into the workings of our universe

[The Frozen One]

This is just a theory of mine and I believe it 100% and its not for the weak minded

Ok im ganna start off by explaining another theory called the string theory. Mathematics tells us there are other dimensions besides the 3 we live in. (the three dimensions are length, width, and depth) Ok so scientists think there are 11 dimensions number 4 being time, and the rest arent absolute but are thought to be to be the curvature of space, gravity, and other weird stuff.
The other dimensions are hard to explain. We wouldn't be able to really understand them unless we were brought to that particular dimension. Lets sya there is a 1 dimensional world. Its just a straight line and the being that lives there is just a dot. He can walk back and forth along the line but thats it. If he was brought to a 2 dimensional world he'd be absolutely amazed because he'd be able to not just walk in a straight line but walk (lets imagine it the shape of a paper) all along one side of the paper.(the other side of the paper would be invisible to him)
The three dimensional world would be lets say a whole pad of paper. The being would be able to walk all over the pad even the back and sides because the third dimension is depth. Imagine being brought from a world you could only walk in a straight line to a world in witch there were all kinds of new things(shapes being one)
Another thing I have to explain is the brain. The brain is a complex thing and im not ganna get to far into it. First thing that needs explanasion is the amount of space ur using in ur brain. Ok the brain is like a computer hard-drive. If you would look up the amount of space on ur "hard-drive" that ur actually using it would say only 2%. Not all people believe this but i do. Some others think we use all our minds but i cant say i believe the same. We have a whole 98% of space left in our brain to be used for who knows what.
I dont believe in god. But i do believe there could be a person who has a better understanding of the way thing work. If a particular person was brought to these dimensions... If the shock doesnt kill you then maybe he found a way to do something with this... If the shock or something else maybe even just being in that place in space time unlocked the 98% of brain it would allow him to do extraordinary things.
His brain waves might be strong enough to communicate telepathically or maybe allow him to see things that havent happened yet. Another possibility being to move things with the mind or even levitate. But what amazes me most is still yet to come.
Another theory (not mine) is that everything and everyplace in the past or present is the same place or time where ur standing now. Ok lets say theres a place on mars and theres where your standing. This person who was allowed to see the 11 dimensional world would be able to, not teleport because that dissolves u into particles and moves the particles to a different places and reforms you there, but to almost "step" right throught to that place on mars or in another time on mars with the power of the mind.
The mind is a powerful thing and this is what i believe we r moving too. There are people who say they've seen these particular parts of our world that we do not. Most are just crazy but its possible they might have accidently stumbled upon an amazing discovery. Budha might have been one example, for those who dont know him from history I'll explain. Budha went and meditated for an extremely long time somehwere away from everything. One day while meditating he suddenly reached a point where he looked at everything in a different way. He called it enlightenment and others in history claim to have been enlightened also. So budha made his own religion called budhism. I'm not going to get into it but its pretty neat.
The problem being they can't pass the information to us. They can't because of our language. Our language is incomplete, there are huge parts missing. They can't explain it because its simply impossible. There are no words to describe this other, some would say other world. But the truth is there are a million other worlds right beside our own. If you had the vision you'd be able to see this also, maybe even travel there using the same methods as i said you'd be able to travel earlier.
If there was a god he'd be able to shape things with willpower. Scientific experiments show us that our willpower effects the outcome of things too. Maybe not as strong as a gods but our mind can shape our own future. I'm not saying this is a shortcut because you stil have to work your way there but I'm saying you make your own future the way you want it.
I'd just like to say this isn't just a whole bunch of junk. I did some research and alot of it is true. Its true but we are unable to get to that state of mind because of our minds inability to comprehend what reality says isn't there. Makes you wonder what are we going to evolve into and wat abilities will be accessible to us once we figure how to see these other dimensions.

This, like i said, is just a theory of mine... If it doesn't happen(not that you'll be alive when it does:p) dont blame me for given u false hopes. But my belief is we will have these abilities between now and the next bajillion years(yea i know its not a real number)

[Jeffery]

I am god.


There is no need for other theories.

[The Frozen One]

lol nice :p

[meat.eater]

You changed your color. It must mean something.

[The Frozen One]

i prefer cyan

[Zoticus]

I do not only use 2% of my brain.

Jeffery is God. That answers all your questions.

[The Frozen One]

I do not only use 2% of my brain.


you do but u cant help it...thats just how it works

[meat.eater]

Frankly, I dont see how your theory makes you not believe in God. Or are you just saying you're Buddhist? (It's spelled with 2 D's)

Nobody disbelieves in the dimensions of the world. Nobody even disagree's that there may be some we dont know. But I'm failing to see how that affects your view on humanity and faith. Evolution/Science vs. Religion is always a nice ongoing debate, but this particular form of science (which has nothing to do with religion), in no way impacts creationism or the role of divinity or anything like that. It's not like Christians dont believe in science at all.

As for willpower, yes, humans have free will/ will power/ whatever you want to call it. But the Bible itself claims that humans were created in God's own image, that God gave them the freedom of willpower on their own, so they may direct their own lives, make their own mistakes, and (ideally) repent their sins so they may accept the father as their savior and still go to heaven.

So, when you talk about only living up to 2% of our brain capacity, you're talking about the human potential, not evolution. If that 98% is still there, it doesnt need to be evolved, just discovered. God isnt against discovery (hense free will).

The religious debate is about justifying the human existance (a large portion of it). You didnt really talk about that, you just talked about what we are today. Which is fine, and its good you like to think about such endeavors into the unknown, but it still makes your points a little short of knowledge.

I'm curious as to what your opinions about creationism are, however. Perhaps it will get you thinking even more. Maybe you believe the mind of the individual has the potential to create an individual, then we're talking about God and faith. You also mentioned Gods later on, do you believe in other Gods? But now I'm just putting words in your mouth. So, explain so I may better know.

[Jeffery]

I do not only use 2% of my brain.

Jeffery is God. That answers all your questions.
Yeah. On a good day you can get all the way to 1%.

[The Frozen One]

Maybe by the end of your lifespan we'll fix that?

[The Frozen One]

ok thank you meat eater i know all that but i suck at putting it all out in words. As for religion im just stating i dont believe in any particular god.
Will power, im saying isnt just willpower but actually changes wat will occur but to a lower degree than something that would be considered "supernatural"

[meat.eater]

No, you actually used words like "evolve," so I dont think you fully understood it, or fully understand what it is completely that you're talking about.

If you know all of it, what was the point of this thread?

[The Frozen One]

Just to try to put into words wat im...understanding

[Kyir]

Block of badly colored text = punch in the face.

[The Frozen One]

lol nice :p

Basically i found this interesting so i decided to share

[The Frozen One]

and kyir i hope thats not ur door on that signature...ur parents wouldnt be to happy

[R G]

Yeah. On a good day you can get all the way to 1%.

I doubt Zoticus could actually manage to utilize 1% of a whole 1% of his brain... he's too busy brown nosing to the point where his head is a permanent fixture in someone's anus.:D

[nads]

The problem with using theories to determine other theories validity is that you have to hope the first theory is true, but since it's still simply theory you can't really be so sure. In mathematics when doing proofs, you follow traditional logic based on an initial premise. If your initial premise is incorrect, your "proof" will also be as such. So from your post I gathered that string theory is truth, brains are cool, buddha is truth, and god is fiction. Unless there's more there that I somehow missed.

State dependant memory is a pretty cool psychological idea that might have rellevance right now. They did some tests on people, memorize a list of words. Half the people were drunk, half sober. They then tested the people for recollection, with some people drunk and some sober. They found whatever state of mind you were in when you learned something would be best remembered if you were in the same state of mind when being forced to recall the information. For this reason, I have ALWAYS taken a 64 oz. coke to every test, since I'm 99% sure I was buzzing on caffeine when I studied that day. Anyways, I do have a point with all this mumbo jumbo. Perhaps if I reread the original post at 4:20 this afternoon it will make much more sense to me than it does now.

[The Frozen One]

a problem, i think, we have is that we only hav one consious mind and a couple unconcious ones. what that means is we can only focus on one thought at a time but even then youll have a whole bunch of thoughts in the back of ur mind. Background thoughts:). God (if there is one) is able to see everything or something like that. He knows everythings and happens to be everywhere. To be able to do that you'd need millions of consious minds to know all this.
and i agree nads. That is cool stuff I just learned something :p

[The Frozen One]

I doubt Zoticus could actually manage to utilize 1% of a whole 1% of his brain... he's too busy brown nosing to the point where his head is a permanent fixture in someone's anus.:D

lol, i dont think so either :D

[Kyir]

To be able to do that you'd need millions of consious minds to know all this.

Or, it wouldn't matter because it would be God, so it can just do whatever it wants?

[Anarchy_United]

Actually, the whole 2% thing isn't true. 10% of our brain is what we use for thinking, the rest of it is for non-voluntary things.

[Worker]

So which 'string theory' do you "believe" in... there are more than one.

My second question to you frozen, were drugs or alcohol involved in the creation of this thread?

[uniquinous]

Well, I commend you for trying to explain your theories, but I would like to point out a few things that are incorrect.

Another thing I have to explain is the brain. The brain is a complex thing and im not ganna get to far into it. First thing that needs explanasion is the amount of space ur using in ur brain. Ok the brain is like a computer hard-drive. If you would look up the amount of space on ur "hard-drive" that ur actually using it would say only 2%. Can you believe it?!?!? We have a whole 98% of space left in our brain.This is actually completely false. It's a myth, and nothing more. I myself have seen one too many fMRI studies to know the entire brain can light up. For details, please see this article (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp) on urban legends. It pretty much states that the only people who further this myth are the ones who claim that full use of the brain would cause paranormal activity (exactly as you have just claimed). The better example isn't that our brain is a hard drive, but rather a processor - so why you may not use 100% of it at any give time (especially during really simple things which don't involve much thought), in any given day you use the full extent of your brain.

I dont believe in god. But i do believe there could be a person who has a better understanding of the way thing work. Yeah that would be me. :)

If a particular person was brought to these dimensions... If the shock doesnt kill you then maybe he found a way to do something with this... If the shock or something else maybe even just being in that place in space time unlocked the 98% of brain it would allow him to do extraordinary things.Well, the problem with that is that you can't bring someone into all of those extra dimensions, cuz we're alrady *in* all those extra dimensions... As in, 11 exist and rule the universe, and we can only perceive a few, but we're still in the universe, and under the effects of all of them - we just don't know how to percieve them or really what they are. If, for example, it turns out one of the dimensions has to do with magnetic forces, well we all already know what a magnet is and does, even though we have no clue how and why.






Scientific experiments show us that our willpower effects the outcome of things too. Which scientific experiments show that? I'm aware that willpower can improve health, but that also deals with stress and a number of other hormones your brain can release.

Makes you wonder what are we going to evolve into and wat abilities will be accessible to us once we figure how to see these other dimensions.Humans are done evolving. Evolution is determined through natural selection, and removing bad genes from a population to only allow for the better genes/traits. Currently, this society keeps both good and bad genes, and mixes them freely, through medical advancement and keeping everyone alive as long as possible.

[Worker]

Humans are done evolving. Evolution is determined through natural selection, and removing bad genes from a population to only allow for the better genes/traits. Currently, this society keeps both good and bad genes, and mixes them freely, through medical advancement and keeping everyone alive as long as possible.

Wouldnt certain people building immunity to a virus still be evolving? Granted it might not be on a large scale, as the medical world would figure out whats different about those people genes. Then give a cure/vaccine out... but wouldnt that still be considered genetic evolution?

[Anarchy_United]

We are still evolving, because you never know when a new mutation will cause a certain person to become far superior... say the ability to shoot laser beams from his/her eyes.

[Worker]

We are still evolving, because you never know when a new mutation will cause a certain person to become far superior... say the ability to shoot laser beams from his/her eyes.To bad a pirate never developted that ability.

[uniquinous]

Wouldnt certain people building immunity to a virus still be evolving? Granted it might not be on a large scale, as the medical world would figure out whats different about those people genes. Then give a cure/vaccine out... but wouldnt that still be considered genetic evolution?Unfortunately not. Evolution is really determined by what genes get passed on an amplified. If some plague-like pandemic were to sweet the world, and only certain people were immune to it, while everyone else died off, then *that* would be a step in evolution, because the only people continuing are those that have that gene. Otherwise it's just chance mutation, which happens all the time, and generally doesn't affect evolution because medicine can compensate and those without immunity can reproduce just as effectively.

On a related note, *social* evolution is roaring right now.

[Realist]

Humans are done evolving. Evolution is determined through natural selection, and removing bad genes from a population to only allow for the better genes/traits. Currently, this society keeps both good and bad genes, and mixes them freely, through medical advancement and keeping everyone alive as long as possible.

This is as much an urban legend as 10% brain use.

Humans are not "done" evolving. It's easy enough to see that society doesn't "keep both good and bad genes"--just look at how many childless people there are. How long one lives is irrelevant, what matters is whether the genes get passed on, and now as always some people are far better at passing on their genes than others. As long as there is some genetic component to this difference in gene-passing ability, evolution will continue.

[Jeffery]

So you're saying that dirty trailer trash rednecks are going to be the surviving portion of humanity??

I mean, they are better at passing on their genes than just about anything but rabbits.

[Realist]

So you're saying that dirty trailer trash rednecks are going to be the surviving portion of humanity??

I mean, they are better at passing on their genes than just about anything but rabbits.

It's a definite possibility. It's why I tell every smart person I meet, start breeding soon and breed well. Humanity is doomed if every self-aware, scientific mind hasn't enough children to replace the parents!

You don't need that high a ratio of elite to trash to run a successful society and continue human advancement. But we do need some smart people. So yeah, have kids if you aren't an idiot and you care about the future of the species.

[uniquinous]

This is as much an urban legend as 10% brain use.

Humans are not "done" evolving. It's easy enough to see that society doesn't "keep both good and bad genes"--just look at how many childless people there are. How long one lives is irrelevant, what matters is whether the genes get passed on, and now as always some people are far better at passing on their genes than others. As long as there is some genetic component to this difference in gene-passing ability, evolution will continue.I disagree with this strongly. There's too much diversity, and at the same time, mixing of genes. The natural criteria for evolution simply doesn't exist with humans. There's no physical isolation, mating isolation, niche differences. People procreate across race, religion, class, and intelligence.

