The RPG Maker Resource Kit

I don't think that anyone can really make a true point as to whether life, or intelligent life, exist out side of Terra or not. But we can say that in most likeliness, if it does exist, we won't be meeting them ( unless a shortcut technology is discovered to be real, hyperspace, a way of manipulating wormholes... ), I mean what? There will be a planet every 100 light-years that will be like earth, as  in the right distance from the sun, having a "Defender" planet like Jupiter, and having the right amounts of gasses.

While that seems like a lot, it really comes down to: What's the chance of life forming, what's the chance of complex life forming and what's the chance of that life becoming intelligent and self aware?

It's been proven that nature doesn't need intelligence to survive ( on a human level that is ) so if it's not needed, then is our own awareness just a cruel joke? If it is, why would it happen some were else?

Edit: This topic is for the discussion of all life and the theories surrounding it

It'd be pretty evil if it was a joke, and you do have a point.

Humans have tried to decide our meaning for existing for years. That's what religion is all about, isn't it?

Perhaps, we aren't alone, but rather an experiment being viewed by outsiders. Who know everything about us, and yet...neh. Guess I'm rambling.

But the idea of other intelligent life is interesting, but perhaps they don't consider us intelligent, if they had wouldn't they have made contact already. That's a little of topic I know.

But, I think the meaning of our existence, is nothing. There is no meaning to our existence, we just occured and are bound by the strings of fate.

QuoteBut, I think the meaning of our existence, is nothing. There is no meaning to our existence, we just occured and are bound by the strings of fate.

Ditto. Excluding that fate part.

Although I have pondered the point of a higher life creating us ( Alien, NOT supernatural ). But it's some what pointless to use that as an excuses for life as something would have then inturn have needed to create them.

Has any one ever heard of SETI? I laugh every time I hear that word... Ugghh, it's not going to happen...

lmao!

If they wanted to respond, they would have done already.

I know a few people who are a member of SETI, and I to, am just not optimistic about its chances. As Stephen Hawkins has said, we should keep our head down and work hard.

As for the meaning of our existence...perhaps there is a purpose to us to fulfill, I know a lot of people think this way, that everyone has their purpose to fulfill and then they die.

Quote from: Ravenshade on January 29, 2007, 11:27:16 AMIf they wanted to respond, they would have done already.

Why? If all these aliens can do is listen to radio waves like we do then they would have to be within 100 light years or so of Earth, and they would have to be listening for us as well. From Wikipedia I chose a star at random: HD 27894 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_27894), which has an extrasolar planet (albeit a Jovian one that probably swept up any Earthlike planets that might have formed). That star system is over 138 light years away from Earth. Say some alien civilization has ships there, perhaps mining resources on asteroids or doing scientific research. What are the odds that they would 1) be there by the time our radio waves arrive there, 2) be listening? Even if they received and understood the infrequent turn-of-the-century radio signals right away, they still wouldn't get them until we are sending men to Mars, and we wouldn't get any sort of response for more than a century after that.

And that's for a nearby planet. The further they are, the longer it'll take.

There is no purpose. You make it along as you go. Nobody has any set destiny and there is no 'meaning of life'.

Quote from: gonorrhoea on January 29, 2007, 05:51:27 PM
There is no purpose. You make it along as you go. Nobody has any set destiny and there is no 'meaning of life'.

Acutely this is more of a discussion of life in general, as in it's formation, whether intelligent life exists ect... I already know life has no meaning.

Jesus: It's a hard thing to say if they would be listing or not, but yes, it is 100light year limit before we can hear any radio signals. But there are other technologies out there that work ( slightly ) better.

If we where to receive an alien signal, for all intensive purposes the culture could be well and truly dead when we receive it. With no way to reply instantaneously there would be no way to return the signal usefully. Pointless to some extent...

As to my quote earlier " I laugh every time I hear the word SETI ".

Intents and purposes.
Also my last post was addressed to Ravenshade.

Quote from: Deliciously_Saucy on January 29, 2007, 05:59:39 PMJesus: It's a hard thing to say if they would be listing or not, but yes, it is 100light year limit before we can hear any radio signals. But there are other technologies out there that work ( slightly ) better.

First things first: my name is Jesus Hitler.

Second, there is no way to transmit information faster than the speed of light, which is how fast radio waves travel. Maybe someday we might find some magic way to instantaneously transmit information (I hear a lot of stuff about quantum mechanics, and most of it is undoubtedly horseshit) but don't depend on it.

QuoteIf we where to receive an alien signal, for all intensive purposes the culture could be well and truly dead when we receive it. With no way to reply instantaneously there would be no way to return the signal usefully. Pointless to some extent...

As to my quote earlier " I laugh every time I hear the word SETI ".

As I understand it, SETI's primary mission is to detect intelligent life, not open up diplomatic relations. Whether or not the civilization still exists is of secondary importance. You don't think that knowing there are other intelligent species in the universe is important?

Also, it is "for all intents and purposes".

Quote from: Jesus Hitler on January 29, 2007, 06:13:30 PM
You don't think that knowing there are other intelligent species in the universe is important?

Quite frankly, no. If it's not going to be anything more then a security blanket then it's a waste of time. If we got something out of it, then yeh why not. But I doubt we will.

QuoteSecond, there is no way to transmit information faster than the speed of light, which is how fast radio waves travel. Maybe someday we might find some magic way to instantaneously transmit information (I hear a lot of stuff about quantum mechanics, and most of it is undoubtedly horseshit) but don't depend on it.

Sorry, there is. We already have. It came out corrupted and unusable but we have sent information faster then the speed of light. If I can find the link, I shall post it up... " The beam was at the starting line and finish with no direct movement. It seemed to be there before it started ".

QuoteSETI's primary mission is to detect intelligent life

Primary yes, but they are still trying to "diplomatic relations". Not that they shouldn't.

Quote from: Deliciously_Saucy on January 29, 2007, 06:25:13 PMQuite frankly, no. If it's not going to be anything more then a security blanket then it's a waste of time. If we got something out of it, then yeh why not. But I doubt we will.

I suppose archeology is a waste of time, too? Extraterrestrials are wild card. We don't know where they are, what they can do, what their motivations are, or if they even exist. How is ignoring such a thing in any way intelligent?

QuoteSorry, there is. We already have. It came out corrupted and unusable but we have sent information faster then the speed of light. If I can find the link, I shall post it up... " The beam was at the starting line and finish with no direct movement. It seemed to be there before it started ".

Please do.

Quote
Please do.

Ok... These aren't to what I was saying but they're the closest I'm finding right now..
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html
http://www.livescience.com/technology/070112_ftl_sound.html
http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html

QuoteI suppose archeology is a waste of time, too? Extraterrestrials are wild card. We don't know where they are, what they can do, what their motivations are, or if they even exist. How is ignoring such a thing in any way intelligent?

I didn't say ignore, I was going on what you said

QuoteYou don't think that knowing there are other intelligent species in the universe is important?

I don't think that knowing about them would be anything more then a replacement for religion. Just away to cope with the idea of 'nothingness'. If we can't communicate with them, then there is no need. As long as SETI is only funded privately ( I believe they are ) I truly don't care what they do.

Quote from: Snailer on January 29, 2007, 06:55:55 PM
Life just sucks !!


hey D_S  your rep gone like WOOSH  up you went

Silverlines in luuuvvv with me! ;8

Quote from: gonorrhoea on January 29, 2007, 05:51:27 PM
There is no purpose. You make it along as you go. Nobody has any set destiny and there is no 'meaning of life'.

You might think that, but there are a helluva lot of people who think otherwise. I'm just here for the ride!

First of all, here I am catching up: Existance - the meaning is to learn perfection.

In nature it has been proven that a creature does not have to have an evolved brain mass to survive, however what if the purpose of nature is, albeit this sound corny, but to grow? (In which point growing becomes learning.) There have been many creatures that we have found that are smart, having a self-image, and some of the psychological dealings that humans ride through. Wolves - can do basic/rudimentary math. Dolphins - have a certain higher thinking/self-awareness. (If I am correct the most complex understanding second or thrid to humans.)

Case of Instant transmissions - There really isn't anything that I could possibly add onto.

