Posts by EntirelyPossible

112

Which one of these men will you kill...if either?

by Terry in

i like to perform "thinking experiments" like einstein use to do.

of course, he was better equipped for it than i am.

but, dash it all, i do anyway.. i imagine two men sitting side by side in a train station waiting on a train.. they more are less look like fairly "normal" people.

EntirelyPossible

Allow me to user Star Trek to answer this question. This thought experiement is a variation of the no win situation, like the Kobiyashi Maru test. Do I commit a wrong act to save lives, or do I follow the rules, essentially do the "right" thing, knowing that it will lead to greater atrocities? This type of thought experiment is seen in questions like "Is it ok to steal if it's to feed your family?". In THIS case, the thought "experiment" is more like Sophie's choice, where someone with greater knowledge, power and circumstances has setup a situation where you are forced to make a terrible choice, one that they could easily rectify or remove. That's why I rejected it as a valid thought experiment.

Treating as it is, I treated it more like the Kobiyashi Maru, a classic no-win situation and went Kirk's route. Change the conditions of the test. Cheat. In the face of an artificially created situation, change the rules so that you can win. In more classic philosophical thinking when faced with a false dichomoty in a choice, you take the middle road, reject the false dichotomy.

Yes, I totally geeked out.

49

Couple of "Human Evolution" Questions (Seriously), If I May...

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

i know, i know... from body members: why is she going there, again??

but... i have what i believe are a couple/few valid questions, so i must ask that you indulge me, if you can.

EntirelyPossible

I have to disagree with your assessment of a professor, at least as to my experience at 3 different universities.

I teach lots of classes. If a student says to me "explain how this file re-direction works, but don't get technical", I would tell him that he needs to understand file systems, soft links, hard links, redirection, stub files, metadata. If he then responds with "just tell me in laymans terms, I don't need to understand all of that", I am done with him. He doesn't want to learn, he wants a soundbite. That was my point. Your example was about a professor yelling at students that are struggling. Struggling is NOT at ALL the same as what I was talking about.

Using the word "adaptation" is a distinction without a difference. Adaptation is one of the driving factors in evolution. It's like saying "I believe in fax machines but not that a computer can generate graphics". They are the same thing.

Here's an example. Lake Nicuaragua. Many many years ago a geological change isolated a portion of the sea, causing it to become a lake. Over time, the sea water became freshwater. The sawfish, sharks and tuna. As the water changed, the fish evolved in order to survive in that environment, so much so that they now cannot interbreed with their saltwater kin, indeed, neither can even survive in the others environment. You can call it adaptation, and you are correct. They changed in response to evironemental pressures. That's EXACTLY what evolution is.

As a population becomes isolated, as in your lion example, over the millions of years, and it evolves due to environemental pressures, it changes so much, one or two at a time, that gradually, it becomes a wholly and distinct animal so different that the population it evolved from that they cannot interbreed any longer. It adapated and adapted and adapted until it was something completely different. It certainly could evolve into a camel like cud eating creature. I am not sure why you so strongly protest since you already said it could "adapt" to eating vegetation and lose it's canines.

That you equate adaptation and changes with your body and adaptation as it relates to evolution shows that you still don't want to learn. Here is lesson one. Evolution deals with populations. It is a false comparison to use ANY individual animal or plant with examples like "my body adapts, but I am still human, therefore adaptation isn't evolution" or "a dog will never give birth to a cat, therefore evolution is false."

In the context of evolution, adaptation deals with many changes in populations over many generations, NOT changes in a single individual. Think of it this way. I can look at your bank account and say "my last paycheck didn't put a million dollars in my account, therefore I have never made a million dollars." If I look at ALL of my paychecks over time, then I most certainly HAVE made a million dollars.

112

Which one of these men will you kill...if either?

by Terry in

i like to perform "thinking experiments" like einstein use to do.

of course, he was better equipped for it than i am.

but, dash it all, i do anyway.. i imagine two men sitting side by side in a train station waiting on a train.. they more are less look like fairly "normal" people.

EntirelyPossible

(in this oneparticular instance, EP... :P)

Strangely, it's always one particular instance, it just happens to be EVERY one ;)

112

Which one of these men will you kill...if either?

by Terry in

i like to perform "thinking experiments" like einstein use to do.

of course, he was better equipped for it than i am.

but, dash it all, i do anyway.. i imagine two men sitting side by side in a train station waiting on a train.. they more are less look like fairly "normal" people.

EntirelyPossible

This isn't really a thought experiement, per se, but what the fuck, I'll play along.

