posted
Idemo, You're starting out assuming that all creatures reproduced sexually, which isn't accurate, and you're thinking that drone insects (or proto-drone ants) existed indepndently of queen insects, which is also innaccurate (well, ok, I really don't know the evolutionary history of insects, but I'm pretty sure that's true). At some point in history the ancestor of the queen insect created different types of things. Some of these things had the ability to create other things and some of them didn't. This arrangement worked, so now we have insects the way they are.
For an analogy, humans develop in such a way that they grow hands. These hands are unable to reproduce, but they make it much more likely that the humans with them will reproduce, so humans now all pretty much have hands. Just because the drone represents a closed system apart from the queen doesn't mean that the relationship there (in terms of individuality and reproduction) is really that different from that between you and your hand. If you could disconnect your hand from your body and still have it carry out instructions coded into, it would be even more similar.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Evolutionary theory says that if Brand X robots operate in such a way that in each successive generatione the percentage of Brand X robots increases, then Brand X robots are going to come to dominate that environment. Evolution is completely indifferent as to how this comes about and what the role of any individual robot is. They could all be builders, there could be a speciialized builder class, only one could do all the building. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the traits that cause Brand X robots to increase their proportion are passed onto through the generations.
This makes me wonder if it would be possible to create a virtual model of life and watch evolution happen before your eyes. What a game that would be! Play God! Create life on your own world! Subtlely control natural disasters and such to shape things to your liking! You might end up with a sentient race of hive-mind insects, like the buggers.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Scott, what in my information do you disagree with? I admit I could be wildly off-base when it comes to the atual nature of insects and reproduction, but are you actually questioning my description of evolution?
edit: And what about my use of the word consciousness did you find improper?
quote: At some point in history the ancestor of the queen insect created different types of things. Some of these things had the ability to create other things and some of them didn't. This arrangement worked, so now we have insects the way they are.
A hive-version of Eve.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, They've got computer simulations and games out there that let you do kind of sort of just that. Of course, they only work in the limited situations that are coded into the simulators, so they haven't come close to approaching the incredible complexities of the real world situation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given time, I assume they would get closer and closer to "the real thing". I wonder if reality could ever truly be mimmicked one day in the virtual world? It would be like... the Matrix!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, there is such game: it's called "Evolution, the game of life". It is an old game (Circa 1996, I guess). It has a "Discovery Channel" trademark. I have it.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless this hive Eve reproduced asexually, she had to be fertilized by something. I don't KNOW that she was sexual, but I'm fairly sure she wasn't asexual for some reason. I think we're getting into a chicken and egg thing here.
On a side note, I believe there has been a computer model of evolution done before. A guy made a program that could model self replicating patterns, only he told it to make random small changes. I don't remember how he represented natural selection, but he had a whole model of evolution including extinctions, dominant species, eras, the whole shebang. I saw it on a cheesy educational video in freshman biology.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eduardo: Sounds cool. I guess I shouldn't be suprised that the game already exists. I expect there will be better and more improved versions yet to come.
I think it fascinating that in part of Porter's work in college, he used "sexual reproduction" and randomness to create new and wonderful things. It was all virtual on the computer--I don't remember how exactly it worked. I just remember thinking it was cool.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Are you serious? Your objection is that I said that insects don't exhibit consciousness or desire? I honestly not sure how to answer that. The opposite is not something I've ever come across before.
Hmmm...how about insects, and most other animals have never displayed the complexity of mental representation necessary to have anything sort of top-down model like a desire or self-referential consciousness. Animals without extremely high mental complexity have never demonstrated any conception of selfhood.
What possible reasons do you have for suggesting that bee have dsires and consciousness? Of are you not suggesting that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We just turned a discussion about awfull Chick tracts and turned it into a fruitful biology debate. Would Alvin Maker consider it a kind of "Making"? Would you? Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Animals without extremely high mental complexity have never demonstrated any conception of selfhood.
Since 'conception of selfhood' is an entirely subjective idea, I'm not sure how you'd define it for a biological discussion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no it's not. Conception of selfhood, consciousness, and desire are all conditions that can be inferred from objective observation. This isn't strange stuff. These are accepted parts of the whole tradition of neuroethology. The study of animals and what levels of mental representation they have has been established for more than a little bit now. Without mental representation, the animal is left with stimulus-response patterns, which are insufficient to support consciousness, desire, or a conception of selfhood.
