- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation...
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:27 pm to Bmath
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:27 pm to Bmath
MLK was known for his outspoken stances on civil rights for minorities. I've criticized MLK for the affairs. It's been published that JFK's wife tapped his phone and gathered intelligence that MLK engaged in orgies. Whether this is true or not, idk, but it is widely accepted he had affairs, and he was a minister.
I don't think it's wrong at all the qualify MLK in a history class by pointing to the fact he had affairs. For whatever reason, having an affair is deemed in the public to not be as bad as racism today.
I think Darwin should be qualified as a matter of academic honesty with his views on women and minorities.
I don't think it's wrong at all the qualify MLK in a history class by pointing to the fact he had affairs. For whatever reason, having an affair is deemed in the public to not be as bad as racism today.
I think Darwin should be qualified as a matter of academic honesty with his views on women and minorities.
0
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:36 pm to bfniii
quote:
one problem that i don't see ucd advocates answering is predation, why did it ever get started in the first place? what was the first organism to consume another and why? how did the first predator ever get the notion that "i need to kill and consume this other organism"? was it out of natural resources or was it just for fun?
This is like asking why did humanity create fire. Or the spear. It's because they needed to, it was advantageous, and they adapted to an environment they could thrive in. No I don't know the specific organism or when a organism first consumed another, but I also don't know the first time a human took a club to kill something either. You can be sure it happened and for obvious reasons.
quote:
another problem is gender. why did that ever need to happen? the first amino acid and protein chains were perfectly fine having no gender. when did gender develop?
Because it was advantageous to their species survival. It was a mutation that made it more adept than its asexual competition. And that's still the way it is today.
quote:
why do lions kill the litter of another male when they take over a female?
Because those cubs are going to grow up soon and likely be stronger than he is, and then kill him. That and because it's in their nature.
quote:
also, if organisms were truly interested in preservation of the species, they would cooperate to overcome natural selection.
What the hell do you mean by that? Do you really think most animals are capable of actively planning their species future survival and isn't mostly acting out of self preservation? How are they supposed to plan this? I can't think of an animal that doesn't do this in some form, otherwise they wouldn't have made it at all.
quote:
how many times have documentaries captured beasts of burden not protecting their offspring from predators?
Because they can live to frick and breed another day. And you do realize there is a difference between a bear and a praying mantis, right? Seriously go test your dumb theory about animal parents abandoning their young with a bear or an elephant. They're pretty damn protective of their young.
What works for one species doesn't necessarily work for another. Plus some of them lay thousands of eggs knowing that 99% of them will be killed, but that 1% will live on and further the species.
Really have you put any thought in this whatsoever?
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:46 pm to OMLandshark
You do realize he raises some valid points. His argument centers around motivated behaviors, which is the development of the limbic system and the autonomic nervous system. It also centers around cognition and intelligence, both of which are interesting neuroanatomical and physiological considerations.
You referenced "being in their nature". That's Genetics, which is one of the worst scientific fields in my opinion because of the growing recognition in twin studies of epigenetic control factors. I'm not discrediting the ability to survive that you present, but spontaneous manifestation of behavior is an argument neuroanatomically and physiologically.
Many point to higher levels of cognition humans have as a conceptual argument against accepting evolution. They also point to language as a primary distinguishment given the genetic similarities of humans and chimps, which is purported to be 99%.
You referenced "being in their nature". That's Genetics, which is one of the worst scientific fields in my opinion because of the growing recognition in twin studies of epigenetic control factors. I'm not discrediting the ability to survive that you present, but spontaneous manifestation of behavior is an argument neuroanatomically and physiologically.
Many point to higher levels of cognition humans have as a conceptual argument against accepting evolution. They also point to language as a primary distinguishment given the genetic similarities of humans and chimps, which is purported to be 99%.
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:50 pm to tuptiger
quote:
I don't believe in the theory of evolution.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:57 pm to tuptiger
quote:
You do realize he raises some valid points.
I don't think he does. Every single one of his points didn't require a single second's thought for a refute on it. Like the first organism that ate another. Well it makes sense that if you can get away from small volcanic vents that your species would become much larger and go much further as a species. So one mutation allowed a species to consume other species and another allowed for them to absorb sunlight, so they spread and were much more successful species because of it. Mutations happen all the time, and this even matches your micro/macroevolution bullshite.
quote:
His argument centers around motivated behaviors, which is the development of the limbic system and the autonomic nervous system.
Ok, so what made our ancestors stand up on two legs, harness fire, and craft tools and weapons? Because of the environment, mutations that complimented that environment, and a need to change. No difference. It makes sense for a lion to kill the young of a past patriarch given how lions behave.
quote:
You referenced "being in their nature". That's Genetics, which is one of the worst scientific fields in my opinion because of the growing recognition in twin studies of epigenetic control factors.
