PDA

View Full Version : Darwins Nightmare



root
02-21-2006, 02:01 PM
If creationism hypothosis is correct, then I think the Australian who thought up the idea of environmentally protecting Australia by utilizing gods creations should not have been the disaster that it has come to be. When does something that was perposely designed by a creator "change". When did a perfect family designed and created family car turn into a rally car that destroyed tje countryside. When did the perfect creation of a watch by a watchmaker start to have an alarm like big ben deathening everyone. If a creature was designed for a purpose, why does it change!!!!

I guess the answer must be because the creationist (if he was one) did not believe in Evolution.



He's fat he's ugly and he's adapting. a species which was introduced into the Australian state of Queensland 70 years ago to tackle insect pests in canefields and has since become an ecological catastrophe.

Weighing in at to up two kilos (4.4 pounds), the unwanted anuran has extended its range to more than a million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) in tropical and sub-tropical Australia, crushing native species in its relentless advance.

A team of University of Sydney toad watchers positioned themselves on the front line of the invasion, 60 kilometers (35 miles) east of the city of Darwin, and for 10 months caught toads, some of which they radiotagged and let loose again.

They were astonished to find that the creatures can hop up to 1.8 kms (1.1 miles) a night during wet weather, a record for any frog or toad.

But even more remarkable was the discovery that the first toads to arrive at the front invariably had longer hind legs than those which arrived later.

By comparison, the toads which are living in the long-established Queensland colonies have much shorter legs.

The case is being seen as a classic example of Darwinian evolution -- animals that are stronger, faster or smarter are able to stake out new territory and defend it against those that are weaker, slower or less astute.
The findings also neatly explain a puzzle surrounding the cane toad.

From the 1940s to 1960s, the critter expanded its range by only 10 kms (six miles) a year. Today, though, it is advancing at the rate of more than 50 kms (30 miles) annually.

The reason: with longer legs, the mutating species is able to travel further, faster.

The authors, led by Richard Shine of the university's School of Biological Sciences, say the cane toad is a chilling lesson for governments to combat invasive species as soon as possible, "before the invader has had time to evolve into a more dangerous adversary."

The paper appears on Thursday in Nature, the weekly science journal.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
HeiGou
02-21-2006, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by root
If a creature was designed for a purpose, why does it change!!!!
There is another example too - MRSA. Because of the over-prescribing of antibiotics, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (aka MRSA, or Golden Staph) has evolved to be immune to most antibiotics. If Golden Staph was created, why has it evolved resistance (and hence is a new species)? If evolution is not true, is it worth looking for new antibiotics to treat the new form of the disease? Moreover it is worth finding out how Golden Staph has evolved and finding a drug to target that? These things matter in science.
Reply

Takumi
02-21-2006, 03:48 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
There is another example too - MRSA. Because of the over-prescribing of antibiotics, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (aka MRSA, or Golden Staph) has evolved to be immune to most antibiotics. If Golden Staph was created, why has it evolved resistance (and hence is a new species)? If evolution is not true, is it worth looking for new antibiotics to treat the new form of the disease? Moreover it is worth finding out how Golden Staph has evolved and finding a drug to target that? These things matter in science.
MRSA is not a new species. It's still called staph aureus. If it were a different species, than it wouldn't be MR-SA.
Reply

HeiGou
02-21-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally Posted by Takumi
MRSA is not a new species. It's still called staph aureus. If it were a different species, than it wouldn't be MR-SA.
MRSA is a new species. It is MRSA to distinguish it from other strains of Golden Staph. This is how you define a species among asexual bacteria. It has specific and recognisable traits.

Can you, or any other creationist, tell me how MRSA arose (given it was not MR until recently) and what ought to be done about it?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Takumi
02-21-2006, 04:14 PM
The present system of binomial nomenclature identifies each species by a scientific name of two words, Latin in form and usually derived from Greek or Latin roots. The first name (capitalized) is the genus of the organism, the second (not capitalized) is its species.

MRSA has been around for just 40 years (since 1961)

It's still called Staph Aureus (Genus: Staph Species: Aureus), unless you don't agree with this widely known nomenclature. That's your prerogative.

The mecA gene is already there, expressed when triggered by beta lactam antibiotics and of course, notoriously Methicillin.

If someone's who's blind at birth, forced to depend only on his hearings and other available faculties, thus ADAPTING to his environment . Will he still be homo sapiens? :p
Reply

HeiGou
02-21-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by Takumi
The mecA gene is already there, expressed when triggered by beta lactam antibiotics and of course, notoriously Methicillin.
It is there now. But it was not "triggered" in 1960. It is a recent occurence and moreover MRSA is rapidly replacing MSSA. Why is this? The penicillin binding proteins on the cell walls of the MRSA have changed "shape". How did this change arise?

If someone's who's blind at birth, forced to depend only on his hearings and other available faculties, thus ADAPTING to his environment . Will he still be homo sapiens? :p
Well no because he can still interbreed. Obviously standard definitions for species do not apply very well to asexually reproducing bacteria. But if you like I'll use "sub-species".

You have also not answered my question - if evolution does not happen, what is to be done?
Reply

Takumi
02-21-2006, 04:47 PM
HeiGou,

Before those questions are answered, sub species do not even apply to MRSA or MRSE (methicillin resistant staph epidermidis, yes a different species of staph).

Scientists, microbiologists, clinical infectious disease specialists and many experts, in spite of the emergence of this STRAIN has not even named MRSA as a sub species, so; NO, it's not okay with me. I'm a scientist. I will follow the norm. Except those weird ones. :)

The gene that code for penicillinase has always been there. So has the gene that codes for beta lactamase, the enzyme that render beta lactam antibiotics inactive. S.aureus obviously didn't "think" it was necessary to use
when not necessary.

People who store guns in their house don't use them until it's necessary. It's still there.

Standard definitions of species do not apply well to bacteria? Bro, this is an accepted nomenclature in the scientific world. Even Darwin knows it. I hope. :p

Other kinds of antibacterial has been shown effective agains MSRA. Imipenem with combination (despite it being a beta lactam) of cilastatin or vancomycin have been proven successful for years.

This is turning into a therapeutic management for MRSA. :p

Anyway, I still think 40 years of adaptation of this bug is too early for anyone to claim it as an evolutionary process.

As I have mentioned, it's still an aureus. Not a different species, yet.
Reply

HeiGou
02-21-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by Takumi
The gene that code for penicillinase has always been there. So has the gene that codes for beta lactamase, the enzyme that render beta lactam antibiotics inactive. S.aureus obviously didn't "think" it was necessary to use when not necessary.
Just out of interest, how do you know it was always there?

Obviously MRSA does not think, or "think", so what happened to activate this particular protein?

People who store guns in their house don't use them until it's necessary. It's still there.
You know why that is utterly irrelevant as a parallel don't you?

Standard definitions of species do not apply well to bacteria? Bro, this is an accepted nomenclature in the scientific world. Even Darwin knows it. I hope. :p
Nomenclature is a separate issue. Standard definitions - interbreeding and all that - are problematic with bacteria.

Other kinds of antibacterial has been shown effective agains MSRA. Imipenem with combination (despite it being a beta lactam) of cilastatin or vancomycin have been proven successful for years.

This is turning into a therapeutic management for MRSA.
Do you think that this treatment will remain effective for the next 40 years? Given that bacteria do not evolve and all that?

Anyway, I still think 40 years of adaptation of this bug is too early for anyone to claim it as an evolutionary process.
Really? Why?
Reply

sumay28
02-21-2006, 05:24 PM
I believe if darwin were around today, he would have smacked himself on the forehead and said "i was such a fool". I don't think Darwin would still agree with his theory.

My opinion: the people who don't believe in creation are my ammunition for my faith. It only proves to me that it is true that knowledge can only been given by Allah.
Reply

Takumi
02-21-2006, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou

Just out of interest, how do you know it was always there?

Hei Gou, advanced reading in bacteriology and infectious diseases would help you out. Are you working? If you're really interested, you may spend some money for subscription to many medical journals. Although some are restricted to medical professionals only, but some are watered down to cater to the common public.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
Obviously MRSA does not think, or "think", so what happened to activate this particular protein?
Mere exposure to beta lactam.


Originally Posted by HeiGou
You know why that is utterly irrelevant as a parallel don't you?
It's just a simple analogy.



