JillSwift

My two cents on the subject is as follows:

 

Environment stands alone separate from an organisms evolutionary development just like a house would grow or the neighborhood would exist indifferent to it’s citizens or occupants. And it’s just random luck of the draw who gets the long lasting survivable traits from DNA that are best suited for the “house or neighborhood”.

 

Therefore it’s just a propensity that evolution is best suited for it’s environment. When truth be told, evolution can easily evolve into species not suited for “that” environment. Right?

Let’s say we humans made a conscious effort to only breed people who have a birth defect of sorts - we just evolved the human race into the environment not being suited for it to survive in. Right?

So in closing what I’m trying to say is: yes environment and evolution do have a relationship (influence on each other) but still stand alone indifferent of each other.

I think that changing the rules of evidence was the only really scary thing to come out of the previous administration.

I would love to see that reigned back in.

well maybe when quoting someone else you should indicate it in some way shape or form instead of leaving it to seem as though is YOUR TITLE.

It`s the posters responsibility to see that it is presented clearly,not the readers.

I still find her argument against sexual reproduction down right wierd. I guess somehow or another becauase some intellectual dreams up some inexplicable reason why sexual reproduction harms evolution in some way. We should ignore the fact that sexual reproduction has been chosen by natural selection since early multicellular life forms emerged as the way to get things done.She states :" In addition,the often assumed benifits of sex to fitness,are as I have already mentioned in a number of posts,largely unproven." Largely unproven. What about that 1.9 billion year experiment called life on Earth that natural selection has put to the test over and over again. Sometimes adding into the test things like THE BIG FREEZE,THAT VOLCANIC ACTION THINGY and a few other notables. Sexual reproduction has been tested plenty and seems to be doing it better than anything other that may have been tried. I know all about asexual reproduction and that it still works fine for bacteria and such. Perhaps for a few scientists out there also. They may be cloning themselves. I am sure many of them would see fit to do that. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

No one said sexual reproduction harmed anything. It just makes the spread of mutations slower, possibly drowning them out.

You have some very odd ideas about evolution, and I think those odd ideas are getting in your way of understanding the criticisms of your idea here.

REPLY: Post # 12 WRITTEN BY YOU IN THIS THREAD IS TITLED: " May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information". ANYONE WISHING TO CHEK INTO THAT SCROLL BACK AND READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

...Dr.Syntax

I did just that, and what do you know? CharonY argued against that, just as he said.

(The quote "May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information" in that post is from Mr. Skeptic, here.)

Reply: It`s just about anything I say. I posted something about some concept a number of scientists from different fields are working on. It`s called THE LATE HEAVY BOMBARDMENT. I read about it at the Absolute Astronomy website. I told about a concept a number of these scientists were looking into. He claimed they didn`t say some of the things I said they did. I told him where they did say these things. Now he says I am supposed to come up with some proof. I pointed out how I HAVEN`T SUGGESTED ANYTHING,these other people have. He never never acknowledges any mistakes he makes. He rejects any research findings of other qualified scientists out of hand. Who does he think he is ? If you want to suck up with him because he is a moderator go ahead. I don`t. ...Dr.Syntax

Ok, being nice isn't cutting it, let's try blunt:

Evidence is everything. It makes no difference whether an idea is uttered by a Nobel Laureate or a high school dropout - without evidence the idea is valueless.

Why are your ideas, and the ideas you bring with you from others, so heavily questioned? Well, let's see:

• Arguments from authority - meaning you think that just because a "scientist" said it, it immediately has validity.
  
• Extrapolation from one or a very few data points. That is, coming to conclusions before you can really know anything from the evidence at hand.
  
• Arbitrary measurements. Taking any factor and labeling it indicative of all other factors is a fabulous way to end up with a lot of incorrect conclusions.
  
• Uncorrectable assumptions. Assuming that evolution is all about going from the simple to the complex in the face of the fact that it is a trend only, and examples of simplification can be found - albeit "complex" and "simple" are arbitrary judgments anyway.
  

