Mokele

Yes and no. If a single, isolated trait is negative, it *will* be selected against. Neutral traits can go either way, totally at the mercy of genetic drift. However, if the negative or neutral trait is linked, geneticly or developmentally, to an advantageous trait that makes up for the fitness loss and results in a net benefit, it *can* stick around. Or is there's just plain no alternative allele. Nothing stops evolution dead in it's tracks like lack of variation. Agreed with some caveats, namely that any neutral system is vulnerable to genetic drift and that most "sudden" appearances aren't a result of the process you mention. For instance, the stumpy wings of most flightless birds are not the product of gradual loss, but a single mutation to a developmental gene that controls the entire process of wing development. In the reverse, a single mutation to a gene that controls finger development causes mice to grow *incredibly* elongate fingers, more reminiscent of those of bats (but without the webbing). In both cases, a single mutation can instantly produce huge variations, if the mutation is in one of the developmental genes that controls and orchestrates the complex process of development, overseeing literally hundreds of other genes. Also, current purpose does not have to be the original purpose. Feathers seem to have evolved as thermal insulation, and were only later co-opted for flight. In early insects, flaps of chitin on the back were used to aid thermoregulation, but after a certain size, they gained aerodynamic properties, at which point they began to evolve into wings. Behe's "irreducible complexity" crap is nothing more than an arguement from incredulity. Just because we cannot see how the system would work without all the current components does not mean that there cannot be simpler forms before it. For instance, the immune system: Many species have immune systems which are nothing more than simply roving phagocytes. I understand that insects have a lethal and effective system all their own, quite different from ours. Things work together nicely because evolution favors mutations that cause that, but that does not mean there were prior, inferior systems (perhaps because of less need). Mokele

I'm going to regret giving any actual credence to Christslave's trolling, but just in case, the contents of the photos he posted, from top to bottom, are: Pacific Giant octopus (know species, kept in some large aquariums and also very tasty) Sturgeon (source of caviar) Remains of a basking shark (those photos are widely used as an example of what *NOT* to look for in a 'sea-monster' carcass, since it's a perfect prototypical basking shark carcass) Faked photo. ---- There *are* "sea serpents". They're members of family Hydrophiidae, a group of elapid snakes that inhabit the pacifc ocean. All but one species stick pretty close to shore. They're highly, *HIGHLY* venomous, but never exceed 7 feet long, with the average species being about 4 feet. ---------- Also, may I ask what the *hell* this has to do with your "hollow earth" bullshit? That odd things exist, and we may not have found them all, in no way connects to your fantasy world. The existence of the coelocanth no more proves the existence of sea serpents than the $20 bill in my pocket proves the existance of a $200 million Swiss bank account in my name. One is not logically linked to the other. Mokele

Skye is correct, plus it applies to muscle cross-sections. The greater the C/S of a muscle, the more force it can exert. Muscle C/S (like leg c/s and body surface area) increase to the square, while weight increases to the cube, so very small animals are disproportionately strong. Mokele

We don't need to, you ridicule yourself quite effectively every time you post, Dog-smotherer. ----------- As for the whole "It was an accident" crap, that doesn't fly. Yes, he might not have known the exact consequence of that action, but it's clear he did not take good care of this animal. It survived, but it obviously wasn't trained, nor was he aware of *BASIC* aspects of keeping this animal. So it's not common knowledge. *SO WHAT?!* You buy an animal, you bloody well research it first, it's needs, it's tendencies, what you need to do and how. If your pet dies because you don't feed it, or you pet dies because you fed it poorly and didn't know any better, in both of those cases, it's not an accident, it's *neglect*. Because you have *no* business owning it if you don't know how to care for it. When you buy that animal, you are accepting responsibility for it's life. Christslave failed in that responsibility by his own ignorance and stupidity. His denail and failure to accept responsibility for this, hiding behind his moronic beliefs, shows that he is a worthless excuse for a human being, only qualifying as human on account of mere genetics. He deserves no courtesy, no respect, nothing but our scorn, derision and antipathy. His continued presence on this board and this world is a stain. Mokele

No, you waste space on this board by spewing your innane gibberish, and abuse animals. There's a word for people like you online: Troll. Mokele

Ok, now this is really just sick. Duct-tape? What sort of idiot are you?! Gee, the dog was barking. Ever hear of TRAINING?! It's a little thing *RESPONSIBLE* owners do with their dogs. I don't give a crap about you spiritual bullshit, or how you've 'repented'. What you did was stupid, irresponsible, evidently lethal, and abusive. Had you done this recently, and if I knew where you lived and who you were, I'd've already phoned to ASPCA to get your ass thrown in jail for it. Oh, and lest you try to get high and mighty: I have only ever had two pets die on me, and one was a species that dies after it lays eggs (which it did), the other being the family dog which died at the ripe age of 15 years from, basically, old-age. The rest have done so well that there is actually a marked tendency of animals I raise to reach unusually large size. The reason for my sucess with animals, no matter how exotic? I actually *learn* about them before I get them, and keep them properly, without doing dumb shit like taping their mouths closed. --------- To summarize, people like you should not be allowed to own pets at all. Mokele