Originally Posted by HeiGou
Nomenclature is a separate issue. Standard definitions - interbreeding and all that - are problematic with bacteria.
Nomenclature was not an issue until you proclaimed that S.aures is indeed another species. These terms are scientific and must conform to their accepted usage. I haven't read your conceding that your first impression that s.aureus was indeed another species, is incorrect. By it's name alone, we know it's not a new species. Strain, maybe.


Originally Posted by HeiGou
Do you think that this treatment will remain effective for the next 40 years? Given that bacteria do not evolve and all that?
There are hundreds of therapeutic studies published every day. If, the resistance of the bacteria is indeed an evolutionary process and evolution is a science, then surely evolutionary theorists must find a way to predict s.aureus future evolutionary product. That onus is upon them. I'm a clinician. Like many others, we conjure modalities of treatment as the case is presented to us. The last thing in saving one's life is to ponder whether or not s.aures come from amoeba or the grandfather of homo erectus. :p

Originally Posted by HeiGou
Really? Why?
Do you or any evolutionary theorist out there really subscribe to the idea that if an organism is left to survive in an environment foreign to its biological needs, somehow it will evolve to another creature. I'd like to see it.

In simple terms, would an evolutionary theorist live in the north pole without any protective clothing at all to prove that he will eventually evolve to a creature that will handle extreme cold and his digestive system will eventually change to only digest proteins instead of complex carbohydrates?

Peace.
Reply

root
02-21-2006, 08:10 PM
There are hundreds of therapeutic studies published every day. If, the resistance of the bacteria is indeed an evolutionary process and evolution is a science, then surely evolutionary theorists must find a way to predict s.aureus future evolutionary product.
Evolution is comparable to history, and we cannot forsee nor predict the future with any certainty. It surprises me that you could think by such a manner

That onus is upon them. I'm a clinician. Like many others, we conjure modalities of treatment as the case is presented to us. The last thing in saving one's life is to ponder whether or not s.aures come from amoeba or the grandfather of homo erectus
.

By understanding the biological processes taking place with drug resistant bacteriums/viruses the potential to save millions of life should drive us to ask such questions. Besides all life is related, you should already know that.

Do you or any evolutionary theorist out there really subscribe to the idea that if an organism is left to survive in an environment foreign to its biological needs, somehow it will evolve to another creature. I'd like to see it.
If you live a few million years you would see it for yourself!

In simple terms, would an evolutionary theorist live in the north pole without any protective clothing at all to prove that he will eventually evolve to a creature that will handle extreme cold and his digestive system will eventually change to only digest proteins instead of complex carbohydrates
It would depend how rapid and severe the changes were, many life-forms go into extinction because they could not adapt. However, maybe we would see a return of full hair covering our bodies becuase the genes responsible are still with us though inactive just like you claim for your MRSA as quoted here, evolution rarely uses direct mutations for change but merely reactivates redundant genes.

The gene that code for penicillinase has always been there. So has the gene that codes for beta lactamase, the enzyme that render beta lactam antibiotics inactive. S.aureus obviously didn't "think" it was necessary to use
when not necessary.
Reply

Takumi
02-21-2006, 09:22 PM
So, evolution is not an exact science. For all we know, as skeptical as evolutionary theorists as they are about creationism, they are in the dark. So, what benefit can evolutionary theorists bring to therapeutic regimens, such as incidents of infections of MRSA if they cannot predict the further extension of Staphylococcus aureus' so called "evolution"?

The cold virus mutates as frequently as we change our clothes, still, they are not new species.

Depending on the scientific fields, scientists depend on models, graphed from previous data that may predict future occurrences.

eg, the behavior of many drugs and their elimination from the human body are predicted using these models even if the drug has not been used yet.

I didn't claim that MRSA has that genes. Research in bacteriology proved it, in lieu to explain such resistance.

Maybe "return on hair", with the advent of technology and so much hype about the certainty of evolution, I would have guessed evolutionary theorists would have figured that out already. Maybe the legs will go to atrophy since the subject will be quite immobile, extreme or in realistic biological sense, the subject will die mainly due to hypothermia.

Since evolution thrives on the theory of the survivalism, it should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that if Charles Darwin were audacious enough to prove his point, he'd be living right now as a polar bear like creature roaming the north pole due to the evolutionary process. :)

Unless...
Reply

root
02-22-2006, 11:15 AM
So, evolution is not an exact science. For all we know, as skeptical as evolutionary theorists as they are about creationism, they are in the dark. So, what benefit can evolutionary theorists bring to therapeutic regimens, such as incidents of infections of MRSA if they cannot predict the further extension of Staphylococcus aureus' so called "evolution"?
Firstly, evolution can and does make predictions as part of validating itself to a status of theory and creationism is not a theory. Secondly, biology is built upon the foundations of micro-evolution and they are so closely inter-twined that the two cannot be seperated so from this perspective the benefits are present for us all to see.

I am very surprised if not a little shocked that you seem to express dissapointment that evolution cannot with certainty predict the future any more than we can predict the social and cultural future of mankind. Finally, let us not forget that the potential disastarous mutation of the bird flu with a highly viralent human flu virus evolving and spreading is the stuff of evolution in action.

The cold virus mutates as frequently as we change our clothes, still, they are not new species.
Correct.

Depending on the scientific fields, scientists depend on models, graphed from previous data that may predict future occurrences.
Not strictly so, but I accept the point your making

Maybe "return on hair", with the advent of technology and so much hype about the certainty of evolution, I would have guessed evolutionary theorists would have figured that out already. Maybe the legs will go to atrophy since the subject will be quite immobile, extreme or in realistic biological sense, the subject will die mainly due to hypothermia.
Evolution through DNA shows a rich tapestry of biological history in it's ongoing process that is no more pre determined than our own history has been. Your right about hypothermia, the probability is that the subject would succumb to this but it's not a fact as always since too many variables are involved.

Since evolution thrives on the theory of the survivalism, it should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that if Charles Darwin were audacious enough to prove his point, he'd be living right now as a polar bear like creature roaming the north pole due to the evolutionary process.
That sounds more like reincarnation than evolution, besides on a macro-level one needs several millions of years and evolution evolves new species and does not repeat itself like a carbon copy. But ultimately would you call the "hobbit" human?
Reply

Takumi
02-22-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by root
Firstly, evolution can and does make predictions as part of validating itself to a status of theory and creationism is not a theory. Secondly, biology is built upon the foundations of micro-evolution and they are so closely inter-twined that the two cannot be seperated so from this perspective the benefits are present for us all to see.
If that is so, vaccines against the human cold could have been produced. Or the further mutation or "evolution" of the HIV virus could have been documented and drugs specifically targeting the RNA or DNA of these malicious virus could have been used. Unless, the evolution is just a "social" enigma that is desperate to take its place above all sciences.

Originally Posted by root
I am very surprised if not a little shocked that you seem to express dissapointment that evolution cannot with certainty predict the future any more than we can predict the social and cultural future of mankind. Finally, let us not forget that the potential disastarous mutation of the bird flu with a highly viralent human flu virus evolving and spreading is the stuff of evolution in action.
I am. Social and cultural future of mankind are not considered elemental sciences are they? Yes, we designate experts in both fields as social scientists, but evolutionary theorists seem to want evolution to be included into mainstream science, that includes objectivity, modelling, reproducibility and plausible predictions based on current data.


Originally Posted by root
Correct.
Thank you.




Originally Posted by root
Not strictly so, but I accept the point your making
Thank you.



Originally Posted by root
Evolution through DNA shows a rich tapestry of biological history in it's ongoing process that is no more pre determined than our own history has been. Your right about hypothermia, the probability is that the subject would succumb to this but it's not a fact as always since too many variables are involved.
The only thing that I can think of, are Yogis, who have been rumored to meditate in the mountains of Himalayas to reach ultimate spirituality; survived extreme cold weather. Other than that, solid facts on human biology show that death is inevitable.


Originally Posted by root
That sounds more like reincarnation than evolution, besides on a macro-level one needs several millions of years and evolution evolves new species and does not repeat itself like a carbon copy. But ultimately would you call the "hobbit" human?
This point clearly proves that Staphylococcus aureus did not "evolve" into MRSA, which is the crux of of this discussion. MRSA was first documented 40 years ago. Many experts, including evolutionary theorists did not indicate that MRSA is a new species.

Unless of course evolutionary theorists with solid model based on facts can scientifically predict the future behavior or trait of Staphylococcus aureus , which; laterally speaking, they have not, I suggest we leave the nomenclature and of course, the treatment modalities to the experts. :)

I rest my case.
Reply

root
02-22-2006, 02:01 PM
If that is so, vaccines against the human cold could have been produced.
The theory of evolution probably tells us why a vaccine cannot be produced!

