Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong Part 2

[painted wolf]

actually we are still evolving, just not on a 'grand' scale.
Take milk drinking for instance.
Or the mutations that are giving people greater resistance to heart disease and HIV.

anywho... I've heard Vegitarians try to clame that humans were evolving to be herbivores. Fact is we are omivores but we can choose to be more herbivorus if we like. Thats the fun thing about being us, but it has next to nothing to do with our evoltuion.

wa:do

 

[rojse]

We can manipulate our genetic structure, we cannot manipulate our evolution by definition.

Mechanical implants are far more likely to be implemented then any other solution, but it is nowhere near feasible. Besides lag time issues, batteries are very heavy and very slow to charge, though there is a new super-capacitor which actually has a similar capacity to Li+ batteries and is flexible.

If we alter genes within us, I would assume, from what I have read on the subject, would be passed on to the next generation. If we found a set of genes that were worth altering in every single person, say, something that removes suspectibility for colourblindness, then that trait would not be present in future generations. That would be evolution, although it does not work according to the natural selection process.

Secondly, if we actively decided to control who breeds and who doesn't (eugenics), then we are actively controlling our evolutionary process.

Finally, we have artificial limbs already. Prosthetic legs and arms, for example, are limbs that do not require batteries and so forth. We have pacemakers and cochlear implants, which do require batteries, both of which allow the user to be mobile, have a reasonable battery lifespan and reliability.

 

[yossarian22]

If we alter genes within us, I would assume, from what I have read on the subject, would be passed on to the next generation. If we found a set of genes that were worth altering in every single person, say, something that removes suspectibility for colourblindness, then that trait would not be present in future generations. That would be evolution, although it does not work according to the natural selection process.

we do not operate on any level even close to darwinistic

Secondly, if we actively decided to control who breeds and who doesn't (eugenics), then we are actively controlling our evolutionary process.

No, we would be selectively breeding.

Finally, we have artificial limbs already. Prosthetic legs and arms, for example, are limbs that do not require batteries and so forth.

Ya they do. Prosthetic legs are sticks of metal and a prosthetic arm has none of the functionality of an actual arm. And where do you suggest the mechanical limbs get the power to move? Not enough juice comes out of nerve endings.

We have pacemakers and cochlear implants, which do require batteries, both of which allow the user to be mobile, have a reasonable battery lifespan and reliability.

Battery density is a MASSIVE problem, and if you do not think so, crack open your ipod or cell phone. What takes up the most space? The battery. Electronics is following Moore's law, but battery life is not keeping up with electronics. Batteries take a ridiculous amount of time to charge to, especially large ones which would be needed for a full prosthetic body. Capacitors look promising as they have virtually instant charge rates (I'm talking about charging an electric car in 2 seconds here) but are nowhere close in term of energy density (mA/g) Super capacitors are a whiles away from commercial use also.

There also is a problem with rapid discharge. Some Sony batteries explode because of this. It would be deadly with a capacitor.If one with the same amount of energy as a laptop battery gets rapidly discharged, it'd boil a couple pounds of flesh off your thighs

 

[Fluffy]

Perhaps I need to get out more. All the evolutionist I know (aka internet nerds) are fairly intelligent and understand that evolution is just a dumb, blind force of nature. However, I do think that humans are in a unique position in that we could choose to evolve a certian way, simply becuase we have some understanding of whats going on.

Are you in America, Real Sorceror? There might be a higher degree of polarisation there since I hear that evolution is, on the whole, less well accepted. In the UK, the vast majority of people accept that evolution is true and I think that it is this general acceptance that leads to misunderstandings. People accept it via an "ad populam" fallacy and not because they have assessed its mechanics and reached a conclusion based on its scientific basis.

I think that we could direct evolution in a couple of ways, and humans are at the stage where they are at the intelligent enough to manipulate the course of their evolution.

Heya rojse,
I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. I don't believe that any of the processes you express can accurately be described as manipulations of evolution. They are completely seperate processes.