Genetics is probably OJ Simpson's least favorite scientific field, and that's because it proves that he's full of shite and lying. That's why you don't like it either, because it proves your points are total nonsense.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 6:02 pm to OMLandshark
I didn't say I agreed with his evidence. Only that he raises valid points.
Lol on OJ. Genetics has its useful points.
I just think as a field so much is unknown at this point about the environment affecting genes that it's difficult to use Genetics as an argument either way. People would say environmental control or affect on an individual is learned and not conventionally defined as truly "genetic". But, now science is just beginning the realize the environmental stimuli that cause differences in gene expression. That's not conventionally genetic. And it's difficult to conclude that something is "genetic".
Lol on OJ. Genetics has its useful points.
I just think as a field so much is unknown at this point about the environment affecting genes that it's difficult to use Genetics as an argument either way. People would say environmental control or affect on an individual is learned and not conventionally defined as truly "genetic". But, now science is just beginning the realize the environmental stimuli that cause differences in gene expression. That's not conventionally genetic. And it's difficult to conclude that something is "genetic".
Posted on 3/12/17 at 6:05 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Ok, so what made our ancestors stand up on two legs, harness fire, and craft tools and weapons? Because of the environment, mutations that complimented that environment, and a need to change. No difference. It makes sense for a lion to kill the young of a past patriarch given how lions behave.
Firstly, "mutations" don't accompany an environment assuming you mean that a mutation happens as a result of being in an environment. I guess this should be qualified to a certain extent. Being in a given environment could lead to a greater rate of mutation if a higher concentration of mutagens were present. I guess it depends on whether or not we're discussing mutation in the environment you presented with humans standing and tools present.
If you mean that an environment could select for individuals with certain mutations, I agree. Sickle cell and malaria is an excellent demonstration of that in Africa.
Secondly, mutations occur at a rate of 10^-8 base pairs according to certain published statistics. That's not exactly frequent. There are two types of mutations: spontaneous and induced. I can't argue with any certainty that the theoretical environments certain organisms were exposed to didn't increase the rate of mutation in the earlier earth. I'm sure the theoretical environments would have led to a greater degree of induced mutation because of the mutagens present in the atmosphere.
If evolution is true, I'm not sure there was a conscious decision to stand on two legs. You referenced an argument for nature. That would probably be the explanation. That's part Genetic. And part epigenetic. Germline mutations would also be a consideration as well as somatic mutation. If someone had a somatic mutation that increased the chance of survival in a given environment, it might lead to their ability to propagate in the future, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to their progeny' ability to propagate.
Processing of the environment is a complex process that involves many parts of the brain. The development of the nervous system would be a consideration of survival. Also, this gets into learned behavior as well that's pretty complex. It's currently accepted that given a stressor, the limbic system, specifically the central nucleus of the amygdala, stimulates the hypothalamus which stimulates the adrenals and the HPA endocrine axis. Also, the hypothalamus is responsible for converting short term memory to long term memory. This is important in a response to stress.
The evolutionary origin of this system is an evolutionary consideration. Electrical impulses, action potentials, sodium channels, potassium channels, calcium channels, neurotransmitters, the endocrine system would all be evolutionary questions related to killing another animal for survival. Glucose and glycogen would be a consideration. The hunger response in the brain. The order of development is oftentimes a question.
I'm not going to argue that this wouldn't theoretically lead to organisms with different phenotypes. However, this alone does not prove evolution. Mutation is a part of evolutionary theory.
And in summary, I agree that an environment could select for individuals or organisms with certain mutations. And that an environment could lead to an increased rate of mutation.
However, mutation only occurs to genes/base pairs already in existence. One of the major questions of the currently accepted RNA world hypothesis is that no proteins existed and no DNA existed. This explains the existence of uracil, in addition to the repair mechanism of DNA that would have had to have developed after RNA according to the theory. However, RNA polymerase is a protein. RNA as we currently understand is essentially a messenger molecule, as MRNA, and RNA polymerase is the molecule responsible for beginning transcription of a DNA sequence. RNA would have had to have had a function in the early earth relatively unlike. Ribozymes are currently supported as an explanation, but there still had to be some genetic material in existence to begin with, and the lines begin to become blurred because if there's some genetic information available, then it might mirror the central dogma.
However, if no proteins were in existence, and no DNA, only ribozymes, that means there's no RNA POL. Ribozymes, which are self replicating according to some experiments and contain some genetic material, still would have had to have initially read themselves in the transitionary state. The very first ribozyme, to my knowledge, would have had to have come into existence at the direction of the genetic material, only it wouldn't have been in existence at that point. Or, it operated under a mechanism we don't currently understand, which means it's not a "fact" at this point. It's a question.
