Will Man ever become extinct??

[Sayonara]

Then your logic eludes me, since the scenario you are describing is not entirely consistent with the effects of evolutionary theory.

 

Which takes us back to posts #44, #45, #46. The long way round

 

The root of this problem I think is the attempt to split evolutionary causes and group them under the banner of two different effects, those being the "General and Specific Evolution" categories you briefly outlined earlier.

 

Where did that come from?

[admiral_ju00]

Then your logic eludes me' date=' since the scenario you are describing is not entirely consistent with the effects of evolutionary theory.

 

Which takes us back to posts #44, #45, #46. The long way round

 

The root of this problem I think is the attempt to split evolutionary [b']causes[/b] and group them under the banner of two different effects, those being the "General and Specific Evolution" categories you briefly outlined earlier.

 

Where did that come from?

 

by General bio. evolution, i mean an evolution that would affect members of the entire species where as Specific bio. evolution will account for individual variation among the members of the species.

 

specific evolution has, is and will continue to exist and develop since instead of affecting all of the members of a given species somewhat equally, it affects a few at a time but not enough to cause a dent in the gene pool.

[Sayonara]

I meant "Where are you getting this from?"

[admiral_ju00]

well, among one of the sources for this notion are the propositions by various scientists with whom i had the priveledge to study, work or read from.

 

i think that this is a plausible notion and agree with.

 

anyway, i got to go for the day, and will probably be back here in a few days. cya

 

by the way, hope our debate does not disinterest you, as i do like to persue it further and get more understanding behind your reasoning as you seem to have in mine. and it is a pleasure debatin' with you.

[Sayonara]

I'm trying to nail down a reason as to why you are using ephemeral terms of reference - your vague reply is not helping.

 

The reason scientific discussion works at all is that everyone uses the same terms of reference as describers, from the current working models.

That's why 'foreign' institutions like the media so frequently make a complete cock-up of descriptions for research or processes; because they don't understand that you can't just chuck about the latest buzz-word (like you can in advertising, as an example) and expect to get your message across with any accuracy.

 

 

Anyway...

 

I have a good idea about why you are separating out the "large" and "small" evolutionary effects, but I'd suggest it is a mistake to try to do this as they are largely interdependable.

 

A problem we have here is that everything to do with evolution is easiest considered in hindsight and doesn't lend itself well to formulating accurate preditions about actual events (well, not without tightly controlled variables anyway. When you're talking about an entire planet it has long passed the point of impossibility.)

 

See, we might very well disregard the adaptations of a population of 2000 humans living high up on the side of a mountain, in favour of considering the "larger" evolutionary forces at work on humanity as an entire species.

But it wouldn't take much to make that 2000-strong population become the entire species, which (a) makes a mockery of the artificial ranking system, and (b) would most likely be caused by factors that are not possible to predict.

 

I'll take advantage of your absence to go back over the thread and review your reasoning, because I forgot how all this started

 

Later!

[admiral_ju00]

I'm trying to nail down a reason as to why you are using ephemeral terms of reference - your vague reply is not helping.

 

I just had to stop in here for a last quickie. rofl.

 

Anyway, the answer to your puzzle is in your own question. You asked "where" as opposed to "where, who, and possibly when". Anyway, more on that when i get back.

[Sayonara]

Seeing as there's a standard form for providing scientific reference, one might have reasonably assumed that "who" and "when" were implied.

[admiral_ju00]

like i said in the post prior to the one above, my take on evolution is a result of all of the below sources.

 

among one of the sources for my current standing on the matter are the propositions by various scientists with whom i had the privilege to study, work or read from.(this hasn't changed)

many of whom are anthropologists/paleontologists, few that are biologists, and a few social scientists, well, one to be exact. He's a Social Psychologist who embraced the Symbolic Interactionism theory.

 

Then there is the reading stuff(books, magazines, periodicals)

I've read quite a bunch of books on the matter, but these are the ones that are the most memorable to me at this time.

Books:

Evolution: A case of stating the Obvious by Hugh or Hough(can't remember which)

Evolution: A theory in Crisis by Denton

The Web Of Life by Capra

Seven Daughters of Eve by Sykes

Origin of Species by Darwin <-- this makes me wonder how any individual can so fully embrace the things that are proposed by Darwin. The book itself has numerous contradictions, errors, screwups and even an appereant loss of interest by Darwin himself I realize that any theory will have it's flaws, lack of definitions, practicality, evidence, applicability,etc, but some of the things proposed there and are accepted are downright retarted.

 

Magazines:

AQ(Anthropological Quarterly) and whatever other Anthropology related magazines/journals I can get a chance to read.

 

Love the 1st book as it provides a more or less cliff-notes version of evolution, that and the fact that mr. Hough almost rips Darwin a new back-door orifice.

Plus I agree with just about everything he proposes there with only 1 exception. I'd put a bit more value on 'environment' myself. While I wholeheartedly agree that the key to evolution is in our genome and it constantly experiments with things, thereby we may have certain abilities of which we currently do not know about but which will be expressed by everyone member of the homo sapien if something 'drastic' was to happen to our world where our current abilities will either not be enough or simply detrimental.

 

edit:

i highly recommend that you read books # 1 and 3.

[Skye]

Anthopologists and pop sci books eh? Well that explains alot.

