Quake3World

we're talking, Leo deCaprio, takes a few hours out of his heavy number crunching that he loves to go and club with his girlfriend, and he's 22.

eh?

he also shares a gene with Ricky Martin, so he dances like he should.

Geebs wrote:
Quoted basically because we need more pics of hot ape chicks in bikinis. But why, out if interest, is africanus holding a ghetto blaster? Hmmmm....

Quoted to ensure that no one believes that I actually thought that Kracus made a true statement above...just needed to post that pic.

Ghetto blaster? I actually thought it was a prehistoric watermelon of some sort.

glossy wrote:he also shares a gene with Ricky Martin

The gay gene? Let's not get into nature/nuture again....

Geebs wrote:

Kracus wrote:Basicly a need creates mutations.

:icon27: :icon27: :icon27:

Kracus might not be that far off here. A species finds an ecological niche, evolves to optimal fitness and then stays largely the same for the next couple of aeons until the habitat changes. Then it starts evolving again (and in a short time span, say 10,000 to 100,000 years) until it once again is perfectly adapted to a niche.

Mutations will still occur in the quiet periods but since they're most likely to be less beneficial, they won't find their way into the general population.

:icon27: :icon27: :icon27:

^misantropia^ wrote:

Geebs wrote:

Kracus wrote:Basicly a need creates mutations.

:icon27: :icon27: :icon27:

Kracus might not be that far off here. A species finds an ecological niche, evolves to optimal fitness and then stays largely the same for the next couple of aeons until the habitat changes. Then it starts evolving again (and in a short time span, say 10,000 to 100,000 years) until it once again is perfectly adapted to a niche.

Mutations will still occur in the quiet periods but since they're most likely to be less beneficial, they won't find their way into the general population.

He implies some intentionality (by saying that a need 'creates' mutations) in the development of mutatations to fit ecological niches. Completely wrong.

EDIT - by the way:

:icon27: :icon27: :icon27: :icon27: :icon27: :icon27: :icon27: :icon27: :icon27:

Besides, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. So we don't have aeons to work with.

I myself have evolved greatly in these last 20 years.

I feel so dirty after reading Kracus' post

steel wool--->

i on the other hand, feel so fresh so clean :drewl:

a need creates the selection of a mutation. I guess the selection of a mutation could be understood as a mutation in the general sense - that is, a mutation that spreads through the species.

I like to think of evolution and natural selection on a broader level that encompasses all phenomena, not just biological.

For example, the reason our planet exists today is because it evolved through natural selection.

Here is a very crude description of some of the earth's history. (got most of this from watching the first episode of "origins" (excellent documentary)

First there were bits of dust floating around the sun. Then when bits of dust collected together, they became clumps. These clumps had a larger gravitational attractive force that attracted new bits of dirt and clumps. (notice increase of complexity here)

By the time a planet had formed, it was the new kid on the block. Other would be planets hadn't made it this far, for whatever reason (hit by asteroids - burned up by sun, floated out into deep space, etc)

Jupiter was key in earth's survival. Its enormous mass allowed it to deflect incoming asteroids and protect earth from violent collisions.

Many other factors like this allowed earth to survive. One could say it was naturally selected. There was no replication in this evolution, but replication and reproduction are not essential components of evolution in the broadly construed sense.

The universe evolves as time goes by - it's an unfolding of reality. Within this unfolding are elements that experience an increase in complexity. Perhaps on earth, cortical functioning is the pinnacle of complexity.

yea so stuff has to do what it has to do, like evolve more arms ,legs and eyes and stuff

tnf wrote:He implies some intentionality (by saying that a need 'creates' mutations) in the development of mutatations to fit ecological niches. Completely wrong.

I parsed his post a bit more liberal, thinking he worded it awkward but meant it right.

tnf wrote:Besides, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. So we don't have aeons to work with.

:icon26:

That's a bit generous. Last time I tried putting the cart before the horse, all I got was a couple of black eyes, a broken wrist, and a writ from the RSPCA

^misantropia^ wrote:

tnf wrote:He implies some intentionality (by saying that a need 'creates' mutations) in the development of mutatations to fit ecological niches. Completely wrong.

I parsed his post a bit more liberal, thinking he worded it awkward but meant it right.

tnf wrote:Besides, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. So we don't have aeons to work with.

:icon26:

Oh no, everything I post has to be subject to intense scrutiny by the same anal retentive retards every fucking time. I've gotten used to it.

Kracus wrote:

^misantropia^ wrote:

tnf wrote:He implies some intentionality (by saying that a need 'creates' mutations) in the development of mutatations to fit ecological niches. Completely wrong.

I parsed his post a bit more liberal, thinking he worded it awkward but meant it right.

tnf wrote:Besides, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. So we don't have aeons to work with.

:icon26:

Oh no, everything I post has to be subject to intense scrutiny by the same anal retentive retards every fucking time. I've gotten used to it.

Don't flatter yourself. It doesn't take intense scrutiny to find the inaccuracies in your posts.
They are glaringly obvious to the educated amongst us, which is why they tend to be pointed out.

No it's glaringly obvious that I meant the exact same thing you were talking about but that the way I worded it meant I get another round of OMGWTFBBWATERMELON bullshit I always get whenever I post ANYTHING that isn't gramaticaly perfect.

Which honestly doesn't bug me as much as it used to it just goes to illustrate what a bunch of cunts you are.