Oh, but reciently I heard on the news, We killed life on Mars. D: Or there are debates upon that. Something about disrupting something. Unfortunetly I caught the end of it but hopefully it is a hoax? I would hate to think that we killed so many little one celled beings. xD Perhaps a few two celled things, who knows. Bacteria is only the first step towards evolution, or well almost anyhow. It would be interesting to possibly predict what could have evolved or if perhaps Mars is a 'nature's mistake'? Basing my thoughts of growing/learning perfection.

Kay, you're welcome to dice me up now. I'm just puttin my two cents in. Oh and the meaning to life is, putting all seriousness aside: 42 Hehe, can smack me for that one.

Actually, that was well done. Killing life on Mars how ever..? Even though there may have been life on Mars at one stage, I don't see it as haven survived, lack of water and all...

Oh actually DS they have found water, frozen yes, however microscopically there is life, I mean as we know it water is what is left of the primeordal soup we all came from if you believe in evolution. Of course basing intelligent life, you must have to admit it at least a little bit. Let me research if I can find that news piece about Mars....

Oh and here's a piece by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/07/mars.life.ap/index.html

Quote from: Revanica on January 30, 2007, 01:30:34 AM
Oh actually DS they have found water, frozen yes, however microscopically there is life, I mean as we know it water is what is left of the primeordal soup we all came from if you believe in evolution. Of course basing intelligent life, you must have to admit it at least a little bit. Let me research if I can find that news piece about Mars....

Yer, I should of said "Liquid Water". Post up the links...

I just Googled it and there are several areas talking about it. I'm just going to post the googled findings:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Killing+Mars+Life

Its basing the old twin pobes Viking I and II who landed on Mars like a few decades ago. An interesting read.

As this one is interesting as well:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070129_underground_mars.html

A good theory on the live that might exist. You must think that the cells could possibly evolve, slowly to adapt.

Quote from: Revanica on January 30, 2007, 01:37:30 AM
I just Googled it and there are several areas talking about it. I'm just going to post the googled findings:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Killing+Mars+Life

Its basing the old twin pobes Viking I and II who landed on Mars like a few decades ago. An interesting read.

As this one is interesting as well:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070129_underground_mars.html

A good theory on the live that might exist. You must think that the cells could possibly evolve, slowly to adapt.

Is adapting to ice really living, or is it just stasis? If the cells can't reproduce then there just waiting.... With out the chance of evolution, you can excuse me for not shedding a tear. I've also heard that it's possible the life on Mars came from Earth...

They speculate it is statsis, but I don't know, they could be swimming underneath the surface, with millions of years of evolution to help them. Thermal/Volcanic heat, heating certain pools and such. Gotta think: Life could actually depend on certain way of living we may think that something is totally corrosive but we might eventually find something that thrives in it!

I really can't formulate better answers at the moment so when my brain is refreshed with sleep I shall continue the talk. :D Then again I might feel like stubbornly try to keep talking.

Quote from: Revanica on January 30, 2007, 03:00:46 AM
we may think that something is totally corrosive but we might eventually find something that thrives in it!

There are plenty of life that scurvies in corrosive areas, ever heard of yellow stone park? I found that to be so kool that life could survive in such harsh environments. :lol:

Nah, get some sleep, I've been up all night too.

There are some cnidarians that survive in FORMALDEHYDE.

*distant, snorting nerd laughter*

The basic principles for life are engineered to survive in any condition. A defender planet may not be a required condition, however, I do think that other solar systems are conprised on same make-up. With the collapse of a star particles are super heated to bond, there by creating planets throwing all other space debris to the furthest reaches of that system. The "whatever is left behind" concept, will ultimatly gather to form one massive "Junk Planet"

Quote from: slydeltah on January 30, 2007, 11:09:46 AM
The basic principles for life are engineered to survive in any condition. A defender planet may not be a required condition, however, I do think that other solar systems are conprised on same make-up. With the collapse of a star particles are super heated to bond, there by creating planets throwing all other space debris to the furthest reaches of that system. The "whatever is left behind" concept, will ultimatly gather to form one massive "Junk Planet"

If Earth didn't have Jupiter guarding it by it's great gravitational pull, this planet would have been destroyed by comet impacts a long time ago, possibly not completely, but enough to stop life.( Oh, don't take any of my comments as an attack on you, I just get fiery in debate :) )

Of course, intelligence isn't just a "cruel joke" but one of many steps in our ultimate ascension into conscious awareness. Embrace and surpass it's [the mind] quest for knowledge. I wish I had the day off (I'm at work).

Quote from: slydeltah on January 31, 2007, 04:14:15 AM
Of course, intelligence isn't just a "cruel joke" but one of many steps in our ultimate ascension into conscious awareness. Embrace and surpass it's [the mind] quest for knowledge. I wish I had the day off (I'm at work).

I disagree, I feel that it is not necessary for life to have the brain function that is "self awareness" to survive, you could have an animal that is 10000x smarter then man without being aware of its self, the two are separate. Besides: "Intelligence is not needed for nature to survive".

Oh, and quite your job, we need more people for intelligent debate! :D

Here's is the Equation for working out the probibilty of life in the universe.

N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

R is the rate at which stars have been born in the Milky Way per year, fp is the fraction of these stars that have solar systems of planets, ne is the average number of "Earthlike" planets (potentially suitable for life) in the typical solar system, fl is the fraction of those planets on which life actually forms, fi is the fraction of life-bearing planets where biological evolution produces an intelligent species, fc is the fraction of intelligent species that become capable of interstellar radio communication, and L is the average lifetime of a communicating civilization in years.

But even so I doubt we will get a communication in our life time from another world simular to our own.

Quote from: landofshadows on February 01, 2007, 03:42:27 PM
Here's is the Equation for working out the probibilty of life in the universe.

N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

R is the rate at which stars have been born in the Milky Way per year, fp is the fraction of these stars that have solar systems of planets, ne is the average number of "Earthlike" planets (potentially suitable for life) in the typical solar system, fl is the fraction of those planets on which life actually forms, fi is the fraction of life-bearing planets where biological evolution produces an intelligent species, fc is the fraction of intelligent species that become capable of interstellar radio communication, and L is the average lifetime of a communicating civilization in years.

But even so I doubt we will get a communication in our life time from another world simular to our own.

Besides being the coolest member on Crankeye... your a smart guy.

Deliciously_Saucy - The Game Elite on the Amigia used pretty much a varient on the equation I gave a few posts back to randomly generate a Universe with intelligent life in it... (only geared using a few galaxies)

http://amigareviews.classicgaming.gamespy.com/elite.htm

But still with a massive array of planets this game all fitted on a 1.3meg disk and used a code to plot the distance and life in the solar systems... I think there are 2,000 solar systems in the game.

If you hold faith in Math... then I would say the chances are VERY likely there is other planets that can support life... and a VERY good chance a good percetage will have equal or better than our own.

Evolution - And what I think

So first lets say YES Evolution is a correct working theory and we Evolved from Chimps... Why in that case are there still Chimps about today...?

And why haven't other primates followed suite so we have different varients of Man like Babbons or Gorrillia's compared to Chimps ?

Why would a Lizard Evolve into a Bird that can't Fricken Fly, like a Chicken... and why through so many years of evoloutionary steps hasn't the chicken evloved to fly, run fast or protect it's self ?... It would have been better off staying as a Lizard... Heck it should De Evolove.

Why do we assume that through evoloution we are the better species just as we are more intelligent we are not the most suited to the needs of nature... If Nature forms us and we are destorying Nature are we not destroying ourselves...?  If Nature forms us to live along side or enviroment why would it makes us so good at destroying the very thing that made us, well us ?

I can't Disprove Evoloution, I just can't make 100% sense of it so I wont set it in stone in my own mind...

Quote from: landofshadows on February 22, 2007, 12:49:34 PMSo first lets say YES Evolution is a correct working theory and we Evolved from Chimps... Why in that case are there still Chimps about today...?

And why haven't other primates followed suite so we have different varients of Man like Babbons or Gorrillia's compared to Chimps ?