On top of that, you take criticisms of your ideas personally, as if the only reason your ideas are being criticized is because "no one likes you". Science isn't social networking, it's a methodology.

As one of my professors said to me once, "Get over it."

i really can't believe how this has been dragging on, evolution intentionally or unintentionally makes species more suited to live... by actually having us able to describe what it does, by it actually doing SOMETHING, then it has a direction, as it isn't doing nothing as in unmoving, nor is it doing nothing as in moving in a direction of unrecognized pattern..

 

improvement may not be the same depending on the circumstances, but evolution IS heading toward improvements, reword it as you like.

"Improvement" is a word suggesting a value judgment. All evolution describes is what functions in a given environment and what does not. That function does not even have to function "well" or "perfectly" it just has to function.

i'm also yet to discover why're you all fighting tooth and nail to keep it purposeless, aimless.. what does it bring down in evolution? what part does it screw up?

What is being fought for "tooth and nail" is your understanding of the theory.

Reality doesn't change because you've made a clever argument against it.

REPLY: No plants so flowers don`t count. Do you think a daisy is more complex than a dog ?Pterosaurs appeared 228 million years ago so wings and flight is long after mammals. I may or may not check into the rest of them as I am getting tired spending so much time running down answers for you that are simply rejected for any reason you wish to imagine. Tired of all this. If you dislike me and my posts so much why not avoid them. I do yours except when they are responses to mine. ...Dr.Syntax

That's unfair, Syntax. Science is about questioning everything, checking every little detail to make sure it all fits. It's not personal in the least, but it is rather brutal for ideas - and that is why it works so well.

Mokele isn't doing anything mean, he's just asking some good questions and pointing out some weak spots in your reasoning. I gently suggest that, if you really mean to go somewhere with this acceleration hypothesis, you need to take the time to get all your ducks in a row - meaning do the research and shore up your idea.

iNow,

 

I thought that was the topic. Our opinion of the truth or falseness of what other people believe. And our opinion of what is going on in the mind of the universe.

 

Regards, TAR

It's not about making a judgment about the validity of those beliefs, it's about how those beliefs likely came about.

Until and unless we establish the universe has a "mind", there's no point in worrying about what goes in inside it.

To quote JillSwift.

 

"It isn't until our brains started thinking in terms of purpose that the universe started having purpose."

Which simply means that purpose is something we grant the universe. It's called "purposeful thinking", and relates only to our own perspective.

Not to harp on this subject but sperm production slows down when the testes are full, right?

Which should take a few days?

 

For some reason this is not covered in the wikipedia article.

Though I just learned that:

" The etymology of the word is based on Roman law. The Latin word "testis", witness, was used in the firmly established legal principle "Testis unus, testis nullus" (one witness [equals] no witness), meaning that testimony by any one person in court was to be disregarded unless corroborated by the testimony of at least another. This led to the common practice of producing two witnesses, bribed to testify the same way in cases of lawsuits with ulterior motives. Since such "witnesses" always came in pairs, the meaning was accordingly extended, often in the diminutive (testiculus, testiculi). After a while, it was reduced to a companion to the penis[citation needed].

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicle

Huh. I had no idea. Cool

Yea but did you take that gun and go shoot your neighbor in the back?

 

No didn't think so.

 

My question was "Where do criminals really get their guns?"

 

"Criminals" being....People who attain guns...then use the guns....as a tool...in order...to commit crimes.

Certain crimes are alot easier to commit with guns, for instance, its much easier to murder your *neighbor* with a gun, than by repeatedly striking his foot with a plastic spoon.

"Criminals" could be definitive of literally millions of different terms. Do criminals get their guns from licensed dealers?

 

No, I don't think so. Most seem to get their stuff from black market trade. I'll need to find some evidence for that though.

Some get their guns legally. Some get them by stealing them. Some get them by buying them from someone who stole them. Some... well, you get the point.

Actually I'm sure there is at least one person on here who hasn't jaywalked.