How do I know YOU aren't the serial killer and just hooked up the killing machines for your own sick pleasure? If you hooked them up, why are you asking me to push the button, do you lack the courage of your conviction? If you know one of them WILL kill 11 more people, you clearly have information from the future, why don't you use that power to tell me which one it is?

49

Couple of "Human Evolution" Questions (Seriously), If I May...

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

i know, i know... from body members: why is she going there, again??

but... i have what i believe are a couple/few valid questions, so i must ask that you indulge me, if you can.

EntirelyPossible

On the other hand, if I don't respond... especially to direct confrontational comments or direct questions, then there will be accusations of hidden agreement (although nothing posted yet has resulted in that; to the contrary, actually) or further deceit on my part.

Well, no. I just can't accurately convey my comments if I don't have an accurate understand of your thoughts and what I am responding to. Nothing more or less.

I don't agree that race is a result of evolution

It is very true, regardless of whether or not you believe it or not. Allow me to give you an example.Or two.

Africans have dark skin, are much likely to get bitten by a malaria infected mosquito and have a high risk for sickle cell anemia (moreso in Africa than the US). Those two things are directly related to evolutionary pressures due to geography. The dark skin is due to an abundance of eumelanin, which prevents the skin from absorbing as much UV radiation from the sun and protects against cancer. Since our bodies can naturally synthesize vitamin D from the UV rays from the sun, blocking those would create a fatal vitamin D deficiency. BUT, there is also genetic mutation that allows Africans to synthesize vitamin D from cholesterol in food (something white people cannot do) because they natually block the UV rays in the sunlight. This is why you see three things happen (we're getting back to the mosquito in a minute). One, the further away from the equator a population historically has lived, the lighter their skin is due to a dimished need to block UV rays in sunlight and an increased need to absorb enough UV rays to create the vitamin D. Two, the LESS likely they are to have the genetic mutation that allows them to synthesize cholesterol into vitamin D. Three, Africans that live in an area with typically cholesterol loaded diets (like the southern US) are MUCH LESS likely to suffer heart disease and high cholesterol than their white neighbors eating the same diet next door. All because of evolution based on geography of their ancestors.

Interestingly, the above ALSO means that white people are the mutants, "racially" speaking. We are black people that mutated into white people. That's why "race" means nothing to me.

So, the mosquito. What does that have to do with anything? The genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia (under the right (well, wrong) conditions) ALSO protects against malaria. Interestingly, sickle cell anemia among African Americas is steadily falling as compared to Africans still living in Africa. Why? Because while sickle cell would kill you at 40, it would save your life at 10 if you lived in Africa and give you the chance to reproduce. African Americans are not really at risk of being bitten by a malaria infected mosquito and THEREFORE sickle cell is no longer a survival advantage. Evolution is weeding it out.

The same thing happens with Europeans and hemochomatosis, a genetic disease that will kill you at 40. Why would evolution select for it? Because it ALSO made Europeans four times more likely to either not contract or survive the black death. Sure, it will kill them at 40, but it would save them at 10.

... as we understand that theory (natural selection - there is no one race that is superior to the other such that, ultimately, it will out-survive all of the others.

Don't think of "race" like people usually do. Think of it as "how we evolved due to where our ancestors lived". Its got NOTHING to do with superiority or out-surviving all others. It has to do with evolution based on where you live. See my above comment. Race is nothing more than "genetics due to historic evolutionary pressures".

Oh, BTW - If some of you were university professors, I would probably drop your class. Not because of the content of your lecture... but your delivery. While I don't necessarily need you to be "nice" in your delivery, I would expect to you treat me with some consideration, since I came to YOU and asked YOU to help me understand what YOU believe... and honestly, forthrightly... and sincerely... shared with you what I believe.

You would probably be kicked out. I say that because you started the post off asking for everything in simple laymans terms. If you go to a math professor and ask him to explain statistics and said "but don't use fancy university words like probability distribution or stochastic processes, keep it simple" like you want to do on science, you would not be allowed back because you don't REALLY want to learn.

If you want to learn, then dammit, learn from the professor. Otherwise he has real students that want to learn something.

49

Couple of "Human Evolution" Questions (Seriously), If I May...

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

i know, i know... from body members: why is she going there, again??

but... i have what i believe are a couple/few valid questions, so i must ask that you indulge me, if you can.

EntirelyPossible

Unfortunately, I assume folks would know what I meant... but given the tendency for pendanticy (sp?) as to this subject I should have known better and been more careful.

I still don't know what you mean. Can you tell me how humans are different from animals in a meaningful way that would effect evolution? Drugs that people use everyday were tested on certain animals precisley because biologically they are so similiar to us.

I'm not attacking you, I really don't understand how you can think that animals evolve and people are animals, but not the kind that evolves.