I've gotten my information though training in this field; where have you gotten yours? Can you mount an objection that doesn't rely solely on you saying "No that's not true"?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, while "hunkered down" for the last hurricane, I re-read Alas, Babylon. I thought of you when the beekeeper died.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, the very idea of evolution does not make sense. In fact, it makes less sense than Creation. So why people even try and explain something that is in fact nothing more than a lie I don't know. We had this very discussion in Biology last year, and many points were discussed. Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in? Not only is that not logical, it's not likely. And there are many more questions that simply cannot be answered. Yes, animals can ADAPT to a certain point, and evolve a little, but the idea that we came from primodial soup is very silly and illogical.
1. Clearly, you do not understand how evolution works.
2. Further, you have absolutely no idea what logic is or how to apply it, you're just throwing the word around as the opposite of 'stupid'.
3. Calling evolutionary theory 'nothing more than a lie' is not going to convince anyone that you are right. What it might do is convince people that you are twelve or so, and immature for your age.
4. As a basis for your argument, you are going to take discussions in an American highschool?
OK, I'm done name-calling. I suggest you read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," an excellent book.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was being polite. Expressing what I actually think about the way Americans educate their offspring would instantly get me banned.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As a basis for your argument, you are going to take discussions in an American highschool?"
Um, she is a high school student. Why wouldn't she base her opinions on what she observed in school? There are lots of smart kids on this board, some of them are even Americans.
IvyGirl, I think it takes a lot of courage to post your Creationist views among us frothing liberals and godless science geeks.
Don't let some of the negative comments on this thread prevent you from posting your other questions about evolutionary theories. I like the fact that you are reaching out with your curiosity and I hope you continue to use Hatrack as a resource to refine your view of the world. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree that American high school education has gone completely down the tubes. I had a decent education, and I've met people here at college who did some pretty amazing things in high school. Oh, and I went to a public high school, which was probably better than the local private school.
By the way, there's nothing illogical with not believing in evolution (or, say, geocentrism) as long as one places more importance on a literal view of the Bible than on science. That person's first principles may be different from yours, but the beliefs do follow logically from that world view. I don't think geocentrism or a literal six-day creation with a young earth is supported by science, but if someone chooses to have faith in the Bible instead of science, then it is perfectly consistent.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there IS a reproductive benefit involved for the worker bees/ants, though I don't quite remember what it is. When my AP-biology-teacher spouse gets home from work, I'll see if I can get him to explain how exactly this benefit works.
Also:
quote:We had this very discussion in Biology last year, and many points were discussed. Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in? Not only is that not logical, it's not likely.
If your H.S. biology teacher couldn't explain these points to you, then he doesn't have an adequate grounding in his subject.
[ September 10, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reproductive advantage for the worker bees is that they are more closely related to their sisters than to their daughters. This is an interesting trick which they accomplish by shuffling their chromosomes in clever ways; if I remember correctly, the technical term is haplodiploidy. If a worker could reproduce, she would make bees which shared 50% of her genes. By tending her mother, the queen, and making her do the reproduction, the worker can produce bees which share 75% of her genes - clearly a much better bet.
You don't have to be haplodiploid to be a social insect, though : Termites aren't, and naked mole rats, which have many of the same adaptations, aren't either. There is still an advantage, namely that of specialisation. Consider two sets of one hundred bees, in which each set is fairly closely related. In the first set, each bee gathers food, fights, and reproduces all on its own. In the second set, there are, say, eighty workers, ten fighters, and ten reproducers. The second set is going to be a lot more efficient, much as a city will produce more per capita than a hunter-gatherer band, or even a village of farmers.
The intermediate step between each individual being sexual and total specialisation is just a colony of reasonably closely related individuals. Kin groups where some are workers, and do not reproduce, prosper better than those where everybody has children. Call that step one. Eventually all the groups have reached step one, since any reproductive advantage grows exponentially. Step two requires a small mutation : Some of the individuals are born sterile. Usually this is a terrible disadvantage which means the instant death of the gene line; in this case, though, the sterile individuals prosper by helping their kin groups. Since they don't waste a lot of energy building sexual organs, more is available for muscle, or whatever insects use. Hence kin groups of this type, having burlier workers, prosper still more. That's step two.