Because we evolved to fill different niches. Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans aren't adapted for the way our ancestors lived, and we probably wouldn't thrive if we lived like the other apes.

Also, humans did not evolve from chimps. TalkOrigins says it very well: "Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

QuoteWhy would a Lizard Evolve into a Bird that can't Fricken Fly, like a Chicken... and why through so many years of evoloutionary steps hasn't the chicken evloved to fly, run fast or protect it's self ?... It would have been better off staying as a Lizard... Heck it should De Evolove.

Early on there were feathered dinosaurs which were used for insulation. Presummably, small reptiles which leapt from tree to tree adapted those feathers to help them glide and eventually fly. I could look up the evolutionary history of feathers if you like.

Domestic chickens, as I said before, are the product of 5000 years of human breeding programs. They aren't bred for survival traits, but for things like size and docility. You might as well say that a chihuahua makes no sense because it would never survive in nature. Even so, they prove that descent with modification is real.

By the way, things don't "de-evolve".

QuoteWhy do we assume that through evoloution we are the better species just as we are more intelligent we are not the most suited to the needs of nature... If Nature forms us and we are destorying Nature are we not destroying ourselves...?  If Nature forms us to live along side or enviroment why would it makes us so good at destroying the very thing that made us, well us ?

We are the better species because we have become the top predator in almost every ecosystem even though we aren't naturally suited for any of them. We don't assume this through evolutionary theory, it is an obvious fact.

We aren't destroying nature, merely changing it. While this change might be harmful for us, life will continue to exist and will thrive in whatever new environment we create. To destroy nature we would have to make it impossible for life to exist, which would require a complete sterilization of Earth - which would include the destruction of all humans.

QuoteThe question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

QuoteI could look up the evolutionary history of feathers if you like.

You mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

QuoteDomestic chickens, as I said before, are the product of 5000 years of human breeding programs.

Same with most things like Horses for running... and pets like Lap dogs etc... What if we are the staying the same through design for a higher pupose or creature that we know nothing of, in a simular way as chickens ?

QuoteBy the way, things don't "de-evolve".

Err... Going by Darwin's Theory they could de-evolve, have you read Darwin's Theory ?

QuoteWe are the better species because we have become the top predator in almost every ecosystem even though we aren't naturally suited for any of them. We don't assume this through evolutionary theory, it is an obvious fact.

So just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution... And we are not supposed to exsist in the way that we do, we don't co-inside with hardly any other species on the planet, very much like Agent Smith explained we are most simular to parasites.

QuoteWe aren't destroying nature, merely changing it. While this change might be harmful for us, life will continue to exist and will thrive in whatever new environment we create. To destroy nature we would have to make it impossible for life to exist, which would require a complete sterilization of Earth - which would include the destruction of all humans.

Sorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

Here I go with some more floors

1. Apes live in tree's, turn into humans, cut down tree's make paper, wipe their arse's - Evolution, I love it !
2. Heck we have been polluting the skies slowly for 100's of years I don't see birds as yet adpating to the changes?
3. Name a Creature that has Evolved in say the last 100 odd years through Nature ?

OK now the above are simple rubbish ones...

But here's my Real reason's

Evolution is pretty much like a Mutation to a creature through the enviroment... but Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself, there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

May be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.

Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms... So looking at that we could have been a Muttation from a Gibbon, Chimp ape or a Cross breed of two... and Accident.  And if our evolutioary form is so much better than that of Monkey's then surely as their natural enviroment starts shrinking it will force more evlutionary jumps and may be we will start seeing more Human like Apes forming.

What I am saying is there are changes and breaks and different creatures becoming but not through nature, but ineraction with different breeds of creature... IE I think we came about by one type of Chimp Coping off with another, that making Neolithic man, that in turn shagging another type of chimp making modren man... Not the World around them changing them... Just like how we make new breeds of dogs... some more intelligent than others.

But Supporting Nature sway on life

There are creatures like Frogs, that look just like leaves, and animals under the sea like the flat fish that match their surroundings yet scientists say these creatures see in black and white yet their skin matches the colour of their enviroment... There are things I can't answer... or agruee against...

I am not writting off Darwin's Theory... I am just saying it has Floors.

In a Nutshell

I think we came about through Mutation (Interbreeding and cross breeding) and I think thats the same for all branches of creature, and the things that govern skin pigmintation and hair varients could be through Nature changing variables of DNA code and make up through Millions of years... So I think Darwin's theory does hold weight but not as much as he wants credit for... I think Nature plays a small role on creatures looks and forms.  May be in the dawn of time whan most life on the Earth was in the early stages then yes Evloution was much larger, but now as creatures are more formed I think life alters life more than the suroundings...

For example:-
Placing a pack of Jack Russell's in firstly in Switerland, then poland, then lap land, then the North pole wont make them into Huskey's or give them a thicker coat, but still only shagging Jack Russell's.

But them being in those countries and them shagging the local dogs with thicker coats would slowly create a breed of jack russel with a thicker coat... And depending on the Sun and the amount of light will depend on the coats colour to a degree.

Quote from: landofshadows on February 22, 2007, 02:30:49 PM
Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

FIRST OF ALL.
It's already been said several times that evolution doesn't have goals, evolution is merely situational changes to adapt to a new environment and niches.
Repeat this to yourself. You copy and pasted something down below to this effect, why do you still speak as if evolution is an advancement?

QuoteYou mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

...

QuoteWhat if the world de-evolved ?... became less hospitable... I am sure some creatures may revert back ?...

Uh, species would adapt if the world changed in any way. Not revert, adapt.

QuoteSo just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution...

THERE IS NO DEVOLUTION.
Furthermore, of course we affect the environment. So does every other creature.

QuoteSorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

No, that's a change to the environment.

Quote1. Apes live in tree's, turn into humans, cut down tree's make paper, wipe their arse's - Evolution, I love it !
2. Heck we have been polluting the skies slowly for 100's of years I don't see birds as yet adpating to the changes?
3. Name a Creature that has Evolved in say the last 100 odd years through Nature ?

OK now the above are simple rubbish ones...

. . .

QuoteEvolution is pretty much like a Mutation to a creature through the enviroment... but Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species.

Mutatees form new branches, ie subspecies, which evolve further into a separate species.

QuoteIn addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Viruses have evolved quite a bit in the last century.

QuoteEvolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick

It's called science, its practitioners like any other humans make mistakes. They learn. They advance. They keep questioning things. Saying 'OMG SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG ((I know because I read this in a science journal)) THAT MEANS MY RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT!' is one of the most horribly fucktarded things I've ever heard.

Quotethere is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

Holy fucking shit.

QuoteMay be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

. . .

QuoteAnother common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.

I like my copypasta without marinara sauce, got any alfredo?

QuoteThere are creatures like Frogs, that look just like leaves, and animals under the sea like the flat fish that match their surroundings yet scientists say these creatures see in black and white yet their skin matches the colour of their enviroment... There are things I can't answer... or agruee against...

Maybe it's because their colourful existence has nothing to do with their eyes.

Quote from: landofshadows on February 22, 2007, 02:30:49 PM

QuoteThe question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

That isn't what it meant. You are deliberately misinterpreting it.

Quote

QuoteI could look up the evolutionary history of feathers if you like.

You mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

I can't believe you said that.

Quote

QuoteDomestic chickens, as I said before, are the product of 5000 years of human breeding programs.

Same with most things like Horses for running... and pets like Lap dogs etc...

Yes, modern horses and dogs are the result of elective breeding. Your point?

Quote

QuoteBy the way, things don't "de-evolve".

What if the world de-evolved ?... became less hospitable... I am sure some creatures may revert back ?...

Things can't de-evolve. Evolution is change, so no matter what happens it is still evolution.

QuoteSo just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution...

I worded it wrong. We have a trait that makes us able to adapt to every environment: our complex brains. Without them, we would be helpless.

QuoteSorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

Yes, the globe is warming. So? If you think that all life will be exterminated due to it then you don't rally understand what it is. "Nature" will continue to exist.

Quote1. Apes live in tree's, turn into humans, cut down tree's make paper, wipe their arse's - Evolution, I love it !
2. Heck we have been polluting the skies slowly for 100's of years I don't see birds as yet adpating to the changes?
3. Name a Creature that has Evolved in say the last 100 odd years through Nature ?

