Freedom Of Religion?

[Ahaugen]

yeah, it's the Big Bang Theory

[Ahaugen]

here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory

[Jim North]

The actual figure is that we're gaining 1 second every 45,000 to 50,000 years.

[Nyke]

I'm trying to find that one Freethunk that summed up my view nicely.

And here it is.

[Dr Legostar]

Evolution states, basically, that species will adapt and become more suited to live in their environment. Should that environment change, the ones best suited for THAT new environment surpass the others. So, no, evolution doesn't say "dinosaurs become birds".

However, in the history of our Earth, the environment affected some dinosaurs so that they developed more and more bird-like characteristics until, some millions of years down the line, they led to creatures which more closely resembled birds than they did dinosaurs (there were bird-like creatures with teeth, for instance). Several more millions of years later and they bear little resemblance to the dinosaurs which are their distant, distant ancestors.

If you could clone dinosaurs and put them on a different planet similar in climate, organisms, etc, but not identical to Earth, and could observe them for tens of millions of years, they will not give rise to the exact same species of birds which we have on our own planet. The environmental pressures on those dinosaurs would be different than those which were present on Earth around the time of our own dinosaurs. Who knows, it may end up that a species of dinosaur becomes sentient and develops into the dominant species on that planet like pre-humans did on our own.

mild correction, it's more a semantic thing, but evolution doesn't state that things adapted but more that those members of a species with the most favorable traits survived and reproduced, it wasn't an intentional adaption, because any animal that adapts to an environment does so during its lifetime, these adaptations are not part of their genetic make up and are not passed down.

[Jim North]

because any animal that adapts to an environment does so during its lifetime, these adaptations are not part of their genetic make up and are not passed down.

An argument could be made that this isn't necessarily true in the case of humans, at the very least . . . we create our own adaptations during our lifetime and then pass them and the knowledge of how to create such adaptations down to our decendants, who further improve those adaptations.

Man makes a snorkel to breathe while underwater, next man makes an air bag to go further underwater, next man makes an air tank to protect the container from tears, the next invents a process for compressing air so one can go even further down for longer with a smaller tank, and so on and so on. SCUBA gear isn't a part of our genetic makeup, but I would argue that it's still a part of our adaptation to our environment that is passed down from generation to generation.

[Kilre]

an interesting take on evolution

that's an interesting way to put lamarckian evolution; evolution, tho, is more guided by random mutations in the dna that, somehow or another, help the organism to reproduce.

:edit: so, another way to put the scuba scenario is, by some random chance, each progressive generation found a better way to go deeper for longer

[Jim North]

Evolution isn't restricted to random mutations by any means. Certain animals choose their mates according to certain favorable traits . . . it's not just left up to chance, it's actually up to them to ensure those traits are passed along. And microevolution is greatly made up of the practice of selective breeding. Heck, the dog could seriously be a candidate for inclusion under macroevolution considering how long it took to get where it is, and it's the result of thousands to maybe a couple of million of years of selective breeding.

Plus, virtually all of mankind's inventions and self-adaptations are the result of our primary evolutionary advantage - our brains, natch - so they could be considered a part of overall evolution through that connection. SCUBA gear is evidence of our primary adaptation at work.

[Czar]

Evolution is not a process of moving towards a set goal. It is a process of going away from a form that does not work as good as it could be.

You do not evolve towards SCUBA gear, you are going away from having to hold your breath.

[Kilre]

if there's only one thing that i know about evolution, it's that it is not goal oriented; it is completely a role of the die that anything happens at all. anything that happens for the better, well, that's good. and if not, then that organism will not pass on genes; it's likely that it'll be dead before then

[Jim North]

role of the die

Oi!

[Ian Moulding]

:edit: so, another way to put the scuba scenario is, by some random chance, each progressive generation found a better way to go deeper for longer

Nothing random about that process. Going deeper longer better has always been mankind's fondest dream.

[Kilre]

:edit: so, another way to put the scuba scenario is, by some random chance, each progressive generation found a better way to go deeper for longer

Nothing random about that process. Going deeper longer better has always been mankind's fondest dream.

hmm, i was trying to fit the wrong process to the example

[KittyKatBlack]

Ugh. Intelligent Design. The worst idea ever. "It's too complicated for me to figure out, so it's gotta be the result of some higher power!" give me a break...

