Dedicated To Whomever Was Masochistic Enough To Read These Posts
=====
BOB & AVA - The Hypocracy Of Evolution
Should someone come whistling along, wishing to understand how the concept of 'increasing complexity' fits into the whole murky business that is 'evolution', he will find himself rewarded by being accused of being unclear, obtuse. At best.
I introduced a few new labels {BOB and AVA} in the Tome of the Demon. These 'innovations' were met by ridicule, with the implication that someone who does such things is mentally deficient. And crazy. Of course, had someone gone and told me the proper naming for those two little buzzing bees, then with the permission of everyone involved, I would, with real, genuine, gladness, have edited the Tome of the Demon to correct them.
Instead there was the madness and the stupidly. Said in the nicest way possible, of course. Or not, really.
Again, a silly moron might question as to the Why of this, but that would be paranoid, stupid and insane. And possibly childish as well. Oh dear.
Let me therefore say, now. Oh really.
And after reading this, ask yourself this: is what is written here REALLY so alien? Is it new? Is it weird? What. Is. The damn problem?
===
The Hypocrisy That Is Evolution
It is argued, inevitably, that those who do not accept evolution to be true are stupid and insane. And that they simply do not understand what evolution is.
It is true that once you know what evolution is, that it is, undoubtedly, true & correct. Of course. Obviously.
What Follows Is Shining Hypocrisy: The Awesome Ultra-Inclusive Master Definition of Evolution is: Modified Offspring (a.k.a. Decent with Modification.)
Any Modification. Absolutely anything. And some Breeding thrown in for good measure.
Honest!
The two parents of some child each contribute to half of its DNA. Since the child is not a perfect clone of either parent, Evolution has occurred. This is an observable occurrence, and therefore evolution has been proven to be true. Technically.
At this point you could just stop, since evolution has been proven, but evolution is not just proven, it is repeatedly proven. Because it is awesome, just like Po the Panda. Or maybe even more (although being more awesome than a talking Panda that can disintegrate you at will...)
Before going on, you have to undergo an Enlightenment, a mystical experience, that will let the following two points make rational sense to you (yes, you are a very special person indeed):
*) In the Practice of the Theory of Evolution, there are no sub-sections, no sub-divisions, {like AVA and BOB purport to be, for example.} There is only The One Thing which is the Awesome Definition.
*) In the Practice of the Theory of Evolution, it therefore follows from the above that proof of anything, anywhere, anytime, is proof of the correctness of everything, everywhere, for all time.
The amazing thing is that I am actually not talking cr@p. Read the rest of this post and see for yourself.
Enter natural selection. Normally under the influence of a selector (effectively a force applied, in the real world, on some living creatures), the gene-frequency of a given population changes. (As living things breed, genes are randomly copied from the two parents,
without any change to any individual gene whatsoever, to the offspring.) This means that, for example, the percentage of tall-genes in a given population might change. (An allele is an alternate copy of a specific gene: eye colour is a rough example. But several genes might work together to achieve some specific physical modification. A classic example of this last would be: height.)
This process can, famously, convert wolves into Pekinese. Which also is, technically, another proof of evolution. There is also the quaint 36-year snake story (simply the allele frequency changes mentioned above), which is an actual, real, SCIENTIFICALLY accepted, proof of evolution. ('Scientific' because it happened without human interference. Which is a really silly distinction to make between these two cases, if you think about it for like, a second.)
These events have been observed, they are understood, and serve as proof for evolution, yet again. Yay!
This has all been folded into being part of The One Thing, you see, via the Awesome Definition.
Logically, of course, if your child has a birth-mark, and neither parents have the exact same birthmark, in the exact same place, that would also be evolution. Offspring has been modified/ is different. Provable. Same goes for a wart, or a birth defect of some kind - you just have to be born with it.
Per definition, since DNA was not specifically specified in the Awesome Definition. Oops, or more bullcr@p? After a while you really start to wonder. (But there is no reason to be silly about this. Of course a wart, or a birth defect, is not evolution. Whereupon I would ask: Why not? The Awesome Definition is pretty broadly stated, after all.
If you want to start wildly grouping completely different things together, based solely on an insane verbal definition, then you get what you get, I say. Kind of like Noah on crystal meth.)
And finally there is the following blatant nonsense. Perhaps one of the greatest lines of cr@p ever sold to the world at large. Yet this is the actual state of affairs:
There are several ways in which the genes passed onto the next generation can be altered. (Normally, of course, they are just copied.) And example of this are point-mutations (which is actually just a point where something damages the DNA - in such a way as to still let it be DNA, and not just broken.
