Of course the outcomes of our actions are natural. We are part of nature and since we are part of nature, anything we do is natural.




.

Thanks for the reiteration, Sare...lol

np, naturally :thumbsup










.

You're talking rubbish. In a cosmic, universal sense there are no such things as mistakes.

And in terms of things being 'lucky', there never was any chance involved. The probability of the Universe coming into being was 100%. The probability of evolution occuring was 100%. We know this because we can observe that both actually happened. Probability cannot be applied to past events, because everything in the past has a one or a zero value and nothing in between.

Yup, evolution of our abilities could also apply - survival of the fittest and all that; just makes the human race damn resiliant. Infertility? No problem, we will adapt. But to mass-introduce species artificially puts non-natural strain on those that were already there. As does genetic modification. Stick in forest clearing for our lovely hardwood sideboards in there as well - damn stoopid wildlife need to adapt more quickly to their changing environment I 'spose.

I see where you are coming from. 1985 was a great year for science, but a very poor year for natural evolution.

you're such a fucking idiot bro. you don't understand evolution at all. just shut the fuck up already. even in the absolute simplest way i can think of explaining it to you, it goes right over your head and you continue spitting bullshit that contradicts yourself.

:1orglaugh Okay...if you say so....

The chance of an event isn't dependent on the actual outcome. Chance is chance is chance, past, present and future.

FTR, I simply used 'lucky mistake' as an example because someone has mentioned it in this thread....you can believe in pure science and natural law and still you MUST have some level of faith to believe....

I believe in..........desk.

humour an idiot then, where did I spew any bullshit?

evolution doesn't exist just because we can think of the concept. Sure calling it 'evolution' is a human construct, but that doesn't mean absent of the complex human mind it wouldn't still be happening.

The Universe is 17.8 Billion years old.

Alot can happen to mold in 17.8 Billion years.

Like I said, probability cannot be applied to past events because they all have a one or a zero value; either something happened or it didn't.

Just because you have to have faith, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

No, I wouldn't say the human race is resiliant...and no, evolution doesn't mean adaptation. In fact, the term 'survival of the fittest' really has no place in evolutionary theory and is often the basis for misunderstanding the basics of evolution. Evolution supports the idea that the environment dictates what strains of species thrive and which die. 'Fittest' features are not made to order. They don't develop AFTER the environment changes, but rather, they existed long before they were needed. So no, adapting to ones enviroment is NOT a part of evolution. *shrugs*

As for the second part of your post, I've already addressed it...please re-read what I said above.

.
:helpme

translation:

"i don't know the answer... so i invented an answer that satisfies me"

one more time for you...

Everything above. You just don't understand evolution, you wouldn't say anything above if you did. Whatever happens, happens because it can. And that's all evolution. You don't stop and start it. Reread the previous posts in which I tried to explain it to you. Tell me what doesn't make sense to you because clearly something doesn't.

obviously. now apply your same train of thought forward spanning from humans. evolution. don't you see everything is based on perception and the biological limits imposed on perception. mold has no eyes. they cannot see. now think of what might evolve in the future. they/it/whatever looks at humans. humans have no _______. they cannot _______. the unfathomable goes in those blanks as it's like mold attempting to fathom what humans are able to do. the future is an open book. everythig imaginable and unimaginable could or could not happen.

So many words :angrysoap, so little said :anon





IT IS




.

Double bingo.
I could not agree more.

Theories abound as to where the raw material came from that created our Universe but no one has been able as yet to come up with any conclusive answers. So for the time being at least the most fundamental question regarding the origin of life will remain unanswered.

The two main protaganists in the eternal creation/evolution debate in the West have generaly been the Darwinist/evolutionary supporters and the God/creationalists. Darwinists mock the God/creationalists for having no scientific basis to build their claims on, while on the other hand the God/creationalists are quick to point out the scientific flaws in the evolutionists evidence such as the 'missing links' in the fossil record and the way some species seem to have 'fast forwarded' geneticaly with no evidence for the intermidiate stages of development, ( It's interesting to note how the three main staple crops of the world - rice, wheat and corn seem to have just magically 'appeared' round about time in history with no evidence for their natural origin and even Darwin himself admitted towards the end of his life that there was fundamental problems with his theory )

However, have we been looking in the wrong place for that answer ?

The science of Darwins day was based on the deterministic/predictable world of Newtonian physics, but since the beggining of the 20th century this has been steadly replaced by the weird and wonderfull world of quantum mechanics turning much of the conceived scientific wisdom of previous times on it's head

Does William Blakes famous 'quantumesque' poem give us a clue......

