I figured I would not be the only one pissed off

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

I figured I would not be the only one pissed off

Postby fjafjan » Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:54 pm UTC

Impartial

Argues almost NOTHING about modern science, but it's almost entirely spent at
A making "evolutionists" look like idiots ("LOOK, MARX WAS A DARWINIST!")
B Referring to Darwins present day science as "old and bad"

I ... *puke*

Any other opinions? :P

This is bound to uninform lots of people :(
Last edited by fjafjan on Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:15 am UTC

the correct syntax is {url=www.google.com}Here's a link!{/url}

-.-
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:30 am UTC

Peshmerga wrote:the correct syntax is {url=www.google.com}Here's a link!{/url}

-.-


I have failed
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
RealGrouchy
Nobody Misses Me As Much As Meaux.
Posts: 6704
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby RealGrouchy » Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:35 am UTC

Heh. Reminds me of a photo of a newspaper clipping I saw onlnie (I've got it on a different computer's HD at the moment; can't find it online).

It said something like,
"The website for such-and-such in last week's edition was incorrectly written as http://www.something.html/edu. The correct address should have been http://something.com@www"

If my internet connection at home ever gets fixed (grr....), and if I remember, I'll come back here and replace it.

Incidentally, Pesh, you can use the square brackets by selecting the "Disable BBCode in this post" button before submitting/editing.

- RG>
Jack Saladin wrote:etc., lock'd
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:At least he has the decency to REMOVE THE GAP BETWEEN HIS QUOTES....
Sungura wrote:I don't really miss him. At all. He was pretty grouchy.

User avatar
wmoonw
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:43 pm UTC

Postby wmoonw » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:11 am UTC

Impressive! I love when religious groups try to use science as a weapon against science.

I was once working a table in my student union at school, and was seated next to a Jehovah's Witness recruitment table. We got into a conversation about Chinese, which was pretty interesting until they found out I was an atheist. Oh, boy. I spent the next hour hearing about how the bible talked about scientific facts that weren't discovered later, so I should become a Jehovah's Witness.

The most entertaining fact they threw at me, if you were interested, was the fact that the bible advanced the theory of the Doppler shift. It mentions in the bible that the stars are red and blue, you see. :wink:

i figure, if you're going to reject science in favor of faith, then don't try to rationalize with science. It's a choice. . . .

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:14 am UTC

I dunno why all deez christians be so concernin demselves with us hairytics; ain't we all gone to hell no how?
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
thedesk
Mathemagician
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:25 am UTC
Location: omaha, ne / ames, ia

Postby thedesk » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:26 am UTC

This video made me furious, then I started laughing. Then I became angry again. I love how the narrator is able to twist scientists' words merely by putting an almost sarcastic tone on his voice.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:15 am UTC

thedesk wrote:This video made me furious, then I started laughing. Then I became angry again. I love how the narrator is able to twist scientists' words merely by putting an almost sarcastic tone on his voice.


And often having really sinister music playing whenever they talk about what "evolutionists" said and ...

It's depressingly good propaganda, I do believe alot of people would buy into this that know not alot of the situation...
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Teaspoon
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Where you least expect me

Postby Teaspoon » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:03 am UTC

[quote=Fred Hoyle]The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.[/quote]

They say that makes it impossible? Fools. There's an enormous difference between "impossible" and "incredibly unlikely"; it's the difference between nothing and something, and it's a huge difference compared to the difference between "incredibly unlikely" and "almost certain".

What if we had trillions of junkyards being swept by tornadoes for hundreds of billions of years? It suddenly doesn't seem that strange that a few billion of the junkyards would randomly have the complete set of parts necessary for a 747, and then why can't at least one of them have a tornado swing through just the right way for the appropriate assembly? Shit, Powerball gets won every third week or so, and the odds of any one entry winning are over fifty million to one!

The other point to raise in argument about this one quote is... what about if a tornado didn't assemble a 747, instead assembling a Blackhawk helicopter? It's still a complex machine capable of flight. It's roughly as unlikely to happen as the 747 construction, but consider the chance of a tornado constructing a 747 OR a Blackhawk? Twice as likely as either of them, and if you decide not to be specific and look for a tornado that assembles a machine capable of flight, it turns out there are millions of arrangements of parts that could do it.