Take a look at educated America nowadays. Women are working a lot more then 50 years ago, and staying in school years longer. For many, settling down and mitotically dividing can come well into the thirties due to social changes. So what could one predict form this? That the rednecks of Jeffery's example will procreate more and therefore those genes will dominate? Well, this is social evolution, the thing I mentioned that *is* continuing - minor localized shifts in the gene pool which dont separate/change a species, but are due to social patterns, and quickly dissolve.

Nonetheless, as I pointed out before, people marry across these lines. Rich people get poor, things mix, and there's no way to predict a change in allele frequency. The bad allele's persist right alongside the bad ones, with no means of real shift.

[Realist]

I disagree with this strongly. There's too much diversity, and at the same time, mixing of genes. The natural criteria for evolution simply doesn't exist with humans. There's no physical isolation, mating isolation, niche differences. People procreate across race, religion, class, and intelligence.

None of these are "natural criteria for evolution." There are only two requirements for evolution.

1. Imperfect replicators
2. Differential selection among replicators based on properties which are imperfectly replicated

Mathematically, any system in which these two properties hold will lead to evolutionary processes. That is, properties of replicators which enhance the chance of selection will tend to overtake the population. Put another way, beneficial mutations will tend to overtake the population. Agree so far?

So let's ask ourselves if these two criteria hold now for humans living in the Western world.

1. Imperfect replicators

DNA code still replicates, and still mutates, so yeah, this one is easy.

2. Differential selection among replicators based on properties which are imperfectly replicated

Well, there obviously is differential selection--some genes in some people spread themselves better than others, because some people spread their genes better by having more surviving and reproducing children. So all that is left to prove is that there is some genetic basis to this differential selection.

Is there? Yep. Genes influence virtually all of human life, so they definitely influence how many kids you'll have. Consider the interesting case of genes for susceptibility to fundie Christianity. The more susceptible, the more fundie you become, the more kids you will have if you believe in be fruitful and multiply. Genes for fundie susceptibility should spread in modern populations over time. This is evolution--the human race will become slowly more religious, provided other conditions do not change (a huge provided, but that doesn't take away from my point).

I made two assumptions there--that there are genes for increased susceptibility to religion and that religious are more likely to have children. Forget the second assumption, it is probably true but irrelevant--there is some reason some people have more kids than others. I claim that this reason, whatever it is, will almost surely have a genetic component. This is a reasonable claim, because, as I said, genes are so integral to animal function that anything an animal does has a genetic component. Since genes affect so much, there are bound to be some that make people more or less susceptible to the effects of religion, and thus more or less likely to have more children. So evolution continues.

I make such a long response because I hear what you say so often, and it is so very false, and because you are educated in biology and yet still think such a false thing! I wonder what kind of education you have had in the subject? Evolution is so fascinating, and you are good at arguing against creationists so I know you know something about it. Now to respond to some of the stuff you said later (I am slightly inebriated, but can't resist):

That the rednecks of Jeffery's example will procreate more and therefore those genes will dominate? Well, this is social evolution, the thing I mentioned that *is* continuing - minor localized shifts in the gene pool which dont separate/change a species, but are due to social patterns, and quickly dissolve.

What do you mean by this term "social" evolution? :huh: Do you deny that there are genes for redneckedness? Surely genetics isn't the only factor, but you will have genetic evolution if it is even a tiny factor.

Evolution is about more than just "separate/change a species"--that's just a random human classification. No, you won't wake up tomorrow and find that rednecks can't breed with intellectuals. :)

Nonetheless, as I pointed out before, people marry across these lines.

So? They marry across lines less than one might think, and I bet the occasional short-tailed peacock gets a hot peahen too. Doesn't stop evolution. All you need is a slight preference for long tails and eventually everyone will have them. That's the beauty!

[uniquinous]

:rolleyes: Let's start be defining evolution: the general change in allele frequency in a given population. As those things which I've touched upon previously (such as space or mating separation) don't exist, the "population" is all of mankind. Furthermore, the "general change" does not refer to minor or localized differences. For example, the amish have a much higher frequency of polydactylly (an extra finger) due to bottle-necking of the founders, but the frequency of polydactylly across the planet is pretty stable. With that in mind, let's look at what has been said:
None of these are "natural criteria for evolution." There are only two requirements for evolution.

1. Imperfect replicators
2. Differential selection among replicators based on properties which are imperfectly replicated

Mathematically, any system in which these two properties hold will lead to evolutionary processes. That is, properties of replicators which enhance the chance of selection will tend to overtake the population. Put another way, beneficial mutations will tend to overtake the population. Agree so far?Disagree so far. Beneficial mutations will tend to overtake a wild population, left to its own devices. Humans are quite outside of that at this point. Let me take the reverse of that statement: harmful mutations (or less beneficial traits) will tend to drop out of a population. Indeed this is seen in the natural selection of most ecosystems. However it's not seen in humans. How many people do you know suffer horribly from allergies to the point that, without drugs, they really wouldn't be doing too well? Yet with treatment, they've survived just fine, and so the bad genes stick, even though the good gene (not having such allergies) is also around. Furthermore, it's poor judgement to only place genes into "good" or "bad". Take sickle cell anemia, for example: heterozygous genotype for sickle cells gives a person a resistance to malaria. However, homozygotes contract a horrible disease. The complexity of genes restricts such lump categorizations as "beneficial" or "non-beneficial", and if you want to make the claims you are making, you need to show how they apply to humans (as they don't). In short, beneficial mutations *don't* overtake todays' population as non-beneficial 'competing' genes easily can be compensated for with the advancement of medicine.

Is there? Yep.

I claim that this reason, whatever it is, will almost surely have a genetic component. This is a reasonable claim, because, as I said, genes are so integral to animal function that anything an animal does has a genetic component. In these statements you just completely threw out the entire argument of nature vs nurture, claiming nurture has absolutely nothing to do with psychology. It's already well documented that, as far as humans go, not everything is genetic. Now as soon as you delve into the realm of "well nurture can affect psychology", you're talking about social evolution, which was my original claim of the only place where evolution exists for humans.

Point to a single phenotype that could create what you detailed. Let's say there was a magical gene that got people in the mood to have more sex then usual. If it were an animal, this could easily happen, and indeed evolution via allele frequency changes would occur. But now we're talking about a human with an increased sex drive. Instead of makin a ton of babies, he uses a condom, because he doesn't want STDs and he can't afford kids before his mutual fund matures a bit more. Doesn't matter what sex drive gene he has, as society can compensate.

So, whereas you made your claim through abstract thought experiment in the mind of a "Realist", being condescending to my knowledge and educational institution, I'm going to back my own claims with reality. Is it no wonder that women are having children later in life? That china suddenly went from reproducing like bunnies to only one child? I mean, by your claim, the fast-reproduction genes should be kicking in, right? But you'll find the social change creates US women developing their careers much more before having a kid; that china has a one-child policy with strict economic penalties. So where does this leave us? Well, it means US women with the best ability to survive, pay for medical costs, give their children the best future for survival, (ya know, the ones with those "beneficial genes") are the ones reproducing later and slower.

But this then breaks us into different types of reproduction strategies. You may try to divide humans into R or K selection, but at the heart of it it's clear to see how nurture plays a huge part in the process. You're ignoring the nurture part of human reproduction and viability.

So what's the end result? Natural selection is widely abolished. We have little predation (at least, nothing that truly affects our genetics), and no great plague. Lethal conditions, or the ability to fend off lethal attacks (such as a simple bacterial infection), can be easily countered with the use of medical treatments (meaning sustaining healthy life for all but the worst of conditions is generally assured well past reproductive years). General monogamy rules out the attractiveness polygamy allele shifts as shown by the Matching Hypothesis.

So, what's ultimately the largest driving force behind human reproduction changes today? If it's not attractiveness, and it's not predation, and it's not mild health conditions, what is it? What part of natural evolution do you really feel is playing a part here, enough to be so condescending towards me over?

It's social. Social evolution is still driving humanity, but not much else past that. It means we can teach children to think within varying different mindsets regardless of genes; it means social factors of reward and consequence are much greater in determining reproduction today then genetics. And it means the mechanisms of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms) no longer apply to us, whereas social mechanisms do.

[Realist]

Let's start be defining evolution: the general change in allele frequency in a given population.

Even by this definition, humans are definitely still evolving. I still dislike this definition for a number of reasons. In fact, you definition hurts your case in a sense. Say that rednecks and scientists are identical in relevant genes but socially stratified, and rednecks have more children than scientists. Then an allele in a single redneck will increase in frequency not because it is selected by evolution but simply because a redneck rather than a scientist happens to have it. Is that genetic evolution in any meaningful sense? I don't think so.

[Reductio ad absurdum: A guy mutates a new allele, nuclear war kills off everyone else, now that allele went from 1 in 6 billion to 1 in 1 frequency. Is that evolution? :)]

My definition of evolution is what I specified last post: Evolution is the process by which imperfect replicators are differentially selected based on their imperfectly replicated properties. Genetic evolution refers to evolution in which genes are the imperfect replicators. Humans are still going through genetic evolution because genes in humans are still being differentially selected; that is, some genes in humans are still better at spreading themselves than other genes.

Beneficial mutations will tend to overtake a wild population, left to its own devices. Humans are quite outside of that at this point. Let me take the reverse of that statement: harmful mutations (or less beneficial traits) will tend to drop out of a population. Indeed this is seen in the natural selection of most ecosystems. However it's not seen in humans. How many people do you know suffer horribly from allergies to the point that, without drugs, they really wouldn't be doing too well? Yet with treatment, they've survived just fine, and so the bad genes stick, even though the good gene (not having such allergies) is also around.

Ok, terminology problem here. By "beneficial" I mean only one thing--beneficial mutations increase the success of an organism at spreading its genes. "Harmful" mutations decrease the success of an organism at spreading its genes. If medicine removes the effect of allergies on gene-spreading, then allergies are no longer "harmful" in the narrow evolutionary sense of the word. You are quite correct that in such a case, humans will not evolve away from allergies. But that doesn't mean that humans won't evolve at all. It simply means they won't evolve away from allergies. There are still other genes which do affect evolutionary success and which therefore will be differentially selected.

Take sickle cell anemia, for example:

Yes, take sickle cell anemia for example. African Americans have lower incidence of the sickle cell anemia allele than Africans, and higher than white Americans. This demonstrates that they have evolved to meet the changing environment of the malaria-free USA, where the allele is a hindrance due to its homozygous form.

Put another way, the allele has benefits in Africa, but is only harmful in the US. Hence in the US we expect it to evolve away while in Africa it should survive. Human evolution at work! Do you deny that African immigrants to the US will eventually be free from sickle cell anemia due to evolutionary processes?

In these statements you just completely threw out the entire argument of nature vs nurture, claiming nurture has absolutely nothing to do with psychology.

What!!! In these statements you just completely threw out most of the respect I had for you as a student of evolution. It is absolutely not necessary that "nurture has absolutely nothing to do with psychology"--I think nurture is 85% of psychology. But evolution can work on even tiny differences in reproductive success--much smaller than 15%. Even if genetics has only the slightest influence on one's lifestyle, genetic evolution will do its work on that slight influence, and humans will continue to evolve.

Now as soon as you delve into the realm of "well nurture can affect psychology", you're talking about social evolution, which was my original claim of the only place where evolution exists for humans.

It's really not an either-or proposition. You still haven't explained to me what you mean by "social evolution" by the way. That sounds like a scary term to me.

Point to a single phenotype that could create what you detailed.

I did. Religious people have more children than secularists in the modern Western world. So a gene to make people more susceptible to religion should be evolutionarily successful in the modern Western world. I notice you did not respond to this example but instead created a strawman of your own.

So, whereas you made your claim through abstract thought experiment in the mind of a "Realist", being condescending to my knowledge and educational institution

I'm really not attempting to be condescending. In all honesty, I'm a consumer of everything I can understand on evolution and I notice that even some highly reputable thinkers in the field sometimes make elementary mistakes. Still, it really isn't excusable that anyone thinks themselves knowledgeable in biology and yet denies that modern humans are still evolving. I am not sure that it is your fault or that of your educational institution or something bigger altogether, but I do stand by that statement. This is basic stuff.

I am far more intellectually interested in why you think as you do than personally interested in condescension.

I mean, by your claim, the fast-reproduction genes should be kicking in, right?

Yes. But evolution takes time. The modern world is only a few generations old; of course you won't notice most of evolution yet, but if conditions stayed stable for a millennium you definitely would notice.

So where does this leave us? Well, it means US women with the best ability to survive, pay for medical costs, give their children the best future for survival, (ya know, the ones with those "beneficial genes") are the ones reproducing later and slower.

I'm not completely sure what you are saying here. Do you think that educated wealthy women make up for having fewer children by having them survive more? Highly unlikely, especially in a culture with government-subsidized medical care. Nope; I think you really would find a decrease in the genes that encourage the educated lifestyle if you watched for a bunch of centuries.

So, what's ultimately the largest driving force behind human reproduction changes today? If it's not attractiveness, and it's not predation, and it's not mild health conditions, what is it? What part of natural evolution do you really feel is playing a part here, enough to be so condescending towards me over?

Choice! Any gene that influences a person's choice to have children will be extremely relevant in the free and powerful societies of the modern West. You are absolutely right that predation, starvation, disease matter little now. But choice still matters a lot. Note that I am not arguing that choice is controlled by genes, simply that there are genes which influence it. I think this later argument, much milder than the one you accuse me of making, is undeniable.

[Anarchy_United]

Evolution simply has slowed down, as there "bad" genes aren't punished 100%.

[FreddyAdu23]

Evolution simply has slowed down, as there "bad" genes aren't punished 100%.
you are right about that, evolution would still be happening at the normal rate with people had not invented health care, and medical practices to save lives etc. etc. etc. But it now only goes on slowly because we can do those things and save lives, without it i bet our population would be a lot lower then the 6.5 billion people i beileve? please correct me if im not. But cause of this high population, and lack of fast evolution many dieases, and disablilities are still alive today, im sure that there would not be very many people with ADD, and all that if we still lived like cavemen. and AIDS would not be that common, heart diease ,and what not. and now because of our high numbers animals are now having to adapt to cities, and there numbers are being decreased sharply, because of habiata loss, and poaching etc. I beileve something like 80+ species of animals go exticent everyday. And eventually if we dont stop we will have to adapt to having no food, which we really cant adapt to, unless we somehow become plants and get the energy from the sun, which did i mention will eventually engulf this planet when it becomes a red giant. so needless to say we are screwed however we looked at it because we invented health care etc. etc. (the sun part was kind of just to say if we make it to then i hope we can travel to another glaxaly [i know i spelled that wrong] or something by then)

a couple things
1. i didnt no use capital letters, or spell check that.
2. there were 3 huge walls of text above me lol (random)

and to AU, im surpised u havent randomly said "I like pudding" by now...

