Sip Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 I think he will change his opinion about "illusion" when I administer the "ass kicking" I have promised him Interesting post Fadiushka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 Darwinism and World Conception Guys, if you have time go through the article above. It gives an insight to how Darwin came to his findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 Domino, I am happy to see you post long and unclear posts again like in the past good reloading pal For a moment I thought that your old self was lost in unknown universes and some boring, clear and short posting Domino had come back instead Well please keep posting I will join you as soon as I get rid of my headache By the way, the news about HyeForum's death has been strongly exaggerated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 well now Domino jan, lets get down to the nitty gritty here...lol your sig reminds me of the good ole mind-body problem..dualis, monism...but im not gonna get into that in this thread...btw I also missed your lengthy and informative....discombobulating posts welcome back dear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 Darwinism and World Conception Guys, if you have time go through the article above. It gives an insight to how Darwin came to his findings. darwin did much more which he didnt take credit for, and actually much much less than he did take credit for... His theory is to simplified in any of the text version of today books... His theory is not "his" anymore in the snes it has been modified more times than i can count... its a theory that kept building and buidling.. really.. its like water, itll go down the path of least resistance... and mold into the shpae of the canyon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 Bottom line - no one can diffinitively address the probability issue - not all the mechanisms are known (and Domino I am aware of the microcondant (sp?) DNA issue and the potential for quick mutation etc (spurrd by means unknown...)...and no one knows the (size/composition etc of the) "universe" we are dealing with to know what real probabilities we are dealing with (multiple universes aside - and who knows...not needed IMO). - yeah non-issue - not relevant - not applicable - etc....anyway... And gevo et al - you either understand and believe that Science can explain soem things for us - or you don't - and the basic and (lol) evolving theory of evolution is good science - epitomizes such...(regardless of your or anyone elses supernatural beliefs...) And as for any discussion of a creator (or what have you..Annukai - heh..LOL)...this is certainly pure speculation (though in the cae of the Annukai very intriguing...and perhaps not without at least some potential for validity...) - and yes anything is possible...why not the Pink Unicorn eh? http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 (edited) Domino that was a very lucid and eloquent post on your behalf. It was a nice read. I believe it was Carl Sagan who noted that the probability of life elsewhere is great. He stated something along the lines of life elseqhere to mean that the, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To assume Theistic evolution, or even the Panspermia theory that species came from other plants as seeds, we would still need to overcome the problem of variation. As far as "natural selection" goes, the phrase "survival of the fittest" is tautological, or can be formulated as such. "...'survival of the fittest', is something of a tautology. So are most mathematical theorems. There is no harm in saying the same truth in two different ways." -J.B.S. Haldane "Natural selection favors fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which may be confusing to others. To a geneticist fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding". -George Gaylord Simpson The latter quote by Simpson shows why its not easy to formulate the theory of natural selection other than as a tautology. Any characteristic whether advantegous or not, depends upon the surrounding environmental conditions. But the greatest fallacy in the term "survival of the fittest" is the fact that the word "fittest" has no precise meaning whatsoever. The "survival" of an organism is dependent upon a vast array of combinations of conditions not understood by anyone hence the word can't be defined and leaves the entire term devoid of the ability of meaning and thus prediction. In every case we can presume that a characteristic is advantageous because that species which has it seems to be thriving, yet it is impossible to try to pin the advantage indepndently of the outcome. All we can say is that those who produce the most offspring had the qualities required to produce the most offspring. It was Karl Popper who said that Darwinism is not a scientific theory because of the pliable nature of natural selection in that it is an all purpose explantion which can be made to acocutn for anything and therefore explains nothing. Of course just because natural selection can be formed as a tautology it can also be forumalated in other ways that aren't so easily dismissed. Edited February 6, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 Domino, thanks for spelling "consciousness" right The funny thing is that the theory of multiple universes doesn't really accept or deny anything since everything could have the right universe to be true. I just want to briefly bring some questions. 1) Natural selection is a very logical and true concept. However, like Anon pointed out, the concept of the "fittest" is really loose. What does that mean to be the fittest? At any rate, that is not my question. My question is, why is the fittest also the more evolved? Mammals are so much more fragile and unfit to survive harsh conditions than bacteria (and of course, no comparison whatsoever breeding-wise). Doesn't it seem to be a mystery why the mammals are higher on the evolution tree? 2) In Darwinism how did the first ever life form come into existence and what was that? 3) If chance is a driving force in evolution, then why does chance drive only upwards, why not downwards (reverse evolution). Chance means random, so it should allow mutations, changes and origination of new species in all directions - up, down, horizontal. "Fit" and "evolved" are very different things. 