i dont belive in no evolution

[luka]

can evolution be boiled down to
a)things which are alive are those things which meet the preconditions for existance
b)things which die out are things which were unable to meet the preconditions for existance.
if not, what is there beyond that.
if so, in what way is it helpful?

 

[luka]

i don't think you lot are competent enough to answer my queries though. im going to buy this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selection
sounds good.

 

[nomadthethird]

There is no reason to believe that evolution is not a "chaotic" process. You seem to be adding strange value-added sort of judgments onto the theory of evolution that do not belong there, and I'm not sure why.

No, evolution cannot be boiled down to "a)things which are alive are those things which meet the preconditions for existance
b)things which die out are things which were unable to meet the preconditions for existance."

To be honest, I don't even know for sure what these statements mean.

Evolution describes the process by which organic life forms genetically mutate and therefore change over time, dynamically, in relation to environmental cues and circumstances. That is all.

This was a hugely important discovery, for the reasons I've already mentioned. We've mapped the human genome. We already know for a fact that we share DNA with certain other species, we have common ancestors with other primates. This has confirmed the theory of evolution in ways no one ever anticipated that it would be confirmed.

Using DNA, we've found the genetic basis for many illnesses. We've discovered that MS shares glial cell malformation similarities with epilepsy and bipolar disorder and that the three may be genetically linked. My grandmother spent most of her life lying in nursing home paralysed from the neck down with MS. Oddly enough, I have TLE and bipolar disorder as do other members of my family. These sorts of discoveries make a difference to me, and to a lot of other people who've suffered with these diseases. The more we know the closer we get to better treatment modalities and cures.

We've made a lot of headway with Alzheimers, Parkinson's, I could go on for hours. We can now treat severe pain well enough to perform major surgeries. Heart transplants, lung transplants, FACE transplants. The applications for this knowledge are endless.

 

[nomadthethird]

Because we have such close genetic cousins in other primates, they make great research subjects in place of humans, as well. If we had never discovered that humans are primates, and all primates evolved from a common ancestor, we wouldn't have discovered nearly anything medical that we have, especially in the field of neurology.

Of course, some people think it's wrong to use other species of animals for the sorts of research we wouldn't conduct on humans. But that's another thread.

 

[nomadthethird]

i think it probably depends on how you are defining NS.
certainly not every phenomeon appears to be adaptive, but thats neccesarily true in a continuously changing enviroment. if you are take every phenomenon, and say either that it exists becasue it is adaptive, or that it exists because it is a mutation which either hasnt been 'selected' (misleading word) out of the gene pool, or is so utterly inconsequential that there are no pressures bearing upon it, well sure, you can explain everything in that way.
but again, whether that makes it a FACT in Mr Tea sense, im not so sure.

There is only one scientific definition of natural selection.

 

[nomadthethird]

Nothing gets "selected out" of the gene pool. Some things end up getting selected in randomly due to the dynamic relationship between genetic factors and environmental ones.

 

[nomadthethird]

But I suppose people who want to find a cure for cancer, or learn about anything that isn't purely imaginary or aesthetic--they're just dumb.

If you can read it in a book, and it might make a difference to someone in the real world, there just can't be any imagination involved, and therefore it's worthless and stupid. Some of the greatest, most imaginative minds of all time weren't scientific. Nope. Da Vinci, Huxley, Eisenstein (more math, but...), Watson, Hawking, Einstein.

Scientists should just give it all up and masturbate in front of mirrors while reciting poems they wrote about universes that don't really exist.

 

[josef k.]

the real world

I've been there!

 

[nomadthethird]

Applause!

 

[luka]

this is a bit strange.

 

[nomadthethird]

The pomo "I'm sooo over evolution, I'm so way too cool for it" part, or the other people who are trying to explain it part?

 

[luka]

But I suppose people who want to find a cure for cancer, or learn about anything that isn't purely imaginary or aesthetic--they're just dumb.

If you can read it in a book, and it might make a difference to someone in the real world, there just can't be any imagination involved, and therefore it's worthless and stupid. Some of the greatest, most imaginative minds of all time weren't scientific. Nope. Da Vinci, Huxley, Eisenstein (more math, but...), Watson, Hawking, Einstein.

Scientists should just give it all up and masturbate in front of mirrors while reciting poems they wrote about universes that don't really exist.

you actually edited this to make sure it sounded really good. this is the product of effort. and serious thought/consideration.
its a silly manuvere, scientists/real world vs arty types/imagination
i find science difficult and, in the minute particulars, deeply dull. im not good at rememering names of a thousand things. thats obvious. you are good at things that i find terrily difficult and vice versa.
i find a lot of science stuff very intriguning and i'd like to get a better handle on it.
if you wanted to write a poem and you showed it to me i wouldn't abuse it even though it would probably be a bit shit.

 

[luka]

haha
im sorry, i know thats not very honest....
but really though, i had hoped to a more intelligent co-operative response to my admitedly antagonistic questions.

 

[luka]

i reserve the right to be antagonisitc, just as you insist on your right to be abusive.
its the way i function. i find it entertaining.

 

[nomadthethird]

you actually edited this to make sure it sounded really good. this is the product of effort. and serious thought/consideration.
its a silly manuvere, scientists/real world vs arty types/imagination
i find science difficult and, in the minute particulars, deeply dull. im not good at rememering names of a thousand things. thats obvious. you are good at things that i find terrily difficult and vice versa.
i find a lot of science stuff very intriguning and i'd like to get a better handle on it.
if you wanted to write a poem and you showed it to me i wouldn't abuse it even though it would probably be a bit shit.

First of all, that post took about ten seconds to type up. Then I edited it to make sure I included Da Vinci because he's important. And put the "math" qualifier in there for Einsenstein so Mr. Tea didn't have to do it for me later.

Nothing really needed to be added to the thread after Mr. Tea and Poetix came on and were "OTM" as they say in message board land.

You are the one who insinuated that anyone who believed in evolution or liked science did so out of failure of imagination. So fuck off. That's bullshit and you know it.

I'm a professional writer. I don't know what your perception of my ability to write poetry has to do with any of this...

 

[luka]

you claim to be whatever suits you at any particular time. its one of your more endearing traits.

 

[nomadthethird]

you claim to be whatever suits you at any particular time. its one of your more endearing traits.

Claim to be what? I've always claimed to be a professional medical grant writer. Because that is what I am.

Look me up on craiglist, my resume should be up. My name is J3771c4 Gr4v3s.

 

[luka]

You are the one who insinuated that anyone who believed in evolution or liked science did so out of failure of imagination.

i didn't insinuate anything. i stated baldly that if someone had never considered the possibility of an intelligence operating beyond the level of the individual they were unimaginative. i didn't say or insinuate that there WAS such an intelligence or that failure to belive in such an intelligence was evidence of a lack of imaginiation.

 

[nomadthethird]

i didn't insinuate anything. i stated baldly that if someone had never considered the possibility of an intelligence operating beyond the level of the individual they were unimaginative. i didn't say or insinuate that there WAS such an intelligence or that failure to belive in such an intelligence was evidence of a lack of imaginiation.

Did someone claim that evolution states that people are not intelligent?

 

[luka]

i don't see what that has to do with anything. im a professional
labourer/painter and decorator/barista/securtiy guard.
why are you sharing that information? to bolster what particular claim?