[Realist]

Evolution simply has slowed down, as there "bad" genes aren't punished 100%.

I suspect that evolution has actually quickened rather than slowed down in neolithic age of humanity, from 6000 years or so to today. This is because humans have a vast capacity to modify their own environment, and modified environments are a major spur to quick evolutionary change. By this reasoning, humans should be evolving quicker than ever in the modern world, where we change our environment vastly every single generation.

There will be a countering effect if the genetic effect on survival and reproduction decreases with our continued technological/medical advancement. But is there actual evidence that it has? Surely some medical advancements do decrease the effect of genetic differences. But as I noted last post, these lost medical genetic factors are replaced by lifestyle issues which themselves have genetic influences. I don't think anyone knows which effect is stronger, and I don't really think anyone on these forums is qualified to estimate.

Besides, medicine works both ways. If a disease has high mortality, it's possible that everyone will die except those who can resist the disease. It's also possible that everyone affected will just die because no one in the affected population can resist the disease. With medicine, the disease can spread further, and thus there is higher chance that someone will have a genetic resistance, which can then spread over time. It is the conditions of the modern world that allowed AIDS to spread so far, and there is still evolutionary advantage to evolving resistance to AIDS. Hence modernity encourages quicker evolution.

[xerent]

Humans are done evolving.

/laugh

[The Frozen One]

ok, we just cant see these dimensions because of this. We may be able to get to that state of mind if there are smarter beings living in these particular areas of spacetime who decide they want to expirement on some "aliens" or something. Particualrly i believe we do not use the full copasity of our brain. i didnt have the time to read all of ur opinions cause i have to go but im going to say that i do believe we are moving to some thing like this. people are already looking into things that wouldn't have possibly been looked at, what 10 years ago? the people in 1950 might not of thought that what we have know would be possible. But we r getting into nano technology and what that will accomplish in not just medical areas i cant even begin to say. I think nano technoloy will make our evolution faster, and not only in good ways. So your right we cant possibly know the whats, whens, hows, and whys. So this is all a matter of opinion. You might think it a myth that we only use 2% of our brain, but i have to say it still is down to a matter of opinion. That fact that you said u "think" tells me that u prabably think its about opinion too. so whatever technology or movement that comes isn't always seen coming... The people 100 years ago might have thought technology as amazing as ours was impossible, but if we brought one person here from the past then what would they say then?(time, another dimension, we could bring someone from another dimension of time if we understood it) The problem is that the brain's cells arent repaired when a lot of the cells die off at a young age. Its the only organ that doesnt repair and all the drugs people are using don't help. Perhaps when we get farther into medical science we can fix the brain thats not fixing itself.

[The Frozen One]

I see alot of potential in all beings of earth. It could be possible that the bridge between us and other animals will be broken. Maybe other animals will develope consiousness too.
What separates us and other things is our consiousness and if other consious beings were to emerge, I'm not sure what would happen but i'd hope it'd be for the best. Humans...i think they aren't doing to well at the moment. Basically our major traits are our intelligence and our will to kill things. Right now our will to kill things has been slightly overcome by our intelligence. It's stilll there but not as strong. People still suffer from that particular problem. I dont see its there fault but we were made like that from the very beginning. And if u look at us like computers u could say its in our original "code" I dont know if we'll get everything togather eventually but i guess i have to hope. Pollution is our main problem in my opinion and if we fix that, find a cleaner energy, we're set for life:bigsmile:

[The Frozen One]

Ok i read some of uniqinos's article and when i got to that part about aliens... It's weird, our perception of reality. Reality isnt a set thing, its your own look at whats real and whats not. Lets say there is some tribe that hasnt gotten even close to our modern era. They still use rocks and sticks for stuff.(this is hypothetical, its not true) If they saw something like a big boat of ours or something like that their perception of reality would tell them its not there.(this actually happened once in history, the people on the boat killed off and stole from the tribe or something like that) They'd look at the boat and wouldn't believe what they saw, because they dont have boats, and pass it off as nothing because reality is only what you believe. If someone saw an alien spaceship most likely they wouldn't notice it... Kinda hard to explain but its almost as if the ship was invisible, wich it is, but only to you. Reality could be another aspect of us not being able to see these other dimensions of our world.

yea, i just read all ur posts and they all are based on opinion. No one can say if they're right or wrong

[The Frozen One]

I thought this was a great discussion thanks guys :bigsmile:

[uniquinous]

My definition of evolution is what I specified last post.And my definition is different (as is most of the scientific community's, compared to yours). ;)

Yes, take sickle cell anemia for example. African Americans have lower incidence of the sickle cell anemia allele than Africans, and higher than white Americans. This demonstrates that they have evolved to meet the changing environment of the malaria-free USA, where the allele is a hindrance due to its homozygous form. .. ... Do you know why sickle cell frequency displays as it does? :huh: Look at a bit of American history, eh?

Now look at Tay Sachs disease, another autosomal recessive disease. Why was it that generations of Jews still carried it, yet somehow in America in recent times, Tay Sachs is nearly abolished? Here's a hint (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/08_01/Tay_Sachs_lit.shtml) (p.s. - social evolution)

Do you deny that African immigrants to the US will eventually be free from sickle cell anemia due to evolutionary processes? If you want to claim that sickle cell genes will magically disappear from the population via natural evolution and without the help of social processes, you will need to show how replication of the 'bad' gene is slower or nonexistant, compared to the 'good' gene, or alternately how it will be removed. Random mutation tends not to revert genes back to the wild type form, and are more likely to be silent or harmful. Heck, let's get some numbers out: 444 base pair gene of your 3000000000 base pair genome, where a point mutation needs to revert the valine back to glutamic acid. So, it's easy to say "yeah that gene's gonna go away" but... you need to show why, and how (and to avoid my point, ensure it's not social evolution).

What!!! In these statements you just completely threw out most of the respect I had for you as a student of evolution. Pff when have you ever had respect for me Realist? You're too challenged by me to make yourself believe you have any. :rolleyes: But, I don't know where you went with the rest of that paragraph...

It's really not an either-or proposition. You still haven't explained to me what you mean by "social evolution" by the way. That sounds like a scary term to me.Man finds wolf. Man tames wolf. Man breeds wolf different ways, and calls it "chihuahua" or "beagle" or "labradoodle". Did wolf evolve? (go ask the Christians)

Choice! Any gene that influences a person's choice to have children will be extremely relevant in the free and powerful societies of the modern West. So erm, in your vast knowledge, which genes influence a person's choice to have children? j/w...

oh and, while you're thinking of that, let me know how you feel society's pressures on childbirth might weigh in compared to that gene.

[The Coder]

Can someone shorten his first post and translate it into regular English?

[xerent]

Can someone shorten his first post and translate it into regular English?

Sure. Here goes.

Space is multi-dimensional in more ways than we can perceive.

The brain stores information.

Someone might be able to perceive dimensions that most people cannot.

Doing so might unlock hidden potentials within his brain and make him (or her!) a superhero.

Buddhists are cool, and probably know something that unenlightened people don't.

God can do stuff. Probably because he can see extra dimensions.

People might evolve.

Aaaaand, that's about it.

[Brahman]

Great thread there Frozen. I appreciate the flexibility you have in your views. Perhaps you should try sitting under a banyon tree and meditating. Experience what Buddha was pointing to in his teaching of the Middle Path.

There has been much lively discussion. On the subject of evolution however I'm surprised that it has been funneled so narrowly into being simply a physical phenomena. But this is also indicative of some of the problems we face as a species.

I submit to you that human growth mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually would all together be a complete way of looking at evolution in relationship to humanity. We could develop genetically to being far superior of a species than we are today but what would it matter if we're stuck in old mental patterns, emotionally blocked, and spiritually dead? In my experience meditation has helped me to:
*give up cigarettes.
*Let go of the resentment I held against my biological father.
*Forgive myself for past actions
*Learning to give love rather than expect it from others
*Letting go of societally imposed standards of body-consciousness
*Choosing to find appreciation rather than condemnation

Each of these choices have consequently had the effect of evolutionary change upon my body. I have not been sick in four years. Allergies I once had are completely gone. No matter what I eat I no longer have acid reflux. Giving selflessly of my time and energy is more and more the habit. The Tuberculosis I had once been diagnosed with has disappeared. Being tired is no more than a thought so I have tons more energy than ever. I smile and laugh more than ever. I attribute all of these changes to the effect meditation has had in increasing joy and happiness in my life. I find that many things that used to effect me no longer do. I'm also starting to have light experiences of what some would call ESP. These changes have been nothing other than evolutionary for me in my life and I wonder what would happen if more of humanity were doing this sort of thing. I believe that Free Will plays an important role so far as choice is concerned and it's effect upon the course of nature around us.

[Realist]

uniq,

Did you even read my last post? Everything is explained sufficiently there, and you do not respond to what must be responded to in order to continue this conversation in a meaningful way. This is a habit of yours, I'm finding. Maybe stop trying to just score points and try to actually understand what I am saying.

me: My definition of evolution is what I specified last post.
uniq: And my definition is different (as is most of the scientific community's, compared to yours).

This is an example. I explained exactly what was wrong with your definition in my last post, in some detail. Now you have three choices.

1. Reread my post and respond specifically to what I wrote on this matter.
2. Concede the point (haha, except you never do this)
3. Do neither and this argument is over; smart people realize you have no debating skills

As a side point, do you have sources for how the definition of "most of the scientific community" is different than mine? How evolution is defined depends somewhat on the field, a geneticist and a zoologist may have different definitions. Nevertheless I think there are better and worse ways of thinking of evolution and I am not convinced that most of the scientific community is in the better camp.

.. ... Do you know why sickle cell frequency displays as it does? Look at a bit of American history, eh?

Heh, racial mixing has a lot to do with it. But evolution surely has an affect as well. This is completely obvious. Do you deny that evolution has any effect whatsoever? That is, if the races didn't mix do you think the sickle cell allele frequency would be the same for Africans in the Africa and those living in the US for centuries?

If you want to claim that sickle cell genes will magically disappear from the population via natural evolution and without the help of social processes, you will need to show how replication of the 'bad' gene is slower or nonexistant, compared to the 'good' gene, or alternately how it will be removed.

"Slower"? What does that mean? It's easy to show that the sickle cell allele replicates less than the wildtype; in dominant form it leads to a fatal disease. People with fatal diseases don't reproduce. If in recessive form it is beneficial then it has an advantage to counter the disadvantage. If in recessive form it is neutral it has no such advantage. Now it is true that an allele harmful only in dominant form will not be selected completely out of a population because as it decreases in frequency the chance of a dominant showing up decrease as well. However, it certainly will be selected against.

Random mutation tends not to revert genes back to the wild type form, and are more likely to be silent or harmful.

Mutation has nothing to do with it. The wildtype will overtake the population even if there is no further mutation because it replicates better.

I'm really wondering why you are bringing up mutation at all. You're either very confused, tired, or I'm just completely not getting your point. Obviously the decimation of the sickle cell gene isn't going to occur by having every single copy mutate out of existence. It's going to occur because the wildtype has a reproductive advantage.

Pff when have you ever had respect for me Realist?

I read over your response to various people in the Christian thread on evolution vs creation debate. I'm not familiar with everything in that debate and was somewhat impressed; indeed I even felt a bit educated. Now I guess I'm gonna have to question everything you say on the topic, but at the time I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Man finds wolf. Man tames wolf. Man breeds wolf different ways, and calls it "chihuahua" or "beagle" or "labradoodle". Did wolf evolve? (go ask the Christians)

Of course. Even by your definition. I guess it's called unnatural selection.

So erm, in your vast knowledge, which genes influence a person's choice to have children? j/w...

I explained this in great detail last post. I even gave you an example; susceptibility to religion. Same options as before, either respond to the specific point made or concede.

oh and, while you're thinking of that, let me know how you feel society's pressures on childbirth might weigh in compared to that gene.

"Compared" means nothing; how many times do I have to tell you this? The ratio of genetic factors to other factors is irrelevant to whether or not the genes will be selected. As long as a genetic factor has any influence whatsoever it is food for evolution. A gene that confers a 1% advantage in reproduction will overtake the population in a few hundred generations; a gene that confers a 0.1% advantage will take a few thousand. Is one evolution and the other not? How silly!
'

[Elphias Doge]

The brain is not like a computer hardrive. We can only use a very small percentage of our brains but a computer can use it's full capacity. A computer could gather information from every book in the world in about 3 seconds. Can we do that?

[Coffin Fedder]

The brain is not like a computer hardrive. We can only use a very small percentage of our brains but a computer can use it's full capacity. A computer could gather information from every book in the world in about 3 seconds. Can we do that?

Thats part true part false. Yes a computer can do that much faster then anyone else. Second part, scientist aren't compeltly sure how much of are brain we completly use. If any if you get the time go out and find a book called "Why do me fall asleep after sex?" It's a very interesting book that explains some of the weirdest questions you could ever expect which including how much of our brain do we really use is.

[uniquinous]

As a side point, do you have sources for how the definition of "most of the scientific community" is different than mine? How evolution is defined depends somewhat on the field, a geneticist and a zoologist may have different definitions. Nevertheless I think there are better and worse ways of thinking of evolution and I am not convinced that most of the scientific community is in the better camp.You need but google it yourself if you haven't like my linked definitions previously. :) But yes, the whole "change of frequency within a population" which some extend to "to create speciation" seems to be the one I've found online and in teh texts. While I like your definition in its creativity to provide a different angle to things, you're simply playing with a different set of cards.

Heh, racial mixing has a lot to do with it. But evolution surely has an affect as well. This is completely obvious. Do you deny that evolution has any effect whatsoever? That is, if the races didn't mix do you think the sickle cell allele frequency would be the same for Africans in the Africa and those living in the US for centuries?Well... yes. Racial mixing (as far as I can tell) was the largest reason the frequency was diluted down a bit, but the question is "where?". Let's go back to my definition of evolution, where I pointed out that the human population nowadays was the entire world. If I have 1L of water, and next to it have 1 drop of red dye number 3, the concentration of dye in total liquid is the same as if I were to drop that dye into the water directly. However, as you can clearly see, when the dye drop is separate, and stays only with itself, the concentration (frequency) is much more noticeable. Indeed you'll find this is what's happened in the US. You can dilute it down with other populations, but when still looking at the whole, it's still there, and has no method of going away.

