StrontiDog

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 0:10 PM, Thorham said:

Is it relevant? They probably just do it because they're horny, evolutionary advantage or not.

If anybody can't see the evolutionary advantage of a species with an overwhelmingly-strong sex drive, then they would seem oblivious to some of the basic evolutionary tenants.

Only humans even 'know' that mating is what produces offspring.  Any other population mates due to their biological imperative to do so. 

21 hours ago, Strange said:

"What is your biggest character flaw?"

"Honesty"

"I don't think honesty is a fl...."

"I don't give a **** what you think"

(From one perspective):  ". . . . .I'm just meeting you because I'm willing to do what it takes to try and get into your bloomers."

(From another perspective):  ". . .I'm just doing this because I've got two kids, you've got a good job and a nice, roomy flat and I am willing to do what it takes to get into your wallet and bank account."

Honesty is overrated.

The advice I'd give is go ahead and tell the truth, but never tell the whole truth.

“The famous evolution picture (monkey to man) has a couple species in between, where are they? what happened to them?”

 

In a way, the picture to which you are referring has nothing to do with Darwin. Lest we forget, that was a 1965 illustration by a rather well-known artist named Rudolph Zallinger. It was commissioned by Time-Life Books as a fold-out for one of their Life Nature Library books. The original has 15 renderings representing the artist’s conception of what was. . .50 years ago. . .the latest and most up-to-date overview of evolutionary developments.

There has been criticism from the beginning for the first three images . Zallinger was an accomplished natural history painter, and he drew what he knew. He drew recognizable, more-or-less modern monkeys and apes.

It was never meant to be anything more than a visual aid. If you do a little research into “March of Progress”. . .the title of the work, you’ll find it fascinating.

I hope this helps.

There is some logic to the descriptor of trial and error. There is evidence of numerous 'failed' attempts at everything from vision to flight. Though calling that an 'error' is potentially erroneous. Perhaps the most efficient, most effective mode of flight was developed by a beast on some island that was wiped-out by a volcanic eruption. . .and we'll never even know what it was.

The implication of a conscious effort is probably a mistake, as well. Wide genetic variation within a population is an observed phenomenon. If some combinations work under certain circumstances. . .and are passed-on to allow for more progeny with these combinations. . . .that's hardly a 'trial.'

Anthropomorphism is always a challenge when describing nature.

Hello all,

 

Recently, I came across this argument for the existence of god:

 

1) DNA is a code

2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind

3) So, DNA was created by a mind

Try this argument, navig8tr. . . . .

Start by asking if they even know what DNA is, because it is not a code. It is more like a template or even a stencil for protein synthesis.

Call it 'Science's Mistake' (The average Creationist will like that line. . .) that we ever even coined the term 'Genetic Code.' It is a misnomer that refers more to sequencing order, than anything else. And lightning bug flashes have a sequence. . .but that's not a code created by a mind, now is it?

If the stencil is damaged, the cell might still make protiens but they will be the wrong ones and will do the wrong thing. . . .sometimes we call this 'Cancer.' (There are many other examples, but this one is something they've probably heard about.)

By obviating the major premise of the syllogism, it falls apart. Mentioning the 'junk code,' will also help.

Good luck.

Hello

1. what problems organic agriculture is supposed to solve (too much, too strong pesticides/fertilizer? lower nutrition in food?)

In partial answer to the first question, I found an interesting TIME article with the following:

1. 
    
   
2. Up to 10 million tons of chemical fertilizer per year are poured onto fields to cultivate corn alone, for example, which has increased yields 23% from 1990 to 2009 but has led to toxic runoffs that are poisoning the beleaguered Gulf of Mexico.
    
   
3. Beef raised in industrial conditions are dosed with antibiotics and growth-boosting hormones, leaving chemical residues in meat and milk.
    