1. What is your point?
2. Pigeons that live in cities are mostly gray and black because that coloration lets them blend into their surroundings better. White pigeons are very rare.
3. A certain species of fly is branching off which specializes in feeding off of apples: Link (PDF (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/20/11490.pdf)

QuoteEvolution is pretty much like a Mutation to a creature through the enviroment... but Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Evolution does not mean that something becomes more complex. When a life form evolves it adapts to better suit its environment. A good example is all the bacteria that are evolving to become resistant to disinfectants.

QuoteEvolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself, there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

Details change, but the theory remains intact. As TalkOrigins says, Vestigianl does not mean useless. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html)

QuoteMay be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

What? The space of time between the earliest hominids and modern humans isn't that long, and the differences are already huge. Sorry that you aren't a being of pure energy, but we just aren't there yet.

QuoteAnother common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.

So did you even read this paragraph?

QuoteAdditionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms... So looking at that we could have been a Muttation from a Gibbon, Chimp ape or a Cross breed of two... and Accident.  And if our evolutioary form is so much better than that of Monkey's then surely as their natural enviroment starts shrinking it will force more evlutionary jumps and may be we will start seeing more Human like Apes forming.

Evolution is a blind force. Chimpanzees won't evolve to become super intelligent in order to fight us because it just doesn't work that way. Also, we are the product of millions of years of evolution in an environment that is different from the ones chimpanzees currently inhabit. Maybe if we took millions of years to destroy their ecosystem something might happen, but not at this rate.

EDIT: By the way, a Neolithic man is the same as a modern man. "Neolithic" refers to the later part of the Stone Age. Neolithic men were already farming.

QuoteWhat I am saying is there are changes and breaks and different creatures becoming but not through nature, but ineraction with different breeds of creature... IE I think we came about by one type of Chimp Coping off with another, that making Neolithic man, that in turn shagging another type of chimp making modren man... Not the World around them changing them... Just like how we make new breeds of dogs... some more intelligent than others.

If any of what you said were true, the jungles of the world would still be teeming with hominids. Instead, we have separate, distinct species that do not interbreed.

QuoteThere are creatures like Frogs, that look just like leaves, and animals under the sea like the flat fish that match their surroundings yet scientists say these creatures see in black and white yet their skin matches the colour of their enviroment... There are things I can't answer... or agruee against...

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you tell me exactly what fish and what frogs?

FIRSTLY gonorrhoea

QuoteI like my copypasta without marinara sauce, got any alfredo?

I spell checked half of what I had written in Word, and word added things like ;

QuoteTHERE IS NO DEVOLUTION.

In Darwin's Theory he states should the enviromental changes revery back then through evolution certain traits of a creature may devolve.

QuoteIt's already been said several times that evolution doesn't have goals, evolution is merely situational changes to adapt to a new environment and niches.
Repeat this to yourself. You copy and pasted something down below to this effect, why do you still speak as if evolution is an advancement?

I only done so as a JOKE... it has LOL at the FRICKEN END of the sentence... And you saying Evolution is not an Advancement of a species but an adaption is how I view it, but I would say a Mutation is not an Advancement of a Species...

Darwin's Theory is based on Nature Changing Creatures or Creatures Adapting to the enviroment... May be to an extent this could be true, I think Darwin's theory needs to be open to ONE change and that change being a mass change to a DNA strand only happens through mutation.  Darwin's Theory for me is sound to a point in time that creatures have a forward path of growth.  But in modern times it's more likely that mutation will alter creatures than evolution.

QuoteMutatees form new branches, ie subspecies, which evolve further into a separate species.

CORRECT, new species are not just a credit to evolution, thats all I am saying !!!... so why didn't we adapt Darwin's Theory to incumpuss Mutation there by making it complete and more founded... (I know why, then it's knowlonger his theory)...

QuoteQuote
there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.
Holy fucking shit.

LOL... That's me thinking outside of the box... But I should have put it more like:- There is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we evolved through nature's design from Apes.

QuoteViruses have evolved quite a bit in the last century.

Viruses... have been Created from scratch, they have evloved, they have also mutetated...

I am not saying Evolution doesn't happen I am saying Darwin's theory is not complete if it does not hold the value of Mutation through cross breeding... I mean it even happens in plants (Cross Pollinization).

QuoteTHAT MEANS MY RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT!

I am far from Religious... Just cuz I don't hold the same ideal's in Darwin as you doesn't mean I hold standing in a God...LOL  (By the way Dawin was a bit of a tosser)

Quote from: landofshadows on February 22, 2007, 03:40:33 PM
In Darwin's Theory he states should the enviromental changes revery back then through evolution certain traits of a creature may devolve.

When?

Also, the understanding of evolution has changed considerably since Darwin. Can you stop acting as if I got everything I know off of Origin of Species?

QuoteDarwin's Theory is based on Nature Changing Creatures or Creatures Adapting to the enviroment... May be to an extent this could be true, I think Darwin's theory needs to be open to ONE change and that change being a mass change to a DNA strand only happens through mutation.  Darwin's Theory for me is sound to a point in time that creatures have a forward path of growth.  But in modern times it's more likely that mutation will alter creatures than evolution.

You idiot. Mutation is an integral part of evolution.

QuoteLOL... That's me thinking outside of the box... But I should have put it more like:- There is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we evolved through nature's design from Apes.

Nature isn't a designer.

QuoteViruses... have been Created from scratch, they have evloved, they have also mutetated...

...Que?

QuoteI am far from Religious... Just cuz I don't hold the same ideal's in Darwin as you doesn't mean I hold standing in a God...LOL  (By the way Dawin was a bit of a tosser)

I recall you saying you were a deist.

2nd Saladin

QuoteThat isn't what it meant. You are deliberately misinterpreting it.

I know... I was trying to be funny... In an English way.

QuoteI can't believe you said that.

Why Darwin did... He said should the enviromental settings of a creature revert back to previous conditions then various traits of the creature may devolve. (it is adaption and Evlution at the end of the day is evolution even if it's going backwards... the correct wording for evlution in reveruse is devolution).

QuoteYes, modern horses and dogs are the result of elective breeding. Your point?

Evolution is not the main/only catalyst of new breeds of creature... therefore Darwin's theory is floored to a degree... Mutation of a creature occur's through interbreeding... Yes the fitest survive, and yes the enviroment plays part in many features of the creatures pyhsology... It's like an African Bee shagging a English Bee will make a Hybrid and once there are enough of them then they will be slated a new breed...

QuoteI worded it wrong. We have a trait that makes us able to adapt to every environment: our complex brains. Without them, we would be helpless.

We adapt the enviroment to suite our needs, or adpat what we have around us to help us suite the enviroment... Hows that evolution as nature intends...

QuoteEvolution does not mean that something becomes more complex. When a life form evolves it adapts to better suit its environment. A good example is all the bacteria that are evolving to become resistant to disinfectants.

People with Aid's build up Emunity to the drugs they need to take... Bacteria is the same...
If one kind of Bacteria beets another it's a Chemical reaction to a degree... Yes I suppose it's Evolution, but its also adation and mutation.

Darwin's Theory:-

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

I still don't think Nature and Nurture is all thats to building new life forms.

Is whatever you just linked worth wasting my time on? Because pretty much everything you've ever linked before... wasn't.

Also, evolution is natural selection which involves things like mutation and adaptation.

Quote from: landofshadows on February 22, 2007, 04:14:33 PM

QuoteI can't believe you said that.

Why Darwin did... He said should the enviromental settings of a creature revert back to previous conditions then various traits of the creature may devolve. (it is adaption and Evlution at the end of the day is evolution even if it's going backwards... the correct wording for evlution in reveruse is devolution).

If Darwin said that then he was wrong. Evolution is always forward, even if new features are like old ones. Would you say that whales and dolphins de-evolved? They simply adapted to a new environment which was similar to an old one.

EDIT: Recessive traits might emerge in a creature, but I don't think it would be called de-evolution because the genes for the trait are still present in the species. De-evolution would be a human giving birth to a homo erectus.