To see the world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour


My guess is that it does.

Adaption isn't an example of evolution? Are you mad? Of course it is - go back and learn from some proper source.

Oh my god (pun intended), where did you get taught evolution? By nuns? Evolution can be adaptation or an exisitng developmental state. Ever learn about the peppered moth or Darwin's finches.

Likewise

And that is what you idea is about evolution? :error :error :error

You sir, are clearly misinformed. I do agree that evolution happens because it can - nowhere did I say otherwise. But of course you can stop evolution - a panda only eats bamboo, nothing else. Now if you eradicated bamboo from the planet by non-natural means you have stopped evolution of panda, because he will not survive. You could of course look at it the other way, that you have accelerated evolution bcause panda was always doomed for extinction, ever since he evolved into a bear that only ate bamboo. Evolution can be a negative thing as well. Either way like you said evolution happens because it can, if the animal is nolonger alive, it can't therefore you have stopped evolution

If you introduce pest-resistant mutations of genes into crops, you have accelerated evolution of that species - it may well have evolved to introduce a mutation that made it more restant of its own accord, and it may hav happened tomorrow or in a billion years time. But man introduced it today.

Sorry borked, but gotta go with the lady on this one. Adaptation is not evolution.

Reference Stephen Gould - A Panda's thumbs :thumbsup

There is no such thing as non-natural. Humans and what we do are not above or beyond evolution. We're a part of it just like everything else. Implying that our actions are non-natural is like implying it was non-natural for creatures to come out of the sea and onto land. Coming onto land was a product of evolution. Us developing nuclear weapons was a product of evolution.


Stop looking at evolution as something you can observe from a perspective that puts you apart from it. Everything we do is part of it. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's evolution.

Evolution is always taking place. You do not start or stop it. While you may think the death of a species is the stopping of evolution, it is advancement of another. Evolution goes one way. Foward. Even if we nuke the entire planet, evolution still goes that one way. The death of the dinosaurs didn't stop evolution did it? Just because a species dies doesn't mean the way evolution works changes.

Ever think the introduction of pest-resistant mutations is also a part of evolution? Your ideas of things being non-natural or being able to positively or negatively influence evolution are incorrect. Whatever happens is evolution, plain and simple.

Once and for all: evolution is NOT the same thing as adaption. Adaption ensures evolution; but they are not the same thing.

adaption is a product of evolutionary events. it's a part of evolution.

:helpme

Adaptation is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution. For example, the first bipeds didn't just suddenly develop at the end of the Miocene period because the forest habitat was being replaced by grasslands and bipedality became beneficial. There was ALREADY biped hominids thriving in the forest habitat. Fact is, these hominids just 'happened' to be bipeds and bipedalism was a beneficial feature when the grasslands surpassed the forest as the major source of food and shelter.

Get it? The trait comes BEFORE the environmental changes. That is the basis of the theory of evolution...not adaptation.

Nah, don't buy it - I've never read it, but I heard that Stephen Gould wrote that to pacify the Bible band. Ever read A Selfish Gene, by Richard Hawking - now that is a fantastic book.

And adaptation is all in there in the evolution milieu :winkwink:

Go and find a better example to sustain your argument and stop copy/pasting from Google lookups :2 cents:

Voilà - that is the crux of our differing points-of-view. We'll have to just agree to disagree here because I am of the stance that meddling at the genetic level with other species is not evolution for that species. It's interference, with zero chance of adaptation :2 cents:

No, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect if you still think that evolution and adaption are the same thing (I notice you are changing your verbiage, but I'm assuming you still have the same position). Evolution is the changing of genetic composition as a result of natural selection. Adaption is an alteration of species' habits in order to adjust to its environment. One has to do with changing genetics and the other has to do with changing behavior.

Just fyi, I'm an archaeology major student and what I post here is original text based on my current knowledge of the subject. Google that paragraph I wrote....really, please do...

Maybe you should be the one to review YOUR sources.

:2 cents:

I think he is confusing adaptation with mutation. :2 cents:

I think you are correct. I'm jealous of your archeology major...my love is physical anthropology, but my degree is in Computer Information Systems (my "practical" degree, which is also my backup plan if porn ever fails me). One of these days I am determined to get another degree in anthropology...I find it fascinating and love to read up on it.

It was a film.

Gould never did anything to pacify the bible crowd, he is current and doesn't have to worry about the church taking his head off :thumbsup

BTW, selfish gene is Richard Dawking, not Hawking

Uh no, its Richard Dawkins. :disgust

Richard Dawkins is that guy who screwed Mrs Garrison.