Step three is that the reproductive types become more efficient at pumping out children, while the worker types become more efficient at working. This is just standard adaptation. But the more efficient the reproducers are at reproduction, the fewer of them you need. In fact, if they are sufficiently effective, you only need one female and a couple of males, who can be discarded after use. Voila - social insects.
Incidentally, using a loaded word like 'slavery' is utterly misleading. You might as well consider the workers as having enslaved the queen. They are using her to produce sisters, with 75% of their genes. If the queen could, she'd "want" sisters too, but she's being forced to produce mere daughters, with only 50% of her genes. In reality, of course, workers and queen are cooperating to produce more of their kin.
quote:Um, she is a high school student. Why wouldn't she base her opinions on what she observed in school? There are lots of smart kids on this board, some of them are even Americans.
Well, I don't usually argue from authority. But I was a bit struck by the incongruity : The best biologists in the world (and indeed 99.9% of the rest, not to mention all the other scientific fields) consider evolution to be a fact. And this arrogant American is going to argue that 'we decided in class?' Without so much as a grounding in how differential equations apply to ecology? Without, I suspect, knowing how an exponential works? (I'd be happy if someone would tell me that American high schools do teach this much.) And, it seems, without an understanding of the non-teleological nature of evolution. It is to laugh, at the arrogance more than the ignorance.
quote:I don't agree that American high school education has gone completely down the tubes. I had a decent education, and I've met people here at college who did some pretty amazing things in high school. Oh, and I went to a public high school, which was probably better than the local private school.
By the way, there's nothing illogical with not believing in evolution (or, say, geocentrism) as long as one places more importance on a literal view of the Bible than on science. That person's first principles may be different from yours, but the beliefs do follow logically from that world view. I don't think geocentrism or a literal six-day creation with a young earth is supported by science, but if someone chooses to have faith in the Bible instead of science, then it is perfectly consistent.
I submit for your consideration comrade Ivygirl. A perfect example of what is wrong with American high schools. I then generalise to all Americans.
Well, yes, if you insist on taking 'Everything in the Bible is true' as an axiom, then 'Evolution does not occur' and 'The Earth does not move around the Sun' both follow. But the Earth demonstrably does move! (And evolution does occur, though the demonstration is a bit less generally accepted.) We have, then,
(The Bible) implies X. Not X. Therefore, not (the Bible).
The first statement, as you point out, is perfectly valid. In the absence of any evidence, it is quite all right to believe 'X'. But we've got evidence! We know that 'not X' is true. You cannot just ignore this, if you want to retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Maybe your hypothetical person of faith feels that the literal truth of the Bible is more important than honesty. But I don't think he'd be willing to admit it.
You must abandon either logic, or the bible (parts of it, anyway), or a literal interpretation. Choose one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and I went to a public high school, which was probably better than the local private school.
I have taught in both public and private schools. There are good and bad schools in both systems. One difference is that bad private schools tend to go out of business. Bad public schools have no such worries. Class sizes in public schools tend to be larger than private schools. Teachers in public schools also tend to have more unnecessary (in my opinion)paperwork than in private schools. I prefer teaching in private schools because I find I am permitted to focus on teaching.
quote:if someone chooses to have faith in the Bible instead of science, then it is perfectly consistent.
The nice thing about science is that it isn't based on faith. It is based on observable phenomena which are testable by experiment.
IvyGirl wrote:
quote:Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in?
