Another Evolution Thread

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Back to the subject of probability and fate. . . I just had a terrifying thought (while sitting on the toilet).

What if, at the moment the universe came into existence, the trajectories of every single subatomic particle were irreversibly set in motion (during the big bang)? If all the matter in the universe started its motion at that moment, and there has never been any outside interference since, the fate of the entire universe must have been determined then. Every collision between two atoms, every emission of every photon, it would have all been determined at that moment. Everything that happens after that is inevitable. The formation of stars and planets, the assembly of organic molecules into the first living things. When you boil them down they're all just movement of matter and transfer of energy. If it was all predetermined by those first trajectories, then the evolution of humans really was fate. And it was fated that humans would stack those stones up to build the pyramids, and fated that they'd fight all the wars in history. It was fate that all the millions of sacs of matter that we call people would bump into each other in the manner that we call sex. And it was fate that I'd end up sitting here at my computer, whose atoms were assembled by billions of years predetermined collisions, thinking these thoughts.

I don't know enough physics to come up with an argument to convince myself that I'm wrong. I feel sick.

That's my inclination. It's perceived chance, but, I hadn't traced it back that far.

Ahnimus

A Surprise Left wrote:

wait a second so a denial of evolution means research into a cure for aids and cancer is put on hold? that is insane.....i doubt a scientist's view on this matter stops him or her doing contrustive research in such areas. i would like to see an example of evolution or ID for that matter that has actually led to today's humanity having a better standard of life.

Rett's syndrome

Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause

Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.

If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

That's my inclination. It's perceived chance, but, I hadn't traced it back that far.

Think about it though. If that is the case, evolution doesn't matter. More importantly there's no such thing as chance, or choice, or free will. None of our decisions are really our own, none of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what we do, because we were going to do it anyway. . . .

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

Rett's syndrome

Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause

Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.

If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.

More that I can recall from the Lecture on Rett's syndrome.

During the trinucleid repeat sequence the code coming from the Helicase into the prolymerase is jammed up and coiled irregularily, during the second repeat cycle an extension is created. Then there is X inactivation and a whole bunch of other stuff that happens. You can learn about it here http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/neuroscience/animations.html
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/neuroscience/lectures.html

chopitdown

Scubascott wrote:

And regarding education. . . I was told by an old professor once that a good scientist realises that no matter how much you learn, you never really know very much. That may be something for you to take note of.

one of my favorites regarding education is...the greater your island of knowledge the greater the shore of ignorance... or something like that

A Surprise Left

Ahnimus wrote:

Rett's syndrome

Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause

Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.

If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.

Well if we stayed back in the middle ages in "man was created in God's image" then I would say you would be correct. However if you've done any research into the ID or creationist camps you would know they readily accept gene mutation and so your point is irrelevant. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, I think there are gaping holes in the arguements of both sides and its an interesting debating topic. But I don't think it really has any relevance to the lives of most people unless they happen to be a 6 day creationist and defend it in order to defend their faith or they are an ardent athiest such as Richard Dawkins and they wish to write a book such as "The God Delusion."

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Think about it though. If that is the case, evolution doesn't matter. More importantly there's no such thing as chance, or choice, or free will. None of our decisions are really our own, none of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what we do, because we were going to do it anyway. . . .

Yea

That's where I am with Nikola Tesla and Willhelm Reich. In the field of psychology, this is commonly called "Radical Behaviorism". But I don't see a more feasable explanation. The evolution of psychology has been leading us in that direction.

Ahnimus

A Surprise Left wrote:

Well if we stayed back in the middle ages in "man was created in God's image" then I would say you would be correct. However if you've done any research into the ID or creationist camps you would know they readily accept gene mutation and so your point is irrelevant. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, I think there are gaping holes in the arguements of both sides and its an interesting debating topic. But I don't think it really has any relevance to the lives of most people unless they happen to be a 6 day creationist and defend it in order to defend their faith or they are an ardent athiest such as Richard Dawkins and they wish to write a book such as "The God Delusion."

So, I guess the IDers are slowly accepting Evolution then. So far they have accepted enough to de-evolve us into amoebas.

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

More that I can recall from the Lecture on Rett's syndrome.