Oh, I've heard the legends too. And if I was less worried about the legal ramifications, I'd try to make them a reality. I mean, in my book, tapeworms are *way* less creepy than using a neurotoxin to cure wrinkles, and that got FDA approved. Mokele

Number of children is only half the story, quite literally. The *truly* important thing is how many of those kids reach reproductive age, and how many kids *they* have. You can have lots of kids, but still have lower fitness if they either a) have much higher mortality than usual or b) aren't very reproductively sucessful. Or both. Mokele

Dammit, I still need to market my new diet pill. Only mine really does work, and any scientist will agree that, yes, it will make you lose weight. On a completely random aside, does anyone know where I can get a supply of tapeworm eggs and some empty medicine capsules? No connection at all.... ::whistles innocently:: I mean, they do *work*, right? So why would anyone complain? Mokele

I'll illustrate it more vividly: Hi, I'm living off less than $15k per year. However, I drive a near-new-condition Mercedes Benz. It cost less than my friend's Toyota (with the added benefit of displaying more damage resistance than a cheaply-made soda-can). All because it's a 98 rather than an 05. Yes. Hell, look around you. Everything screams that is the case. I know of *college graduates* who can't figure out the correlation between their poverty and their weekly $80 bar tab. I know of *above-average* people who buy $10 blocks of gourmet cheese and eat it in the dark because they haven't paid their power-bill in 4 months. The plain, honest-to-god fact of the matter is that *yes*, most people truly are that stupid, at least in the US. Mokele

Ever have a compost heap? If you haven't, you actually have to be careful when turning them over (for aeration, which helps decomposition), because the heat can burn you. The thing is, a dead organism still has lots of sugars, protiens, etc in it. Hell, we eat dead organisms all the time, and harness their energy to power our lives, by digesting them. In a compost heap, the heat is generated by the metabolic action of the bacteria in it. So yes, we can generate energy from decay. All we have to do is harness the heat of compost. Mokele

I've heard this particular guy's drivel before, along with similar drivel from others. Look at science 25 years ago, and what people predicted for now. They predicted flying cars (which are a crappy idea anyway), but never foresaw the Internet, which has revolutionized all aspects of our world. Point is that such predictions are nothing more than guesses, and most Sci-Fi authors have more accuracy and plausibility than these so-called 'experts'. Mokele

Evolutionary treadmills are pretty common, actually. An analagous situation is when you have a parasite and host in a population. A new, parasite-resistant host (form B) appears, and rapidly spreads, while the old one (form A) declines. But then, the parasite (lawyer A) mutates to attack form B, becoming a new parasite (lawyer B), which increases massively at the expense of the prior parasite form. However, that parasite boom means that form B is no longer benefiting, and form A (which parasite B can't get at) rebounds. But then parasite A rebounds. And on and on forever, or until one gets a mutation that can break the cycle. In many cases of intra-specific and inter-specific competition, specific strategies are selectively advantageous *only* if they're in the minority. As a result, they increase, hit a limit, then decrease, only to start the whole cycle all over. Ahh, yes, seems we've gotten a bit confused. My main point is that complexity is simply an adaptation like any other, with benefits and drawbacks, and not always the optimal solution nor an inevitable outcome. My cheif objection was that you seemed to be treating complexity as a sort of 'perfect adaptation' without flaws, which would always occur and could not be slowed or limited. As for the early cells, they could gain a little here and there, but the advent of Eukaryotic life represented a huge jump in complexity. Well, the problem is that it needs suitable conditions; the right critter needs to be in the right place at the right time. It's like a craps shoot: you might get what you want the first roll, it might never happen. On Earth, I'd say it's probable to eventually happen, but Earth is an unusually hospitable world, or so it seems. Mokele

Who cares, it's still cool! Some of the advances that have generated huge numbers of applications were just "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" when they were first pursued. Mokele

Observe what the Christian Right does. Do the opposite. Works quite well, I've found. Mokele

Not for very long. For less sadistic fun with Crawfish, keep them in a tank full of iron filings instead of sand, and wait for them to molt. Then wave a strong magnet around and watch what happens. Try to explain it. Mokele

