Darwins Nightmare

[root]

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.

 

[Takumi]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[root]

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.

 

[Takumi]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[root]

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.

 

[Jason]

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.

 

[Takumi]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[root]

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.

 

[Takumi]

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?

 

[Takumi]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[root]

: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

 

[Takumi]

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, ; 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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[root]

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.

 

[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?

 

[root]

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.




.