This is topic I stubbed my elbow with a vacuum cleaner. in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/613.html

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
Actually, I didn't.

Well, yes I did.

But that is besides the point. Anyway, I've been learning -- ready for it? -- Evolution *gasp* in my Biology class. Both the textbooks, and the teacher are quite quick to point out that evolution is A THEORY, and as such, is subject to the conditions that THEORIES are.

Now, in a step by step method, I'll try and conduct my train of thought (I = KING OF THE PUN), regarding this THEORY.

1. I get up and have breakfast.

2. The THEORY of Evolution is just that, a THEORY.

According to dictionary.com (Hopefully, a non Left Conspiracy site), the definition of THEORY is:

the�o�ry
n., pl. the�o�ries.
1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
b.Such knowledge or such a system.
2.Abstract reasoning; speculation.
3.A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: rose early, on the theory that morning
efforts are best; the modern architectural theory that less is more.
4.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

3. In addition, I am of the understanding that one single discrepancy in said theory, causes it to be either A) Disproven or B)Reworked, depending on the severity of the discrepancy.

4. So, If apples stopped falling of trees, apart from the abundance of Doctor house calls, we could either negate or amend the original THEORY of Gravity.

5. Am I okay so far?

6. I go to the bathroom. (The View was just on. Barbara Walters = Hot!)

7. As an example, The THEORY of Evolution is one THEORY of how people and animals and everything came to be. Correct?

8. So is the Bible.

9. Why is the Bible not considered a THEORY?

10. If the Bible is contradicted, it is not dismissed, or reevaluated? I am cononononondrumized.

10. In so far that these two situations could feasibly occur:

SITUATION 1:
[INT. LAB. DAY]
CUT TO:
SCIENTIST: "Dinosaurs evolved into Birds"
HOT ANCHOR LADY FROM CNN: "Fossils found today indicate that Dinosaurs and birds coexisted."
SCIENTIST: "Hmm. I do believe I must rethink my position. Ngoyen hoymen yamen flaven."

SITUATION 2:
[INT. CHURCH. DAY.]
JUMP CUT TO
PREACHER(NOT THE COMIC BOOK CHARACTER): "And, because the Lord said it is so, the World is only 4000 years old."
HOT ANCHOR LADY FROM CNN: "Geological Formations found today indicate that the world is 650,000,000 years old."
PREACHER(NTCBC): "That is created by Scientists, and has no basis in God's world. They do not have faith. The Bible is correct."

11. I don't understand.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.


[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited January 16, 2001).]
 


Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
Hey, UM, ever hear of the [/i] tag?

------------------
Two atoms walk into a bar. One atom says to the other atom:
"I've lost an electron!"
"Are you sure?"
"I'm positive!"

 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Only a moron would like your hypothetical preacher, UM. It'd be far more credible to deny the validity of your dating methods.

------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson
 


Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
 
What a coincidence! I'm taking Anthropology 200: Origins of Humanity! In fact, we're going to talk about Evolution vs. Creationism this week. Yippee. The professor's focus is on primates, so we get to read Jane Goodall and go to the zoo and watch monkeys. It's quite fascinating how non-human primates behave like humans.

------------------
"And smale foweles maken melodye,
And slepen al the nyght with open eye."
-Chaucer, Canterbury Tales
 


Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
...or vice versa for that matter...

------------------
"The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything


 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
UM: You don't understand? Well, there isn't much to understand. Religion is born of ignorance...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
 
That statement is born out of ignorance.

------------------
"And smale foweles maken melodye,
And slepen al the nyght with open eye."
-Chaucer, Canterbury Tales
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Isn't just about everything ignorant? Especially driving on the wrong side of the road. Sheeesh ...

(that was a joke there, by the way ...)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

 


Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :
 
Um Religion's as much a theory as the theory of evolution, if not more so as there's no real fact or proof behind it. Science has the attempt to be as real and unbiased as possible. Religion is far from unbiased.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
It's fun not to know what a scientific term means. Wee! Invisible elephants live inside my piano!

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.


 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
The Theory of Evolution is no longer a theory. It is accepted fact, and irrefutable evidence exists to prove this. All one has to do is educate oneself and see this for themselves. Now what is in question is how evolution occurs, with the only theory (now practically accepted as fact) being natural selection, ie. survival of the fittest. The only problem with natural selection is that while it explains many cases where evolution is observed, it can't explain them all. Random mutations have been cited as explanations of this but as far as I know this is in dispute.

A property of theories is that they are scientific, and thus can be disproven by observing something which is contradictory to the theory. A theory is used while it models the observable(s) accurately and is, as UM said, discarded or modified when the observable(s) differ(s) from the theory.

Religion is not scientific, as it cannot be proven that gods etc. do not exist (The fact that it can't be proven that they can exist, and that the whole idea is rather ridiculous are beside the point). As religion is not scientific, it cannot be a theory, and is relegated to the status of "playground for the ignorant", where "ignorant" is taken to mean "uninformed", and is not meant to be derogatory.


