Another Evolution Thread

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, to be honest, I question how much of my boredom stems from actual ADD. The diagnoses was based on observation, but they later determined that I have superior intellect. It's unclear to me how much is genius and how much is ADD. According to pretty much everyone else, not qualified to make the judgment, I'm not a genius. Regarding the intelligence quiz, I found that the score was determined based solely on knowledge and problem-solving skills. That, to me, doesn't say anything about IQ. I suppose that's why IQ isn't widely recognized and has mostly fallen out of use.

i dont think it's possible to quantify intelligence based on a test. if so, id be a genius too. ive always aced tests like that. i certainly dont think im a genius though.

on a more lighthearted tone, another part of autism is it usually entails a certain unfamiliarity with social norms... like humility. dontcha know that it's considered poor form to basically claim outright that you have a genius superior intellect?

of course, if you truly are autistic, you wont understand that that's a joke if you're not, have a laugh and let's put this to rest so i can go to bed. i didnt read a lick of criminal law tonight! ive got an interesting analogy on that that might illustrate what ive been kicking around here all night. perhaps ill put it up tomorrow.

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually, now that I think about it, vestigal traits are evidence of constructive evolution.

Why do humans have no use for the pancreas? Because we constructively evolved in some other way. Our olfactory senses have degenerated because of our constructive brain evolution.

The Manatee doesn't need the hip or legs anymore because it constructively evolved into a sea creature.

I routinely read large portions of threads I participate in. I noticed this statement that I made and noticed an error. This was in response to a fact about modern need for an appendix and in my response I used pancreas. The pancreas is responsible for providing insulin and we do need it for our metabolic functions. I apologize for the error.

I think maybe this thread could use an appendix.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think it's possible to quantify intelligence based on a test. if so, id be a genius too. ive always aced tests like that. i certainly dont think im a genius though.

on a more lighthearted tone, another part of autism is it usually entails a certain unfamiliarity with social norms... like humility. dontcha know that it's considered poor form to basically claim outright that you have a genius superior intellect?

of course, if you truly are autistic, you wont understand that that's a joke if you're not, have a laugh and let's put this to rest so i can go to bed. i didnt read a lick of criminal law tonight! ive got an interesting analogy on that that might illustrate what ive been kicking around here all night. perhaps ill put it up tomorrow.

Oh, I fully understand the concept of social norms and I find that amusing. It was in that context that I inappropriately used the statement of my IQ. It appeared that inappropriate social behavior had run rampant, as is typical of internet dialog. As I recall I was being dissected for not achieving academic goals and therefor my knowledge was void. My response was to represent equality in another manner. It wasn't exactly in terms of superiority as much as in terms of equality. Though I admit, it was a poor response, having suppressed emotional response, I may have found alternative resolutions. But emotional response is good for saving time and some what innate. Anyway you can be certain that with my "theory of everything" that no one is ever to blame. Radical Behaviorism, perhaps, Chaos Theory. My theory is basically Chaos theory, from the very basis of particle physics to evolution to flipping a coin to social interaction. But with social interaction we have an influence, even if that influence is based on other chaotic mechanisms. Even if we are based on chaotic mechanism. It simply means that it's predetermined. You could think this theory would lead to a creator, but I don't see the correlation. That is still only subjective evidence of a creator, even if chaos theory is true.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

i also think you and angelica should get married you guys are a match made in heaven.

Oops. Missed this one.

Well, yeah, it would make perfect sense for me to hook up with someone younger than my own child.

edit: :sarcasm:

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

sticking with your point does not mean you're right nor is it always some altruistic "i know myself" stance. in the context of sharing of knowledge, you have to respond to potential holes in your theories. ignoring them does not make them go away. what you see as "defining the agenda" i see as simply dodging the question... the implication being they have no answer to it and would rather ignore inconsistencies than address them. that is what science is. you make your claims and then you have to defend them from questioning to show that they are valid. if you cannot do it satisfactorily, your point is proven wrong.