Other examples are recombination, lateral gene-transfer, etc. Fancy names. Ooh.)
Per definition, if any such a change does not kill the offspring (and it can still breed) evolution has occurred. Snap! Since this sort of thing has been recorded, this form (''FORM??? What!!!'' Um. Sorry. There is only The One Thing. My bad! Sorry again!) of evolution has also been proven.
But
now, for sane people at least, this gets interesting.
{-X-}: The fossil-record shows that life started out as (small and) relatively simple, and over time became (bigger and) much more complex.
Since natural selection has been proven to work (in terms of evolution), and since mutations that do not kill (and still allow breeding) have been documented, this type {-X-} (''TYPE? Hey!!!'') of evolution is therefore also proven. Just. Like. That.
The mystery has been solved. By
SCIENCE. Hallelujah.
Well. Well, well. Well, sh@t.
Yes. You insane, stupid Christian reading this. You were right all along. They really were talking complete, utter, and total frog-poopy. All along.
====
But, in the best tradition of debates and politics, let us completely ignore & forget the elephant, and move on.
So on to some other retarded nonsense; BOB and AVA.
=AVA:
Natural selection has two, discrete meanings. (Sorry, for sane people, two discrete meanings. In the Unity of the Weed, there is only The One Thing.)
1) Natural selection (in terms of its
mechanism) is what happens when there are forces acting in the physical world, upon a given animal (part of some species). The more successful an animal is, the more likely it is to breed. Live and breed (better), or live and breed, or die and do not breed.
2) Natural selection (in terms of its
effects) is what was described previously as altering the percentage of some of the alleles present in a given population. Read the Wikipedia quote below: quite a mouthful. I also likened this with Playing Lego with alleles. How evil and retarded of me. (Playing Lego is building, from a set of available building blocks, something or other. This is of course a very childish and un-scientific thing to say. Oh no. No wonder everyone is
so utterly confused. The sheer, utter, horror. Lego. My god, what have I done... I introduced... an abstraction! OH NO!)
Wikipedia on Natural Selection writes:
Following Darwin's primary usage the term is often used to refer to both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its mechanisms. It is sometimes helpful to explicitly distinguish between selection's mechanisms and its effects; when this distinction is important, scientists define ''natural selection'' specifically as ''those mechanisms that contribute to the selection of individuals that reproduce'', without regard to whether the basis of the selection is heritable. This is sometimes referred to as ''phenotypic natural selection''.
Wow. In my evil ignorance I considered natural selection to
only be the mechanism-part. (I blame too much BBC. And National Geographic. And Discovery Channel.) Since I had no idea that effects-part was linked to the
exact same word, I gave it another, namely AVA. Adaptation Via (natural selection of) Alleles.
Would have been nice to have someone tell me about this double meaning. (Oh well. I am only an insane idiot, after all. Rather not waste pixel ink on human garbage.)
BUT my ignorance went beyond the scope of
mere evil! When I dared to name this effects-part, 'adaptation,' I really crossed the line! Oh no!
As far as I know (and I know so little, but correcting/ informing me seems to be SUCH a drag) there is no real term for what I call AVA. Unless it is some 50 syllable tongue-twister. In which case AVA is just so much cuter.
Wikipedia writes:
Adaptation is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.
My Act of Ultimate Evil was, you see, to dare to limit what is meant by 'Adaptation'. Genetic mutations, you see, are ALSO a part of 'Adaptation.'
{See BOB in the next section for my insanely stupid take on this.}
Therefore I am a gibbering idiot for even daring to be so absolutely f@cking stupid as to use, and dream up, sh@t like AVA. What a silly, stupid, pathetic, little idiot I am. And insane. Do not forget insane.
'Adaptation' is another wonder-word, like 'evolution.' It is not a usable definition. AT ALL. Like the word 'evolution,' its sole use lies in the realm of RHETORIC. Period.
Unless, of course, I go like all super-nuts and say: 'No! I will use this word as per its common sense meaning! Screw you!'
A dictionary: Adaptation writes:
Function: noun
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions.
How could I have been so stupid to use that Holy Word in such a profane manner? I still do not know.
AVA. Get it now? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is no, of course.
=BOB:
Normal people, i.e. stupid, ignorant rock-heads, have this crazy idea that evolution has something to do with life become more complex. Or even changing really fundamentally, like from bacteria to a tree.