So maybe the life we know is the equivalent of a 747 being assembled, but if our tornado hadn't built a 747 the next one could've built a chinook, resulting in a completely different set of life.

<edit>
I found something else to be cross about, so I'm appending it to my post.

Why do they assume "evolution" asserts all these things about the origin of life? Evolution just asserts that the small-scale mutability that is observed from one generation to the next can accumulate over long periods of time to bring about large-scale changes. It also suggests that it's likely that most species on Earth are descended from one batch of cells in a great big forking tree of competing groups.

My sister's a creationist and has tried to argue that there's no proof of mutability of species. Crazy bitch! It happens all the time!

Humans have even learnt to steer it in some animals with interesting results - like Dachshunds! It's even mentioned in the Old Testament: someone (I suspect Jacob) is working as a shepherd for his father-in-law and is told that he can keep any lambs born with have black patches, so he implemented a selective breeding programme to force a massive rise in the portion of sheep being born with black patches and maximise his profits.
Last edited by Teaspoon on Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:44 pm UTC

I second that it was Jacob with the speckled and spotted sheep, but it wasn't really a selective breeding programme per se, he used a lot of branches. I'd type it up, but it's a fair whack, so if anyone has a Bible handy, you're looking at Genesis 30:27-43.

Basically what goes down is that his father-in-law nicks all the speckled/spotted/dark animals to which Jacob is entitled and buggers off, but Jacob overcomes it by getting some branches, peeling them so that they're stripey, and putting them so that the flock (Laban's flock, which Jacob is minding - Laban gave the speckly ones to his sons to look after) could see them while they were in heat, and they mated in front of the branches, producing speckled offspring. He used the branches when the strong females were in heat, but took them away for the weak ones, effectively ensuring that the strong females would bear stripey offspring to which Jacob would be entitled, and the weak females would bear plain offspring, which would go to Laban. I guess the only thing to be said for it was that they obviously understood strong animals produced strong offspring, but it's heavily implied that the appearance of the offspring was not man-influenced, but rather, a miracle. It says later on (Genesis 31:6-9) that Laban kept changing the terms, and each time the offspring would meet the conditions - if Laban said Jacob could only have goats with stripes, only goats with stripes would be produced by the strong parents. Genesis 31:10-13 talks about a dream and that strongly implies that God is indicating it's his work, and not Jacob's, making the animals have different patterns.

That was a large tangent to a smaller point, I think! I guess it's fairly obvious I was a Bible-basher. :D

The other point you're making about the junkyard - we studied that in Biology 2 this semester. A fellow called Dawkins got his little daughter to bang on his typewriter for a little bit, demonstrating how unlikely the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel" would occur. This is lengthy, but here are our tute notes on the subject, with what I assume is kind permission from UWS.

Biology 2 Evolution Tute Notes (UWS) wrote:2. Natural selection and cumulative change

One argument sometimes used against evolution as a mechanism to explain the diversity of life is the ‘complex organ’ argument. In brief, how can directional selection, which acts in small steps, and is ‘blind’ in the sense that is it not consciously working towards some final goal, give us a complex and functioning organ such as the human eye, or the human brain (echo-location which bats use to navigate and find prey is another often-quoted example).

The problem has been sometimes stated as, ‘Can a whirlwind blow through a garbage dump and assemble a completely functional Boeing 747 jet airliner on the other side of the dump?’
One writer who more than any other has addressed this problem is Richard Dawkins (see Campbell (2004) Section 14.9). Dawkins has addressed this problem in a number of books (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable).
Dawkins’s answer to the ‘complex organ’ argument is that natural selection is cumulative in the way it works ie. natural selection builds on what it has already achieved to make progress, and so achieves a final product by a series of small steps.

