Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Evolution taught humans to stand upright to see over the savannah...except we started standing upright before the savannah came about. You win this round Creationism. But just wait until we talk about the appendix   (economist.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, evolution, savannahs, creationisms, grasslands  
•       •       •

6822 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 8:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-20 08:51:49 PM  

Ishkur: UnspokenVoice: I would also go so far as to point out that it requires faith that the current interpretations are correct. For example, look at the beliefs held just a score of years ago. Faith isn't a bad thing.

Faith is not the right word. It's more like the current interpretations are "placeholders" until better interpretations come along.


Semantics gets us nowhere. I have faith in the scientific model, I am okay with it. It may be incorrect but I'll go with the greater likelihood of being correct or at least having greater providence.
 
2013-02-20 08:56:58 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Semantics gets us nowhere. I have faith in the scientific model


Depends what your definition of "faith" is.
 
2013-02-20 09:31:19 PM  
Ah, it's threads like this that still make FARK worth reading, if only to reassure myself that I'll have work until I choose to retire.
 
2013-02-20 10:24:23 PM  
You win this round Creationism.

I've heard that joke before.
 
2013-02-20 10:46:44 PM  

Pitabred: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Yes. But longer lived plants like trees tend to have a greater concentration of the decayed isotopes versus grasses and such that are constantly replacing mass.


That could be true with C14, but C13 is stable, so its ratio doesn't change over time.
 
2013-02-20 11:17:17 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.


Careful, you'll get the Atheists to stop and actually think! They're busy patting each other on the back right now.
 
2013-02-21 12:25:20 AM  

Ishkur: Hagenhatesyouall: ...and then we place FAITH in the new theory...because we can't PROVE shiat, and until we can, the answer to creation is WE DON'T farkING KNOW.
I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.

Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities. Nothing is ultimately knowable. That doesn't mean things can't be found out and understood.

Faith is not required. What we do is ACCEPT the statistical probability of our current understanding of our observations of the faculties and properties of the Universe given the available evidence.

That's all we can do.


Semantics, pure and simple.

Faith is a belief in something you can not prove. Period.

Some have faith in a God / Gods, others have faith in numbers and observations.

In the end, it's all the same.
 
2013-02-21 12:57:15 AM  

Precision Boobery: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

What "random mutation" are you referring to?  The ability to control metal?  It's a very long process.  The changes are not that radical in individuals.


Your question has nothing to do with mine. A bit of straw man,. perhaps?

My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.
 
2013-02-21 12:58:21 AM  

Inhalien: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.

Careful, you'll get the Atheists to stop and actually think! They're busy patting each other on the back right now.


You're right. We can't have that. They are too much fun to listen to the way they are now.
 
2013-02-21 04:31:04 AM  
This is why I don't like evolutionary: ..psychology, botany, anatomy etc. etc...  They are full of post-hoc hypothesis and when one doesn't pan out, well... here is another explanation!!

This is not science... even religion is better since at least it has moral teachings and values. (Not all) Evolutionary sciences are like fairy-tales.
 
2013-02-21 05:31:05 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Precision Boobery: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

What "random mutation" are you referring to?  The ability to control metal?  It's a very long process.  The changes are not that radical in individuals.

Your question has nothing to do with mine. A bit of straw man,. perhaps?

My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.



It doesn't have to be complete dominance. Even partial dominance can confer a reproductive advantage. In the case of hemoglobin S in humans, one copy provides a conditional reproductive advantage (malaria resistance, which in malaria-prone areas outweighs the disadvantage of the sickle-cell trait) while two copies are a distinct disadvantage (full-blown sickle-cell anemia).

Evolution through natural selection. It works.
 
2013-02-21 05:38:34 AM  

Inhalien: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.

Careful, you'll get the Atheists to stop and actually think! They're busy patting each other on the back right now.



Acceptance of evolution as a basic principle of biology = atheism? The Catholic Church (among others) would like a word with you.
 
2013-02-21 06:38:52 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.


It's hard to grasp because of the time-scale it happens over. In that a single member of the species could have an overall effect on a population over hundreds of thousands of years. And animals (and people) are born with weird mutations all the time.

Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees. So they're more likely to survive and mate.
Or, now they're too warm in their current range, so they either die off or slowly migrate north. Then the goldfinches with thicker plumage are separated out from those without it, and they're now a different species adapted to live in a colder climate than those without the mutation. And they're also subject to different climatic conditions with could favour different mutations than the goldfinches left down south.

