Evolution

[crocos]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
...stuff...

What I had drilled into me hard is that evolution does not have a purpose. It doesn't happen because of something, it is a random process. Adaptation is not random.

Agree that adaption is not random, but evolution is not ALWAYS random... Yes evolution can be through mutation, but can also be through adaption

[[reyPh]]

Originally posted by Cinclant
It's like that card game where you have to match up pairs. When I think of "colossal fucking retard" your name is the first that springs to mind. It has and probably always will since you were the first clown to grace my icq ignore list about 6 years ago.

Also I recall being on your ignore list anyway you jibber-jabber meathead.

psych :P

you recall correctly, bubbi pretty fly.

[Uncle Gus]

Originally posted by Lumpy
]There are definite reasons why species are like they are. It may be a chaotic, unpredictable, non-intelligent system, but it is not random.

No. Once again, the reason creatures change is random (mutation). The reasons they survive and become prevalent are not random (natural selection). This process is otherwise known as evolution.

[Lumpy]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
No. Once again, the reason creatures change is random (mutation). The reasons they survive and become prevalent are not random (natural selection). This process is otherwise known as evolution.

Well you say

random + not random = random

and I say

random + not random = not random

I have yet to see any reasoning for your thesis.

[CCS]

Originally posted by TnT
Why in gods name would you want to see a picture of Simons nads?

Don't we all? I mean uhh... c'mon, it's the standard response. You were supposed to ask if his nutrash was hot.

[armourking]

Originally posted by Lumpy
Well you say

random + not random = random

and I say

random + not random = not random

I have yet to see any reasoning for your thesis.

I believe, by definition, anything with a random component is random.
It is like adding an odd number to an even number - you get an odd number.

[Kudos]

Originally posted by AycorzFewdz
Uncle Gus, whats the difference between adaption and evolution? (yes i know theres a difference but like...definitions ta )

omg Xplod. Looks like Dino's are still walking around ay Xplod u dumbfuckosaurus.

Heard of Fossils?

Someone smart from the non-beleiver side please.

just studied this in bio 101 last sem
adaptation is physiological traits aquired through ones lifetime,
and evolution is natural selection through a long span of time
and there are several categories of natural selection, dont think we need to go into that

[Lumpy]

Originally posted by armourking
I believe, by definition, anything with a random component is random.
It is like adding an odd number to an even number - you get an odd number.

I believe that you are quite wrong. If something is random then it has no structure, purpose, correlation, pattern etc. But if you give me something random, I could pick out something with a definite pattern. For example if you give a million randomly selected integers, I could pick out all the even ones and throw away the rest. Then it becomes highly structured and not at all random.

[hypnotoad]

I agree with lumpy.
You can create structure from randomness.
Look at electronics.

You could say that the electrical impulses travelling through your computer are random - I dont know anything that could predict the highs and lows.

However if you break it up into two distinct groups.
Above voltage X and below voltage X, you have structure.

You still have the random variances in the voltage, but it has been made understandable by adding a non-random element.

[Lumpy]

[plaz0r]

Originally posted by Jenza
Roger Chopper Dave we have Uh-oh.

[Uncle Gus]

Originally posted by Lumpy
I believe that you are quite wrong. If something is random then it has no structure, purpose, correlation, pattern etc. But if you give me something random, I could pick out something with a definite pattern. For example if you give a million randomly selected integers, I could pick out all the even ones and throw away the rest. Then it becomes highly structured and not at all random.

No. Now you're confusing random with chaotic.

How's this for another visual aid? Let's say that X is a random number between 1 and 10, okay? Now, 5 is a very non-random number, no? But what is X + 5? Answer: It's a random number between 6 and 15, i.e. a random number.

Evolution = random mutations + natural selection. At the end of the day, the new species that has emerged as a result of evolution is as much a product of a random mutation as are all the poor sods who were born with no eyes. The fact that they were born with extra eyes instead is just a stroke of good fortune.

[AycorzFewdz]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
No. Now you're confusing random with chaotic.

How's this for another visual aid? Let's say that X is a random number between 1 and 10, okay? Now, 5 is a very non-random number, no? But what is X + 5? Answer: It's a random number between 6 and 15, i.e. a random number.

It's not a random number between 6 and 15... its a set value between these 2 integers.

Wait..i'll figure out how to explain that properly later

"armourking: And sometimes the fittest don't survive. Just because you have an advantage over, say, other fish of your type, doesn't mean the water hole you live in won't dry up. Or the asteriod will not smack into you. "

Yeah but wouldn't the other "not-fittest" fish die along with the fittest. So i don't see the point you're trying to make.

[Lumpy]

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
No. Now you're confusing random with chaotic.

