I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, I can see how the statement was wrong. Obviously the mutation was not because of malaria.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nope, I'm not black, though in some ways I would have preferred it.
I'm quoting this from berkely.edu
"This is a chain of causation. What happens at the DNA level propagates up to the level of the complete organism. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype."
I guess I'll have to sue berkely university :(
Damn it, you can't trust anyone.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nope, I'm not black, though in some ways I would have preferred it.
I'm quoting this from berkely.edu
"This is a chain of causation. What happens at the DNA level propagates up to the level of the complete organism. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype."
I mean, I learned a bit from high-school, but not much. I learned more in 10 minutes on that website.
So, is the website really wrong?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This looking-for-explanations shtick. C'mon, dude.
I'm confused, I can't find a certain definition of adaptation vs evolutionary change.
I have to tell you, if someone tells me I'm wrong I have to investigate, I have to know the truth.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm sure you do. There is no debate on Evolution and Adaptation.
Ok, well this is the best I can do
"A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. The term adaptation is also sometimes used as a synonym for natural selection, but most biologists discourage this usage."
A prerequisite for natural selection to result in adaptive evolution, novel traits and speciation, is the presence of heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences.
I'm so confused. So, one source says one thing, the next source something else. So, in order for it to be an "evolutionary change" which there is no definition for, it has to include speciation?
But, berkely eludes to sickle-cell anemia as "evolutionary change".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. The term adaptation is also sometimes used as a synonym for natural selection, but most biologists discourage this usage."
A prerequisite for natural selection to result in adaptive evolution, novel traits and speciation, is the presence of heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences.
I'm so confused. So, one source says one thing, the next source something else. So, in order for it to be an "evolutionary change" which there is no definition for, it has to include speciation?
But, berkely eludes to sickle-cell anemia as "evolutionary change".
I called my Dad, called My bro and talked to my friend Mandy. I mentioned the concept to 5 other peoples between work, Tim Horton's and the gas station.
One person said: Absolutely, there is no disputing it.
One person said: It's intriguing
Two people said: Nothing
Four people said: I feel like I have free-will
That's not a very good sample-size, but it's indicative.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Check out Finsburys show. If you start now, we'll be in sync.
What is a "Finsburys show"?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Rat's dream, when they run around in a labyrinth all day, that's what they dream of." ~ Christof Koch
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Rat's dream, when they run around in a labyrinth all day, that's what they dream of." ~ Christof Koch
Not really. You get to hear protestation of life and death, in Richard's way, I suppose. You get to hear Chance, You get to hear a troubadour profess his love for someone many miles away. None of this has to do with a labyrinth.
It's honest poetry, song writing.
Not really. You get to hear protestation of life and death, in Richard's way, I suppose. You get to hear Chance, You get to hear a troubadour profess his love for someone many miles away. None of this has to do with a labyrinth.
It's honest poetry, song writing.
I hope Julie hears the call.
Huh?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyone read John Gray's book - 'Straw dogs - On humans and other animals'? The section on free will. It's damn interesting. I'll try to find a link.
That's funny man, I looked it up on book reviews. Some of the shit people say is crazy.
"So much for morality. Free will also has to go: "We can be free agents only if we are authors of our acts; but we are ourselves products of chance and necessity. We cannot choose to be what we are born. In that case, we cannot be responsible for what we do" (pp. 65–66).
What is going on here? Supporters of free will claim that our choices are free, not that our characteristics arise from free choice. No doubt we are born with certain natural traits, and are much influenced by chance events. But how do these facts show that we do not act freely? How do the facts, e.g., that I have a brain, arms, and legs, none of which I have created, imply that I am not responsible for what I do?" http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=218&sortorder=issue
I don't think anyone is trying to take physical responsibility or freedom away. Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.
I'm inspired by the words of Clarence Darrow an American lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union (April 18, 1857 - March 13, 1938)
Burrhus Frederic "B. F." Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American psychologist and author.
