Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

What's wrong with online dictionaries? You can try Merriam-Webster, for example.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Hey Zucadragon

I need a bit of help, I'm in a discussion that starts with the basic, and I'm trying to find a good dictionary (or dictionaries) to define the term "evolution".

If you want to see how absurd that discussion can get see
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=153&m=1

Why not use definitions as used by universities that actually teach biological evolution?

Berkeley University

quote:

---

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

University of Michigan

quote:

---

Definitions of Biological Evolution

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

Definition 1:

Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

Definition 2:

The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

---

Or you can use Darwin as a starting point: Descent with Modification.

Or the "modern synthesis" definition: the change in frequency of alleles in populations over generations.

Any definition not used in the science is irrelevant, as it is talking about a different evolution, and any attempt to use it in place of a scientific definition is equivocation and misrepresentation.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This is mostly for Wounded King, though anybody else is welcome to answer.

In Cedre's topic about Abiogenesis, a side topic about mutations came up, and Wounded King said the following:

WK writes: This doesn't prevent every child from having roughly a hundred de novo mutations which distinguish them genetically from their parents...

Is this figure (~100/generation) a generally-accepted mutation rate?

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.

We had a quite lengthy thread that had mutation rates as part of one of Mark Kennedy's threads on Genetics and Human Brain Evolution

The ~100 figure I got from a paper by Kondrashov (2003), who says 'the total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is ~100'. There are other methods used to estimate mutation rates than those Kondrashov suggests and they all give slightly different rates.

TTFN,

WK

I like online dictionaries, but not in discussions with creationists, because they'll often focus on the wrong term and use that to say "see, it can mean anything".. Which is an annoying starting point in a discussion.

I like online dictionaries, but not in discussions with creationists, because they'll often focus on the wrong term and use that to say "see, it can mean anything".. Which is an annoying starting point in a discussion.

Hi Zucadragon. Perhaps this would be a suitable thread topic for you to propose so as to debate your points. Creationists may regard definitions alternative to standard definitions as skewed to ideology preferred by evolutionists.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Alright, so I attempted a hiking trip in Uppsala recently. The plan was to follow the river that cuts through town upstream, which turned out to be largely impossible, but one of the shots I got was this:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=41707142&l=46c6f&id=10239104

It's a public link, so you can open it even if you're not in facebook.
Anyhow, that's the river that eventually cuts through town about 15km downstream.

What I want to know, is whether uplifting is responsible for any of the bank height. Sweden rises on average 1yd/century (haven't found any figures for Uppsala specifically). The river bank is about 9-12 feet high. I'd say that this is the normal water flow, as the owners have placed an electrical fence splitting the river bed down the middle (not entirely sure I was allowed to hike there :o). On both sides it's either farmland or pasture, so I'm not sure if the banks have been built up, leveled out, or whatnot.

Opinions?

oh, and to the mods: if this isn't the right forum, feel free to shunt this off to where ever it belongs.

Due to the lack of vegetation, it doesn't appear to be very old.

The plan was to follow the river that cuts through town upstream, which turned out to be largely impossible, but one of the shots I got was this: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=41707142&l=46c6f&id=10239104 It's a public link, so you can open it even if you're not in facebook.

I don't know how much you care about anonymity, but you've totally blown it there, CC.

I am at page 243 in the book recommended by Mod written by Brian Greene. A question has arisen from an earlier section that wasn't entirely clear. It discussed chewy on a distant star system sitting down and me doing the same here so that our 'nows' align. And then chewy gets up and walks towards me or away from me so that his now time slices become skewed with respect to mine and though the angle is small the effect is large due to our separation in distance. Then it mentions the implications of this were apparent to Einstien etc. What exactly, (not being Einstien), are these implications? If hundreds of years into my future becomes part of chewy's time slice for his 'now' does that imply that my future already exists? Or is choice/'free will' preserved in that chewy is seeing well into the past of my planet so that motion relative to me cannot cause him to see past my 'now'?
If the latter as I assume, what is the evidence that spacetime exists as a whole; past, present and future? Thanks.

On a somewhat similar note, I have always wondered how we know we're in a spiral galaxy, instead of, say, a disc galaxy.

---

I hunt for the truth

Yes, and the grand canyon doesn't have a lot of vegetation. Yet it is very old (6 million years or so).

I don't see what vegetation has to do with age.

In fact, I'm not really sure what age has to do with the photo. The only relevant information is that sweden was under an ice sheet 10,000 years ago, and Uppsala has been settled since before christ.

So, anyone who might actually know something about geology have an opinion?

oh, and CS:if I was worried about anonymity, I certainly wouldn't have my current username or photo.

A disc galaxy is a spiral galaxy.

There are four types of basic galaxies.
Elliptical (anywhere from a giant sphere to an american football (or perhaps the ball in rugby, if that's more familiar).

Spiral (rotating disc of stars with a central bulge)

Irregular (well, the name kind of says it).

and Dwarf (which are far, far smaller, about 1/100 of the Milky Way, and they are also classed by the above three cats)

We know the Milky way is a spiral because of observations and mass distribution. We've also managed to figure out things like our orbital velocity. Technically, we're a barred spiral galaxy. The latest news is that we're almost 50% bigger than we thought, based on a new orbital velocity of about 914,000km/h.

But yeah, figuring out what the home looks like when you can only see from inside one room is a touch difficult.

Check out these two wikis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

Buzsaw writes: Due to the lack of vegetation, it doesn't appear to be very old.

Replies to questions raised in this thread should be from people who know the answer or can at least offer informed insights. This isn't the right thread for introducing opinions for discussion.

Please, no replies to this message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Kuresu - Uppsala appears to be rebounding at about half a meter per century, according to a map here. I'm guessing, though, that the soil/rock properties have a lot to do with whether a creek is deeply incised like what you seem to be describing - I've seen creeks with mighty steep banks in Oklahoma, which isn't doing much rebounding from either a geological or political perspective. :D