Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Perfection, Feb 23, 2006.
Nice title, Perf! But I think you should have referred to the Dover v. Kitzmiller case in the OP.
We're at the cusp of intelligence being a great way of preserving DNA.
Natural selection states that those with the fittest genes will survive, and that the fittest genes will survive (even if the individuals don't). If we use our intelligence to halt aging, then those who halt their aging will have their genes (their EXACT genes) survive.
As well, with stem cell banks, I will very likely be putting my stem cells away for future use and study. This means that many pounds of MY genes will be propagated around my country (and probably around the world, ie, UK and Korea) to study and nurture.
How can this not be an evolutionary winner, if the DNA (exact DNA) is propagated and nurtured indefinitely? And all the people not smart enough to take anti-aging measures will have to try to continue to live through their children (if they have them).
Basically, if you have an oak last for thousands of years, and weeds that have thousands of generations in the same time around the oak - aren't they both successful?
I'd like to see you prove this definition of natural selection. Here in the real world, we know that:
The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)
If you used your intelligence to read some real inspired wisdom, you'd already know this and you wouldn't have to bother dreaming up some contrived situation where your intelect is responsible for everlasting life.
PS: I guess I get the first Bible quote in this thread.
Two distinctions between my statement and yours, botht of them important, both of them distinctions you'd love to be able to ignore:
first, your statement implies a general applicability of the rule: 'every' sounds like a general rule, not a statistically insignificant number of cases.
second, and even worse, 'we have seen' does not clarify the 'we' and 'have seen' - while referring to this specific thread clears up the possible misconception that there's many examples everybody knows.
No Sir, trying to sneak by generalized statements you can later easily pull out of context will not pass the bar here - it's the typical sucky tricks of religious nutcases and I will point it out every time it surfaces.
Howdy Stile ... I don't remember debating with you yet, so I'll roll up my sleeves ...
What is the mistake in my definition? I know it's not textbook, and that it's reading into the theory a bit, but I pretty sure I'm on the right track.
To facilitate things, I'll post an actual definition from Biology-Online.org
let me give you a tiny part of the answer, from my personal perspective:
I am a vertebrate paleontologist (where's Pasi claiming I am an imposter now and calling me names ?), studying dinosaur locomotion and its change over time. I studied geology/paleontology at Tübingen University (this includes mineralogy, petrology, general geology, tectonics, lagerstatten, aerial geology, ichnology, sedimentology, genreal paleontology, invertebrate paleo, vertebrate paleo, hydrogeology, applied geosciences and many special subdivisions of these fields), and took classes in biology both on the (troughly) bachelor level and the (roughly) masters level. These I selected specifically from 'general botany' (overview of all plants, fungi etc., general basic plant metabolism, plant cell biology, overview of the existing plant types and their adaptations etc.), 'special botany (plant anatomy, plant physiology), 'general zoology', 'special zoology' (as the botany stuff, just with animals), neurosciences, genetics, ethics in science etc.
This covers my main subject, physics, maths, computer sciences and special courses in statistics rounded out the additional stuff.
Basically, anything that's 'life sciences' has implications for and is needed to understand evolution.
Hi, El_Machinae. Don't expect a long debate as my time on the forum is very erratic. I tend to just hop in, type a snipey comment, which is usually ignored and then check back a few days later to make sure.
There is no way to measure that the fittest or most adaptive species or organisms are able to pass on their genes. It's just an assumption wrapped in circular logic, which is published in every high schooler's textbook without even a mere sticker to suggest it's misleading. You'll just have to trust the Bible in this instance and admit 'time and chance' rule.
If I put a gut bacteria on an agar plate and a forest yeast on the same agar plate and store them at 37 C ... the most fit organism (bacteria) would engulf the plate.
I'd say it has the best genetics for the job, wouldn't you?
Because it survived?
Exactly. The most fit to survive survive. Thus natural selection is a truism and cannot be denied.
Close. The survivors survive. Why not just say "survival of the survivors" since that is the only way to measure the fittest?
Would you also require stickers to the effect that Newtonian gravity is a theory and cannot be proven, and is inaccurate in some cases? Would that make the existance of gravity false? What other instances are there for which you would require the Bible to be the textbook of choice? And can you prove that using the Bible will eliminate circular logic?
I don't think that's what the Bible tells you.
Because the offspring thrived.
And why not be less pedantic?
Okay, so we've got evidence that:
macro changes can occur
changes can be beneficial
those most suited to an environment outbreed those that are not.
I think we're mostly done.
You're making a mistake here. It's likely that for most people anti-aging measures (at least for generations to come, which is obviously something that matters in terms of evolution) will depend on fairly high financial income, at least relative to a world average. Given that high financial income does not equal high intelligence your logic breaks down.
Further, it does not necessarily follow that those who are the most intelligent have the most interest in taking anti-aging measures. They may disagree that it's the right thing to do.
On the topic of whose fittest I'll take the unicellular over the multicellular every time.
Ah, you're very right.
However, intelligence can be used to bring down the cost (or raise your own wealth). Intelligence is quite linked to wealth, while it might not be linked to reproductive success (or, it's easier to become wealthy if you're smart).
And you're also right that only a certain type of intelligence will take the measures. You'll need people who fear death and who think the future will be improved. However, these traits are already selected for.
As you note, it's really only a limited 'section' of intelligence, for lack of a better term, that plays a major role in who will become wealthy (and that's ignoring all the other factors that rely on luck). Most highly intelligent scientists, for instance, are not great at making money - nor do they have a particular inclination to do so.
The drive to become wealthy is very much emotionally determined because it takes strong dedication, and although it does demand some intelligence it's not by itself linked to being intelligent.
I think it's more likely that intelligence will be increased in humanity as a whole through direct genetic modification rather than a more traditional evolutionary progress..
Separate names with a comma.