I'm still thinking her boyfriend....well, and her, they might take issue with even the non-digestion stuff.
Yea, that could be a serious hurdle.
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 didn't know this either, this is the new thing I'm learning today I guess.
Most microbats are active at night or at twilight. By emitting high-pitched sounds and listening to the echoes, the microbats locate prey and other nearby objects. This is the process of echolocation, a skill they share with dolphins and whales. But although the eyes of most species of microbats are small and poorly developed, the sense of vision is typically very good, especially at long distances, beyond the range of echolocation. Their senses of smell and hearing, however, are excellent. A few moths have exploited the bat's senses; in one group (the tiger moths), the moths produce ultrasonic signals to warn the bats that the moths are chemically-protected (aposematism) (this was once thought to be a form of "radar jamming", but this theory has been disproved); in the other group (Noctuidae) the moths have a type of hearing organ called a tympanum which responds to an incoming bat signal by causing the moth's flight muscles to twitch erratically, sending the moth into random evasive maneuvers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat#Classification
So bats have eyes, they can see, but they use echolocation for finding their lunch.
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
well its hard to accept because in the case of the bat it is a degenerative change that has actually become an advantage in its environment. true evolution requires that new information is written in the genetic code. a classic example that commonly is used is that of the woodpecker. the whole system would need to be operating otherwise the early woodpeckers would have died out. there is no use banging your head against a tree if your skull and brain hasen't evolved protective measures. that is my understanding anyway and it seems like a good arguement. if you want to try to correct my thinking be my guest.
Well I don't know how the woodpecker worked out. But if I wanted to find out, all it would take is some research, some studies, some theories. Eventually, a good answer will be established.
Or of course, we could just say God did it because its easier.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
This is interesting to me because I'm fascinated by bats, so I hope one of the scientists lurking about will know the answer.
Do we know it was a degenerative change? Is there any evidence that bats were once able to see well? I've always assumed (yeah, I know, that's usually a mistake) that they simply never evolved the type of eysight that we have because it wasn't necessary for a nocturnal creature that had evolved a sophisticated echolocation system.
I was merely using an example....there are many examples of degenerative changes that actually become an advantage and this is a classic example of natural selection. its not macro-evolution though......
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
I started reading but I got lost in the whole genetics stuff. I'm a pedestrian economist
I just wanted to clear the probabilities issue. When you flip a coin and it comes head, the probability of such outcome is 50%. Why, because there are two possible results for the experiment of flipping that coin: head and the other side (which name I don't know in english, sorry). The probability function of this particular experiment (or event) is independent of past results, so regardless of how many times you flip that same coin the chances for each side will always be 50%. If a certain event has a 100% of likelyhood it means that is there is only one posssible result. I mean -believe it or not- even getting Even Flow at a gig has a probability lower than 100% .
I started reading but I got lost in the whole genetics stuff. I'm a pedestrian economist
I just wanted to clear the probabilities issue. When you flip a coin and it comes head, the probability of such outcome is 50%. Why, because there are two possible results for the experiment of flipping that coin: head and the other side (which name I don't know in english, sorry). The probability function of this particular experiment (or event) is independent of past results, so regardless of how many times you flip that same coin the chances for each side will always be 50%. If a certain event has a 100% of likelyhood it means that is there is only one posssible result. I mean -believe it or not- even getting Even Flow at a gig has a probability lower than 100% .
Greetings from Argentina...
The other side is called tails.
However, IMO, flipping a coin is a chaotic mechanism and the chance, is really chance fate. Or the deterministic outcome of a complex dynamical system.
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 is twice as likely that the triple TTH will be encountered before THT than after it, and three times as likely that THH will precede HHT. Furthermore, it is six times as likely that HTT will be the first of HTT, TTH, and TTT to occur than either of the others (Honsberger 1979)..." http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoinTossing.html
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
"Most scientists believe in evolution"..