Do you even understand these terms you are bandying about such as "random", "chaotic", "evolution", "adaptation", "no"?

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
How's this for another visual aid? Let's say that X is a random number between 1 and 10, okay? Now, 5 is a very non-random number, no? But what is X + 5? Answer: It's a random number between 6 and 15, i.e. a random number.

I'm not saying there aren't some processes with a random component that come out with a random result. I'm saying that not all processes with a random component come out to a random result. In particular mutation and then selection. Your example isn't anything like that process.

Originally posted by Uncle Gus
Evolution = random mutations + natural selection. At the end of the day, the new species that has emerged as a result of evolution is as much a product of a random mutation as are all the poor sods who were born with no eyes. The fact that they were born with extra eyes instead is just a stroke of good fortune.

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is those with extra eyes will survive, while those born without a brain won't. That's not random, that's a definite choice.

[Uncle Gus]

Okay, you've stumped me. I've run out of different ways to say the same thing.

[Lumpy]

Actually I know exactly what you're getting at. I just like to argue with people who can't explain it right. Hopefully they'll think about it some more and come to enlightenment. Or maybe I'm just a pedantic bastard.

[AycorzFewdz]

Do you beleive in god Uncle Gus?

[Rabble]

and you're just a pedantic bastard.

[Uncle Gus]

Originally posted by Lumpy
Actually I know exactly what you're getting at. I just like to argue with people who can't explain it right. Hopefully they'll think about it some more and come to enlightenment. Or maybe I'm just a pedantic bastard.

.... Hmmm... I'm gonna go with Door number Two, thanks Ralph.

[armourking]

Originally posted by AycorzFewdz
"armourking: And sometimes the fittest don't survive. Just because you have an advantage over, say, other fish of your type, doesn't mean the water hole you live in won't dry up. Or the asteriod will not smack into you. "

Yeah but wouldn't the other "not-fittest" fish die along with the fittest. So i don't see the point you're trying to make.

Because the 'crap' fish in the next water hole survive.
What I was trying to put across in a way that, sadly, seemed you have to engage your brain at some point was: Evolution is not deterministic. Chance plays a big part in it, (Bigger than most people are comfortable with - "But surely the whole point is humanity!") because Chaos theory states that microscopic changes have macroscopic consequences. But for a single atom, we might not be at all.

Oh, and "It's not a random number between 6 and 15... its a set value between these 2 integers. "

That is because X was defined as 1 to 10. In the contex of this bound, the result is random. If you want, take the bound off, let X:= - infinity <= X <= + infinity, then see what happens.

[THEFLYINASS]

--
#(_!_)# TFA
Network Drone

[AycorzFewdz]

Do you think we'll evolve so men can breastfeed baby crocodiles?

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by SpaceCowboy
well, it condenses into the gluons, which transmit the strong nuclear force (the one that holds all subatomic particles together, and to each other). gluons have a mass of about 500-600 MeV by most estimates, which makes them interact at short ranges only.

Interesting. So what are gluons? I imagine they aren't observable are they?

An interesting thing about the uncertainty principal... which I understand to be that at some level you can't be certain of the behaviour of something because the effect the observer has.
However, if whatever you're observing is it's normal behaviour plus the effect of the observers behaviour... can't you just find out the effect of the observer to find out the original behaviour of what is being observed?

Obviously I didn't do 7th Form physics, but I'm still allowed to be interested, right? And I don't think a pic of Ackbar is required.

[Xanatos]

Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life?

He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude.

You believe that?

"uh huh."

Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads? I have trouble
sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:

"Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."

[mimes God burying fossils]

"I am God, I am a prankster."

"I am killing Me."

"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"

"Well, yeah. There was fossils everywhere"

Thuh [trapdoor opens]

"Aaaaaaarhhh!"

"You fuckin idiot."

"Flying lizards, you're a moron. God was fuckin' with you!"

"It seemed so plausible, ahhhh!"

"Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!"

[Phleep]

Evolution does not require mutations (ref. New Scientist No 2416). Mutations can increase the variety of genes but merely rearranging the genes that the species already has alters the direction of its development and can split a species in two.

There are only 64 different combinations of the letter triplets you can have and these only produce 21 different amino acids so basically all you have to do is re sequence these - which nature does all the time by being horribly imprecise. There is no huge magical mutation required.

I think Gus has been reading too many Marvel comics.


MUTANT!!!

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Xanatos
...

*yawn*

All Bill Hicks got was dead.

[Torka]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
*yawn*

All Bill Hicks got was dead.

How trite. That's all anyone gets.

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Torka
How trite. That's all anyone gets.

You're right.
So what's the point being all smart about it?

[Torka]

It makes me feel like a big man.

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by armourking
Now, if humanity all used the Scientific Method before believing things, then we wouldn't have these sorts of threads.

