.  I see consciousness as one advance in this process.  Information can be measured in the same units as entropy.  Consciousness is a process that is the result of and has been shaped by evolution and partly serves the function of anticipating danger (adverse environmental conditions).  We can look at a lot of human psychology from an evolutionary perspective for this reason.  Indeed, even scientific hypotheses can be seen as conscious parallels to the evolutionary "best guesses" that would otherwise determine the extinction or survival of a species.


--------------------
Absent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Plasmid]
    #9371374 -

You said :  self-replicating matter has been able to arrange itself into localized systems for generating order and reducing entropy.
  If entropy is responsible for the one ensuing thought of all sensory inputs; order would mean what? Life altering experience… programming… childhood experiences... Habit… the process of logic? …Thought altering thought is almost/maybe~IS free will… IMO : the manipulation of our environment has a reality of experimentation and the pursue of happiness. Creating thing out of nothing. The successful individuation substrate/psyche energy/will perhaps the living substrate.


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Smack31 5,915 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* Radical Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 3,201 22 04/30/06 07:01 PM
by HippyInASuit
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* evolution
( 1 2 all )		 Droz 4,835 29 10/02/01 12:29 PM
by dimethoxy
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )		 top 5,476 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Personal Predictability
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 1,750 24 03/27/04 05:53 PM
by SpecialEd
* Miracle-blindness
( 1 2 3 all )		 gribochek 4,934 41 02/06/02 04:58 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Evolution and natural selection (philosophy) SeussA 811 4 03/08/05 09:33 AM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,993 topic views. 0 members, 74 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.083 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.