I agree exactly with what Ahnimus said earlier: people have "attribution problems". This is a base psychological issue. People see an error and assume it's the other guy's fault. They don't realize it might be their own error of perception. I saw exactly what Ahnimus was doing--people were calling out his poor information, and he was answering back that he felt his point was misunderstood, etc. If one misunderstands the context of those points, and assumes the other person to be wrong erroneously, the first person is not responsible. I noticed this might have happened in this thread. Because a few people are against Ahnimus' style does not make him inaccurate. It does not mean he is necessarily accurate--again discernment of the points discern accuracy. Until one has an argument that PROVES Ahnimus is incorrect, it's just two people disagreeing to me. I respect education, and yet it does not give one a free ride--educated people are also expected to back up their points.

i happen to believe his points were right. i never claimed otherwise. the only claim i ever made here was that it is ridiculous to say that in 2 weeks he knew more about evolutionary biology than a phd who spent 10 years studying it. even he has conceded that. it was the only thing i ever took issue with here. i have stated from the beginning that his statements on evolution were accurate to the best of my knowledge (when i understood them... im only an english major after all).

I did not think he said he knows more about evolutionary biology than a "phd who spent 10 years studying it". I thought he was backing up what he did know. And defending learning on one's own.

you were the one scolding me about judgment calls earlier. why is autism a low blow? i never intended it as an insult, you are the one who seems to think it is something shameful or dismissive. it's simply another thought process. i never attempted to "string him up" or belittle his intelligence based on those comments. he just has an idiosyncratic style that seems to have a lot in common with the characteristic of autistic thought patterns. he himself admitted to ADD and near photographic memory, so i was not all that far off. for the normally level-headed tone you espouse on here, i must say im almost flattered to have gotten you wound up enough to throw out something so emotional and subjective and insulting as suggesting that i would advocate "stringing up" someone for being autistic.

If you don't understand how saying someone seems to have a neurodevelopmental disorder is a low blow, I'm not sure I can help, here. Transactional analysis, the form of psychology that covers human interactions is clear that if we using devices wherein we treat the other as though they are "not okay" then we are operating in an imbalanced sense. We can couch it in logic and reason, but it's still operating from the premise that you are saying there is something wrong with Ahnimus in order to make your point. Contrarily, the average person without a lowered agenda, were they to run across someone they thought had a disorder, they would display sensitivity towards it, not insensitivity. For example, when talking with one who is autistic I doubt it's the norm to point out to them that there is something wrong with them in order to get one's point across.

The "string him up comment" is based on the fact that over and over in this thread, people have taken jabs at Ahnimus the person, rather than his arguments. When I see a person who is lacking in awareness on a subject, I don't disparage and depreciate them. I attempt to clarify for them. When someone is going after someone for a lack of knowledge, there is something personal at play--not something reasonable. When a few people do it in one thread--again, over a PERCEIVED, possible lack of knowledge, it looks like a mob mentality to me. Or a witch hunt.

hippiemom

A Surprise Left wrote:

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.

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oops. Missed this one.

Well, yeah, it would make perfect sense for me to hook up with someone younger than my own child.

edit: :sarcasm:

Yea, that's unfortunate, she won't hook me up with her daughter either :(

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, that's unfortunate, she won't hook me up with her daughter either :(

My daughter can't stomach guys who are Collective Soul fans.

Ahnimus

hippiemom wrote:

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.

Here is what I found out:

Little is known about the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize well. However a late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early Microchiropteran bat. The oldest known definite bat fossils, such as Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene (about 50 million years ago), but they were already very similar to modern microbats. Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

However, more recent DNA studies have linked many microbats to megabats, I didn't know this but megabats don't use echolocation. So that implies a constructive evolutionary change to me. I could be wrong.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

My daughter can't stomach guys who are Collective Soul fans.

Are you serious?

Well she doesn't have to digest me

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you serious?

Well she doesn't have to digest me

I'm still thinking her boyfriend....well, and her, they might take issue with even the non-digestion stuff.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

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.

Mookie Baylock

A Surprise Left wrote:

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.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

My daughter can't stomach guys who are Collective Soul fans.

how open-minded and non-judgmental of her...

collective soul rocks like a fossilized wooly mammoth.

A Surprise Left

hippiemom wrote:

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......

CaterinaA

Hello everybody

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...

Ahnimus

CaterinaA wrote:

Hello everybody

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.

Ahnimus

Re: Coin Tossing

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

Uncle Teddy

"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.