Organisms do not "decide" to do something in an evolutionary sense. Species are molded as a consequence of the environments they find themselves in. While natural selection is not conscious and does not truly "decide", it is one of the mechanisms by which species change. To address your question about whales, let's take, as a starting point, a mammal species similar to dogs. Now imagine that this species' main prey escapes predation by escaping into the water. Some dogs are better adapted to the water than others. Short, oily hair that repels water and decreases drag is better than long hair that absorbs water. Flat, webbed feet work better as paddles than rounded, non-webbed feet. These variations exist now. If such dogs were more successful at capturing their prey, they would contribute a greater amount of their genes to the next generation. As a result, the next generation would have more short-oily-haired dogs with flat webbed feet. As the population spent more and more time in the water, animals with better insulation against losing heat to the water would have an advantage over those with less insulation. As a result, a subcutaneous layer of fat would become thicker over the generations as those with thinner fat would be at a selective disadvantage. Another thing that would be advantageous would be for the animal not to have to raise its' head very far out of the water to breathe. It takes energy to raise the head, and it also makes it easier to be spotted. As a result, animals with nostrils higher on the head would have a selective advantage.
Is the scenario I presented above true? Dogs as we know them did not exist, but animals like them did. The fossil evidence supports the changes in the paw to flipper and the migration of nostrils from the front of the muzzle to the top of the head. There's a good, easily accessable segment in the PBS Evolution series on this. I'd suggest at least watching that before making up your mind. If you'd like other sources, I'd be happy to provide you with them.
I also want to thank King of Men for the excellent explanation of kin selection and worker bees.
posted
King of Men, no matter what your feelings on evolution, American public education, and Americans in general, the example of one high school student is certainly NOT representative of the entire country. Generalization like that helps no one, and makes you look as ignorant as you seem to believe everyone in America is.
posted
IvyGirl, It's my belief that religion was the precusor to science. They are both an attempt by humanity to answer questions of existence. Your position that Creation is easier to believe than evolution isn't based on reason and logic, it's based on belief (faith). I'm not decrying your right to support creationism only your assertion that those who support evolution are gullible suckers that bought into a silly illogical lie.
Edit to add that I agree with another poster in this thread that appluaded your desire to explore your world and share with us as you shape your view of the world. I would only caution that topics that are as flammable as this one be treated with a fair amount of forethought as to wording and implications prior to posting. Your implication that evolution supporters were silly and illogical ruffled alot of feathers. If you wish to avoid lambasting I suggest a more considered approach.
posted
he left out a bit: independently testable by experiment.
Furthermore, the definition of testable is a little more rigorous (also in the scientific sense) than what I think you're using, Scott. Testable means that the experiment may be recreated by others. Can another recreate your experience with God?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing - if the Earth did stop rotating, and by some miracle there were no inertial effects, and then it did start rotating some time later, again with miraculoulsy no inertial effects, then a person observing that from earth would probably write it down as, "The sun stopped in the sky." So no real rejection of the Bible is needed to reconcile our current understanding of the solar system and a "literal" interpretation of the Joshua verse. We often describe events from our own perspective and don't stop people from saying "sunrise" and "sunset."
The Creation story is more difficult to handle. For it to be literally true, then God would essentially have to have planted evidence. This is certainly possible. I'm sure no can deny that a God who created the world in 7 days certainly could have created animals with genetic relationships that would suggest evolution. He could have planted fossils. He could have started the universe going at a point in time and in a certain condition such that it appears to be as old as it is.
If this happened, then we have no way of knowing it, and science can never disprove it.
But even if that is the case, then evolution theory still has predictive and explanatory power for what's happened since and what might happen in the future.
I guess we just have different perceptions of what discussion forums are all about. We can all pile on Ivygirl with our "Creationism is so stupid" comments and have a good laugh about the whole thing back at Atheist Headquarters (TM). We've had tons of threads like that before and I don't think they helped anyone.
Ivygirl's view on evolution are based on what she learned in school. And as some of you pointed out, her teacher was unable to explain basic evolutionary principles.* Should we make fun of her for her teacher's mistakes? Or should we present her all the information we know (as many of you did without the rudeness) and hopefully she can make a more informed decision regarding the subject.
*To be fair, her teacher might be restricted by district rules that require presenting evolution and creationism as equally viable theories.
posted
I feel no particular obligation to help Americans overcome the consequences of their faith. Let 'em eat manna. All the more actual food for the rest of us.
Comrade Megan : You will note that I put a winking smilie after my "generalise to all Americans," indicating that I did not intend to be taken entirely seriously.