..hell, at one time most scientists believed the world was flat. Just because a bunch of pointy-headed elitists believe in something doesn't make it true.
"Most scientists believe in evolution"..
..hell, at one time most scientists believed the world was flat. Just because a bunch of pointy-headed elitists believe in something doesn't make it true.
That is an excellent example! Thank you.
It's an example of information-processing. Back in the day, scientists only observed the area immediately around them. That made them believe that the earth was flat, because it appeared flat. But later on, with more information about the environment, their thinking was different.
Now, we have a lot more information, there is still plenty more to come, but we have enough for some really good theories.
That was also before we had the modern scientific method with peer review analysis. If we had it back then scientists wouldn't have made the assumption without seeing the end of the scale. They could have theorized that the earth was flat and infinite, but they couldn't prove it.
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
However, IMO, flipping a coin is a chaotic mechanism and the chance, is really chance fate. Or the deterministic outcome of a complex dynamical system.
Well, the physics involved in the act of flipping a coin can be chaotic, but the chance, the simple probability for each side to show up is 50%. I was just refererring to that simple event.
"...it is twice as likely that the triple TTH will be encountered before THT than after it, and three times as likely that THH will precede HHT. Furthermore, it is six times as likely that HTT will be the first of HTT, TTH, and TTT to occur than either of the others (Honsberger 1979)..." http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoinTossing.html
Thanks for the info, I'll check it out . Is the author calculating conditional probabilities?
However, IMO, flipping a coin is a chaotic mechanism and the chance, is really chance fate. Or the deterministic outcome of a complex dynamical system.
You're confusing the concepts of probability theory with real-world physics. I understand what you're saying, ie that the outcome of a coin toss is actually inevitable from the moment it is tossed, and could be calculated if we were able to take into account all the variables that affect the movement of the coin (wind resistance, rotational force applied to the coin, moment of inertia, blah blah blah).
But when we're talking about a coin toss in the context of probability theory, just for the sake of argument, we're talking about an ideal coin, completely equally likely to land on either heads or tails. The probability of getting heads is always 50%. You can't ever predict the outcome with more than 50% certainty. In the same way, the occurence of random mutations at particular points in a DNA molecule can't be predicted. We can calculate the probability that they may occur, but we can't predict with certainty where they will show up. This is because the vibration of molecules in solution is random. For this reason we can never say that the probability of anything evolving was ever 100%. The appearance of certain traits may be more likely given a certain set of selection pressures, but it is never 100% likely.
(Unless, like I was saying before, you choose to believe that trajectories of all particles of matter was decided instantaenously at the moment the universe began, making the entire history of the universe inevitable from very start. I think that is basically what you were arguing, that nothing is truly random, and everything happens as a consequence of what already happened before it. I find that concept genuinely terrifying. So I'd rather not think about it anymore.)
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
You're confusing the concepts of probability theory with real-world physics. I understand what you're saying, ie that the outcome of a coin toss is actually inevitable from the moment it is tossed, and could be calculated if we were able to take into account all the variables that affect the movement of the coin (wind resistance, rotational force applied to the coin, moment of inertia, blah blah blah).
But when we're talking about a coin toss in the context of probability theory, just for the sake of argument, we're talking about an ideal coin, completely equally likely to land on either heads or tails. The probability of getting heads is always 50%. You can't ever predict the outcome with more than 50% certainty. In the same way, the occurence of random mutations at particular points in a DNA molecule can't be predicted. We can calculate the probability that they may occur, but we can't predict with certainty where they will show up. This is because the vibration of molecules in solution is random. For this reason we can never say that the probability of anything evolving was ever 100%. The appearance of certain traits may be more likely given a certain set of selection pressures, but it is never 100% likely.
(Unless, like I was saying before, you choose to believe that trajectories of all particles of matter was decided instantaenously at the moment the universe began, making the entire history of the universe inevitable from very start. I think that is basically what you were arguing, that nothing is truly random, and everything happens as a consequence of what already happened before it. I find that concept genuinely terrifying. So I'd rather not think about it anymore.)