------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 17, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
The Theory of Evolution is no longer a theory. It is accepted fact, and irrefutable evidence exists to prove this.

You are aware that the same could have been said for the flatness of the world a millenium ago?

And you're basically saying, "OK, we KNOW for a fact that evolution occured. We just don't know how." Does this seem a LITTLE odd to anyone?

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Religions aren't theories. They're hypotheses.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
A hypothesis requires some, although minimal, thought on the subject, because it is colloquially referred to as "an educated guess." A hypothesis also requires openness to the possibility that it may be proven incorrect.

Religion generally has neither of these things, though the more modern forms pretend to have both.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master



 


Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :
 
The theory of evolution that man has evolved from monkeys, or other such evolutions has not been proven, as there is no possible way to prove it (without time machines and stuff)

While evolution is a scientific possiblity, there have been no scientific proofs, because evolution cannot be truly shown (within our lifespan, or even centuries.) As far back as our histories go, we have been human, or homo sapien sapiens. Since we don't have any record before that, all that is before is speculation.

Without 100% proof, everything is still a theory.

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Kinda like God then. No proof.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
There is no such thing as 'proof.' There is only which theory is supported by the largest amount of clear evidence, based upon inductive and deductive reasoning.

For instance, if two organisms contain genetic material that is 95% similar in structure, and given the FACTS of natural selection and mutation, it is reasonable to deduce that these two organisms were closely related in the fairly recent past. To say that the opposite might occur, to suppose that the creatues are genetically close because their environmental niche is close, is to ignore basic biological facts, including that of unrelated speciments which occupy the same niche in different places, examples of which are frequent in nature.

There is also no theory that man 'descended' from monkeys. Much more accurate would be to say that there once was an animal that was not quite a monkey OR a man, and that two branches of it diverged, and one became 'monkey' and one became 'man.'

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master



 


Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
 
The problem is not science vs. relgion, it's using science to explain religion, to explain everything. That in itself is the religion of Scientism.

"Ignorance"
Ignorance is being uninformed. Uninformed of what? Technically everyone is ignorant, only in different fields of expertise. The homeless on the street may know more about life or the psychology of generosity than we do.

------------------
"And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye."
-Chaucer, Canterbury Tales

 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
Actually, the problem that I had, is that if Science gets contradicted it's wrong, while when the Bible is contradicted, it's due to "Mistranslation" or "the hand of God works in mysterious ways, my son" or "the Bible is not wrong. Your evidence is incorrect."

Why the irrational treatment of the Bible?

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.



 


Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
 
Well, wait for Omega, cuz I ain't defending the Bible.

In the mean time, here's a cool article on Fundamentalism.

http://www.neopagan.net/ReligiousReich.HTML

------------------
"And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye."
-Chaucer, Canterbury Tales

 


Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
Although I'm not very religious, I try to balance the bible. I don't believe that it's 100% accurate, but I do believe that some of the events did happen and some of the people did exist, just not the way it's stated in the bible.

As far as evolution and man coming from monkeys...no. Man once existing in a primate-like species and evolved into what we are today, yes.

IMO religion was born out of our natural need to understand the universe. Only people couldn't, so in order to do so they created gods and said their god created the universe. An easy answer to a difficult question.

------------------
"Great Idea!!" - DARKSTAR
This post is sponsored in part by the Federation Starship Datalink

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited January 17, 2001).]
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
I've heard Christians say the same thing about ancient mythology. "Oh, Ppilimtec, Amon-Ra, Shica are all borne of the reason that ancient man wanted to know more about their world, so just made easy answers to hard questions."

"What? No, no. The Bible is real. All those other Gods are fake, just made up only our God is real."

Which deserves a 'Sweet Black Jesus!'.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.



 


Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
quote:
Which deserves a 'Sweet Black Jesus!'.

He is, and God is Alanis Morsett (sp)... at least according to "Dogma". Which I found funny that it has that disclaimer in the beginning.
quote:
I've heard Christians say the same thing about ancient mythology
Yeah, Christians are funny that way. With my luck I'm wrong and will burn in hell.

------------------
"Great Idea!!" - DARKSTAR
This post is sponsored in part by the Federation Starship Datalink
 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Omega: Yes, I am saying we know for a fact that evolution occurred, but we also have a good idea of how it occurred. The difference between the concept of evolution and the concept of a flat world is that although the flatness of the world was assumed, it wasn't proven. Evolution is proven. You're a librarian, am I correct? If the library has books on biology, or more specifically, evolution, I'm sure you'd find them easy enough to understand, and very interesting.

Saiyanman Benjita: Evolution is known to be as much a fact as gravity is. Although our description of these may not be complete, we know they exist. Before Newton quantified gravitational force we knew that if you held a stone and left it go it fell to the ground. Just because someone can't live long enough to see the effects of evolution, it doesn't mean that it can't be proven. When I did Biology in first year we were presented with 7 or 8 observed facts which prove that evolution exists. 100% proof, if you like. I can't remember them all, but one of the easiest to see is the study of a growing human foetus. In it's development the foetus is seen to go through stages which resemble an evolutionary path. For instance, a growing embryo has gills, which become some gland (thyroid, I think) later in development. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a phrase which is bandied about quite a lot, but isn't entirely accurate. It is more correct to say that ontogeny(study of embryos) reveals some aspects of phylogeny(study of evolutionary development).