4) How does the thinking function fit into the picture of evolution? Can chance really lead to the formation of the human brain? Mind you, we still don't have a remotely decent understanding of how our brain functions and what it biologically and physically means to have a thought or a feeling. So much for now. P.S. A related question that I asked to Domino a while back - why is the universe flat and not spheric? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasak Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 MY attempt to reply to Sasun's third question 3) If chance is a driving force in evolution, then why does chance drive only upwards, why not downwards (reverse evolution). Chance means random, so it should allow mutations, changes and origination of new species in all directions - up, down, horizontal. "Fit" and "evolved" are very different things Any evolution is upwards evolution: because mutations and changes happen very rarely, the act of evolving is a very slow one. Mutation and change are random, but because almost all mutants either die without offspring or their offspring doesn’t carry their mutation, very few mutations get to have a chance to "take over" the surrounding area of the animal, let alone the species. Natural mutations occur infrequently, and out of the few that do occur over thousands of years most are not given enough life cycles to establish themselves as traits, either because they were debilitating or insignificant to overall survival. But in rare cases mutations show up at the right place and at the right time. The right mutation has to happen to the right animal at the right time for the animal to gain any surviving skills. And if it does, the trait has to prove itself over and over again in many generations and countless altering circumstances. This process can take a very long time, especially in animals with long life spans. So “mutations, changes and origination of new species in all directions - up, down, horizontal.” DO occur, but at a very slow rate. The beauty of natural selection is that if nature is left alone, it will "evolve" by itself, constantly becoming whatever it needs to become to "fit" it's ever altering environment. The movie Adaptation takes a plausible shot at explaining this concept in terms of the human psyche. But that’s a psychology post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 (edited) So vasak, I am sure that anyone in the scientific community holds natural selection as a scientific hypothesis. It is stated that natural selection with mutation leads to evolution of new organs and organisms. Now with that said, what evidences confirm that this hypothesis is true? I believe that Futuyama has perhaps done the best job of giving the evidences, but nonetheless we can delve deeper if need be. Edited February 7, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasak Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 As for evidence for new organs and organisms, I will post them when I go home. Who is Futuyama? Natural selection is a hypothesys only when it comes to it being the explanation of how we came to be. But the actions and patterns included in the concept Natural Selection do occur in nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 im not sure if what im going to say is relative to the thread ...but "survival of the fittest" doesnt it also apply to organs and organisms within the physiology of the human body...as for the explanation for our tailbones...as some scientists believe...the homosapien had a tail..what was useless...therefore..was not fit...not used...and did not "survive" and therefore the human body evolved into what it is now...if you see fault or error in what im saying..please enlighten me..id like to know more ...Domino jan i also believe you owe me something... hehe..ive been very patient..hows the translation going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 im not sure if what im going to say is relative to the thread ...but "survival of the fittest" doesnt it also apply to organs and organisms within the physiology of the human body...as for the explanation for our tailbones...as some scientists believe...the homosapien had a tail..what was useless...therefore..was not fit...not used...and did not "survive" and therefore the human body evolved into what it is now...if you see fault or error in what im saying..please enlighten me..id like to know more ...Domino jan i also believe you owe me something... hehe..ive been very patient..hows the translation going? the human appendix also has no apparant use, when we gonna grow that away.. ?? LOL... and btw, if i am not mistaken, the correct term to describe us using the scientific classification system (taxanomy) wouldnt be "homo sapiens" it would actually be "homo sapiens sapiens"..... I learned this a while back, and the explantion is in the order of taxonomy itself... that is because the last 2 catagories of classification 1: genus and 2: species.. we classify as sapiens for both.. Just a little clarification.