It's amazing what you can kill by using the Scientific Method, things like human emotion.

Still, I don't think it's possible to apply the Scientific Method to everything.

[Xanatos]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
It's amazing what you can kill by using the Scientific Method, things like human emotion.

Still, I don't think it's possible to apply the Scientific Method to everything.

Blind mindless faith perhapes?

[Cinclant]

Or talking in tongues?

[Whiplash]

Rrargglelbrfeeefffooamooople!

[Dystopia]

Originally posted by AycorzFewdz
Do you think we'll evolve so men can breastfeed baby crocodiles?

*cough* thats an alligator

[MadLep]

FINALLY! this thread gets onto talk of boobies like any good evolution thread does.

[SpaceCowboy]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
Interesting. So what are gluons? I imagine they aren't observable are they?

An interesting thing about the uncertainty principal... which I understand to be that at some level you can't be certain of the behaviour of something because the effect the observer has.
However, if whatever you're observing is it's normal behaviour plus the effect of the observers behaviour... can't you just find out the effect of the observer to find out the original behaviour of what is being observed?

Obviously I didn't do 7th Form physics, but I'm still allowed to be interested, right? And I don't think a pic of Ackbar is required.

what are gluons? well, they the transmitters of the strong nuclear force. think of them as atomic "glue". they are observable, and are one of the most regularly seen particles in collider experiments. of course, noone really knows what a particle actually "is". thats kind of a nonsense question. although, latest theories, namly including string theory, suggest that particles are only tiny 1-dimensional loops of energy/force/spacetime which vibrate at a certain frequency. the frequency determining what particle it is. these loops can join together, and break apart, which explains all kinds of interactions and particle decays. very interesting stuff.

as for the uncertainty principle, youre a little mixed up. it actually states that you cannot ever know both the velocity and the location of a particle at the same time, only one or the other. the effect of measuring the velocity is a change in location, and vice versa. kind of annoying, but thats nature for you. you were on the right track tho.

the interesting thing about quantum entanglement tho, is that you may be able to bypass this. (bear in mind i just thought about this now and havent confirmed it). the basics is that if you fire a photon (particle of light) through a crystal (forgotten which kind, its neat-n-special tho), you end up with 2 photon twins, which have an immediate relation with each other, no matter where in the universe they are. slow one down, you slow down the other, instantly. yes, its rather freaky, thats why einstien named it "spooky-action-at-a-distance".
anyway, ive just realised that my example wouldnt work, but i left this here cos its quite interesting

one more thing, something that i read this morning. if you take general relativity to its extremes, and apply it to explaining matter, matter becomes nothing more than a universal matter field, the local concentrations of which determine what you see. and what we observe as particles in our experiments are really just the appearance of localised concentrations and rarefications of this matter-field. entirely speculative, but i found it highly interesting

not actually sure if i answered your question, but i have a physics seminar to go to this morning, must dash. black holes, gamma ray bursts, and gravitational waves. fun fun!

[buckies]

its so funny how every1 just tries to change the topic to their area of expertise and then force their opinion down every1s throat in an arrogant display of attempted intellect.

[Whiplash]

Uh oh, someone knows what they're talking about ... Quick, lets make fun of his mum and/or his potentially small weener.

Hur hur.

[s0nic]

umm gus, i think you are mistaken.
evolution is NOT just mutations and natural selection.
Mutations are just one of the things that can change a given population. Other things include genetic drift, founder effect (a pair of birds dispersing to an unhabited island etc etc)

And natural selection is not the only type of selection- it has several components to it : natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, group selection, directional s, stabilising s and so on.

Evolution itself is classified into 2 types - micro and macro

Micro-population level changes (include adaptation, natural selection, mutations etc) eg: industrial melanism in pepperred moths

Macro - species level changes which leads to speciation(the splitting of 1 spp into 2). This usually happens when over time, these microevolutionary changes build up and eventually leads to the splitting of species.

Though the last part is really irrelevant...
Well for a better understanding, i suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker by richard dawkins.

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Xanatos
Blind mindless faith perhapes?

Relevant how?

How can you use the scientific method to prove your reality is not a 100% construct of your mind?
Or something more "feasible", prove the origin of causality?

I'm not bagging the scientific method ( although I certainly don't believe it's absolute ), I'm just saying that's there's more out there that can be described by the method.

As for the whole uncertainty thing, I saw an good movie recently which was just a dialogue between a Jew and a German who were key in the nuclear programs on either side during WWII and who were friends.
Apparently the german came up with the uncertainty principal ( I think ) and the Jew thought is was flawed.
Maybe the principal developed further since the time the movie was set in.
Obviously it was based on true people, events, etc.