"Slower"? What does that mean?Was referring to the microevolution commonly seen in bacteria, where certain traits (even good traits like antibiotic resistance) and selected against because those bacteria take longer to replicate. If one organism can simply replicate faster then another, the frequency of allele's will shift within that population.

It's easy to show that the sickle cell allele replicates less than the wildtype; in dominant form it leads to a fatal disease. People with fatal diseases don't reproduce. You'd think so, eh? Well, depends on age of onset. Some hemoglobinopathies do allow for people to lead horribly painful lives and still reproduce. Think of it this way, if some can live well into their 40s by managing their symptoms well, do you think they'll just say "well, I shouldn't reproduce, for the greater good of mankind!" Heck no. People are silly, and especially with the autosomal recessive genes, as they know offspring probably won't be affected. Why do you think people with fatal diseases don't reproduce? Furthermore, it's not uncommon to see parents who lost a child early from genetic disease to have another baby to replace the first. In short, the genes persist.

However, it certainly will be selected against.Ah, selected against by what? You touch back on something that sounds like 'natural selection'. But with any natural selection, you can point to what drives it. What's your selector? Let's look at Tay Sachs again. It's been generations since the bottle-neck really concentrated this gene (and if you ask how the original concentration came about, I will indeed conceed to natural evolution), and yet the gene persists. So, despite the fact that Tay Sachs is nearly completely abolished in modern America, 1 in 27 Jews of European descent still carry the gene, and it has absolutely zero reason to leave the population. Now, I'd be very interested to hear on how you believe the Tay Sachs gene can be selected against, or removed from the population. :)

Mutation has nothing to do with it. The wildtype will overtake the population even if there is no further mutation because it replicates better.Ah, but that's not established... at all. First off, wildtype doesn't necessarily replicate better. Take a bacteria with kanomycin resistance again. Now, in a kanomycin environment, the wild type without the resistance will instantly die away. However in an environment without antibiotics, the bacteria with the resistance will slowly fade over time as it doesn't replicate as quickly. This example clearly establishes how and why different bacterial genes will overtake one another. Indeed this is true for many genes with natural selection. However, you need to establish such is true in humans. I'm claiming social factors far exceed the genetic influences on replication.

It's going to occur because the wildtype has a reproductive advantage. Again, this is a good statement in general, but you need to show this is true in humans. If someone in China has a gene that gives them a tremendous reproductive advantage, but the law says they can only have one baby just like everyone else, then there's a genetic stalemate.



Now I guess I'm gonna have to question everything you say on the topicThis is indeed an excellent thing. :)


Of course. Even by your definition. I guess it's called unnatural selection.Ah, but the Christians will argue that evolution hasn't happened at all; that it was just manmade engineering that purposely created different appearances of the same animal. Indeed you'll find genetic advantage had nothing to do with such breeding, as it's commonly known that purebreds have worse health problems then muts. The bulldog has respiratory troubles, great danes have heart troubles, german shepherds are prone to hip dysplasia. So if evolution, as you say, is always moving towards wild type and selecting for the advantageous genes, what happened with these breeds?

I explained this in great detail last post. I even gave you an example; susceptibility to religion. Which gene is that specifically? RLGN1? It's all too easy to believe everything is genetic, and claim it as such, but you should show it. Discordant twin studies have shown alcoholism, intelligence, and even frequency of divorce to have some small genetic tie. I've yet to hear about a religion one. Furthermore, should such a gene exist, I would still claim that the nurture part of upbringing and society would (by far) overcompensate for the nature of the gene.

So, the real focus comes down to deciding which has a greater influence on changes of genetic frequencies, the genes themselves, or society.

[Elphias Doge]

Uniquin, in response to your neg, I was referring to every book in the WORLD (I specifically said world) not every book you have read. A computer can go through a database of books in 3 seconds and gather all the information, however if presented with all the books in the world we wouldn't be able to read them all in our lifetime and even still we wouldn't gather every ounce of information and store it for life and be able to recall it at pin point detail if questioned about it. Our memory capacity isn't that great.

[gryph89]

I see alot of potential in all beings of earth. It could be possible that the bridge between us and other animals will be broken. Maybe other animals will develope consiousness too.
What separates us and other things is our consiousness and if other consious beings were to emerge, I'm not sure what would happen but i'd hope it'd be for the best. Humans...i think they aren't doing to well at the moment. Basically our major traits are our intelligence and our will to kill things. Right now our will to kill things has been slightly overcome by our intelligence. It's stilll there but not as strong. People still suffer from that particular problem. I dont see its there fault but we were made like that from the very beginning. And if u look at us like computers u could say its in our original "code" I dont know if we'll get everything togather eventually but i guess i have to hope. Pollution is our main problem in my opinion and if we fix that, find a cleaner energy, we're set for life:bigsmile:

Sorry, I really don't care about Uniq/Real goin back and forth, but this kinda tipped me.

Animals certainly do have consciousness. Last time I checked, they are in fact aware of other things living, and have self-awareness.

So let me ask you something, why is it that man thinks they are better? All humans are, basically is little children with big toys. The only reason we are considered "the world's most dangerous animal" is because we not always follow our instincts.

Perhaps you should read Grendel, and pick out the part specifically with the Mountain Goat in the Beginning, and Bull halfway through.

[Realist]

You need but google it yourself if you haven't like my linked definitions previously.

I see no links. Nevertheless, when I google "evolution change allele frequency" I do get a couple of education sites. It is entirely possible that you were taught this definition at some point. But it doesn't matter! The definition still sucks. And the thing is, I explained exactly why it sucks, and yet you continue to fail to respond to my point here.

My own definition is heavily influenced by my reading of Dawkins. I like it because it gets to the heart of exactly what evolution is, which is what definitions are supposed to do. Darwin wouldn't have understood what you were talking about if you talked to him about changes in allele frequency; do you deny then that he discovered evolution? My definition is compatible with both Darwin's understanding and yours.

Just in case you do not understand my argument and that's why you decline to respond to it, let me explain my reductio ad absurdum. If a man is on the space station when nuclear war eliminates all life on earth, so he becomes the last survivor, any of his alleles increase to a frequency of 1. Is this an example of evolution? It is by your definition but not by mine. Do you agree? Please answer this question. Arguing from authority will not do.

You can dilute it down with other populations, but when still looking at the whole, it's still there, and has no method of going away.

Except that it does...natural selection does not stop just because the population gets bigger.

You'd think so, eh? Well, depends on age of onset.

Well, I betray my lack of specific knowledge of sickle cell. So what? It doesn't matter, as I explain below.

Furthermore, it's not uncommon to see parents who lost a child early from genetic disease to have another baby to replace the first. In short, the genes persist.

"Not uncommon" eh? If even 1% of parents who lost a child from genetic diseases gave up, there's room for evolution. If .1% gave up there is room for evolution! So forget your "not uncommon." Evolution is only over if genetic disease has absolutely no influence on reproduction. Similarly, if even 1% of sickle cell anemia sufferers die before they reproduce, if they otherwise would have reproduced, then it will be selected against. Do you deny this? Answer directly.

Let's look at Tay Sachs again. It's been generations since the bottle-neck really concentrated this gene (and if you ask how the original concentration came about, I will indeed conceed to natural evolution), and yet the gene persists. So, despite the fact that Tay Sachs is nearly completely abolished in modern America, 1 in 27 Jews of European descent still carry the gene, and it has absolutely zero reason to leave the population.

Why do you say that it has "zero reason to leave the population"? Perhaps if conditions continued as they are, Tay Sachs frequency would decrease over time. I already stated myself that actually leaving the population completely is unlikely because at lower frequencies the chance of getting the disease decrease, decreasing selective effect. Alternatively, Tay Sachs might have an advantage in recessive form that compensates for its disadvantage, and therefore will not be selected against.

Now, I'd be very interested to hear on how you believe the Tay Sachs gene can be selected against, or removed from the population.

I am not an expert on Tay Sachs, but explain to me why the obvious answer doesn't work. Recessive carriers have a reproductive disadvantage because if they happen to mate with another carrier their child could get Tay Sachs and die before reproductive age. Therefore Tay Sachs will be selected against.

Ah, but that's not established... at all. First off, wildtype doesn't necessarily replicate better.

True but besides the point (I'm not an idiot). The point is that mutation has nothing to do with it. Whichever allele replicates better will increase in frequency! No further mutation required.

Indeed you'll find genetic advantage had nothing to do with such breeding, as it's commonly known that purebreds have worse health problems then muts.

To reiterate a point yet again: genetic advantage and disadvantage refers to replication ability. A genetic advantage is anything that helps a gene replicate. It does NOT refer to health! If sacrificing health increases replication rates through some other method, then that is a genetic advantage.

The bulldog has respiratory troubles, great danes have heart troubles, german shepherds are prone to hip dysplasia. So if evolution, as you say, is always moving towards wild type and selecting for the advantageous genes, what happened with these breeds?

I never said evolution is always moving towards wild type (that makes no sense.) Evolution is however always selecting for advantageous genes, tautologically, because I defined advantageous as meaning that it gives the gene a replicative advantage. I explained this all a few posts ago when you made the same argument.

Which gene is that specifically? RLGN1? It's all too easy to believe everything is genetic, and claim it as such, but you should show it.

I anticipated this counter argument way back and already responded to it, so let me just copy the part of my post that you refused to respond to at the time.

I made two assumptions there--that there are genes for increased susceptibility to religion and that religious are more likely to have children. Forget the second assumption, it is probably true but irrelevant--there is some reason some people have more kids than others. I claim that this reason, whatever it is, will almost surely have a genetic component. This is a reasonable claim, because, as I said, genes are so integral to animal function that anything an animal does has a genetic component. Since genes affect so much, there are bound to be some that make people more or less susceptible to the effects of religion, and thus more or less likely to have more children. So evolution continues.

Furthermore, should such a gene exist, I would still claim that the nurture part of upbringing and society would (by far) overcompensate for the nature of the gene.

:(

Uniq! Come on. I responded to this at least three times already. "Overcompensate" matters not! Even a tiny genetic effect is food for evolution. It doesn't matter how much more social factors matter than genetic factors. All that matters is that genetic factors matter at all.

Let's stop going in circles. Please respond to my arguments rather than just restating your own.

[Brahman]

This is a great example of what I'm pointing to in the clash of individual perspectives. Realist and Uniq, I find both of you exceptionally intelligent scientific minded individuals. I cannot say who is right or wrong in the debate you are having, but I will say that similar debates take place even amongst scientists of PhD caliber knowledge in their respective fields. Debates take place surrounding Christian theology amongst brilliant studied scholars. Who has the answer? Is there One? Who can we look to for guidance? Given the exponential increase in relative knowledge humanity gains with each new day, how can we ever hope to come to a peaceful resolution when each new piece of knowledge shapes each individual mind in different ways. Is seeking a Unifying common ground that lies beyond relative agreements just a fanciful ideal? Can humanity as a whole afford not to meet eye to eye given the current situation on this planet? Cause I think that if we choose to, we could spend many thousands more years debating with one another, or we could affect our evolution positively by combining individual effort with what best serves the whole and vice a versa .

[Realist]

Who has the answer?

Me.

Is there One?

Yep.

Who can we look to for guidance?

Same answer as #1.

Given the exponential increase in relative knowledge humanity gains with each new day, how can we ever hope to come to a peaceful resolution when each new piece of knowledge shapes each individual mind in different ways.

Deal with it?

Is seeking a Unifying common ground that lies beyond relative agreements just a fanciful ideal?

Nope.

Can humanity as a whole afford not to meet eye to eye given the current situation on this planet?

Yep.

Cause I think that if we choose to, we could spend many thousands more years debating with one another, or we could affect our evolution positively by combining individual effort with what best serves the whole and vice a versa .

Whatever that means.

[abyaly]

x, I agree completely with your approach to this situation.

[-57-]

Mmmmmm... I think my IQ is going up by just staring at this page... ;)

[The Frozen One]

:bigsmile: but do you really know what will occur in the time to come? Can see into the future of the universe?

[The Frozen One]

realist i have to agree with brahman when he says that u know what your talking about and that we can debate this topic forever. But this was only supposed to be a discusion, theres no need to get upset. Your arguement is a good one, but so are others i've seen on this thread.

Maybe you should try meditation

[Kyir]

:bigsmile: but do you really know what will occur in the time to come? Can see into the future of the universe?

Yes, yes I can.

I predict that time will not start moving backwards.

[The Frozen One]

then if kiyr is telling the truth(witch i dought) then that proves wat im talkin about lol :)

[Click Here]

Given the exponential increase in relative knowledge humanity gains with each new day, how can we ever hope to come to a peaceful resolution when each new piece of knowledge shapes each individual mind in different ways.

Who says we need to come to a peaceful resolution? Perhaps the purpose of disagreement and debate is to allow us (either those involved or those observing) to gain new insight, and expand our understanding.

[Kyir]

then if kiyr is telling the truth(witch i dought) then that proves wat im talkin about lol :)

Why would I lie?

[The Frozen One]

i'm not sure kyir...you tell me

[The Frozen One]

Who says we need to come to a peaceful resolution? Perhaps the purpose of disagreement and debate is to allow us (either those involved or those observing) to gain new insight, and expand our understanding.

your right. I guess we will just have to wait and wonder all the while...

[Kyir]

i'm not sure kyir...you tell me

Well, I am highly anti-social.

[uniquinous]

I see no links. Nevertheless, when I google "evolution change allele frequency" I do get a couple of education sites. It is entirely possible that you were taught this definition at some point. But it doesn't matter! The definition still sucks. And the thing is, I explained exactly why it sucks, and yet you continue to fail to respond to my point here.If you see no links, look harder. Granted they are mostly wikipedia, but as you've seen from Google, the claim is quite valid. Now you may believe the definition sucks, but I believe yours has much room for improvement as well. :) (we'll get to that later, there are still points we're both missing here)

do you deny then that he discovered evolution? I'm getting rather fond of these high-inquisitor statements. You should use them more. :)

Is this an example of evolution? It is by your definition but not by mine. Do you agree? Please answer this question. Arguing from authority will not do.There's an important distinction to be made within my definition however. Did it come about through genetics or through some other, dare I repeat, "social" force? Now we're getting to where our definitions overlap. :) Nevertheless, bottlenecking has very strongly shown a case for evolution historically. The question is "howso?"