Actually, if you flip a coin 1000 times, tails should come up roughly 10-25 times more than heads. Why? Because (at least before the new, state-specific quarters) the head side is slightly heavier, which comes into play on a quarter on its side just before final rest. And here I thought I would never use that information again.
Actually, if you flip a coin 1000 times, tails should come up roughly 10-25 times more than heads. Why? Because (at least before the new, state-specific quarters) the head side is slightly heavier, which comes into play on a quarter on its side just before final rest. And here I thought I would never use that information again.
I like standing dimes on their sides whilst drinking.
Dimes!? Fucking Dimes!?? Bitch, you stand a penny, or I don't even know you. Fucking Rookie.
Are dimes in the United States thicker than Pennies?
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
Are dimes in the United States thicker than Pennies?
What's the point of pennies anyway? As far as I could tell the only useful thing that you can do with them is to put them in those tourist penny squashing machines that turn them into a souvenir. But they cost you 50 cents. . . . 51 if you count the penny, but that was useless already. Maybe they're good as ammo for a slingshot or something?
Re. bats, we have both microbats and megabats in Australia, and the megabats (flying foxes) certainly have very good eyesight. They roost in trees however, not caves, so they wouldn't need to navigate in complete darkness very often.
The stuff about the adaptations that the moths have developed is fascinating. Pefect examples of evolutionary arms races. As the predator develops new and more sophisticated weapons, the prey is forced to develop new defensive measures in order to survive. Very cool stuff, and much more interesting than the old cheetah and gazelle example.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
What's the point of pennies anyway? As far as I could tell the only useful thing that you can do with them is to put them in those tourist penny squashing machines that turn them into a souvenir. But they cost you 50 cents. . . . 51 if you count the penny, but that was useless already. Maybe they're good as ammo for a slingshot or something?
Re. bats, we have both microbats and megabats in Australia, and the megabats (flying foxes) certainly have very good eyesight. They roost in trees however, not caves, so they wouldn't need to navigate in complete darkness very often.
Cool, you have flying foxes? Those are the coolest bats
I actually have about $200.00 in pennies. I can take them to A&P and convert them to cold hard cash whenever I need the money. They have a machine that counts them all and spits out a ticket. I usually just donate them to the charity boxes though.
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
What's the point of pennies anyway? As far as I could tell the only useful thing that you can do with them is to put them in those tourist penny squashing machines that turn them into a souvenir. But they cost you 50 cents. . . . 51 if you count the penny, but that was useless already. Maybe they're good as ammo for a slingshot or something?
Re. bats, we have both microbats and megabats in Australia, and the megabats (flying foxes) certainly have very good eyesight. They roost in trees however, not caves, so they wouldn't need to navigate in complete darkness very often.
The stuff about the adaptations that the moths have developed is fascinating. Pefect examples of evolutionary arms races. As the predator develops new and more sophisticated weapons, the prey is forced to develop new defensive measures in order to survive. Very cool stuff, and much more interesting than the old cheetah and gazelle example.
yeah but scruba the moths adaptations (i assume we are talking about the classic case of the light and darker moths) is not really part of the evolutionary arms race as far as i can tell. when i see a real case of an intermediate species in the fossil record i will be convinced, i haven't come across a real example.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
yeah but scruba the moths adaptations (i assume we are talking about the classic case of the light and darker moths) is not really part of the evolutionary arms race as far as i can tell. when i see a real case of an intermediate species in the fossil record i will be convinced, i haven't come across a real example.
No, we were talking about moths that have specialised echo-location related adapdations to help them evade bats.