More proof comes from the study of the Galapagos islands, where the development of birds which came from mainland south america can be seen as they progressed from island to island.

More proof comes from extensive fossil records.

Several case studies have observed evolution due to natural selection eg. a particular breed of bird(can't remember the name) which only eats one specific type of seed. When the weather is wet(over the course of a year), the seeds are large and fleshy, and the birds with smaller bills are at an advantage as they can eat faster, become better nourished, are chosen by the opposite sex, mate, and rear offspring. When the bill sizes are measured by biologists, the next generation of offspring have a marked decrease in bill size. If the weather is dry, the seeds are hard, and those birds with larger bills can crack open the seeds better, so the next generation of birds has a measured increase in bill size. The results show an accurate correlation between the weather and the bill sizes. There are many observed cases like this. Although the results aren't as dramatic as evolving a new organ or something, they are significant, and it is easy to see that environmental changes have an active role to play in the genome of the species.

There is an abundance of proof of this type. It might be worth trying to check some of this out for yourselves before trying to argue about it.

Tora Ziyal:

quote:
Ignorance is being uninformed. Uninformed of what? Technically everyone is ignorant, only in different fields of expertise. The homeless on the street may know more about life or the psychology of generosity than we do.
Well, uninformed about evolution, for one. Knowing about the psychology of generosity is all very well, but it doesn't help when trying to argue about the existance, or otherwise, of supernatural deities and the origin of life. But I'm sorry if my choice of words offended some of you.

Hobbes: Your explanation of the origin of religion is exactly correct. The events in the Bible are just exaggerated versions of events that may or may not have happened.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 18, 2001).]
 


Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Just out of interest, UM, where's your sig from? I like Ellison, and want to read more. . .

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Gurgeh: *adopts extremely poorly done accent* Omega? 'e's not a librarian, 'e's an aide! Oi'm a librarian!
*drops extremely poorly done accent*

You have to have a B.S or M.S. in Library Science to be actually qualified as a librarian. Everybody else is a clerk or a parapro.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, you CAN get a part-time job as a "circulation assistant", if you have a HS dimploma/GED, here, but I don't suppose that counts.

And I'm not actually even an aide, yet. They haven't filled their last two positions.

Gurgeh:

Your example of birds is flawed. The English Pepper Moth (I believe that was the name) comes to mind. When the trees were white, the white moths survived more easily, due to coloration and being able to blend. The trees turned black with soot, and then the black moths became prevelant. The trees were cleaned up, and the white moths again became dominant. This is NOT evolution. This is natural selection. There's a BIG difference. The species is not evolving into another species.

Now show me a time when one of a creature's decendents becomes incapable of reproducing with another of the original creature's decendents, THEN you'll have proof of evolution. Maybe.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Give the moths a little bit more than 20 years to adapt.

Actually, the long-term example of Gurgeh's bird statement can be clearly seen in the finches of the Galapagos, who clearly have a common ancestor, who have adapted to fill different niches, and who do not now interbreed.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Can you prove that they had a common ancestor? Can you prove that they can't interbreed? Or are these just assumptions on your part?

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
There was recently an experiment which seems to have proven (not irrefutably, but pretty well) that Neanderthals are a side-branch of the human evolutionary tree. A large number of people in Europe had their mitochondrial DNA compared to that of a fossilized Neanderthal. None matched. (As I understand it, mitochondrial DNA is duplicated exactly from mother to child. So, your mitochondrial DNA is identical to your mother's, and her mother's, and her mother's, &c., back as far as you care to count (barring mutations, I expect).)

Anyway, my point is... Couldn't something similar be done w/ the fossils we have of past members of the Homo and Australopithecus genera? Presumably, matches would be found, which would show that today's humans are, in fact, related to those other species.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Omega: I acknowledge your point about the birds still being able to interbreed, but this doesn't mean my example is "flawed". The natural selection is definitely altering the genome of the birds. I'm not an expert on genetics, but if slight alterations like this were continuously made to the genome over millions of years due to environmental changes (and despite what that book says, we have had much more than 5,000 years to evolve), I find it easy to envision the genetic differences being too great to allow the birth of fertile offspring. This is compounded by the fact that a species can branch into several evolutionary paths, so that these new strains would become species distinct from each other more quickly.

The case of the birds on the Galapagos Islands is well documented and proven. Bear in mind also that the definition of "species" is not merely that members of the same species must be able to produce offspring, but that they must be able to produce fertile offspring.

About the homo sapiens and neanderthal thing, I haven't heard of any project to compare the DNA of homo sapiens with that of past members of the genus, but it's probably been done already, and I agree that it would be another good way to prove the existance of evolution. Then again, most scientists don't need the existance of evolution pointed out to them yet again.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 18, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
if slight alterations like this were continuously made to the genome over millions of years due to environmental changes, I find it easy to envision the genetic differences being too great to allow the birth of fertile offspring.

