TN Governor Evolution Bill

I hope the administration gives you the latitude to tell said parent that if they don't like the way you coach, take their kid's ass home.

 

As I was getting at in my previous abiogenesis posts, that is a much more tentative issue that evolution. There are a few hypotheses (note the distinction I am making between that and theory) out there that are "possible" in the context of they are not "impossible with what we know," but are not plausible to a satisfactory degree for mainstream science at the present time. There is, obviously, no evidence-- nor can there ever really can be given the "supernatural" nature of the concept-- of a theistic force or player in the creation of initial life. And yet, here life is. So something had to have happened somewhere in the universe at some point to create life from non-life. If one wants to insert a supernatural being into that slot, I don't have much to say to that other than "based on what evidence?" Similarly, when someone brings up the primordial soup, thermal vents, and the like, I have to ask, "based on what evidence?" The only difference between the two paths of thought are the assumption or not of the supernatural.

TT is much more knowledgeable in these matters, but in some ways I may be better able to communicate basic responses that are of use for the level of physics you and I are able to understand and know. The second law of thermodynamics is in no way violated by abiogenesis because the Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system receiving energy from the Sun, and thus the second law of thermodynamics does not apply. It is that simple. Otherwise, an acorn becoming an Oak and producing more acorns doing the same would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You, Tenny D, taking wood and raw materials and constructing a birdhouse would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Everything about life and everything about human civilization would violate that law. Every planet in the solar system would violate that law. Given enough time, the Sun will age and extinguish, and the law will be upheld both here on Earth and in the solar system.

If you want to take it further to the Big Bang, you get into String theory and the concept that everything is actually within balance and the universe will eventually implode back to "nothing." You also have to keep in mind that several things that we perceive like space and time are actually quite different in makeup than how we interpret them in our daily lives. E=mc2 and all that.


To take this full circle, entertaining the objections of people who would invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics against evolution or the possibility of abiogenesis (which again assumes that the only possible explanation even if this were true would be supernatural- that kind of thinking is how you get Dark Ages and Inquisitions) is to entertain people who patently do not understand what the [uck fay] they are talking about and are making irrelevant arguments that are seeded in their belief system, not in scientific process. If it isn't based on scientific method and process, it doesn't belong in science class. Take it to philosophy or whatever.

 

What is sad, Tenny D, is the explanation as to why the second law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution or biogenesis is an easy and basic bit of knowledge.

Yet, if you google those terms, you will get pages of Christian, Islamic (!), and Hindu sites spouting that same red herring over and over and over, using the same incomplete and cherry-picked quotes from evolutionists, and acting like their belief system is now scientific fact due to this exposed "fallacy."

This is EXACTLY why "competing" ideas shouldn't be given time in science. It allows them a platform within science to misapply and essentially fabricate problems within a hypothesis or theory that they don't like. The other one you frequently see, besides this and "it's just a theory" which I believe I have to clarify what that means every time one of these threads start, is the evolution of the eye.

The first person to ask how an eye could have possibly develop was Charles Darwin. In the Origin of Species, he himself raises that issue as a hypothetical hurdle to his idea of natural selection and adaptation (Darwin never used the word evolution and the term didn't come into being nor the theory arise until well after his death. When Darwin wrote his book, he didn't even know about genes and thus what mechanism could possibly account for his observations). He also did a damn good job of explaining why it really was not a hurdle at all, but rather a prime example of a particularly successful adaptation arising and persisting through multiple lineages.

 

Survival of the fittest has at least something to do with survival of the individual. He can't reproduce if he isn't fit enough to stay alive.

But other than that, I agree with all of this. It's sexual selection, and it's fascinating that sexual selection is not a particularly efficient process. Traits become desirable for desirability's sake alone, and next thing you know you've got a [dadgum] Peacock.

Sexual selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexy son hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

(1) Get your google on. Information is there.
(2) Huh?

 

I can take it back to 1566. Kent, England. Can anybody beat this?

 

But why not toss in Mormonism? You can toss in a South Park DVD and cover it all in 22 minutes.

 

Efficient is the wrong word here. I'm not sure exactly what the right word is, but what I mean is that the result is not necessarily "better" than what preceded it.

 

The individual doesn't have to survive. If so, specie that eat their mate, or die after copulation would be extinct. Those that die before they mate, don't pass on genes, and thus can't be selected against, and thus there is no natural selection and no evolution.

As a result, fitness has nothing to do with survival of the individual.

 

Fitness sometimes does, sometimes doesn't. It just depends n the species and situation.

