questionposter

He was basically asking if the principal works if things inbreed and cause mutation since they keep the gene pool similar since it assumes no mutation right? Isn't the principal wrong on some levels and may only be used as an approximation in short time spans? So couldn't genetic diseases prove that the principal doesn't always follow through?

Ok, fine, certain genes paired with each other code for PROCESSES that create rare diseases, and as you so convoluted said, those genes are more likely to be paired with other people who are in the same family because the people in the same family all contain those genes and inbreeding decreases variation that would otherwise dilute any specific gene combination. But otherwise, what I was saying before about their continuation is correct, because if all those genes were dominant in everyone they appeared in, everyone who had them would have just died off and we wouldn't have that problem right now.

I don't think there is a consensus on that. Some say bacterium formed in space, some say the ingredients were in comets and the impact made life, some say the impact made dormant bacterium alive again, some say a comet passing by the sun got enough heat to start life on it, etc.

0+0=1...times 0

It's just that there are certain combinations of genes that code for rare diseases, and those genes were formed by random mutations a long time ago. However, they continued to survive because most often those genes are not in the right combination and aren't active so they often don't lead to the host's death and can be passed on.

The cat is measuring the system...it knows if its alive.

I don't think it should be called global "warming" at this point, because although there's increases in CO2, there's other factors such as water and air currents changing, continental locations, the Earth's increasing distance from the sun, the moon's increasing distance from Earth, etc, and those all effect different regions in different ways and can cause cooling, it should be more like "climate change", and the existence for that based on current data is virtually inarguable as there are visible dramatic shifts in air-ocean currents, and we can use various technology to look back in time and see that that although that does happen naturally, it doesn't happen at as fast a rate as it has happening recently, which coincides with the same time as when humans started burning more fossil fuels, so the only logical connection is that burning fossil fuels that release green-house gases speeds up the process of change.

Exactly. The first step most likely isn't a step forward, that's why evolution takes millions of years and why we have these eyes only after millions of years.

Cosmic rays, solar wind. There's already arguments that life originated from comets anyway, or at least some sort of dormant life.

There are very likely limits to the physical capabilities, but there's nothing in the laws of physics saying something can't be more complex. And with all the chaos and randomness inherit in evolution, it's unlikely there is any sort of "end" or that evolution can plan in any way.

that experiment never made sense to me because the cat is capable of measuring a system and collapsing wave functions, there's no way it's both alive and dead. Even if you put a rock in there, there's photons and vibrations and etc. effecting it, hitting all the atoms, and even telling us whats going on without looking into it.

When you end an actual mathematical proof, don't you end it with "thus" followed by an equation such as "x=x"? I don't think you can go any further. I think any other proof would be needlessly adding things. x=x because there isn't anything saying it isn't, x is by the identity of x equal to x.

Yeah, I know all about those types of articles, but honestly there is no direct connection, your subconscious can't actually reason or think. We don't even have evidence that what it's actually doing is even math. What happens is you have subconscious actions that people don't have a real reason to not act on, and people just try to think up of whatever reason try to fit for them existing completely ignoring the fact that your subconscious can't even reason like that. It could be like "why do we have fingers?" and there would be someone saying "we have fingers because our DNA thought it would be good to have, and that has survived", which is only half right. We don't have fingers because our DNA or ANY mechanisms thinks anything, we have them because they just happened to what what's coded inside DNA and that DNA happened to make it after all this time. The way it works isn't "we have friends so our DNA thinks its a good idea", its "There are genes that happened to code for mechanisms in the brain which implore social interaction, and those social interactions happened to be good for bringing us together, and because we are working together we have a better chance of surviving". It's not a direct correlation between subconscious reactions, its just a logically working thing that it would help us survive. The genes don't exist for any real reason other than that they lead to things that have a high probability of surviving, not because they actually "think". It doesn't matter if you'd like to think they think, they don't think or at least there's no evidence to support they think. People can still choose to not be social even if they are naturally social, and according to that article they just won't have as high of a probability of surviving probably because there won't be anyone around to help them if they are in danger, that's it, no cynical no not cynical.

