|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
I watched that pseudo documentary "Live After People" on History, and it really makes us seem insignificant given the entirety of the planet's life. Nothing we do can survive into the eons to come once the final human dies off. (and that's even if the planet isn't destroyed by some disaster, like a supernova, or asteroid, or so on) It's actually kind of sad how insignificant we could truly be.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
It's actually kind of sad how insignificant we could truly be.
Why? And, we ARE insignificant. Except to ourselves. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Uh oh. This thread is dangerously close to switching topics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's actually kind of sad how insignificant we could truly be.
Why? And, we ARE insignificant. Except to ourselves.
But to ourselves we are the single most significant species we know of ..... ever. We have accomplished things that no other species has even come close to doing. Ever. We are sentient, which is a trait no other species can claim, ever. (at least that we know of) As far as we know, the human race is the single most evolved species in the entire history of the universe .... a history of billions of years.
It is entirely possible that we are the most evolved species in the entire universe, and in fact, possibly the only sentient species. If mankind were to vanish, it's possible that there would be no one left to appreciate the vastness of space ..... a sunset ....... the smell of the air after a thunderstorm ...... or a million other things that only a sentient human being, out of all of the species on earth, and maybe in the universe, can appreciate.
It is entirely possible that a universe without mankind would just be a universe of stuff. It could be the equivalent of a really enormous snow globe ..... pretty to look at from the outside, but with no one inside able to comprehend the beauty of it all.
Mankind if far from perfect ..... but we do have qualities that no other species possesses.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We are sentient, which is a trait no other species can claim, ever. (at least that we know of)
Do you know what that word means?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Quote:
Quote:
We are sentient, which is a trait no other species can claim, ever. (at least that we know of)
Do you know what that word means?
I try to stay away from talking to you, because generally it is completely pointless. I take sentient to mean self aware, aware of one's own existence, or being able to perceive one's own existence. While some animals may mimic human behaviors, I do not believe that any of them are sentient, self aware, understanding, and aware of their own existence. I take sentient to mean being conscious ... which I do not believe that any animal can be. There is a degree of awareness that separates humans from even the most advanced animal, and that separates sentient beings from instinctual animals who can mimic some forms of human behavior.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Actually, climates do change rather quickly.
What I said was that they do had some evolutionary forces earlier in our planet's history, because there would almost have had to have been some.
Again, evolution doesn't turn off. There's plenty of evolutionary pressure out there. For instance, looks at the relative head size of babies in the past, vs what they are since we started being able to do C-Section births. They're increasing in size. Before, we were limited by the ability of a baby to pass through the birth canal, but now, that constraint is lessened. Therefore larger heads are able to passed on to other generations. How about the battle between bacteria and fungi? Fungi are great at creating anti-bacterial compounds. Bacteria on the other hand are great at reducing those compounds effects on themselves. Over time, the two evolve in tandem; one creating a new poison and the other eventually finds a way to live with that poison. Are they a new species? No, there hasn't been enough of a genetic change to say that. But they are evolving and adapting to one another over time.
Quote:
I think that's much harder. I can see a species facing extinction picking up a random genetic element and "evolving", but maybe it's just luck that a certain creature escaped a predator, while a different one did not.
No one ever said luck doesn't play a role. Imagine you have a volcano that is covered with a species of plant. One population that lives only on the north side of the mountain has red tips to it's leaves, the rest are just green and live elsewhere. The volcano goes off, sparing a small section of the north face of the mountain, leaving the only representatives of that species who just happen to have that red tip to their leaves rather than a fully green leaf. So that species gene frequency has changed due to one unlucky event, which is evolution.
Quote:
However, I have this notion in the back of my head that as species have become more and more entrenched in their DNA, it is harder for that DNA to change. The random elements either work their way into the larger population, or they die off. As a species becomes more established, those random elements become fewer and fewer, especially by comparison to the overall number of members of that species.
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it's false. There's no limit to how much DNA can change. As long as the changes don't negatively impact the interaction of the protein that comes from gene in such a way that it's impossible for the organism with that mutation to pass on it's genes, the possible alterations are endless. For instance we share quite a few genes (with plenty of mutations) with many of the "lower" organisms. Cytochrome C is a very important part of the electron transport chain (makes energy usable by the body) and occurs in a very rudimentary form from bacteria to mammals and birds. Many of the body patterning genes (Hox genes) are very similar, the only real changes occur in the places they're expressed in the body during early development.