Except that it does...natural selection does not stop just because the population gets bigger.Which part of nature is selecting? No predation, no immunological advantage before childrearing years... what part of nature is selecting? Give me a specific example (religion gene doesn't exist). I've asked this several times now, and it seems to go unnoticed. :)

Now, on the other hand, I can give you several social factors which strongly influence selection.

Why do you say that it has "zero reason to leave the population"? Perhaps if conditions continued as they are, Tay Sachs frequency would decrease over time. I already stated myself that actually leaving the population completely is unlikelyLet's assume that there are no benefits from being a carrier. How will Tay Sacks frequency dwindle? The disease itself is abolished from this country due to educated and tested parents. "Bad" genes are passed on quite safely now, with no problems.

To reiterate a point yet again: genetic advantage and disadvantage refers to replication ability. A genetic advantage is anything that helps a gene replicate. It does NOT refer to health! If sacrificing health increases replication rates through some other method, then that is a genetic advantage. Agreed.

I never said evolution is always moving towards wild type (that makes no sense.) Ah, I seem to have misread context when you said "The wildtype will overtake the population .. ..

the wildtype has a reproductive advantage. " Appologies.

Evolution is however always selecting for advantageous genes, tautologically, because I defined advantageous as meaning that it gives the gene a replicative advantage. I explained this all a few posts ago when you made the same argument.Ah wonderful! OK, so let's go back to the bulldog. Left to its own devices, the bulldog would promply die out. With poor respiratory systems, generally mangled faces/mouths/teeth, no decent way to hunt, one might theorize that evolution should have selected against this animal quite strongly. Yet it persists, strongly, despite these horrible genes. So again I will ask to you: why?

I anticipated this counter argument way back and already responded to it, so let me just copy the part of my post that you refused to respond to at the time.I claim that this reason, whatever it is, will almost surely have a genetic component. This is a reasonable claim, because, as I said, genes are so integral to animal function that anything an animal does has a genetic component.Unfortunately, just because you say it's a reasonable claim, does not make it so. If you say "anything an animal does has a genetic component", then you once again toss out nurture. Let's look at where this is right, and where it's not.
17 year old is found to drink and gamble excessively, with alcoholism in the family. Your claim is quite right here.

17 year old of the 50s, finds a husband early, and has 8 children (common for the time)
their 17 year old of the 70s, a hippie, engages in free love, very frequently, but on the pill (common for the time)
that person's 17 year old child of the 90s uses a condom until they are married, at which time they have 2 children.
Now your claim breaks down, as social factors much more strongly influence procreation then genetic ones. Again, go back to China - doesn't matter that the clock is ticking and people instinctively want more children if they simply can't pull it off - the social factor negates the instinct.

Meanwhile, the "forget to use protection" genes allow for the evolution of mankind into r-selection? Why hasn't it happened already?


"Overcompensate" matters not! Even a tiny genetic effect is food for evolution. It doesn't matter how much more social factors matter than genetic factors. All that matters is that genetic factors matter at all.And this ultimately is where we disagree. I believe that miniscule changes due to genetics will be insignificant compared to social factors changing the gene pool (or rather, keeping it stable). We as a society spend the majority of our medical research on finding out how to allow for poor genes to remain, and the social aspects have been shown to affect populations in a reverse and stronger method then ye olde natural evolution. Now you did bring up a good point in that there will be some small frequency changes due to choices in educated populations. To that small regard, I concede to a bit of microevolution in humans (I'm using that Christian term! now figure out what I want you thinking about...) We've come quite far in the past 5 million years, and our speciation and natural evolution have been well-defined. So where do we go in the next 5 million years? Does nothing happen at all? Of course not. But, do we see further speciation? Do those frequency changes create such a distinction, that the craziness of evolution disallows mating between man today and man then? Barring new pandemic, I'd say no. We're done. Doesn't mean *no* change exists. It just means we're not going anywhere.

More specifically, where we do go will be more strongly influence by social factors, then anything else.

[Brahman]

Who says we need to come to a peaceful resolution? Perhaps the purpose of disagreement and debate is to allow us (either those involved or those observing) to gain new insight, and expand our understanding.
Yes yes of course. There is definitely a healthy tension found in evolution and expansion is not without it's birth pangs. I completely see what you are saying here and I believe that many gain insight through reading these threads even though they may not participate.

I'm talking more along the lines of collectively bringing expanded Consciousness into communication so that these disagreements and debates end in an expansion for both parties in Union, rather than two people enlivening the illusion of separation and walking away contracted and un-evolved. We've all seen this between church and state, political parties etc. etc. It may sound weird but I've experienced first hand that two people can be in relative disagreement yet be completely on the same page in Consciousness, in this way love and understanding expands through the mutual desire to evolve rather than simply being 'right' and proving the other 'wrong'. In enlightenment the context of argument completely changes in that is supports the greater good of the whole as opposed to supporting only an individually singular position. By all outward appearances the argument or discussion may look the same but to those basking in the depths of Unified consciousness the relative points are mere waves upon the surface of a very deep ocean of wisdom. It is actually far easier to communicate this way and more is accomplished in a shorter amount of time.

[uniquinous]

yeah i'm all for debate - i'm rather enjoying this one - it allows for free ideas to come and go. saw a bumper sticker once along the lines of "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, Second it is violently opposed, Third it is accepted as being self-evident"

I mean, what fun would discussions have without the first two? :p

[BaxVarlet]

My theory goes beyond string theory and into string cheese theory. I believe it is far too elevated to the likes of intelligence seen here. So I shall bid you ado!

[The Frozen One]

string cheese theory hmmm?

[Jeffery]

I prefer the Easy Cheese theory.

[Click Here]

Ah wonderful! OK, so let's go back to the bulldog. Left to its own devices, the bulldog would promply die out. With poor respiratory systems, generally mangled faces/mouths/teeth, no decent way to hunt, one might theorize that evolution should have selected against this animal quite strongly. Yet it persists, strongly, despite these horrible genes. So again I will ask to you: why?

Sorry if i seem to be picking things out of context, but bulldogs exist and persist because we humans made them and continue to make them. If they were left to their own devices (i.e. if all humans ceased to exist) then they would die, I agree. I am not sure what you are using this as an example of.

Here (http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/09/03/dog_breeding_proof_that_darwin_was_right)is an article on dog breeding that might summarize it for those who are interested.

[The Frozen One]

ah... see? you prove his point. He means that bulldogs would die out if left to live on their own but they live because we allow it

[Brahman]

He means that bulldogs would die out if left to live on their own but they live because we allow it
Sort of like God and humans eh.

[Elphias Doge]

The dogs wouldn't die out, they would just die and then the adaption process would mean the children of those dying would get the genes of their parents who died and would slowly evolve ways of surving against what was inhertied in the genes, like better teeth for hunting etc.

[Kyir]

The dogs wouldn't die out, they would just die and then the adaption process would mean the children of those dying would get the genes of their parents who died and would slowly evolve ways of surving against what was inhertied in the genes, like better teeth for hunting etc.

Your guild in general annoys me.

I have nothing to contribute.

[Elphias Doge]

Well that was a mature response.

And we're not a guild, we're a clan and a Magical School/College for Young Witches and Wizards.

[Kyir]

Well that was a mature response.

And we're not a guild, we're a clan and a Magical School/College for Young Witches and Wizards.

Grats.

I despise you now.

[Elphias Doge]

Oh no. Now you made me cry.

Go away kid, we're trying to have a debate here.

[Kyir]

Oh no. Now you made me cry.

Go away kid, we're trying to have a debate here.

If by debate, you mean that all of you are saying that you're right and refuse to consider anyone else opinions, then yes. Yes you are.

Cookie?

[The Coder]

Aaaaand, that's about it.



Space is multi-dimensional in more ways than we can perceive.
We already have multiple dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottles
We could make a higher dimensional object than those, in theory (Well we can't actually make those)


The brain stores information.

o rly?


Someone might be able to perceive dimensions that most people cannot.
Yes we percieve other dimensions.


Doing so might unlock hidden potentials within his brain and make him (or her!) a superhero.
No.


Buddhists are cool, and probably know something that unenlightened people don't.
Buddhists are cool, but no, they don't know more than us (Well often another language, and depending on how much time spent meditating they can do some things we can't)


God can do stuff. Probably because he can see extra dimensions.

God doesn't exist. There is no proof for his existence, he only complicates things further. How is God being in existence for eternity and creating the universe simpler than the universe has always existed? We have no proof for it, and thusly we should assume the simplest explanation


People might evolve.
Yes. People will evolve, assuming all of mankind isn't simultaneously wiped from the earth.

Thanks xerent for summing it up for me. Sorry for responding several days later.

[Elphias Doge]

If by debate, you mean that all of you are saying that you're right and refuse to consider anyone else opinions, then yes. Yes you are.

Cookie?

Uhm, not it was in response to someone elses statement, then you randomly walked in and claimed you didn't care what I had to say. What I'm saying to you know is, nobody cares what you're saying here and that you should just leave, UNLESS you are going to join in the debate and make a valid point.

Would you like to respond to my statement? I'm more than willing to debate that point further with you if you feel that I claimed I was saying everyones answers are invalid, as long as you don't feel the need to try and get everyone to like you by trying to patronise me by saying stupid things like "Cookie?" or "I despise you" after every post. Nobody here is laughing.

[Kyir]

Nobody here is laughing.

So... no cookie?

[Brahman]

God doesn't exist. There is no proof for his existence, he only complicates things further. How is God being in existence for eternity and creating the universe simpler than the universe has always existed? We have no proof for it, and thusly we should assume the simplest explanation
The Truth is far simpler than any explanation, scientific or religious.

[silent demon]

"For those who accept the truth, I give freedom and clarity...
For those who can't accept it, you have earned my symapthy..."

don't know if this was said by anyone, just a spur of the moment kind of thing.

[Elphias Doge]

Coder's right. What's the difference between the Universe always existing and something else that created it always existing. Difference is that one of the explinations is easier, as he said.

[uniquinous]

The Truth is far simpler than any explanation, scientific or religious.

I'm quite convinced you are a complete moron without a scrap of independant thought in your entire head.

[The Coder]

I'm quite convinced you are a complete moron without a scrap of independant thought in your entire head.

Agreed.

He tries to come off as deep but quite honestly, his answer is quite stupid.

Also, Unicorn, I've never really really heard you say bad things about people. You're always the peace and acceptance and equality kinda guy. Then again you probably don't like idiots as much as the next non idiotic guy...

[The Frozen One]

All you people over there talking, theres no need to be negative. Some people like being weird(kyir) and some other people like to say things differently than you might.

Just because kyir and brahman don't go around insulting people doesn't mean what they say is stupid. Though I do think the post about the cookie was stupid. I wish i had a cookie...

[abyaly]

Which part of nature is selecting? No predation, no immunological advantage before childrearing years... what part of nature is selecting? Give me a specific example (religion gene doesn't exist). I've asked this several times now, and it seems to go unnoticed.
A point of contention between you and x seems to be that x wants to assume that "chance to propogate isn't independent of genetic structure" and you want him to prove that's true. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to treat something like that as false until proven true. Maybe you should be the one trying to disprove it :)

We already have multiple dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottles
We could make a higher dimensional object than those, in theory (Well we can't actually make those)There are much simpler examples of four dimentional figures. Like a hypercube. An abstract figure doesn't lend any force to your claim, though :p

[Elphias Doge]

All you people over there talking, theres no need to be negative. Some people like being weird(kyir) and some other people like to say things differently than you might.

Just because kyir and brahman don't go around insulting people doesn't mean what they say is stupid. Though I do think the post about the cookie was stupid. I wish i had a cookie...

Kyir doesn't go around insulting people? He isn't being negative? Are you serious? We were debating this and he came in and started insulting me because of my clan, then tried to patronise me when I said that I didn't care what he thought unless it had something to do with the discussion.

Open your eyes..

[dirka dirka]

Ok im ganna start off by explaining another theory called the string theory. Mathematics tells us there are other dimensions besides the 3 we live in. (the three dimensions are length, width, and depth) Ok so scientists think there are 11 dimensions number 4 being time, and the rest arent absolute but are thought to be to be the curvature of space, gravity, and other weird stuff.
It's amazing how much you just showed that you have basically no understanding of hyperspace theory and all in a very small paragraph. The first four dimensions are space and time. They don't "think" the fourth is time, they know. The rest are not things like curvature and gravity. Gravity is thought to be either a particle or a result of the curvature of the first three dimensions (which actually has very much proof). The other dimensions are thought to be stretched out and in parallel to the first three. Time itself, assuming there is only one time dimensions, is not parallel to the rest.

The other dimensions are hard to explain. We wouldn't be able to really understand them unless we were brought to that particular dimension. Lets sya there is a 1 dimensional world. Its just a straight line and the being that lives there is just a dot. He can walk back and forth along the line but thats it. If he was brought to a 2 dimensional world he'd be absolutely amazed because he'd be able to not just walk in a straight line but walk (lets imagine it the shape of a paper) all along one side of the paper.(the other side of the paper would be invisible to him)
We can understand the other dimensions without being "brought" to them. According to the current popular theory we couldn't be brought to them because they are way too small.

Your example of a being in a one dimensional world shows either lack of understanding of physics or lack of understanding of biology. You can't have a being without three dimensions.

The three dimensional world would be lets say a whole pad of paper. The being would be able to walk all over the pad even the back and sides because the third dimension is depth. Imagine being brought from a world you could only walk in a straight line to a world in witch there were all kinds of new things(shapes being one)
Regardless of the fact that I just stated above, a being from a lower dimensions world would not see other dimensions that it was brought into. If we were brought into a fourth spacial dimensions, objects would simply appear to get thinner and thicker or disappear. We could not view all four spacial dimensions at once. The fourth one to us would appear to be our three dimensions but moving and changing shape. In fact, we can only see two dimensions.

I dont believe in god. But i do believe there could be a person who has a better understanding of the way thing work. If a particular person was brought to these dimensions... If the shock doesnt kill you then maybe he found a way to do something with this... If the shock or something else maybe even just being in that place in space time unlocked the 98% of brain it would allow him to do extraordinary things.
Thats simply untrue. Our brain exists and functions in our three spacial dimensions. Even if it had extension into the fourth dimension, you can't prove that we are not using that extension right now.

His brain waves might be strong enough to communicate telepathically or maybe allow him to see things that havent happened yet. Another possibility being to move things with the mind or even levitate. But what amazes me most is still yet to come.
You're a nut.