Just one problem: we're not talking about alterations in the genome. A different breed of, say, dog doesn't have any really different genes from any other breed. It's simply a different combination of existing traits.

The only way new genetic material can be created (in nature, at least) is through random mutation. If a random mutation took place that made, say, me incapable of reproducing with the rest of humankind, then, yes, I would constitute a new species. The only problem is that, for me to reproduce, and pass along this new gene, there'd have to be another person with the EXACT SAME RANDOM MUTATION, and the chances of that are infinitesimal. Even if a new species was created through mutation, it'd die out within one generation.

Thus the theory of evolution can be shredded in two paragraphs. It just doesn't work. It's as simple as that.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
>"If a random mutation took place that made, say, me incapable of reproducing with the rest of humankind,"

We would all be most appreciative (just kidding)

>"The only problem is that, for me to reproduce, and pass along this new gene, there'd have to be another person with the EXACT SAME RANDOM MUTATION, and the chances of that are infinitesimal. Even if a new species was created through mutation, it'd die out within one generation."

*sigh*
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Mutation does not occur through individuals, it occurs through GROUPS. Everybody with a smattering of understanding on the subject knows that. Get that through your cranium. Species changes do NOT occur with ONE mutation, or within ONE generation.

ONE mutation occurs. WITHIN A POPULATION of beings.
The mutant's changed condition enables it to better survive, and pass along its trait to its offspring. The small change thereby slowly passes through the surviving population. (What you have NOW is a minor subspecies) THEN, another small change occurs. and another, and another. Eventually, you pass up the scale to subspecies (or race, if you're talking h. sapiens). Still capable of interbreeding, BUT also physically different and adapted to different conditions.

Finally, after GENERATIONS, enough changes have occured that, while the small community can interbreed with each other, they are now too genetically disparate to mate with outside communities which, while still genetically similar, have likewise been mutating in their own directions.

THAT is how species differentiate.

SOMETIMES, species that are still very close on the evolutionary tree (like wild animals and their domestic counterparts) can still interbreed (but often this requires outside intervention, such as those with mules and tigons and ligers. Or, species which have only recently undergone differentiation (like the different species/subspecies of a certain bird that ring the arctic circle,) can sometimes interbreed (but not at the ends of the chain) but this shows the midrange of the cycle, it does not disprove it.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 18, 2001).]
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"We would all be most appreciative (just kidding)"

As far as the "just kidding" goes, speak for yourself... :-)

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
So, First, you're suggesting that a group of mutations, taken together, would prevent a specimine from reproducing with other specimines, whereas any single one of those mutations wouldn't? I'd love to know how that would function. It doesn't make any genetic sense. There will be a single mutation that is the dividing line between reproducing with the rest of the species, and not. That mutation can not be passed on, unless you like playing with genetic engineering. Thus, no new species can be created naturally.

Another thing that doesn't make any sense about your model is that you could quite easily end up with a situation where group A can reproduce with group B, and group B can reproduce with group C, but group A can NOT reproduce with group C. That just doesn't work. Let's put it in code:

if (a == b && b == c && a != c)
{
printf ("Evolution works!\n");
}

else
{
printf ("Evolution sucks!\n");
}

Care to guess what this program generates?

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
It's disparaging to see that they have rocks big enough now that people can live under them.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.



 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
For the pleasure of pleasing a poet.

NOTE: It's NOT www.woh-gives-teh-fuck!!!!1!!!.com.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.



 


Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
 
Read that article in the link I posted. Omega fits the analysis quite well. You know, pigeonholing the dynamics of life and all that.

------------------
"And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye."
-Chaucer, Canterbury Tales

 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
...trying to discuss religion with a fundamentalist is somewhat like trying to discuss color theory with people who can only see black and white. When you try to point out, however diplomatically, that their vision is limited by their inability to see red, green, blue or yellow, they will insist that it is your view that is the limited one, because you can't see that a black and white worldview is more accurate in some ultimate way.

ROFLMAO

You're right, actually -- I'm reading this article going, "yep, that sounds like Omega ..."

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Has anyone else noticed that Omega speaks of genetics as if he's won a Nobel Prize in the field and knows everything there is to know about it, but then he assumes that the transitive property of equality is somehow related to procreation?

Say, Omega... If Yahweh wants A to mate with B and B to mate with C, but not A with C, can't he do that?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
He, uh, didn't?

So he ISN'T an authority on Genetics? Well, that beats my canned beans.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.



 


Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Thanks UM!

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
" That just doesn't work. Let's put it in code:"

I don't HAVE to put it in code. It HAPPENS in NATURE. Nature trumps code, sorry.

I will, for your edification (you quite obviously need it), post the species names and the source just as soon as possible. Possibly tonight, when I have my hands on the book, possibly tomorrow. All I can tell you now is that it's a genus of birds the specied of which ring the arctic circle. And it's been PROVEN.

