It's interesting that despite many diverse opinions on evolution we've nearly entirely conformed to Malthusian/Darwinian principles for the last century.
It's interesting that despite many diverse opinions on evolution we've nearly entirely conformed to Malthusian/Darwinian principles for the last century.
[quote user=maplejib] It's interesting that despite many diverse opinions on evolution we've nearly entirely conformed to Malthusian/Darwinian principles for the last century. [/quote]
I put it down to the fitness of the memes...
lolzzzzz
maplejib wrote:
It's interesting that despite many diverse opinions on evolution we've nearly entirely conformed to Malthusian/Darwinian principles for the last century.
I don't know what Maple is saying, but it sounds depressing.
The eye thing is a long-running debate between Evolution and its opponents. I believe Darwin pointed it out as a weakness... in that the eye is so complex, it is difficult to see how it evolved.
Then, over the next century, we learned how the eye evolved and found it arose a dozen different times, in completely different ways. It no longer seemed like such a complex thing.
In fact, the modern "irreducible complexity" Creationist guy (Behe) uses the eye as a joke. He made his career finding different things we don't know how they evolved, but the eye is not one of them.
I don't know what Maple is saying, but it sounds depressing.
The eye thing is a long-running debate between Evolution and its opponents. I believe Darwin pointed it out as a weakness... in that the eye is so complex, it is difficult to see how it evolved.
Then, over the next century, we learned how the eye evolved and found it arose a dozen different times, in completely different ways. It no longer seemed like such a complex thing.
In fact, the modern "irreducible complexity" Creationist guy (Behe) uses the eye as a joke. He made his career finding different things we don't know how they evolved, but the eye is not one of them.
Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
[quote user=pablo420] Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job. [/quote]
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
pablo420 wrote:
Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[quote user=crackerhead] [quote user=pablo420]Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.[/quote]
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote] Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
crackerhead wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
[quote user=deokanon] [quote user=crackerhead][quote user=pablo420]Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.[/quote]
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote]
Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion. [/quote]
or breathing or laughing when eating. Also, I am a huge glutton. And I love glutenous food, those poor suckers with Celiac disease.
deokanon wrote:
crackerhead wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
or breathing or laughing when eating. Also, I am a huge glutton. And I love glutenous food, those poor suckers with Celiac disease.
[quote user=crackerhead] [quote user=pablo420]Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job. [/quote]
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote]
Not to mention our spines. Perfect 'design' for a quadruped, useless for bipeds...
crackerhead wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
Not to mention our spines. Perfect 'design' for a quadruped, useless for bipeds...
[quote user=EricManning] I don't know what Maple is saying, but it sounds depressing.[/quote]
Look up Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
Both these biologists had unique perspectives on evolution developed over decades of research. One principle that they share unique from Darwin is that life adapts to its environment as a result of interaction with it. Something like conscientious adaptation. Darwin/Malthus operate under the assumption that mutations occur at random, and at times where a population shrinks, evolution favors the mutations that are more suited for the new environment.
EricManning wrote:
I don't know what Maple is saying, but it sounds depressing.
Look up Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
Both these biologists had unique perspectives on evolution developed over decades of research. One principle that they share unique from Darwin is that life adapts to its environment as a result of interaction with it. Something like conscientious adaptation. Darwin/Malthus operate under the assumption that mutations occur at random, and at times where a population shrinks, evolution favors the mutations that are more suited for the new environment.
[quote user=deokanon]^I prefer 21st century evolution biology myself.[/quote]
It's actually 19th century biology. The reason I said that it's interesting that we've conformed to one popular belief is because it's exactly as Thomas Huxley intended, when he promoted Darwinism in public schools (which he founded) and in the public's eye (thanks to his wealth and influence)
deokanon wrote:
^I prefer 21st century evolution biology myself.
It's actually 19th century biology. The reason I said that it's interesting that we've conformed to one popular belief is because it's exactly as Thomas Huxley intended, when he promoted Darwinism in public schools (which he founded) and in the public's eye (thanks to his wealth and influence)
19
| 128 views | youtube.com
[/quote]
I put it down to the fitness of the memes...
lolzzzzz
I put it down to the fitness of the memes...
lolzzzzz
The eye thing is a long-running debate between Evolution and its opponents. I believe Darwin pointed it out as a weakness... in that the eye is so complex, it is difficult to see how it evolved.