This all happens over the span of generation, not quickly (from our point of view), so a few animals born with a small difference could eventually have a big impact on their populations.

/Again, not a scientician, so feel free to rip my theory to pieces.
 
2013-02-21 08:26:42 AM  

Ishkur: UnspokenVoice: Semantics gets us nowhere. I have faith in the scientific model

Depends what your definition of "faith" is.


LOLZ I totally agree with everything this guy says ^^ LOLZ LULZ

or your definition of Nature

The definition of NatureNature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world.

It's the stuff that has organic labels at the supermarket.The definition of Naturena·ture noun \ˈnā-chər\

Definition of NATURE

1
a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence
b : disposition, temperament
2
a : a creative and controlling force in the universe
b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual
3
: a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics
4
: the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function -used in phrases like the call of nature
5
: a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6
: the external world in its entirety
7
a : humankind's original or natural condition
b : a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
8
: the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
9
: natural scenery
See nature defined for English-language learners »
See nature defined for kids »
Examples of NATURE

He devoted himself to the study of nature.
That is a color not found in nature.
Hunger is nature's way of telling you to eat.
Gravity is one of the basic laws of nature.
The differences in their natures was easy to see.
She's very competitive by nature.
Origin of NATURE

Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born - more at nation
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to NATURE

Synonyms: character, clay, colors, complexion, constitution, genius, personality, self, tone
[+]more
See Synonym Discussion at type
Learn More About NATURE

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for "nature"
Spanish-English Dictionary: Translation of "nature"
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about "nature"
Browse

Next Word in the Dictionary: natured
Previous Word in the Dictionary: natural wine
All Words Near: nature
Seen & Heard

What made you want to look up nature? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).
 
2013-02-21 08:40:24 AM  

vactech: But like I said, I'm a big fan.


aaaaaaww, pining for IDW how sweet, next thing ya know they will be pining for Bevets...

Fano: I miss the different models of the Bevetsbot v 2.666

you guys are just adorable

have we started started pining for Gilruiz1 yet? he still alive?

i'm going to pine for abbey before he became a shill, i miss original thought

oops, er, i mean't  I LOVE how abb3w always agrees with us, that's what makes him so awesome!  Long live the IB! :D

has anyone seen FloydA or mamoru lately? i need someone to agree with :(
 
2013-02-21 08:50:23 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.


I get what you're saying, but it's actually the opposite of the Adam and Eve situation.  With small populations, the problem is that recessive genes and random mutations can be amplified.  Your issue with a single mutation in a single individual is that it would be diluted.

Random mutations occur all the time, with most of them being selectively neutral.  In large populations they may or may not spread, but will largely not be expressed or have any bearing.  Speciation tends to happen when a subpopulation is split from the larger group, allowing these mutations to spread in a much smaller pool of individuals.  I personally think this is the reason for the apparent pattern of punctuated equilibrium: the small populations aren't preserved in the fossil record except in the rare cases where they develop some new and useful trait, after which they appear to suddenly burst onto the scene, already distinct from their nearest relatives.

Basically, inbreeding can result in a new, better adapted species, but more typically produces British royalty.
 
2013-02-21 09:33:52 AM  

Erix: Pitabred: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Yes. But longer lived plants like trees tend to have a greater concentration of the decayed isotopes versus grasses and such that are constantly replacing mass.

That could be true with C14, but C13 is stable, so its ratio doesn't change over time.


Guess I was wrong, but there's still this:  http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf

I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.
 
2013-02-21 09:36:29 AM  

Pitabred: Guess I was wrong, but there's still this: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf

I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.


Link didn't work for me.. what's it about?
 
2013-02-21 09:57:27 AM  

Erix: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentation s /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf


Here,  http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations /PDF%20Session%206/Fillery%2073revised.pdf it's linkified. Basically, it says the plants can just do it
 
2013-02-21 10:10:00 AM  

Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.

It's hard to grasp because of the time-scale it happens over. In that a single member of the species could have an overall effect on a population over hundreds of thousands of years. And animals (and people) are born with weird mutations all the time.


Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees.So they're more likely to survive and mate.
Or, now they're too warm in their current range, so they either die off or slowly migrate north. Then the goldfinches with thicker plumage are separated out from those without it, and they're now a different species adapted to live in a colder climate than those without the mutation. And they're also subject to different climatic conditions with could favour different mutations than the goldfinches left down south.
This all happens over the span of generation, not quickly (from our point of view), so a few animals born with a small difference could eventually have a big impact on their populations.

/Again, not a scientician, so feel free to rip my theory to pieces.