Another theory (not mine) is that everything and everyplace in the past or present is the same place or time where ur standing now. Ok lets say theres a place on mars and theres where your standing. This person who was allowed to see the 11 dimensional world would be able to, not teleport because that dissolves u into particles and moves the particles to a different places and reforms you there, but to almost "step" right throught to that place on mars or in another time on mars with the power of the mind.
You lack understanding of how dimensions work. You're assuming that our spacetime is not a cube, but a Tesseract or higher.

The problem being they can't pass the information to us. They can't because of our language. Our language is incomplete, there are huge parts missing. They can't explain it because its simply impossible. There are no words to describe this other, some would say other world. But the truth is there are a million other worlds right beside our own. If you had the vision you'd be able to see this also, maybe even travel there using the same methods as i said you'd be able to travel earlier.
So these supremely intelligent beings can't communicate because they are speechless?

I'd just like to say this isn't just a whole bunch of junk. I did some research and alot of it is true. Its true but we are unable to get to that state of mind because of our minds inability to comprehend what reality says isn't there. Makes you wonder what are we going to evolve into and wat abilities will be accessible to us once we figure how to see these other dimensions.
This is a whole ton of junk. You did some research, sure, and lacked understanding of it all.

[uniquinous]

A point of contention between you and x seems to be that x wants to assume that "chance to propogate isn't independent of genetic structure" and you want him to prove that's true. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to treat something like that as false until proven true. Maybe you should be the one trying to disprove it :)It's not that exactly... Well, yes to a degree I'm urging him to back his claim while knowing it's true. The reason is because, while he claims degree doesn't matter, I claim it does, and so the *what* and *how* come into effect. So, if 1% of a population decides not to reproduce, it is assumed to produce evolution, but perhaps slower then natural selection, yes? Well, the question comes back to: Do social forces negate or even counterballance that?

By his definition, only beneficial genes will carry on. The bulldog is a perfect counterexample of that. However, the present scientific definition (the one I was using) doesn't quite work either.

I actually brought this topic up with a bunch of bio friends and had a really interesting conversation. We came to the conclusion that the current definition of evolution tends to ignore the possibility of social genetic changes, whereas the specific *mechanisms* within that definition of evolution (natural selection, drift from isolation, etc) do. So whereas the general definition will claim we are still evolving, the mechanisms are no longer valid and show we aren't.

The problem of this discrepancy constantly comes back to the social aspect, or as someone else pointed out, intent. I found this particularly interesting, and I'll explain. During the industrial revolution, the suit from the factories stained the trees dark. Suddenly the light moths became better targets for predidors as they were contrasted with their surroundings, and the genes for lightness were significantly reduced. Now, humans didn't intend for that gene shift to happen, and as such it was the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection that accomplished the change. The bulldog, on the other hand, changed due to intentional human wants (breeding), without the mechanism of evolution being applicable, and as such allowing for poor genes to actually increase in frequency.

So we're reaching a gataccan world where human gene selection is around the corner, much like our dog breeding. We're already able to sort sperm based on X or Y chromosomes, and I pretty strongly believe the next steps are within our lifetime.

Furthermore, we've already reached a point where more educated people are reproducing less then uneducated or low (socioeconomic) class populations. It's an interesting contradiction: evolution tends to favor genes that lead to more stable or better lives, yet society is favoring less-intelligent reproduction.

I still strongly believe the social aspects of mankind are what will determine "evolution" in the millenia to come, and I think this discussion (and the one with my friends) has shown that we need to redefine a few things to take nature vs nurture into account, as nurture = changing social paradigms.

[The Frozen One]

Kyir doesn't go around insulting people? He isn't being negative? Are you serious? We were debating this and he came in and started insulting me because of my clan, then tried to patronise me when I said that I didn't care what he thought unless it had something to do with the discussion.

Open your eyes..

srry i ment brahman...ur right

[The Frozen One]

It's amazing how much you just showed that you have basically no understanding of hyperspace theory and all in a very small paragraph. The first four dimensions are space and time. They don't "think" the fourth is time, they know. The rest are not things like curvature and gravity. Gravity is thought to be either a particle or a result of the curvature of the first three dimensions (which actually has very much proof). The other dimensions are thought to be stretched out and in parallel to the first three. Time itself, assuming there is only one time dimensions, is not parallel to the rest.

You know, not all information read on the internet is true... I have gone to a reliabable source for my information. Have you? It may also be the particular theory u r reading. your right they do know that the fourth dimension is time. Thank you for correcting me. But another theory is that the 4th dimension is a spiritual dimension...I'm not saying its true but the theory is there.


We can understand the other dimensions without being "brought" to them. According to the current popular theory we couldn't be brought to them because they are way too small.

What i mean to say is you can understand them but not fully understand them because your not there. We only know its there because mathematics tells us.

Your example of a being in a one dimensional world shows either lack of understanding of physics or lack of understanding of biology. You can't have a being without three dimensions.

I was being hypothetical

Regardless of the fact that I just stated above, a being from a lower dimensions world would not see other dimensions that it was brought into. If we were brought into a fourth spacial dimensions, objects would simply appear to get thinner and thicker or disappear. We could not view all four spacial dimensions at once. The fourth one to us would appear to be our three dimensions but moving and changing shape. In fact, we can only see two dimensions.

most of what you just said was your opinion, or someone elses. If we had the ability to see another dimension who's to say i couldn't just switch between my normal view and this new one. I'd see on different planes.

Thats simply untrue. Our brain exists and functions in our three spacial dimensions. Even if it had extension into the fourth dimension, you can't prove that we are not using that extension right now.

Our brain exists and functions in 3 dimensionsfor now. And my answer to that is evolution

You're a nut.

so was Vincent Van Gogh

You lack understanding of how dimensions work.

I do not lack understanding...I happen to think u do.

You're assuming that our spacetime is not a cube, but a Tesseract or higher.

yes, and?

So these supremely intelligent beings can't communicate because they are speechless?

No what im saying is our language doesn't have the words to explain it.

This is a whole ton of junk. You did some research, sure, and lacked understanding of it all.

The second time u use "lacked understanding" in a sentence. I didn't just do any old research. I spent awhile but i have trouble putting it in words as I've said before. Some people just go on the internet put in a couple key words on google or something, but me, I did almost the complete opposite.
I've put this together in my head with lots of different information I've picked up. I've read things in books and i'm ot saying i didnt look on google some. But i believe you're the one who lacks understanding. What? You looked up a bit on the internet? thats not going to cut it, you need to know what you are talking about. There are many different theories about evrything and anything you can think of. The theory I chose to study had alot more saying it was real than it was not. I've read others too not just this one.

[Brahman]

Sorry Frozen One. Looks like you do not have an appreciative audience on this one. Go to school and tighten up your understanding of scientific theories so you'll at least have a flashy plaque on your wall when people call you a nut. That, or just disregard the masses, follow your heart, and consecrate your life to Truth. The sheep are many, the Shepherd's few. Baaaa!!!!

[Kyir]

Kyir doesn't go around insulting people? He isn't being negative? Are you serious? We were debating this and he came in and started insulting me because of my clan, then tried to patronise me when I said that I didn't care what he thought unless it had something to do with the discussion.

Open your eyes..

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1396/youlooktastyjc9.jpg

Th3 INTarN3TZ ARE SERIOUS!

[The Frozen One]

lol, I think your funny brahman
no i dont have an appreciative audience
and i don't like sheep... they're nutty

[Kyir]

no i dont have an appreciative audience


That's because you're about as smart as roadkill.

[The Frozen One]

The problem with roadkill is it doesnt have consious thought. If I'm writing this I obviously do...sometimes you can be so smart(sarcasm if you didnt know)
I'm still waiting for that cookie btw...

[Kyir]

The problem with roadkill is it doesnt have consious thought. If I'm writing this I obviously do

After reading what you wrote, I have decided that you are in fact. Wrong.








































































Plus the murderer is someone in this room.

[The Frozen One]

yea, really u have no idea what any1 is saying do u... its "as smart as roadkill" to be talking about a murderer...on a forum. A forum is 2 dimensional as dirka dirka says over there...and things arent able to live in a 2 dimensional world (or so he says...but he's ever been to one):bigsmile:

[Anarchy_United]

The Truth is far simpler than any explanation, scientific or religious.

Yup.

Life Summed Up:

"You can wear a pirate hat, for no reason."

[Kyir]

yea, really u have no idea what any1 is saying do u... its "as smart as roadkill" to be talking about a murderer...on a forum. A forum is 2 dimensional as dirka dirka says over there...and things arent able to live in a 2 dimensional world (or so he says...but he's ever been to one):bigsmile:

I don't care enough to even TRY and read that.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide

[dirka dirka]

You know, not all information read on the internet is true... I have gone to a reliabable source for my information. Have you? It may also be the particular theory u r reading. your right they do know that the fourth dimension is time. Thank you for correcting me. But another theory is that the 4th dimension is a spiritual dimension...I'm not saying its true but the theory is there.
I'm a physics major.

most of what you just said was your opinion, or someone elses. If we had the ability to see another dimension who's to say i couldn't just switch between my normal view and this new one. I'd see on different planes.
It isn't opinion. We have two dimensional eyes. Just as a "two dimension being" moving through three dimensions, say a sphere, would see a circle getting smaller and bigger.

Our brain exists and functions in 3 dimensionsfor now. And my answer to that is evolution
You don't know that it only exists in three dimensions.

No what im saying is our language doesn't have the words to explain it.
You don't need words to explain something.

The second time u use "lacked understanding" in a sentence. I didn't just do any old research. I spent awhile but i have trouble putting it in words as I've said before. Some people just go on the internet put in a couple key words on google or something, but me, I did almost the complete opposite.
I've put this together in my head with lots of different information I've picked up. I've read things in books and i'm ot saying i didnt look on google some. But i believe you're the one who lacks understanding. What? You looked up a bit on the internet? thats not going to cut it, you need to know what you are talking about. There are many different theories about evrything and anything you can think of. The theory I chose to study had alot more saying it was real than it was not. I've read others too not just this one.
You lacked understanding on what you read, buddy. I'm a physics major and I've read many books. I didn't bash you for things that *might* be possible, alot of what you said what just bullshit.

[uniquinous]

You know, not all information read on the internet is true... I have gone to a reliabable source for my information. Have you? It may also be the particular theory u r reading. your right they do know that the fourth dimension is time. Thank you for correcting me. But another theory is that the 4th dimension is a spiritual dimension...I'm not saying its true but the theory is there.No, that's not a scientific theory, that's a nutjob theory. When people say "I have a theory", the use of the word in that sentence is not the same as scientific theory. The former refers to something on par with a hunch, while the latter is closer with truth. This is why science determines time is the forth dimension, and absolutely no (reproducible) evidence suggests that a spiritual dimension exists whatsoever. Your source seems to be quite unreliable if that is your belief.

If we had the ability to see another dimension who's to say i couldn't just switch between my normal view and this new one. I'd see on different planes.You can. Try this magical experiment. Close one eye. Now you're seeing in 2D! Amazing! Now, the tricky part: open your closed eye. 3D!!! How freakin awesome is that? OK so you're thinking "wow that uniquin is a noob, what was the point of that?" I'm so glad you asked! The point is the same thing that dirka and I already made - we already *are* in all those extra dimensions. It's not like traveling to Florida, or some other place - we're already in all of them, simultaneously (dirka, correct me if I'm wrong), and already experience them all.

Our brain exists and functions in 3 dimensionsfor now. And my answer to that is evolutionYeah this is why I tell people we're done evolving like that. It doesn't work that way. There has to be a need, naturally, for that to happen. People treat evolution as some magical changer that can do anything. It can't. There's a reason birds don't fly around space.

I do not lack understanding.Yes, you do. That's ok, cuz learning is awesome, but you don't quite understand the full picture here...

There are many different theories about evrything and anything you can think of. The theory I chose to study had alot more saying it was real than it was not. I've read others too not just this one.[/COLOR]Yes, but the difference between all those theories, are some are scientific (meaning they have reproducible evidence which supports them) and others are random crackpot hunches people imagined one day.

[Azer]

most of what you just said was your opinion, or someone elses. If we had the ability to see another dimension who's to say i couldn't just switch between my normal view and this new one. I'd see on different planes.


By the known laws of physics and mathematics, we cannot be brought into more than 3 dimensions. We exist in those dimensions, but manipulations in 3D do not produce a 4D result (unlike manipulations in 2D yielding 3D).

I'm assuming your use of planes refers to parallel universes, in which case your "view switching multidimensional sight" hypothesis makes no sense.

[dirka dirka]

It's not like traveling to Florida, or some other place - we're already in all of them, simultaneously (dirka, correct me if I'm wrong), and already experience them all.

You're right, very right. We just don't know if we can take advantage of that fact yet.

[Kyir]

You're right, very right. We just don't know if we can take advantage of that fact yet.

DIRKA MUST BE THE ONE WHO KILLED THE BUTLER!

[xerent]

I'm a physics major.

physics is phun.

Hahaha!

I'm funny.

I'd insult you.

But I'm a physics major.

If I was gay, it would be easier.

Cause I would be like.

Physics is for gay people!

And you would be like.

You just called yourself Gay!

And I would be like.

Ya! I know! Wanna get a coffee?

And you would be like.

Damn. I knew he was gay.

But I'm not gay.

So I would secretely be insulted as well.

Double fork burn!

For the... tie?

...

Sure.

I'm debating on going to a FNM today.

I think I might want to.

Gotta call my mom and see if she has plans for dinner.

Don't wanna not be there if we're going out for Thai or something.

mmm..

I like Thai noodles.

tasty.

You can flip them around halfway

And sort of glue them to itself

And make a Thai mobius strip.

And then you would have super powers as your mind unlocked it's latent potential.

I would be like Hiro Nakamura, and stop time by looking dorky for a second.

{{{>_<}}}

(o_o)

\(^o^)/

Yea.

That would totally kick ass.

[Realist]

I'm getting rather fond of these high-inquisitor statements. You should use them more.

I wasn't sure what you meant by "high-inquisitor statements" so I typed it in google and this conversation is the first entry!

Do you not like when I ask questions in a form that implies that you have to answer them directly instead of your usual methods of evasion? Is that a high-inquisitor statement too?

Incidentally, you continue not to respond to my question. :) Have I ever not responded to a question of yours? No (perhaps once or twice), because I have good answers.

There's an important distinction to be made within my definition however. Did it come about through genetics or through some other, dare I repeat, "social" force?