Or the further mutation or "evolution" of the HIV virus could have been documented and drugs specifically targeting the RNA or DNA of these malicious virus could have been used.
Again evolution probably tells us why this cannot be the case. However some good news does exist on this matter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4696496.stm

Unless, the evolution is just a "social" enigma that is desperate to take its place above all sciences.
I don't thibk so myself.

The only thing that I can think of, are Yogis, who have been rumored to meditate in the mountains of Himalayas to reach ultimate spirituality; survived extreme cold weather. Other than that, solid facts on human biology show that death is inevitable
Evolution does not necessitate to just biological matter. A species ability to adapt does not rely solely on it's biology parse, the ability to forward think and anticipate dangers then plan to avoid dangers (gee I gotta get out of this wind chill) is equally important so to is good old luck, survival of the fittest is also survival of the luckiest and on with survival of the knowledgeable (reminds me of a survival book I read titled "no need to die". Either way death is not as you put it inevitable.

This point clearly proves that Staphylococcus aureus did not "evolve" into MRSA,
Yes it did evolve, your claiming it never evolved into another species outside of S Aureus, a new species of cat or dog can evolve, they are still cat and dog though if not classable as a certain kind of dog within x generations.

which is the crux of of this discussion. MRSA was first documented 40 years ago. Many experts, including evolutionary theorists did not indicate that MRSA is a new species.
Nor do they class the frog at the beginning of this thread anything else than a frog, however the evolutionary change is already beginning.

I rest my case.
Yes, you rest your case in dircetly not observing a change in species to which you need a considerable more time than 40 years.
Reply

Takumi
02-22-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally Posted by root
The theory of evolution probably tells us why a vaccine cannot be produced!
Please enlighten us!


Originally Posted by root
Evolution does not necessitate to just biological matter. A species ability to adapt does not rely solely on it's biology parse, the ability to forward think and anticipate dangers then plan to avoid dangers (gee I gotta get out of this wind chill) is equally important so to is good old luck, survival of the fittest is also survival of the luckiest and on with survival of the knowledgeable (reminds me of a survival book I read titled "no need to die". Either way death is not as you put it inevitable.
Until now, evolutionary theorists are still in the dark about the "evolution" of the psyche.



Originally Posted by root
Yes it did evolve, your claiming it never evolved into another species outside of S Aureus, a new species of cat or dog can evolve, they are still cat and dog though if not classable as a certain kind of dog within x generations.
Do you have any literature to support the claim that S.aureus did evolve? HeiGou claimed that MRSA is another species due to the evolutionary process. I provided the proof against that by just its nomenclature and scientific literature did not designate MRSA as another species.



Originally Posted by root
Nor do they class the frog at the beginning of this thread anything else than a frog, however the evolutionary change is already beginning.
Can evolutionary theorists PREDICT using SCIENTIFIC models what this frog will have?



Originally Posted by root
Yes, you rest your case in dircetly not observing a change in species to which you need a considerable more time than 40 years.
Do evolutionary theorists have any specific time, using their SCIENTIFIC modelling, based on their current data to predict at least the time NEEDED?
Reply

root
02-23-2006, 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by root
The theory of evolution probably tells us why a vaccine cannot be produced!
Please enlighten us!
You have probably heard the saying "You never catch the same cold twice", this is due to the number of flu viruses out thier, and since evolutionary they have a very high mutational rate it is all but impossible to vaccine for ALL current flu virus strains and the sheer number of new evolved strains.

Until now, evolutionary theorists are still in the dark about the "evolution" of the psyche.
You would proably need to explain this better as I don't really know what you mean by "psyche"

Do you have any literature to support the claim that S.aureus did evolve? HeiGou claimed that MRSA is another species due to the evolutionary process. I provided the proof against that by just its nomenclature and scientific literature did not designate MRSA as another
Sure:http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/11/7687

Here is a snippet for you to:

The origins of the major MRSA clones are still poorly understood. Kreiswirth et al. (11) proposed that all MRSAs were descended from a single ancestral S. aureus strain that acquired mecA, but more recent studies (12, 13) show that some MRSAs are very divergent, implying that mecA has been transferred between S. aureus lineages. The data from MLST can be used to probe the evolutionary and population biology of bacterial pathogens and to predict ancestral genotypes and patterns of evolutionary descent within groups of related genotypes. We have applied MLST to an international collection of 359 MRSA isolates, which includes examples of the previously described EMRSA and GISA clones, and compare these to a collection of 553 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSAs). We demonstrate the limited number of major EMRSA genotypes and provide an unambiguous method for characterizing MRSA and GISA clones and a rational nomenclature. We also identify the ancestral MRSA clone and its MSSA ancestor and suggest the evolutionary pathways by which MRSA clones have repeatedly emerged from successful MSSA clones.

Can evolutionary theorists PREDICT using SCIENTIFIC models what this frog will have?
I really feel you are getting your knickers in a twist over the predictability of evolution. For a theory to be valid it requires that it should be able to make predictions based on the theory, you seem to be taking this literally and asking evolution to predict the future in the same manner that one would ask an historian to predict future history? which of course is nonsense. However highlighted in green may be of special interest to you.
Reply

Takumi
02-23-2006, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by root
You have probably heard the saying "You never catch the same cold twice", this is due to the number of flu viruses out thier, and since evolutionary they have a very high mutational rate it is all but impossible to vaccine for ALL current flu virus strains and the sheer number of new evolved strains.
Of course, if evolution is an exact science, evolutionary theorists who are practicing medical sciences could have predicted the future strain of the cold virus, hence providing these date to pharmaceutical companies who have their drug production pharmacists who then will be able to make a vaccine to combat them. Don't you think it's worth it? Millions if not billions of dollars are lost due to employees taking the day off when they get the cold.


Originally Posted by root
You would proably need to explain this better as I don't really know what you mean by "psyche"
Psyche: simply mental status

Please also refer to my post here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ghlight=takumi


PNAS is not a well established medical journal. That article was done retrospectively, as with almost all evolutionary hype out there. Of course, the National Academy of Science is also one of the organizations who advocate the evolution hypothesis. Never mind that. :p

Thank you for the link, though. It was a good read. I'm going to look for it in other journals, they have better peer review system.

It's interesting to note, notwithstanding the fact that contributors to the retrospective article claimed that MRSA had evolved, they still insist on using it's species name, aureus. Can evolutionary advocates be certain WHEN not to call this strain aureus, like they have distinguished Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, which belong to the same genus but entirely different species?

Evolution advocates have been campaigning to be accepted into the elemental science, surely by now (almost 200 years), they have come up with some objectivity, like many other elemental science.



Originally Posted by root
I really feel you are getting your knickers in a twist over the predictability of evolution. For a theory to be valid it requires that it should be able to make predictions based on the theory, you seem to be taking this literally and asking evolution to predict the future in the same manner that one would ask an historian to predict future history? which of course is nonsense. However highlighted in green may be of special interest to you.
Root, I'm a scientist, a clinician who deals with mortality every single day. Predictability, like the the weather forecast, is my bread and butter. There's no time to "read between the lines" when it comes to therapeutic regimen for cancer, G6PD deficiency or even the haemophilia or many other genetically based disorders out there.

Can evolutionary advocates contribute to the field of medical sciences other than tell us retrospectively where a bug has evolved from?

If it can't which is very likely, I'd settle with evolution just staying there hypothetically existing in the midst on unpredictability of social behavior of Homo sapiens. :p

We just have to agree to disagree. :)
Reply

root
02-23-2006, 02:24 PM
Of course, if evolution is an exact science, evolutionary theorists who are practicing medical sciences could have predicted the future strain of the cold virus, hence providing these date to pharmaceutical companies who have their drug production pharmacists who then will be able to make a vaccine to combat them. Don't you think it's worth it? Millions if not billions of dollars are lost due to employees taking the day off when they get the cold.
I read your link to past posts, and it would appear (to me at least) that you like predictability! In an almost conceit of hindsight. History has been described as one thing after after another, temptation to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves to seek reason and rhyme for everything. This appetite for reason and rhyme affronts those who see history as a random and messy affair. The other flirtation of similarity is history described as seeing the past as aimed at our time like all the characters of history had nothing better to do than forshadow us, that the past worked to deliver our particular present.

Evolution, can be similarly described as one species after another evolutionary rhymes and patterns occur (like history) and it is for well understood reasons: darwinian & biology reasons mainly. But be warned, evolution like history is a random and messy affair also and like the characters of history, evolution is NOT a calculated affair like a carefully tuned "put-up" job calculated at bringing humanity eventually into existence.