[admiral_ju00]

Anthopologists and pop sci books eh? Well that explains alot.

 

Meaning?

What is wrong with my chosen field of study and the materiel I read for it?

[Skye]

I mean they are bad sources of information in general, and especially to rely on. There are alot more informative stuff, like textbooks on population biology theory and molecular genetics. There's two good reasons why these are better, they are more basic sciences, so let you evaluate the conclusions that others come to, and also that they'll let you explain the mechanism for what you think is going to happen.

[admiral_ju00]

I mean they are bad sources of information in general, and especially to rely on. There are alot more informative stuff, like textbooks on population biology theory and molecular genetics. There's two good reasons why these are better, they are more basic sciences, so let you evaluate the conclusions that others come to, and also that they'll let you explain the mechanism for what you think is going to happen.

 

you realize that the author of the 1st book is an established Biologist?

 

or let me rephrase that. (by the way, you may be right about Pop. Biology theory and Molecular genetics. they have lots of great, info, practical, theoretical, whathave you, but you know, sometimes it is good to pick up a cliff-notes version of a book that is technical, complex and can be very hard to read. while this won't let you know how things really work in their extreme details, a generalization is not a bad thing, provided that it stays consistent, w/o a spin and as accurate as possible - empirically speaking.), but tell me this:

 

 

Granted I did not spend too much time looking up their credentials, etc, but tell me this, do these below scientists / authors, etc make a different spin on the stuff they print? So as to one can safely assume that their research is biased, flawed, etc, thereby it is not worth checking out the stuff that they write or work on?

 

Michael Denton - Biochemistry

Fritjof Capra - Physicist and systems theorist

Bryan Sykes - Professor of Human Genetics

Derek Hough - Biologist

 

If so, then are there scientists/authors that the gen. pop. can read from and not worry about the stuff that they read is a bunch of a bs with a spin?

[Skye]

The author of the last one was too

 

Anyone can write garbage, and many scientists have. To some extent you can get around this by peer review, and that's a good enough reason to read textbooks. In the end though it's best to figure out why people say what they say so you can evaluate it yourself. And then it'll make it alot easier to explain your point of view to others.

[admiral_ju00]

In the end though it's best to figure out why people say what they say so you can evaluate it yourself.

 

that is precisely what i do. i do not automatically conform to the 1st thing that i hear or read.for to do that is the way of the sukkas:D

[Radical Edward]

that would be the Denton who says there are no transitional fossils between, for example, terrestrial mammals and whales or bats, or between reptiles and birds, right?

 

be a bit careful about books by creationists, they tend to quote mine alot, and are oftend a bit shady in their science.

 

here is a critique

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

[admiral_ju00]

yes, i realize that denton's book is pretty poor and had some issues with it myself, but still as a generalization it is entertaining.

 

and again, i do not conform to the 1st things i read or hear.

 

i also care nothing for what the creationists say or any other theological matter. but at times of extreme boredom, i find their philosophy quite comical and as stated above, a bit entertaining. other than that, it does not deserve any serious considerations.

[Radical Edward]

good good sadly I am all too familiar with the likes of Denton, Dembski, Sarfati and so on in debates with others. It gets rather tiresome hearing their falsehoods trotted out again and again.

[dryan]

I bet some other civilization will destroy the earth to form a super-highway across the universe.

[-Demosthenes-]

That sounds about right

[5614]

yeah there will probably be some big war, but more certain is that our sun will die. part of the death process of a sun involves it explanding, our planet is close enought to our sun so that, when, in a few million years [cant remember the exact date -- but its along long way away!] the sun dies, we will die with it, if mankind has managed to escape to another planet, still inside the solar system, they will find darkness and eternal coldness, our solar system would freeze, so humans have no chance of survival unless they fly to another solar system, and at the moment, it would take soooo long to get there, you'd be dead of old age before you got anywhere near your destination!

[Chem-Maniac]

Every closed system, also a planet, is able to bear just a certain amount of energy, in this case it might be "people". Is the amount to high, the system acknowledges changes, it has to adapt itsself to new conditions.

The question is: Are man able to adapt themselfes to the adaption of the planet?If not, they will be no more!

[LucidDreamer]

I bet some other civilization will destroy the earth to form a super-highway across the universe.

 

That's ok as long as they don't recite any poetry.

 

Maybe there really are multiple universes and perhaps the multi-verse is infinite. If that’s true we could just escape to another universe when the energy of ours runs out. Maybe there are already beings that have existed for trillions of years and they are just waiting for us to find them.

[Sayonara]

Every closed system' date=' also a planet, is able to bear just a certain amount of energy, in this case it might be "people". Is the amount to high, the system acknowledges changes, it has to adapt itsself to new conditions.

The question is: Are man able to adapt themselfes to the adaption of the planet?If not, they will be no more![/quote']

Planets aren't closed systems.

[Chem-Maniac]

As a matter of fact planets are closed systems. You've got to differ between closed and isolated systems. Since the mass our planet gains from outer space is irrelevant, solar energy, warmth, is the only thing we exchange with space.Ergo: Closed system!

[Sayonara]

Actually we both gain and lose both mass and energy to space, so I don't see how you can call it a closed system.

 

In any case, a species such as ours will at some point find it as able to spread beyond its home planet, so the logic of your post was still flawed.