How does that in any way detract from the example? Sudden environmental changes happen all the time. Mutations are very common (bacteria have a much higher rate of muation than we do, and even ours is far above what most people think), as are migrations between distant populations (bacteria can become spores, which can be transported thousands of miles on the wind or water, and have even been found in clouds). Also, bacteria are known for both scavenging DNA from the environment (often dead bacteria DNA) and for exchanging "plasmids", circular rings of DNA. Both of these, incidentally, are commonly used to geneticly alter them. That a new, less complex but faster reproducing version can suddenly arise does not invalidate my point. Whether it arose suddenly or gradually, the "more complex" species has to deal with it anyway. Yes, but "environment" includes biotic and abiotic factors. The moment the simpler, faster reproducing version arrives, it becomes part of the evolutionary landscape, to the detriment of the complex form. Vice versa is also true. Selective value of traits can change based on the other organisms in the habitat. Look at Guam; having no flight used to be selectively advantageous to birds there, since it was a waste of energy. Then a new animal showed up (brown tree snake), and now every bird on the island is either extinct, extinct in the wild or badly endangered. In saying that, you admitted my point is correct: that complexity can be a harmful trait in some cases. Happens all the time. A species does just fine until a newer, better way of doing things arises, and the old species is swept aside. 1) You contradict yourself here, since you noted, two quotes back, that a complexity increasing mutation *can* be detrimental 2) Your first phrase is the problem: you are assuming that, and trying to make the evidence fit. That's not how science works. Furthermore, as long as you keep doing that, then debate is pointless, since you can't be swayed. What you're doing is actually a logical fallacy, called begging the question, in which your assumptions include the very conclusion you are trying to reach. That assumes an organism is optimally suited for it's environment, which is simply not so. Imagine a series of hills. One is biggest, but there are several smaller peaks. Now, imagine you're playing a game. You stand in one place, and randomly throw 4 balls. You then move to the highest location of all the balls, or stay put if they're all lower. Then repeat the process. In this game, you will always wind up on top of one of the hills, but there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll wind up on top of the biggest hill. Furthermore, if you can't throw far enough to ever land a ball from your hilltop onto the biggest one, you can never, ever reach it in the game. I trust you see the analogy in terms of fitness landscape, local maximum, and random variation. Yes, but you have no guarantee that the complexity *will* continue to increase. Imagine our complex bacteria colony, and the simple one arrives. It outcompetes and eradicates the complex ones. But, over time, it becomes more complex. And this is where you end, but it doesn't end there. Then, yet again, a simpler, faster-reproducing form arrives by migration or mutation. Once again, complex forms go extinct. You see what's happening? Because complexity "isn't worth it" unless it can outweight the costs associated with it, the increase in complexity is continually getting knocked back. If you graph it, for this bacteria population (and the migrating ones), you get a saw-tooth effect, in which complexity increases, then decreases, over and over, without ever making a permanent gain. (Note that this doesn't mean complexity can *never* increase, only that it must be competetively advantageous in more than just a very limited environment to do so.) Correspondingly, if you look at earth's history, the first 3 billion years of life and more was nothing but single cells. And for most of *that* it was mostly bacteria. My take on it, that complexity must confer enough advantage to outweight the penalties and remain competetive with simpler alternatives, explains this nicely. Yours, I'm afraid, doesn't seem to be able to explain this vast "stasis of complexity". 3 billion years wasn't enough time? Seriously, look at earth's history. Life arose 3.4 billion years ago. Even eukaryotic cells (like amoebas) didn't evolve until over a billion and a half years later. And even after *that*, multicellular life didn't even show up until *another* billion years later, 550 mya, give or take. That's 2 periods, 1,500,000,000 years each, during which there was no appreciable increase in complexity. And during those times, the time between reproductions (generation time, roughly) was measured in days or even hours. And the life forms had *much* higher mutation rates than we do. So they *clearly* had the evolutionary fuel and time. So why didn't complexity happen for so long? I find it hard to rectify these long periods without appreciable increases in complexity with your idea that complexity is continually increasing in all but the worst circumstances. Mokele

Does that mean we get 'furniture' too?

Could you use a polarizing filter?

Everything dies sooner or later. Why should the human species be any different?

True, I did overstate a bit. Still, the same lifestyle that contributes to cancer allows us to live long enough to see it, in some cases. Mokele

Whoops! Sorry, I dunno why, but for some reason I'd mentally labeled you as female. Maybe it's the 'lite' part of the name or something. Mokele

No idea. I know from, ahem, personal observations that it's not always true for all illnesses in all males. Also, I suspect it's be even faster to simply turn testosterone into something else (it can be quickly and easily converted into estrogen by some cells, even in males, as well as other things too, I'm sure) or have it broken down by the liver. Mokele

Dude, I've seen more remarkable rocks in gravel driveways. Your "evidence" is about as convincing as an ethics lecture by Tom DeLay. Mokele

I'm with Ophiolite on this, and one step farther: Christ slave, stop wasting everyones time with your useless, self-righteous drivel. Typically, I just scroll past them, but when you start quoting Ophi out of context and making baseless claims about somehow "proving her wrong" (which I highly doubt, on the basis of her actually knowing what she's talking about, unlike yourself), I'm going to stick my nose in as more than a simple gadfly. Oh, and since you are unaware of basic internet etiquette, I'll clue you in: It is considered the *height* of bad manners to bring private communications into public without express consent of all involve. I may be mean and harsh, but I've never stooped that low. Evidently it's not below you, though. Mokele