   
4. A multicenter study released just two days after the obesity report showed that American girls as young as 7 are entering puberty at double the rate they were in the late 1990s, perhaps as a result of the obesity epidemic but perhaps too as a result of the hormones in their environment — including their food.
    
   
5. And for out-of-season foods to be available in all seasons as they now are, crops must be grown in one place and flown or trucked thousands of miles to market. That leaves an awfully big carbon footprint for the privilege of eating a plum in December.
    
   
6. Farm-raised animals are also higher in conjugated lineoleic acids, fatty acids that, according to studies of lab animals, may help reduce the risk of various cancers.
    
   
7. Cattle that eat more grass have higher ratios of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6s, a balance that's widely believed to reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease and arthritis and to improve cognitive function. Take the cows out of the pasture, put them in a feedlot and stuff them with corn-based feed, and the omega-3s plummet.
    
   
8. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), for example, an often deadly pathogen associated mostly with hospital-acquired infections, has been increasingly turning up in hog farmers, who contract it from their animals. In one study last year, a University of Iowa epidemiologist found that 49% of the hogs she tested were positive for MRSA, as were 45% of the humans who handled them.
    
   
9. Salmonella is hardly unheard of even among chickens raised in comfortable, free-range conditions. But when you confine half a dozen birds at a time in cages no larger than an opened broadsheet newspaper, and stack hundreds or thousands of those so-called battery cages together, you're going to spread the bacterium a lot faster.
    
   
10. In a meta-analysis conducted by the Organic Center, a nonprofit group in Boulder, Colo., organic produce was found to be 25% higher in phenolic acids and antioxidants. "It's these components that are deficient in American diets,
    

These would seem to be nine answers to what problems organic methods might be attempting to solve. They are somewhat edited for brevity and clarity, but no salient points were changed.

I hope this helps.

Bellabob,

The basic answer to your question is that two organisms, both fully functional on their own, were more apt to survive and breed more offspring when their mutually beneficial traits were present, than when they were not. Both organisms then evolved to the point where they were fully dependent on each other. The other answer is that symbiosis is a general term. Some organisms seem to get along just fine without their symbiote, some die without them.

Our own mitochondria are descendant from a bacteria that entered early eukaryotic cells (likely either as an invader. . .or as lunch) and helped those cells outperform all rivals. It’s called endosymbiosis. Their closest living relative is the same critter that causes typhus. We certainly couldn’t survive without them and they no longer have the ability. . .with just 37 bacterial genes. . .to live independently outside the cell. Their DNA is not really human DNA.

They barely resemble their original antecedent bacterium any more than we resemble the single-celled protoanimal that started this whole thing. We’ve both come a long way, since then.

Hope this helps.

I would posit that imagination has definite and quantifiable survival value.

As a species, humans are really quite imaginative. We see imagination at work in children from the time they can communicate in any but the most basic ways. It seems intrinsic to the species. It also seems to be a true Gaussian distribution pattern within us. Some have a lot, some not so much. . .and most of us somewhere in the middle.

Imagination works to better anything from hunting tactics to making fire to more efficient tools and weapons.

I am also not sure that we can truly control our ability to imagine. No matter how intelligent you are, I believe you’ll still ‘see’ the elephant in the clouds.

I imagine (pun intended) an internal conversation, long ago: “Sharp stick good. Sharp rock better but have to get too close to use it. Hmmmm. . .Sharp rock on end of stick and my family has dinner, tonight.”

I think we all ‘see’ patterns and shapes in the clouds and the stars. But those things aren’t really there, of course. They’re imaginary.

So to get the imagination to be able to conceptualize what does not yet exist. . .you will also have some imaginary friends.

A.K.A. Religion.

From an evolutionary perspective, I propose that lifespan and breeding rates would be one factor for selection of longer-lived individuals in any population.

Consider rats that would routinely live in excess of a hundred years (like some sea turtles). Now consider their breeding rates.

Malthus wasn't wrong, he just didn't anticipate all the variables.

