Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:36 PM
100 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 98 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,560 Year: 3,597/19,786 Month: 592/1,087 Week: 182/212 Day: 24/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   Evolution Simplified
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 166 of 170 (365648)
11-23-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by platypus
11-23-2006 12:43 AM


Re: perfection
Note that I put the problematic words in scare quotes. That should take care of most of your objections.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by platypus, posted 11-23-2006 12:43 AM platypus has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 167 of 170 (365678)
11-24-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by platypus
11-23-2006 12:43 AM


Re: perfection
to your objection on the difficulty of defining "good" and "bad", it's not really that difficult.

you have two traits for one gene. the first allows for increased successful reproduction. the second either decreases, or stays the same, as the original rate of successful reproduction.

the first is "good"
the second is "bad".

then you get to put the environmental light on. which can then make trait 2 better than trait 1, or not. or they can both become "bad".

as a side note:
this outline has nothing to say about morality. do not make this about morality. it has nothing to say about eugenics. do not make this about eugenics.

a second side note (to platypus):
the bible was also used to support racial superiority. still is, by some people.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by platypus, posted 11-23-2006 12:43 AM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2006 8:54 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 168 of 170 (365701)
11-24-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by kuresu
11-24-2006 2:08 AM


Re: perfection
I think platypus didn't notice the quotes around "good" and "bad" and so thought I was expressing an opinion that the reproductively advantageous traits were, in some sense, better than the others; this is a common enough mistake that people have made concerning evolution. Creationists certainly make this mistake when they use the old "if evolution were true, then we should all just selfishly try to propagate our own genes" argument. In hindsight, I should probably have chosen a different set of words to use.

His concern about eugenics, I think, were based on this misinterpretation of the words "good" and "bad".


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by kuresu, posted 11-24-2006 2:08 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by platypus, posted 11-25-2006 5:04 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3831 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 169 of 170 (365909)
11-25-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Chiroptera
11-24-2006 8:54 AM


Re: perfection
Thanks Chiroptera, I think my issues are pretty much resolved.

Kuresu, my problem was exactly that good and bad can have moral and absolute meanings, whereas when they are used in evolution, they have a very conditional meaning, which as you say, depends on the environment. I was simply worried that this distinction was not clear in the original definition, but I guess the quotes sort of make up for the ambiguity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2006 8:54 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 9:27 AM platypus has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 170 of 170 (365920)
11-25-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by platypus
11-25-2006 5:04 AM


Re: perfection
quote:
I was simply worried that this distinction was not clear in the original definition, but I guess the quotes sort of make up for the ambiguity.

Actually, the issue does come up further down the thread, so I guess they don't.

Damn. I was hoping to be able to avoid typing "reproductive advantage" and "reproductive disadvantage" over and over again.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by platypus, posted 11-25-2006 5:04 AM platypus has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019