Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Dead at 42  (Read 14099 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #44 from previous page: April 19, 2004, 05:14:47 PM »
Quote
Evolution is just adaption to the environment via changes in the organism on a genetic level. If the organism no longer needs to adapt to it's environment but is able to adapt it's environment to itself, then it does not evolve.
Now you see we, as humanity, has reached another stage of evolution. I mean, there are multiple stages of evolution. The first is actually to reproduce and die (a way to adopt on the environment), second stage is to swap properties of cells using sex. Then it's combining properties of cells (for instance, light sensitivity) with becoming multiple cell creatures. Obtaining brains is also a stage. See how it becomes more and more 'software'.

Quote

bloodline wrote:
That is pretty modern by evolutionary standards.
That that is discutable. Some scientists claim that evolution goes with very sudden changes.
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2004, 05:19:32 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
Speel wrote:
yes, but not 'take over the world!'


They will. All it takes is time.

Illogical assumption. Why wouldn't it be the fertile ones to take over the world? I'd say the chance is 50-50

Quote

Quote
That matters what you want from evolution.


More intelligence and less biological weaknesses would be nice, as well as rid of the genetic diseases.

Biological/genetic diseases/weaknesses can be important for the survival of the society, or other aspects of survival. (unfortunately I can't remember an examply to show you how)
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2004, 05:29:28 PM »
Quote
Speel wrote:
Illogical assumption. Why wouldn't it be the fertile ones to take over the world? I'd say the chance is 50-50


Why did early humans with no tails take over from ones with them?

Answer: Use it or lose it.

Quote
Biological/genetic diseases/weaknesses can be important for the survival of the society, or other aspects of survival. (unfortunately I can't remember an examply to show you how)


Sickle-cell anaemia protecting from malaria, perhaps? That's the classic example. However, it's one of nature's burps, since it's usual almost as fatal as malaria. The human genome is full of these "patches" to protect us. They're mutations that would usually be bad, but through chance, protected their carriers from some kind of disease or environmental change. They're not perfect.

Biological diversity is good for the species, but keeping those bad genes for no reason is not.
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2004, 05:44:35 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Why did early humans with no tails take over from ones with them?
Because of famine (having a tail costs energy), or to prevent unnecesary wounds. Having a tail makes the chance of getting a wound bigger and thus also the chance of getting an infection will get bigger. And a tail isn't necessary anymore since our butt muscles cover our anus. Or to let us walk better in our current posture.
So it'd be necessary to get rid of it.
It isn't necessary to get rid of fertility even if you do not use it, so it won't disappear.

Quote
However, it's one of nature's burps
Nature is one big burp.
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2004, 05:46:29 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Biological diversity is good for the species, but keeping those bad genes for no reason is not.
Bad genes can cause evolution changes.
It's the experiment grounds.
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2004, 06:52:04 PM »
Quote
Speel wrote:
Bad genes can cause evolution changes.
It's the experiment grounds.


Just by being there? No way. They've got to apply a disadvantage that gets the creature killed or unable to mate.
 

Offline bloodlineTopic starter

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2004, 06:54:45 PM »
One key point to remember is that a single genetic mutation is not evolution. It's when many individuals of a population have the mutation, to the point that these individuals are distinct from others, that evolution can be said to have occured.

I don't like the term evolution anyway, although in a scientific context it is correct, modern use of the word has altered it's meaning. We should use the terms "Natural Selection" and "Artificial Selection".

Natural selection is the case when an organism adapts to it's environment, for better survival.
Artificial selection is the case when an organism is adapted by "Man" by breeding individules with favourable characteristics.

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2004, 10:39:56 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
Speel wrote:
Bad genes can cause evolution changes.
It's the experiment grounds.


Just by being there? No way. They've got to apply a disadvantage that gets the creature killed or unable to mate.
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2004, 10:43:13 PM »
Quote

bloodline wrote:
I don't like the term evolution anyway, although in a scientific context it is correct, modern use of the word has altered it's meaning. We should use the terms "Natural Selection" and "Artificial Selection".

'selection' is a bad bad word for it.
[lousy joke]
let the creationists commence!
[/lousy joke]
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2004, 11:45:18 PM »
Quote
Speel wrote:
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.


There is no evolution without need, regardless of mutation present in any population. Not now, not in the future, not ever.

Take a million pigeons and let them loose on a planet with robotic systems to keep them fed, kill any disease or viruses, and to give them contraceptives when the population gets too high, and ten million years you'll come back and find they're still pigeons. Maybe 100, even 1000 million years.

But release pigeons on a planet with none of these protections, and 10 million years later you'll find a biosystem full of different kinds of life form evolved from pigeon - birds of prey, land animals, aquatics.
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2004, 10:21:52 AM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
Speel wrote:
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.

There is no evolution without need
Yes, but evolution has to begin somewhere doesn't it?
The more a specie experiments with it's genes, the more it is likely that it adapts more quickly to it's environment. I think that can be seen as necessary.
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #55 on: April 23, 2004, 05:15:08 PM »
Quote
Speel wrote:
The more a specie experiments with it's genes, the more it is likely that it adapts more quickly to it's environment. I think that can be seen as necessary.


What changing environment?? We live in heated homes, drink purified water, eat sanitised energy and nutrition rich foods, we deal with sickness with antibiotics and surgery, we have few parasites...

So what, exactly, is changing that we need to evolve to meet?

Our bad genes are not being pruned off, and are remaining because the people who carry them are not being killed off by harsh nature. We're becoming slower, weaker, dumber. And eventually, we'll start to devolve, rather than evolve.
 

Offline bloodlineTopic starter

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2004, 05:54:50 PM »
Quote

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
Speel wrote:
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.

There is no evolution without need
Yes, but evolution has to begin somewhere doesn't it?
The more a specie experiments with it's genes, the more it is likely that it adapts more quickly to it's environment. I think that can be seen as necessary.


A Welfare state/society eliminates the pressure for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. Thus natural selection cannot occur, the natural selecting factors are removed.
We live in an artificial environment, we adapt the environment to our needs, not the other way around.

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2004, 08:51:23 PM »
Quote

bloodline wrote:
A Welfare state/society eliminates the pressure for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. Thus natural selection cannot occur, the natural selecting factors are removed.
A welfare state/society is an adaptation of an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. The natural selection is goin' on on the state/society level. It's going on that way thousands of years already.
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline bloodlineTopic starter

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2004, 09:49:38 PM »
Quote

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Quote

bloodline wrote:
A Welfare state/society eliminates the pressure for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. Thus natural selection cannot occur, the natural selecting factors are removed.
A welfare state/society is an adaptation of an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. The natural selection is goin' on on the state/society level. It's going on that way thousands of years already.


All you have demonstrated is that the "Evolutionary Model" applies to almost everything.

But what you are talking about is not the evolution of the human species, but human society, which is very different.

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Dead at 42
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2004, 09:53:09 PM »
Well, humans have to fit socially in society (and vice versa).
And the canary said: \'chirp\'