Perhaps such species have existed. What are the odds they'd still be around, today?. One true drought, worldwide ice age, volcanic winter, etc., could wipe-out such a species even if the regular overpopulation/95% wipe-out cycle were not broken.

One of the evolutionary advantages of mortality is that the older generation dies and clears the way for the younger, once they're able to care for themselves. If not, older individuals compete with their own offspring for limited resources.

It's one thing for sea turtles, which lay many eggs but for which few live to adulthood, to have a longer breeding lifespan. That makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Low survival rate of offspring is generally the same thing as low breeding rates. It's more about success, than potential.

So I posit that long lifespan and high (successful) breeding rates are counterproductive, from evolution's standpoint.

One or the other, not both.

There's one reason. . .

Okay DieDaily,

I've spent most of the day reading and re-reading this entire thread, and I don't think that anyone has addressed these questions quite this way. I don’t see any paradox, CM is not violated, and what you see looking out the side window does not describe the effects of gravity.

Addressing the last first, light has to bridge the distance between the objects (ships.) Gravity doesn't, it's already in place. Light is emitted or reflected, there is a gap between photons. That gap gets wider as they leave the point source. (Which is where the concept of 'gravitons' breaks-down, for me.)

 

Hypothesis:

If gravity is not instantaneous then any two masses travelling parallel to one another will not only converge, as one would expect, but they will also decelerate against the axis of their mutual forward motion, violating the law of conservation of momentum. (Their CM frame will slow down, even though there are no external forces on the objects in that frame).

Don’t forget that gravity is omnipresent and omnidirectional unless you just happened to create these two masses out in the intergalactic void, somewhere. Gravitational effect might propagate at the speed of light, but this matter has existed since shortly after the BB, and each atom that makes it up has had plenty of time to distort the curvature of space in all directions as much as any normal atom can.

Basically, any ‘drag’ caused by the fact that M1 is ‘outrunning’ the center of gravity of M2, is vectored perfectly by the fact that it is now ‘running into’ the gravitational influence ALREADY IN PLACE that it would have ‘missed’ if the two objects hadn’t been simultaneously fired on parallel trajectories from some arbitrary ‘still’ point in space. And vice versa.

Hypothetical reason: ( Edited)

 

. . .Therefore, each object will be vectored not toward the other object's "present" location, but toward some "previous" location of it (time has passed during the transmission of the force, after all).

And the distance between this hypothetical gap, is also larger. So now the ‘attraction’ is less, by the difference in the SQUARE of the extra distance. And you’re still ‘running into’ gravitational effects that each mass would have ‘missed’ if they weren’t shot away at the new velocities.

I agree that this simple explanation may not hold for relativistic speeds, but then again, it might.

There’s a reason that there’s no ‘V’ for velocity in the (Newtonian) gravitational equation.

It just doesn’t matter.

Bill Wolfe

StrontiDog. In support of your statement, the simple formula from the behavioral genetics course I took mumbledemumble years ago was P = G X E (Phenotype equals Genes times Environment). SM

Makes sense for most things. I don't see environment making much difference in (innate) eye color, and a few other things.

But as a rule of thumb, it works.

Thanks,

Bill Wolfe

A person's intelligence isn't based on their genes, its based on how much effort they actually put into taking in more knowledge or becoming a better person, which at any moment in an idiot's life, they could do more of.

Not really, Steevey.

Intelligence has been fairly well demonstrated to be a Continuous Genetic Trait.

In short, it is inherited (though there is a fair amount of disagreement as to how much) but it is also affected by environmental factors. Let's face it, if Einstein's mother was an alcoholic when he was in-utero, we'd have probably never heard about him.

Intelligence is a little like height. An offspring can be taller than both parents, or shorter, or somewhere in between. But other factors such as prenatal care, toxins in the environment and diet can make a big difference in how tall the individual eventually gets.