But, I think you hit on a point that's important. If populations change, why are there so many extinctions? I just briefly explained that it's not the entrenchment of DNA, so why is it? The answer is that when a selective pressure happens, like droughts in the proto-giraffe's time mentioned above, there has to be already within the population a trait that confers resistance to that selective pressure ... some way to alleviate the issue a bit such that it allows a group of individuals to survive and reproduce. In essence, this is a "right place, right time" type of thing. In order for the giraffes to survive and reproduce they had to have individuals with slightly longer necks in order to survive the way they did. Other organisms might go about it a different way, they may start eating different food, or move to greener pastures. More often than not though, they die.
What this means is that genetic mutations don't occur only when selective pressures occur, they occur all the time and at a rate that we never would have guessed 15 years ago. However, in order for an organism to make it through a selective event it needs to have some type of trait that allows it to survive where others within its species would fail. That allows this trait to be passed on to it's progeny which are able to compete better than the progeny of others within the species. Soon, that trait is rampant within the species due to the benefit that trait confers. Again, this isn't speciation, but this is evolution. You don't need speciation for it to be evolution.
Quote:
I can't prove it, but it's just something this little voice in the back of my head says.
I guess that's the difference between our arguments then, I can prove mine. This isn't my opinion or some idea that is half-baked that atheists use to remediate their cognitive dissonance they feel when they think about a creator, this is and has been proven for years and we just keep piling up more and more evidence that shows we're on the right track. In order for evolution to be proven untrue at this point, we would literally need God to show up and tell us that we're wrong and He made everything. Anything else would be insufficient at explaining why organisms change over time.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I do not believe that any of them are sentient, self aware, understanding, and aware of their own existence.
Chimps, Orangutans, Dophins to some extent to name a few.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I try to stay away from talking to you, because generally it is completely pointless.
It is pointless to debate someone if your intent is to make the same argument over and over despite being shown your logic is flawed.
You've been beating this drum since that NBA thread. Go back and read it - you were proven wrong time and time again, but you kept making the same arguments anyway, until you just threw up your hands and called it 'pointless'.
Quote:
I take sentient to mean self aware, aware of one's own existence, or being able to perceive one's own existence. While some animals may mimic human behaviors, I do not believe that any of them are sentient, self aware, understanding, and aware of their own existence. I take sentient to mean being conscious ... which I do not believe that any animal can be. There is a degree of awareness that separates humans from even the most advanced animal, and that separates sentient beings from instinctual animals who can mimic some forms of human behavior.
That's a pretty narrow definition of the word.
There are thousands and thousand of sentient species other than humans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
To some extent is not completely there. They are remarkable animals, but not self aware the the extent that humans are. There may be some rudimentary self awareness, but it's like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. I suppose that you are correct that there is some small level of self awareness though.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
So what is your definition of sentient? (just out of curiosity) I'm not going to debate the rest with you, and I'm also not going to waste a lot of time going round and round with you. I prefer to stay away from your insults and such, so I will. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So what is your definition of sentient? (just out of curiosity)
Being responsive to or conscious of sense impressions.
A worm is not sentient. A dolphin is.
Quote:
I'm not going to debate the rest with you, and I'm also not going to waste a lot of time going round and round with you. I prefer to stay away from your insults and such, so I will.
I don't really care.
Stop saying you're not going to talk to me and just stop, if that's what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I guess that's the difference between our arguments then, I can prove mine. This isn't my opinion or some idea that is half-baked that atheists use to remediate their cognitive dissonance they feel when they think about a creator, this is and has been proven for years and we just keep piling up more and more evidence that shows we're on the right track. In order for evolution to be proven untrue at this point, we would literally need God to show up and tell us that we're wrong and He made everything. Anything else would be insufficient at explaining why organisms change over time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
As far as humanity. don't worry ...... within about 60,000 years or so of the final human's final breath, you'll be hard pressed to ever tell that a human lived anywhere on this planet.
What makes you think we won't be around in 60,000 years?
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Regarding DNA ......
Look at the domestic animals we have in our present world. Millions upon million of dogs and cats are bred specifically to be house pets. Selective breeding has bred the more docile animals to create a more suitable pet to live alongside humans. In the history of mankind, I would guess that billions upon billions of animals have been bred to fill a role, and their DNA has been remarkably stable. (within their breeds, and cross breeds) There are few surprises ...... where a dog meows, or a cat develops "wings" like a flying squirrel. There are relatively few genetic anomalies in this massive breeding program.
Same thing for animals created for food. Animals held in close quarters, if evolutionary forces came into play, should get smaller and smaller because of the constant closed quarters in which they live their entire lives.
That is why I say that DNA seems to have stabilized. Despite circumstances which would seem sell suited to force evolution, they don't. Massive breeding should cause more genetic changes, yet we really don't see many.
As far as c-sections .... is your example some evolutionary change, or is it that children with bigger heads died in childbirth before c-sections, whereas now they can survive childbirth? Is that evolution, or a medical advance?