Kracus, the problem with your post is that you mention something that is vehemetly opposed in evolutionary theory. A problem that a lot of people have with evolution is understanding that all mutations are random and the environment only acts on them AFTER they appear in a population. Despite whether you meant to word it the way you did, suggesting that the environment causes mutations actually argues against evolutionary theory. And for those of us who try to defend it, we know that this exact thinking is a hurdle a lot of people can't get over. So to us, upon first reading of your post, you appear to be completely wrong about evolution.

Personally, I don't think that's really what you meant, but I'm trying to explain why some people would be so put off by that post.

Kracus wrote:No it's glaringly obvious that I meant the exact same thing you were talking about but that the way I worded it meant I get another round of OMGWTFBBWATERMELON bullshit I always get whenever I post ANYTHING that isn't gramaticaly perfect.

Which honestly doesn't bug me as much as it used to it just goes to illustrate what a bunch of cunts you are.

"Basicly a need creates mutations"

The falseness of the statement you posted has nothing to do with grammer, and it is not glaringly obvious that you meant something else.

In the above statement you are saying that mutations are caused by needs within the organism. There is no other way to interpret this statement. You should have caught this error when you reread you post, before you pressed the submit button.

mjrpes wrote:

Kracus wrote:No it's glaringly obvious that I meant the exact same thing you were talking about but that the way I worded it meant I get another round of OMGWTFBBWATERMELON bullshit I always get whenever I post ANYTHING that isn't gramaticaly perfect.

Which honestly doesn't bug me as much as it used to it just goes to illustrate what a bunch of cunts you are.

"Basicly a need creates mutations"

The falseness of the statement you posted has nothing to do with grammer, and it is not glaringly obvious that you meant something else.

In the above statement you are saying that mutations are caused by needs within the organism. There is no other way to interpret this statement. You should have caught this error when you reread you post, before you pressed the submit button.

Exactly.

Poor kid.

By the way, Kracus, part of the reason I might seem "anal" about this stuff is that, as a scientist and educator, I constantly deal with people who have misconceptions about things they think they understand well. Many times these misconceptions are harmless, but in other cases, they are symbolic of a broader societal misunderstanding of a subject and can have big implications on things like public policy and education (evolution is a key example of this - most of the people who disagree with it don't even have a miniscule notion of how it really works.)

A comment like yours (Needs create mutations) is wrong on any one of many levels. If I were grading tests and I saw this answer, it would be wrong. There isn't room for "author's intent" when discussing science (for the most part.)

Many people cannot help but attach some sort of directionality to evolution - some sort of consciousness behind the directions it takes - as if it is choosing its path towards a pre-destined finishing point. Many still look at evolution, and the tree of life, as a simple vertical ladder moving from the 'lower' forms of life towards humans - who they see as the pinnnacle of evolutionary success. This kind of anthropocentric thinking is hard to escape...

tnf wrote:Many people cannot help but attach some sort of directionality to evolution - some sort of consciousness behind the directions it takes - as if it is choosing its path towards a pre-destined finishing point.

Intentionality might be a better word than directionality. There is the idea that evolution might have a direction without a "guiding hand".

I think Robert Wright espouses this idea.

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2000 ... a_main.asp

[xeno]Julios wrote:

tnf wrote:Many people cannot help but attach some sort of directionality to evolution - some sort of consciousness behind the directions it takes - as if it is choosing its path towards a pre-destined finishing point.

Intentionality might be a better word than directionality. There is the idea that evolution might have a direction without a "guiding hand".

I think Robert Wright espouses this idea.

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2000 ... a_main.asp

True...in my case, directionality implied the idea that there was a 'finishing point' to evolution - which would then imply intentionality in the means it took to get there.

The same Robert Wright who wrote the Moral animal?

In the link you posted Julios, he claims that evolution favours complexity but remains unguided by divine hands. I would argue as Dawkins does (or at least concedes likely) in a recent interview, that while there was no intelligent designer behind evolution, there may be an intelligent designer behind the future evolution of man. [ edit: ... and although he doesn't say it, I think that designed future will probably favour complexity (should we not destroy ourselves in the interim). ]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/ ... ndex2.html

Humans may not be products of an intelligent designer but given genetic technologies, our descendants will be. What does this mean about the future of evolution?

Dawkins: It's an interesting thought that in some remote time in the future, people may look back on the 20th and 21st centuries as a watershed in evolution -- the time when evolution stopped being an undirected force and became a design force. Already, for the past few centuries, maybe even millennia, agriculturalists have in a sense designed the evolution of domestic animals like pigs and cows and chickens. That's increasing and we're getting more technologically clever at that by manipulating not just the selection part of evolution but also the mutation part. That will be very different; one of the great features of biological evolution up to now is that there is no foresight.

In general, evolution is a blind process. That's why I called my book "The Blind Watchmaker." Evolution never looks to the future. It never governs what happens now on the basis on what will happen in the future in the way that human design undoubtedly does. But now it is possible to breed a new kind of pig, or chicken, which has such and such qualities. We may even have to pass that pig through a stage where it is actually less good at whatever we want to produce -- making long bacon racks or something -- but we can persist because we know it'll be worth it in the long run. That never happened in natural evolution; there was never a "let's temporarily get worse in order to get better, let's go down into the valley in order to get over to the other side and up onto the opposite mountain." So yes, I think it well may be that we're living in a time when evolution is suddenly starting to become intelligently designed.