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 As for evidence for new organs and organisms, I will post them when I go home. Who is Futuyama? Natural selection is a hypothesys only when it comes to it being the explanation of how we came to be. But the actions and patterns included in the concept Natural Selection do occur in nature. You've never heard of Douglas Futuyma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 So “mutations, changes and origination of new species in all directions - up, down, horizontal.” DO occur, but at a very slow rate. Vasak, thanks for your answer. Do you mean upwards changes, i.e. evolution occurs relatively faster than downwards or horizontal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasak Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 No. Evolution takes much slower. For evolution to occur, we need the perfect mutation at the perfect time, and it has to be reproduced and tested in different enviornments throughout many generations. Downwards and horizontal mutations don't survive long enough to become traits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Downwards and horizontal mutations don't survive long enough to become traits. Why? What is the reason only upwards changes survive? If it is random then there is no "up and down", all directions are equal for random movements, like white noise. That's the point I am trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 I am not really clear on this multiple universe theory. Its infinity has not been proved or disproved, so how is one to assume that there are multiple universes without determining its definite magnitude? By the way this new theory of the Big Bang theory is much more sound than the previous one. The collision of the energetic force that created the universe, leaves one to wonder what is the source of energy without an existence of a matter that generates it? Or could it be that the anti matter and the matter collide to create an entity if so, then again how is matter formed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Yes, this thread is back up As you can see, the Natural selection thread has been merged with this one. Now please leave personal discussions to PMs or email and stay on topic here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Yes, this thread is back up As you can see, the Natural selection thread has been merged with this one. Now please leave personal discussions to PMs or email and stay on topic here. Aye aye madamme. Thank you. I am naturally selecting whatever threads I want to post in, and this is one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I am not really clear on this multiple universe theory. Its infinity has not been proved or disproved, so how is one to assume that there are multiple universes without determining its definite magnitude? The values of some fundamental constants of physics enable the universe to be like it is. A different set could easily make it a place where no intelligent life could exist. The values of these constants do not derive from any fundamental equations or constraints. Therefore, one is left with three choices: 1. A God purposefully chose the values of these constants so life can exist on at least one planet. 2. We are so extremely (there is no adjective to describe how extremely) lucky that those physical constants are what they are. Universe is the way it is by sheer coincidence. 3. This universe is one of an infinite number of possible universes, each corresponding to a different set of fundamental constants. Since there is no law (that has yet been discovered) favoring one set of values over another, they must all exist. Those that have "bad" values do not harbor life, and do not exist in the minds of any intelligent beings. Those that correspond to "good" values (can) harbor life, including self-aware life, which then proceeds to ask questions like these. Pick one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 4) maybe the universe is evolving and natural selection has led to it's physical constants to have the current "good" values? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 4) maybe the universe is evolving and natural selection has led to it's physical constants to have the current "good" values? So far I am not aware of any evidence for "evolution of physical constants". Evolution requires a mechanism of elimination, and such a mechanism does not exist, having a set of one in our known universe. However, a universe "selected" out from an infinite array of possible universes by virtue of supporting life would look suspiciously like a design, even though its observation by an intelligent being is simply the result of "natural selection". So if you rephrase "universe is evolving" to "multiverse is evolving", then you obtain choice 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 2. We are so extremely (there is no adjective to describe how extremely) lucky that those physical constants are what they are. Universe is the way it is by sheer coincidence. Luck and chance are abstract concepts, so this should be ruled out for the same reason the multiple univers theory should be rulled out.. LOL... I mean think, no other place does "chanc" and "infinity" and "luck" play a bigger role in a theory,, and all these are abstract concepts, this is worse than forensic pathologists to base a whole argument on hearsay, and a couple of possible outcomes... or on chance.. LOL.. Base something on chance, and you will lose... Base something on luck, and you will not get lucky... Base semething on the theory of "infiniti" and you will count forever .. lol Base something on fait, atleast its plausible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 (edited) Luck and chance are abstract concepts, so this should be ruled out for the same reason the multiple univers theory should be rulled out.. LOL... I mean think, no other place does "chanc" and "infinity" and "luck" play a bigger role in a theory,, and all these are abstract concepts, this is worse than forensic pathologists to base a whole argument on hearsay, and a couple of possible outcomes... or on chance.. LOL.. Base something on chance, and you will lose... Base something on luck, and you will not get lucky... Base semething on the theory of "infiniti" and you will count forever .. lol Base something on fait, atleast its plausible Tell that to quantum mechanics experts. Tell them that you know better. Really. Edited February 8, 2004 by Twilight Bark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.