However, what you said reminded me of another common misunderstanding of evolution: "I believe evolution exists but that it is directed or guided by God". This belief is internally inconsistent for the same reason why your processes have nothing to do with evolution.

anywho... I've heard Vegitarians try to clame that humans were evolving to be herbivores.

Yes I've heard that one as well. They are making the exact same mistake but in the opposite direction.

 

[yossarian22]

anywho... I've heard Vegitarians try to clame that humans were evolving to be herbivores.

How much brain power does it take to sneak up on a blade of grass?
There is a reason that the most intelligent animals on the planet tend to be carnivorous/omnivorous.
Being able to eat a huge variety of foods is a huge advantage.

 

[painted wolf]

Elephants are among the most intelligent animals on the planet. :tsk:

It doen't take much brain power to sneak up on a plant, but it does take brain power to avoid hungry predators and have a complex social structure.
It also takes a lot of brain power to cultivate plants.

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

Elephants are among the most intelligent animals on the planet. :tsk:

It doen't take much brain power to sneak up on a plant, but it does take brain power to avoid hungry predators and have a complex social structure.
It also takes a lot of brain power to cultivate plants.

wa:do

Elephants are the exception and not the rule.
I do not hear people heaping praise on deer for their massive intellect.

 

[rojse]

Heya rojse,
I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. I don't believe that any of the processes you express can accurately be described as manipulations of evolution. They are completely seperate processes.

I believe that it can be. Evolution can be natural or artificial. We have selectively bred all of our crops, for example, all of our pets and so forth. Are you saying that there is not an evolutionary process going on in any of these instances, even when one end result is unable to breed with another?

Animals control their own evolution processes to some extent, too. Many animals will fight for the right to mate, which means that the animals most capable of fighting get to pass on their genes to the best females. Although both animals fighting have managed to survive until they are capable of breeding, in terms of their life cycle, some cannot. This is not entirely natural selection at work here, either, but this still puts genetic controls on the future population.

I have said before that genetic engineering and eugenics are not possible currently - we have had little practice in the area of genetic engineering, and eugenics is not feasible due to the cost of mapping human DNA, and the ethical implications of such a program. What I am saying is that they will be possible, as science advances, and that they are controlling the evolutionary process.

 

[yossarian22]

I believe that it can be. Evolution can be natural or artificial.

No it cannot.

We have selectively bred all of our crops, for example, all of our pets and so forth. Are you saying that there is not an evolutionary process going on in any of these instances, even when one end result is unable to breed with another?

Its called selective breeding, not evolution. There was nothing stopping those animals from breeding except us.

What I am saying is that they will be possible, as science advances, and that they are controlling the evolutionary process.

Duh, but changing our own genes is not evolution at all.

 

[rojse]

we do not operate on any level even close to darwinistic

I agree, what I am saying is eugenics or genetic engineering are possible, but not at our current technology level. I did state this when I first introduced the ideas in this thread.

No, we would be selectively breeding.

Any decisions we make about selecting a population based on their genetics is called artificial selection - we impose our own conditions on who breeds and who does not.
We are imposing the condition that someone passes a battery of DNA tests. The breeding of people that passes these tests would mean that the people that are born would be more likely to pass those same tests.

We have done this before on a smaller scale - pets, crops, livestock, and so forth, although our conditions have not been so exacting - crops would be selected based on their size and productivity, for example.

Ya they do. Prosthetic legs are sticks of metal and a prosthetic arm has none of the functionality of an actual arm. And where do you suggest the mechanical limbs get the power to move? Not enough juice comes out of nerve endings. Battery density is a MASSIVE problem, and if you do not think so, crack open your ipod or cell phone. What takes up the most space? The battery. Electronics is following Moore's law, but battery life is not keeping up with electronics. Batteries take a ridiculous amount of time to charge to, especially large ones which would be needed for a full prosthetic body. Capacitors look promising as they have virtually instant charge rates (I'm talking about charging an electric car in 2 seconds here) but are nowhere close in term of energy density (mA/g) Super capacitors are a whiles away from commercial use also.

