Ben Gunn on 29/3/2008 at 16:05
Quote Posted by Muzman
This might belong in the youtube thread I guess but it's amusing (and who ever did it is pretty well sorted with gear and skills to get this together so quick)
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw)
This was.. so wonderfuly awesome. :thumb:
Muzman on 29/3/2008 at 18:29
The more I watch it, the less I have any idea where it's coming from. But it's damn funny and damn well made (how often is a joke song funnier for more than 30 seconds. Although what that guy does while wearing a bikini and Genie Scott's head just is all sorts of wrong.)
catbarf on 29/3/2008 at 20:57
The comments are fun. One guy just claimed to be a scientist, then only a few minutes later used the 'It's just a theory!' line.
Qooper on 4/4/2008 at 20:12
Quote Posted by flexbuster
I think one of the best examples of evolution is that of bacteria which can digest nylon, of all things. Something that wasn't even in the environment before.
That's called adaptation, not evolution.
Evolution is a religion, in its current state at least. A lot of people believe in evolution and fool themselves into thinking they are based in rock solid truth, just because evolution has a label slapped on that says "science". A huge amount of resources are being directed toward the study and teaching of evolution, even though it has no real world applications in the same sense as computer science has. Evolution is of so little importance, yet "true scientists" are willing to fight to the death in defending it. Why bother?
Muzman on 4/4/2008 at 20:33
As the court cases have demonstrated, the alternative is to surrender the scientific process to the fundies. Positing god as an explanation for anything ends the inquiry, and in any case all arguments against evolution by natural selection are readily defeated.
Besides natural selection, genetics and evolution are all tied together making testable hypothesis about the natural world that have endless impacts on medicine and agriculture.
catbarf on 4/4/2008 at 21:57
Quote Posted by Qooper
That's called adaptation, not evolution.
They are one and the same. A sequence of favorable adaptations is in itself evolution.
Quote Posted by Qooper
Evolution is a religion, in its current state at least. A lot of people believe in evolution and fool themselves into thinking they are based in rock solid truth, just because evolution has a label slapped on that says "science". A huge amount of resources are being directed toward the study and teaching of evolution, even though it has no real world applications in the same sense as computer science has. Evolution is of so little importance, yet "true scientists" are willing to fight to the death in defending it. Why bother?
Actually, evolution has a label slapped on that says 'scientific theory', which means that it's as close to fact as it or any other idea can ever be.
Evolution is supported by an enormous amount of evidence through the fossil record.
As for teaching- well, I'm not sure how you can argue that it's more useless than learning Shakespeare. Both have little practical application, yet are so beloved.
demagogue on 4/4/2008 at 22:38
Quote Posted by Muzman
endless impacts on medicine and agriculture.
I think people defending or talking about evolution shouldn't shy away from its full implications, though, and bury it under dispassionate, techy things like building a better mousetrap, or "applications" like Qooper was talking about (this isn't an stab at either of your points, btw; I'm just using it as an occassion to make an independent point, so no worries).
Evolution goes to the very heart and soul of being an individual; the very essence of our "spiritual" life ... It explains why "red" looks like red and not green, why orgasms feel good and stumpted toes feel bad, and the feeling of motivation to get up in the morning and do
anything and not simply sit and die slowly. It's inside of you and you can't get away from it.
And there's not a single nanosecond of freedom away from it, where you can take a vacation and be yourself, no matter how deep inside of yourself you try to look to find yourself, it's always deeper, waiting for you. And nothing in human exerpience, not a single thing, makes any sense at all outside of it. And what it says is at the core of our most intimate, "spiritual" feelings is often disgusting, things like cockroaches getting their repulsive legs up a billion years ago to fuck better.
Really coming to terms with that kind of nauseating reality sort of dampens the excitement that now we have taller corn plants. Oh boy ... some of my most intimate spiritual essence is that of a lizard's, but damn look at that corn. I think it's a repulsive trade-off (or would be if we actually had a choice), with the only saving-grace that at least with evolution we have some slight possibility of understanding a little of that most intimate part of ourselves, a small consolation, not really worth it, but something.
(Actually, I also think it's beautiful, or that there's a terribly beautiful side to it, too, as well as a repulsive side ... but one point at a time. It's anything but a dispassionate technical theory whose most important implications are its "applications", though.)
D'Juhn Keep on 4/4/2008 at 23:01
Quote Posted by Qooper
That's called adaptation, not evolution.
As has been pointed out above and as I really really hope you now realise, this statement of yours is absolute nonsense. Evolution IS adaption, the selective passing on of genes that can survive in a particular environment
catbarf on 5/4/2008 at 00:35
I agree very much with demagogue, but there's yet another facet of it as well- evolution can be used with computers to make The Next Best Thing. Simply put, the calculations computers can perform are sufficient to allow testing of new ideas without having to build prototypes. Evolution can be used to improve things very rapidly- one such simulation created an extremely efficient form of radio antenna that looks vaguely like something out of an MC Escher print, yet is far more receptive than the standard two-prong device.
Chade on 5/4/2008 at 01:07
Meh. I think that it's easy to start spouting a load of crap when you take really really low-level processes such as evolution, and try to apply it to high-level questions such as "what is the meaning of life?".
At the end of the day, there's such a lot of processing between the really low level stuff and the really high level stuff, that directly applying the rules down there to the questions up is almost certain to be wrong.
My attitude is : when it comes to armchair logic, it's best to just treat the two areas as being disconnected.
Case in point: is it really useful to look at the act of "admiring a beautiful sunset" as a way of spreading genes? No, it's not. There'll be some convoluted link, but it'll be too complicated to figure out anytime soon, so you might as well just believe in a beautiful sunset and leave it at that.