The same goes with smarts. What you're describing is more like education, which is completely acquired. This whole argument about 'Nature vs. Nurture' has consistently puzzled me. The answer has always seemed to be obvious.

It's both.

Bill Wolfe

So I can't help to wonder what we will look like 10,000 years from now or even twenty millions years from.

Something to keep in mind is the common misconception that a species slowly turns into another species. Lest we forget, humanity split from a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and other great apes somewhere around 10-20 MYA.

This means that that one common ancestor species 'evolved' into at least three species that still exist, and countless others that don't.

So what does that species 'look like', now?

Shoot, if you go back 200 MYA or so, we may share a common ancestor with any other vertebrate. So what did that species 'evolve into?' Did it evolve into humans, or sperm whales?

The advent of technology and genetic manipulation could see countless distinct species that could all trace their ancestry to homo sapiens sapiens.

In short, there is probably no answer to your question.

Gravity makes curvature in the space time. If the object's spinning speed fast, is wave moving speed of the space time curvature reduced?

Why would there even be a gravitational wave unless the spinning object was highly lopsided or had a very dense, off-center volume within it? If it managed to create gravitational waves, they would propagate at the speed of light. No more, no less. Higher spin rates would probably increase the frequency of the gravitational waves, but it wouldn't affect their speed.

If gravitational waves exist at all, that is. Last I heard they haven't actually been detected to any degree of certainty, though there have been some interesting possibilities dating back to 1987.

Bill Wolfe

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two species would have to have the same number of chromosomes in order to reproduce effectively. . . . . .For example, take the liger. The lion and tiger would have had to have the same number of chromosomes in order for the offspring to survive properly.

Actually, not true. A horse has 64 chromosomes and a Donkey has 62. They can mate and produce a hybrid. . .a mule. Mules have 63 chromosomes. It’s the odd number of chromosomes that makes most mules sterile.

There are well documented (but rare) cases of female mules (mollies) giving birth to foals. Genetic testing has even confirmed that the molly was the mom. So the offspring aren’t necessarily sterile.

Besides, who says the character can’t be a sterile hybrid? As for the mechanism behind the character’s unique parentage. . .a mislabeled vial in an in vitro fertilization clinic could do it. Mad scientist experimenting to see if the two species were viable. Two members of different species stranded on a desert island. . .the list goes on.

And yes, any hybrid can have traits not present in either parent. Ligers are the largest cats in the world, weighing much more than either parent. Vestigial organs in both can possibly be reactivated, though it would be tricky.

So have at it, Dec. Have fun with it.

Bill Wolfe

. . . .even though water may be more oxygen rich (being hydrogen and 2 oxygen atoms after all) .

Just for clarification from the OP's basic premise.

First of all, water (H₂O) is TWO hydrogen atoms and ONE oxygen.

Fish don't get their oxygen from the one in the water molecule. They need regular gaseous oxygen just like we breathe. This oxygen is dissolved in water, very much like the bubbles in a carbonated soft drink are carbon dioxide molecules that were also dissolved in water, before you popped the cap and released the pressure in the bottle.

The OP seemed to be under the impression that some kind of electrolysis was where the oxygen came from, which could explain the initial confusion.

Bill Wolfe

world i dont think can be better without religion. because then people will feel free to do anything they like may cause troubles for other. but with a uniform religion which everyone accepts. world will surely be better.

This is a very common argument. I once--upon telling a coworker that I was atheist--had this fellow ask me what kept me from abusing my three young (at the time) daughters, since I didn't believe in hell.

Now, if his religion is the only thing keeping this fellow from sexually assaulting his own children, then by all means, pass the plate. I'll donate.

My answers. . ."Because I love them, don't want to hurt them, and would destroy anyone who tried to do so. Besides, I don't want to do that." just seemed to confuse him.

Some of us have an internal moral code that I would put up against any which is exteriorly imposed by religion, anywhere in the world.