 

Name one specie, and one situation that depends on the survival of the individual.

 

Elephants. Long gestation time, long rearing.

Whales, ditto.


Ironically, that isn't even what I was saying, but I am glad to provide you with examples as it only further illustrates the diversity of evolution.

Oh, how about species of fire-adapted trees like the Great Sequoya or any number of pines with serotinous cones? Trees have to survive initially to get to a size as to be able to survive ground fires, and then produce cones that only open in fires of a sufficient size (temperature) to open those cones. Thus, fitness and longevity of the individual matter.

Humans are a good example of longevity favoring reproduction. With males (and males only), they tend to gain status as they get older. They also maintain a degree of fertility. Thus, the longer a man lives the more chances he gets to reproduce. This is why humans can live to be in their 70's or more consistently, and not just die when they're in their 40's. Those who lived longer, tended to get to have more children. If they were male, anyway. And women just benefited from the same genes.

 

It isn't even just about a single reproduction event-- although it can be. Sometimes it about having volume over your peers.

 

Been thinking about this... Oldvol, what exactly is it you were saying you needed to see in order to accept evolution? I wasn't quite clear on that, and I think I got mentally lazy that day and just moved on.

 

Why do public schools have Christmas break and get Friday and Monday off for Easter? I would think the separation of church and state proponents would protest this.

 

None of these depend on survival of the individual. The volume is obtained over time. Genes passed on to the next generation survive in the next generation. Adding to them from the first generation may bolster that gene in the next generation, but it isn't required, the gene is already in the next generation.

Status in makes is cute, but in early human evolution, do you really think elder males were of higher status? When humans became the dominant primate species, quantity overruled quality, as often does. The male that reproduced more did so by a selective advantage, but the survival of the individual was unimportant. It was a young man's game, so to speak, and all the men had the same longevity. All things thus being equal, it wasn't important.

As to long gestation, there is nothing to select for or against until the birth, save abnormal pregnancy and the like, but phenotypicaly, there is nothing to select against. As such, there is no natural selection occurring. Natural selection works on genotype by way of phenotype. If there is nothing to select for or against, no selection is occurring. So again, it doesn't deal with the individual's survival. The idea is, though, that the two mates made their selection based on previously selected traits that offer the best chance for the second generation to make it.

Trees that have to survive to get to a certain size prior to reproduction are no more better suited for their environment than any other tree of the same species. Is there a fireproof gene? Is there a gene that allows them to spit water on the fire? Is there a gene that allows them to get up and walk away?

No? Then how has natural selection worked on the individual over any other individual with regards to individual survival? The obvious answer is that it hasn't. Instead, it favors the tree that reproduces more or faster maturing trees. But its individual ability to survive is no better or worse than a slower producing tree... unless of course the flame retardant gene is passed on.

And back to humans really quickly, males constantly produce sperm. This is not true of females. This has nothing to do with status, or the individual. It is merely how the specie prior to us evolved. Interestingly enough, though, I once heard speculation that one of the reasons for this is so women can raise the next, next generation.

 

It is always volume over peers, but that volume doesn't have to be the first owner of the gene, in fact, finding one gene in a population is difficult. Finding 10 can be difficult. But over generations, it becomes more expansive.

Think exponential curve, not linear.

 

So is the argument whether or not genes can be selected that favor the survival of the individual?

 

Many do.

 

You are arguing semantics. If individuals don't survive, there is no volume.

You are thinking too narrowly in concerns to long gestation animals. Those genes that are dictating the chance of survival in the offspring are IN the offspring. That really isn't very debatable. Bad parents don't get many grandchildren in the megafauna world.

Yes, there are fireproof genes. There are genes that dictate thicker bark and high sap loads. There are species that need specific intensity of fires in order to reproduce or their cones won't open up and drop their seeds. It is hilarious that you are mocking me about real world trees that are dominant in many famous ecosystems. Saying that trees of a certain size are no more dominant than any other tree of that size of the same species flies into the face of evolutionary theory. Biodiversity exists within a species as well. They aren't clones. Unless they are Aspen, then they might be clones.

I didn't just make the human bit up. Evolutionary anthropologists have put forward that hypothesis with evidence. For the past 10,000 years, human males who live longer have had an evolutionary advantage.

Changes in a population start with success at individual levels, with individuals who have a certain gene being successful. That is what I am saying. That first human ancestor that produced tons and tons of sperm occurred in an individual or individuals, and then those genes spread throughout the population in subsequent generations due to that success.