I agree! That's exactly the distinction that has to be made. And that's exactly the distinction that your definition fails to make and mine does make. My definition focuses on the replicator itself as the cause of evolution--in the case of genetics, the gene--while yours only focuses on the result. Which is exactly what you're saying now--we have to focus on the cause, not just the result. I think we agree, you should adopt my definition. :)

Which part of nature is selecting? No predation, no immunological advantage before childrearing years... what part of nature is selecting? Give me a specific example (religion gene doesn't exist). I've asked this several times now, and it seems to go unnoticed.

Um, you have asked this several times now, and you refuse to respond to my answer. Human choice is selected. That's not to say that's all that's doing the selection, but it's very important in the modern world. Genes which cause people to choose to have more children will be selected in a population where there is enough wealth for population expansion but not the desire; i.e, the Western world and Japan. (The 3rd world is a different case).

I love how you just say "religion gene doesn't exist." Oh yeah? How do you know? Religion gene does exist. I'm not even going to cite a study or something as evidence, though I could, because that would take away from my broader point. Almost any aspect of animal behavior has genetic factors. Therefore religion has genetic factors by pure deduction.

I should qualify what I mean by "gene for X" or "X gene" where X is some behavior e.g. religion (again I'm heavily influenced by Dawkins here). I simply mean that the gene has some positive influence on the behavior, not that everyone who has it necessarily does the behavior. For example, in repressive American society it's possible that homosexuals tend to be more religious than heterosexuals as a way to counter feelings of homosexuality. In that case, a "gay gene" is also a "religion gene" in the context of US society (by my definition.) If gays are more religious on average, and religious gays have more children than the average citizen, then in US society, homosexual genes will be selected.

This means, of course, that a religion gene in the US might be a open-mindedness gene in some other culture (or even, religious gene in the South and open-mindedness gene in the North). But this was always true--the "meaning" of genes is always qualified by the environment the gene lives in. Put another way, the phenotype of a gene differs per environment.

Let's assume that there are no benefits from being a carrier. How will Tay Sacks frequency dwindle? The disease itself is abolished from this country due to educated and tested parents. "Bad" genes are passed on quite safely now, with no problems.

You assume that 100% of people are tested. Is this true? If so, you are correct--provided that 100% of pairs who do test positive do not have kids together. I think these are very big assumptions.

Ah wonderful! OK, so let's go back to the bulldog. Left to its own devices, the bulldog would promply die out. With poor respiratory systems, generally mangled faces/mouths/teeth, no decent way to hunt, one might theorize that evolution should have selected against this animal quite strongly. Yet it persists, strongly, despite these horrible genes. So again I will ask to you: why?

Left to it's own devices, any single animal species on Earth would die. All animals depend on other animals for survival. So? This is not a challenge to continued evolution, the interdependence of life has existed for quite a long time.

Bull dogs do NOT have horrible genes. Bull dogs have fine genes. They have genes which encourage humans to feed and breed them. This is what matters in evolution--the ability to be fed and breed. How you get there is irrelevant. Some animals hunt for other animals. Some eat vegetables. Some convince other animals to give them access to food in exchange for benefiting that animal in some way. It is not only domesticated animals and humans which have this relationship. A species of ants domesticates animals too (I forget which). Some fish allow other fish to stay in their mouths to eat animals which are dangerous to the bigger fish (sorry for my lack of specificity, I'm doing this by memory). In general, we call these symbiotic relationships. Both species would be at a disadvantage if the other didn't exist (but it does exist, so they aren't at a disadvantage.) Alternatively, the relationship might be parasitic--one species would be at a disadvantage if the other didn't exist. Here too, the other species does exist, so the parasite does not have that disadvantage.

The broad point of this is the same point I made earlier. Whether a gene is good or bad depends on the environment. Bulldogs in the wild have horrible genes. Bulldogs in domesticated environments have fine genes. Even though the genes are the same! But this is not only true of relationships regarding humans. Any parasite without a host has bad genes.

Unfortunately, just because you say it's a reasonable claim, does not make it so. If you say "anything an animal does has a genetic component", then you once again toss out nurture.

No, I don't. Please look up the word "component" in a good dictionary.

Again, go back to China - doesn't matter that the clock is ticking and people instinctively want more children if they simply can't pull it off - the social factor negates the instinct.

Perhaps "rebel" genes are good in China. And bad in the US. This is becoming the theme of the post--the quality of genes, and hence genetic evolution, depends on environment.

Meanwhile, the "forget to use protection" genes allow for the evolution of mankind into r-selection? Why hasn't it happened already?

Because protection has only existed for around a century?

We as a society spend the majority of our medical research on finding out how to allow for poor genes to remain

Actually, we spend the majority of our medical research on finding out how to cure diseases of middle and old age--diseases which probably still exist because they were not selected against since most people didn't tend to live that long anyways (there is no evolutionary advantage to having everyone growing old). It is questionable that curing cancer would increase reproduction rates of those with cancer genes.

, and the social aspects have been shown to affect populations in a reverse and stronger method then ye olde natural evolution.

Social aspects in no way preclude genetic aspects.

Now you did bring up a good point in that there will be some small frequency changes due to choices in educated populations. To that small regard, I concede to a bit of microevolution in humans (I'm using that Christian term! now figure out what I want you thinking about...) We've come quite far in the past 5 million years, and our speciation and natural evolution have been well-defined. So where do we go in the next 5 million years? Does nothing happen at all? Of course not. But, do we see further speciation? Do those frequency changes create such a distinction, that the craziness of evolution disallows mating between man today and man then? Barring new pandemic, I'd say no. We're done. Doesn't mean *no* change exists. It just means we're not going anywhere.

Thanks uniq, this is the closest I have ever seen you come to a concession. Thanks for admitting that human evolution is indeed continuing to go on.

I do not think that humans will ever separate as species. Would a human 5 million years hence be able to mate with a human now? Actually, I suspect that humans will either be dead in 5 million years or have complete control over their genes anyways through technology, something that will indeed stop natural genetic evolution.

Many species which have existed far longer than humans have resisted further speciation, so it's entirely possible that you are correct on that point. I'd just like to emphasize that speciation is not "everything" in evolution. Perhaps a more interesting question--how much interaction would a human in 5 million years and modern humans have to have to notice a difference (assuming common upbringing)? Would it be obvious just seeing them walk down the street? Mating with that person? Having a conversation? Extremely speculative obviously, but interesting to think about anyways.

More specifically, where we do go will be more strongly influence by social factors, then anything else.

Probably.

[The Frozen One]

ok physics and all kinds of other scientific stuff all say that we have nothing besides what we can see plus the extra things like molecules and stuff. Anyhing else is just thought to be there not proven, right? All scientists are the same they all think if you can't see it or unless you can prove it, its not there. Well thats not true, people have been thinking this way for...forever. Well most times scientists are wrong in the end by just assuming things don't exist because its not proven. I see alot of this in most of you (dirka, realist, uniquinos) but just because it's not right in front of your nose, witch it prabably is but this is just a metaphor, then you choose to ignore it. You can choose to think your way I'm not stopping you. If in the future some better understanding arises and people move from the hopeless things we are now into a better more organized being, and we stop pollution and other things wrong with society then you will know...I saw it first!!!:bigsmile:

To summarize what i just said for some of yooou (mostly kyir) what i've just said is no1...not 1 person can tell me my theory is wrong. You can't prove it and even though i cant prove its right i can still say its true. Thank you very much!

btw im done on tactics arena now i basically just tried it to see how it was. I don't really like it except for the forum, so i am going back to runescape. this is my last post and if you feel the need you can contact me at jscape2@yahoo.com. Really it was an interesting conversation. I personally had lots of fun even with all the negativity.CYA PPLZ!!!:grin:

[dirka dirka]

ok physics and all kinds of other scientific stuff all say that we have nothing besides what we can see plus the extra things like molecules and stuff. Anyhing else is just thought to be there not proven, right?
Horribly wrong.

All scientists are the same they all think if you can't see it or unless you can prove it, its not there.
Horribly wrong.

Well thats not true, people have been thinking this way for...forever. Well most times scientists are wrong in the end by just assuming things don't exist because its not proven.
They rarely assume that, they just would like a notion of evidence.

I see alot of this in most of you (dirka, realist, uniquinos) but just because it's not right in front of your nose, witch it prabably is but this is just a metaphor, then you choose to ignore it. You can choose to think your way I'm not stopping you. If in the future some better understanding arises and people move from the hopeless things we are now into a better more organized being, and we stop pollution and other things wrong with society then you will know...I saw it first!!!:bigsmile:
You can't apply Spiritual things to science and you'll go to hell if you try.

To summarize what i just said for some of yooou (mostly kyir) what i've just said is no1...not 1 person can tell me my theory is wrong. You can't prove it and even though i cant prove its right i can still say its true. Thank you very much!
I am telling you that your theory is wrong. See, I just told you, that makes you wrong above too.

btw im done on tactics arena now i basically just tried it to see how it was. I don't really like it except for the forum, so i am going back to runescape. this is my last post and if you feel the need you can contact me at jscape2@yahoo.com. Really it was an interesting conversation. I personally had lots of fun even with all the negativity.CYA PPLZ!!!:grin:
Thank god.

[abyaly]

Philosophical discussion is cool. Unfortunately, I don't know the necessary terminology to get into it with x and uniq about evolution [and I don't feel like doing the research]. So someone rational argue with me about something else. Like free will. Go.

[Realist]

Like free will. Go.

Bump the old thread about free will (where I argued with Jeffery for days) and I'll argue it with you. That was fun.

[uniquinous]

Do you not like when I ask questions in a form that implies that you have to answer them directly instead of your usual methods of evasion? Well, the one I was commenting on was something like "Do you deny that Darwin had something to do with evolution?!". I couldn't help but stop and laugh at the tone and possible purpose of that question. So yes, I "evaded" the question :rolleyes: but seriously, DO YOU DENY SERG IS AN ADMIN?!

I agree! That's exactly the distinction that has to be made. And that's exactly the distinction that your definition fails to make and mine does make. My definition focuses on the replicator itself as the cause of evolution--in the case of genetics, the gene--while yours only focuses on the result. What you refer to as "my" definition, is the scientific definition of evolution. Tiz the textbook definition of evolution, and the very reason I believe evolution, by that definition, is done (because the mechanisms of natural evolution, by that definition, no longer apply). It's the very reason I go with "social evolution" (and that *is* something I purposely didn't define for you in evasion, for a reason). I found your definition interesting but... ultimately it has nothing to do with... well.... genes in any way.



Genes which cause people to choose to have more children will be selected in a population where there is enough wealth for population expansion but not the desire; i.e, the Western world and Japan. (The 3rd world is a different case).Sorry, can you restate this? For now I will point out that, regardless of genes, more educated people tend to have less children (and slower) then their undereducated counterparts (on average). Now to clarify, I don't mean more intelligent people, I'm talking about the social process of education.

I love how you just say "religion gene doesn't exist." Oh yeah? How do you know? Religion gene does exist. Oh yeah? How do you know? Religion gene doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

Almost any aspect of animal behavior has genetic factors. Therefore religion has genetic factors by pure deduction."If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.... therefore... a witch!" I couldn't help but notice the use of the word "almost" there. Could you please provide a case where animal behavior isn't genetic in some manner? Now, to the heart of the matter, and where we differ: I'll agree with you for now (to make things simple), to say ALL behavior has *some* genetic factor. My point is that the genetic weight of that behavior is insignificant compared to the social (nurture) factors. Now there are always times when such repression can actually get turned on its head (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/porter/epidemic_9.html), but I would say these are less common then the usual social constraints on our genes. Cytosine methylation has nothin on the pope.

If gays are more religious on average, and religious gays have more children than the average citizen, then in US society, homosexual genes will be selected. .. ... yeah I'm not gonna touch that one... I think I see where you're going there but... pick a different example, please.

Put another way, the phenotype of a gene differs per environment.The phenotype of a gene differs. Period. Yes on environment changes, but also when environments are the same. Genetic modification and silencing is still widely up in the air. Actually, I had a really interesting discussion with a genetics prof who claimed that the majority (60-70% I believe he stated) of phenotype isn't coded within DNA. Told him he was crazy, but he actually made a convincing case, based on localized mRNA at birth, maternal mitochondrial sorting, gene silencing, general post-zygotic genome modification, etc. I mean, the immune systems of twins are widely different. Anyway, [/random aside]

You assume that 100% of people are tested. Is this true? If so, you are correct--provided that 100% of pairs who do test positive do not have kids together. I think these are very big assumptions.Very big indeed. I don't assume 100% are tested, I see the results: Tay Sachs is vastly abolished in the US. It's not that pairs who both test positive simply don't have kids (that wouldn't lead to the safe passing and maintenance of this gene) - it's that early diagnostics are good at detecting it, allowing for an alternate route: discarding unwanted fetal genotypes. But again, this isn't classic evolution - far from it - this is something completely different.

Left to it's own devices, any single animal species on Earth would die. :dry: Allow me to clarify, giving you the benefit of the doubt of not purposely misunderstanding that point: man finds wolf, changes wolf, calls wolf "dog", whereas dog cannot exist as wolf can amonst natural selection. You remove the mechanisms of evolution, and evolution ceases. That's the continued point. Bulldogs aren't evolving, they're bred. (ah, what's the difference?)

the ability to be fed and breed. How you get there is irrelevant. Ah this is where we disagree. Intent matters. Genes choosing genes is much different then consciousness choosing genes.

A species of ants domesticates animals too (I forget which). Yes I know what you're talking about - those catepillars which secrete sap the ants like (mmm bugjuice). But let's look at this (or any other symbiotic/parasitic) relationship: someone benefits. Look at the examples you gave: the ants get a tasty food source, and the catepillar gets protection; the small fish gets food while the big fish is groomed and avoids decay problems; animal gets food source, plant gets seed-distribution. Co-evolution is a hot topic (heck, last week's cover of Nature was of an amber-fossilized bee with orchid pollen stuck to it). However that's not the case with dogs. Co-evolution didn't occur: consciousness did. Someone took the time to think "ok I got this great idea. I'ma catch me one dem dere wolves, hope it doesn't knaw its own leg off, and get me a cute pet". (i already see the counterargument, but feel this one in today's society is more indicative of the situation).

Bulldogs in the wild have horrible genes. Bulldogs in domesticated environments have fine genes. Even though the genes are the same! Perhaps this is where your definition is weaker. "Differential selection among replicators". In this case, the replicators (bulldogs) aren't differentially selecting amongst themselves - someone is consciously picking. Not only that, but they are consciously picking based on the standards set forth by other people (so you can't even claim the genes of the person selecting a mating is ultimately at the helm).