It is for this reason and this reason alone that one cannot predict the future of a given evolutionary course, one can of course try at best to make an educated and well informed guess and afford a probability, but it will remain just a probability thus whilst you can make predictive statements in support of the evolutionary theory you cannot predict accurately what is in essence a random affair! By comparisom it would be like asking to predict where in a skin cell is a mosquito going to bite a human host!

Another way to see this as a modern day example is with bird flu, evolutionary biology shows us that the bird flu could mutate with a human flu virus and cause a world wide pandemic, evolution like the mosquito cannot predict which virus H5n1 may mutate with though we could take an educated guess that may or may not be correct. Our world and everything in it does not live within "predictable" controls.

It's interesting to note, notwithstanding the fact that contributors to the retrospective article claimed that MRSA had evolved, they still insist on using it's species name, aureus. Can evolutionary advocates be certain WHEN not to call this strain aureus, like they have distinguished Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, which belong to the same genus but entirely different species?
Given the example above with h5n1, if it did indeed mutate with a flu virus would it be "Bird flu" or "Human flu"? Your point I probably don't care to answer (And i don't mean to appear rude). As for the Neanderthol, it might surprise you that ultimately we cannot say neanderthals are a different species however, we in the sapien classification I believe they use the Mitochandrial DNA and Y Chromozone to establish human species, though I am sure not just solely.
Reply

Takumi
02-23-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by root
I read your link to past posts, and it would appear (to me at least) that you like predictability! In an almost conceit of hindsight. History has been described as one damn thing after after another, temptation to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves to seek reason and rhyme for everything. This appetite for reason and rhyme affronts those who see history as a random and messy affair. The other flirtation of similarity is history described as seeing the past as aimed at our time like all the characters of history had nothing better to do than forshadow us, that the past worked to deliver our particular present
Evolution is like history, so it's not actually science. Thanks for validating my suspicion.


Originally Posted by root
Evolution, can be similarly described as one damn species after another evolutionary rhymes and patterns occur (like history) and it is for well understood reasons: darwinian & biology reasons mainly. But be warned, evolution like history is a random and messy affair also and like the characters of history, evolution is NOT a calculated affair like a carefully tuned "put-up" job calculated at bringing humanity eventually into existence.
Evolution is messy. Not objective at all. As unpredictable as social sciences. At least, in social sciences, long term experimental procedures are plausible. Unlike evolution. Hot air? If you like you may want a subscription to many social sciences academic journal will tell you how, a 15-20 year studies have been carried out to determine factors that cause mortality, obesity or many other SCIENTIFIC conclusion. We call them epidemiological studies. These are real studies, with powerful statistical analyses that include bias, complex mathematical equations and controls.

With this data, epidemiologist can actually predict the food consumption of a certain geographical area, the birth and mortality rate of a certain group of people presenting pre-existing genetic traits and even the susceptibility to infectious disease. Can evolutionary advocates do that?

No. I know, don't tell me. It's comparable to HISTORY. :)

Originally Posted by root
It is for this reason and this reason alone that one cannot predict the future of a given evolutionary course, one can of course try at best to make an educated and well informed guess and afford a probability, but it will remain just a probability thus whilst you can make predictive statements in support of the evolutionary theory you cannot predict accurately what is in essence a random affair! By comparisom it would be like asking to predict where in a skin cell is a mosquito going to bite a human host!
Predicting the exact location of a mosquito bite can be scientifically determined. Mosquitos bite mainly on dermal area where blood vessels are easily accessible. Now, that area has been determined. The possibility of a mosquito bite on your palm or your cochlear, for example, is near remote. Now, you had asked me, where on my skin would a mosquito bite me, now, that's as nonsensical as asking me, to which location will my food travel in the esophagus in the next second? :p

Originally Posted by root
Another way to see this as a modern day example is with bird flu, evolutionary biology shows us that the bird flu could mutate with a human flu virus and cause a world wide pandemic, evolution like the mosquito cannot predict which virus H5n1 may mutate with though we could take an educated guess that may or may not be correct. Our world and everything in it does not live within "predictable" controls.
Mutation may represent some evolutionary traits but not absolute. Bird flu is observed presently due to many technical savoire faire. If technology is not avant garde, then the possibility of even finding out about bird flu is also, remote. Can evolutionary advocates proof that bird flu is NOT inherent?


Originally Posted by root
Given the example above with h5n1, if it did indeed mutate with a flu virus would it be "Bird flu" or "Human flu"? Your point I probably don't care to answer (And i don't mean to appear rude). As for the Neanderthol, it might surprise you that ultimately we cannot say neanderthals are a different species however, we in the sapien classification I believe they use the Mitochandrial DNA and Y Chromozone to establish human species, though I am sure not just solely.
Root, similarly to HeiGou, you seem to refuse to accept the fundamentals of species naming. These human ancestors (as evolutionary advocates name them) are different species. If you have any qualms about them, write to the palaentologists and natural historians and biological scientists who determined that they are indeed different species.

Are you a scientist or not?
Reply

root
02-23-2006, 05:07 PM
Evolution is like history, so it's not actually science. Thanks for validating my suspicion.
I fear your attempt to misdirect may lose you favour. Predicting the future course of evolution is like predicting future history, please don't intentionally misquote me.

Evolution is messy. Not objective at all. As unpredictable as social sciences.
I don't agree. Evolution is driven by a single objective, the will to survive and reproduce. Yes, it's future course is unpredictable but all species are in the business of survival as the primary objective

Predicting the exact location of a mosquito bite can be scientifically determined. Mosquitos bite mainly on dermal area where blood vessels are easily accessible. Now, that area has been determined. The possibility of a mosquito bite on your palm or your cochlear, for example, is near remote.
Perhaps I over simplified my example, I am referring to the predicted skin cell out of the millions that cover our body. A quite impossible prediction to make.

Root, similarly to HeiGou, you seem to refuse to accept the fundamentals of species naming. These human ancestors (as evolutionary advocates name them) are different species. If you have any qualms about them, write to the palaentologists and natural historians and biological scientists who determined that they are indeed different species.
Again, science has determined the "probability" that neandathol's were a different species, the spanner in the works is that whilst it seems few if any of our genes comes from neanderthals it is possible (has a probability) that some people have many neanderthol ancestory. A single male species who brakes into a breeding population has an 80% chance of being a common ancestor, so it follows within a few hundred years it also has a 20% chance of dissapearing from trace all together. This is true even today, your DNA history will be quite different to mine,

Are you a scientist or not?
No, I am a mere atheist mortal.
Reply

Takumi
02-23-2006, 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by root
I fear your attempt to misdirect may lose you favour. Predicting the future course of evolution is like predicting future history, please don't intentionally misquote me.
I'm free to conclude from the progression of this discussion. Can I assume that you are an evolution advocate? Then, you are content that evolution is historical not scientific?

Originally Posted by root
I don't agree. Evolution is driven by a single objective, the will to survive and reproduce. Yes, it's future course is unpredictable but all species are in the business of survival as the primary objective
Now, as scientific as evolution advocates try to be, of course they can explain infanticide by many predators. If a species has evolved to survive, why do hyenas, lions and many other animals [except humans] practice infanticide? Yes, to make sure only the fittest offsprings or the offspring that comes directly from the alpha male; survive, to follow the retrospective evolutionary hypothesis, SURVIVALISM of the fittest.

But still, if evolution is all about the survival of a species, why kill a cub that comes from another alpha male lion? Surely, as a brute, lions lack the ability conscientiously choose? or do they?

But this trait is not observed in Homo sapiens, at least. Your parents didn't kill you, nor will you kill your children if they're born handicapped, right? Maybe it involved human psyche, which evolutionary advocates are still in the dark, even after 200 years?



Originally Posted by root
Perhaps I over simplified my example, I am referring to the predicted skin cell out of the millions that cover our body. A quite impossible prediction to make.
Okay. :)

Originally Posted by root
Again, science has determined the "probability" that neandathol's were a different species, the spanner in the works is that whilst it seems few if any of our genes comes from neanderthals it is possible (has a probability) that some people have many neanderthol ancestory. A single male species who brakes into a breeding population has an 80% chance of being a common ancestor, so it follows within a few hundred years it also has a 20% chance of dissapearing from trace all together. This is true even today, your DNA history will be quite different to mine
Still, your elaboration does not elude us from the fact that neanderthals is a different species.

