flexbuster on 5/4/2008 at 02:10
Quote Posted by Qooper
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?
1) I'm not willing to fight to the death for evolution. I'm willing to fight for proper science and reasoning. Unlike some manners of religious people (like you, perhaps?), my logical priorities aren't totally ass-backward to the point where I try defending a conclusion blindly instead of the actual processes which lead to it.
2) Evolution is not religion. First off, you're just using sensationalistic terminology there; even if evolution were not science, it, by definition, wouldn't be religion either. Secondly, of COURSE there are real world applications to studying the process of evolution. Hell, you mention computer science; haven't you ever heard of evolutionary algorithms? The principles of evolution through natural selection have been, are being, and will continue to be applied to artificial systems. And I have no idea how you cannot see the implications of understanding how populations of organisms adapt, diverge, and change over time. That's a very fundamental part of understanding all of life on this planet. How in the name of Zod is that supposed to be of little importance? Understanding biology itself is of little importance now?
3) Adaptation through the mutation of genes and reproductive selection is evolution. A mutation resulting in the ability to digest nylon polymer wouldn't have mattered at all 1,000 years ago, and would have been sustained in a population through sheer coincidence, if anything, since there's no reason why it would have contributed to the organism's survival or reproduction. These days, plastics are a fairly large source of pollution, and a bacterial strain adapting to digest it would surely carve out an ecological niche, being probably the only thing capable of eating that stuff, and therefore the trait (and the population exhibiting it) would likely survive. Evolution of a new population through genetic adaptation and natural selection.
Also, if you want to see examples of animal populations being altered over time in a relatively short period? Look at your damn dog if you have one. You think poodles, terriers, and dachshunds existed tens of thousands of years ago? They didn't. We created them through reproductive selection and reproductive selection only, considering that we obviously didn't have the tools for direct genetic manipulation. For that matter, look at most domesticated plants and animals. They're quite different from their natural ancestors, dogs simply being a very obvious example. The only difference between this and natural evolution is the selection model; in one case, we selectively breed for certain traits, and in the other case, probability of breeding is determined by things such as how well those traits allow the organism to work within its environment and produce viable offspring which sustain its genetics.
I suggest you at least study the thing you're arguing against, since you obviously have a plethora of mistaken ideas about it.
EDIT: I just noticed some other guys made a couple of my own points before I did. This is what I get for replying to things without reading the other replies to it first.
In reply to the thing about radio antennas: What's interesting is that evolutionary algorithms sometimes end up designing things people can't even really figure out. Like circuits which work just fine until some part which is hardly even connected to anything is removed (which probably just affects some other part of the circuit through something stupid like interference).
Epos Nix on 5/4/2008 at 06:15
Quote:
high-level questions such as "what is the meaning of life?".
"What is the meaning of life" doesn't necessarily have to be a 'high-level' question. I think the answer can be quite simple really. As Agent Smith so eloquently put:
"The purpose of life is to end." ;)
Bathcat on 5/4/2008 at 06:31
Quote Posted by Qooper
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.
Ah, no. Just one example:
Quote:
The obtained advanced understanding of protein folding mechanisms allowed to make an intelligent connection with molecular evolution and helped to discern the conservatism patterns in protein families that are responsible for function, protein stability and folding kinetics. Better understanding of molecular evolution, allowed, in turn to make detailed predictions for protein engineering experiments. Such experiments carried out by us on villin and by others on several other proteins provided a major verification of the evolving understanding of the protein folding mechanism(s).
(
http://twod.med.harvard.edu/biophysics/faculty/Shakhnovich96.html)
The_Raven on 5/4/2008 at 16:31
Quote Posted by Qooper
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.
EXCUSE ME!? Have you just said that computer science has no practical applications? What field do you think made it possible for you to post that shit? Computer science itself is a pretty broad area going from the very abstract mathematical proofs of certain algorithms to the hardware focused areas and everywhere in between. Pretty much like all sciences, it also overlaps a lot with other study areas: physics, engineering, mathematics, and cryptology, etc... Even the research that the professors that are in the more theoretical areas of computer science here are doing things that very much have practical applications. Here's a quote about the research done by one of the algorithm people:
Quote:
Current projects include the design and implementation of algorithms for RNA comparison using secondary structures, inclusion of motif information in sequence comparison, and substring search.