As someone who can see mechanisms effecting how decisions are made from a conscious 3rd-person-view, and as I have tried to convey before, it's not so simple. My best guess is that because you have been following this pattern of thinking for 30 years as you have stated yourself, your mind is so use to generalizing information along the premises of those "guidelines" or ideas that it would take more energy for you to be more open-minded and not let those subconsciousness mechanisms generalize information like that, and since this is only a forum you probably won't take putting work into that seriously which is likely why this debate as kept as long as it has. I know how evolution works, and what your saying is true in some ways and certainly evolution can play a role in emotions and effecting thoughts, but not every aspect of what your saying is true. It isn't that simple, and that's why even after hundreds of years we still don't really understand everything even about a single thing that is life.

Isn't proof of evolution the mere fact that life doesn't actually do the "most" efficient thing? Life doesn't automatically evolve to do the most efficient thing, it just evolves to whatever the hell survives, that could be anything. If there really was intelligent design, we wouldn't eat and breath out of the same hole.

I don't know about blow-holes, but there's a lot of evidence supporting that whales evolved from wolf-like creatures on land. Most whales even have a vestigial pelvis bone.

Well infra-red doesn't have "less" information, it merely takes more energy for information to be taken from it since infra-red has less energy, which is probably why fewer animals have it since it requires a more energy to operate eyes that can see it. Animals such as reptiles are cold-blooded and don't heat their body up using their metabolism, so they can direct more energy to other processes such as infra-red vision. I only know about the insect evolution thing from a book, but I'll look for a link later. That's not really black, this is closer And those plants with darker leaves are almost always in the jungle, where there is often little sunlight reaching the ground.

It is a pretty narrow range, but it's also an efficient range, it's one of the most efficient and abundant ranges of on Earth. And the only reason bugs see ultraviolet during the early stages of the evolution of life, ultra-violate rays were more prevalent and when the first land animals came on land the Earth's ozone was only 15% of what it was now so any animals would have had to have bodies more suitable for living in higher UV land. Infra-red is even more prevalent than visible frequencies, and I think some bugs and some reptiles see in those ranges as well, though I don't know why not more.

Plants don't reflect blue because they absorb it, but they reflect green so we see it. Plants don't have a choice, it's randomly in there genes how their chlorophyll works, and those genes that happened to code for absorbing all colors but green happened to be able to work so well they got passed down. Perhaps plants could have absorbed green light and reflected red or blue, but most don't because they didn't evolve that way, it's just not efficient enough to work without reflecting green.

It could be from something in real life. You do know there's life outside of these forums right?

There may be some quick videos of a few things, but really what it's going to come down to is hard work. If you want to do the same you need to give up a lot more of your free time to actually studying these things and taking higher level classes. Even if you know how to differentiate and find the slope of points, those things aren't going to help in real life you unless you know a lot algebra and are very good at simplifying things.

Well 12 year olds can learn calculus if they try very hard to learn all the pre-requisite math and are very determined, and that's about it.

Yep, there's the problem. It doesn't matter if your in the habit of saying you "like" to think genes act that way, because they don't, they don't think, they don't have to do any particular thing, they just exist. Some genes just happen to generate mechanisms that have a higher probability of getting passed on in that's about it, there's no real limitation, just that there may not be a suitable environment at the time. Genes themselves aren't competing, your subconscious isn't competing, it's just mechanisms and switches. Your subconscious doesn't get angry, it simply releases to hormone for anger in response to certain signals getting processed in your brain and then you perceive the information as anger. If everything was mapped put by genes themselves, psychologists would be geneticists instead.

Well there you go. You don't have to actually be an exceptionally smart person to learn calculus which *seems* like what DR is saying (even though that might not be the case), but you do have to be mature and motivated in certain ways in order to handle the work load. But, some people do develop that maturity at a young age.

I fail to see how this relates to 12-year-olds being able to learn calculus.