There also is a problem with rapid discharge. Some Sony batteries explode because of this. It would be deadly with a capacitor.If one with the same amount of energy as a laptop battery gets rapidly discharged, it'd boil a couple pounds of flesh off your thighs

We have artificial pacemakers, which help keep people alive. They rely on battery power.

Here is a link to pacemakers - it's too technical for me, but take a look at the pacemaker on the top right-hand corner of the page - it's about five centimetres wide. It's hardly a huge, bulky thing that cannot be used.

Artificial pacemaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are not talking about a rubbish piece of electronics that costs a couple of hundred dollars, we are talking about a state of the art piece of equipment.

There are some limitations on what people can do after receiving a pacemaker, but that is nothing in comparison to what they can't do when their heart won't work at all.

As for limbs, I see your point with current technology, but I think this will change in the future. And having an arm of any type, or leg, for that matter, would be far better than none at all.

 

[yossarian22]

Any decisions we make about selecting a population based on their genetics is called artificial selection - we impose our own conditions on who breeds and who does not.
We are imposing the condition that someone passes a battery of DNA tests. The breeding of people that passes these tests would mean that the people that are born would be more likely to pass those same tests.

We have done this before on a smaller scale - pets, crops, livestock, and so forth, although our conditions have not been so exacting - crops would be selected based on their size and productivity, for example.

Its called selective breeding, not controlling evolution

We have artificial pacemakers, which help keep people alive. They rely on battery power.

Here is a link to pacemakers - it's too technical for me, but take a look at the pacemaker on the top right-hand corner of the page - it's about five centimetres wide. It's hardly a huge, bulky thing that cannot be used.

Did you even read that article?
All they do is blast an electrical charge to the heart to get it to start beating again, they do not actually cause the heart to beat continuously, which is why they can use very small batteries.
An actual prosthetic heart would require a very very large bulky battery, and using a capacitor would be akin to skydiving without a parachute. Just imagine a gigawatt's worth of energy going into a pump at once.

 

[painted wolf]

Elephants are the exception and not the rule.
I do not hear people heaping praise on deer for their massive intellect.

Horses are also highly regarded as very intelligent, they are also highly social.
Many species of Babbon and monkey are herbivors, and they are quite smart.
Not many studies have been done on herbivore (read ruminant) intelligence.
Call it a selection bias.

Dog's are widely hailed as smart animals.... most dogs I know would be classified as some of the dumbest animals imaginable.

Intelligence by the way isn't an evolutionary goal... being smart isn't always the best solution to surviving. Jellyfish numbers are exploding and they don't even have a brain.

Selective breeding is a form of "artifical evolution"... we are creating new species by placing selective pressures on them. This has been especally successfull with plants. Many domestic plant species are so far removed from thier wild ancestors that they are no longer cross fertile. Many can not reproduce at all without human assistance.

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

Horses are also highly regarded as very intelligent, they are also highly social.
Many species of Babbon and monkey are herbivors, and they are quite smart.
Not many studies have been done on herbivore (read ruminant) intelligence.
Call it a selection bias.

I am not saying that all herbivores are dumb, just most.

Dog's are widely hailed as smart animals.... most dogs I know would be classified as some of the dumbest animals imaginable.

So? And they are a helluvalot smarter then most animals. Ever try to teach a trick to squirrel?

Intelligence by the way isn't an evolutionary goal... being smart isn't always the best solution to surviving.

Intelligence is very useful in hunters.It takes brainpower to stalk something. It does not take brain to power to run like hell (though I find it to be an ideal second line of defense). Animals at the top of the food chain tend to be smarter then the ones at the bottom.

Jellyfish numbers are exploding and they don't even have a brain.

So? They also die quickly. Population size rarely means the success of a species. Population growth spikes rapidly then falls out as soon as it runs out of resources.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Does anyone else come across many people who hold beliefs or say things about evolution that are clearly contrary or falicious with evolutionary theory yet are strong advocates of evolution?