How do you define a 'real intermediate species'? The fossil record for human evolution is pretty complete, with just about every intermediate form you could possibly want spanning the gaps between tree-dwelling primates and modern humans. And that's just one example.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
yeah but scruba the moths adaptations (i assume we are talking about the classic case of the light and darker moths) is not really part of the evolutionary arms race as far as i can tell. when i see a real case of an intermediate species in the fossil record i will be convinced, i haven't come across a real example.
How exactly would you define an "intermediate species"? There is no half way point between ape and human, just a slow gradual transition. Slight changes that take place over eaons. The fossil record shows this in abundance.
The idea of an intermediate species is just too simplistic. As I've said time and time again on this board, don't try to discredit the theory of evolution if you don't understand it!!!
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
How exactly would you define an "intermediate species"? There is no half way point between ape and human, just a slow gradual transition. Slight changes that take place over eaons. The fossil record shows this in abundance.
The idea of an intermediate species is just too simplistic. As I've said time and time again on this board, don't try to discredit the theory of evolution if you don't understand it!!!
I think this is one of the IDiots greatest victories. They've somehow managed to confuse everyone's understanding of the theory so that it no longer makes sense. One clever tactic is to convince everyone that the fossil record is lacking. Anthropology and palentology aren't my field, but to me the fossil record seems more than complete enough to provide ample evidence to support old fashioned Darwinism on its own. I'd like to have someone who actually understands what they're talking about explain to me which particular intermediate forms they would expect to see are missing from the current record.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
How exactly would you define an "intermediate species"? There is no half way point between ape and human, just a slow gradual transition. Slight changes that take place over eaons. The fossil record shows this in abundance.
The idea of an intermediate species is just too simplistic. As I've said time and time again on this board, don't try to discredit the theory of evolution if you don't understand it!!!
I think the well-known fact that Homo Erectus had primitive tools and fire, is pretty good evidence of evolution. It's one qualitative step anyway. I mean there are literally dozens of bipedal hominids in the fossil records. Homo Erectus is a good representation of brain development in the history of evolution.
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
Charles Darwin conceded that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”
Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”
Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”
Darwin: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.”
He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Charles Darwin, whose Autobiography states: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me . . . This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause.”
In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,”
In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page 154.
Macbeth, who is not a creationist, observed:
“In examining the single parts of classical Darwinism, I concluded that they were all sadly decayed. . . . Since decayed parts will never make a sound whole, the total theory must also be decayed . . .
“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . .
“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
I watched a lecture with an evolutionary biologist (2006). He said that in Darwin's time his theory did have many holes in it. However, those holes have since been filled.
You can actually order the DVD of the lecture for free from http://hhmi.org if you live in North America.
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 was having a discussion along this thread's line this afternoon with the gf (who has studied this field in some depth) and I'm as baffled now as I was before the discussion. Perhaps its just a lack of understanding but I find it very hard to accept that given enough time and gradual change using natural selection evolution will occur. I don't buy things like a "young" earth or Noah's flood either although I was taught those things as a youngster. The problem with the intermediate human species is they lived very complex lives and had such human like traits (in what we know about how they lived) that they appear fully human apart from the physical differences.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
The problem with the intermediate human species is they lived very complex lives and had such human like traits (in what we know about how they lived) that they appear fully human apart from the physical differences.
Why is that a problem?
Hey Mookie - What's the evidence of human-like behaviours in earlier homonids? I assume that the further back you go the less 'human' they were in terms of tool use etc.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Comments
I'm still thinking her boyfriend....well, and her, they might take issue with even the non-digestion stuff.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, that could be a serious hurdle.
Most microbats are active at night or at twilight. By emitting high-pitched sounds and listening to the echoes, the microbats locate prey and other nearby objects. This is the process of echolocation, a skill they share with dolphins and whales. But although the eyes of most species of microbats are small and poorly developed, the sense of vision is typically very good, especially at long distances, beyond the range of echolocation. Their senses of smell and hearing, however, are excellent. A few moths have exploited the bat's senses; in one group (the tiger moths), the moths produce ultrasonic signals to warn the bats that the moths are chemically-protected (aposematism) (this was once thought to be a form of "radar jamming", but this theory has been disproved); in the other group (Noctuidae) the moths have a type of hearing organ called a tympanum which responds to an incoming bat signal by causing the moth's flight muscles to twitch erratically, sending the moth into random evasive maneuvers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat#Classification
So bats have eyes, they can see, but they use echolocation for finding their lunch.
