Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Evolution in action
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostIt wasn't objectively superior for the Yersinia pestis bacillus which used humans as its host.
Everything is relative.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not think this is a good answer in terms of the scientific view. You need to do better. Some survived the Black plague, and were objectively superior in resistance to the disease. This is true over the evolutionary history of humans (homo genus). Neanderthals were obviously inferior to adaptation to the changing environment and competition with homo sapiens sapiens. What is wrong with the concept of environmental superiority of on variety, subspecies or species in this way?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not think this is a good answer in terms of the scientific view. You need to do better. Some survived the Black plague, and were objectively superior in resistance to the disease. This is true over the evolutionary history of humans (homo genus). Neanderthals were obviously inferior to adaptation to the changing environment and competition with homo sapiens sapiens. What is wrong with the concept of environmental superiority of on variety, subspecies or species in this way?
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostOK I'll wear that one. I read your original statement as other similar animals or dissimilar ones. But you're still wrong. Hibernating bears can go for up to six months with no food intake.
No one said humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet. That doesn't change the fact that there are environments where more intelligence doesn't equate to better survival chances. You still refuse to grasp the simple concept.
Edit: I guess I should expand a bit. Bigger brain =/= more intelligence. So you could say a bigger brain can be maladaptive in energy intensive environments, but that does not necessarily mean intelligence is. It's why I brought up humans as an example, because we're good at both using energy efficiently and highly intelligent.Last edited by Darth Executor; 02-10-2014, 02:48 PM."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostI
No, sometimes it makes no difference because you have no meaningful way to use it. That doesn't mean it's not objectively better to have it than to not have it, which is what you fail to grasp.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostMaybe it's because you never make it clear what you mean by "objective". If I were to say that blue is an objectively superior color to red, would you just take my word for it?"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostNo, because there's no current or end result we can observe. Things like survival or dominance OTOH can be observed.
(Your example reminds me of a time I was camping, and just before sun-up I spread a whole lot of corn meal in an area about 6 feet in diameter. Soon enough, a bunch of little birds and one larger bird came along. The larger bird attempted to claim the entire area, and spent all its time racing from side to side chasing off little birds, who kept feeding wherever the larger bird wasn't. Eventually the corn meal was gone, and the big dominant bird didn't get any of it. Now, the ability to defend a food supply is probably beneficial most of the time. But in this environment, it was an inferior strategy.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostNo, sometimes it makes no difference because you have no meaningful way to use it. That doesn't mean it's not objectively better to have it than to not have it, which is what you fail to grasp.
"Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" doesn't work in evolution as "having it" costs extra energy to maintain.
You're making zero sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostYou misunderstood. The mutation was described as being "superior" without any references. I merely pointed out correctly that superior is a subjective term depending on who or what is being referenced. If you narrowly define the environment and you narrowly define what "superior" means in that environment then of course you can say one mutation was superior over another. But only if you make those narrow definitions.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostTHAT 'evolution' (E1), as I have tirelessly stated, is SCIENCE. E1 is observable, testable, demonstrable science.
Now let's look at the 'Evolution' (E2) that is bait-and-switched with the above 'evolution' (E1).
E2 claims that "3-4 billion years ago a 'simple' common ancestor began evolutionary changes and divergence which as time went by gave rise to millions of species some of which went extinct and others that are with us today".
Unless a person is ignorant or dishonest (or both), to go from a simple common ancestor to millions of species absolutely demands that there be a humongous increase in genetic complexity that then becomes manifest in phenotypes. I mean, it is obvious to anyone that an elephant, a whale and a human are more complex than a paramecium. In other words, there is indeed a progression from "inferior" to "superior" in terms of increased complexity.
So to refer to 'Evolution' (E2) as "... not a process from "inferior" to "superior," but simply genetic variation and natural selection" is naive at best and dishonest at worst UNLESS you are referring strictly to E1.
Which is it?
Jorge
So your E1 is really your E2.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostIf a mutation for a bigger brain and/or more intelligence makes no difference in your reproductive success then it isn't objectively better than a mutation which does increase your reproductive success.
"Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" doesn't work in evolution as "having it" costs extra energy to maintain.
You're making zero sense."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostSo are we saying that superior ability to survive is our unit of measurement? That's not a bad unit, since evolution uses it in important ways. But of course, that puts us right back into environmental dependence, because the ability to survive or dominate depends on the environment. Change the environment, and it changes the definition of superiority.
(Your example reminds me of a time I was camping, and just before sun-up I spread a whole lot of corn meal in an area about 6 feet in diameter. Soon enough, a bunch of little birds and one larger bird came along. The larger bird attempted to claim the entire area, and spent all its time racing from side to side chasing off little birds, who kept feeding wherever the larger bird wasn't. Eventually the corn meal was gone, and the big dominant bird didn't get any of it. Now, the ability to defend a food supply is probably beneficial most of the time. But in this environment, it was an inferior strategy.)"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYou're right, we're going in circles and I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over.
If the bird had been the same size the other birds could have ganged up on it and killed it. Seems that the ability to fight off other birds was still more useful than not having it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. We were discussing whether some traits are objectively good or not. Seems to me that the big bird still benefited from the trait, even if it wasn't enough for that particular instance.
And your answer seems to be "environment had nothing to do with it, the bigger bird STILL BENEFITED." Even though it got nothing. And the reason it starved while the "inferior" birds feasted, is because the bigger bird has "objectively good traits." Talk about just talking at a brick wall. There is a reason why birds come in all sizes, and with a wide distribution of characteristics. It's not because anything is objectively superior. It's because birds have adapted to many different environments, and each environment rewards (through breeding success) traits punished in other environments. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE SUPERIORITY. There is only environmental variation.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment