|
| Thread: A Visit to the Zoo |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted May 26, 2013 09:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I often hear that evolution is random. How is that compatible with natural selection? Obviously, a species doesn't "choose" to adapt. But since natural selection would make evolution reactive, wouldn't that disprove the view that it is random?
Depends on how you view it.
Fruit flies gets thrown to Island, most of bugs on island dies out because the fruit fly does their job better, but some random critter is apparently good at hunting the fruit fly and become prevalent. For all intents and purpose, this looks methodical and not random.
First off: The mutations the base fly needed to survive the Island might never have evolved in the first place, or it might even be naturally ineffective in the species original habit. If that is the case, the fact that it evolved the needed abilities to plague a Island is then up to chance of it having gotten such a feat.
Then again, what if it where not the fruit fly, but some strain of forest beetles of Swedish forests? What if they where unfit, and thus that 20-30 beetles that migrated died out is not even noted in history.
If all systems are random, then the job of the specie is to find a place of that system it can survive in. Nieche survival. If the system is destroyed, it has to find another place to survive or face extinction.
Quote:
is that evolution?
what about that story of bees getting massively killed, apparently by the products of some laboratories?
is that a normal process of natural selection?
Evolution is when you spray pesticide to kill all the bugs, and it turns out some unimportant bug has a 90% survival rate to it, then becomes the king of its foodchain because it is the only survivor, and then becomes a plague. The same applies, even if its just a minor strain of the species.
Yes.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 27, 2013 02:18 AM |
|
|
Billions of cicadas are coming out of the ground as I speak. Their mechanism of survival is that there's so many of them that they fill up the stomachs of their enemies so they can't eat anymore.
Now that's what I call a real man's defense.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 05:05 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
Quote:
Apes, as in primates, is a broad term, it does not mean Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Human, or Orangutan.
TY, let's start there, what does it mean then?
Oups, I completely missed this post. I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I'm not sure, if you still wants this to be answered? I'm not sure how good an answer I can give either..
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 12:50 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 00:51, 02 May 2014.
|
ok, looks like here will be the debating ground for my questions:
So, without further ado, the questions:
1. How far do you think humans have evolved, since we first branched off from our ancestors, so long ago?
2. What have we evolved into, in the present? What I mean by that, is, what is our purpose? Where do we fall, in the scheme of things? Where do humans belong, in relation to the rest of nature's order?
3. What do you think our next evolutionary step will be?
4. Do you think any substantial "steps" have happened in the past 100 years? Why or why not?
5. How do you think these changes may, or may not, have affected us?
6. How much of an impact do you think any gene changes make to our evolution?
Feel free to add your own questions. I want to try and cover all of the bases here.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 01:02 AM |
|
|
Huh? I already told you? 
1) I guess in principle a changes has occurred, but I'm not very informed about the specifics. In my opinion what differentiates us the most from other primates are not as much our brain, as our culture, which allows us to easier build layers upon layers of previous knowledge, while other primates often have to re-invent the wheel after a few generations.
2) I'm not sure.. I mean it's not like there's anyone despite yourself to determine a purpose with your life. The only rule for successful mutation are to survive and have successful off springs, so a lot of things goes as they go, I suppose.
About nature's order, I think we've the means to make huge amount of damage, and have probably done so.. we're a predator, so what we give to nature is our "trash" (like insects & plants would like our poop, etc.).
3) We evolve all the time, but if we get to a point where we've to name a new species of primates, well... I don't know, I mean take Orca's as an example, I believe some groups are so isolated from one another that it's by some [who?] considered if we aren't witness to a species dividing into several subspecies. I somehow doubt that will happen with humans because we're so connected, and I'm not sure we'll ever say "we're not homo sapiens any longer"... but apart from that I imagine a future where everyone has their own private world they share with those they want to share it with and those who wants to be with them, that everyone has what they wish for and that we finally defeat death itself. But I don't think this will be a direct result of mutations on a cellular level.
4) Not really sure.. I mean we're quite different. Compare an average individual today with a set of individuals, each separated by a few hundred years backwards in time.. and I believe physically we're larger, but I think we've always had the genetic blueprints to become as large as we are... food was more of a concern back then.