 

For the purposes of this discussion though, I'm referring to criminals who commit fatal offenses, personal offenses, property offenses, and Participatory offenses.

I've committed a property offense. Theft.^* I got my gun at a local pawn shop.

* $0.25 candy bar, when I was 5 years old. I did my time, earned that quarter by cleaning the store owner's car.

i think this thread has gone so far off topic that its in danger of leaving the galaxy.

Perhaps, but is this the best way to leave the galaxy?

Seriously, the comparison between capitalism and socialism is viable only if there's some reason to think there's a "best" way to go about things, instead of a vast array of options that need to be considered individually against current goals. Isn't that on topic? At least a little bit? Within the galaxy by some measure?

Cwap. "Only 24 years" is easy for you spring chickens. I wanted to see fusion power come to fruition, but I probably won't live that long

Never the less, it's fantastic to hear that nuclear fusion has been getting the attention it deserves, and I hope for its success.

Proper Manuscript Format

 

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly

 

Peeling gar

 

And that's just for starters It applies to many things.

 

 

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance....

 

Good kitchen skills.

Organization habits.

Cover letter on a resume.

Work smarter, not harder.

 

Plus even the way our very scienceforums.net is far more neatly and intuitively organized than many forums around the web.

None of this supports your conclusion.

Manuscript format: Arbitrary format, followed only to keep to an industry standard. Nothing about it is proven to be the smartest or best way to produce a manuscript.

Peeling garlic: Two different techniques? Which is the proper way and which is the faulty one? Seriously, doesn't this suggest there are more options than one?

My point here being; The "best" way to go about something is a value judgment and is often dependent on the specific goal. It's still a collection of "things that work well enough most or some of the time".

Hello.

I am interested in 2012, notably - the Mayan prophecy about the end of the world 12.21.2012. Many people talk about it now, besides, the movie comes out soon. I'm interested to read something about it. Disclosing this theme.

Advise me some articles please.

 

Thank you

The Mayans made no such prophecy.

All that happens with the Mesoamerican Mayan long-count calendar is that the 13th B'ak'tun ends and the 14th B'ak'tun begins.

The movie, on the other hand, looks like it'll be usual Roland Emmerich fare: Total fantasy with little care for reality, but rather fun despite that.

Well, then you could say the entire world influenced my decision. I don't really think that's a fair claim to make. Do you? I like to believe I made my own decision, predisposition be damned!

I didn't make a claim. I can't make any specific claim in your case, there just isn't any evidence to do so.

Equally, you can't make any claim either. I know you believe you can because it's your life, but you don't have any evidence to demonstrate where your final decision came from.

That being said, I do not actually dispute that you made your choices on your own. I don't want this to get feeling personal.

And thank you for acknowledging your minor error JillSwift I sincerely appreciate it.

No need for thankies, mistakes must be dealt with ==

.. in which frame of reference?

¡ɯoɹɟ ǝsooɥɔ oʇ ʎuɐɯ os

Kapow.

*plotz*

It sounds like you have some bad memory on the card, honestly. There's a program to test GPU memory for users of the nVidia Folding@Home program:

http://folding.stanford.edu/English/DownloadUtils

hope this helps

_____EDIT_____

Cwap. That's for CUDA capable cards only

What's your power supply's rated wattage?

the thing is, none has control over this big red button. it controls itself.

Heh. I am suddenly reminded of "Dark Star"

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?

Bomb #20: Of course.

Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?

Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.

Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?

Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.

Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?

Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.

Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?

Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.

Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?

Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.

Quick Reply: Because my community is full of people that actually take the Old Testament literally. And were horrible represenations of the kindness that Christ so desperately wanted humanity to show. If anything, they dod more to drive me away from Christianity than to influence me to become Christian.

Well, that's just it: That you didn't become "one of them" doesn't suggest that you were not influenced by them. It just means you didn't duplicate their beliefs.

_____EDIT_____

It just hit me that my example of why I can't believe in god really doesn't apply. You've been clear it's a deistic belief, which omits personal relationship.

