Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a basic, biological process
Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 306 (173414)
01-03-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by AdminJazzlover
01-03-2005 12:36 AM


Re: Topic again
Thanks for your welcome. So far I've enjoyed the discussions; however, not too much debate yet. Since, according to most news reports I've read, 40% of the people should disagree with me completely and another 40% should disagree with me rather strongly, I am hoping for someone to write in a say "you are wrong because...." and I hope they don't, but probably will, quote the bible as I don't recognize it as source of information re the process of evolution.
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AdminJazzlover, posted 01-03-2005 12:36 AM AdminJazzlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 3:19 PM Soplar has not replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 6:56 PM Soplar has replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 306 (173422)
01-03-2005 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Quetzal
01-03-2005 9:27 AM


Hi Quetzal
From your kind remark
I have little or no quibbles with anything Soplar has written thus far,
can I conclude that you include my rather lengthy response to The Literalist?
Reflecting on that reply, I left out a detail worth mentioning. During the race, and it was a race, to be the first to deduce the structure of DNA, the initial findings suggested a helical form, but only a single helix (Pauling championed this idea and lost the race). Eventually the superior efforts of the X-Ray spectroscopist Crick and mathematician Watson conclusively demonstrated that DNA is a double helix and won for them the prize and the Nobel. In retrospect, the double helix is the logical structure as it facilitates the all important cell division. The double helix merely unzips into two single helices which join the two halves of the divided cell. Then the double helix is rebuilt. It is in the rebuilding where the mutations creep in.
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 9:27 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 6:53 PM Soplar has replied
 Message 67 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2005 9:53 AM Soplar has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 306 (173473)
01-03-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Soplar
01-02-2005 11:58 PM


Re: Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary pro
I think that whole post was good background to the question but I don't think you have yet answered the question as to why biology is unintelligable without evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 11:58 PM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 3:06 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 62 by Soplar, posted 01-04-2005 12:30 AM NosyNed has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 306 (173486)
01-03-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
01-03-2005 2:41 PM


think that whole post was good background to the question but I don't think you have yet answered the question as to why biology is unintelligable without evolution
Probably for the same reason that a dictionary is unintelligble unless it's in alphabetical order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2005 2:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 35 of 306 (173488)
01-03-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
12-31-2004 2:29 PM


What if the host dies only after the virus has prepared billions of replicas of itself in the cells of its victim. The bursting of the cells - i.e. the death of the host - to release the multitude of new viri might be just another step in the reproductive cycle of the virus. So the death of the host is not necessarily a bad thing from the virus' point of view.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 12-31-2004 2:29 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2005 3:26 PM Parasomnium has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 306 (173490)
01-03-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Soplar
01-03-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Topic again
What I gather from your posts, Soplar, is that you are puzzled as to why there should be a Creationist movement in the first place, and you were wondering if there is any decent argument out there, other than references to the Bible, to explain why so many people do not believe in evolution.
I would say this:
1. There is confusion in the popular mind between evolution and abiogenesis. There is plenty of evidence for evolution but only plausible ideas about abiogenesis.
2. There is, IMVHO ("im my VERY humble opinion")a crucial part of evolution that is problematic: the evolution of "mind."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 11:39 AM Soplar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by 1.61803, posted 01-03-2005 3:51 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 5:15 PM robinrohan has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 306 (173492)
01-03-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Parasomnium
01-03-2005 3:08 PM


Not so fast
The host must certainly not die too quickly. The virus must have time to spread. I think (someone will correct me) that one can demonstrate that a virus and host will co-evolve until the viralence is less. After all a virus that doesn't kill the host at all can become as ubicquitous as is possible.
Are HERV's just the terminal point of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Parasomnium, posted 01-03-2005 3:08 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Parasomnium, posted 01-03-2005 3:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 38 of 306 (173497)
01-03-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed
01-03-2005 3:26 PM