Also we're "smarter" as long as we do not define smarter to be able to survive, because I'm pretty sure a hunter gatherer is much better at surviving in the wild than any randomly selected individual is today, but we've an intrinsic understanding of what we do need to survive and how we can get around it, if only we've the tools we require.. so I think our tool use has become more sophisticated, but I don't think it's so much to do with evolution as it has to do with passing knowledge down thanks to cultural influences.
5) I don't think anything major has happened.. I mean we've a pretty slow mutation rate as far as I'm aware. But I'm not well versed in history though.
6)
Not a lot, I imagine it goes something along the lines of there be a huge amount of possibilities all which are survivable, and some combinations given the current environment gives advantages. Not all mutations happens at once, rather I believe it goes at small steps, and suddenly it may hit a combination where some clear advantage happens, given the environment.
I think the environment part is very very important, you could imagine a disease which acts by binding to a specific receptor and a very simple mutation could solve this without be a disadvantage. Now the disease can't attack this species anymore, but it starts to slumber and now those born without the mutation survives and once the disease returns it has a new group of targets.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 02:32 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:36, 02 May 2014.
|
Ohf said:
We evolve all the time, but if we get to a point where we've to name a new species of primates, well... I don't know, I mean take Orca's as an example, I believe some groups are so isolated from one another that it's by some [who?] considered if we aren't witness to a species dividing into several subspecies. I somehow doubt that will happen with humans because we're so connected, and I'm not sure we'll ever say "we're not homo sapiens any longer"...
This is something I also contemplate about a lot. If we're strictly talking about biological evolution, will there come a time, that the gene pool will diffrentiate so much, we (our descendants) will call ourselves something else? My guess is, as long as we only stay in this planet, no. And my reasons are:
1)We dont adapt to the environment or the climate anymore, on the contrary, we transform them according to our needs.
2)The weak are not left for dead as they are in the wilderness.
3)The transportation technologies and global culture makes it impossible for isolated sub-groups to accumulate enough change. As you know, dividing into races is the begining of turning into another specie and today even races are disappearing back. While almost all ancient cultures dissaprove of interracial or even international (doubt that's the correct word here, but you get what I mean) mating, it's becoming less of a taboo everywhere.
However, if we ever build terraformed spaceships big enough, that will carry generations of humans into far away solar systems in journeys that will take thousands or even millions of years, then people in various distant galaxies may evolve into something else.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 03:39 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:53, 02 May 2014.
|
I have tried to stay out of evolution discussions for a long time, because the people who believe in evolution don't benefit from any science knowledge I have to share, and the people who don't believe in evolution aren't likely to listen. The irony is that most people in both camps don't really understand the science behind what they're arguing about anyway. It's just one of those topics for which there is very little middle ground, and thus it is a big waste of time for everyone.
(EDIT: Although on the subject of evolution, this cartoon was recently published at SMBC, and I found it rather amusing.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 08:42 AM |
|
|
intriguing. i for one, would very much like to hear what you would say on it, cor. did you forget about how it immediately sunk in with me, in regards to what you said about our atoms not being constant? did i argue that with you, or did i read the article, then everthing else i could find, with you bringing to light new information that i had never heard before you said it? if you have debated this topic and had been rebuffed before, that sure doesn't mean that i would do so. i definitely value your opinion.
so, by all means, continue. consider my interest piqued.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 08:44 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 08:48, 02 May 2014.
|
Quote:
(EDIT: Although on the subject of evolution, this cartoon was recently published at SMBC, and I found it rather amusing.)
The laws of thermodynamics ain't supposed to work in open systems. When we speak about thermodynamics, we should keep in mind that we are operating in closed systems instead, which means that the mass and energy exchange with the outside doesn't exist.
So that picture, although amusing, has nothing to do with the real science. It's like 'hey, if evolution doesn't exist, how Pikachu turns to Raichu?!' 
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 11:56 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 12:14, 02 May 2014.
|
Orzie said:
The laws of thermodynamics ain't supposed to work in open systems. When we speak about thermodynamics, we should keep in mind that we are operating in closed systems instead, which means that the mass and energy exchange with the outside doesn't exist.
WHAT?! ROFL. Dude, you better get your facts straight. First of all, the second law of thermodynamics works on BOTH open and closed systems. Secondly, earth is not a closed system at all, it receives energy from other celestial bodies, most notably the sun.
Am I right, doc?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 03:10 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Am I right, doc?