So maybe some of us just don't need it?

Bill Wolfe

In the bible, the story of Cain and Abel tells of the atheist majority of humans of that time. After Cain kills Abel, Cain is sent away. Cain fears, "whoever shall come upon me shall kill me". If Adam, Eve and Cain were the only three neo-humans at that time, who were these "whomever", whom Cain was afraid of? It was the the atheist branch of the humans, which were the vast majority at that time.

I heard an interesting take on this, which I would like to share.

Imagine a world that had humans, much like us, but with no souls. Then God came along.

First of all: KJ Genesis: (So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)

Interesting line, really. Does God look like a human? Doubtful, to say the least. Though I have seen the Sistine Chapel with my own eyes, I doubt God really looks like Michelangelo portrayed him.

The theory was (a synopsis, at best) that God--as a spiritual Being--gave a human a soul. A soul would be a spiritual construct, more like God than the meat machines we call a physical body. So therefore, 'in His image.'

This soul would forever after be part of our 'spiritual' reality. Now, there were other humans in the world at that time who did NOT have souls. Maybe they were all lawyers. But they had cities, culture, and areas that had names, so that Cain could go there when he was banished from Eden.

That first human who got a soul, was Adam of course, Lillith would have had a soul, but she didn't follow the rules, so Eve was given one, as well. Don't know about that one.

In any case--"The Image of God" wasn't our physical bodies, it was the soul. This is the way that a very thoughtful, educated and intelligent person of Faith, explained it to me.

This weird, but logical, interpretation explains every 'inexplicable' oddity of Genesis. Like where Cain found a wife, etc. And of course, the whole soul thing is passed on to the progeny, whether the other parent had one, or not.

As I said, not bad logic--as far as it goes.

As for the Noah incident, it means that all descendants would HAVE to have souls. All the rest were wiped-out in the Flood.

And BTW, the Flood of Noah doesn't really have to cover the whole world. Only the part that had people in it. If the human population was limited in geography, it would only have had to cover a small section of the planet to be World Wide--from our perspective, anyway.

Comments? Like I said. I can find no flaw in the logic, though I don't buy it.

(Note: By 'no flaw in the logic' I am acknowledging that humanity was spread mostly over the world 5k or so years ago, and that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood. . .ever. . .is a given. I'm simply addressing the logic concerning the apparent fallacies of Genesis, as I understand them.)

Bill Wolfe

Just an idea...say the other forces all had infinite reach like gravity, scientists wouldn't be able to measure it beyond their currently known values, as gravity's force would interfere after that point (being stronger).

 

Is my reasoning correct?

BA,

One important point. All 'mass' in the universe has existed since around the time of the Big Bang. Even if gravity does affect the rest of the universe at 'light speed', all matter used to be a lot closer together, so it's already gravitationally connected by the curved space model.

Even if a big black hole is between your two fleas (no matter how far apart they are--they're still made of matter that has existed for all time), that black hole affects both a little less because their mutual gravitational attraction cancels (assuming identical flea mass, of course. . .they're fleas, fer cryin' out loud. . .)

And just using the term 'wouldn't be able to measure it' implies that it's still there. So even if the attraction is countered by something else, it's countered a little less.

Just something to think about.

Bill Wolfe

Kudos to Mr. Comfort for his thoughtful, well written and reasoned responses. Like many, #10 blew me away.

That we disagree on so much, is regretful but certainly understandable. Most of my family--the people I love and would walk through fire for--think much like he does. (Though most could never put it down in print as well, nor nearly so concisely. . .)

We could pick his points apart endlessly, but in the end, nothing would change. So let's not. There are other threads on this Forum for that.

I will re-read his words many times, and think about them. I can, at least, follow his logic without confusion. That's what we wanted, right?

Well done, Sir.

Bill Wolfe

Don't forget the words of George Carlin:

Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…asshole.