Well I don't know how the woodpecker worked out. But if I wanted to find out, all it would take is some research, some studies, some theories. Eventually, a good answer will be established.
Or of course, we could just say God did it because its easier.
-Ashley Montagu
how open-minded and non-judgmental of her...
collective soul rocks like a fossilized wooly mammoth.
I was merely using an example....there are many examples of degenerative changes that actually become an advantage and this is a classic example of natural selection. its not macro-evolution though......
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
I started reading but I got lost in the whole genetics stuff. I'm a pedestrian economist
I just wanted to clear the probabilities issue. When you flip a coin and it comes head, the probability of such outcome is 50%. Why, because there are two possible results for the experiment of flipping that coin: head and the other side (which name I don't know in english, sorry). The probability function of this particular experiment (or event) is independent of past results, so regardless of how many times you flip that same coin the chances for each side will always be 50%. If a certain event has a 100% of likelyhood it means that is there is only one posssible result. I mean -believe it or not- even getting Even Flow at a gig has a probability lower than 100%
Greetings from Argentina...
The other side is called tails.
However, IMO, flipping a coin is a chaotic mechanism and the chance, is really chance fate. Or the deterministic outcome of a complex dynamical system.
You may find this interesting...
Where:
H = Heads
T = Tails
"...it is twice as likely that the triple TTH will be encountered before THT than after it, and three times as likely that THH will precede HHT. Furthermore, it is six times as likely that HTT will be the first of HTT, TTH, and TTT to occur than either of the others (Honsberger 1979)..."
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoinTossing.html
..hell, at one time most scientists believed the world was flat. Just because a bunch of pointy-headed elitists believe in something doesn't make it true.
That is an excellent example! Thank you.
It's an example of information-processing. Back in the day, scientists only observed the area immediately around them. That made them believe that the earth was flat, because it appeared flat. But later on, with more information about the environment, their thinking was different.
Now, we have a lot more information, there is still plenty more to come, but we have enough for some really good theories.
That was also before we had the modern scientific method with peer review analysis. If we had it back then scientists wouldn't have made the assumption without seeing the end of the scale. They could have theorized that the earth was flat and infinite, but they couldn't prove it.
Well, the physics involved in the act of flipping a coin can be chaotic, but the chance, the simple probability for each side to show up is 50%. I was just refererring to that simple event.
Thanks a lot , tails it is
Thanks for the info, I'll check it out
You're confusing the concepts of probability theory with real-world physics. I understand what you're saying, ie that the outcome of a coin toss is actually inevitable from the moment it is tossed, and could be calculated if we were able to take into account all the variables that affect the movement of the coin (wind resistance, rotational force applied to the coin, moment of inertia, blah blah blah).
But when we're talking about a coin toss in the context of probability theory, just for the sake of argument, we're talking about an ideal coin, completely equally likely to land on either heads or tails. The probability of getting heads is always 50%. You can't ever predict the outcome with more than 50% certainty. In the same way, the occurence of random mutations at particular points in a DNA molecule can't be predicted. We can calculate the probability that they may occur, but we can't predict with certainty where they will show up. This is because the vibration of molecules in solution is random. For this reason we can never say that the probability of anything evolving was ever 100%. The appearance of certain traits may be more likely given a certain set of selection pressures, but it is never 100% likely.
(Unless, like I was saying before, you choose to believe that trajectories of all particles of matter was decided instantaenously at the moment the universe began, making the entire history of the universe inevitable from very start. I think that is basically what you were arguing, that nothing is truly random, and everything happens as a consequence of what already happened before it. I find that concept genuinely terrifying. So I'd rather not think about it anymore.)