 
Seriously, I'm having trouble dealing / conceptualizing what I'm trying to say, but the above bolded text is the heart of the problem. I don't think it's likely at all. There are millions of genes, and the likelihood of the same random mutation happening more than once in the generation is slim to none. Evolution works, but I think we're missing something.
 
2013-02-21 10:15:21 AM  

Pitabred: I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.


the ones that believe in abiogenesis, alien farming or those retarded nutjobs that believe in invisible sky wizards?

i almost said Intelligent Design, but then i just remembered that the alien farmers would be considered an intelligent entity in this case, and i don't want to give any credence to creationistards as actually possibly being right :D
 
2013-02-21 10:16:39 AM  

Erix: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: My point is that A&E, as the only two beginning individuals (yes, I know it;'s allegory) presumably screwed sons/daughters to beget more humans. Very tight gene pool. but by the same token, ONE individual with some random mutation, unless it is i\one hell of a dominant gene, may have problems passing on that mutation.

I get what you're saying, but it's actually the opposite of the Adam and Eve situation.  With small populations, the problem is that recessive genes and random mutations can be amplified.  Your issue with a single mutation in a single individual is that it would be diluted.

Random mutations occur all the time, with most of them being selectively neutral.  In large populations they may or may not spread, but will largely not be expressed or have any bearing.  Speciation tends to happen when a subpopulation is split from the larger group, allowing these mutations to spread in a much smaller pool of individuals.  I personally think this is the reason for the apparent pattern of punctuated equilibrium: the small populations aren't preserved in the fossil record except in the rare cases where they develop some new and useful trait, after which they appear to suddenly burst onto the scene, already distinct from their nearest relatives.

Basically, inbreeding can result in a new, better adapted species, but more typically produces British royalty.


Yes, thank you. Distracted by the problems of the new job, and couldn't put my finger on it.

Regarding inbreeding, a hypothetical question. If Adam and Eve were created "perfect" (i.e.: all genes properly formatted, with no mutations/breakages) -  or a very small breeding population of proto-apes had evolved that had no genetic flaws - then inbreeding would not be a problem, correct?
 
2013-02-21 10:17:55 AM  

Hagenhatesyouall: Semantics, pure and simple.


No.

Hagenhatesyouall: Faith is a belief in something you can not prove. Period.


Science is not based on faith, then.

For one thing, it is a process, not a conceit.
 
2013-02-21 10:23:18 AM  

Hagenhatesyouall: Some have faith in a God / Gods, others have faith in numbers and observations.
In the end, it's all the same.


Faulty logic.

Equating something that you can not see with something that you can see and asserting that both have the same value and validity within the same apparatus of investigative inquiry is not just dishonest and wrong, it is categorically insane!

You are essentially advocating a reality of schizophrenic solipsism and psychosis!
 
2013-02-21 10:25:46 AM  

I drunk what: Pitabred: I'm not a biologist, but I'll trust people who are.

the ones that believe in abiogenesis, alien farming or those retarded nutjobs that believe in invisible sky wizards?

i almost said Intelligent Design, but then i just remembered that the alien farmers would be considered an intelligent entity in this case, and i don't want to give any credence to creationistards as actually possibly being right :D


Dr. Raven would like a word with you.

/Obscure - yes.
 
2013-02-21 11:00:27 AM  

Ishkur: Faulty logic.


willberwillberforce.com

I agree with everything this guy says^

you see hagen it's not your fault that you're that stupid, it's just because you don't understand Science and Logic, which is why your psychotic schizo solipsisms are confusing you into believing that it's the same when Scienticians have logical proof of their beliefs vs religiotards who believe in invisible sky wizards

the difference here is that we are not retarded like yourself

i hope that helps

the Scientific FACT answer is 8 and brown, vote democrat

//death to christians
 
2013-02-21 12:44:41 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Regarding inbreeding, a hypothetical question. If Adam and Eve were created "perfect" (i.e.: all genes properly formatted, with no mutations/breakages) - or a very small breeding population of proto-apes had evolved that had no genetic flaws - then inbreeding would not be a problem, correct?


That's the argument that I've heard regarding that.  Inbreeding is taboo because it results in unhealthy offspring as rare mutations and recessive traits are preserved.  If there were no mutations or unhealthy recessive traits, then inbreeding wouldn't be a problem.

So if not for original sin, you could theoretically fark your family members guilt-free.  Weird.
 
2013-02-21 01:10:04 PM  

I drunk what: the Scientific FACT answer is 8 and brown


t-squat.com

Wrong again, sciencetard.
 