Also, I purposefully excluded "racial" evolution because, regardless of our race, we are still the same species

1. Evolution doesn't care about "race" (which is a specious ill defined term anyway, like "kinds" when dealing with animals

2. Evolution doesn't mean "different species" either. It means "changes over time that lend themsevles to survival".

3. If you believe in animal evolution and that somehow wolves produced german shepards and poodles, then how is that any different that black/white/asian?

The color of both of our skin has a VERY specific survial trait, historically speaking. As does my European genetic predisposition to hemochromatosis and your African genetic predisposition to sickle cell. Both deadly, both geographically specific (before mass rapid transit). They are racially specific because, again, prior to mass rapid transit, your race had VERY much to do with your geography. Evolution select for both homochromatosis and sickle cell. That seems counter-intuitive, though. Why would evolution select a trait that will kill you at 40? Because it will keep you alive at 20.

Also, I believe that, given time... and current and progressive trends... the human race would "evolve" to one race... made up of all races... anyway... so that there would no longer be individual, separated races.

I both agree and disagree. "Race" is simply a modern phenotype expression of historical evolutionary pressures (meaning, we look the way we look because our ancestors lived in different places and evolved differently in response to different evolutionary pressures). I agree in the sense that, yes, due to the ability for me to be in Hawaii or Africa or Russia tomorow should I choose, and due to intermarrying of people with different geographical backgrounds, yes, they will get mingled to a large extent to where we will, as a species, largely be a very nice caramel color that tans wonderfully.

THAT, to me, would be about the only evolutionary process (other than intellectual) that I could say IS occurring. Since it is by human CHOICE, however, I am not sure how "natural" it is; again, seems to me that if man is consciously involved and can/does manipulate the outcome, it's actually artificial.

By choice? I don't think there is a large scale choice by people to purposefully intermarry among a different "race", but, because of places like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc., and the gradual social equalization that is occuring, it is simply becoming more common. I don't know that is a choice creating "artificial evolution" any more than the choice of people to migrate out of Africa into northern europe and, similarly, respond to different evolutionary pressures than their ancestors back home had to was creating "aritificial evolution"

what is "natural" vs. "artificial" evolution in your mind?

49

Couple of "Human Evolution" Questions (Seriously), If I May...

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

i know, i know... from body members: why is she going there, again??

but... i have what i believe are a couple/few valid questions, so i must ask that you indulge me, if you can.

EntirelyPossible

I would also like to make a couple things as to MY beliefs crystal clear:

A. I do not reject science

B. I do believe in evolution... of plants... animals... and the human intellect... but not the human (homo sapiens) species

They are clear. You logically should also believe that a man can walk from his house to the other side of town but not to the other side of the country. Humans ARE animals. Your beliefs don't make since because you START OUT rejecting basic biology, but you still claim to accept science. You can't claim to accept that yeast works and then deny that's why bread rises. You say you don't reject science, but you do when it's parts you don't like while simultaneously living from the benefits of the very science you reject.

1. Are we still physically evolving (as the "evidence", if true, would logically indicate we would be)?

Yes.

(1) HOW, logically, are we still evolving?

The same way we always have.

(2) WHAT, logically, are we involving into?

I don't know. No one does. You might as well ask someone what is around the corner in a town they have never been in or heard of. They can guess, but they don't know.

2. If we are still evolving, wouldn't evolving into a species that surpasses the physical body, surpasses being limited by the physical world, its laws and confines... and the requirements and needs of the physical body... be the ultimate station? I mean, logically? Wouldn't evolving to the point where the body doesn't need to eat, sleep, pee, poop, breath air, use apparati to fly, swim, etc., to be limited to a set space... logically, be the ultimate?

Since evolution works within the confines of physics, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

If you want some examples of evolution, read Survival of the Sickest. A good example of evolution in action...you are black and I am not.

125

The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest in

jw
friends

may you all have peace!.

hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

fascinating stuff.

EntirelyPossible

Oh, and thanks everyone for the warm welcome back. It warmed me in the cockles of my heart.

39

my dirty fantasies

by varian in

jw
friends

when i was a single jw, well, lets say around about my early 20ies, i used to to let my mind flow a bit during the kh meetings.. welll, anyway, i used to observe some of the "older" sisters around their late 30ies or 40ies in their stockings and high heels.

it really turned me on, i must admit.

i couldn t concentrate much of the programme due to this.

EntirelyPossible

Seriously....get laid, move on. Act like a goddamned adult.

125

The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest in

jw
friends

may you all have peace!.

hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

fascinating stuff.

EntirelyPossible

Best part was was the Garfield regrets.