Hmmm, thoughts on evolution?(no, not vs religion)

[Tsal]

..traits that make reproduction more likely being the reaits that get passed down. I say that that is bull-poopie because baldness is a dominant trait. And any bald guy will tell you it doesn't help you reproduce. Which is a damn shame, because the primary cause of male-pattern baldness is excess testoterone.

Well, just to fine tune you a bit, baldness starts to show, as far as I know, somewhere after the 25th year. So, a young man has plenty of time to find himself a companion, even without his higher testosterone levels driving himself into having sex even more than a regular fellow. And, as it is in modern human society, there are more important things than if you have plenty of hair or not. Some ladies even prefer baldness - perhaps it even might be that they recognize the higher testosterone level and are drawn to it by some animal instinct, one can always speculate.

So, while there are positive and negative sides on high testosterone, while looking it from the reproduction angle, it might just be that there are more positive effects towards coupling.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

As I expected, my original post has been criticized thoroughly. Some of that criticism is well taken and I stand corrected. However, the majority of it demonstrated a gross misinterpretation of what I said and the rest a clear lack of understanding of my logical arguments. I attribute this to my lack of writing skills and my attempt to overly compress the arguments. As a matter of fact, I agreed entirely with what some of you said, even though it was intended as criticism of my argument.
I had intitially intended on writing a more thorough argument explaining my points more clearly and providing a rebuttal to several of yours. However, after writing several pages and realizing I had several more to go, I was reminded by the words of wisdom once posted in this forum: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics....even if you win, you're still ********". Ah, how true. Furthermore, you probably wouldn't even read it the whole thing...I wouldn't. I would probably shriek at the sheer length of it, close my browser, and play Civilization 3. Either that or I would only read the first few paragraphs and then write a reply that I would later realize was unfair if I'd had the courage to read the entire post. So, although the nerd in me regrets it, I think I'll just let it die instead, delete my original post, and make this my last entry in this pointless argument.

 

[Nick man]

Well, just to fine tune you a bit, baldness starts to show, as far as I know, somewhere after the 25th year. So, a young man has plenty of time to find himself a companion, even without his higher testosterone levels driving himself into having sex even more than a regular fellow. And, as it is in modern human society, there are more important things than if you have plenty of hair or not. Some ladies even prefer baldness - perhaps it even might be that they recognize the higher testosterone level and are drawn to it by some animal instinct, one can always speculate.

So, while there are positive and negative sides on high testosterone, while looking it from the reproduction angle, it might just be that there are more positive effects towards coupling.

Maybe it often starts around that age, but I know a guy who was not starting to go bald when he was 17, he was bald in the traditional nothing on top but plenty on the sides way.

Im pretty sure you know it sometimes starts earlier, but I figured Id post it just for others, just in case.

 

[bassturtle]

It doesn't. There is a thing called mutation.

Just to survive long enough and being able to reproduce isn't enough.
Good looks, for example, increase your attractiveness. This shows that you have "good" genetic material, which is what a potential mate would like to have for reproduction. Your chances of reproduction and to father/mother healthy offpring is better than of somebody who's not good-looking, or even has visible genetic defects.

Ah ha! The fact that someone married me totally disproves your above point!

 

[Nick man]

No, it just proves that people are weird.

 

[Folmeister]

It isn't just good traits are selected for, and bad traits are weeded out. There's all kinds of random events in there that mess things up. Mutations were pointed out, also, if something gets struck by lightning (or some freak accident) before it can reproduce it doesn't matter how good it's gene's are.

Thats not going into chromosomal (sp) aspects of it with genes crossing over, linked traits and all that kind of thing.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but isn't the current theory that usually there are long periods of little change, followed by "sudden" changes caused by some immediate stress (ice age, meteor, new predator). And that as a result of our changing the world to suit us, we change less as a result. (or just have different types of favorable traits -eg money)

Pretty much any theory stated really simply is easy to poke holes in.

(Not saying I'm right or evolution is a flawless theory, but its as sound as anything else out there. And sorry for a real long post)

Gould and Eldridge did not poke any holes in Darwin's theories, they simply built upon his work, and, with much more scientific data at hand, found that he did not get everything exactly right. No big deal as the rest of his thesis still holds up well. What you are getting at is called punctuated equilibrium. Darwin assumed that organic evolution was a slow, steady process that did not make great leaps. I haven't seen anyone mention environmental change yet. Changes in environment can cause speciation, or the development of new species that are better adapted to their environment. Remember, we have had about a half-dozen mass exctinctions during the earth's history.

 

[bassturtle]

No, it just proves that people are weird.

Oh.

 

[sheepdip]

I've been thinking, I'm not sure if I totally buy the whole concept of natural-selection being the cause of evolution, which implies that all changes and development of lifeforms stems from the deaths of prvevious lifeforms with undesirable traits. There's gotta be something more. I have no ideas, and no suggestions as to what that something/somethings would be, but I kinda doubt that it's just natural-selection that causes evolution.

It just seems hard to believe that all the variety in life comes from traits that were already there. I've been reading that more and more people are being born without wisdom teeth. Does this mean that wisdom teeth were causing the death/inability to reproduce? No. It just seems that many adaptions we see in today's living world come from things that would not effect the organism's ability to reproduce or survive to be able to reproduce.

Something's fishy with that theory. I think there's something more going on. Does anyone here know what I'm talking about?

You'r right something is fishy, thats why it's called 'The theory of Evolution' It has never been proven and never will be proven, it directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that the world is in a constant state of entrophy (simplified). On that one point alone there can never be evolution. Adaptation, yes. If anyone here can offer me undeniable, irrefutable proof that evolution is taking place I will buy everybody on the list their choice of a Sadowsky

 

[Mark Reccord]

You'r right something is fishy, thats why it's called 'The theory of Evolution' It has never been proven and never will be proven, it directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that the world is in a constant state of entrophy (simplified). On that one point alone there can never be evolution.

Anyone who actually understands thermodynamics wouldn't say that. Out of all the arguments that creationists have against evolution that one is totally without merit. The second law states that in a closed system entropy will increase over time. The problem with that is that the Earth is not a closed system. Entropy can be decreased in open systems if outside energy is applied to them at the expense of increased entropy at the energy source. The earth receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun and so it is not surprising that entropy on earth is not increasing. The highly ordered wind, climate and ocean current systems that are driven by solar energy are just one example of that.

There are problems with current evolutionary theory, but contravention of the 2nd law isn't one of them.

 

[sheepdip]

I find it hard to accept the fact that the sun is supplying energy to keep the earth from not winding down when in fact the sun itself is winding down. No matter how slight the entrophy it is still happening. closed system or not. There have been no new species of plant or animal evolved since recorded history but there are plenty that are extinct. I stand by my original statement,

 

[Mark Reccord]

I find it hard to accept the fact that the sun is supplying energy to keep the earth from not winding down when in fact the sun itself is winding down. No matter how slight the entrophy it is still happening. closed system or not. There have been no new species of plant or animal evolved since recorded history but there are plenty that are extinct. I stand by my original statement,

The sun isn't winding down, exactly. Yes, it's burning its supply of fuel but there's still plenty left to keep the sun burning at about its current intensity for a couple of billion years yet. The amount of energy supplied by the sun isn't changing in a significant way other than the cyclical ups and downs which represent a rather small variation when looking at the total energy supplied. Like it or not, the 'evolution violates the 2nd law' argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's been thoroughly debunked countless times.

