|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:25:24 [Permalink]
|
| Just for confusion sake, nevermind. Hell they cant even grasp the concept normally |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 16:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
(I'll leave out Randy Flag)
I read that book when I was a teen-ager and it freaked me out. Since then, I've always been ready for signs that we're all gonna die via a super-virus gone wild so I can pack up my car and get the hell outta town! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 17:12:47 [Permalink]
|
I first read it during yet another jolt in the VA hospital, back in the '70s. I think that it is King's best, although a couple of his others are close competitors.
Me, should the virus strike, I'll stick around and hope to watch the people I hate croak horribly before I do. Last one gone's the winner.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 06:58:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
The future of human evolution is this,
1) humans develop huge dependencies on anti-viral/bacterials, super bug kills most of the humans, the rest of them are partially or totally immune.(I'll leave out Randy Flag)
Really I think the term evolution should be changed for any creature with the knowedge and most definite inclination to self-modify.
Why? It's just change of genetic material over time. I'd say that however the fitness function is defined is irrelevant.
Agreed. Evolution should be kept distinct from the selection mechanism.
Would you argue that the artificial selection of dogs, cats, livestock etc. isn't evolution?
Cheers
r |
| Edited by - latsot on 06/15/2005 07:00:49 |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 07:16:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Agreed. Evolution should be kept distinct from the selection mechanism.
Would you argue that the artificial selection of dogs, cats, livestock etc. isn't evolution?
First the key component of evolution is descent with modification not just change of genetic material over time. Secondly the selection process is the key part of the definition of evolution, and whether its via natural selection, genetic drift, artificial selection, etc. then it belongs under the umbrella of the definition of evolution. This would include intentional genetic tinkering that resulted in descent wtih modification. |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 09:05:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First the key component of evolution is descent with modification not just change of genetic material over time.
I'm not sure I agree that there is *a* key component of evolution, or even if that concept has any meaning at all.
quote:
Secondly the selection process is the key part of the definition of evolution, and whether its via natural selection, genetic drift, artificial selection, etc. then it belongs under the umbrella of the definition of evolution. This would include intentional genetic tinkering that resulted in descent wtih modification.
If you say so. There are various different selection mechanisms. Evolution requires at least one of these. That's all I was saying.
r |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 09:44:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
quote:
First the key component of evolution is descent with modification not just change of genetic material over time.
I'm not sure I agree that there is *a* key component of evolution, or even if that concept has any meaning at all.
quote:
Secondly the selection process is the key part of the definition of evolution, and whether its via natural selection, genetic drift, artificial selection, etc. then it belongs under the umbrella of the definition of evolution. This would include intentional genetic tinkering that resulted in descent wtih modification.
If you say so. There are various different selection mechanisms. Evolution requires at least one of these. That's all I was saying.
r
Sorry I should have said the key definition of evolution is descent with modification.
Actually evolution doesn't require a selective process as is evident by the examples of genetic drift, which is a non-selective process, by random chance, allele X becomes fixed in population Y for instance although it had no selective advantage over allele Z.
But you are right, under must circumstances it appears a selective process is required and is a part of evolution, whether its artificial or natural, or at the population level or some other level as some workers in the field have hypothesized from time to time. (e.g. species)
Edited to fix typo |
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 06/15/2005 09:45:58 |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 10:09:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually evolution doesn't require a selective process as is evident by the examples of genetic drift, which is a non-selective process, by random chance, allele X becomes fixed in population Y for instance although it had no selective advantage over allele Z.
OK, you are kind of right - I agree...with reservations (which we should pick up on another thread).
However, none of this has anything to do with my original point. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 10:16:16 [Permalink]
|
| At its core, evolution is simply defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. How those changes occur are the mechanisms of evolution, but aren't evolution itself. And descent with modification is a result of evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2005 : 13:33:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
At its core, evolution is simply defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. How those changes occur are the mechanisms of evolution, but aren't evolution itself. And descent with modification is a result of evolution.
Agreed. This is my favourite way of describing evolution in a sentence (thanks E. Mayr). Of course, we have to worry a little bit about the word 'defined' and what is an allele and a population and so on...
Well, *I* have to worry about those things, because I am annoying.
But anyway, I agree with Dave.
r |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2005 : 19:57:22 [Permalink]
|
| Alleles are pretty strictly defined, and 'population' is purposefully maleable, though not very vague. What's your worry about the word 'defined'? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2005 : 20:12:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, *I* have to worry about those things, because I am annoying.
Me too.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 04:34:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Alleles are pretty strictly defined, and 'population' is purposefully maleable, though not very vague. What's your worry about the word 'defined'?
erm...well....*defining* something as something is always a worry. Thats all. If this seems picky, then so be it. But we can all *define* evolution as something. It goes a bit further than that definition.
By the way, I think that 'allele' is only defined well in context. For example, in context of the gene - which is not itself well-defined. There are plenty of good definitions for the term 'gene', but there is still plenty of argument.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'maleable' as opposed to 'vague'. I would say that definitions of population are always (or at least so far) vague, in the strictest sense.
r |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 05:44:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
At its core, evolution is simply defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.
But if this is the definition of evolution it will miss the central thesis of Darwin's original work, which is common descent.
I think a better definition might be common descent with modifiction to alleles or something worded similar. This makes the definition more encompassing and note that without an understanding of evolution it does not directly lead from your definition to your result (i.e. Descent with Modification). From the more restricted definition one could imply (incorrectly) all populations were created and are just having their allele frequencies modified over time.
In fact this is what creationists do with this very definition today, thus the whole micro vs. macro idiocy. They can point to this definition and say, "yes I agree with that, but that is just microevolution, but that whole common descent thing, now that's another story". They play this little game to make themselves not look like total idiots and by accepting one scientific definition, they try to hijack some scientfic authority.
However I wouldn't try to make definitions just to thwart creationist tricks, but I think the more encompassing definition explains more and is more useful than the restricted definition. And that should be the key goal of any definition. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 05:46:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'maleable' as opposed to 'vague'. I would say that definitions of population are always (or at least so far) vague, in the strictest sense.
I think you and Dave W are in agreement, the idea being that populations are hard to define even by observation and their "definition" varies from one observation to another. Like "Life" it is hard to define so that it captures all populations and at the same time prevents us from including things that are not true populations. Thus it can vary from observation to observation. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
