"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[ImprobableBeing]

The question wasn't to you, you decided to answer it, but overall Call of the Wild is saying that non-life can't produce life (Spontaneous Generation)

However much of what keeps life going, is non-life. So at what point does he consider something alive or not alive?

Oh i know, i just thought i'd answer the one about viruses being alive since it's commonly misunderstood.

I agree with you fully.

carry on. :beach:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Oh i know, i just thought i'd answer the one about viruses being alive since it's commonly misunderstood.

I agree with you fully.

carry on. :beach:

Yeah I know, I hope that didn't come off rude.

Since that is close to your field, how are prions viewed? They are infectious, the reproduce but are folded proteins not plasmids of DNA or RNA.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Yeah I know, I hope that didn't come off rude.

Since that is close to your field, how are prions viewed? They are infectious, the reproduce but are folded proteins not plasmids of DNA or RNA.

Not rude at all.

Prions are simple protein chains that have no actual activity on their own, it's their reactions with brain tissue that can be a problem, there are plenty of beneficial prions that we are born with so they are not all bad.

They are not infectious in the sense that viruses and bacteria are, they are more akin to poisons as this is how they work, like paracetamol on the liver or botox on the nerve system. The reason why they act as poisons is similar in concept to how CO (or helium for that matter) affects your respiratory system. The body will gladly use it but it will kill you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Not rude at all.

Prions are simple protein chains that have no actual activity on their own, it's their reactions with brain tissue that can be a problem, there are plenty of beneficial prions that we are born with so they are not all bad.

They are not infectious in the sense that viruses and bacteria are, they are more akin to poisons as this is how they work, like paracetamol on the liver or botox on the nerve system. The reason why they act as poisons is similar in concept to how CO (or helium for that matter) affects your respiratory system. The body will gladly use it but it will kill you.

Interesting, I was wondering about that, because you have something that replicates yet doesn't have DNA. But I suppose they don't go through natural selection like viruses and bacteria?

 

[Ouroboros]

The question wasn't to you, you decided to answer it, but overall Call of the Wild is saying that non-life can't produce life (Spontaneous Generation)

However much of what keeps life going, is non-life. So at what point does he consider something alive or not alive?

And also, what we consume to stay alive tends to be dead. It's organic, chemical, even elementary particles, but mostly dead, but at the same time, we need a whole flora of bacteria to be able to digest food. We're dependent on dead matter to stay alive. It becomes alive in us when it's digested and used by our cells. And we get new cells, that are alive, from all that dead stuff that partially was broken down by other live or half-live things. There's no clear lean between non-life and life. All matter is "alive" to some degree.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Interesting, I was wondering about that, because you have something that replicates yet doesn't have DNA. But I suppose they don't go through natural selection like viruses and bacteria?

Prion replication is quite different than RNA or DNA life replication, it requires a completely different mechanism via molecule bindings and catalytic conversion.

So no, it's not the same type of replication as it cannot make it through mutations, it's not self replicating and mutations are discarded even if they do happen. The means of replication is actually by catalytic conversion of other protein structures, this is also the way they do their good or harm.

It is really hard to explain this without getting into specific chemistry, the long answer is going to have to be several pages long but suffice to say, you are correct, they do not experience the pressure that would start natural selection because they don't self replicate, they have a whole different means of replication.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have always pondered this myself honestly. Evolution has no stop so to speak but hypothetically speaking one could slow it down by putting an end to the natural breeding process.

castration will do that perfectly

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I have always pondered this myself honestly. Evolution has no stop so to speak but hypothetically speaking one could slow it down by putting an end to the natural breeding process.

castration will do that perfectly

Not really, not today.

There is enough semen to impregnate every woman on earth 10 times over, one sample contains 40-600 million sperm cells.

 

[Ouroboros]

Even if we're not evolving, we're evolving technology. "AI" and singularity will be the next big quantum leap in evolution. The borg world. Here we come!

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Even if we're not evolving, we're evolving technology. "AI" and singularity will be the next big quantum leap in evolution. The borg world. Here we come!

We'll evolve when there is enough pressure requiring selection to take place.

Don't worry about it, we don't care about stuff like global warming or the growing levels of radioactivity in our society enough so it is inevitable.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

You say you need to know what constitutes a "kind", yet if you were in a pet store and you asked for a dog and were brought out a turtle, you would understand that there is a difference between what you asked for and what you were brought out. So if you have no problem deciphering the difference in the "kind" that you asked for and the "kind" that you were brought out, why act ignorant all of a sudden now?