As far as giraffes and such, it's entirely possible that animals are much like people ....... and the "proto animals" had a wide variety of body shapes, much like humans do. Is a taller person an evolution, or just a different type of the same species? Is a person with longer arms an evolution of a human being, better capable of playing basketball, perhaps, or is he just a member of the human race with a specific trait? Is he considered to be evolutionarily advanced, or just different? I suppose that it is possible that the giraffes with longer necks were able to grab food from the trees before it fell to the ground, starving off their competitors for food, and thinning the gene pool. However, what I fail to see is how a gradual change from standard height animal to a foot taller over a few thousand years .... and to 2 or 3 feet taller over a million years is the difference between life and death. Maybe one mutant animal was born with a long neck, and that trait was a dominant trait. Over time that one animal with the long neck bred with a female, had a little of 3 with the genetic trait of a long neck, and so on.
Giraffes can range wildly in size, from 13-14" tall, to IIRC, over 22'. If evolutionary forces drive survival, why don't the shorter giraffe die off? I just wonder how much survival traits drive evolution, as compared to one mutant gene becoming a dominant trait, and being carried out in increasing numbers as the offspring continue to breed. I suppose that there is some survival involved, because obviously the "new" animal must survive and breed, and so must his offspring ..... but I think that it is entirely likely that it is more the case of a dominant genetic trait as opposed to some more "pure" survival of the fittest.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Quote:
Quote:
As far as humanity. don't worry ...... within about 60,000 years or so of the final human's final breath, you'll be hard pressed to ever tell that a human lived anywhere on this planet.
What makes you think we won't be around in 60,000 years?
I didn't say that. What I said is that 60,000 or so years after humanity were to vanish, there would be almost nothing left to show that we ever existed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
To some extent is not completely there. They are remarkable animals, but not self aware the the extent that humans are. There may be some rudimentary self awareness, but it's like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes. I suppose that you are correct that there is some small level of self awareness though.
So what of chimps and Orangs? They look in the mirror and see themselves, they know cause and effect. That is the very definition of self-aware. Dolphins are a bit odd in that they have very little of a frontal lobe, but have huge temporal lobes. Their neuroanatomy is very divergent from an apes, so we can't make the same conclusions as we do about orangs and chimps. They certainly act like they're self-aware and sentient, but difference in our own understanding of what it means to be sentient may not apply to them.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Look at the domestic animals we have in our present world. Millions upon million of dogs and cats are bred specifically to be house pets. Selective breeding has bred the more docile animals to create a more suitable pet to live alongside humans. In the history of mankind, I would guess that billions upon billions of animals have been bred to fill a role, and their DNA has been remarkably stable. (within their breeds, and cross breeds) There are few surprises ...... where a dog meows, or a cat develops "wings" like a flying squirrel. There are relatively few genetic anomalies in this massive breeding program.
Mutations in DNA between one generation and the next has been shown to be as great as one mutation in every 300 base pairs depending on the species. Let me back up, I don't know the amount of Biology you have because I'd hate for you to miss a point about this due to a lack of understanding. DNA is made up of a backbone of phosphates and sugar groups. You should know the relative shape; that of a double helix. Inbetween the two backbones of the double helix you have four different nucleotides that pair up (A to T, G to C) across said backbones. We call two nucleotides that span the distance between the backbones a "base pair." Genes are made up of anywhere between 50 and 50,000 base pairs, not including any regulatory section that precedes them. A gene codes for a protein, which plays a role in a cell's life cycle. That protein is the active form of the gene.
When I talk about a mutation, I don't mean something like a cat growing wings or anything like that, I mean an alteration of the sequence of the gene by changing one base pair to another, a deletion of that base pair, or the movement of that gene to another part of the genome. Sometimes this one change results in a change in the structure of a protein, other times it means the gene will turn off and on at different points in the cell's life, it may do nothing overall, or even make it not work. More often than not the change in the gene is minimal and doesn't effect the protein made from it, but sometimes it does, and sometimes that change in the protein will lead to an organisms ability to pass on that gene and all the others with it to the next generation, maybe multiple times.
Quote:
Same thing for animals created for food. Animals held in close quarters, if evolutionary forces came into play, should get smaller and smaller because of the constant closed quarters in which they live their entire lives.
That is why I say that DNA seems to have stabilized. Despite circumstances which would seem sell suited to force evolution, they don't. Massive breeding should cause more genetic changes, yet we really don't see many.