2013-02-21 01:22:54 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees.So they're more likely to survive and mat


I don't think it's that unlikely for a certain mutation to show up more than once per generation. If you look at people (and the birds thing was just a theoretical example, so I don't want to get hung up on it), how many are born with missing fingers / toes, or spina bifida? If these mutations had been an advantage at some point in our evolutionary history, enough people seem to get it per generation that we'd all have them now. But even though they're a disadvantage, they still show up in relatively large numbers in each generation.

Unfortunately I don't have the numbers to back this up, so if anyone does, or a solid fact that disproves this (not just in my people example above, but as a principle in general), please clarify.
 
2013-02-21 01:29:58 PM  

sxacho: I drunk what: the Scientific FACT answer is 8 and brown

[t-squat.com image 600x310]

Wrong again, sciencetard.


oh? and what is the correct answer?

/this ought to be good
//about to put the smackdown on yet another religious idiot
 
2013-02-21 01:38:55 PM  

I drunk what: oh? and what is the correct answer?



In 1884,  meridian time personnel met
 in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
 the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1
day  and  ignored  the  other  3 days.
The bible time was wrong then and it
 proved wrong today. This a major lie
  has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
  it proves every believer on Earth a liar.


Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
 Days
 Same Earth Rotation.
 
2013-02-21 01:52:29 PM  

sxacho: I drunk what: oh? and what is the correct answer?


In 1884,  meridian time personnel met
 in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
 the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1
day  and  ignored  the  other  3 days.
The bible time was wrong then and it
 proved wrong today. This a major lie
  has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
  it proves every believer on Earth a liar.


Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
 Days Same Earth Rotation.


yep, christians are retarded, i'll agree with you there

vote democrat
 
2013-02-21 02:07:30 PM  

I drunk what: yep, christians are retarded, i'll agree with you there


It's not religion, educated stupid fool! This is the science! The math of four simultaneous corners! Did you not understand the picture I posted above? How many corners did you see? See?

Recognition and application of this Cubic
simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth,
will change all math, science and societies
from the beginning of human existence.
You have to be evil to ignore  this math.
 
2013-02-21 02:31:40 PM  

sxacho: I drunk what: yep, christians are retarded, i'll agree with you there

It's not religion, educated stupid fool! This is the science! The math of four simultaneous corners! Did you not understand the picture I posted above? How many corners did you see? See?

Recognition and application of this Cubic
simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth,
will change all math, science and societies
from the beginning of human existence.
You have to be evil to ignore  this math.


This is your brain on christianity.  Any questions?

LOLZ LULZ LOLZ  This is what republicans actually believe^^^
 
2013-02-21 04:29:52 PM  

Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman:

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Take birds. A goldfinch born with a big mutation, like a third wing or something, won't survive. But a small alteration like slightly thicker plumage might help them better regulate heat, and it's not that unlikely that a number of birds would have that mutation in varying degrees.So they're more likely to survive and mat

I don't think it's that unlikely for a certain mutation to show up more than once per generation. If you look at people (and the birds thing was just a theoretical example, so I don't want to get hung up on it), how many are born with missing fingers / toes, or spina bifida? If these mutations had been an advantage at some point in our evolutionary history, enough people seem to get it per generation that we'd all have them now. But even though they're a disadvantage, they still show up in relatively large numbers in each generation.

Unfortunate ...



Spina bifida is a developmental anomaly. Genetics has little or nothing to do with it, although it's conceivable that something like decreased folic acid uptake is genetically related and could indirectly cause an increased risk of neural-tube anomalies.

Missing digits can be either genetic or developmental. The most common genetically-related variant (claw-hand deformity) is incompletely dominant. It may have been a disadvantage to a hunter-gatherer, but modern civilization has largely eliminated the risk of its causing premature death (this is true of other seemingly harmful mutations/genetic variants as well).
 
2013-02-21 04:54:23 PM  

Ishkur: Hagenhatesyouall: Semantics, pure and simple.

No.

Hagenhatesyouall: Faith is a belief in something you can not prove. Period.

Science is not based on faith, then.

For one thing, it is a process, not a conceit.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-21 07:59:18 PM  

dehehn: I think we all know the real reason we started standing upright.
[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x500]


Dont know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I happen to really like this theory.  And I think there is significant merit to the proposition.
 
2013-02-21 08:00:57 PM  

CheapEngineer: Lilith never appeared in the Bible. She's a bit of folklore.


The council of Nicene saw to that.
 
Displayed 38 of 238 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report