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe.
Susan Jane Blackmore (born July 29, 1951) is a British freelance writer, lecturer, and broadcaster, perhaps best known for her book The Meme Machine. Also a psychologist, physiologist and parapsychologist.
Paul J. Zak (born 9 February 1962 in Santa Barbara, California) is one of the founders of the field of neuroeconomics.
and many, many others.
It's clear to me that these professionals have a certain insight into the mind that the rest of us may not. They too have a mind as we do, however, their professions bring their focus to the mind.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's clear to me that these professionals have a certain insight into the mind that the rest of us may not. They too have a mind as we do, however, their professions bring their focus to the mind.
I'd say their professions bring their focus to the brain, and from there, imply mind. Minor distinction, but distinction nonetheless. But I'm sure they kick my ass on brain chemistry.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I don't think anyone is trying to take physical responsibility or freedom away. Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.
You might not be trying to "take physical responsibility or freedom away", but that's what a refutation of free-will does. They very sentence "we should look to people's...." becomes laughable with what you're proposing here, because that implies that we have a choice in the matter.
whoever put free-will in the bible was a genius. that explains why all the shit that happens isn't God's fault. It's ours. He designed us to fuck ourselves over so he could come save us. im sick of these little games.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.
If you are proposing being scientific, doesn't that mean taking all the variables into consideration? Even ones that are more challenging to gauge than others? You say "All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness." If we are being realistic, and facing facts, why would we look at one OR the other. If we look at one and deny the other, that's ignoring something. Because we ignore it, does not make it go away. If I have a theory and solve a math problem in my head, that happens in consciousness, AND it happens as brain chemicals. If I have an experience of an alien visitation right now, that occurs in consciousness, and that occurs as brain chemicals.
And for that matter, scientists don't know if one comes before the other, as OutOfBreath pointed out. They don't know if consciousness precedes brain chemistry or if brain chemistry precedes consciousness. I happen to know from experience that it goes both ways. For example, I used to believe and experience that my mental illness was controlled by my brain chemistry. When I began to experiment with changing my psychology my resulting brain chemistry then also changed! Consistently, and systematically, dependant on my changes in consciousness. Just like how meditation shows dramatic and very real empirical results. I changed my natural genetic predisposition to actually being unmanifest, even when it had been in full swing manifestation for years! I stopped numerous disorders and addictions dead in their tracks, and turned them around. By using consciousness! And free will!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
whoever put free-will in the bible was a genius. that explains why all the shit that happens isn't God's fault. It's ours. He designed us to fuck ourselves over so he could come save us. im sick of these little games.
Don't worry, it was a double-edged sword. Man used free-will to destroy God. The joke was on him.
i'm in this late, and there is no way i have time to read twenty-some pages, but all jargon aside, to argue that man is not equipped with free will is, IMO absolutely absurd. Certainly, as social beings we are dealt a certain hand of specific circumstances thst can limit or open up the choices we are free to make, but within our own set of circumstances we choose our actions.
i can and do choose whether or not to eat breakfast in the morning and i choose, based upon what is in the cupboard or how much i have in my wallet, what i will eat for said breakfast. i chose to look at this board when i could have chose to do otherwise, and i chose to respond to this particular thread. i chose once upon a time to smoke cigarettes, and it was an excercise of my own free will to stop doing so. It goes on and on. Basically, everything i do today, will be my decision. Yes, our decisions, in many cases our shaped by our sociological experiences and circumstances, but that doesn't negate the fact that we actually make those decisions of our own free will. The thread starter chose to start this thread. Denying free will is ridiculous IMO.
"i will choose a path thats clear... i will choose free will".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i'm in this late, and there is no way i have time to read twenty-some pages, but all jargon aside, to argue that man is not equipped with free will is, IMO absolutely absurd. Certainly, as social beings we are dealt a certain hand of specific circumstances thst can limit or open up the choices we are free to make, but within our own set of circumstances we choose our actions.
Ok, that's the illusion, but you kind of have to think three dimensionally to understand.
i can and do choose whether or not to eat breakfast in the morning and i choose,
Probably determined by (i) how much time you have to eat breakfast (ii) if you have anything to eat (iii) if you are actually hungry (iiii) if it's your normal habit
based upon what is in the cupboard or how much i have in my wallet, what i will eat for said breakfast.
Ok, I see you thought a bit more about that one, also (i) What your normal diet is like/ your physiological desire to eat certain foods
i chose to look at this board when i could have chose to do otherwise, and i chose to respond to this particular thread.
How could you avoid such a popular thread? Honestly it's been viewed almost 1,800 times. I doubt half of those people read it all.
i chose once upon a time to smoke cigarettes, and it was an excercise of my own free will to stop doing so
Most likely due to peer pressure, from that point on, a lot of it is due to chemical addiction. Most smokers don't want to smoke of their own "free-will" but they do biochemically. It seems in these cases the body wins. But that's making a distinction between body and mind, which are one and the same.
Every smoker exercises their will to quit smoking, but only about 2% succeed.
free-will and choice are not the same thing. Free-will means that we can make all of our choices independent of physical determinants. By that definition quiting smoking should be 100% and it shouldn't be a challenge to anyone.
Free-will doesn't explain how you got the ideas you have or any of the thoughts that pop into your mind. Determinants explain that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC2aCasestudy.shtml
:(
Obviously, AND you forgot about adaptation.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Nope, I'm not black, though in some ways I would have preferred it.
I'm quoting this from berkely.edu
"This is a chain of causation. What happens at the DNA level propagates up to the level of the complete organism. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype."
I guess I'll have to sue berkely university :(
Damn it, you can't trust anyone.
Well, thank goodness.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yea, I attended evolution class at http://evolution.berkely.edu
I mean, I learned a bit from high-school, but not much. I learned more in 10 minutes on that website.
So, is the website really wrong?
This looking-for-explanations shtick. C'mon, dude.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm confused, I can't find a certain definition of adaptation vs evolutionary change.
I have to tell you, if someone tells me I'm wrong I have to investigate, I have to know the truth.
I'm sure you do. There is no debate on Evolution and Adaptation.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ok, well this is the best I can do
"A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. The term adaptation is also sometimes used as a synonym for natural selection, but most biologists discourage this usage."
A prerequisite for natural selection to result in adaptive evolution, novel traits and speciation, is the presence of heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences.
"Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: -ary"
From Regina Bailey,
Definition: Suffix (-ary) - of or relating to
I'm so confused. So, one source says one thing, the next source something else. So, in order for it to be an "evolutionary change" which there is no definition for, it has to include speciation?
But, berkely eludes to sickle-cell anemia as "evolutionary change".
I caught that. The Berkley thing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I called my Dad, called My bro and talked to my friend Mandy. I mentioned the concept to 5 other peoples between work, Tim Horton's and the gas station.
One person said: Absolutely, there is no disputing it.
One person said: It's intriguing
Two people said: Nothing
Four people said: I feel like I have free-will
That's not a very good sample-size, but it's indicative.
What is a "Finsburys show"?
"Rat's dream, when they run around in a labyrinth all day, that's what they dream of." ~ Christof Koch
Not really. You get to hear protestation of life and death, in Richard's way, I suppose. You get to hear Chance, You get to hear a troubadour profess his love for someone many miles away. None of this has to do with a labyrinth.
It's honest poetry, song writing.
I hope Julie hears the call.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Huh?
Never was for you
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's funny man, I looked it up on book reviews. Some of the shit people say is crazy.
"So much for morality. Free will also has to go: "We can be free agents only if we are authors of our acts; but we are ourselves products of chance and necessity. We cannot choose to be what we are born. In that case, we cannot be responsible for what we do" (pp. 65–66).
What is going on here? Supporters of free will claim that our choices are free, not that our characteristics arise from free choice. No doubt we are born with certain natural traits, and are much influenced by chance events. But how do these facts show that we do not act freely? How do the facts, e.g., that I have a brain, arms, and legs, none of which I have created, imply that I am not responsible for what I do?"
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=218&sortorder=issue
I don't think anyone is trying to take physical responsibility or freedom away. Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.
I'm inspired by the words of Clarence Darrow an American lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union (April 18, 1857 - March 13, 1938)
Burrhus Frederic "B. F." Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American psychologist and author.
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe.
Susan Jane Blackmore (born July 29, 1951) is a British freelance writer, lecturer, and broadcaster, perhaps best known for her book The Meme Machine. Also a psychologist, physiologist and parapsychologist.
Paul J. Zak (born 9 February 1962 in Santa Barbara, California) is one of the founders of the field of neuroeconomics.
and many, many others.
It's clear to me that these professionals have a certain insight into the mind that the rest of us may not. They too have a mind as we do, however, their professions bring their focus to the mind.
I'd say their professions bring their focus to the brain, and from there, imply mind. Minor distinction, but distinction nonetheless. But I'm sure they kick my ass on brain chemistry.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You might not be trying to "take physical responsibility or freedom away", but that's what a refutation of free-will does. They very sentence "we should look to people's...." becomes laughable with what you're proposing here, because that implies that we have a choice in the matter.
~Ron Burgundy
And for that matter, scientists don't know if one comes before the other, as OutOfBreath pointed out. They don't know if consciousness precedes brain chemistry or if brain chemistry precedes consciousness. I happen to know from experience that it goes both ways. For example, I used to believe and experience that my mental illness was controlled by my brain chemistry. When I began to experiment with changing my psychology my resulting brain chemistry then also changed! Consistently, and systematically, dependant on my changes in consciousness. Just like how meditation shows dramatic and very real empirical results. I changed my natural genetic predisposition to actually being unmanifest, even when it had been in full swing manifestation for years! I stopped numerous disorders and addictions dead in their tracks, and turned them around. By using consciousness! And free will!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Don't worry, it was a double-edged sword. Man used free-will to destroy God. The joke was on him.
lightning just struck in a blue sky near my home,...
~Ron Burgundy
i can and do choose whether or not to eat breakfast in the morning and i choose, based upon what is in the cupboard or how much i have in my wallet, what i will eat for said breakfast. i chose to look at this board when i could have chose to do otherwise, and i chose to respond to this particular thread. i chose once upon a time to smoke cigarettes, and it was an excercise of my own free will to stop doing so. It goes on and on. Basically, everything i do today, will be my decision. Yes, our decisions, in many cases our shaped by our sociological experiences and circumstances, but that doesn't negate the fact that we actually make those decisions of our own free will. The thread starter chose to start this thread. Denying free will is ridiculous IMO.
"i will choose a path thats clear... i will choose free will".
Ok, that's the illusion, but you kind of have to think three dimensionally to understand.
Probably determined by (i) how much time you have to eat breakfast (ii) if you have anything to eat (iii) if you are actually hungry (iiii) if it's your normal habit
Ok, I see you thought a bit more about that one, also (i) What your normal diet is like/ your physiological desire to eat certain foods
How could you avoid such a popular thread? Honestly it's been viewed almost 1,800 times. I doubt half of those people read it all.
Most likely due to peer pressure, from that point on, a lot of it is due to chemical addiction. Most smokers don't want to smoke of their own "free-will" but they do biochemically. It seems in these cases the body wins. But that's making a distinction between body and mind, which are one and the same.
Every smoker exercises their will to quit smoking, but only about 2% succeed.
free-will and choice are not the same thing. Free-will means that we can make all of our choices independent of physical determinants. By that definition quiting smoking should be 100% and it shouldn't be a challenge to anyone.
Free-will doesn't explain how you got the ideas you have or any of the thoughts that pop into your mind. Determinants explain that.