Yes I do need to know what constiutes kind - because we are not buying a dog from a pet store we are talking about the diversity of life and mechanisms by which it could be achieved - so either define your term in a way appropriate for the discussion at hand or stop using it. A 5/6 year olds comprehension of biology is insufficient to deal with reality in a scientifically literate world - that is why we ask that 5 and 6 year olds go to school in the first place, to learn more because their understanding about various fields (including biology) is simply insufficient.

I do not say this to be rude, but I know that it may well be perceived as such so I apologize in advance.

If your comprehension of biology is at the level of differentiating by 'kind', you need to learn more about biology (even before attempting to deal with the idea of evolution). The post content portrays a significant lack of awareness of even basic biological studies.

 

[secret2]

So, Call_of_the_Wild, do you know what the word "gradual" means? This is how you think the world works:

not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> BIRD! -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird ->...

And this is also incorrect.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

So, Call_of_the_Wild, do you know what the word "gradual" means? This is how you think the world works:

not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> BIRD! -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird ->...

And this is also incorrect.

I like the example of Latin being the mother language of French, Spanish and Italian, at no single point did it go from a parent speaking Latin to a child speaking French, Spanish or Italian.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I like the text color example (which i cannot get my hands on the BB code for so have decided to link instead) http://khisa.blog.com/2011/09/22/macroevolution-as-a-concept/#more-post-37

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, Call_of_the_Wild, do you know what the word "gradual" means? This is how you think the world works:

not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> not bird -> BIRD! -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird -> bird ->...

And this is also incorrect.

Am I in the twilight zone? I refuse to play these childish games and keep having my intelligence get insulted. If the animal that we know today as a "bird" had to evolve into a bird in order to become a bird, then this is an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal. There is no other way to look at it, and you people are questioning my knowledge on the issue when it is your bogus theory that you need to be questioning.

I mean, just look at what you typed. If the bird didn't become a "bird" from something else, then how do you explain the fact that we have birds? Either it came from something else that wasn't a bird, or it was always a bird from the very beginning. There are no other alternatives here. I am going to stop responding to foolishness.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Am I in the twilight zone? I refuse to play these childish games and keep having my intelligence get insulted. If the animal that we know today as a "bird" had to evolve into a bird in order to become a bird, then this is an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal. There is no other way to look at it, and you people are questioning my knowledge on the issue when it is your bogus theory that you need to be questioning.

I mean, just look at what you typed. If the bird didn't become a "bird" from something else, then how do you explain the fact that we have birds? Either it came from something else that wasn't a bird, or it was always a bird from the very beginning. There are no other alternatives here. I am going to stop responding to foolishness.

What he typed out is what YOU seem to imply is evolution. It is not. He even stated at the bottom of his post that the model was incorrect.

You don't understand the very basis of what "life" is. You don't understand genetics, DNA or the basic science of populations and natural selection.

Your intelegence need not be insulted. Its not your intelegence that is really the problem here. Its the dogmatic and intentionall willful ignorance of the subject matter that is the problem.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes I do need to know what constiutes kind - because we are not buying a dog from a pet store we are talking about the diversity of life and mechanisms by which it could be achieved - so either define your term in a way appropriate for the discussion at hand or stop using it.

If you wouldn't accept the turtle after you asked for a dog, then you know what constitutes kind. As I said in another post, no more foolishness. You act as if the term "kind" is a concept so difficult to grasp, yet you have no problem grasping the difference if you go to a dang pet store and you were given something that you didn't ask for. If "kind" made no difference, or is not easily defined, then why not just take the turtle? Huh? My point exactly.

A 5/6 year olds comprehension of biology is insufficient to deal with reality in a scientifically literate world - that is why we ask that 5 and 6 year olds go to school in the first place, to learn more because their understanding about various fields (including biology) is simply insufficient.

Regardless, they would know the difference based on the different KINDS of animals that are in front of them.

I do not say this to be rude, but I know that it may well be perceived as such so I apologize in advance.

If your comprehension of biology is at the level of differentiating by 'kind', you need to learn more about biology (even before attempting to deal with the idea of evolution). The post content portrays a significant lack of awareness of even basic biological studies.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears. I don't care what biology books says what, if it goes against every day observation, then it is full of unwarranted speculation. And I will also say that the ones that believe in the theories are the ones that are writing the text books in the first place.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What he typed out is what YOU seem to imply is evolution. It is not. He even stated at the bottom of his post that the model was incorrect.