During the trinucleid repeat sequence the code coming from the Helicase into the prolymerase is jammed up and coiled irregularily, during the second repeat cycle an extension is created. Then there is X inactivation and a whole bunch of other stuff that happens. You can learn about it here http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/neuroscience/animations.html
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/neuroscience/lectures.html

Why do you post stuff like this? Its completely irrelevant to the discussion when taken out of context like that, and almost nobody here is going to understand it anyway.

Do you even know what a trinucleotide repeat sequence is? Or polymerase? My guess is no, since you spelled both of them incorrectly.

A Surprise Left

Ahnimus wrote:

So, I guess the IDers are slowly accepting Evolution then. So far they have accepted enough to de-evolve us into amoebas.

I don't think you really understand what the ID and creationist camps actually accept. They would accept that genes do mutate and that changes do occur that lead to slightly different animals in different environments. For example if a bat lost its sight and that actually became an advantage in its environment. However neither of the two groups would accept that species evolve in an upward motion until homo sapiens came along. The difference is the creationists follow a literal reading of the bible and believe the earth is about 6000 years old, whereas the ID camp would easily accept an universe that is billions of years old. The ID camp makes more sense in my view......

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

If the IDers were correct, wouldn't that mean devolution?

So, basically we start off as complex multi-celled organisms and over time degenerate into bacteria?

Their point is that if the natural processes involved in genetic mutation can only produce degenerative change, there must be something else involved that allows complex life like us to exist. Ie, a designer.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Why do you post stuff like this? Its completely irrelevant to the discussion when taken out of context like that, and almost nobody here is going to understand it anyway.

Do you even know what a trinucleotide repeat sequence is? Or polymerase? My guess is no, since you spelled both of them incorrectly.

Pfft whatever man.

I was just giving the information about Rett's and how it works. How Huda Zoghbi discovered it using hypothesis of evolution theory.

Yea man, the trinucleotide repeat sequence is basically copying the DNA. The Helicase opens the DNA for copying and the polymerase copies it. That's my understanding of it, though I'm not a biologist and I don't claim to know the full extent of how that works. I didn't even claim to know how to spell it properly. I'm glad I spelled it incorrectly so you didn't accuse me of copy and pasting again.

Ahnimus

Sounds like the ID nuts only accept as much of the truth as they have to without being called crazy.

The idea that our species is 7 million years old with the chance of degeneration, while each and every individual has about 3 gene mutations at birth. I mean, what are the odds of us surviving for 7 million years?

IDism is nothing but an ISM, it's designed to distort facts to push an agenda. It's not a relavent arguement.

Mookie Baylock

A Surprise Left wrote:

I don't think you really understand what the ID and creationist camps actually accept. They would accept that genes do mutate and that changes do occur that lead to slightly different animals in different environments. For example if a bat lost its sight and that actually became an advantage in its environment. However neither of the two groups would accept that species evolve in an upward motion until homo sapiens came along. The difference is the creationists follow a literal reading of the bible and believe the earth is about 6000 years old, whereas the ID camp would easily accept an universe that is billions of years old. The ID camp makes more sense in my view......

If you can accept that a bat losing its sight is an advantage, leading to a slightly different animal, why is it so hard to accept that over a million years, dozens of changes occur to that animal making it a very different creature.

Analogy:

Take two glasses of milk. Add a drop of blue food coloring to one, and a drop of red to the other. Doesn't make much differennce. Now add green to one and orange to the other. Now add ketchup to one and mustard to the other. Do this about 50 times and you no longer have two glasses of milk. You have two new mixtures that both started as the same. The flaw in ID is that they stop after the first drop and say it's changed but its not a new species. Reality is that those changes add up.

It's so simple!

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Why not? This is how I learn.

This seems to be a really common belief that "nothing can be learned outside of school". But if you actually step out into the real world, you find out that's not entirely true. Some people like myself find autodidactic studies far superior than organized classrooms. Four years is way too long to learn this shit, I'll be done three fields of study at least in that time.