This can again be blamed on the BBC, National Geographic, and the Discovery Channel. Those bastards. Confusing the whole world as they do. Maybe some experts should correct them. Oh, wait... Um?
Classically, there is something called the 'Fact of Evolution.'
Wikipedia writes:
The ''fact of evolution'' refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments.
Useless little description. Avoids talking specifically about the time frame (billions of years), or the type of observations involved (fossils in rocks), and the method of experimentation (digging up the rocks.)
{As for the Tree of Life, see the Tome of the Demon for a little something on it. Or don't. So far, these pattern-proofs pretty much reduce down to: 'well it sure looks like it.' Yay for the warriors of science!}
TalkOrigins writes:
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Gould writes:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification.
{Not on this forum, so far, they don't! Halleluiah, brothers! We are One with The One Thing! Praise to the One of which we are One!} There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination.
{a.k.a 'well it sure looks like it.'} Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
Amen!
TalkOrigins writes:
Neil A. Campbell writes:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
The fossils in the rocks were examined, and it was noticed that life became more complex. Over time.
Is there a term for this?
Everyone is allergic to the use of words like 'information increase,' or 'complexity increase.' Which leaves... what?
Nothing. So I decided, in a humorous moment, to call this observed phenomenon, BOB+. As time goes by, BOB increases.
NO! NO!! THIS IS ALL SO INSANE! And stupid. Who can understand, actually make sense, of such
madness as 'BOB' ?! MY BRAIN! IT IS BURNING!! OH GOD - I AM DYING!!! HELP ME!!!!
If something does not have a proper,
useable term associated with it, what to do? I am asking, because it is immature, unscientific, stupid and insane to do what I did.
Unfortunately, things are just a little bit more involved than just all that.
Sigh.
In order to actually USE this observed fossil data observation-thingy, it turned out to be necessary to do the following:
We can now see DNA, so we can see changes happening to it. We now also know that DNA stores the complex instructions to build highly complex organic molecules. {These highly complex organic molecules, are like highly complex machines in the following ways: small changes (damage) tend to stop (kill) function. Also, they have real, actual, functions that they perform. Kind of discriminating to pick only on employed genes, but I am a bad person.}
So. Just for the sake of argument, let us say that a BOB+ event has occurred when a new, non-trivialy-different, gene comes off some unknown assembly line (the nature of this assembly line does not matter - only the result.)
Since we can see DNA, we can track changes over time. So when a BOB+ event has occurred, we can go back and trace the path the new gene took to come into being.
SIMPLE.
Proof of... Well, I have no idea, really. Ah, f@ck it: Proof of BOB+ Proof that evolution is true in this form (Form?! You little sh@t! F@cking little insane idiot!)...
...Or not. Well, kind of. There is a whole long spiel about what kind of rate one could perhaps expect BOB+ to happen at, and from that the indication seems to be that ToE looks to be kind of crappy.
Not exactly exact, but then I do not know enough to be able to do this part properly. (Not that is should be completely incorrect, I think.) I never expected this kind of anal-retentive nit-picking over nothings. All the
empty bullsh@t. I had the moronic hope that this could all be improved, one way or another.
''Fly me to the moon...''
BOB.
So cute.
Yet so utterly evil.
I mean. BOB. What kind of loser would use a word like, well, BOB?
That is so stupid!
Why, it looks to be the work of a madman!
What a load of cr@p!
Hey you! Yes you, retard! What the hell is the matter with you?!
Go away, grow up, and when you are ready to talk some sense, come back, and maybe we will deign to consider your horsesh@t again. Until then, f@ck off, you crazy moron!
There is a lot more to this argument (BOB, not the insults.) But that would take up a lot of space... oh like for example the Tome of the Demon.
=====
There is of course a whole lot more to 'Evolution,' as well.
Should anyone care?
When reading a reply to this specific post (if anyone should bother), please take note if there is simply yet more endless, pointless, nitpicking... Or if AVA and BOB are discussed in a real, proper sense. As opposed to discussed in a pretend, proper sense.
Read carefully, if you will. Or not. It is a free reality, after all.
Take note #1. Both AVA and BOB are simple, basic, concepts that rest on simple, basic observations. Do not let anyone try and tell you otherwise.
Take note #2. I tried to isolate the points in the Tome of the Demon from the rest of the sheer mess that is called 'Evolution'; so there is no point in trying to bring those other points back.
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : fixed 'A dictionary writes'
™ Version 4.2