In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins gives the following analogy.
• The genetic code can be likened to the alphabet we use to write.
• Both contain information in ordered arrays of letters (alphabet) or nucleotide bases (genes).
• The task of natural selection is to arrive at arrays of nucleotide bases that give a protein that ‘works’.
• In alphabetic terms, this is the same as arriving at an array of letters that ‘make sense’.
• Random arrays of nucleotide bases will not ‘work’ and can be likened to random arrays of letters.

Dawkins then takes a sentence (equivalent to a gene that gives a workable protein) and tries to generate it under two scenarios
1. completely random selection of each letter in each position, at each retry
2. cumulative selection – once a ‘correct’ letter is arrived at by chance, it is retained in future re-tries.

Dawkin’s target sentence is a line spoken by Hamlet in the play of the same name. Hamlet and another character in the play, Polonius, are discussing the shapes of clouds, stating what they think they look like. Hamlet says:
Methinks it is like a weasel.

This sentence has 27 letters (equivalent to a gene with 27 triplets of nucleotide bases, for example).
Under completely random selection (Dawkins got his two-year old daughter, a perfect random-selection device to type some sequences) typical attempts to generate the sentence were:

UMMK JK CDZZ F ZD DSDSKMSM

S SS FMCV PU I DDRGLKDXRRDO

RDTE QDWFDVIOY UDSKZWDCCVYT

The daughter gave up after a while, but a computer program can be written to do the same task. The odds of it arriving at the ‘target’ sentence in one go can be calculated mathematically. It is 27 (letters in the target) raised to the power of 26! As Dawkins comments, this is an ‘unbelievably large number’. It is the equivalent of the whirlwind assembling a jumbo jet in one go, or evolution arriving at a complex organ like the eye in one go.
Let’s take approach 2 above, the cumulative approach. A computer program can be written to do this. The program generates a random string of letters:

WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P

The computer ‘breeds’ from this phrase by replacing letters. Whenever a letter that is in its correct place for the final ‘target’ phrase is generated, it is retained in future replications. Thus as more and more correct letters are selected by chance, they are retained. This is a cumulative model of replication.

After 20 ‘generations’ Dawkin’s orgininal phrase had become:

MELDINLS ITISWPRKE Z WECSEL

After 40 generations it was:

METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

The ‘target’phrase was reached after 41 generations.

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:44 pm UTC

But a species evolving does not know that what is wants is an eye (or a cloaud shaped like a weasel).
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:51 pm UTC

LE4dGOLEM wrote:But a species evolving does not know that what is wants is an eye (or a cloaud shaped like a weasel).


Yeah. The way the statements are put by hermaj the conclusions don't really follow. I think the idea works but this exposition of it is flawed.

Its not that each letter should represent a different nucleotide base, more that they should each represent a different protein whose expression is benefical for the organism in the selection process. When a 'good' protein is arrived at by reproduction and mutation, its kept by the next generation for its benefits. Some number of generations down the line, another 'good' protein is found etc.

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

But sometimes an otherwise 'good' protein can be bad. For example, If a species has already evolved to be twilight hunters, Extra light-sensitivty could be good, but If they are day-hunters, extra-light sensitivity could blind them.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:42 pm UTC

LE4dGOLEM wrote:But sometimes an otherwise 'good' protein can be bad. For example, If a species has already evolved to be twilight hunters, Extra light-sensitivty could be good, but If they are day-hunters, extra-light sensitivity could blind them.


Or, if there are no other night hunters, might make them so and give them a huge advantage :P
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

Teaspoon wrote:
Fred Hoyle wrote:The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.


It's not like that at all! What a shit analogy. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard takes a couple of minutes. Evolution has been taking place for billions of years! But I guess if you believe the world is only a couple of thousand years old, you wouldn't take that into account. And 747s are NOT able to reproduce themselves for fucks sake, while the components of life are!

A more correct analogy would have been: The chance that higher 'life' forms might have emerged in a computer model which includes many of the complex adaptive systems contained in a real scenario. And anyone who knows anything about this sort of thing knows that these models exist and are eerily close to the way life actually evolves!