Then, over the next century, we learned how the eye evolved and found it arose a dozen different times, in completely different ways. It no longer seemed like such a complex thing.
In fact, the modern "irreducible complexity" Creationist guy (Behe) uses the eye as a joke. He made his career finding different things we don't know how they evolved, but the eye is not one of them.
The eye thing is a long-running debate between Evolution and its opponents. I believe Darwin pointed it out as a weakness... in that the eye is so complex, it is difficult to see how it evolved.
Then, over the next century, we learned how the eye evolved and found it arose a dozen different times, in completely different ways. It no longer seemed like such a complex thing.
In fact, the modern "irreducible complexity" Creationist guy (Behe) uses the eye as a joke. He made his career finding different things we don't know how they evolved, but the eye is not one of them.
[quote user=pablo420] Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Fascinating stuff. I think the main flaw in the Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments is that if the eye were 'designed', the designer did a terrible job.
[/quote]
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote]
LOL
LOL
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote]
Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote]Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
[/quote]
or breathing or laughing when eating. Also, I am a huge glutton. And I love glutenous food, those poor suckers with Celiac disease.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
Well, you never chocked on your food right? Right? Unless u are glutenous and know nothing about moderation in food ingestion.
or breathing or laughing when eating. Also, I am a huge glutton. And I love glutenous food, those poor suckers with Celiac disease.
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
[/quote]
Not to mention our spines. Perfect 'design' for a quadruped, useless for bipeds...
It's a horrible design. THe receptors are behind the blood vessels and ganglia. Basically, the retina is built inside out. But at least God was so nice that he fit us with a pair of eyes.
Another horrible design is that our larynx and esophagus are only separated by the epiglottis. Stupid fucking design.
Not to mention our spines. Perfect 'design' for a quadruped, useless for bipeds...
Edit: Unless u suffer from scoliosis or some other congenital syndrome that hits you at any age... Then tough life dude.
Edit: Unless u suffer from scoliosis or some other congenital syndrome that hits you at any age... Then tough life dude.
Look up Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
Both these biologists had unique perspectives on evolution developed over decades of research. One principle that they share unique from Darwin is that life adapts to its environment as a result of interaction with it. Something like conscientious adaptation. Darwin/Malthus operate under the assumption that mutations occur at random, and at times where a population shrinks, evolution favors the mutations that are more suited for the new environment.
Look up Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
Both these biologists had unique perspectives on evolution developed over decades of research. One principle that they share unique from Darwin is that life adapts to its environment as a result of interaction with it. Something like conscientious adaptation. Darwin/Malthus operate under the assumption that mutations occur at random, and at times where a population shrinks, evolution favors the mutations that are more suited for the new environment.
It's actually 19th century biology. The reason I said that it's interesting that we've conformed to one popular belief is because it's exactly as Thomas Huxley intended, when he promoted Darwinism in public schools (which he founded) and in the public's eye (thanks to his wealth and influence)
It's actually 19th century biology. The reason I said that it's interesting that we've conformed to one popular belief is because it's exactly as Thomas Huxley intended, when he promoted Darwinism in public schools (which he founded) and in the public's eye (thanks to his wealth and influence)
I know. I still like 21st century science more.
I know. I still like 21st century science more.
[quote user=deokanon] ^To be fair, we were never meant to live past 30 and get to experience those :D...
Edit: Unless u suffer from scoliosis or some other congenital syndrome that hits you at any age... Then tough life dude.
[/quote]
Senescence is a major bitch too. The genes have already been passed along, then BAM! old age diseases get us.
Edit: Unless u suffer from scoliosis or some other congenital syndrome that hits you at any age... Then tough life dude.
Senescence is a major bitch too. The genes have already been passed along, then BAM! old age diseases get us.
Sounds exciting.
EDIT
If medical science were to progress at the rate of IT and semiconductors, it really doesn't seem too far fetched.
Sounds exciting.
EDIT
If medical science were to progress at the rate of IT and semiconductors, it really doesn't seem too far fetched.