Typically I come across them when I am called on to justify my vegetarianism and so I will give a couple of examples below:

1) Moral fallacies
This is the one I hear the most often. A person will advocate evolution but then use it as a basis for their morality. So for example, they will note that humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables then come out with things like "It is unnatural to be vegetarian", "Humans are designed to eat meat", "Humans are not supposed to survive on just vegetables". These clearly contradict the theory of evolution. I can only theorise that the people who say things like this either don't understand the processes involved in evolution such as natural selection or that they simultaneously regard humans as being the result of evolution as well as apart from it.

2) Evolution has a purpose/direction or is working towards a final result
Again very common. This evidences itself in sayings like "Humans are better than animals because they are more highly evolved" or "Humans are the end product of evolution". Again I think this must be due to a feeling that humans are both part and apart from evolution.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

I don't want to start a fight or anything but was wondering about vegetarianism today and how it relates to survival.

Say I'm lost in a vast wilderness somewhere like the Canadian Rockies in winter, or a jungle in Costa Rica during monsoon season or something. I have no way of knowing how long it will take me to reach civilization, or if there even IS any civilization to reach, maybe I am marooned for years like Tom Hanks. For all I know or care, the human race is only ME for the immediate future anyway. I will naturally discard any moralistic viewpoints pretty quickly if I want to survive for any length of time.

Now I'm no expert, but common sense tells me that the amount of energy I expend trying to forage for vegetation vs catching some fish or rabbits or even a larger mammal will be a major factor in my survival.

If I don't know which mushrooms, roots etc. are poison I could be in real trouble so I'd be unlikely to experiment. However, I know I can eat meat and survive.

What, if anything, does this tell us about our species and please tell me if I am way off in my thinking here. Like I said, I'm no expert I've just been thinking about it lately. Being out here in the wild woods with no people around, that's where my thoughts go sometimes.

 

[Fluffy]

What, if anything, does this tell us about our species and please tell me if I am way off in my thinking here. Like I said, I'm no expert I've just been thinking about it lately. Being out here in the wild woods with no people around, that's where my thoughts go sometimes.

I am not sure but my vegetarianism is based on the principle of doing the least harm. I don't eat meat because, given my current situation, I can survive without eating meat. It is therefore unnecessary for me to eat meat. In certain situations, I would eat meat because it would become necessary for various reasons. 2 spring to mind: Cultural and Survival.

 

[joeboonda]

I don't believe in the theory of evolution anyway. I lack the faith to believe such absurdity.

 

[McBell]

I don't believe in the theory of evolution anyway. I lack the faith to believe such absurdity.

Thats ok.
Evolution does not require your belief in it to be true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[off topic]

If I don't know which mushrooms, roots etc. are poison I could be in real trouble so I'd be unlikely to experiment. However, I know I can eat meat and survive.

FYI: in a wilderness survival situation, the general rule is avoid mushrooms altogether. If they're poisonous, they'll kill you; if they're edible, they'll have practically zero nutritional value. They aren't worth the gamble.

[/off topic]

 

[painted wolf]

So? And they are a helluvalot smarter then most animals. Ever try to teach a trick to squirrel?

Squirrels learn quite readily and are highly intelligent animals, why do you think there is such a cottage industry devoted to keeping them out of feeders.
10.17.97 - Secret of the squirrel brain: Memory tricks investigated in new UC Berkeley study
Again, it takes a wonderfully sharp mind to gather all that food, hide it and not loose it.
You seem to have a mistaken notion of intelligence.

Intelligence is very useful in hunters.It takes brainpower to stalk something. It does not take brain to power to run like hell (though I find it to be an ideal second line of defense). Animals at the top of the food chain tend to be smarter then the ones at the bottom.

This is a gross generalization. It takes as much brain power to spot a trap as it does to set one. Running rarely works, most animals take off before the trap is sprung.
Most hunters are terrible failures, they only succed once in every ten attempts.
It doesn't bode well for thier superior intellect.

So? They also die quickly. Population size rarely means the success of a species. Population growth spikes rapidly then falls out as soon as it runs out of resources.

In any way you measure it jellyfish are evolutionarily speaking more successful than we are. Longevity, number of species, number of genera, number of individuals...

wa:do

 

[joeboonda]

Thats ok.
Evolution does not require your belief in it to be true.

For some, that must be quite a relief. JK. Peace.