|
28th October 2003, 17:08 | #81 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
28th October 2003, 17:12 | #82 | |
|
Quote:
you recall correctly, bubbi pretty fly. |
|
28th October 2003, 17:19 | #83 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
28th October 2003, 17:23 | #84 | |
The Bicycle for Fish
|
Quote:
random + not random = random and I say random + not random = not random I have yet to see any reasoning for your thesis. |
|
28th October 2003, 17:26 | #85 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
|
|
28th October 2003, 17:59 | #86 | |
|
Quote:
It is like adding an odd number to an even number - you get an odd number. |
|
28th October 2003, 18:01 | #87 | |
|
Quote:
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 |
|
28th October 2003, 18:20 | #88 | |
The Bicycle for Fish
|
Quote:
|
|
28th October 2003, 19:20 | #89 |
|
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. |
28th October 2003, 20:14 | #90 |
The Bicycle for Fish
|
|
28th October 2003, 22:23 | #91 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
28th October 2003, 23:14 | #92 | |
|
Quote:
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. |
|
28th October 2003, 23:39 | #93 | |
|
Quote:
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. |
|
28th October 2003, 23:45 | #94 | |||
The Bicycle for Fish
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
28th October 2003, 23:54 | #95 |
|
Okay, you've stumped me. I've run out of different ways to say the same thing.
|
29th October 2003, 00:04 | #96 |
The Bicycle for Fish
|
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.
|
29th October 2003, 00:14 | #97 |
|
Do you beleive in god Uncle Gus?
|
29th October 2003, 00:18 | #98 |
|
I'm God!
and you're just a pedantic bastard.
|
29th October 2003, 00:27 | #99 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
29th October 2003, 00:30 | #100 | |
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by armourking : 29th October 2003 at 00:34. |
|
29th October 2003, 01:26 | #101 |
|
-- #(_!_)# TFA Network Drone |
29th October 2003, 01:34 | #102 |
|
Do you think we'll evolve so men can breastfeed baby crocodiles?
|
29th October 2003, 04:00 | #103 | |
|
Quote:
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. |
|
29th October 2003, 07:08 | #104 | |
Antagonist Prime
|
There is a bill hicks quote for everything.
Quote:
|
|
29th October 2003, 08:13 | #105 |
|
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!!! |
29th October 2003, 08:20 | #106 | |
|
Re: There is a bill hicks quote for everything.
Quote:
All Bill Hicks got was dead. Last edited by Lightspeed : 29th October 2003 at 08:22. |
|
29th October 2003, 08:23 | #107 | |
|
Re: Re: There is a bill hicks quote for everything.
Quote:
|
|
29th October 2003, 08:24 | #108 | |
|
Quote:
So what's the point being all smart about it? |
|
29th October 2003, 08:25 | #109 |
|
It makes me feel like a big man.
|
29th October 2003, 08:27 | #110 | |
|
Quote:
Still, I don't think it's possible to apply the Scientific Method to everything. |
|
29th October 2003, 08:36 | #111 | |
Antagonist Prime
|
Quote:
|
|
29th October 2003, 09:10 | #112 |
|
Or talking in tongues?
|
29th October 2003, 09:13 | #113 |
Bobo Fettish
|
Rrargglelbrfeeefffooamooople!
|
29th October 2003, 10:38 | #114 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
29th October 2003, 10:53 | #115 |
|
FINALLY! this thread gets onto talk of boobies like any good evolution thread does.
__________________
@madlep I'm not Australian, I just live there ubercharged.net - Tales of Team Fortress 2 pwnage and other hilarity |
29th October 2003, 11:17 | #116 | |
Here be dragons
|
Quote:
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! |
|
29th October 2003, 11:22 | #117 |
|
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.
|
29th October 2003, 11:25 | #118 |
Bobo Fettish
|
Uh oh, someone knows what they're talking about ... Quick, lets make fun of his mum and/or his potentially small weener.
Hur hur. |
29th October 2003, 12:49 | #119 |
|
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. Last edited by s0nic : 29th October 2003 at 12:53. |
29th October 2003, 16:13 | #120 | |
|
Quote:
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. |
|