MH2
climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 08:51am PT
|
Again, I have qualms about that kind of thinking because it marginalizes other variables, other viewpoints, and sometimes other people.
Other people should always be accorded respect. Their ideas should be listened to and considered but not necessarily trusted. Disagreeing with another person's ideas is not being disrespectful of the person. If a person insists that the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth, and is aware of the evidence which says that this is not the case, then no harm is done if you don't insist on telling them otherwise. There may be excellent reasons why some people hold onto beliefs not supported by evidence. No one knows enough about this world to go around ordering what other people should do or think. Unless you own the company, of course.
Informal notions about infinity are some of the least trustworthy ideas humans have managed to produce.
|
|
Reeotch
Trad climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 09:47am PT
|
Informal notions about infinity are some of the least trustworthy ideas humans have managed to produce.
Love it!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 12:46pm PT
|
In the scientific theory of Evolution, evolution occurs by random change.
not quite, reproduction through mitosis and meiosis introduces variations, either through mutation or through mixing genes from different individuals. While the mean result can be stable, the variations introduce individuals with characteristic with a broader mean... without this variation populations would tend to the mean and there would be no evolution.
in species that reproduce by sexual evolution, the "random" event is the occurrence of two individuals exchanging genetic material, in non-sexual reproduction it is by mutation.
the details are still being worked out...
as for what life is on other planets, exobiologist study this to death...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
|
Ed said;
"not quite, reproduction through mitosis and meiosis introduces variations, either through mutation or through mixing genes from different individuals. While the mean result can be stable, the variations introduce individuals with characteristic with a broader mean... without this variation populations would tend to the mean and there would be no evolution."
EXACTLY!!!!
So over 100s of millions of years of mutations? how do you get to a breeding animal?
After a quad trillion mutations all of a sudden one mutant had a penis and another had a vagina
And unknowingly used them and decided it was good? Thus creating Conscience?
Or did conscience provoke their direction toward reproduction? Either way doesn't your above
Fact predict their failure?
Jus Ask'in
BB
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 01:30pm PT
|
In the scientific theory of Evolution, evolution occurs by random change.
Random change is only a part of evolution. It is the starting point of what changes will eventually be incorporated in a species. Natural selection is what guides evolution. If you want the existence of God to be compatible with evolution I would think that the view would be that God setup the universe to allow random changes and also setup the universe with natural selection to guide evolution.
I would think that life on other celestial objects (like Mars) could be similar to life on Earth or perhaps very different. Meteorites have been found with the building blocks of life. So the chemistry of life is probably not unique to Earth and life elsewhere probably uses similar building blocks, but it may use others.
The further you go down the evolutionary road from possibly a common starting point probably the more things diverge. Look at Archaea near sea hydothermal vents. They have different biochemistry from other forms of life (and structural differences such as no nucleus), and so they are now classified as a separate domain in the three-domain system.
So if the environment on Mars (or other body) was similar to ones on Earth, and the same building blocks were present, it's life would be similar to Earth's.
If there's intelligent life (or even animals) on other planets I would guess they would have a lot in common with things on Earth, but would be very different.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 08:02pm PT
|
How do you propose to test your ideas of extra-material phenomena? Certainly we can make a hypothesis as to how such phenomena might enter into the universe, and then go to observe them, and perhaps measure them... ok, you wouldn't propose that, would you... so what do we do? we could go out and experience stuff and marvel at its mystery... does it help understand anything?
I think after nearly two years of grappling with this material, the materialist camp is pretty well yelling out from the above graph.
the phrase, "Go out and experience stuff," sets the tone. All along we have been discussing two aspects - subjective/experiential (our fundamental human reality), and objective/material. When it comes to exploring the objective/material, no one would ever say, "Let's go out and experience math and physics." We could have a fine breakfast, drive up the coast and brunch on some null sets and marvel at the mystery. We all understand that such a flip and cavalier approach would get us nothing. And yet perfectly brilliant people like Ed can still believe in their heart of hearts that the discipline, depth, exactness and insight achieved in the natural sciences is impossible to achieve in the experiential realm, which is really just a play realm to snooze and "feel" and paint rainbows and take pretty photographs. It's a luxury. It's great - or not. But it is not the path to understanding any "thing."
If there is more to the subjective than we think, provide evidence - isn't this the rant. The screwy thing here is that "mind" is the best evidence we'll ever have, but standard objective approaches to same have provided no fruit at all - and never will.
The question is - What do you do with this Mind so it gives up the answers Ed asks for, understanding that they will not be just as Ed wants them, but answers none the less.
JL
|
|
Andree Hussar
Social climber
ny
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 09:16pm PT
|
Evolution does not explain the reason the universe exists.
Something cannot come from nothing.
The universe is not eternal ; it is dying and growing.
The discussion of evolution is irrevelant until one is able to determine why anything exists.
|
|
pa
climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 09:32pm PT
|
Brava Andree!
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2012 - 10:11pm PT
|
All along we have been discussing two aspects - subjective/experiential (our fundamental human reality), and objective/material.
Hammer
hitting
thumb
again
JL,
In which aspect would you place branes? I ask because Neil Turok is in town.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 04:33am PT
|
An often overlooked mechanism of evolution in the world of humans is that of selective mating. Our cultural ideas about religion, ethnic differences, wealth and status, not to mention different ideas of what constitutes incest, are all selective factors when it comes to mating. These have had as much to do with human variation and evolution as anything the past tens of thousands of years. In general they tend to encourage mating only within one's group and thus increase certain traits in a relatively short period of time. Likewise, gender selection always favors males where it is practiced.