The same thing PROBABLY happens among the penguins of the south pole.

You are WRONG.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!

Doesn't this seem a bit like what you say I do with creation?

Before you even post your "proof," let me ask: has it been proven that these species/sub-species CAN NOT reproduce? 'Cause otherwise, you got nothing.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!

I can't believe you're talking about yourself like this.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

 


Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
This is altogether too much.
 
Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :
 
*giggles like Ayeka from "Tenchi Muyo" about all of this!*

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy


 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Omega: The anwer is YES.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master



 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Omega: First clearly told you he would post the evidence. Perhaps you should wait and SEE the evidence before criticising it (as you undoubtedly will).
I'll see if I can dig up some of my old notes on evolution. Also, instead of just rubbishing other people's evidence, maybe you could supply us with some facts to support your views constructively. The Bible doesn't count, by the way.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star
 


Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
 
Here's an interspecies mating incident.

http://www.geocities.com/stormlance/sealion.htm

------------------
"And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye."
-Chaucer, Canterbury Tales

 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Okay, everybody pay attention, because you'll NEVER, EVER hear anything like this again.

I was WRONG.

Oh, I'm NOT wrong about how speciation occurs, or that Omega clearly doesn't understand the concept.

I was wrong about my source, though. I went home and looked through all my science books, and then realized to my great humiliation that the example I put forward did exist... hypothetically.

That is, the species that I THOUGHT proved my point was a speculative construct, not a real incident.

So I screwed up MAJORLY on that bit.
Sorry, My fault, I apologize. Sometimes it's NOT helpful to remember everything you come across... when you don't remember WHERE you came across it.

(**NOTE**) This does NOT preclude the possibility that an example exists elsewhere, and I just haven't found it yet.

In any case, I'd like to take this opportunity to use another analogy.

Species evolve like languages.
Latin, a parent language, became French, Italian, and Spanish. Similar, but clearly distinct. Languages evolve by the same mechanisms as species.

Start with group A and B.
Both speak the same language.
Now separate them. Put some kind of barrier between them (like the Pyrenees) and see that there's little cross-group mixing.
Leave Group A alone.
Now, introduce a new word into the language of group B. (Instead of 'pen', we'll call it 'frindle!') Let it spread throughout the population of B.
Now everybody in B says 'frindle.' They all still understand each other.
Now introduce another word. "Zarg" for Cat, or something. Allow it to spread in the same manner.
Repeat the process several thousand times.

You will find that the languages of A and B now difer considerably. Enough that people from A cannot now be understood by people from B, and vice-versa. BUT, at no point could the people of B NOT understand each other, as they ALL evolved at the same time. There was no point at which some one 'mutated' individual in group B was TOO different to the others to be understood.

THAT is how it happens, kids.


------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q


[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 20, 2001).]
 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Worryingly, that makes sense.

But it's not so much a case of words being introduced (In most modern lanuages, "modern" words, such as, oh "internet", or "computer", tend to be rather similar, even in disparate languages, simply because everyone was talking to each other when the words were invented. But I digress).

In most cases, the words have "evolved" over time. So the word "flonty" might have, in one country, become "flonky,", "dronky", "donkey". Whereas another language might have gone "flonty," "fronty", "monty". They started from the same point, but over the passage of years, they ended up as different words.

Er, that made no sense. Ignore it.

There is the example of the horse and donkey though. They can interbreed, and produce an offspring. However, any offspring will be sterile, which is why they count as different species.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Actually, Liam, according to my equine-knowledgable sources, there are breeds of mule that are fertile.

Rob:

A language isn't a gene pool. Your analogy is too simplistic. Regardless of whether it works in language or not, genetically, you can't have A==B, B==C, A!=C. It just doesn't work, because of the definition of species.

Under any circumstances, here's a question for you: what, exactly, makes a human incapable of genetic reproduction with a gorilla? What are the specific genetic differences that make it impossible? Then we'll have some idea of what'd have to mutate to cause a new species to evolve.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
That's your problem, right there. It's NOTHING specific. It's the cumulative results of ALL the minor changes. There is no one single "this is the gene that makes crosbreeding impossible" mutation.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q



 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Here I have typed up some of my notes on Evolution. Bear with it, it gets to the interbreeding thing eventually. I'm also going to look up the interbreeding thing in particular.

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
1. Most animals produced large numbers of offspring. If they all survived there would be too many. The amount of adults stays constant. There is competition for the maintenance of like as resources are limited. There is a struggle for existence.
2. The individuals of a species and the offspring differ from each other slightly. Such differences could give them an advantage, therefore, they survive and reproduce. Survival of the fittest.
3. Organisms produce like organisms. Offspring have the same characteristics as the parents, so if the parent had an advantage, the offspring now have it. The Origin of Species.

Neo-Darwinism
Darwin - 1858
Mendel - 1865 Laws of Inheritance
DeVries - 1903 Mutations
Sutton - 1903 Link between gene transmission and chromosome behaviour in meiosis.