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 6:08 pm to tuptiger
Haha. You're a retard.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 6:35 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
Chicken, you have to give us the ability to mute certain posters. Or at least give custom tags to denote the absolute fricking idiots.
Yes! A tigerdroppings dunce hat. Let it be so!
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:06 pm to tuptiger
quote:
As an aside, I think natural selection is demonstrable. I don't believe in the theory of evolution. But that's beside the point.
they're the same fricking thing
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:19 pm to bmy
One is the underlying mechanism purported to be the basis for evolution. The flu virus is an easily demonstrable instance that illustrates natural selection. We get different flu shots every year because the vaccine is for a particular strain. They gain "immunity" to the flu. The next year, though, people have to get another one because mutations to the flu cause one to have had the resources to propagate. Sickle cell and malaria is another one. Having the sickle cell trait gives one immunity to malaria. In Africa, where malaria is common, anyone without the sickle cell trait who gets malaria may die. That leads to a decrease in the alelic frequencies of people without sickle cell, which leads to an increase in the proportion of people with sickle cell. HIV and surving the Black Plague is another one.
Believing this doesn't commit anyone to accepting the overarching theory of evolution, which requires accepting that the mechanism stretched over billions of years led to life as we currently know it.
Believing this doesn't commit anyone to accepting the overarching theory of evolution, which requires accepting that the mechanism stretched over billions of years led to life as we currently know it.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:24 pm to tuptiger
quote:
the theory of evolution requires a jump from one kingdom to another.
Now that is a novel take on evolution!
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:32 pm to islandtiger
It's like arguing with Karl Pilkington. Like when Karl told the story of a monkey stealing a car:
"It was an automatic".
"It was an automatic".
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:47 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
OMLandshark
you obviously dont get it
look...
in the beginning, probably nothing for quite bit. Just sorta floated about, but it wasnt causing a problem, because it wasnt annoying anyone. Back then, nothing. But the earth is hanging around, and if you leave something somewhere, something will sit on it. Air created the greenness. And once you have something, that leads to otherness And once you have one thing, others come.
it's quite simple, you dolt
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:59 pm to Uncle Stu
Wolves are becoming sea mammals.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:02 pm to Uncle Stu
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:05 pm to bmy
quote:
they're the same fricking thing
In his context, natural selection = microevolution; evolution = speciation
And Darwin's dilemma so rightly questioned that there is no where near the transitional forms, nor fossil record of transitional forms for speciation to be nothing more than a fantasy. You know biologists have a problem when they have to create Punctuated equilibrium as an excuse for the lack of evidence
But since they've got nothing else, they have to laughingly stand behind it
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:25 pm to tuptiger
quote:this is where the ucd advocate says it was a "mutation" which is of course a completely ad hoc explanation
Several fundamental concepts are not verifiable in evolutionary theory because if you take obligate anaerobes and expose them to oxygen, they don't suddenly develop the machinery to undergo aerobic metabolism
i can't count the number of times i have seen animal behavior that's completely unintuitive and purely instinctive and there doesn't seem to be any evolutionary reason for the organism to have developed the behavior/trait. or if the trait can be defended, why didn't the animal develop an infinite number of other behaviors that are just as beneficial?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:46 pm to Volvagia
quote:not always. as i said, there are many things that are speculated that have never been observed. there are some explanations that are just plain ad hoc. there are others that at times amount to sophistry such as exaptation and parahomology. don't get me wrong. i think the latter two are parsimonious in some cases but, that doesn't make them scientifically rigorous or viable.
these other forces aren't vague biologist hand waving: they are simply common sense applied to reality.
quote:yeah, that's kind of the point of science pal. for something to be reproducible to the point that it can accurately explain and predict outcomes. the reason behind the objection is because DESIGN and INTERVENTION are DRIVING the lab scenario. then, people try to equivocate and say "see, this is what happens when nature is left to it's own devices." i hope you can see the elephantine flaw in the claim.
"well, yeah, in a lab" as if a scientist needs to observe it spontaneously occur in a volcanic pond on the other side of the planet for it to be admissible.
quote:the "only" hang up.
The only hang up is the lack of observed data
as if that's just some trivial nuisance. which leads to the next point... quote:but it's not TREATED that way. it's treated as brute fact. of course, i'm referring to ucd, not a vague notion of "evolution."
which is why it is only a hypothesis
quote:he doesn't have to disprove anything. the burden of proof is on the ucd advocate. you don't get to make up a hypothesis that lacks millions of years of unobserved data (which you conceded) and then tell the skeptic the burden of proof is on him.
It just means you haven't disproven everything else
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:49 pm to Pectus
quote:science is not nearly as objective as many, many contemporary people make it out to be. all observation is theory laden - popper
Science is the objective
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News