OK so you believe environment determines beneficiality. Well, how do you explain modern America, where the better-off higher educated individuals, who are more likely to get higher salaries and a better standard of living, reproduce slower then their lower class counterparts?

Perhaps "rebel" genes are good in China. And bad in the US. I thought the same thing: "well, if someone rebels and has 3 kids, they are passing on their genes better... but at the same time, they are providing a poorer lifestyle for their family, which will most likely work against the passing on of those genes".

Because protection has only existed for around a century? :rolleyes: again, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just clarify: humans have had the ability to switch to r-selection for millions of years now. But we didn't. replace "forget to use protection" gene with "humpalot" gene.

Social aspects in no way preclude genetic aspectsWHAAAAAAH?! No way, eh? So, that one-child policy in china which prevents the humpalot gene from working is... what exactly? The fact that educated women in the US reproduce more slowly today doesn't preclude genetic aspects? Are you teh craze!?

Thanks uniq, this is the closest I have ever seen you come to a concession. Thanks for admitting that human evolution is indeed continuing to go on.No you! Ugh really! Evolution, by the definition of it, is done, as the mechanisms set forth within that definition no longer apply. Genetic change, on the other hand, is far from done. Come gataccan times, we'll be changing quite fast, but it won't be by the mechanisms of evolution.

something that will indeed stop natural genetic evolution.so you believe my point of social evolution, the entire point of this discussion, can happen, and probably will in the future, but don't see right now as the turning point for that? :huh:

More specifically, where we do go will be more strongly influence by social factors, then anything else. Probably.And that's the ENTIRETY of my point. :) (cept you seem to agree to it so long as it's in the future, and I'm saying "right now")

Philosophical discussion is cool. Unfortunately, I don't know the necessary terminology to get into it with x and uniq about evolution [and I don't feel like doing the research]. So someone rational argue with me about something else. Like free will. Go.oh - I have a friend you'd really like having a discussion with. He's really into free will and consciousness... I'll see if I can get him to provide a guest appearance.

[Brahman]

So someone rational argue with me about something else. Like free will. Go.
Anyone who is rational will recognize how irrational it would be to start a discussion with an argument being the premise. Arguments take place from two sides, each are trying to offensively cram their point down the others throat while defensively preventing the other side from doing the same. Rationale tells us that this accomplishes nothing, but the choice to engage anyway is what you could call free will.

[abyaly]

Arguments take place from two sides, each are trying to offensively cram their point down the others throat while defensively preventing the other side from doing the same.
When you and me use the word argument, we must be talking about completely different things. The kind of arguments I try to have with people are fun for all involved.
It seems to me you think your world is broader than mine. Is it?

[Brahman]

When you and me use the word argument, we must be talking about completely different things. The kind of arguments I try to have with people are fun for all involved.
It's good that you have fun.
It seems to me you think your world is broader than mine. Is it?
Nope.

[abyaly]

Bump the old thread about free will (where I argued with Jeffery for days) and I'll argue it with you. That was fun.
Searched for half an hour to no avail.

[***Duo***]

Searched for half an hour to no avail.

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17615&highlight=Free

Make it good, Abyaly.


-Duo

[uniquinous]

Anyone who is rational will recognize how irrational it would be to start a discussion with an argument being the premise. Arguments take place from two sides, each are trying to offensively cram their point down the others throat while defensively preventing the other side from doing the same. You don't understand what a good argument is then. Hell, all of medicine and science today comes about and is tested by scientific argument. It doesn't necessarily mean people are irrational and "offensively cramming their poinmt down the others throat", but rather that some truth is attempting to be established from differing viewpoints.

but the choice to engage anyway is what you could call free will.See this is why I call you a moron - cuz you go around speaking about subjects you don't understand, and then try to use abstract philosophical terms, but instead of saying something insightful, you simply state the obvious and sound like a moron. It's the equivalent of shouting "THE GRASS IS GREEN! COWS GO MOOO! FREE WILL IS CHOICE!" :rolleyes:

[xerent]

COWS GO MOOO!

...

Oh.

My.

God.

[Brahman]

You don't understand what a good argument is then. Hell, all of medicine and science today comes about and is tested by scientific argument. It doesn't necessarily mean people are irrational and "offensively cramming their poinmt down the others throat", but rather that some truth is attempting to be established from differing viewpoints.
You are absolutely right. What you describe is a good argument. This description is what I would call a more conscientious argument, one that leads to expansion. But they are only had when both parties approach in the mutual interest of growth. Often the fields of science demonstrate this for us, but not always.

On these forums I see people argue most often for the sake of being right and getting the last word on their "opponent". There are so many posts speckled with personal insults to others around here I'm sure you can understand the distinction that I'm making. All of the attention given to one-upping others is usually met with the same approach and this draws out what could have been a meeting of truth into a clashing of ego's. Between you and Realist I would have thought the most objective and rationale discussions would take place, but you two take so many pot shots at one another I'm inclined to say neither has come to any real establishment of truth. This is the long way around the barn. Look at the reflection I got when I created the thought thread. It is a good example of what takes place when you go on the offensive and try to slander someone else, you get the same thing back.
See this is why I call you a moron
You've said that several times now, maybe say it again so you really feel like you got your point across.
cuz you go around speaking about subjects you don't understand, and then try to use abstract philosophical terms
In some subjects of academia you are certainly more educated, but you seem to have this complex about yourself in relation to your big scientific college experience, when you could really use some better interpersonal skills..... ie. communicating like a mature adult instead of a bratty know it all.
but instead of saying something insightful, you simply state the obvious
Insight is obvious. As if it had been there all along and you wonder how you lived your life without realizing it sooner. So, you would rather I speak in abstract un-obvious terms?
FREE WILL IS CHOICE!
Yep, and choosing to partake in a name-calling argument is a choice, but many blame others in making them defend or fight back. That would not be recognizing free-will and making a wiser choice, but believing that you are a victim to outer circumstances which you have to react to. No one is making you angry, you choose to get angry. No one offends you, you choose to get offended. No one upsets you, you choose to get upset. This makes it easy to blame others and point the finger. It happens all of the time around here.

[Say What?]

I just wanted to thank you all. It has been fun reading for the past hour. Oh...and hi everyone. (^_^)

[Kyir]

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17615&highlight=Free

Make it good, Abyaly.


-Duo

I hate you.

[Realist]

Well, the one I was commenting on was something like "Do you deny that Darwin had something to do with evolution?!". I couldn't help but stop and laugh at the tone and possible purpose of that question. So yes, I "evaded" the question but seriously, DO YOU DENY SERG IS AN ADMIN?!

No, I don't. See? Easy. Just answer. It makes the conversation go smoother and more efficiently.

What you refer to as "my" definition, is the scientific definition of evolution.

Definitions are just definitions, they aren't science. Definitions are merely human constructs, they do not tell us about the world. I'll throw out and replace definitions in a second if it helps explain a concept better.

That said, I think I get where our definitions differ. If genetic drift/founder effect/that sort of thing is included in the definition of evolution along will evolution by natural selection, then of course your definition makes sense--or better, the definition on wikipedia. In such a case, my example of the nuclear bomb killing all but one would indeed be an example of evolution--a rather extreme instance of, as you said, a bottleneck. Fine. I'm fine with that definition. However, I still don't see how it helps your point in the least. If genetic drift is evolution, then evolution will occur every generation simply by "random" effect. Your argument, after all, relies on the removal of selective forces from the population, but genetic drift doesn't require selection.

Tiz the textbook definition of evolution, and the very reason I believe evolution, by that definition, is done (because the mechanisms of natural evolution, by that definition, no longer apply).

That's just the thing. That definition doesn't talk about mechanisms at all. It just talks about change, not how the change is brought about.

I found your definition interesting but... ultimately it has nothing to do with... well.... genes in any way.

Evolution doesn't have to do with genes. Computer scientists use evolution by selection to solve CS problems. Life from other planets, if it exists, almost certainly evolved (through natural selection), and almost certainly doesn't use DNA. Like I said, we can show mathematically where evolution (by selection) will occur, and it doesn't require the specific biological replicator present on Earth. Genetic evolution is an example of evolution, it is not equivalent to evolution. So it is a good thing to define it in such a general way that we don't have to redefine the same thing when we come across it in a different context.

Sorry, can you restate this?

In a subsistence level society having more children might be evolutionarily bad because you need the resources to raise your other children. In a society far above subsistence level, having more children is probably evolutionarily good because you will have enough resources to raise all of them anyways. In the former case, a gene encouraging above-average childbearing is probably damaging; in the latter it is advantageous.

For now I will point out that, regardless of genes, more educated people tend to have less children (and slower) then their undereducated counterparts (on average). Now to clarify, I don't mean more intelligent people, I'm talking about the social process of education.

Yes, but what causes people to become educated? It is not independent of genes.

"If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.... therefore... a witch!" I couldn't help but notice the use of the word "almost" there. Could you please provide a case where animal behavior isn't genetic in some manner?

The question isn't whether it is genetic but whether there is an allele difference which has an effect difference on the behavior--all behavior is ultimately affected by genetics, but if there is only one gene in a population, there will be no selection. However, for almost all complicated behaviors there will be allele differences.

Now, to the heart of the matter, and where we differ: I'll agree with you for now (to make things simple), to say ALL behavior has *some* genetic factor. My point is that the genetic weight of that behavior is insignificant compared to the social (nurture) factors.

I have responded to this point so much that I see no point in responding to it again. Let me just say that I never argued against "genetic weight of behavior is insignificant compared to the social factors" (though that is manifestly untrue, I don't feel like debating it). I only argued that human evolution is still going on.

.. ... yeah I'm not gonna touch that one... I think I see where you're going there but... pick a different example, please.

Ok. If faithful people are more religious, and more religious have more kids, then faith-genes will be selected in the population.

[Realist]

Allow me to clarify, giving you the benefit of the doubt of not purposely misunderstanding that point: man finds wolf, changes wolf, calls wolf "dog", whereas dog cannot exist as wolf can amonst natural selection. You remove the mechanisms of evolution, and evolution ceases. That's the continued point. Bulldogs aren't evolving, they're bred. (ah, what's the difference?)

There isn't any.

I suppose you could make a distinction between two cases: A person breeding a wolf such as to purposely pick the most domestic traits in order to eventually bring about a "dog", or human societies just picking the most dog-like wolves out of a population for their short-term purposes over thousands of years until dogs come about "naturally." The second case is just plain old symbiotic evolution. The first case is slightly different in that it is informed by the idea of natural selection itself (intelligent selection?), but I don't think it is intrinsically different, it is still selection to produce evolution.

However that's not the case with dogs. Co-evolution didn't occur: consciousness did. Someone took the time to think "ok I got this great idea. I'ma catch me one dem dere wolves, hope it doesn't knaw its own leg off, and get me a cute pet". (i already see the counterargument, but feel this one in today's society is more indicative of the situation).

I'm not sure I get your point. Wolves definitely evolved under domestication to better attain resources from humans. Why is it relevant how the wolf was captured in the first place? Can you just state the point you are trying to make?

Perhaps this is where your definition is weaker. "Differential selection among replicators". In this case, the replicators (bulldogs) aren't differentially selecting amongst themselves - someone is consciously picking.

The bulldogs are not the replicators. Genes are the replicators. Genes don't differentially select among themselves--the environment selects among genes based on their ability to replicate within it. Whether the environment is composed of conscious or unconscious forces is entirely irrelevant. That is, genes which replicate well under the environmental conditions will grow in the population, while those which don't will fall.

Not only that, but they are consciously picking based on the standards set forth by other people (so you can't even claim the genes of the person selecting a mating is ultimately at the helm).

Again, this is true of all life. One's environment is composed of other living creatures as well as non-living objects. Selection is always influenced by the actions of these other living creatures.

My point is not that there is absolutely no difference between humans selecting dogs and other things selecting dogs. My point is only that this difference is pretty unimportant--evolution still works fundamentally as it always did. I suppose the relative importance is subjective, though (and dependent on context of discussion). What isn't subjective is that evolution is definitely still occurring. Especially by your definition. Dog alleles are different than wolf alleles; domestication increased the frequency of dog alleles, domestication lead to the evolution of the dog.

OK so you believe environment determines beneficiality. Well, how do you explain modern America, where the better-off higher educated individuals, who are more likely to get higher salaries and a better standard of living, reproduce slower then their lower class counterparts?

They have bad genes and good lives. :)

That's an oversimplification but it expresses the point. Better genes have never implied better life.

I thought the same thing: "well, if someone rebels and has 3 kids, they are passing on their genes better... but at the same time, they are providing a poorer lifestyle for their family, which will most likely work against the passing on of those genes".

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's hard to tell what genes will be advantageous (but it is easy to tell that there will be advantageous genes, statistically). Maybe the best genes are immigrant genes.

again, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just clarify: humans have had the ability to switch to r-selection for millions of years now. But we didn't. replace "forget to use protection" gene with "humpalot" gene.

The human reproductive strategy has always been high-investment, and this has generally been good in our history, because high-invested children managed to survive better than low-investment human children. In the current age this is still true relative to the mass of life. But it isn't true relative to the average Western family--investing somewhat lower in children while having more is almost certainly optimal. However, we haven't evolved to fully adopt to these new conditions of prosperity because they are new conditions. If conditions stayed exactly the same for the next million years, we would evolve more towards the optimal.

WHAAAAAAH?! No way, eh? So, that one-child policy in china which prevents the humpalot gene from working is... what exactly?

Society is just part of the environment. It changes which genes are good and which are bad, like all environmental aspects, it does not stop genes from being good or bad. The rebel/immigrant gene discussed earlier is great demonstration of this point.

Evolution, by the definition of it, is done, as the mechanisms set forth within that definition no longer apply. Genetic change, on the other hand, is far from done.

You really have to restate your definition of evolution, since I recall that it included little more than genetic change within it.

so you believe my point of social evolution, the entire point of this discussion, can happen, and probably will in the future, but don't see right now as the turning point for that?

"Social evolution" is stupid term, more so since you refuse to define it. I think selection will become more and more "unnatural" over time. This is not due to "social evolution" but due to technology. And no, this isn't the turning point; we genetically engineer crops for lots of reasons, and humans for a very few, but we are not yet up to GATTACA.

And that's the ENTIRETY of my point. (cept you seem to agree to it so long as it's in the future, and I'm saying "right now")

My point is that evolution is still going on, not that social factors are less important than it. Maybe our points don't contradict each other. Indeed, I accept your concession from last post even if you don't see it as a concession.