Yes. Earth is neither thermodynamically closed (mass/particle exchange) nor isolated (energy exchange). Unless you count the possibility of the universe as a whole, there are no truly isolated systems.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 03:28 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 15:36, 02 May 2014.
|
Stevie said:
Orzie said:
The laws of thermodynamics ain't supposed to work in open systems. When we speak about thermodynamics, we should keep in mind that we are operating in closed systems instead, which means that the mass and energy exchange with the outside doesn't exist.
WHAT?! ROFL. Dude, you better get your facts straight. First of all, the second law of thermodynamics works on BOTH open and closed systems. Secondly, earth is not a closed system at all, it receives energy from other celestial bodies, most notably the sun.
Am I right, doc?
I am speaking about the thermodynamics in general. If you looked at that cartoon, you might have noticed that it says that 'they say like there is no sun at all'. This is bullsnow. Thermodynamics do NOT consider systems which are open to the direct flow of energy from outside. Thermodynamics, like many other, is just a physical model of processes which happen in a separately taken system.
Processes which involve direct input of energy from outside are not described by thermodynamics. For example, such phenomenon as photocatalysis (a semiconductor absorbing UV light to create an exciton pair being able to oxidate/reduce many organic compounds).
In fact, conventional thermodynamics is only able to describe equilibrium. While the vast majority of the systems of the world cannot be considered like that. So that the author of that cartoon should at least read something more complex than the school program.
In short words, enthropy does not decrease only in ISOLATED systems while the majority of the real systems are OPEN. So that the cartoon we speak about just abuses the words, not properly referencing the entropy-wise formulation of the second law.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 03:39 PM |
|
|
|
I think you've completely missed the point of the cartoon, Orzie.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 03:44 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 15:45, 02 May 2014.
|
It can probably be so because of the language barrier or whatever. I just noticed that it says about the contradiction between the principle of evolution and the enthropy-wise formulation of the 2nd law, while there is no contradiction. Maybe I should return back to reading science jokes and give up commenting on other ones. 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 04:03 PM |
|
|
@Orzie,
The cartoon is just poking fun at Creationists, many of whom argue that evolution is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. I don't think it's meant to be a lecture on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. 
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 04:07 PM |
|
|
|
The only evolution worth discussing is collective human thought but then any evidence of progress seems to center on invention for profit. Thus man, with all his toys is still a brat child. And it might get much worse...like expecting robots to wall his paradise.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 04:38 PM |
|
|
Ah, so it's the language barrier. Dang 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 04:41 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:47, 02 May 2014.
|
Actually Markkur, the concept of evolution changes the way you look at everything. History, language, philosophy... And I dont understand why biology and history of life itself would be something to disregard completely. While in any kind of field, there will always be a difference in the level of knowledge between the experts and the lay men (this is not unique to science, an art historian will know more about the technic, style and even choice of content in Mona Lisa), evolution is not like quantum or string theory where even the basics feel strange to an outsider. Frankly, the only ones who are having trouble with it are some of the religous people, especially from Abrahamic religions of the Middle-East and that is completely ideological. Personally, I would have no problem with someone who says "I dont care what science says, I prefer my faith" as long as they dont
a) Try to mess up the education and empose their faith blindly on little children too young to make a choice for themselves.
b) Instead of saying I dont care what science says, spread disinformation like saying it is not science, it's against thermodynamics etc etc.
Even without the actual benefits of things like producing medicine, preserving ecological balance using artifical selection etc. evolution is historically one of the most interesting adventures you can ever read.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2014 06:55 PM |
|
|
|
cor, you left me hanging, man. also, what i thought would happen, IS happening. the questions i posed were only answered by one person. and this thread is meandering. would it be possible to move the "human evolution" thread back into the osm(with a little tlc, of course). i would still very much like to hear any info you have(that most people don't address, or refute), as well.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted May 03, 2014 05:34 AM |
|
|
artu said:
...evolution is historically one of the most interesting adventures you can ever read.
To each his own. "Evolution of the Mind" is very interesting to me and chiefly because it's real-time right now. Speculating and arguing about bones or discussing millions of years ago is a waste of my time. I would rather talk about why man seems to understand he's trashing the planet but continues to make more and more disposable you-name-it!
But I'm a spent bullet friend and can only play for moments now.
Believe it not I am close to finishing my book and I can't be bothered with inferior thought. <LOL>
Take care Artu
|
| |
|
|