As I'm sure you can imagine, there's a whole bunch of ways that research could be practically used. One of the other algorithm researchers concentrates on data structures for machine learning, ie AI, which also has a ton of practical applications; especially in the design of expert systems.
Please don't tell me that your one of those crazy people who hates computers because their "modern father" was a known homosexual.
EDIT:
Yeah, you sorta touched a nerve there.
Now that I'm looking at some of your previous posts, it seems that you know a thing or two about computers; yet you think that study in a field devoted to computation and problem solving has no real world applications. I'm so confused.
paloalto90 on 5/4/2008 at 17:47
Quote:
Positing god as an explanation for anything ends the inquiry, and in any case all arguments against evolution by natural selection are readily defeated.
Really!AAh Gregor Mendel why wasn't your curiousity sated by your belief in God as creator?
BEAR on 5/4/2008 at 17:48
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Really!AAh Gregor Mendel why wasn't your curiousity sated by your belief in God as creator?
Because his science wasnt just a quest to prove god or find proof of god, it was the good kind of science. Real science isnt looking for anything. "Christian Science" isnt science because it has one purpose: finding proof to support their rhetoric.
Quote Posted by The_Raven
EXCUSE ME!? Have you just said that computer science has no practical applications? What field do you think made it possible for you to post that shit? Computer science itself is a pretty broad area going from the very abstract mathematical proofs of certain algorithms to the hardware focused areas and everywhere in between. Pretty much like all sciences, it also overlaps a lot with other study areas: physics, engineering, mathematics, and cryptology, etc... Even the research that the professors that are in the more theoretical areas of computer science here are doing things that very much have practical applications. Here's a quote about the research done by one of the algorithm people:
As I'm sure you can imagine, there's a whole bunch of ways that research could be practically used. One of the other algorithm researchers concentrates on data structures for machine learning, ie AI, which also has a ton of practical applications; especially in the design of expert systems.
Please don't tell me that your one of those crazy people who hates computers because their "modern father" was a known homosexual.
EDIT:
Yeah, you sorta touched a nerve there.
Now that I'm looking at some of your previous posts, it seems that you know a thing or two about computers; yet you think that study in a field devoted to computation and problem solving has no real world applications. I'm so confused.
You are confused because you cant read. He, dumbass though he is, was claiming that evolutionary science doesnt have real applications, whereas fields like computer science do. This obviously could only come from someone with only the most meager of understandings of the history of science, as if science has single branches that never interact and have nothing to do with eachother, like the people who study evolution study nothing else ever and never talk to the people that say, study the human body and make medicine.
paloalto90 on 5/4/2008 at 17:50
Quote:
That's called adaptation, not evolution.
Evolution would have to include transmigration of species.Did Darwin's finches ever turn into um,um some scientist should be able to tell me that!!
paloalto90 on 5/4/2008 at 17:53
Quote:
Because his science wasnt just a quest to prove god or find proof of god, it was the good kind of science. Real science isnt looking for anything. "Christian Science" isnt science because it has one purpose: finding proof to support their rhetoric.
He already bielieved that God created everything and didn't stop his quest for knowledge.That was the whole point of my statement.It doesn't get rid of the mystery of how God created it nor why it was created.
They should be able to prove transmigration by DNA,yet I haven't heard the big announcement.
paloalto90 on 5/4/2008 at 18:19
People who bielieve that the universe is only 6000 years old cannot explain the span of the life and death cycle of stars.This is not the thorny area of evolution but basic physics.You have x amount of gas burning at rate x.
The outward pressure created by combustion is balanced by gravity.
Take a portion of the night sky and count the number of dead stars.
If the universe is only 6000 years old you should be able to come up with x amount of dead stars per six thousand years per given area. Track the amount of new dead stars for x amount of time. If the proportions don't match you have a problem.My bet would be that a stars life span is far longer than 6000 years.
The_Raven on 5/4/2008 at 18:52
Quote Posted by BEAR
You are confused because you cant read.
Oh, dear. :tsktsk:
While the dependent clause wasn't constructed very well, I really should have saw that one on my own. I really hate it when I skim read something and end up making an ass of myself.