-C Addison
Actually, if you flip a coin 1000 times, tails should come up roughly 10-25 times more than heads. Why? Because (at least before the new, state-specific quarters) the head side is slightly heavier, which comes into play on a quarter on its side just before final rest. And here I thought I would never use that information again.
I like standing dimes on their sides whilst drinking.
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.
Dimes!? Fucking Dimes!?? Bitch, you stand a penny, or I don't even know you. Fucking Rookie.
Are dimes in the United States thicker than Pennies?
What's the point of pennies anyway? As far as I could tell the only useful thing that you can do with them is to put them in those tourist penny squashing machines that turn them into a souvenir. But they cost you 50 cents. . . . 51 if you count the penny, but that was useless already. Maybe they're good as ammo for a slingshot or something?
Re. bats, we have both microbats and megabats in Australia, and the megabats (flying foxes) certainly have very good eyesight. They roost in trees however, not caves, so they wouldn't need to navigate in complete darkness very often.
The stuff about the adaptations that the moths have developed is fascinating. Pefect examples of evolutionary arms races. As the predator develops new and more sophisticated weapons, the prey is forced to develop new defensive measures in order to survive. Very cool stuff, and much more interesting than the old cheetah and gazelle example.
-C Addison
Cool, you have flying foxes? Those are the coolest bats
I actually have about $200.00 in pennies. I can take them to A&P and convert them to cold hard cash whenever I need the money. They have a machine that counts them all and spits out a ticket. I usually just donate them to the charity boxes though.
yeah but scruba the moths adaptations (i assume we are talking about the classic case of the light and darker moths) is not really part of the evolutionary arms race as far as i can tell. when i see a real case of an intermediate species in the fossil record i will be convinced, i haven't come across a real example.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
No, we were talking about moths that have specialised echo-location related adapdations to help them evade bats.
How do you define a 'real intermediate species'? The fossil record for human evolution is pretty complete, with just about every intermediate form you could possibly want spanning the gaps between tree-dwelling primates and modern humans. And that's just one example.
-C Addison
How exactly would you define an "intermediate species"? There is no half way point between ape and human, just a slow gradual transition. Slight changes that take place over eaons. The fossil record shows this in abundance.
The idea of an intermediate species is just too simplistic. As I've said time and time again on this board, don't try to discredit the theory of evolution if you don't understand it!!!
-Ashley Montagu
I think this is one of the IDiots greatest victories. They've somehow managed to confuse everyone's understanding of the theory so that it no longer makes sense. One clever tactic is to convince everyone that the fossil record is lacking. Anthropology and palentology aren't my field, but to me the fossil record seems more than complete enough to provide ample evidence to support old fashioned Darwinism on its own. I'd like to have someone who actually understands what they're talking about explain to me which particular intermediate forms they would expect to see are missing from the current record.
-C Addison
I think the well-known fact that Homo Erectus had primitive tools and fire, is pretty good evidence of evolution. It's one qualitative step anyway. I mean there are literally dozens of bipedal hominids in the fossil records. Homo Erectus is a good representation of brain development in the history of evolution.
Charles Darwin conceded that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”
Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”
Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”
Darwin: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.”
He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Charles Darwin, whose Autobiography states: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me . . . This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause.”
In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,”
In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page 154.
Macbeth, who is not a creationist, observed:
“In examining the single parts of classical Darwinism, I concluded that they were all sadly decayed. . . . Since decayed parts will never make a sound whole, the total theory must also be decayed . . .
“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . .
“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
You can actually order the DVD of the lecture for free from http://hhmi.org if you live in North America.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Why is that a problem?
Hey Mookie - What's the evidence of human-like behaviours in earlier homonids? I assume that the further back you go the less 'human' they were in terms of tool use etc.
-C Addison
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.