Quote

QuoteYes, modern horses and dogs are the result of elective breeding. Your point?

Evolution is not the main/only catalyst of new breeds of creature... therefore Darwin's theory is floored to a degree... Mutation of a creature occur's through interbreeding... Yes the fitest survive, and yes the enviroment plays part in many features of the creatures pyhsology... It's like an African Bee shagging a English Bee will make a Hybrid and once there are enough of them then they will be slated a new breed...

Hybrids take work to create. Animals don't mate with another species unless someone makes them. They are the result of selective human breeding, just like chickens, horses, pigs, cows, cats, goldfish, and so on and so on.

EDIT: Also, many hybrids are sterile and incapable of creating new populations.

Quote

QuoteI worded it wrong. We have a trait that makes us able to adapt to every environment: our complex brains. Without them, we would be helpless.

We adapt the enviroment to suite our needs, or adpat what we have around us to help us suite the enviroment... Hows that evolution as nature intends...

ow is it unnatural to create conditions favorable to our survival? Beehives, anthills, bird nests, and beaver dams all create favorable survival conditions for the animals that build them.

Quote

QuoteEvolution does not mean that something becomes more complex. When a life form evolves it adapts to better suit its environment. A good example is all the bacteria that are evolving to become resistant to disinfectants.

People with Aid's build up Emunity to the drugs they need to take... Bacteria is the same...

Building up an immunity to a drug is different from what happens in the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. If we're using a person analogy this would be better: a disease devastates a city. Out of every 100, 5 are immune. The disease will never again be able to devastate the city like it did because its population has a genetic immunity to it. What's worse, bacteria can give bits of DNA to each other, ensuring that the advantageous mutation (immunity to a certain antibiotic) spreads much more quickly than a population of humans could spread their immunity.

QuoteIf one kind of Bacteria beets another it's a Chemical reaction to a degree... Yes I suppose it's Evolution, but its also adation and mutation.

Evolution is adaptation and mutation.

Wow, a lot to respond to here...

QuoteThe question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Quote

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

Sorry but I feel the comparison is relevant. Not to put you down but the ignorance that evolution teaches us that we come from monkeys or apes makes me sick.

QuoteYou mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

They have excellent evidence, many fossils have been found of the dinosaurs we know that contains a fine layer of down. Out of the two leading theories of how birds came to be, ( one, that birds evolved in a separate line before the dinosaurs, or two that they evolved directly from dinosaurs ) the scales have been greatly tipped with these new fossils.

Quote
Err... Going by Darwin's Theory they could de-evolve, have you read Darwin's Theory ?

You stated that wrong, but I think I get what you mean. Creature 'A' lives in a sunny place, place gets cold so 'A' is forced to gain some more fur, it gets hot again and A then needs to lose the fur. It's not de-evolution, it's simply change that looks like reversion. Its not though...

QuoteSo just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution... And we are not supposed to exsist in the way that we do, we don't co-inside with hardly any other species on the planet, very much like Agent Smith explained we are most simular to parasites.

I say that given that we are at the top even though we are disadvantaged is what makes us the top dog. As Saladin said, it's our ability to adapt to places that we aren't designed to that is quite amazing. Fuck, we could be on Mars soon enough...

Oh I love that parasite line BTW, I guess it's simply a point of view.

QuoteSorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

The theory of global warming doesn't say we all die.

QuoteBut here's my Real reason's *read it*

I can see people disputing how we evolved, but evolution itself..? If we didn't evolve from one base origin, then how do you explain new species of animals? Excluding divine intervention, what ideas are out there that are plausible?

I don't consider breeding to be mentionable as for continued change to happen there would need to be many different types of animals evolving along side, as to breed between species very little change can be between them. The idea on breeding shares some of the same flaws as Darwinism. First off, for this to work, it encounters the same problem with numbers: You would need mass cross breeding for a positive cross species to become the dominate factor. As for the positive results: we only get positive results from cross breeding because we have control of the situation, how would animals become so adapt at getting these changes from breeding? I think with the randomness of the results of breeding, and the fact that good changes are a rare occurrence from crossbreeding that there are simply not enough compatible animals for the effects to take place.

QuoteIt's called science, its practitioners like any other humans make mistakes. They learn. They advance. They keep questioning things. Saying 'OMG SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG ((I know because I read this in a science journal)) THAT MEANS MY RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT!' is one of the most horribly fucktarded things I've ever heard.

I also think that in many situations, researchers are forced or pressured into giving a premature answer.

Quotethere is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

Yeh the problem with people saying that is it's a continuous loop. If that where true then who put the aliens there..? God?

QuoteI am far from Religious... Just cuz I don't hold the same ideal's in Darwin as you doesn't mean I hold standing in a God...LOL  (By the way Dawin was a bit of a tosser)

Your agnostic right? That's pretty close to being religious in my mind. I think all of us here can come to the conclusion that all religion on earth is fictional and made by man, so that only leaves the possibility of "Impersonal Gods", which would be a scientific creator. But the problem is, wtf classes them as a god? I would say that if something like this existed, that while they may appear  to be gods that they would simply be highly evolved lifeforms and nothing more. "God" would be the label an un-equal being would give them.

Agnostics say that it is impossible to prove or disprove a god. The only god in our current understanding is "man's created gods" so the idea that you entertain the thought that these "may" be correct is just fence sitting. I agree with the tosser part though... Darwin was also a cultist... >_>

If you can agree that religion is wrong, then you can't really claim to be Agnostic as the idea of a god is simply a religious matter or false title.

QuoteWe adapt the enviroment to suite our needs, or adpat what we have around us to help us suite the enviroment... Hows that evolution as nature intends...

This is the new nature. Get used to it. We are changing things to suit us and the fact that we can do it, signifies that humans are the highest life form on Earth.

Defintions:-

Evolution:- A progression from a simple form to a more complex one
Mutation:- The process or result of making or becoming different
Adaption:- The act of making suitable to an end or the condition of being made suitable to an end

Now Darwin's Theory does cover aspects of each of these, but rules out a more complex Species can come to pass through Mutation... But in actual fact the only way a creature can change in a massive way is through Mutation due to restrictions to changes of the DNA code through simple Evolution.

In fact there are many groups amoungst the worlds greatest minds that have good reason to fault Darwin's Theory. While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility.

Here's some of the Groups evidence:-

Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.

(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdesigneduniverse.com%2Farticles%2FEvidence_Disproving_Evolution%2Fprotein_synthesis.gif&hash=1d058ff7510bcf4d3a15584655f41d8a5dc20561) (https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdesigneduniverse.com%2Farticles%2FEvidence_Disproving_Evolution%2Fdna.gif&hash=f3de0e9dab4ab8742709e79bb610b3f36f77318a)

The main Researcher behind this evidence won a Noble Prize, David Baltimore.

I am not talking arse... Darwin's evoultion theory is fantastic and holds many things I see as true, but it has a few missing steps and links... It's just not finished...

And what I am trying to say about Human's is we should be, by Darwin's Theory be made to suite our suroundings, but if you ask me we are too evolved... I mean if Evoultion effects every creature on the planet then really the most evolved creatures should be those that have been walking or swimming in it the longest... Mamals are one of the last to have started tredding the Earth, I suppose that in it's self can be turned around and said that yes, they are and for that reason the most developed to suite today's conditions... I think for us to be as we are, to take from the tree's to living in caves and then on to Modern time some thing other than climate change and evolution was responcible.

There are many others that think the same as me or simular, that changes can't happen to the degree that Darwin states to the DNA structure of any living creature without Mutation playing a bigger role than that of Evolution.

You see with Mutation (Cross breeding) the strongest of Genes get kept and the weaker taken away... Dominate Genes will suppass the weaker, hence why if a black person has a child with a white person you will get a Black or Dark skinned person... That's Mutation not evolution, evolution may have helped in making the Black person anlong with adaption.  I would imagine that back in time most people would have been white with dark hair, but warm climate made hair shorter and curly and the skin darker through pigmintation then being hard coded into DNA after many years.  The reason I say most would have been white / pink is most mamals are White skinned, I think the Polar Bear is one of the only furr bearing mamals to have dark skin... (I could be wrong)...