And a little rant on nature in general:

Nature is not perfect. It's far from it, in fact. Nature barely works as it is and I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has. I get so tired of people talking about how nature 'works so perfectly it can't be by chance.' No it works the way it does because if you tried to do it differently it would fail. It's not a matter of it being designed that way. It's just a matter of it ONLY working that way. There is so many things nature does wrong that it drives me nuts. Luckly, the few things it does do right are enough to keep me alive. But personally, I would have no problem replacing nature with a much more efficient and orderly system. Not like that'll happen. Hopefully we'll at least have figured out how to travel to other planets and efficantly terraform by the time the earth crashes into the sun.

Anyway.... I have a lot of random things to say regarding a topic like this but most of it has no context, so I'll just add them in if I happen to see something that ties them into the current conversation.

[Dr Legostar]

because any animal that adapts to an environment does so during its lifetime, these adaptations are not part of their genetic make up and are not passed down.

An argument could be made that this isn't necessarily true in the case of humans, at the very least . . . we create our own adaptations during our lifetime and then pass them and the knowledge of how to create such adaptations down to our decendants, who further improve those adaptations.

Man makes a snorkel to breathe while underwater, next man makes an air bag to go further underwater, next man makes an air tank to protect the container from tears, the next invents a process for compressing air so one can go even further down for longer with a smaller tank, and so on and so on. SCUBA gear isn't a part of our genetic makeup, but I would argue that it's still a part of our adaptation to our environment that is passed down from generation to generation.

This is, however, not evolution. It's adaptation. something gained through evolution remains even if the offspring is seperated from the whole rest of its species, something adapted that is taught would not be.

[KittyKatBlack]

because any animal that adapts to an environment does so during its lifetime, these adaptations are not part of their genetic make up and are not passed down.

An argument could be made that this isn't necessarily true in the case of humans, at the very least . . . we create our own adaptations during our lifetime and then pass them and the knowledge of how to create such adaptations down to our decendants, who further improve those adaptations.

Man makes a snorkel to breathe while underwater, next man makes an air bag to go further underwater, next man makes an air tank to protect the container from tears, the next invents a process for compressing air so one can go even further down for longer with a smaller tank, and so on and so on. SCUBA gear isn't a part of our genetic makeup, but I would argue that it's still a part of our adaptation to our environment that is passed down from generation to generation.

This is, however, not evolution. It's adaptation. something gained through evolution remains even if the offspring is seperated from the whole rest of its species, something adapted that is taught would not be.

I think humans are slower to evolve than most species because we no longer require ourselves to adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to us. As such, any one with a mutation that would give them an edge in the natural world is of little consequence in ours. We've engineered our world to accomidate the lowest common demonminator. In nature, the one with the best ability survives and lives on, hence causing that trait to pass onto the next generation. We have a huge range of abilities both good and bad, but since almost all of them survive to the next generation, the impact is minimal at best.

[Dr Legostar]

An argument could be made that this isn't necessarily true in the case of humans, at the very least . . . we create our own adaptations during our lifetime and then pass them and the knowledge of how to create such adaptations down to our decendants, who further improve those adaptations.

Man makes a snorkel to breathe while underwater, next man makes an air bag to go further underwater, next man makes an air tank to protect the container from tears, the next invents a process for compressing air so one can go even further down for longer with a smaller tank, and so on and so on. SCUBA gear isn't a part of our genetic makeup, but I would argue that it's still a part of our adaptation to our environment that is passed down from generation to generation.

This is, however, not evolution. It's adaptation. something gained through evolution remains even if the offspring is seperated from the whole rest of its species, something adapted that is taught would not be.

I think humans are slower to evolve than most species because we no longer require ourselves to adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to us. As such, any one with a mutation that would give them an edge in the natural world is of little consequence in ours. We've engineered our world to accomidate the lowest common demonminator. In nature, the one with the best ability survives and lives on, hence causing that trait to pass onto the next generation. We have a huge range of abilities both good and bad, but since almost all of them survive to the next generation, the impact is minimal at best.

yup, natural selection no longer applies to humans. A stupid lion goes hungry, a slow rabbit gets hit by a car, a stupid human... gets elected to public office.

[Kilre]

stupid people also walk in front of cars

[KittyKatBlack]

stupid people also walk in front of cars

Yes, and then they get hit, file a lawsuit, and become rich.

[Kilre]

darn, that's true
damn for reverse natural selection!