Originally Posted by root
No, I am a mere atheist mortal.
Okay, so leave the science to us. Evolution is another epic in the pages of history of mankind. It's as mythical as Homer's Illiad, Gulliver's Travel and Clash of The Titans. Well, not that bad. A suggestive alternative to religion, maybe?

Peace.
Reply

root
02-23-2006, 06:50 PM
I'm free to conclude from the progression of this discussion. Can I assume that you are an evolution advocate? Then, you are content that evolution is historical not scientific?
Evolution is bound to biology & science, the mere fact that in DNA we have a rich tapestry of unadulterated biological history does not detract from it's mainstream scientific field.

Now, as scientific as evolution advocates try to be, of course they can explain infanticide by many predators. If a species has evolved to survive, why do hyenas, lions and many other animals [except humans] practice infanticide? Yes, to make sure only the fittest offsprings or the offspring that comes directly from the alpha male; survive, to follow the retrospective evolutionary hypothesis, SURVIVALISM of the fittest.
Can't argue with that, other than to mention that infanticide also removes potential competitors & females without an infant to care for will become available for mating much sooner. Also, you failed to include survival of the luckiest

But still, if evolution is all about the survival of a species, why kill a cub that comes from another alpha male lion? Surely, as a brute, lions lack the ability conscientiously choose? or do they?
I would probably not quite agree that survival of a species is solely driven by all life, survival of the self and ones genes in species will equally be as important and a matter of instinct.

But this trait is not observed in Homo sapiens, at least. Your parents didn't kill you, nor will you kill your children if they're born handicapped, right? Maybe it involved human psyche, which evolutionary advocates are still in the dark, even after 200 years?
Nor is it observed in Bonobos, however a cautionary side note is that your assumption that man does not practice infanticide cannot be taken as fact beyond the great leap which was 40,000 years ago where man did not differ much to what we are today. However, man went through remarkable change from the "psyche" as you put it from the great leap up until today, so it would not be right to say we are in the dark about it, for a start we can date when the "syche" emerged.

Still, your elaboration does not elude us from the fact that neanderthals is a different species.
Probably, but as I said you can never class that as a given fact. Only a probability.

Okay, so leave the science to us. Evolution is another epic in the pages of history of mankind. It's as mythical as Homer's Illiad, Gulliver's Travel and Clash of The Titans. Well, not that bad. A suggestive alternative to religion, maybe?
Perhaps leaving such matters to you would be depremental to our understanding of the world around us, would you subscribe to leave driving to the driving instructers, I think not. Science is open for all to engage, to suggest such a notion as leaving it to you is quite shocking actually and very much eliteist in thought.
Reply

Takumi
02-23-2006, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by root
Evolution is bound to biology & science, the mere fact that in DNA we have a rich tapestry of unadulterated biological history does not detract from it's mainstream scientific field.
Biology and science, root, Biology IS science. Biology is very precise. I'm surprised evolutionary advocates fail to adapt biological tenets in their quest to champion evolution

Originally Posted by root
Can't argue with that, other than to mention that infanticide also removes potential competitors & females without an infant to care for will become available for mating much sooner. Also, you failed to include survival of the luckiest
Luckiest? How does "luck" come to play?



Originally Posted by root
I would probably not quite agree that survival of a species is solely driven by all life, survival of the self and ones genes in species will equally be as important and a matter of instinct.
I'm afraid you contradicted yourself here, mon ami. If assumed right, that you are an evolutionary advocate, then, you should be able to explain, why, infanticide occurs.

Originally Posted by root
Nor is it observed in Bonobos, however a cautionary side note is that your assumption that man does not practice infanticide cannot be taken as fact beyond the great leap which was 40,000 years ago where man did not differ much to what we are today. However, man went through remarkable change from the "psyche" as you put it from the grat leap up until today, so it would not be right to say we are in the dark about it, for a start we can date when the "syche" emerged.
I guess, as feeble as it is, evolution cannot prove that infanticide occur simply because it's not a science. It's mere historical.



Originally Posted by root
Probably, but as I said you can never class that as a given fact. Only a probability.
Unless, you are a scholar in science and received training in the nomenclature of species, the whole scientific world will not accept this statement.

Originally Posted by root
Perhaps leaving such matters to you would be depremental to our understanding of the world around us, would you subscribe to leave driving to the driving instructers, I think not. Science is open for all to engage, to suggest such a notion as leaving it to you is quite shocking actually and very much eliteist in thought.
I didn't mean to be elitist. Yes, science is open to all of us to engage, but you must agree that there are basic elements of science that enthusiasts (if not scientists) must adrere to. And the preamble to this interesting and very enlightening discourse is the nomenclature of organisms, which is a solid undisputed science and methodology.

Similarly, I won't let a natural historian perform LASIK surgery on me either. :)
Reply

root
02-23-2006, 08:10 PM
Biology and science, root, Biology IS science. Biology is very precise. I'm surprised evolutionary advocates fail to adapt biological tenets in their quest to champion evolution
Evolution and biology are quite inseperable you cannot take one out of the other so in essence I agree with you.

Luckiest? How does "luck" come to play?
A number of Dinosaurs were perfectly evolved machines, it was not evolution that failed them. Working (for this example) thier accepted extinction by a meteorite was unlucky for them. Perhaps one day our luck too as a species will run out? The point being that luck plays a big part in evolution too.

I'm afraid you contradicted yourself here, mon ami. If assumed right, that you are an evolutionary advocate, then, you should be able to explain, why, infanticide occurs
As stated earlier briefly the evolutionary advantages can be defined as removal of competitors & a female with no young is ready to concieve more quickly; probably that list can expand to birth deformaties and the list could increase even more, however I was being brief and also did not include other non-evolutionary reasons such as being considered "evil" within a human social group which undoubtadly came to be "after" the great leap. If you have any more to add to this then I would be delighted to hear.

Unless, you are a scholar in science and received training in the nomenclature of species, the whole scientific world will not accept this statement.
Hmmm, a little patronising but non the less the source of my knowledge for stating what I stated was Richard Dawkins world-renowned Evolutionary Biologist. (The ancestors tale) I recommend it as a great read, and would welcome any literature you have that contradicts what I said? Just for you I will reiterate it:

"Although few if any of our genes come from Neanderthals, it is possible that some people have many neanderthal ancestors." The fact that neanderthol man is classed as a different species is a "probability" and not a given fact! else could you explain why Richard Dawkins and the the majority of evolutionary biologist accept that it is possible for some humans to have neanderthal ancestory.
Reply

Jason
02-23-2006, 08:57 PM
No, the Duckbilled Platypus is Darwin's nightmare. I mean seriously, what the heck is with that thing? Its a mammal, yet have a beak like a duck, but is also cold blooded like a reptile and lays eggs like a bird and a reptile.

Its like evolution just decided one day to screw with us and created that freak of nature. :p
Reply

Takumi
02-23-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by root
Evolution and biology are quite inseperable you cannot take one out of the other so in essence I agree with you.
Thank you. Your conceitment is appreciated.

Originally Posted by root
A number of Dinosaurs were perfectly evolved machines, it was not evolution that failed them. Working (for this example) thier accepted extinction by a meteorite was unlucky for them. Perhaps one day our luck too as a species will run out? The point being that luck plays a big part in evolution too.
That's strange, for many scientists and theologians, there is no such thing as luck. Scientific methods depend on variables, controls and bias. For theologians, the extinction of the dinosaurs is pre determined by their creator. May I assume that your "luck" notion represent all atheists opinion about the extinction of these remarkable creatures? If that is so, how is your notion any more credible than pre-determination in many scriptures?

Originally Posted by root
As stated earlier briefly the evolutionary advantages can be defined as removal of competitors & a female with no young is ready to concieve more quickly; probably that list can expand to birth deformaties and the list could increase even more, however I was being brief and also did not include other non-evolutionary reasons such as being considered "evil" within a human social group which undoubtadly came to be "after" the great leap. If you have any more to add to this then I would be delighted to hear.
In retrospect, your elaboration still does not answer, the occurrence of infanticide. Biologists have speculated that these "instincts" is to make sure that the alpa male's descendants will continue its dominance. Still, it's shaky and beyond any solid tangible proof.

Next, Evolution and Psychology, or Psychiatry in Evolutionary Perspective will give you an insight, why evolution is not able to explain MANY things in spite of being around for 200 years. For example, your feelings when you posted your post. Has that feelings been in the evolutionary process too? Did any species from the genus Homo have the same emotions like you do? Or, shall we say, they are primitive, but to what extent?

You say that I like predictability, don't you? Giving all necessary data, wouldn't you like to predict whether your offsprings will be genetically "normal"? Historical studies about the evolution of Homo sapiens have not contributed to this remarkable scientific method that we call genetic screening.

Truthfully, if evolution is devoid of psychometry, and we assume that infanticide within the human species did occur 40,000 years ago, wouldn't that trait be "inherited"? Just like lions, hyenas, and other predatorial animals.



Originally Posted by root
Hmmm, a little patronising but non the less the source of my knowledge for stating what I stated was Richard Dawkins world-renowned Evolutionary Biologist. (The ancestors tale) I recommend it as a great read, and would welcome any literature you have that contradicts what I said? Just for you I will reiterate it:

"Although few if any of our genes come from Neanderthals, it is possible that some people have many neanderthal ancestors." The fact that neanderthol man is classed as a different species is a "probability" and not a given fact! else could you explain why Richard Dawkins and the the majority of evolutionary biologist accept that it is possible for some humans to have neanderthal ancestory.
Having neanderthal ancestry does not indicate that Homo neanderthalis is not a different species. If that is a probability, my friend, what makes them NOT classifiy neanderthals as sapien?

Peace. :)
Reply

root
02-23-2006, 11:04 PM
That's strange, for many scientists and theologians, there is no such thing as luck. Scientific methods depend on variables, controls and bias.
Method! You think the path of evolution from the very beginning to present day followed a method with set variables controls and bias?

For theologians, the extinction of the dinosaurs is pre determined by their creator.
Do they think our own history was also pre determined. Either way, it is faith based. They probably think that man was created in our current form or evolution was pre determined to produce man as some kind of end product. I don't care much for theologians, It's not scientific.

May I assume that your "luck" notion represent all atheists opinion about the extinction of these remarkable creatures? If that is so, how is your notion any more credible than pre-determination in many scriptures?
Survival of the luckiest is a well accepted principal of the mechanisms that make up evolution within the scientific community. Scriptues however are not credible, unless you can point me to a scientific peer reviewed scripture which I very much doubt you could. Remember all that history I went on about, I don't think for one second history (evolutionary or socially) was pre destined to move in any set direction.

In retrospect, your elaboration still does not answer, the occurrence of infanticide. Biologists have speculated that these "instincts" is to make sure that the alpa male's descendants will continue its dominance. Still, it's shaky and beyond any solid tangible proof.
I beg to differ, "make sure male descendants will continue dominance" and "removal of competitors" are both the same, each one achieves the same goal and in essence is the same thing. However, clearly the point of infantcide within the wild does provide an evolutionary advantage and given some "pressures" on species can and does come from more than one source. To shelve it under one principle force is something that cannot always be done? Your opinion of just one of the factors being "shaky" is in my opinion unjust to the theory of evolution for it could form one of a few factors.

Next, Evolution and Psychology, or Psychiatry in Evolutionary Perspective will give you an insight, why evolution is not able to explain MANY things in spite of being around for 200 years. For example, your feelings when you posted your post. Has that feelings been in the evolutionary process too? Did any species from the genus Homo have the same emotions like you do? Or, shall we say, they are primitive, but to what extent?
Life has been around several billion years, what makes you think a mere 200 years is adequate time to learn everything. How can we learn everything when we will never find any fossils relating to 90% of all life that has gone extinct, of course we can't explain still MANY things. This I would have thought would be plane old common sense. Are you trying to imply that yet undiscovered knowledge is sufficient evidence of a supernatural involvement?

You say that I like predictability, don't you? Giving all necessary data, wouldn't you like to predict whether your offsprings will be genetically "normal"? Historical studies about the evolution of Homo sapiens have not contributed to this remarkable scientific method that we call genetic screening.
I don't see the point, evolution is defined as

The change in allele frequency in a population over time

Evolution may not have given us genetic screening but then again I don't see why it should have in the first place.

Truthfully, if evolution is devoid of psychometry, and we assume that infanticide within the human species did occur 40,000 years ago, wouldn't that trait be "inherited"? Just like lions, hyenas, and other predatorial animals.
Assuming it did take place beyond 40,000 years ago then I probably would say that we inherited it, furthermore we may still retain it since even today children around the world are killed by parents for being percieved as "Evil". In China it is important to have boys, as only boys can carry on the family name and honour the ancestors. This preference for male children has led to approximately 10,000 female infants being killed in China each year (1996), and along with the abortion of female foetuses has resulted in a sex ratio of 131 males to 100 females (1997); worldwide the ratio is 105 males to 100 females. In rural areas of China it is even higher; in one county, the ratio of live male births to female in 1995 was 316 to 100. The ‘one child per couple’ policy has increased the traditional preference for male babies and the possibility of determining the sex of a foetus by ultrasound scanners (illegal in China) has led to an increase in abortions of female foetuses. By the end of the century it is estimated that there will be an excess of 90 million unmarried men. Infanticide became a volatile issue during the Victorian era and was written about by authors such as Charles ****ens, George Eliot, and Matthew Arnold. Although popularly perceived as poor, ignorant, unmarried girls concealing their pregnancies and then killing their infants at birth in order to hide their shame, infanticide was more often caused by financial desperation. The crime often went unpunished, as juries were reluctant to see women receive capital punishment. Reports by missionaries and colonial administrators of extremely high rates of infanticide, particularly in India and China, were treated with outrage, however, and were used to justify British imperialism. In addition to saving souls, the British could also claim to be saving infants, particularly females, from being murdered. Infanticide in India occurs mostly among poor, rural populations. Daughters are considered economic burdens because of the high cost of weddings and dowries, while sons provide income, and are seen as type of insurance by their parents. New prenatal sex-determination techniques, such as ultrasound, have led to an increase in the abortion of female foetuses rather than female infanticide. Female infanticide and abortion have increased in recent years as women opt for smaller families. In India the sex ratio is 93 women for every 100 men, but in some regions there are fewer than 85 women per 100 men. Research carried out at a Mumbai (formerly Bombay) hospital revealed in 1995 that for every aborted male, there were 1,000 aborted females. It is often seen as a method of population control, especially among hunter-gatherers and nomadic societies where it may be impossible for a mother to carry around more than one small child and still perform the tasks necessary for survival. In some societies, especially in India and China, more girls are killed than boys because of the higher value placed on male offspring. It is estimated that more than one million children worldwide are killed each year because they are born female. Infanticide may also be practised on deformed or sick infants or for religious or ritual purposes; in some African societies twin births are thought to be supernatural and the twins are left to die.

Personally, I wanted to avoid Social & cultural infanticide because it is done outside of what I would term evolutionary infanticide with exception to cases of survival choices.

Having neanderthal ancestry does not indicate that Homo neanderthalis is not a different species. If that is a probability, my friend, what makes them NOT classifiy neanderthals as sapien?
The question of neanderthal ancestry has been hotly disputed over recent years and reignited by a remarkable extraction of DNA from late Neandethal bones, so far we have extracted only the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA that suggested that Neanderthals are no closer related to europeans than to any other modern peoples. In other words, the female-line common ancestor of neanderthals and all surviving humans long pre-dates Mitochondrial Eve: (About 50,000 years ago). This genetic evidence suggests that succesful interbreeding between neanderthals and moderns was rare, and so it is often said they died out without leaving any descendents, but don't forget that 80% arguement? Evolution is governed by the flow of genes and the moral for neandethels is that we cannot, should not look at evolutionin terms of pedigrees of individuals, genes we now posses were flowing around the world by different routes. Most of our genes probably took the young out of africa route, whilst just a few came to us through other routes to which we may have lost all trace of.
Reply

Takumi
02-24-2006, 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by root
Method! You think the path of evolution from the very beginning to present day followed a method with set variables controls and bias? Do they think our own history was also pre determined. Either way, it is faith based. They probably think that man was created in our current form or evolution was pre determined to produce man as some kind of end product. I don't care much for theologians, It's not scientific.
and evolution, by YOUR definition is? It's unpredictable, no model, restrictively retrospective?

Didn't I tell you to leave science to us? :p
Reply

Takumi
02-24-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by root
Method! You think the path of evolution from the very beginning to present day followed a method with set variables controls and bias?
If they didn't, then The Origin of Species must be in the HISTORY section, rather than science. That explains the designation of Museum of Natural HISTORY


Originally Posted by root
Do they think our own history was also pre determined. Either way, it is faith based. They probably think that man was created in our current form or evolution was pre determined to produce man as some kind of end product. I don't care much for theologians, It's not scientific.
Yes. Many theologians believe that Man was created in whatever form they were created in. Be it Neodenthals, Sapiens, Erectus. They are unique. While, evolutionary advocates just speculate ancestral relationships; now, you're suggesting the nomenclature is not precise, my question was, why name us sapiens? Let evolutionary advocates in the next 1 million years determine whether or not, sapiens are sapiens and erectus are erectus. Since, if whatever you have suggested so far is anything to go by, our evolutionary process has not ended.



Originally Posted by root
Survival of the luckiest is a well accepted principal of the mechanisms that make up evolution within the scientific community. Scriptues however are not credible, unless you can point me to a scientific peer reviewed scripture which I very much doubt you could. Remember all that history I went on about, I don't think for one second history (evolutionary or socially) was pre destined to move in any set direction.
Oops, I believe evolution needs to explain luck. Unless evolutionary advocates confuse themselves with elements of animism, science usually denounce luck. Well, some remarkable scientific discovery were done serendipitiously, but of course, it's not mere luck. There were processes that the scientist was not aware of and found out later.


Originally Posted by root
I beg to differ, "make sure male descendants will continue dominance" and "removal of competitors" are both the same, each one achieves the same goal and in essence is the same thing. However, clearly the point of infantcide within the wild does provide an evolutionary advantage and given some "pressures" on species can and does come from more than one source. To shelve it under one principle force is something that cannot always be done? Your opinion of just one of the factors being "shaky" is in my opinion unjust to the theory of evolution for it could form one of a few factors.
Point taken.



Originally Posted by root
Life has been around several billion years, what makes you think a mere 200 years is adequate time to learn everything. How can we learn everything when we will never find any fossils relating to 90% of all life that has gone extinct, of course we can't explain still MANY things. This I would have thought would be plane old common sense. Are you trying to imply that yet undiscovered knowledge is sufficient evidence of a supernatural involvement?
Exactly. Supernatural? From luck to supernatural? Come on.

200 years is long enough to establish solid scientific procedures. Look at the advancement of technological science. The Macintosh as an excellent example. It has only been 20 years, now, the English Language has to deal with teraflops of calculation.

Unless, evolution is not a science, just a splinter field of history.



Originally Posted by root
I don't see the point, evolution is defined as

The change in allele frequency in a population over time

Evolution may not have given us genetic screening but then again I don't see why it should have in the first place.
I was merely pointing out to you, if evolution claims to be a science, then it should have all the necessary qualification to contribute greatly to other fields. Like Biology that contributed tremendously in applied Embryology and Immunology. Physics that is the mainstay of Electricity, or Chemistry that is the core of many therapeutic modalities.

Evolution? Retrospectively, tells us, that MOST PROBABLY Homo sapiens had evolved from all the other Homo's out there. Just like a page of modern history that tells us Shih Huang Ti used to be an emperor of China or Hattori Hanzo was one of the greatest samurai ever lived or Marie Antoinette was French.


Originally Posted by root
Assuming it did take place beyond 40,000 years ago then I probably would say that we inherited it, furthermore we may still retain it since even today children around the world are killed by parents for being percieved as "Evil". ...........[edited]
Personally, I wanted to avoid Social & cultural infanticide because it is done outside of what I would term evolutionary infanticide with exception to cases of survival choices.
Alright then. It doesn't elude the fact that right now, you won't kill your parents should your family is having financial difficulty nor will they get rid of you if suddenly they can't afford you anymore...or will they?

I think not.

Because, their raison d'etre is not to fulfill a gap in the evolutionary chain per se. I don't see you getting married and getting kids just to fulfill the notion "so that our species will survive", of do you?

Did you do the reading that I suggested?


Originally Posted by root
The question of neanderthal ancestry has been hotly disputed over recent years and reignited by a remarkable extraction of DNA from late Neandethal bones, so far we have extracted only the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA that suggested that Neanderthals are no closer related to europeans than to any other modern peoples. .......[edited].
Root, forgive me if I wasn't clear about my point.

The origin of this lenghty discussion was whether or not MRSA is a new species. I answered NO, based on the nomenclature alone. HeiGou's run AWOL and unless you agree with me, you should, respectfully provide your evidence to differ.

Then, I said, Neanderthals were a different species. And you implied that it's just a probability.

My question was; if Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalis) was probably a new species, why distinguish US as sapiens?

Your elaboration above; unless I missed it, did not answer that question.

Your idol, Dawkings, has not re named the Neanderthals, has he?

Peace.
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 08:46 PM
:Originally Posted by root
Method! You think the path of evolution from the very beginning to present day followed a method with set variables controls and bias?
If they didn't, then The Origin of Species must be in the HISTORY section, rather than science. That explains the designation of Museum of Natural HISTORY
For such a scientist as yourself I am surprised that you have made such a basic error as this, "Natural History" is the scientific term for all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species, and accordingly will cover a lot of In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution

The origins of anything by definition will be in the past. I fail to see your point completely.

Yes. Many theologians believe that Man was created in whatever form they were created in. Be it Neodenthals, Sapiens, Erectus. They are unique. While, evolutionary advocates just speculate ancestral relationships; now, you're suggesting the nomenclature is not precise, my question was, why name us sapiens? Let evolutionary advocates in the next 1 million years determine whether or not, sapiens are sapiens and erectus are erectus. Since, if whatever you have suggested so far is anything to go by, our evolutionary process has not ended.
Belief has no basis in science. And you are correct to suggest that the evolutionary process has not ended, since ending would suggest a final destination. Evolution does not work towards a final destination?

Exactly. Supernatural? From luck to supernatural? Come on.
Indeed, my point also. Evolution does not need nor choose to use supernatural, you cannot have a theory that draws on "supernatural evidence" and I quote the hyphen since I take that comment with a pinch of salt.

200 years is long enough to establish solid scientific procedures. Look at the advancement of technological science. The Macintosh as an excellent example. It has only been 20 years, now, the English Language has to deal with teraflops of calculation.
By whose accepted standards are you comparing the time constraints to, or are you just plucking a figure out of the clouds? perhaps a source that defines a given length of time, and as I pointed out to you, it would be quite impossible to know everything since 90% of exstinct species have left no trace.

Unless, evolution is not a science, just a splinter field of history.
You know this not to be true.

I was merely pointing out to you, if evolution claims to be a science, then it should have all the necessary qualification to contribute greatly to other fields. Like Biology that contributed tremendously in applied Embryology and Immunology. Physics that is the mainstay of Electricity, or Chemistry that is the core of many therapeutic modalities.
It's a little funny to note a scientist question the value of evolution yet applaud biology, are you of the opinion that evolution has no bearing in the field of biology?

For a start Dawkins is not my idol, however I was merely pointing out that neanderthols not being part of human common ancestory was a probability and not a fact, that is all.

I have some respect for you, I hope you don't waste that!

Regards

Root
Reply

Takumi
02-25-2006, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by root
For such a scientist as yourself I am surprised that you have made such a basic error as this, "Natural History" is the scientific term for all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species, and accordingly will cover a lot of In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution
Let me correct you there, before your evolutionary advocates colleagues find you blasphemous, :p; you mean, all events stretching from the "evolution" of the universe to the "evolution" of contemporary species, unless you can provide for me your using the word creation here, has nothing to do with creationism.

Originally Posted by root
The origins of anything by definition will be in the past. I fail to see your point completely.
Okay then. Why are we still insisting that evolution is scientific? In what manner is it scientific? Isn't the core of science OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT?

Originally Posted by root
Belief has no basis in science. And you are correct to suggest that the evolutionary process has not ended, since ending would suggest a final destination. Evolution does not work towards a final destination?
What is the final destination of evolution? To constantly evolve until equilibrium is reached? Or as far fetched as it may sound, a new Ice Age that will obliterate unfit species and the whole cycle of surviving species will resume?



Originally Posted by root
Indeed, my point also. Evolution does not need nor choose to use supernatural, you cannot have a theory that draws on "supernatural evidence" and I quote the hyphen since I take that comment with a pinch of salt.
Let me take you back to the possibility of your being killed by your parents because to survive, according to the basic evolutionary mode is to dispose of weaklings or burden. Will they do that or will they CONSCIENTIOUSLY choose not to?

After you have answer that, does evolution provide ANY proofs (I don't mind it being retrospective) that conscience, complex emotional behavior, did exist in ANY species?



Originally Posted by root
By whose accepted standards are you comparing the time constraints to, or are you just plucking a figure out of the clouds? perhaps a source that defines a given length of time, and as I pointed out to you, it would be quite impossible to know everything since 90% of exstinct species have left no trace.
Then, my friend, I'm afraid, evolution right now, is as feeble as the new fad diet out there. How can a true science be so dependent on untraceable data?

Originally Posted by root
It's a little funny to note a scientist question the value of evolution yet applaud biology, are you of the opinion that evolution has no bearing in the field of biology?
It's the other way around, my friend. Biology has long been established before Darwin suggested the Origin of Species. I applaud Biology for its true SCIENTIFIC nature. True, many biological studies are mainly observations, but branches of Biology, like Microbiology, Embryology have their own standards and procedures that follow model and of course, predictability.

It's through Biology that we can actually find out the predicted behavior of animals bred in the wild and captivity. Behavioral Biology to be exact, not Evolution.

It's through Biology that we can actually experiment the reaction of our liver towards drugs and how the liver deals with it (FYI, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics) and it's through Biology that we can predict the movement of roots, when the water supplied is interrupted. Not, evolution.

Evolution seems parasitic to me, combining many essences of established Sciences in its pursuit to place itself in the mainstream.

Coming back to the survivalism, if, surviving is really the core of evolution, and evolution is an accepted genre in our society, why do societies differentiate intent of killing?

Very simple question I might say, but one may wonder, if a hypothetical community of evolutionary advocates do live together, will they subscribe to killing each other just to survive? Will there be no laws? Will there be free inbreeding that between male and female subjects just to make sure that the species survive.

To extend that hypothesis further, will the more dominant male kill the offspring of another male?

I'd like to hear your take on that.

Originally Posted by root
For a start Dawkins is not my idol, however I was merely pointing out that neanderthols not being part of human common ancestory was a probability and not a fact, that is all.
May I conclude that you agree that the nomenclature was correct?

Originally Posted by root
I have some respect for you, I hope you don't waste that!
As a fellow human being, regardless of your view on life, you have mine.

Peace.
Reply

root
02-26-2006, 08:05 PM
Let me correct you there, before your evolutionary advocates colleagues find you blasphemous, ; you mean, all events stretching from the "evolution" of the universe to the "evolution" of contemporary species, unless you can provide for me your using the word creation here, has nothing to do with creationism.
Quite a common misconception you are peddling, and it's usually peddled through slight ignorance to what evolution is. I will repeat the statement again:

Natural History

all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'.

Evolution

The change in allele frequency in a population over time.

I am not even going to bother explaining "creation" as defined in English other than to say if I feel "gay" am I saying I feel attracted to people of the same sex or am I just feeling happy? It's a little tragic that a scientist such as you is reducing this thread to such low levels as having me explain the difference between "Natural History" and "Evolution", then requiring me to explain the different meanings for "creation".

Okay then. Why are we still insisting that evolution is scientific? In what manner is it scientific? Isn't the core of science OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT?
How does evolutionary biology contribute to basic science

Evolution is widely viewed as central to biological understanding in general (NAS. 1998. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.). Many biologists in diverse fields regard at least a portion of what they do as evolutionary. Recent accomplishments to which evolutionary biology has contributed include the following:

Molecular Biology

Evolutionary approaches have contributed insight into the function and structure of molecular processes within cells. Examples include reconstruction and functional analysis of ancestral protein sequences, and elucidation of the significance of different types of DNA. Evolutionary research thus points the way to research on fundamental molecular mechanisms.

Developmental Biology

A resurgence in interaction between developmental biology and evolutionary biology is now under way, in part through comparisons among families of genes that play critical roles in development. For example, the same genes in organisms as different as insects and mammals play similar developmental roles in some instances, and surprisingly different roles in other cases. Such studies help to identify the developmental functions of genes and lead to a deeper understanding of the processes that transform a fertilized egg into a complex adult.

Physiology & Anatomy

Evolutionary biology has long influenced the study of physiology and anatomy in animals and plants, and has the potential to make many other contributions that are only now being developed. Some of these contributions will affect the study of human physiology, including related areas such as clinical psychology. The logical perspectives, methods, and comparative data of evolutionary biology can advance our understanding of functional anatomy and physiological mechanisms, and can be applied to areas such as medicine, agriculture, and veterinary science.

Nuerobiology & Behaviour

From its inception, the field of animal behavior has had a strong evolutionary base, for its goals have included understanding the evolutionary origin of behavioral traits and their adaptiveness. The evolutionary study of animal behavior has joined with comparative psychology in several areas of research, such as the study of learning and the search for adaptive mechanisms in human cognitive processes.

Applications beyond science

There have long been rewarding interactions between evolutionary biology and other analytical fields, notably statistics and economics.Some of the basic tools in statistics, including analysis of variance and path analysis, were originally developed by evolutionary biologists. Along the same lines, evolutionary algorithms that mimic natural selection in biological systems are currently being used in computer and systems applications.

personally, Evolution seems to suggest an origin for me from the biggest question of our time. "How did we come to be" and "why are we here".

What is the final destination of evolution? To constantly evolve until equilibrium is reached? Or as far fetched as it may sound, a new Ice Age that will obliterate unfit species and the whole cycle of surviving species will resume?
I don't find anything wrong with your assesment. Though not complete, in essense you have it in one.

Let me take you back to the possibility of your being killed by your parents because to survive, according to the basic evolutionary mode is to dispose of weaklings or burden.

Will they do that or will they CONSCIENTIOUSLY choose not to? After you have answer that, does evolution provide ANY proofs (I don't mind it being retrospective) that conscience, complex emotional behavior, did exist in ANY species?
Surely, even today man does this still. Mothers who are carrying certain genetic diseases choose to have the feotus aborted since they are aware that the child will be seriously crippled or indeed a burden!

Then, my friend, I'm afraid, evolution right now, is as feeble as the new fad diet out there. How can a true science be so dependent on untraceable data?
That really makes no sense to me at all.
Reply

Takumi
02-28-2006, 03:34 AM
Originally Posted by Takumi
Coming back to the survivalism, if, surviving is really the core of evolution, and evolution is an accepted genre in our society, why do societies differentiate intent of killing?

Very simple question I might say, but one may wonder, if a hypothetical community of evolutionary advocates do live together, will they subscribe to killing each other just to survive? Will there be no laws? Will there be free inbreeding that between male and female subjects just to make sure that the species survive.

To extend that hypothesis further, will the more dominant male kill the offspring of another male?
root?
Reply

root
02-28-2006, 04:36 PM
OK, I don't really care much to enter the area you wish to go only on the basis that it holds little interest to me. However, given your persistence in this area I shall entertain it.

Coming back to the survivalism, if, surviving is really the core of evolution, and evolution is an accepted genre in our society, why do societies differentiate intent of killing?
One could accept that "survival" is the daily business that every species in the world is in, however simplistic this may be we must consider the purpose of survival since this will not be survival for survival sake. The primary driving force behind survival is to pass our genes to the next generation. As far as societies that differentiate intent of killing, could you expand a little please.

Very simple question I might say, but one may wonder, if a hypothetical community of evolutionary advocates do live together, will they subscribe to killing each other just to survive?
They probably would depending on the circumstances or initiate self suicide for the greater good of thier own species/group. it is well known that on the sinking of the titanic as example women and children were placed onto boats first whilst the men stayed behind to certain doom. i would as another example gladly sacrifice my life to save the life of my children and wife but would not "intentionally" sacrifice my life for another human. On the flip side of this question we must consider that social groups are very good at increasing survival chances, a group can better survive with group co-operation than survive alone so why would one kill another member of the group?

Will there be no laws?
I think social laws are more implied here, for man who has the ability to communicate law then I think it would be a dead cert that laws will be in place. Since man is a social animal like all primates I think being expelled from the group will be the driving force to ensure members of a group stick to the given laws for reasons given earlier expulsion from a group would severely reduce the chances of survival.

Will there be free inbreeding that between male and female subjects just to make sure that the species survive.
Again, I doubt that would be the case and I wouold cite the following since genetic diversity always seems to be the rule of law and "selection" of a suitable male or female also seems to follow simplitic rules and subconcious
control, instinctively inbreeding does not seem to occur within species, billions of years of evolution has guided this.

I look forward to your comments.




.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-13-2018, 02:58 PM
  2. Replies: 146
    Last Post: 02-05-2012, 08:22 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-30-2010, 02:11 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-03-2008, 08:35 PM
  5. Replies: 103
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 06:45 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!