I can't believe people are so willingly incompetent! It really gives me a sinking feeling. I almost pity them for their ignorance.


Teaspoon wrote:
<edit>
I found something else to be cross about, so I'm appending it to my post.

Why do these assume "evolution" asserts all these things about the origin of life? Evolution just asserts that the small-scale mutability that is observed from one generation to the next can accumulate over long periods of time to bring about large-scale changes. It also suggests that it's likely that most species on Earth are descended from one batch of cells in a great big forking tree of competing groups.


What is the worst feeling in the world? Humiliation. Creationists can tell that science is dangerously close to hanging up their 2000 year old beliefs for a laughingstock, so they are trying their hardest to prevent it. They clearly don't know enough in any sort of depth about evolution to do anything other than 'assume.' In fact, most of their propaganda is based around re-igniting superstition and rumour and causing the uninformed public to 'assume' further.

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:50 pm UTC

I would strongly disagree that humiliation is the worst feeling in the world, but I see your point :P
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:15 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:But a species evolving does not know that what is wants is an eye (or a cloaud shaped like a weasel).


Yeah. The way the statements are put by hermaj the conclusions don't really follow. I think the idea works but this exposition of it is flawed.


Hey hey HEY! Not put by hermaj, thankyou very much, those notes were cut straight from the notes given to us. I thought I had at least made that clear, and I didn't elaborate on them at the end because I thought they were pretty self-explanatory. Perhaps that was my bad judgement.

My point was about cumulative evolution as opposed to the junkyard theory. Once something becomes more fit, it doesn't lose that fitness in the next mutation. Am I making sense? Ummm, for example, if you've got a bat, and it needs to have great eyes and sharp claws in order to survive, once it develops great eyes through generations of evolution, it doesn't automatically lose them in order to gain sharp claws. I guess the point Dawkins (and, I'll reiterate, not I) was making is that while no-one knows what the end result would be, it's easier and more logical to reach that target of complete suitability and fitness by way of cumulative evolutionary change, rather than hoping to become perfect all in one hit.

I didn't actually set out intending to argue about this, I was just chucking my two cents in, but if I'm making no sense and the notes on the subject provided to me make no sense, you should probably check out The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins and have a look for yourself.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:25 pm UTC

hermaj wrote:if you've got a bat, and it needs to have great eyes and sharp claws in order to survive,


Funny you should use that example :P
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Man, I just picked the first thing that came into my head. Maybe it's a special type of bat, y'know, one that can see? :P

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:36 pm UTC

Batman? ^_^
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
zvezdogled
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:42 pm UTC
Location: Slovenia

Postby zvezdogled » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:15 am UTC

hermaj wrote:... y'know, one that can see? :P

and wear tights.
"On 11 November 1997, Veronika decided that the moment to kill herself had – at last! - arrived."
- Paulo Coelho

User avatar
Oort
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:18 pm UTC

Postby Oort » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:19 am UTC

The man-bat, maybe.

xnull
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:57 am UTC

Postby xnull » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:23 am UTC

The white bat from Ace Ventura was the first thing that came to my mind. It has been forever since I've watched one of those movies...
This statement is false.

fletch44
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Postby fletch44 » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:29 am UTC

The point is that evolution is not blind and random, which is the strawman set up by religious groups. It is guided by the process of natural selection, which is what Mr Darwin was on about all those years ago.

I don't know how people can keep missing that point. That's the big one.

It's nothing like a tornado in a junkyard. It's nothing like a watch on a beach of sand. The mistakes die, and the useful mutations propagate cumulatively. It's really that simple.

People knew about evolution before Darwin. They just didn't know the process that guided it.

fletch44
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Postby fletch44 » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:31 am UTC

hermaj wrote:Man, I just picked the first thing that came into my head. Maybe it's a special type of bat, y'know, one that can see? :P


Australian fruitbats. Or flying foxes, if you prefer. They're not nocturnal, so they need good eyesight.

There you go.