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 07:10am PT
|
I'm fine with evolutionary theory in its various forms. My problem comes from people assuming that the theory applies and should be used as guidance without consideration or data analysis. Survival of the fittest and competition are offered as unquestionable reasons and justifications for many social programs, economic systems, development programs, when maybe they shouldn't be. As Jan points out, when Man can influence the coefficients of the variables in the theory or even change the environment, then there is probably something else to consider in addition to the theory alone. It's an indication (to me) of some unimaginative thinking.
I've not understood why the theory must be the only way development occurs. Other than a few examples of cooperation and niche development, the theory is a framework of dominance and a zero sum game. Invariably, it seems to me, one specie or variation must dominate or force out another one. I don't understand why it must be that way. I don't understand why there aren't repertoires or routines that emerge broadly that reward or encourage specialized cooperation among specie to bring together skills / capabilities that no single species could effect by itself.
"Well, we don't find it in Nature often, so it must not work." (I can't say how dogmatic that view seems.)
Cooperation is just one possible method of development that would lead progressively forward. There must be other models.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 07:28am PT
|
Very interesting Mike.
When a predator attacks a herd they have a way of choosing which animal to kill. This one is limping or that one is old. One's odds for survival increase if there are many others around and they all act and look just like you.
I was once the only person swimming at dusk off a beach in Socal. Just once.
Dominance may be a survival strategy both offensively and defensively.
Edit:
I took it as an evolutionary psychology question.
|
|
Reeotch
Trad climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 07:58am PT
|
Invariably, it seems to me, one specie or variation must dominate or force out another one. I don't understand why it must be that way. I don't understand why there aren't repertoires or routines that emerge broadly that reward or encourage specialized cooperation among specie to bring together skills / capabilities that no single species could effect by itself.
There myriad examples of symbiosis in the natural world, many more than you might be aware of. We wouldn't be able to survive if it weren't for certain other species living in and on our own bodies! The environment is what drives evolution. But, we must remember that organisms alter their environment, each others' environment. We are the environment.
Evolution explains biodiversity, which is the opposite of one species dominating. Systems that are dominated by one, or only a few species, tend to be unstable and don't last very long.
Evolution is based on what works. It is not progressive as many people mistakenly assert. What works gets passed on, but what works this year may not be what works next year. Populations are constantly modulating in response to ever-changing environmental factors. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 09:13am PT
|
It seems to me that parasitism and symbiosis work pretty well for those organisms who practice them.
This includes humans too, especially when they do it in the name of survival of the fittest.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 09:22am PT
|
MikeL, if you were so concerned about the theory of evolution, and it's modern form, why haven't you learned about it?
You say it is about dominance, but you have totally misunderstood it if you see it as "who-eats-who" or "who gets eaten."
It is about success in reproduction and over a huge number of generations. Success to reproduce entails a large number of factors, not just the dominance ones you seem to have singled out. And the emergence of social behavior is a hallmark of the most successful species, that would be ants, whose total biomass exceeds the total human biomass.
The largest populations are bacteria, who aren't very social, but violence is hard to discern on the microscopic level... the number or bacterial generations is awesome to contemplate, and it is hard to believe that they are where it is for life, the true center of it... and are responsible for an environment conducive to the likes of us.
Variations in populations which are "neutral" that is convey no direct reproductive advantage, are also evident and perhaps are the "raw material" of future generations where these traits just might be useful... and then there are the viral genome manipulators that insert information which actually does get passed on... this way of modifying the genome, by direct insertion, also occurs in some bacteria and plants.
Maybe you should take some time off of politics, economics, philosophy and religion and just read about evolution.
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2012 - 09:38am PT
|
There was Never Nothing in our universe, before the big bang or after it.
Before the Big Bang there was something.
Then that something contracted and blew up, creating the known Universe
So the argument that "something can't come from nothing" is true.
But to say that God created the Universe from nothing contradicts your argument that something can't come from nothing.
If God did exist, he would be something, so there was never nothing that became something.
So it's really preposterous to say God Created the Universe out of nothing.
What was before God? Was God created out of nothing, or was he there before anything, if he was there before time, why can't there be something that was there before him, or to logically conclude, "there was always something".
More questions about God creating the universe: how did he do it, how did he know how to do it, how did he know how much of each atom here or there.
You would say it was magic, that is the only answer you can give, and say you need to have faith.
I would ask, lets see this magic, why did he do it then, and not now..
In other words, there are a steady stream of questions that can never be answered to the satisfaction of any scientist.
With the scientific explanation, these questions have all been answered, and the details are being filled in on a daily basis.
|
|
Donald Thompson
Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 11:11am PT
|
most successful species, that would be ants, whose total biomass exceeds the total human biomass.
They must have neglected to factor in the biomass of the revelers at the pizza parlor last night.
|
|
Malemute
Ice climber
the ghost
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 12:10pm PT
|
|
|
Donald Thompson
Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012 - 12:36pm PT
|
Wow ,hardly any motion on this thread.
Mike, MHz, Larga, Dr. Ed, and Jan , et al ,must all be off to church, on this fine Sunday.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!