Recorded history is pretty short compared to evolutionary timelines so you might expect that not much would have happened in that amount of time. I'm not a biologist and I'm not really up on evolution so I'm not prepared to argue any of the biological points (plus it doesn't matter to me that much). But from the perspective of thermodynamics and time frame there isn't anything that would make evolution impossible.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

OK, I lied. Since I am unable to express my arguments in a convincing manner, I gathered a few quotes from some people who are. This is basically what I was trying to say, but said by people more qualified and well-spoken than me. It is probably too long to write out here, so I will add it as an attachment. I encourage everyone to read it, although if you do, read it all, and be sure you understand what they are saying.

I tried attaching as a .txt but it is not very easy to read in that format. I instead renamed the file .zip but I didn't actually compress it. Simply rename to .doc and then open it.

 

[Nick man]

I find it hard to accept the fact that the sun is supplying energy to keep the earth from not winding down when in fact the sun itself is winding down. No matter how slight the entrophy it is still happening. closed system or not. There have been no new species of plant or animal evolved since recorded history but there are plenty that are extinct. I stand by my original statement,

Wow, I dont even know why Im bothering to reply.

As far as the sun winding down and the Earth still getting energy consider this comparison. Get a glass of warm watter, drop an ice cube in it. The warm watter loses energy to the cold ice cube which gains energy. Thats a real basic example, but it shows that the sun can be winding down and the Earth will still gain energy from it. In fact its nescesary for the sun to lose energy for the Earth to gain any. Its the law of conservation of mass/energy.

There may or may not have been new species which have evolved, its hard to tell. New species of animals are discovered every day even in environments that people have inhabbited for hundreds of years like suburban neighborhoods and rural farm lands. Its small creatures like insects and lizards, but they are there. In addition, the same goes for plants. Through unnatural selection species of potatoes from South America have been selectively bred to the point that they are no longer closely enough related to other species from the areas to breed.

 

[BruceWane]

I find it hard to accept the fact that the sun is supplying energy to keep the earth from not winding down when in fact the sun itself is winding down. No matter how slight the entrophy it is still happening. closed system or not.

You have to define the "system" of earth to include the sun. In this sense, the overall energy of the system is declining, on a timescale equal to the lifespan of the sun. Planet earth is like a water wheel, and the sun is the river. The water wheel harnesses energy from an outside source; it does not see a decline in energy until the source is removed.

There have been no new species of plant or animal evolved since recorded history but there are plenty that are extinct. I stand by my original statement,

When we're talking about the lifespan of a star, origins of the universe, evolution, etc., the element of time can be hard to grasp.

It looks like you need a little perspective here.......recorded history (roughly, oh, about 3000 years) compares to the overall age of the earth (~4.5 billion years) as a single word compares to 3 bibles.

Recorded history is 1/1,500,000th of geological history.

 

[BruceWane]

If anyone here can offer me undeniable, irrefutable proof that evolution is taking place I will buy everybody on the list their choice of a Sadowsky

Ever had a flu shot? As you probably know, the vaccination you got last year will be useless against the influenza that'll start showing up this fall.

Why is that? It's because the influenza virus mutates at a rapid rate. The influenza virus that you will be exposed to in a few months will be markedly different from every influenza virus you've had before. It will not be affected by the antibodies you currently have; it has found a way to survive.

It has evolved.

I'd like a 24 Fret 5 String, maple board, not top dots, flame maple with a dark trans red finish.

 

[Nick man]

Ever had a flu shot? As you probably know, the vaccination you got last year will be useless against the influenza that'll start showing up this fall.

Why is that? It's because the influenza virus mutates at a rapid rate. The influenza virus that you will be exposed to in a few months will be markedly different from every influenza virus you've had before. It will not be affected by the antibodies you currently have; it has found a way to survive.

It has evolved.

I'd like a 24 Fret 5 String, maple board, not top dots, flame maple with a dark trans red finish.

Doh....

That would have been a much more effective, solid, concrette example than the one I used.

If I can make a sugestion though...

Go with the quilt maple.

 

[Wrong Robot]

I love all of god's creatures

 

[BruceWane]

OK, I lied. Since I am unable to express my arguments in a convincing manner, I gathered a few quotes from some people who are. This is basically what I was trying to say, but said by people more qualified and well-spoken than me. It is probably too long to write out here, so I will add it as an attachment. I encourage everyone to read it, although if you do, read it all, and be sure you understand what they are saying.

I tried attaching as a .txt but it is not very easy to read in that format. I instead renamed the file .zip but I didn't actually compress it. Simply rename to .doc and then open it.

1) You really ought to apologize for implying in your last post that people who enjoy on-line discussions are "********". Way out of line, and rather humorous now that you've chosen to return to our "********" conversation.

2)Irreducible complexity was refuted before it was even presented as an argument against evolution. The argument of irreducible complexity completely ignores cooption. Basically, cooption refers to an existing structure or system that changes and is used in a new way, versus developing a structure or system "from the ground up".

A quick reference on cooption is available here....

3) Michael Behe in particular has been thoroughly rebuffed on numerous occasions; the motivation and opportunty to do so arises often, because he is a biochemist from The Discovery Institute. Some of you may be familiar with this place; for those who are not, it is an organization whose sole purpose is to force intelligent design to be taught as science in our schools. This is the organization behind all the efforts in various states, especially Texas and Ohio, to have biology textbooks altered.

Earlier, I was asked what I do , why I know all this stuff about evolution. Well, I've always been fascinated by life and evolution, so I've known quite a bit about it for a long time. But I really got loaded up on information about 2 years ago The state board of education was compiling rquirements for the new batch of biology textbooks. Religious fundamentalists started a full-court press to put ID in the science curriculum. Of course, they were heavily assisted by the Discovery Institute. In Montgomery county, which is where I live (just north of Houston), things got particularly, shall we say, "active".

You see, Texas (and Ohio) are big targets for this kind of thing, because they're big and they buy a lot of textbooks. If ID'ers can get these states to require ID in the science curriculum, the companies that produce textbooks will of course put it in there; and, of course, they are not going to bother to produce different versions for less populous states. So by default, if ID goes into the Texas and Ohio curriculums, it will go into a whole bunch of states.

We've been succesful in defeating them thus far, but they do not give up. The recently approved biology textbooks will not be up for replacement until 2008, and then the battle will rage again.

In the meantime, the ID movement is targeting seats on the state board of education. These are not usually very high visibilty in the elections, so it's not real hard for someone with just a little bit of organization to get elected. They have been successful in obtaining a number of seats, but we are now actively publicizing the importance of these positions, as well as tracking down and publicizing the sources of the candidates funding.

Enough said. This is not the forum for fighting ID'ers.

I'll leave it with one absolute truth that seems to totally escape ID's promoters.........."proving" evolution to be false in no way provides proof that intelligent design is true. If you want to prove the truth of intelligent design, start doing it, instead of wasting your time disproving other theories.

 

[BruceWane]

Doh....

That would have been a much more effective, solid, concrette example than the one I used.

If I can make a sugestion though...

Go with the quilt maple.

You know, I love quilt maple, but somehow it just never has "done it" for me. There's just something about a really nice defined figure that looks like tiger stripes......then again, I've already got the trans green on flame Genesis, and the trans black on flame Dingwall. Maybe I oughta add some variety. I need a fretless, so I was thinking that a "brown" bass would be appropriate for that - like a burl walnut or some kind of koa.

And that reminds me........I've never seen or really even heard anything much about fretless Sadowsky's....is that just not his thing? Always wondered..........

 

[Nick Gann]

Ever had a flu shot? As you probably know, the vaccination you got last year will be useless against the influenza that'll start showing up this fall.

Why is that? It's because the influenza virus mutates at a rapid rate. The influenza virus that you will be exposed to in a few months will be markedly different from every influenza virus you've had before. It will not be affected by the antibodies you currently have; it has found a way to survive.

It has evolved.

I'd like a 24 Fret 5 String, maple board, not top dots, flame maple with a dark trans red finish.

From my understanding, that is an adaptation, not an evolution.