Ah, see, massive breeding programs like you're talking do just the opposite! They become more and more similar to one another genetically over time because they are an inbreeding population with no evolutionary constraints to enforce and cement any changes! That's why scientists use extremely inbred populations of mice to do their experiments on. In the mouse line i work in, they are more similar to one another than most twins are. The reason why is because the lack of diversity within the populations lets us make more concrete conclusions about the questions we are asking. Biology is messy, so anything we can do to control the prevalence of mutation is necessary. I'm sure if you were to sample all the milk cows within large farms that have been around for awhile, you'd see that genetic diversity if very small. However, within all of the united states population that diversity would increase. If you take a sample of all the milk cows in the world it would be much more. This is why buying stud males from different populations is done, to increase the diversity of their stock. Sometimes those males come from females that have increased milk production, so they will potentially carry whatever genetic code it is that makes the females do that which would result in more milk production for the farm in later generations.
How could we simulate natural selection in this group based off of milk production? Lets say that babies being born need more milk, so those within the top 5% of milk production in the world are able to keep up with the required amount of milk for their babies. That means the other 95% would die, leaving the rest to carry on the species.So this 5% starts growing in population to take up the spots that were left behind by their predecessors that vanished due to not being able to keep up with milk production. This species as whole is producing more milk on average than it was before. This is what natural selection is. It's not a rat giving birth to a cat, it's these small differences within the population that lead to the survival of some individuals within the species rather than others due to the benefit of a trait or two.
Just sitting in a pen being milked isn't enough to force them to be smaller in size, there has to be some mechanism (an evolutionary constraint) that forces the population to get successively more diminutive. How could this be accomplished? Well, we could set up a restriction that pigs going into pens need to be smaller so we can fit more pigs into barns. Any pig that can fit into the newly sized pen is allowed to live, those that don't get culled before they can reproduce. Those in the pens are allowed to produce as much as they want until their time comes to punch their ticket. If every 5 generations we do this, cull the large before they can reproduce and allow the small to survive and reproduce we would end up seeing smaller and smaller and pigs over time. We would also see the expression of their genes changing over this time as well. The point is that there needs to be some selective pressure that allows some organisms to live while others die in order for changes in the species to occur.
Quote:
As far as c-sections .... is your example some evolutionary change, or is it that children with bigger heads died in childbirth before c-sections, whereas now they can survive childbirth? Is that evolution, or a medical advance?
You act as if it isn't both. There used to be a selective pressure that a babies head size could only be so large due to the birth canal being only so big, with the advent of C-Sections this pressure was released allowing for a wider range of head size as a trait in humans. Those children and mother's with larger heads often died in the past, however they're now able to live and go on to reproduce and pass that trait on to successive generations. Over time, this has led to the increase in average head size.
Quote:
Is a taller person an evolution, or just a different type of the same species?
No, they are not a new species. Evolution is gradual and must take place over long periods of time in order for new species to come about.
Quote:
Is a person with longer arms an evolution of a human being, better capable of playing basketball, perhaps, or is he just a member of the human race with a specific trait?
Calling something "more evolved" than another of it's species is the wrong use of the term because other populations within the species have also been evolving just as long. Humans have been evolving just as long as chimps or gorillas, we've just responded to the selective pressures differently.
To answer your question then, long arms is just a trait in an individual. Could that trait eventually lead to a better chance of his or her progeny to grow and reproduce later on down the road? Maybe. If that's the case, successive generations of individuals would have longer arms on average than we do now.
Quote:
Is he considered to be evolutionarily advanced, or just different?
Just different. But again, there is no evolutionarily advanced or anything. These differences don't make any population more advanced than another since they have all being undergoing evolution through out their lives.
Quote:
I suppose that it is possible that the giraffes with longer necks were able to grab food from the trees before it fell to the ground, starving off their competitors for food, and thinning the gene pool. However, what I fail to see is how a gradual change from standard height animal to a foot taller over a few thousand years .... and to 2 or 3 feet taller over a million years is the difference between life and death. Maybe one mutant animal was born with a long neck, and that trait was a dominant trait. Over time that one animal with the long neck bred with a female, had a little of 3 with the genetic trait of a long neck, and so on.
Well, believe it or not it is the case more often than not. It's the gradual changes over long periods of time that create populations that are vastly different than their predecessors. Dominant traits could play a role as well. Changes in gene frequency of dominant or recessive traits within a population could lead to one of those traits being expressed more often due to the benefit they provide when introduced to a natural selection event. That being said, I doubt proto-giraffes had two genes, one for 1 foot long necks, one for 15 foot long necks, and only the long necks were capable of surviving. There's just too much different between the body plans to be able to have that difference based off of a single gene. Not saying it's not possible, but we don't see anything that drastic in nature anywhere else.
Quote:
but I think that it is entirely likely that it is more the case of a dominant genetic trait as opposed to some more "pure" survival of the fittest.