I mean. . .really. . .how could the Earth make plastic without us?

Can anyone really disagree with this philosophy?

Bill Wolfe

I set an atheist challenge. The atheists must prove that animals have religion or else they need to concede that atheist lack something, since they descended from the apes, and apes don't have religion. I don't have to do any work, just keep harping until proof is supplied by the atheist. I will then discredit any offering of proof, using the atheist template.*

*Bold type supplied by Strontidog (with waaaay too much time on my hands. . .)

I have to respect the coda where you perfectly define faith. Excellent, and I'm very likely to quote you. . .

First of all, only apes descended from apes. Humans didn't.

As an ardent evolutionist, apes and humans (and whales and mice and cats and any mammal you can think of) share a common ancestor. Some more recently than others, but nonetheless, we share a common ancestor with a freakin' sperm whale! But we didn't descend from apes any more than they descended from humans.

Creation: Because one old book is a lot easier to read than a bunch of hard books.

And I really do think you already know this. Many anti-evolutionists don't, but you do.

Besides, I've read this whole thread, and nobody said animals had religion, but several have opined that we don't know that they don't. Doctor Doolittle isn't here to say, so the rest of us can't converse with anyone but humans, not in an abstract way, anyway.

So as an atheist, I don't accept your challenge. Largely because it is based on false premises.

Nice try, though.

Bill Wolfe

While a respectable and rational outlook, I know many scientists who are not atheists and do not feel demanded to accept atheism. They may be even a minority, but if so it is a substantial one.

Demosthenes (love the avatar, btw. IA is one of my heroes. . .)

I didn't mean that my scientific leanings demand that I accept atheism, but that they demand that I accept that without a Greater Plan, my entire life could be no more significant than the genes I leave behind.

It is hard to be an atheist. We have no real meaning to our whole life that we do not put there, ourselves. We're not part of any Plan, not really more than a flash of existence and awareness, which burns out way too soon.

And then nothing. Food for worms, at best.

Our only legacy is that which we add to the whole of humanity during our brief existence.

People of Faith, have hopes for much more.

I may envy you, but I just can't make myself buy into it. It speaks to the basis of this whole thread.

Bill Wolfe

Sure, we could put the few people who might disagree (eg psychopaths) in jail, but that still doesn't give inherent justification, only a might-makes-right approach. Which I agree with... someone who gets their kicks from decreasing human well-being should be dealt with by the rest of us in the name of increasing human well-being. Cause we said so, and we can. Not cause it's "inherently the right thing to do" or other silly excuses.

If science is all we have to justify our behavior, as a society. . .how about a little physics?

Hypothesis:

If: I tie a secured rope around your neck (with your hands tied behind your back, of course), and drop you from a height of five-or-more feet,

Then: You no longer threaten my children or grandchildren with sexual assault.

I am willing to conduct this experiment until the supply child rapers (whether the children are tranquilized, nor not) is exhausted. Repetition is an important aspect of experimental methodology, you know.

Some of us have no problem taking oppositional action to predators who would prey upon those we are charged to protect.

In the words of The Sage: "Cause we said so, and we can. Not cause it's "inherently the right thing to do" or other silly excuses."

Bill Wolfe

I've been having some thoughts lately and just want to put them out here.

 

1) We can only see as far as light has traveled since the big bang.

 

 

3)If something is traveling faster than light - How would we be able to see it - In the subatomic world -things need to be observed

 

4)Black holes are dark because light can not escape it - In order for than to happen - things have to be traveling faster than the speed of light

Sorry SpaceShark,

You're going to have to define 'things' and 'see.'

See with x-Ray telescopes, gravity detectors, gamma detectors? Not sure any of these constitute 'see.' Though they might.

What 'things' have to be traveling faster than C?

Why? If space itself (is--or has in the past) expanded at faster than C, why would 'things' have to receed faster, on their own?

Just trying to figure out what you're asking.

Bill Wolfe