I just don't think Dawin's theory is the answer for all life on this planet... I think it plays an integral part, but there is a fair amount of conflictun-dismissable evidence that all the answer have not been fully covered.

Why do you keep saying "Darwin's Theory"? The theory of evolution has advanced in the past 100 years, you know. Mutation and adaptation are central to evolutionary theory along with genetic drift and aren't thought of as being separate from evolution. Let me ask you a question; what do you think evolution is? What about mutation? Interracial kids are not mutants.

All you've done here is paste a couple of pictures and say "I can't believe it, so it can't be true!" then give a quick (somewhat inaccurate) definition of genes and drop a name like it's supposed to blow us away. What exactly is it about evolution that is so difficult? And before, you said that we weren't evolved enough, now we're too evolved. Which is it?

Quoteyou said that we weren't evolved enough

I have NEVER said that ?

We are too evolved for the Natural enviroment so I am saying that Evolution (Thats governed by change to the enviroment) is not applicaple, so the way we come to pass can't be down to Evolution without Mutation.

QuoteWhy do you keep saying "Darwin's Theory"? The theory of evolution has advanced in the past 100 years, you know. Evolution is not separate from mutation and adaptation.

Even still it's still only a Theory... and yes it has changed, and yes it's getting better.  Evolution is different to Mutation, or do you regard Ninja turtles as an Evolution change, or some thing that altered them as an exernal source (I am trying to make thi as SIMPLE as I can for you)... Evolution is not Mutation... Mutation is only listed as a Side step on the ladder of Evolution, But I think the main part of life as we know it is down to Mutation and I think Evolution should be the side step, I think Nature only changes small things, like skin tone or Hair growth, it can't alter DNA like Mutation can...  Saying Nature is responicle for the way we are is WRONG, saying Mutation holds more truth in my opinion is CORRECT... And that's pretty much how David Baltimore thinks...

I am not just name dropping and placing up nice images to try and back myself up... I am doing for the same reasons as you are to show my way of thinking.

Saladin... Are you Jesus Hitler ?

Evolution in my opinion is responciple for small changes, the below shows small skin variations due to location:-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevosite%2Fevo101%2Fimages%2Fensatina.gif&hash=c17eddb9f4dd2e825ba9c4669e033d615093642d)

Where as Mutation can do all sorts, Mutations with effects in early stages of development can have large phenotypic consequences (Thats movement and relocation of whole body parts in the insect world). For example The mutant bithorax is a well-known case. It has two rear-thoraxes instead of one front and one rear, giving it two pairs of wings instead of a pair of wings and a pair of halteres. Antennapaedia is another example, in which legs grow out of the antennal sockets instead of antennae. At an abstract level, it is easy to imagine how homeotic mutations work. There is presumably a set of genes encoding for the growth of a leg and another set specifying where these leg-genes are switched on. Mutations in the position-specifying genes could result in the genes encoding for leg growth being switched on in the wrong place.

And before you say I am copying and pasting shite... You may have noticed a fair few edits, I have actually put some time into this debate, I have spell checked stuff.

Quote from: landofshadows on February 23, 2007, 12:48:36 PM

Quoteyou said that we weren't evolved enough

I have NEVER said that ?

You said it right here:

Quote from: landofshadows on February 22, 2007, 02:30:49 PMMay be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

QuoteWe are too evolved for the Natural enviroment so I am saying that Evolution (Thats governed by change to the enviroment) is not applicaple, so the way we come to pass can't be down to Evolution without Mutation.

Mutation is a part of evolutionary theory.

QuoteEven still it's still only a Theory... and yes it has changed, and yes it's getting better.

As far as theories go, evolution is very well founded. Evolution is contested for philosophical reasons, not for scientific ones.

QuoteNinja turtles

Nice straw man. A real mutation would be more fur in a cold climate or resistance to a disease that has been plaguing a species for millenia.

QuoteBut I think the main part of life as we know it is down to Mutation and I think Evolution should be the side step, I think Nature only changes small things, like skin tone or Hair growth, it can't alter DNA like Mutation can...  Saying Nature is responicle for the way we are is WRONG, saying Mutation holds more truth in my opinion is CORRECT...

Darwin's theory may have emphasized descent with modification, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that the modern theory doesn't incorporate mutations.

QuoteAnd that's pretty much how David Baltimore thinks...

And where does he say that? He didn't do it when he praised The God Delusion (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/54417;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0) or signed this paper supporting evolution being taught in schools (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html).

QuoteEvolution in my opinion is responciple for small changes, the below shows small skin variations due to location:-
[img]http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/ensatina.gif[img]

All this shows is that evolution can account for change both great and small.

EDIT: Also, the picture seems to be showing speciation in a lizard population. They are very similar because all those species evolved from the same ancestor relatively recently.

QuoteLegs for eyes! Gross! (snipped for length)

Evolutionary theory accounts for mutation. Also, those fly species would not thrive in the wild, where their cousin species whose antennae and eyes are intact would out-compete them within a few generations and the harmful mutations are weeded out. This is an evolutionary process.

EDIT: Can someone find me a gallery of those flies? I thought they were the coolest when I was a kid.

QuoteAnd before you say I am copying and pasting shite... You may have noticed a fair few edits, I have actually put some time into this debate, I have spell checked stuff.

we don't doubt you because of the spelling, but because of the grammar is better than yours. It seems like you added a few signature touches ("Where as", inappropriate capitalization) and left the bulk of the text intact. We don't mind if you paste something relevant, but don't pretend you wrote it.

QuoteSaladin... Are you Jesus Hitler ?

If I was, would you read this post?

QuoteEven still it's still only a Theory... and yes it has changed, and yes it's getting better.  Evolution is different to Mutation, or do you regard Ninja turtles as an Evolution change, or some thing that altered them as an exernal source (I am trying to make thi as SIMPLE as I can for you)... Evolution is not Mutation... Mutation is only listed as a Side step on the ladder of Evolution, But I think the main part of life as we know it is down to Mutation and I think Evolution should be the side step

You keep on stating how much better it's getting, yet you still seem to fight it at every corner. You really, really don't have to pat it on the back if you think it's wrong.

As I've said before, mutation still encounters some serious problems, some of the same problems that natural selection has. Why are you always off the mainstream? I could understand if it was one thing or two, but for you it seams to be everything. The evidence you've shown me doesn't make enough of a difference to get me supporting this idea over natural selection, what made you pick it? 

Quote
Saladin... Are you Jesus Hitler ?

No he's not. Jesus Hitler was banned, he is Saladin.

QuoteBut I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder

I was going by the process of man going from chimp to human, there should have been abother change by now... Darwin worked in patterns... 2 4 8 16 32 etc... so around about now 64 should happen ?...

I think we long supassed nature's needs... And his Theory is outdated and outlandish.

QuoteThe evidence you've shown me doesn't make enough of a difference to get me supporting this idea over natural selection, what made you pick it?

Mutation over Natural selection... Natural selection and adpation to the enviroment is slow changes, changes you wont see from generation to generation, but changes you will see say once every 1000 years or so; and the changes then are small... The changes from Mutation can happen from generation to generation and the changes can be Vast... Thats why I favour Mutation in replacement of Evolution.

Evolution is happening at a slow rate but happening all the time to all of us...

Mutation happens due to another source or a break in the norm... But when it does happen the results are clear and quicker... I think Mutation and breeding / cross breeding is more than likely what gave birth to the first Human.

QuoteIf I was, would you read this post?

Well I might aswell... may be under a different allias you will act differently and not attack people for voicing opinions.

QuoteMutation is a part of evolutionary theory.

Yeah it's a side note.  Evolution being the main carrier of the theory... and Mutation taking a back seat, I think Mutation should be the main carrier.

QuoteAnd where does he say that? He didn't do it when he praised The God Delusion or signed this paper supporting evolution being taught in schools.

LOL you have been reading Wikki... It doesn't mention much about his actual thoughts into Evolution, while David thinks Evolution is a fairly sound theory to base common changes in he also say for changes to the DNA string to take place soley on the enviroment is too far fetched due to the DNA strand be unchangable without Mutation through breeding.