Well, this is one of the many arguments within the field. How often is natural selection the cause of evolution? How often is it sexual selection? How often is it luck? How often is it genetic drift (your example)? These are great questions to think about. But just because we can't assign numbers to each case doesn't make evolution not true and doesn't mean that all of these things are currently going on at this moment in the majority of species around the world.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
I'll add octopus to the list of species that may be self aware
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
j/c
And mean while, another old tree just fell over. We didn't get to use it. And, more new trees are growing because of it. Lumber is a renewable resource. Why not use it?
Or, should we let wildfires claim the forests?
Michelle - I appreciate your scenario where a squirrel could go state line to state line without touching the ground. It's a nice thought. And those swamps? They were great for frogs and mosquitoes.
However, if we were to revert back to that, where would you live? Where would I live?
There's a road near me that is called "ridge road".........supposedly, at one point in time, it was the shore of lake Erie. Lake Erie is now about 45 miles away. Should we re-construct lake Erie to come back to its original boundary? Good bye Toledo, and many other cities/towns/villages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
However, if we were to revert back to that, where would you live? Where would I live?
Straw man alert.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
I don't want to seem like I am somehow anti-science or even anti-evolution, to an extent. However, I think that many evolutionary steps aren't really steps at all, but rather a dominant gene passed on to offspring, for which we now try to assign a reason to.
I wonder if a person living on a small island was born with a dominant gene for a huge nose, and he went on to have a bunch of kids, also with huge noses ........ well, if say maybe 10,000 years from then everyone had a huge nose, if scientists would try to assign some survival trait to the nose ..... for instance, they needed the huge nose to hunt down food ....... or for better air intake because they ran a lot ....... instead of it just being a dominant gene whose genetic path began with one man who had a bunch of children, all of whom inherited his genes, and his big nose ..... and who in turn passed that onto their children.
That really is the point I started out trying to make. I think that much of what we consider evolution was simply a genetic accident that caused a change ....... not necessarily a valuable change, or a change that increases survival chances ...... but just a change. I think that evolution has been treated as this perfect process by many people, where the changes are always positive for the species, and they are essential to the survival of the species. If there were a way to definitively know for certain, I would bet money that more "evolutionary changes" have ended a species,or had no effect at all, than have saved it. It's all genetics, and genetics is messy ..... and really, all that we're talking about is a new dominant gene entering a gene pool, and propagating itself over many, many generations. A new dominant gene can be good, bad, or neutral. I would bet that many times more neutral changes have occurred throughout genetic history as ones that somehow benefited the offspring of a species down the road. I do think that we look for reasons why a particular change was essential for a particular species, instead of just accepting that a change happened. I do not believe that all species on this earth have followed some upward genetic path, where they have improved and improved with each following generation. I do believe that once in a great while a new dominant gene appears within a species, and that member of the species could be a prolific breeder, and have that gene carried down to the point where most, if not all of the eventual descendants carry it ....... or that particular member of a species is dinner for someone else, and that gene never goes any further than his own DNA.
Again, my point is that I believe that we assign too much "godhood" to evolution, and look for reasons why changes were exclusively beneficial, (or even essential) when they may have been neutral, or even harmful to a species, despite being a dominant gene that carried forward through a species over many generations. I see this form of genetic dominance as a process, but not a positive, or negative one. It simply is a process. Back to the giraffe .... if a long necked giraffe, in a relatively small area inhabited by giraffes, developed a gene for a long neck, and it was a dominant gene, then maybe that was really all it was. Over time we had giraffes, not because of the need to be able to eat out of the tops of trees .....but because one animal had a dominant gene for a long neck, and all this time later we have assigned a value of being able to eat out of tall trees as the reason, when maybe it was just an effect. Maybe giraffes who developed long necks decided that they liked certain trees better, and wandered off to where those trees live, because they could eat from them at will. Maybe the effect was the cause, and not the other way around. That's my point.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Michelle - I appreciate your scenario where a squirrel could go state line to state line without touching the ground. It's a nice thought. And those swamps? They were great for frogs and mosquitoes.
However, if we were to revert back to that, where would you live? Where would I live?
There's a road near me that is called "ridge road".........supposedly, at one point in time, it was the shore of lake Erie. Lake Erie is now about 45 miles away. Should we re-construct lake Erie to come back to its original boundary? Good bye Toledo, and many other cities/towns/villages.
I think you are taking what I'm saying to the extreme, but I'm sure there are people that would say yes, let's revert back. I just wish we would stop tearing down nature to build another house, or another mall, or another whatthehellever we are building.