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:33 am UTC

Yay! Thankyou, Fletch. :D

User avatar
Pathway
Leon Sumbitches...?
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:59 pm UTC

Postby Pathway » Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:27 am UTC

Anyone catch in the beginning when they had someone flip through a book that was supposed to be On the Origin of Species and it was blank-paged? Propaganda, pure and simple. God help whoever sees that and isn't educated enough to think for themselves--if the facetiousness of that statement isn't too overwhelming.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:03 am UTC

hermaj wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:But a species evolving does not know that what is wants is an eye (or a cloaud shaped like a weasel).


Yeah. The way the statements are put by hermaj the conclusions don't really follow. I think the idea works but this exposition of it is flawed.


Hey hey HEY! Not put by hermaj, thankyou very much, those notes were cut straight from the notes given to us. I thought I had at least made that clear, and I didn't elaborate on them at the end because I thought they were pretty self-explanatory. Perhaps that was my bad judgement.

My point was about cumulative evolution as opposed to the junkyard theory. Once something becomes more fit, it doesn't lose that fitness in the next mutation. Am I making sense? Ummm, for example, if you've got a bat, and it needs to have great eyes and sharp claws in order to survive, once it develops great eyes through generations of evolution, it doesn't automatically lose them in order to gain sharp claws. I guess the point Dawkins (and, I'll reiterate, not I) was making is that while no-one knows what the end result would be, it's easier and more logical to reach that target of complete suitability and fitness by way of cumulative evolutionary change, rather than hoping to become perfect all in one hit.


Sorry, yeah, you're right. I certainly agree with the theory, just the way it was put there didn't exactly ring true. Not my field of expertise so I'll shut up now.

Teaspoon
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Where you least expect me

Postby Teaspoon » Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:50 am UTC

I certainly wouldn't say natural selection had perfect vision or judgement. Survival of the fittest is not how it works.

It's very possible for a particular family of a species to have a mutation that makes it more fit for survival than the rest of their species, but suffer the effects of a freak meteor strike and never get a chance to spread their new mutation through the rest of their species.

Survival of the survivors is a lot more like it. Some mutations increase the probability of survival for the specimens that carry them and others decrease it, but it's still random chance that decides which mutations make it through to the next generation.

fletch44
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Postby fletch44 » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:40 pm UTC

Teaspoon wrote:I certainly wouldn't say natural selection had perfect vision or judgement. Survival of the fittest is not how it works.

It's very possible for a particular family of a species to have a mutation that makes it more fit for survival than the rest of their species, but suffer the effects of a freak meteor strike and never get a chance to spread their new mutation through the rest of their species.

Survival of the survivors is a lot more like it. Some mutations increase the probability of survival for the specimens that carry them and others decrease it, but it's still random chance that decides which mutations make it through to the next generation.


Natural selection has no vision or judgement. It's not an intelligent process. It's just a natural process of selection. Also, "freak meteor strike" would come under "Act of God" in most insurance policies, which certainly throws a spanner in the works ;)

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:44 pm UTC

Not if you're Billy Connelly. (Forgive spelling, about to fall asleep! But I'm fairly sure that's right.)

fletch44
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Postby fletch44 » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:59 pm UTC

hermaj wrote:Not if you're Billy Connelly. (Forgive spelling, about to fall asleep! But I'm fairly sure that's right.)


Good movie, that. :D

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby no-genius » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:10 pm UTC

fletch44 wrote:
hermaj wrote:Not if you're Billy Connelly. (Forgive spelling, about to fall asleep! But I'm fairly sure that's right.)


Good movie, that. :D


Erm, what?

hey people, I have read (most of) the blind watchmaker. Now to lurk!
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

fletch44
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Postby fletch44 » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:50 pm UTC

no-genius wrote:
Erm, what?



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:56 pm UTC

Teaspoon wrote:I certainly wouldn't say natural selection had perfect vision or judgement. Survival of the fittest is not how it works.

It's very possible for a particular family of a species to have a mutation that makes it more fit for survival than the rest of their species, but suffer the effects of a freak meteor strike and never get a chance to spread their new mutation through the rest of their species.