It's like that year you spend in highschool learning to write proper sentances, perform algebra and jump rope. I learned all that in 2 weeks once I had the opportunity outside of school. The school system is good for some people, but not for me. I plan to read this book I'm reading twice, while looking up all the theories and terms online, watch a few lectures, then I move on. I'm not looking for a career and that's sufficient study for me.

so basically you get a surface impression of everything with no in depth understanding of the field. you cannot learn everything there is to know about evolution for one book.

who is arguably the greatest teacher of all time? socrates. what was his method? interaction. learning cannot be done in a vacuum. there has to be give and take. you have to be challenged and questioned. you have to get your hands into things. you cant just read thing like a sponge and soak them up.

not all learning is done in the classroom. nor do you have to learn in a classroom. but im sorry, reading 2-3 books about evolution and then watching something online (if you believe what you read online that is proof right away that you're not as bright as you claim) over the course of 2 weeks does not put you anywhere near the level of expertise a phd has in a given field. you might be the jack of all trades, knowing enough about everything to make yourself look smart, but you will not truly be the master of any.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

so basically you get a surface impression of everything with no in depth understanding of the field. you cannot learn everything there is to know about evolution for one book.

who is arguably the greatest teacher of all time? socrates. what was his method? interaction. learning cannot be done in a vacuum. there has to be give and take. you have to be challenged and questioned. you have to get your hands into things. you cant just read thing like a sponge and soak them up.

not all learning is done in the classroom. nor do you have to learn in a classroom. but im sorry, reading 2-3 books about evolution and then watching something online (if you believe what you read online that is proof right away that you're not as bright as you claim) over the course of 2 weeks does not put you anywhere near the level of expertise a phd has in a given field. you might be the jack of all trades, knowing enough about everything to make yourself look smart, but you will not truly be the master of any.

My guess is you have some kind of a degree. It's the only logic that justifies wasting all of that time. That and your big fat paycheck. Personally I don't care about the social or financial status. I care about the knowledge and in my opinion that is better.

Reading online is typically limited to trusted sources on the topics. I think you are awefully bigoted in your theories about learning.

gue_barium

The hardest thing to do is to try to teach people to think.

Ahnimus

Actually Soulsinging, you want to know the irony of your theory.

The books I'm reading on psychology and biology were lent to me by an individual with a biology degree. It's the same material she used in her university class. I however, am incorporating additional material from online sources, quite often in the form of instruction and lectures, identical to what you would see in a classroom. In-fact most of the lectures are just videos of a classroom. On top of that, I have the privledge of conversing with my friend that has a biology degree, as well as discussing on here with (it seems like) everyone on the forum, because you all have biology degrees as well.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually Soulsinging, you want to know the irony of your theory.

The books I'm reading on psychology and biology were lent to me by an individual with a biology degree. It's the same material she used in her university class. I however, am incorporating additional material from online sources, quite often in the form of instruction and lectures, identical to what you would see in a classroom. In-fact most of the lectures are just videos of a classroom. On top of that, I have the privledge of conversing with my friend that has a biology degree, as well as discussing on here with (it seems like) everyone on the forum, because you all have biology degrees as well.

i dont have a biology. i have an english degree. ive done a little reading about evolution, enough to know i will never be an expert on it. you've done enough to convince yourself you are an expert. do you have access to a lab so you can study cell structure through a microscope? animals for testing and experimentation? these are the kinds of resources you cannot get outside a university unless you're independently wealthy. and those are the kinds of real world hands on experience that no amount of reading or passive ingestion of information can ever duplicate.

i dont care about social status, but i do care about that big fat paycheck. however, the things i am learning now in law school i could not have learned on my own. it's not about the information im taking in. anyone can memorize a shit ton of information. it's about learning critical thought processes. that is where you need a community. a back and forth. a dialogue. hands on practical experience. learning to critique others and have your own work critiqued. you dont get those things from books.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

i dont have a biology. i have an english degree. ive done a little reading about evolution, enough to know i will never be an expert on it. you've done enough to convince yourself you are an expert. do you have access to a lab so you can study cell structure through a microscope? animals for testing and experimentation? these are the kinds of resources you cannot get outside a university unless you're independently wealthy. and those are the kinds of real world hands on experience that no amount of reading or passive ingestion of information can ever duplicate.

i dont care about social status, but i do care about that big fat paycheck. however, the things i am learning now in law school i could not have learned on my own. it's not about the information im taking in. anyone can memorize a shit ton of information. it's about learning critical thought processes. that is where you need a community. a back and forth. a dialogue. hands on practical experience. learning to critique others and have your own work critiqued. you dont get those things from books.

I'm not doing any work! There is no need for me to have a lab, I'm not testing anything, I'm not doing experiments, I'm learning what has already been discovered.

Based on your logic, I am going to assume that you know sweet shit all about anything but Law and that includes the learning process.