And, The Great Black Swamp was more than a breeding ground for frogs and mosquitoes. Apparently, though, you don't appreciate nature unless it benefits YOU and that just really blows my mind.  I had you pegged as a nature lover. Maybe when something screws with your precious deer hunting you will finally see why all of this really does matter. Why all of this SHOULD have mattered for a very long time.
Enjoy your blinders, my friend.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
And mean while, another old tree just fell over. We didn't get to use it. And, more new trees are growing because of it. Lumber is a renewable resource. Why not use it?
I meant to comment on this, too. Maybe WE didn't get to use it, but other species did. We don't need every flipping tree, Arch. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
From the mouth of children (metaphorically speaking) ... Quote:
I wonder if a person living on a small island was born with a dominant gene for a huge nose, and he went on to have a bunch of kids, also with huge noses ........ well, if say maybe 10,000 years from then everyone had a huge nose, if scientists would try to assign some survival trait to the nose ..... for instance, they needed the huge nose to hunt down food ....... or for better air intake because they ran a lot ....... instead of it just being a dominant gene whose genetic path began with one man who had a bunch of children, all of whom inherited his genes, and his big nose ..... and who in turn passed that onto their children.
What you have just described is genetic drift, a pillar of the modern synthesis of evolution! Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason as far as we can tell about why certain things are the way they are. Structures don't need to have survival significance in order to be passed on to the next generation, maybe those big noses were just a hitchhiker on what was another adaptive trait of that original population that had the big noses. Regardless, this is still a part of evolution. Remember, evolution is the best explanation we have for species changing over time, that's it. Evolution occurs when genes change. The way genes change is through mutation in their DNA.
Let me ask you this, what is the difference between a dominant and recessive gene?
Quote:
That really is the point I started out trying to make. I think that much of what we consider evolution was simply a genetic accident that caused a change ....... not necessarily a valuable change, or a change that increases survival chances ...... but just a change
Exactly! the word that is assigned to describe the definition is still evolution! The change doesn't need to be progressive, it can be regressive as well. Most parasitic worms that inhabit the GI tract of animals everywhere have vestigial organs that are similar to those seen in terrestrial dwelling worms. Eye spots, setea, digestive tracts ... everything. That is evolution. Evolution is the change of organisms over time. The way organisms change over time is through changes in their DNA, known as mutation!
Quote:
I think that evolution has been treated as this perfect process by many people, where the changes are always positive for the species, and they are essential to the survival of the species. If there were a way to definitively know ed an issue they couldn't deal with. Evolution isn't magic, it doesn't care about what species lives and dies. It's just the best definition we have for how populations within a species change over time, and how those changes result in new species.
Again, in case you missed it above, what is the difference between and dominant and recessive allele (genes with different sequences but in the same place in the genome as one another)? I believe answering this question will lead to a more productive answer for your questions. If we can talk this out, I'll make a believer out of you yet! 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079 |
Quote:
1. And mean while, another old tree just fell over. We didn't get to use it. And, more new trees are growing because of it. Lumber is a renewable resource. Why not use it?
2. Or, should we let wildfires claim the forests?
________________
Yo, arch:
1. When an old tree falls, that's not the end of its role within the forest. As it decomposes, it adds nutrients back to the soil that supported it. It provides food for hundreds of species of insects. It provides shelter for dozens of different species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians. In other words, it continues to contribute to the ecology long after it has died.
You are right in what you say- younger trees can now stretch out towards the light... BUT they rely on the breakdown of the old trees and other decomposing vegetation to get their food.
2. As a matter of fact- yes. For the past 20 years or so, the USFS and many states' DNR's have taken a total 180 regarding fire suppression. Although we still see news items that show smoke eaters fighting fires- mainly in the country's southwest states, what many don't know is that they've also adopted a policy of allowing some (in fact, many) forest fires to burn. We now know why some of these fires are so big- and so destructive. Suprisingly, it's our history of NOT allowing fires that is contributing to the scenes we're now seeing.* As the forests become choked with overgrowth, they become tinder boxes... and normally-occurring forest fires that might have consumed 100-400 acres are now burning thousands of acres instead.
They also have adopted what are called "controlled burns" in forests to prevent them from reaching critical mass. This is an effort to regenerate new plant life that thrives after a fire has burned out the overgrowth... without being forced to fight an out-of-control wildfire.
I agree with your take on new-growth forestry. Where I differ in POV is this: with the abundance of faster-growing "farmed" timber... why NOT keep the old-growth as it is... and allow Nature to take her course as she always has?
There are precious few ecosystems left on this planet that haven't felt the influence of Mankind... and most times, when they have felt that influence, it hasn't been for the better.