Evidence Supporting Evolution
1. Biogeography
The geographical distribution of species makes sense only in the context of evolution. Islands have many species of plants and animals that are endemic, yet they are closely related to species on the mainland of neighbouring islands. Two islands having very similar environments but positioned in different parts of the world will probably not be inhabited by closely related species, but will be closely related to species on the nearest mainland. This is because island species came or were brought to the island, and with the passage of time, they evolved differently due to their isolation. E.g. Where islands have arisen from separation from a mainland, their fauna can resemble fauna on the mainland, but differences arise which can only be explained by evolution. Snakes are common in Europe, present in Eastern England, rarer in Wales, and absent in Ireland. Isolated Irish fauna has marked similarities and differences from the Continental fauna. Endemic species to the island must have evolved from the original fauna after separation from the mainland took place.
Islands of volcanic origin (e.g. Galapagos) are completely devoid of life initially, but become inhabited by animals and plants. Though these plants and animals resemble the mainland species, they have differences, e.g. Giant tortoises and finches on the Galapagos islands. The species evolve to fill a particular niche in the habitat.

2. Fossil Record.
Most of the rocks that form the crust of the earth are arranged in layers. The oldest rocks form the lowest layers and the newest rocks form the top layers. Animals and plants have become embedded in sedimentary rock during it�s deposition. These fossils provide a record of the plants and animals of the past. The fossil records indicate that life has existed on the planet for about 4 billion years. Fossils show extinct animals and some of these extinct animals are transitional forms of living animals. The fossil record is not perfect due to improbable chance factors in the formation, endurance, exposure and discovery, of fossil species.

3. Taxonomy.
The fact that we can group animals according to their anatomical characteristics indicates that they have evolved from the same genus.

4. Comparative Anatomy.
The comparative study of the form and structure of animals and plants reveals that structures of the same embryonic state have different functions, e.g. use of limbs, but they are all composed of the same structural elements, indicating that they have evolved from a common ancestor. These elements are homologous structures.

5. Comparative embryology.
Closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development. All vertebrate embryos have gill slits during the early stage of embryonic development. At this early stage, embryos of all animals look similar. As development progresses, the embryos of different vertebrates become dissimilar, e.g. in fish, gill slits become gills, in mammals they have different functions. Comparative embryology indicates that evolution has taken place.

6. Molecular Biology.
Species that are judged to be closely related because of similar morphological characteristics will have similar DNA. The hereditary background of an organism is documented in the DNA which constitutes it�s genes and in it�s proteins, which are the products of genes. These genetic similarities indicate evolution from a common ancestor.

7. Populations evolve over time in response to selective forces in the environment.
Evolution occurs because of interaction between organisms and their environment. Evolution of a population is seen as a change in presence of certain characteristic traits over a succession of generations. E.g. Peppered moths ( Biston betularia), were speckled as camouflage with lichen- covered trees and rocks. In 1850 a dark, melanic form, named variety carbonaria, became more successful in industrial areas of England, where soot darkened walls, while the light variety remained more successful in the rural areas.

Definitions
Species - A species is a group of natural populations, which have the potential to interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

Gene Pool - Total aggregate of genes in a population at any one time. Consists of all of the alleles at all gene loci in all individuals of a population.

Alleles - Alternative versions of genes found on homologous chromosomes occupying similar loci but carrying contrasting inheritance factors.

Evolution may be described as the changes in the frequencies of the alleles over time. For example, in the peppered moth population living in the unpolluted region, the allele for light colour has a higher frequency in the population than the allele for dark colour, but in the industrialized areas, the allele for dark colour was more frequent. When alleles change frequency within gene pools accompanies by corresponding phenotypic changes (changes observable in the actual organism), evolution has occurred. Such a change in the gene pool is called microevolution.

Hardy- Weinberg Equilibrium. (Idealism)
The gene pool remains constant from generation to generation in sexually producing populations if :
1. The population is very large
2. The population is isolated
3. There are no mutations
4. Mating is random
5. All genotypes are equal in reproductive success.

The 5 potential agents of evolution are:
1. Genetic drift. In small populations, the death of individuals can significantly alter allele frequencies in the gene pool.

2. Gene Flow. Individuals with unusual allele frequencies may enter or leave the population.

3. Mutations are the original source of genetic variation that serves as raw material for natural selection.

4. Non-random mating. The choice of mating pairs is influenced by genotypes of individuals and is not governed by chance.

5. Genotypes are not equal in reproductive success. All individuals in a population are not equal in their ability to produce viable fertile offspring. This is natural selection. Alleles may be passed on to the next generation in numbers disproportionate in their frequencies in the present population.


HOW EVOLUTION OCCURS
Mutations are regarded as the raw material for evolutionary change. A mutation is the change of a gene from one allelic form to another. It is an inheritable change in the DNA sequence of a chromosome. Mutations are rare and occur by chance. A mutation that alters a protein enough to affect it�s function is more often harmful than beneficial. On rare occasions a mutant allele may outfit it�s bearer a little better to the environment. That individual reproduces and passes on it�s mutant gene to it�s offspring.
As a result of random mutations, dark peppered moths were present in an area dominated by light coloured moths before pollution darkened the landscape in industrial areas. The mutation became an advantage as the dark moths escaped the predatory birds.
Mutations are the source of new genes but they are very infrequent. Mutations are characteristic of populations.

THREE TYPES OF NATURAL SELECTION
Stabilizing - Extreme types are eliminated. For example, stabilizing selection keeps the majority of human births in the 3-4kg range. Infant mortality is greater for babies much smaller or larger than this.

Disruptive - Extreme types are selected. This occurs when environmental conditions favour the extreme types, e.g. in Cameroon there is a population of finches, black bellied seed crackers. Some individuals have small beaks, and they feed on soft seeds. Others have large beaks and feed by cracking hard seeds. Disruptive selection selects against intermediate types.

Directional - One of the extreme types is favoured, pushing the population along a particular path of evolution. Occurs during periods of environmental change.


Any factor that impedes two different species from producing fertile hybrids contributes to reproductive isolation.
(i) Prevent mating or fertilization.
-Populations do not meet
-Mating occurs at different times of the year
in each species
-No attraction between sexes
-Reproductive organs structurally incompatible

(ii) Prevent development of fertile adults
-Hybrid zygote fails to develop
-Hybrids fail to produce functional gametes
-Offspring of hybrids may have reduced
fertility


THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
Two principle modes of speciation:
Allopatric speciation: May occur in geographically isolated populations, when a splinter population diverges in evolution from its parent population.

Sympatric speciation: (Plants). Occurs principally by a radical change in the genome which results in a sub-population becoming reproductively isolated in the midst of its parent population

The key event in speciation is genetic isolation

ADAPTIVE RADIATION
The emergence of numerous new species from a common ancestor introduced to an environment presenting a diversity of new opportunities and problems is called adaptive radiation.

Primitive Cursorial Land mammals ------> Aquatic (Whales & Dolphins)
Arboreal (Primates)
Aerial (Bats)
Subterranean ( Moles)


MACRO-EVOLUTION
Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of:

It is a consequence of the interactions of organisms with their environments. An important event in the formation of higher groups is the appearance of an evolutionary novelty through:

(i) The gradual modification of an existing structure for a new function.
E.g. Birds may have evolved from agile bipedal reptiles. The wings and feather-like structures probably already functioned in netting insects for the fleet-footed reptiles. The initial flying may have been just a big hip in pursuit of prey or escape from predators, but natural selection would have allowed these feathered creatures to survive and reproduce. The wings and feathers were remodeled for flying.

(ii) A change in a regulatory gene. The development of an animal depends not only on structural genes but also on regulatory genes. The regulatory genes coordinate the activity of structural genes, guiding the rate and pattern of development. Each regulatory gene influences hundreds of structural genes. A mutation in a regulatory gene gives a larger result than a mutation in a structural gene.

A species may become extinct if it�s habitat has been destroyed. Therefore, extinction is inevitable in a changing world.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 20, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Rob:

You just don't seem to get it. There will be a clear dividing line in your model. One one side, you'll have people who can't reproduce with the rest of the population, and on the other, you'll have people who can. There's no middle ground. That dividing line is caused by a single mutation because it HAS TO BE. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a clear division.

And you have yet to answer to my objection about having three groups that only sort-of constitute a species.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
You realize, of course, that there is no such hard boundary; that the very notion of 'species' is just a handy reference we use; that it is because all life on Earth has evolved and is evolving that these solid boundaries you seem so keen on fail to exist? No, of course you don't. And really, what's the point in anyone bothering to explain. It's been over a year now and we've made slightly less progress than a team of yaks hitched to Mt. Everest. We could continue until all the participants had actually evolved into a new species and we still wouldn't get anywhere.

Hmm...that might make for a good skit.

"Well, it appears our argument is finally over. We've proved evolution is true."

"No you haven't!"

"What? Look, you silly person, you've got no pinkies left!"

"Yes I do."

"No you don't! And your skull is 13% larger."

"I've had a cold."

"A cold?!"

"Come on then, let's talk C decay! I'll pulverize you!"

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.


 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Omega: We've already established that there AREN'T clear divisions, a lot of the time. Didn't you notice? Mules? Tigons? Ligers?

Perhaps your equation would make a bit more sense if you used the WAVY Equals sign (I don't know how to make it on here) which means "Is APPROXIMATELY equal to, but not exactly." I'll use a ~ to demonstrate.

A~B~C
A~B
B~C
BUT
A is not = C

Just as, on a grand scale, (pretend you're a 3-sequence code for a second)

aststtaststtatssst ~ atssttastttaatssst (5 degrees of difference)
atssttastttaatssst ~ stssttaatttaatssta (4 degrees of difference)

but aststtaststtatssst is not ~ stssttaatttaatssta (9 degrees of difference)

So that if the critical number of degrees for not-mateability is, say, SEVEN, the A+B species and the B+C species are close enough to reproduce together, but the A+C species are NOT.

Since only SINGLE degrees ocur with any one mutation, it never reaches the critical number WITHIN any group.

(Actually, though, the critical degree number must be MUCH higher, since every human offspring has about 100 single-bit mutations, and WE can all still reproduce, for the most part.)

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
You're suggesting that there's no clear division of species? Perhaps you should look up "species". It either can reproduce, or it can't. There is NO middle ground. Thus, clear division, thus evolution falls apart.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
You are SO the last word in everything.

Why does anyone bother with Omega anymore? He's so jaded, naive and generally anything else that prevents a good rational argument about anything ever in the history of arguments ever.

You know what he's going to say, so why?

I don't know.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited January 20, 2001).]
 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Yes, I'm actually kicking myself now for having spent so much time typing that stuff. It was obviously time wasted. Next time I'll just let Omega wallow in his ignorance. 8|

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 20, 2001).]
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Omega: You're suggesting that there's a clear division of species? Perhaps you should stop assuming such a strict definition of "species". It either can reproduce, or it can't, and that means jack shit. There is a middle ground. Thus, no clear division, thus evolution works.

Oh, and, once and for all, you're a fucking moron.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
The next question, to TSN, is: What evidence do you have for this belief??

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget


 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
you're a fucking moron

Come on, calling Omega names isn't going to get him to change his argument, and it certainly doesn't make your arguments all the more convincing. Well ... nothing is going to get him to change his argument, honestly, (short of The Almighty telling him that He created the world through evolution) but I, for one, had it beaten into me that this isn't the place to flame people, only ideas ...

You know, it might be a good idea to change the name of this forum to "Debate-Board" not "Flameboard" because people get the wrong ideas

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 21, 2001).]
 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
With all due respect, JeffK, I've seen some of your debates with Omega and, while I understand how annoying he can be, you sometimes lost the rag too.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Indeed I did, and every time I did, I got the whole "ideas not people" lecture too Which is why I said that,

I, for one, had it beaten into me that this isn't the place to flame people, only ideas ...

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 21, 2001).]
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Jeff: Well, I've tried logic on him, and it doesn't work, so I just felt like point out, at that moment, that he's a fucking moron. I realize we all knew it already, but something urged me to explicitly state it at that point, so I did.

Besides, I preceded it w/ my rational arguement. It was just an addendum...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Well, it's not like I'm saying he's not, it's just that ... oh, nevermind. I'm going to bed now.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
I wouldn't mind except for the fact that Omega didn't seem to read the big spiel I posted earlier, then posted subsequently arguing about something which I appeared to have clarified, namely the interbreeding of species.

Here is the part most relevant to the interbreeding issue from what I posted.

Any factor that impedes two different species from producing fertile hybrids contributes
to reproductive isolation.
(i) Prevent mating or fertilization.
-Populations do not meet
-Mating occurs at different times of the year
in each species
-No attraction between sexes
-Reproductive organs structurally incompatible

(ii) Prevent development of fertile adults
-Hybrid zygote fails to develop
-Hybrids fail to produce functional gametes
-Offspring of hybrids may have reduced
fertility


THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
Two principle modes of speciation:
Allopatric speciation: May occur in geographically isolated populations, when a
splinter population diverges in evolution from its parent population.

Sympatric speciation: (Plants). Occurs principally by a radical change in the genome
which results in a sub-population becoming reproductively isolated in the midst of its
parent population

The key event in speciation is genetic isolation

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 22, 2001).]
 


Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Omega: What, no reply? No retort? Have we finally convinced you?

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited January 23, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
No, I just tend to ignore flaming sessions. Especially when I'm the one getting flamed.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Yes, so why don't you flame TSN, and then reply to Gurgeh?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
For the record, out of curiosity, I just checked a number of dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Nowhere in any definition of 'species' written within the last 20 years is there the statement that animals of different species (but the same genus) CANNOT interbreed, only that they "generally" do not. Which they don't. We help them, sometimes, with in-viro fertilization and other artificial measures, but generally, they don't do it on their own.

Omega, you need newer reference books, or something.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q



 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
I would imagine that the one book he is using, which is 4000 years old, is a little out-of-date.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K
 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Surely 2000 years old?

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Now be fair. Omega's reading SOME fairly recently-written books written by those Creationist authors. Of course, the (non-Biblical) sources THEY use are generally anywhere from 30-150 years old, (I mean, the Paluxy 'human and dino' tracks were discredited in what, 1975?) and generally loaded with poor scientific techniques (like the guys who were out to challenge radiocarbon dating and deliberately fudged their data by using samples known to be contaminated, and metamorphic rock), but at least the paper is new.

Of course, it IS sad to think of how many trees have been sacrificed for such a purpose... but they kill more to print "Archie" comics.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q



 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
Dammit! Shut up. That Veronica's some hot. I'd go for a little 'pen in the ink well' if you know what I mean. Heheh.

I LIKE SHINY OBJECT!!!!!!!!!

*beep*

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K
 




© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3