QuoteCan someone find me a gallery of those flies? I thought they were the coolest when I was a kid.

(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucl.ac.uk%2F%7Eucbzwdr%2Fteaching%2Fb250-99%2Fbithorax.jpg&hash=09e125594b57db5c23bd8fdeb7ab95180911e9c5)

Mutation made this little Gem, not Evolution... Now should this fly mate with another speciess would they grown a new body section... May be ?...

Here's an example... Say if Zebra's mixed with Donkey's when Migrating their off spring if they mated would look like this:-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F67%2FZeedonk_800.jpg&hash=a9604fc450c5769a85a5f3a26afbd4cc9844377a)

Now say if that happened a few 100 years ago and now there are loads of them about I bet most theologists would say well its the effects of Evoulution the envirment dicates the Zebra should have stripes therefore Donkey's in the same area now have stripes... NOT TRUE... it's Mutation... And I think thats all Man is a Mutation of two of the smartest Primates at the time, the dominate genes won and that in turn sparked off a new breed of Creature...MAN

QuoteMutation over Natural selection... Natural selection and adpation to the enviroment is slow changes, changes you wont see from generation to generation, but changes you will see say once every 1000 years or so; and the changes then are small... The changes from Mutation can happen from generation to generation and the changes can be Vast... Thats why I favour Mutation in replacement of Evolution.
Evolution is happening at a slow rate but happening all the time to all of us...

Mutation happens due to another source or a break in the norm... But when it does happen the results are clear and quicker... I think Mutation and breeding / cross breeding is more than likely what gave birth to the first Human.

One of the qualms I can't get over mutation is that it wouldn't be close to quick changes on the whole. Mutations only happen to the individual and are unique each time. Is it really faster then NS? With NS in take, identical changes can and do happen to more then one member, compared to the individual change made from mutation, how could a mutation for the better, become a dominant factor in a fast way? If it does only happen to one, then the effect of the change would be diluted each time the mutant mated, effectively wiping it out. Mutation is a random change, I don't see identical changes happening outside of coincidence.

Quote
I was going by the process of man going from chimp to human, there should have been abother change by now... Darwin worked in patterns... 2 4 8 16 32 etc... so around about now 64 should happen ?...

I don't think NS can take place effectively, if at all, in a species with such a large culture. The principle is that death of weakness is needed to progress, but with such a large gathering of people, there is a very good chance that every person on earth will have the possibility to pass on their ( possibly flawed ) genes. The flawed will mate with the flawed and even with the 'select', which is quite unnatural and therefore we are unaffected by natural selection.

QuoteOne of the qualms I can't get over mutation is that it wouldn't be close to quick changes on the whole. Mutations only happen to the individual and are unique each time. Is it really faster then NS? With NS in take, identical changes can and do happen to more then one member, compared to the individual change made from mutation, how could a mutation for the better, become a dominant factor in a fast way? If it does only happen to one, then the effect of the change would be diluted each time the mutant mated, effectively wiping it out. Mutation is a random change, I don't see identical changes happening outside of coincidence.

I think I have already covered this aspect But if a Black person has a Child with a white person the result is fairly simular across the board, they have a Black or dark skinned child... Same applies to if a Zebra had a Baby with a Donkey... Hybrids are not as random as you think... The dominate genes will out those not so... Your opinion on Mutation is very simular to most other theologeon's and very mainstream, but when the other side of the argueement has so much to offer with many supporting factors I don't see how it can be dissmissed.  There has been more breeds of dogs made through cross breeding than Evolution has put forward through natural selection.

QuoteI don't think NS can take place effectively, if at all, in a species with such a large culture. The principle is that death of weakness is needed to progress, but with such a large gathering of people, there is a very good chance that every person on earth will have the possibility to pass on their ( possibly flawed ) genes. The flawed will mate with the flawed and even with the 'select', which is quite unnatural and therefore we are unaffected by natural selection.

I agree... I think Evolution through natural selection served it's purpose E-ons ago but now, unless there is a massive change I doubt we will see any new creatures appearing any time soon that may rivial us... The only real thing NS is doing is to smaller creatures and helping them adapt to the enviroment, like camoflage etc...

I think the only way there could be another creature to rivel us would be for a Human to venture into the jungle and mate with a primate, a Big Muscluar one like a Gorilla...LOL (OK that's fairly sick...).

LoS ignores essential parts of Saladin's posts. One can tell, because of his recent comments on hybridisation.
It doesn't make your point look any better :)

Quotethink I have already covered this aspect But if a Black person has a Child with a white person the result is fairly simular across the board, they have a Black or dark skinned child... Same applies to if a Zebra had a Baby with a Donkey... Hybrids are not as random as you think... The dominate genes will out those not so...

The whole point would be that the mutants would really have to be out in force, sure if an African man was to breed with a Caucasian, the the baby would have relatively dark skin, but if the child mated with just a white, and it's child mated with just a white, no matter how powerful the gene it will be suppressed. You can't change the world with one mutant, and crossbreeding, as Saladin said, only happens in nature under rare conditions.

QuoteYour opinion on Mutation is very simular to most other theologeon's and very mainstream, but when the other side of the argueement has so much to offer with many supporting factors I don't see how it can be dissmissed.  There has been more breeds of dogs made through cross breeding than Evolution has put forward through natural selection.

Thank you, not that I want to admit this, but my idea on mutation was written on my personal common sense with no research had been made.

Quote
I agree... I think Evolution through natural selection served it's purpose E-ons ago but now, unless there is a massive change I doubt we will see any new creatures appearing any time soon that may rivial us... The only real thing NS is doing is to smaller creatures and helping them adapt to the enviroment, like camoflage etc...

I wouldn't go that far. It's somewhat dormant for the human concern, and even though we may have successfully depressed the growth of some animals, I would say that it is still a major part for nature. We also come into the idea of "man-made NS", what happens when we introduce cheap effective robots into the world? They will replace the job of the common man and effectively only leave the "select" with real positions.

Quote
I think the only way there could be another creature to rivel us would be for a Human to venture into the jungle and mate with a primate, a Big Muscluar one like a Gorilla...LOL (OK that's fairly sick...).

Was that a joke?

Quote from: landofshadows on February 23, 2007, 02:21:39 PM

QuoteBut I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder

I was going by the process of man going from chimp to human, there should have been abother change by now... Darwin worked in patterns... 2 4 8 16 32 etc... so around about now 64 should happen ?...

1. What are you talking about? Darwin believed no such thing.
2. Even if he did, Darwin was not infallible and the evolution we now know and teach is not the evolution he was familiar with.

Quote from: gonorrhoea on February 24, 2007, 03:11:59 AM
LoS ignores essential parts of Saladin's posts. One can tell, because of his recent comments on hybridisation.
It doesn't make your point look any better

Especially the parts where I said most hybrids are sterile. He tries to avoid this issue by calling interracial people hybrids and suggesting that black and white people are from two different species, which is a rather Victorian approach to race relations. Africans and Europeans are regional variations of the same species and their offspring are neither hybrids nor mutants.

He hasn't told us exactly what makes him think that humanity is a hybrid between two ape species and calls the resulting creature a mutant, which is not what it would be. Assuming that the hybrid would not be sterile the two ape populations would still have to generate a sufficiently large number of humans within a short time frame - ten years, say.

He continues to cite David Baltimore without actually showing us anything he said. I, however, have proven that he fully supports modern evolutionary theory, which encompasses mutation (and not just as a "side-step").

Saladin


David Baltimore - Society was COevolution,

QuoteCOEVOLUTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First some definitions: coevolution is a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another. More generally, the idea of some reciprocal evolutionary change in interacting species is a strict definition of coevolution.


At first glance (or thought), it might seem that everything is involved in coevolution. This assumption might stem from the fact that virtually all organisms interact with other organisms and presumably influence their evolution in some way. But this assumption depends entirely on ones definition of the term Coevolution.


The term is usually attributed to Ehrlich and Raven's study of butterflies on plants (1964) but the term was used by others prior to 1964 and the idea was very present in the Origin of Species. Ehrlich and Raven documented the association between species of butterflies and their host plants noting that plants' secondary compounds (noxious compounds produced by the plant) determined the usage of certain plants by butterflies. The implication was that the diversity of plants and their "poisonous" secondary compounds contributed to the generation of diversity of butterfly species.