At some point, we simply MUST determine "how much is enough?"... and tailor our land usage to match.
just another P.O.V.,
Clemmy
* The "Smokey The Bar Effect"
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
I've enjoyed reading your explanations of evolution. I've found that it is a common belief among non-scientists, even highly educated ones, that evolution is a teleological process. Even worse, the academics I know in the humanaties often claim that scientists believe this as well despite the fact that the notion that evolution is perfecting species went out during the 19th century. People just don't know enough about evolution; or, in the case of the academics I know, have an axe to grind with the physical sciences. Thankfully, there are people like you with the requisite training to give thorough, comprehensive answers to these questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
LIKE 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
What's the point of having all this knowledge if I can't give it to others? Quote:
People just don't know enough about evolution; or, in the case of the academics I know, have an axe to grind with the physical sciences.
Agreed about many people not knowing enough about evolution. It's a benign process (well, as benign as anything else in the universe) that too often gets dragged into debate because people feel like it co-opts their religion's creation story.
Also, the soft sciences always hate it when the hard sciences get it right 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Again, I believe that evolution has taken place ,..... but that some people see it as a more or less perfectly straight line from one form to another. They see it as a solution to a species' problem, when it's really more or less a process that takes place far too slowly to "save" any species. If one animal had a specific genetic change that allowed it to survive a major change of some sort, like giraffes with taller trees, then the rest of his species would die off from starvation before he could adapt and breed. That's why, in the case of the giraffe, for example, I find it far more likely that the first giraffes could have gone off on their own, attracted by fruit that they could reach when other animals could not ..... as opposed to them somehow developing a long neck in response to fruit growing on taller trees. I think that too many look at it the opposite way ..... where one animal growing a long neck saves a species from extinction. Frankly I don't think that nature is so polite that it would give a new species, like a giraffe, a new capability just to save its ... well .... neck. That's the problem I have with evolution. I don't believe that God, or nature, changes a species in response to some environmental pressures. I do believe that a species changes and then seeks out an environment where they can thrive. Further, I do believe that a lot of people see it the other way. (and that other way is how I was taught evolution back in the stone age, for example that fish crawled out of the water in search of food .... or a giraffe grew a long neck to be able to eat food, etc.)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I am a nature lover Michelle. Perhaps I am different from you in one sense: I feel nature is there for us to enjoy, AND to use.
I do both. I enjoy it. It's great to be out in the woods, hunting or not, and watch deer, squirrels (natures tree rats), turkeys, fox, etc. I've never seen coyotes in the wild......but I see their tracks constantly.
Snakes, owls, hawks.........these are all animals I watch and see.
I do love nature. Again, I guess your impression of logging is different from mine. I base my impression on what I've seen. In Michigan, and West Virginia specifically. What I've seen is what would be known as very conservative logging - not clear cutting. And yes, I've seen some clear cut forests. And what I saw was timber that was cut down, and new trees that were planted. Not just pine trees, as I think DC mentioned.
I do think it would be safe to say I like and enjoy nature just as much as you, if not more. I would hazard a guess that I get out into nature more often than you. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but I would be surprised.
Just as we hunt deer, squirrel, turkey, rabbits, etc.....we ought to hunt trees as well. And just as we don't hunt deer, squirrel, turkey, rabbits, etc, to distinction..........we also should not eliminate forests. However, logging a forest does not mean eliminating a forest.
I do not have blinders on. You have a good weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
I'm not debating which one of us enjoys nature more. You're a hunter, I'm a birder/hobby naturalist. Probably not a lot of difference there. I just happen to CARE that the birds, insects, reptiles, mammals, etc., we both enjoy have the habitat they need to survive for decades to come. The more humans interfere, the less there is. That is fact. I'm just confused as to why you think it's a GOOD thing to take down forests. Also, we need to stop comparing one tree falling in the woods (the circle of life) to felling an entire stand of them. They are very different things. You have a good weekend, too. I'm heading outside.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Again, I believe that evolution has taken place ,..... but that some people see it as a more or less perfectly straight line from one form to another. hey see it as a solution to a species' problem, when it's really more or less a process that takes place far too slowly to "save" any species.
And yet it has happened. A convergence of a population with the right set of traits to survive one thing or another. Does it happen all the time? No, more often than not that species dies. This also happens to be the best, and fastest, way to change the genetic composition of a species so that in a relatively short (geological) time span you can get a change in the form of an organism such that it is much more adapted to dealing with the problem than past generations. It's called punctuated equilibrium. Species undergo long periods of stasis followed by rapid (again, geologically rapid) change. It could be like you say, that new niches open up to a genetically diverse species and they radiate out into these new niches (the fish coming out of the water approach) but when the parental species dies out leaving a daughter species it should be a clue that the changes in the daughter species provided more of a reproduction benefit than what the parent species was capable of.