Survival of the survivors is a lot more like it. Some mutations increase the probability of survival for the specimens that carry them and others decrease it, but it's still random chance that decides which mutations make it through to the next generation.


But those that survive are by DEFENITION the most fit, if you are alot stronger and faster than me you are "more fit", but then if you are stupid and go throw yourself off a cliff you are obviously not very well adapted.
Unless you mean that a meteor hit this particular specimin, but then evolution never claimed to be perfect, the fastest deer might trip on some beaver that sticks its head up, but in the long run it works.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

meso
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:46 am UTC

Postby meso » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:03 am UTC

I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the tornado in the junkyard analogy. He's not talking at all about cumulative evolution there at all. He is talking about something that is one-off, random, and quite likely very fast forming. He's talking about the creation of the first thing that can be recognisably called "life".
The guy in that clip doesn't care at all about eyes or feet or anything of the sort. It doesn't sound like he's talking about complex evolution at all. He's arguing that, even given the fact that single-celled organisms can evolve into elephants (something he may not believe anyway), getting to that single-celled thing is a bit of an iffy thing for science.

These videos make me smile, I must say. I do wonder if maybe I should be preaching this stuff to people on street corners to make the world a more interesting place.
That or Norse religion. I can't really decide.

PS: Somebody prove him wrong by letting your sufficiently large number of monkeys program seed ai. That'd settle things once and for all.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:12 am UTC

meso wrote:I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the tornado in the junkyard analogy. He's not talking at all about cumulative evolution there at all. He is talking about something that is one-off, random, and quite likely very fast forming. He's talking about the creation of the first thing that can be recognisably called "life".


In that case, his first mistake is believing there is such a clear-cut, black & white definition between 'life' and organic chemicals.

fletch44
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Postby fletch44 » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:39 am UTC

meso wrote:I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the tornado in the junkyard analogy. He's not talking at all about cumulative evolution there at all. He is talking about something that is one-off, random, and quite likely very fast forming. He's talking about the creation of the first thing that can be recognisably called "life".


No, the narrator clearly quotes Fred Hoyle talking about higher life forms spontaneously arrising by chance. (9 mins 50 sec in)

The entire video is a series of strawmen, setting up incorrect definitions in order to tear them down.

First and foremost, wtf is an evolutionist? Has anyone ever heard of a gravitist? A quantumist? A weak nuclear forcist? There's no such thing. It's a label created by creationists in order to give them a focus for their attack.

The narrator repeatedly inaccurately states that evolution is all about life forms arising by chance. As mentioned previously, Darwin's big moment was in recognising that evolution does not progress by chance, but is guided by natural selection.

The narrator states that Darwin had no evidence for his theory. He actually came up with it after his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands, which provided an abundance of evidence.

The majority of the video is directed at refuting abiogenisis, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution (try replacing the word "theory" with the word "understanding" which is closer to the scientific use of the word) explains changes in living forms, not the rise of living forms from non-living matter.

And on a slight tangent - the Theory Of Evolution is an explanation for evolution. Evolution happens. It has been observed. The theory is our current understanding of why and how it happens. Likewise for the Theory of Gravity. Or any scientific theory. The word has a different meaning in science. It's like when you're at college and you have prac exams and theory exams. Prac to test your skills, and theory to test your understanding.

Religious nuts continually misrepresent the scientific point of view and it's fucking lame.

/soapbox

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby no-genius » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:26 pm UTC

I only watched about 10 seconds of it, then I thought 'no.' Bleh!
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

corcorigan
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:51 pm UTC

Postby corcorigan » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:55 pm UTC

I had to join just to reply.

:lol:

"Darwin even saw issues with his theory himself!"

Whoever wrote this has no grasp of how science works.

Hopefully the gods have a nice sense of humour and the authors will all die horribly, poisoned by some undercooked meat because they refuse to cook it for longer than they planned before hand.

Also:

"...a concious cell membrane..."

So that's why AI hasn't really kicked off. It needs to just be a phospho-lipid bilayer, and boom. No need for silicon. Wonder what most my brain is doing too...


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests