Creationists dealt a blow

[Woodrow]

Its alive in because it falls under what we classify as alive. I guess im not sure what you mean by alive.

It does not matter how you define life. The question is how can life cease without total destruction of the organism? How does a live mouse differ from a fresh dead mouse. Chemically and structurally they are the same. If life is a spontaneously occurring event, There should be no problem in finding a means to jump start a dead mouse so that it is once again alive.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I find the question "Why did death evolve" rather ridiculous. Death is a integral and necesary part of evolution. There is no survival of the fittest without death.

I do like the question of what separates a live mouse from a fresh dead one though. I think the answer would be the processes going on within said specimen. But how to jump start that in a dead one is an interesting question. If we could answer that maybe we could find imortality!

 

[جوري]

I find the question "Why did death evolve" rather ridiculous. Death is a integral and necesary part of evolution. There is no survival of the fittest without death.
!

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?

 

[Pygoscelis]

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?

If the "unfit" did so to a majority and outbred and outsurvived the fit, then you'd have the labels fit and unfit reversed.

Evolution is all about reproducton and survival rates of various mutations and non-mutations, is it not?

 

[جوري]

If the "unfit" did so to a majority and outbred and outsurvived the fit, then you'd have the labels fit and unfit reversed.

That is very cryptic..I am not sure what you are trying to say as it relates to "There is no survival of the fittest without death"

Evolution is all about reproducton and survival rates of various mutations and non-mutations, is it not?

I don't know what your understanding is of evolution? as per dictionary it is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state -- If your statement is satisfactory as fits with your life, then I have absolutely no reservation with how you define it-- so long as we are clear that it is a belief and not science!

peace!

 

[ranma1/2]

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?

Remember evo is about populations. Those characteristics that are fit will more likely be passed on and passed on at a greater speed than those unfit characteristics. Also if say a unfit characteristic does not occur until after it has reproduced then it couldnt have been that bad. Also as mentioned many times in the case of humans we have a tendency to take ourselves out of natural selection.

 

[جوري]

Remember evo is about populations.

So you keep saying, but haven't so far proven.. Did a population of Apes one day awake to being human?

Those characteristics that are fit will more likely be passed on and passed on at a greater speed than those unfit characteristics. .

Is that a fact or are you improvising as you go along? There is no greater "speed" in mutation, there is however a certain percentage that will be carrying and/or exhibiting a mutation. The exact same as when I'd say the prevalence of any of the known documented personality disorder affects 10-15% of any set population, that would mean 10-15% Nagasaki or 10-15% in Saskatchewan. But People of Nagasaki wouldn't be exhibiting say Cluster A schizotypal personality at a higher speed than the population of Saskatchewan.

Also if say a unfit characteristic does not occur until after it has reproduced then it couldnt have been that bad. Also as mentioned many times in the case of humans we have a tendency to take ourselves out of natural selection.

Lastly an unfit characteristic can be both present in a carrier state, a low Penetrance state, or full blown. Yes it can be reproduced, and yes can be very bad with each successive generation. I'll not go over that again, I have covered it in great detail here ad nauseum
.... Further why have we taken ourselves out of natural selection? Who passed that new legislative law? Until this theory becomes more polymerized I suggest you discard it... or we can accept it as a belief, but not as scientific data


peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is no greater "speed" in mutation, there is however a certain percentage that will be carrying and/or exhibiting a mutation. The exact same as when I'd say the prevalence of any of the known documented personality disorder affects 10-15% of any set population, that would mean 10-15% Nagasaki or 10-15% in Saskatchewan. But People of Nagasaki wouldn't be exhibiting say Cluster A schizotypal personality at a higher speed than the population of Saskatchewan.

This is awfully cryptic.

Why would evolution predict that they would be? What survival advantage or disadvantage does such a disorder give? Does it render people infertile so they can not survive long enough to have offspring? Does it make them super promiscuous and fertile so they have 100 children each?

.... Further why have we taken ourselves out of natural selection? Who passed that new legislative law? Until this theory becomes more polymerized I suggest you discard it... or we can accept it as a belief, but not as scientific data

To a large extent we control our environment now. Modern medicine allows the weak and unfit to survive and breed. We do not have complete control so it wouldn't be correct to say that we have completely taken outselves out of natural selection, but we have definitely dampened its influence on our development dramatically.

 

[Pygoscelis]

That is very cryptic..I am not sure what you are trying to say as it relates to "There is no survival of the fittest without death"

It was the best I could do. Your reply did not appear in any way connected to what you were replying to. If my response was cryptic, that was only the effect of your own.

 

[جوري]

This is awfully cryptic.

lol awfully cryptic is how we described your post above... but I fail to see how mine is?

Why would evolution predict that they would be? ?

Why would evolution predict who what would be?

What survival advantage or disadvantage does such a disorder give?

which disorder are we talking about here?

Does it render people infertile so they can not survive long enough to have offspring?

Again, I ask--Which disorder are we talking about?

Does it make them super promiscuous and fertile so they have 100 children each?