Quote:
That's why, in the case of the giraffe, for example, I find it far more likely that the first giraffes could have gone off on their own, attracted by fruit that they could reach when other animals could not ..... as opposed to them somehow developing a long neck in response to fruit growing on taller trees.
Possible. Testable too. We can determine the amount of mutations that giraffes have on average every generation. From that we could make an educated guess as to when these changes in neck length occurred and consult the fossil record. We'd go digging in areas where there are known fossil deposits of the correct age and see what we turn up. This is what happened when Neil Shubin went looking for a fish that spent equal times on land and in the water.
Quote:
That's the problem I have with evolution. I don't believe that God, or nature, changes a species in response to some environmental pressures.
Again, species aren't changing in response to a selection pressure, they're changing because of it. There's a difference. The organism first has to have some trait that allows the pressure to be lessened such that some of the population survives where others perish. That's all natural selection is.
Think of it like this. Natural selection is a sifter for flour. In order to get nice, even, flour for baking you need to first use a sifter with large hole so that it takes out all the large parts still left over from the wheat. Next you use a sifter with smaller holes to pull out the large chunks still left unground. You continue doing this until you have something extremely fine left that is suitable for baking. This is all that evolution by natural selection is.
Quote:
I do believe that a species changes and then seeks out an environment where they can thrive.
Yep, genetic drift. This is what's believed to have occurred when organisms left the water and came onto land. All of the available space and niches left unfilled allowed the species that came onto land to diversify into what we see today. At some point, as those niches filled up, competition came into play, and therefore natural selection. That's not to say genetic drift doesn't still play a role. Genetic drift is what gives species their plasticity, their ability to withstand selection events, and come out stronger because of it.
Quote:
Further, I do believe that a lot of people see it the other way. (and that other way is how I was taught evolution back in the stone age, for example that fish crawled out of the water in search of food .... or a giraffe grew a long neck to be able to eat food, etc.)
When most of what people hear about evolution is natural selection that's to be expected. No one remembers niches, or ecosystem roles. Ecology gets left by the wayside often when lay people think about evolution. But in evolutionary biologist circles this topic is never forgotten, and that's where the discussions really count anyways.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Tough question. I'm not in favor of clear cutting forests. I'm all for harvesting timber. There is a difference. Sidenote here: http://www.toledoblade.com/MattMarkey/2013/08/04/Bobcats-returning-to-Buckeye-State.html Bobcats are making a comeback in Ohio. Ironic quote here: "Prange said Ohio’s bobcats have set up shop in areas where they have found “ideal” habitat — forested sections where clear-cuts have allowed belts of very dense new growth to occur. The bobcats find the thick cover teeming with the small mammals that make up a large portion of their diet, and is equally ideal for the stealth and ambush style of hunting they employ." (that's from the article.) Pollution bugs me. All kinds of pollution - air, litter, chemicals, etc.......but, I can't use that, according to your rules on the question. What else bugs me? Clear cutting huge areas of forest without replanting. Strip mining would come to mind I guess, as well. Animal or land ABUSE. Not use, but abuse. I also, on another side note, don't care for people that think the newest and latest is the greatest. But that has nothing to do with your question. My guess is maybe you asked me a loaded question..........and my guess is I'm missing something. Anyway, I have to run now.....probably will be back on here later this evening. Fill me in on what I'm missing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
I was trying to get a better idea about your position on conservation. Some conservatives seem to take the approach that if it helps a human(s) to get ahead materially, then there is no reason to not do it. This is what it means to be a materialist conservative, the "materialism of the right." It doesn't have to be that way. I'm a conservative who is keenly aware of the non-material aspects of human existence. I won't go into this in depth here. (Actually... I think it was somewhere in this thread that I explained non-material benefits.)
Anyway, I think the question I asked you is a good way to sort out different types of conservatives. You're right -- pollution doesn't count because everyone agrees its a problem, provided that it can be reasonably avoided. However, you mentioned clear cutting which might very well qualify. I don't know much about it to say for sure. Is clear cutting a standard practice? Is it viewed in the same ethical light as unreasonable pollution, or is there more of a debate about it?
BTW, I'd like to here others answer this question as well. Especially other conservatives.
Last edited by Mantis; 08/04/13 05:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Speaking for myself, I believe that we can responsibly use the assets that nature gives us, but we must do so carefully and responsibly. I think that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of nature, and that does mean that we have to clear out areas from time to time to allow the overall forest to be a more healthy environment.
Someone brought up replanting a forest with fast growing pine trees, and I do not feel that this is an appropriate answer. (unless it was pine to start with) I think that we should look at the forest mix before it is harvested, and do our best to ensure that the same mix is recreated with new saplings.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ohio to dissolve habitat
protections...
|
|