And what I am saying is it IS correct. If it isn't correct, then I would like for him to tell me what is correct using the exact format that he told me it wasn't.

You don't understand the very basis of what "life" is. You don't understand genetics, DNA or the basic science of populations and natural selection.

But those that do understand genetics and DNA still haven't been able to produce life from non-life. So apparently understanding genetics and DNA is not a qualification to get the job done.

HAHAHA kind of reminds of me of during the 2012 Republican debates when Herman Cain was asked the question of why should he be President when he doesn't have the experience to be President, and Cain responded by saying something like "Well, so far everyone that has been President had the experience to be President, yet look at the mess we are in" lol

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And what I am saying is it IS correct. If it isn't correct, then I would like for him to tell me what is correct using the exact format that he told me it wasn't.

RNA->DNA->RDNA->CDNA->CENA-CENL-CELL-CELLS-CCELLS-COCELLS-COMCELLS-COMPCELLS-COMPLCELLS-COMPLECELLS-COMPLEXCELLS-COMPLEX CELLS-MCOMPLEX CELLS-MOCOMPLEX CELLS-MORCOMPLEX CELLS-MORECOMPLEX CELLS-MORE COMPLEX CELLS-MORE COMPLEX CELLSW-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWO-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWOR-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORK-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORKI-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORKIN-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORKING-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKING-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGT-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTO-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOG-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOG-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOGET-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOETEHER-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKING TOGETHER.

Change one letter and I can make as long and complicated a sentence as I want. Given enough time if I can change one letter or add one letter or both each time I make a change I can start from "A" and end with the full and complete works of Shakespear.

Essentially that is how evolution works. It changes one single letter at a time on the DNA level. Then the process of natural selection picks off which "changes" are detrimental and likewise changes that are benficial often are multiplied within a population.


So you tell me at what point in time did RNA simply spit out MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKING TOGETHER in my example?

But those that do understand genetics and DNA still haven't been able to produce life from non-life. So apparently understanding genetics and DNA is not a qualification to get the job done.

We understand gravity and can't simply will it into being. So whats your piont?

HAHAHA kind of reminds of me of during the 2012 Republican debates when Herman Cain was asked the question of why should he be President when he doesn't have the experience to be President, and Cain responded by saying something like "Well, so far everyone that has been President had the experience to be President, yet look at the mess we are in" lol

I fail to see how this has any relevance.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Evolution stands apart from the three. As for

1. You guys have to explain life from non-life. No we don't because evolution only deals with change, not with first cause. Evolution doesn't care how life first came to be: fiat of god, abiogenesis, or seeding by extraterrestrial visitors, it makes no difference. Evolution doesn't care.

I will say it again...if life can't come from non-life then there is no evolution. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-life, so if you don't have a viable theory on how life can come from non-life, then you can't even begin to get to evolution.

2. the problem of entropy. The question is, where do you want to apply the law of entropy to living creatures? Living creatures are systems and subsystems that interact in such a manner as to insure order will be retained. The "problem" of entropy is not a problem at all.

If the universe started off with a big bang (or otherwise) how do you get the precision of the cosmological constants from something as chaotic as the big bang event? So not only do you have to get the right conditions for life to be even permissible, you also have to assemble all the right parts together to make life exist. This can't be done if the entropy levels were high during the big bang event.

3. problem of infinity. I have no idea what this problem is or how it relates to evolution.

The problem of infinity involves the cosmos as a whole, which suggests that time had to have had a beginning based on the impossibility of eternal past. If time is infinite, then no kind of evolution would occur because for every moment prior, there is an infinite number of moments.

Not really, because evolutionary changes, those that manifest themselves in populations rather than selected individuals, is a very long term process.

Of course it is, the process is so long that it didn't happen at all. Besides that, you are telling me the theory, I already know the theory, what I want is observational evidence, which you cannot provide.

Secondly, it would be a hit and miss affair as to what evolutionary pressures to apply in order to effect a change on a macro level. In any case evolution has been observed. Probably the most referenced example is that of the peppered moth.

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.
source: Wikipedia
​

That is not macroevolution buddy. They are still moths, aren't they. That is the micro stuff, not the macro stuff.