Comrade Scott, for a moment I am going to argue on your premises. I think you are saying that your faith is based on your personal experiences of being close to God, and that such experiences are repeatable? Now, quite apart from not being repeatable by someone else, I would have to ask whether you can be close to God any time you feel like it. Can you flick your experience on and off like a lightbulb? If not, then it isn't repeatable even for yourself. Or did I misunderstand your argument completely? The religious mindset is so alien to me that that could easily happen.
Comrade Dagonee, you are of course correct about geocentrism and the Bible. But I was arguing with comrade Shigosei about the meaning of logic, not about exactly what the Bible says. Even so, when I suggested "a literal interpretation" as one of the things to be abandoned, I meant going over to the sort of interpretation you are talking about. The Bible does say "The Sun stopped." Certainly, you could take that as shorthand for "It looked as though the Sun stopped." But literal it ain't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I was referring not only to that particular sentence in that particular post, but also other comments of the same posts, as well as a generally condescending attitude that you seem to adopt whenever you mention anything American. If you truly do not mean to generalize Americans as ignorant/stupid, then why make comments that seem to indicate that is your belief?
If I've mistaken your true intent, then I apologize; however, from all that I've read of you, you seem to look down on America and its citizens quite a bit.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R asserts that faith [in the Bible? or in God?] is testable by experiment. I'd be curious to know how such an experiment is designed and carried out.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt many people would be willing to share, after having our experiments bashed repeatedly in the past with arguments that don't amount to much more than "you made that up in your head, you delusional twit."
posted
On the subject of evolutionism and creationism, I never had a problem with it. When I was a kid, my parents knew I was interested in science and animals. They subscribed to a publication called "Zoobooks". Each issue focused on a particular animal type, and evolution was openly discussed. There were really cool conceptual illustrations of evolving species of animals--I remember the horse, the elephant, the whale, and one of a dinosaur turning into a bird. They were so well done! The idea of evolution seemed as natural to me as anything.
But I was also raised in a religious family where the scriptures were studied on a regular basis. I just assumed that both science and scripture were true, so they must agree with each other. I had already seen specific examples of scripture being figurative, at least in part, so I knew that was a possibility. I knew that the God I believed in doesn't tell us "everything" but only what we are ready to know and what we need for eternal salvation. I knew that God I believed in loves wisdom, learning, and intelligence--that such things are His very glory. I knew the God I believed in used natural laws--because of their truth, because of their beauty, because of what they teach, because that is the way things are deep down. It didn't concern me all that much.
So I was reading the Bible's story of creation in the KJV:
quote: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good....
...24 ΒΆ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
So, I thought, "Evolution is true, it says so right here." That was honestly my reaction! It says that the waters brought forth life. So does Evolutionism. The process of creation is described as happening in phases progressing from the simple to the complex. So says Evolutionism also. In my mind, the two were in harmony with each other.
Just throwing that out there as my own life experiences and how my knowledge of science and religion grew together side by side.
posted
Comrade Megan, every so often I remember that I'm an adult now, and really shouldn't be chucking around general statements about entire nations. I make strong resolutions to be more forgiving of other people's foibles, and less judgmental.
And then someone like comrade IvyGirl comes along and confirms my every prejudice.
Now, it's true that not all Americans are like that. But that's not the point. One is one too many. And you've got several million! It is unworthy of a great nation to let children grow up ignorant. Any children. The percentage does not matter.
Finally, I do consider the European way of life, culture, and educational systems superior, and I will make no bones about that. If that is condescension, then I'll have to live with the label.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KofM, Surely you aren't contending that every single one of your countrymen are devoid of any beliefs that the majority of us would find objectionable or ludicrous?
posted
"And then someone like comrade IvyGirl comes along and confirms my every prejudice."
If all your prejudices can be confirmed by a few postings by one teenage girl, that says more about your prejudices than the state of American culture.
posted
You are asking whether there are any Creationists in Norway? Yes, there are. Do they have influence on education policy? Hell, no.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. You've claimed superiority of your country's ideals and way of life. You claim that you are basing your view of us based on a high school student's post. My point is that the paragon of life that you are championing has it's share of folks with beliefs that chafe just as much.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM comes across to me as being *extremely* prejudiced and bigoted. His response here seems to fit in with that perfectly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