Whatever you are on pass some my way... I have a bit of a headache, and I am not sure what to make of your post as relates to the topic at hand...


peace

 

[جوري]

It was the best I could do. Your reply did not appear in any way connected to what you were replying to. If my response was cryptic, that was only the effect of your own.

Oh? how so? you asked:

I find the question "Why did death evolve" rather ridiculous. Death is a integral and necesary part of evolution. There is no survival of the fittest without death.
!

To which we answered

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?!

I think it is very clear... simply to denote, not all that is fit survives, nor all that is unfit dies to allow for this natural (integral necessary part of evolution)-- in other words a dent in your theorem ... I thought it was rather direct and very connected...

peace!

 

[Woodrow]

If I understand the theories of evolution, the attributes that are most useful for the survival of the species are the ones that survive.

In terms of evolutionary criteria, stability seems to be the desired result.

Inanimate objects are much more stable than animate objects.

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

With that concept a quartz crystal buried far below the surface of the earth is much further advanced than a Human.

My conclusion is that evolution would be a decline in the stability of natural forces rather than an advancement.

To move from a stable system to an erratic unstable system, seems to be very contradictory to the process of evolution.

Unless there is a force or ingredient that demanded the presence of life.

 

[Trumble]

Inanimate objects are much more stable than animate objects.

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

That rather depends on scale. 'Life', as a whole, has been around in some form or other for four billion years or so and shows no sign of stopping. Not bad for something "erratic and unstable". Would you not agree that in this context that is as close to 'ageless' as makes no difference?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why would evolution predict who what would be?

You are speaking about evolution in the post i responded to, are you not?

which disorder are we talking about here?

How should I know? You are the one bringing it up and making a cryptic point with it, if a point at all?

 

[Pygoscelis]

To which we answered

Who is "we"?

I think it is very clear... simply to denote, not all that is fit survives, nor all that is unfit dies to allow for this natural (integral necessary part of evolution)-- in other words a dent in your theorem ... I thought it was rather direct and very connected...

Survival of the fittest isn't supposed to mean that all organisms with an advantage trait survive and all with a disadvantage trait don't. It simply means that more of the fit survive long enough to breed than do the unfit. It is a numbers game over the make up of the population. I thought you knew this, no?

 

[Pygoscelis]

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

The concept of a "final product of evolution" only makes sense given an environment that does not and will not change. In such an environment, the final product should be something best suited to live long enough to breed in that environment, but not breed so fast as to change that environment (ie, exhaust resources).

 

[جوري]

You are speaking about evolution in the post i responded to, are you not?

yes, yet I fear your response has nothing to do with evolution.

How should I know? You are the one bringing it up and making a cryptic point with it, if a point at all?

Why do you participate in a subject that is over your head, or where you don't understand the subject matter? You can always go back a few posts and re-read and recap... is it really worth it to take up web space for this none sense?

 

[جوري]

Who is "we"?

We would be me myself and I..

Survival of the fittest isn't supposed to mean that all organisms with an advantage trait survive and all with a disadvantage trait don't. It simply means that more of the fit survive long enough to breed than do the unfit. It is a numbers game over the make up of the population. I thought you knew this, no?

Are you inventing things off hand as you go along? we have already covered extendedly how many unfit, survive not only to pass unfit traits but unfit traits that get worst and worst with each generation. stop answering with a quip try providing some good support for your conclusion-- what sort of new fallacy is this? an appeal to novelty and invention?

peace

 

[ranma1/2]

If I understand the theories of evolution, the attributes that are most useful for the survival of the species are the ones that survive.

In terms of evolutionary criteria, stability seems to be the desired result.

Inanimate objects are much more stable than animate objects.

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

With that concept a quartz crystal buried far below the surface of the earth is much further advanced than a Human.

My conclusion is that evolution would be a decline in the stability of natural forces rather than an advancement.

To move from a stable system to an erratic unstable system, seems to be very contradictory to the process of evolution.

Unless there is a force or ingredient that demanded the presence of life.

Remember evo does not have goals so its not heading anywhere and there is nothing that is higher evolved than others. Remember the enviroment changes and those that dont change often die off or decline. Evolution does not work off of stability but change as the enviroment changes "in general"
If creatures did not die naturally and they still reproduced you would see overpopulation. If creatures do not die of natural causes and stop reproducing they will die out eventually due to unnatural causes.
I am a little unsure as to what you mean by stablility. To my knowledge nature itself is very unstable as are the enviroments.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, shaving off all the colourful adhoms, I'm not left with much of your post to respond to. What is your point? Do you have one?

For some cryptic reason you objected to my stating death as an important factor in evolution theory. Evolution includes "survival of the fittest". Survival is the rate of getting dead to staying alive (in this case doing so long enough o breed).

So again, do you have a point? Or do you just like typing nonsense and confusing people?

we have already covered extendedly how many unfit, survive not only to pass unfit traits but unfit traits that get worst and worst with each generation.

If traits are getting passed along in high numbers they are obviously not so "unfit".