Here we have a very general observation of one group of organisms having an influence on another group of organisms. Is this coevolution? Some would argue that it is not good evidence for coevolution because the reciprocal changes have not been documented clearly. Like the issue of defining an adaptation, we should not invoke coevolution without reasonable evidence that the traits in each species were a result of or evolved from the interaction between the two species.


Lets consider plants and insects: there is little evidence to determine whether plants' secondary compounds arose for the purpose of preventing herbivores from eating plant tissue. Certain plants may have produced certain compounds as waste products and herbivores attacked those plants that they could digest. Parasites and hosts: when a parasite invades a host, it will successfully invade those hosts whose defense traits it can circumvent because of the abilities it caries at that time. Thus presence of a parasite on a host does not constitute evidence for coevolution. These criticisms are quite distinct from the opportunity for coevolution once a parasite has established itself on a host.


The main point is that any old interaction, symbiosis, mutualism, etc. is not synonymous with coevolution. In one sense there has definitely been "evolution together" but whether this fits our strict definition of coevolution needs to be determined by careful 1) observation, 2) experimentation and 3) phylogenetic analysis.


The classic analogy is the coevolutionary arms race: a plant has chemical defenses, an insect evolves the biochemistry to detoxify these compounds, the plant in turn evolves new defenses that the insect in turn "needs" to further detoxify. At present the evidence for these types of reciprocal adaptations is limited, but the suggestive evidence of plant animal interactions is widespread. An important point is the relative timing of the evolution of the various traits that appear to be part of the coevolution. If the presumed reciprocally induced, sequential traits actually evolved in the plant (host) before the insect (parasite) became associated with it, we should not call it coevolution. See different example figs. 22.6-22.7, pgs. 621-622 + text.


There are a variety of different modes of coevolution. In some cases coevolution is quite specific such as those between two cellular functions. The endosymbiont theory proposes that current day mitochondria and chloroplasts were once free-living unicellular individuals. These cells entered the cytoplasm of other cells, an example of the general phenomenon of endosymbiosis. Current-day mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes are much smaller than the genome sizes of their presumed free-living ancestors. Some of this reduction in genome size is due to the transfer of genes from organelle genomes to the nuclear genome. Thus, being in the cellular environment has influenced the evolution of organelle genomes. There is evidence that the faster rate of evolution of animal mitochondrial DNA has accelerated the rate of evolution of some of the nuclear genes that function in the mitochondria. Thus there is some evidence for reciprocal phenomena


Other modes of coevolution involve competitive interaction between two specific species. The Plethodon salamander study is a good example: two species are competing: in the Great Smoky mountains the two species compete strongly as evidenced by the fact that each species will increase population size if the other is removed. Here there is a clear reciprocal interaction between the two populations (species), each affecting the other.


[The role of competition between species, the coevolutionary responses to this competition and the consequences for the evolution of communities is illustrated in the Anolis lizard fauna of the Caribbean. There is coevolution because the competitive interactions between resident and invading species of Anolis involve reciprocal responses in the evolution of body size. These affect the structure of the lizard community as evidenced by the general pattern of there being a single species of lizard on each island.]


Character displacement also provides and example of a pattern we might interpret as the result of coevolution. Mud snails show pattern of character displacement in sympatry due presumably to competition for food items (don't confuse this with reinforcement; the selective agent here is not reduced hybrid fitness). We might call this co evolution because both species show a shift when compared to allopatric samples of each species (mean of both ~ 3.2 in allopatry vs. ~ 4.0 and ~ 2.8 in sympatry). If only one species exhibited character displacement and you were a really picky evolutionist you might not be convinced of a reciprocal response.


Another strong case is the Ant - Acacia mutualism. Here specific traits in each species appear to have evolved in response to the interaction. The ant (Pseudomyrmex species) depends on the Acacia plant for food and housing; acacia depends on ant for protection from potential herbivores (species that eat plant tissue). Specific characters of the plant appear to have evolved for the maintenance of this mutualism: 1) swollen, ~ hollow thorns (= ant home), 2) extra-floral nectaries (source of nectar outside the flower [i.e., the usual location] providing ants with food), 3) leaflet tips = Beltian bodies (= 99% of solid food for larval/adult ants). Specific characters in the ant that have evolved for the maintenance of this mutualism: 1) defense against herbivores 2) removal of fungal spores from Beltian body break-point (prevents fungal pathogens from invading plant tissues). The main point is that there are traits in both the ant and the acacia that are traits not normally found in close relatives of each that are not involved in similar mutualisms: mutualistic traits have evolved for the interaction in reciprocal fashion. See another example : fig. 22.1 & table 22.1, pg. 611.


Coevolution may be considered among broad groups of taxa, so called diffuse coevolution (such as the general coevolution between plants and insects [assuming it is real]). A nice idea, but in fact the real action must be going on between pairs of species from each group. It is true that the Pierid butterflies (family Pieridae) are associated with the plant family Cruciferae, so there may be something general about each taxon that allows the coevolution to proceed. But the true reciprocal events must be mediated at the host species-insect species level.


Mimicry presents a context were coevolutionary phenomena should be evident. Generally, we would expect that Mullerian mimicry would be more likely to exhibit reciprocal evolutionary patterns since both species involved are unpalatable and therefore have an opportunity to affect the evolution of each other's color patters. This does not mean that Batesian mimicry (one unpalatable model) will not involve coevolutionary phenomena, but the evolution of warning coloration is certainly going to be more asymmetrical since the palatable species will show a greater response to the state of the model than will the model show to the evolving state of the mimic.


The Mullerian mimics Heliconius erato and H. melpomene. illustrate both the frequency dependent nature of mimicry and the fact that each can influence the evolution of the other. One would expect that the more abundant species would be the model in a mullerian system, since it is what the selective agent (predation) is cueing on. In general H. erato is the more abundant of the two species and H. melpomene mimics the wing patterns of H. erato. In one area of overlap of the two species, H. melpomene is the more abundant and H. erato assumes the hindwing band pattern of H. melpomene (see figure below). Thus depending on local conditions, both species are influencing the adaptive responses of the other and thus fits strict definition of coevolution.


A crucial component of coevolution is phylogenetic analysis. If the cladograms of the host and the cladograms of the parasite are congruent (e.g., figs. 22.2 - 22.3, pg. 612-613) this certainly suggests coevolutionary phenomena. But again, be careful and think about it: cospeciation is just "association by descent". Have there been reciprocal phenomena?; maybe just the speciation of the host induced the speciation of the parasite and there was not parasite induced speciation of the host. One needs to know the evolutionary history before we can make firm statements about "co"evolution.

And this is what I have more Faith in... and makes more sense to me.

In basic break down, the above means without Mutation or crossbreeding large evolutionry jumps can't be made, or if they are it's very rare.

Quote from: landofshadows on February 26, 2007, 11:33:00 AMIn basic break down, the above means without Mutation or crossbreeding large evolutionry jumps can't be made, or if they are it's very rare.

That isn't what it says at all. The article talks about species evolving symbiotic relationships. In fact, it doesn't even mention crossbreeding.

Quotecoevolution is a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another. More generally, the idea of some reciprocal evolutionary change in interacting species is a strict definition of coevolution.

Quotechange in interacting species

If you want me to find other links, say from the Ladybird book collection or a Pop-up version for you.

Here's a Wiki Link, but I know you hate them:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution

Quote from: landofshadows on February 27, 2007, 08:44:18 AM

Quotecoevolution is a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another. More generally, the idea of some reciprocal evolutionary change in interacting species is a strict definition of coevolution.

Quotechange in interacting species

If you want me to find other links, say from the Ladybird book collection or a Pop-up version for you.

Here's a Wiki Link, but I know you hate them:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution

Okay, co-evolution is not symbiosis but, as Wikipedia puts it,

Quotemutual evolutionary influence between two species.

Co-evolution involves mutation only as much as any concept regarding evolution does, and when they say that two species affect the other's evolution they don't mean with crossbreeding.