This stands as example of the complexity of it, and how it really is a discussion of trending and predisposition, not absolutes.

That's the dark secret of physics. There's always another layer that's more confusing, where you find that what you knew was only valid under some conditions.

Yeah, I'm starting to get that.

Makes me wonder if the interest in a unified field theory is less about understanding the cosmos and more about trying to make the room stop spinning.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I don't believe the way I do because of my community, nor my family. I've READ parts of the Apocrypha, Koran, and, of course, the Torah. I FOUND my beliefs. Sure, I was raised a Christian, but my parents always encouraged me to seek truths in my own way. As it stands now, I'm a deist that believes in a man called Jesus.

I'm curious as to how you know you didn't choose this deistic/Jesus belief because of environmental influence.

But proclivity can't be the thow-away explanation for all belief can it? That's my point. It doesn't seem to me that evolutionary by-products can be considered the reason for everyone that chooses to belive in a God. Take me for example. I've got a fair amount of knowledge in maths and science, much more so than the average person, but yet, I CHOOSE to believe in an irrational entity. How does a proclivity for belief factor into that at all??

How could the choice to believe in something irrational be possible without that predisposition?

I have an autism spectrum disorder called Asperger's Syndrome. Certain social instincts don't work for me like they do for neurotypicals. Particularly; a sense of "other" detached from a presence that functions to enhance group cohesion, and the inherent ability to think about what others are thinking and feeling.

This makes it effectively impossible for me to believe in god.

As a child in a Catholic household, this "god" fellow was someone I had not met yet. He was on par with the governor of our state or the president of the country. I drove my parents nuts when I realized that this god fellow never did interviews on TV. After a while of answering their explanations with "I don't understand.", my father said that I could "hear god in my head" if I listened.

That explanation meant nothing at all to me, because I was still learning to think about what others were thinking. Something neurotypicals are born with the ability to do (even if their ability to do it requires brain development to be good at it).

Hope this helps.

Ohh, but if our brain has been caught introducing bad things to us now, then couldn't it and other aspects of evolution or change or whatever also have introduced such bad mutations which got embedded into us unnoticed before?

 

doesn't that bring the theory of evolution down on it's head?

if evolution works by keeping good AND bad mutations, instead of good only, can it be reliable as an explanation to our ever so simple origin for us such ever so complex beings?

Phenotypes that function well in an environment give an organism better opportunity to reproduce, and in that manner are "selected" naturally. Phenotypes that function poorly in an environment work against that reproductive opportunity, and thus are "selected out". There are also phenotypes that don't make much difference. This process takes generations, especially if the given phenotype is only somewhat advantageous or disadvantageous.

as a mutation, how is the belief in a deity classified?

 

it's just what i said in post #35..

 

and i apologize for any perceived rudeness.

The question is meaningless, as "belief in a deity" isn't the result of a mutation. No child was born with the "god gene" who, in beliving in a deity, was so successful at reproduction that the next generation was mostly his children.

Rather the evidence points to belief in a deity as a predisposition which is an emergent property of many neurological phenotypes. Itself neutral to human survival, but the individual phenotypes the predisposition arises from each advantageous.

to a point agrees with my use of the word evolution such as: evolution by natural selection wich could include more complex organisms. That is the definition I am concerning myself with and not the other possible ones. For me to be clear about this I am speaking of evolution by means of natural selection from the simpler to the more complex organisms. I understand that there are other aspects of evolution. But my entire argument is concerned with the evolution of the simpler to the more complex. If other people wish to discuss these other aspects of evolution I am not stopping them. But I refuse to allow myself to be sidetracked into a direction I don`t desire to go in. ...Dr.Syntax

Ok, just to be crystal clear: That "aspect" of evolution you're concerned with is called speciation.

The more species there are, the more opportunities there are for new speciation as environments change, k? That's why it seems to accelerate.

And on that, I think Mr. Skeptic is right, sexual reproduction does contribute to that.