Re: Not so fast
Ned,
I found the following here:
quote:
How does natural selection effect virulence in parasites?
One idea:
Natural selection will usually act to reduce virulence. Parasites depend on their hosts, and if they kill their hosts they will soon be dead too: it has been argued therefore that parasites will evolve to keep their hosts alive.
An objection:
This idea is almost universally rejected by evolutionary biologists. Why? Because it is group selectionist. It is indeed in the long-term interest of a parasite species not to destroy the resource it lives off; but natural selection on individual parasites will favor those that reproduce themselves in the greatest numbers over those that restrain themselves in the interest of preserving their hosts. The short-term individual advantage of greater reproduction will usually outweigh any long-term group or species advantage of reproductive restraint.
It seems the jury is still out on that.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2005 3:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 39 of 306 (173498)
01-03-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 3:19 PM


Re: Topic again
Evolution of the mind? Why in your opinion is this problematic?
The brian is a organ that has devleoped to process the sensory information of the body, the mind is a by product of the brain. It stands to reason that the more intelligent the organism the more devolped congnitive processes will be and hence the illusion of a self/mind. "thinking substances" do not exist IMO. Dualism is an attempt to infer supernatural orgins and mechanisms that have yet been explained naturally. Why infer the mind as separate? Evolution of the stomach or evolution of the lungs do not pose a problem because we can explain much of the physiology and mechanisms that these organs operate on. But not to long ago it was thought that the brains purpose was to cool the blood. I guess this is what you mean by problematic, that people can not understand how the mind can exist given that it is not composed of matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 3:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 3:57 PM 1.61803 has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 306 (173502)
01-03-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by 1.61803
01-03-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Topic again
1.61803 writes:
hence the illusion of a self/mind.
I am just wondering who or what has this "illusion"? Does the mind have an illusion of itself?
Don't you have to have a mind to have an illusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by 1.61803, posted 01-03-2005 3:51 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by 1.61803, posted 01-04-2005 5:49 PM robinrohan has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 306 (173516)
01-03-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 3:19 PM


Re: Topic again
There is, IMVHO ("im my VERY humble opinion")a crucial part of evolution that is problematic: the evolution of "mind."
What's problematic about it? Surely you can see the survival/reproductive benefit of having a mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 3:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 306 (173519)
01-03-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
01-03-2005 5:15 PM


Re: Topic again
It's not the evolutionary reason that puzzles me, Crashfrog: it's the process by which mind could have developed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 5:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 5:41 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 6:49 PM robinrohan has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 306 (173525)
01-03-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 5:26 PM


Re: Topic again
It's not the evolutionary reason that puzzles me, Crashfrog: it's the process by which mind could have developed.
The process seems completely clear to me, I guess. Given the continuum of mind that we find in nature, from the brightest human minds, to the dumbest human dolts, to the surprising mental faculty of our cousin apes, to the complex behavior from the simple neurology of insects, I see nothing problematic about the gradual development of mind, nor any fundamental quality of the human mind that is not also possessed, to some degree, in other species.
It's honestly not that puzzling to me, and I wonder why it would be to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 5:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 5:51 PM crashfrog has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 306 (173529)
01-03-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
01-03-2005 5:41 PM


Re: Topic again
Answer my question in message #40, Crashfrog, and set my mind at ease.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 5:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2005 1:35 AM robinrohan has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 306 (173540)
01-03-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 5:26 PM


Re: Topic again
sexual selection is probably the reason for the greatly expanded ability of the human brain compared to other creatures -- it is the peacock tail of brains.
the theory is that sexual selection involved complex courtship rituals, with song and dance and body adornments, and the individuals that were the most creative got reproduction rights.
this ends up as a positive feed-back loop with greater awareness and appreciation of {creativity\complexity} requiring even more {creativity\complexity} in the next generation.
this also explains music dance and art and their importance in human culture even today (the rock-band-groupies phenomena).
and this awareness of creativity leads to all other awareness issues.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 5:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 9:54 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024