Which presidental canidate would you vote for?

[PortalStormzzzz]

The Earth survived so much more. It will fix itself. Won't bacteria in the air eat the CO2 in the air?

 

[Feath]

The Earth survived so much more. It will fix itself. Won't bacteria in the air eat the CO2 in the air?

Erm, no?

It's not about the Earth Surviving, it's about slowing down the change so it won't affect people in the future. In the long run it won't matter, but it won't really matter in the long run if any of us get hit by a bus tomorrow, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it happening.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

meh, 400 years and the sun will be too hot for us anyways.(am i wrong on this?)
And what's so hard about genetically engineering cells to eat the co2? that's easy. just make a cell that has plant traits and the apatite of a tree.

 

[Feath]

Are you actually a moron or just pretending?

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

no. What's so wrong with genetic engineering?? bacteria is all around us, so just program it to make oxygen and use photosynthesis.

(my bad on 400 years. i meant 400,000,000,000 years. But I think in 1000 years it would have grown so large it would have fried us.)

 

[Feath]

It wasn't a "yes or no" question.

 

[Pesmerga]

Hello Feath!

Edit - What does it rhyme with?

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

Well tell me. Why can't we genetically engineer bacteria to eat our waste?

 

[theotherguy]

Major holes meaning large portions of the theory that are very unknown. Holes don't imply evidence for or against it. I thought I already established that evolution does exist on at least some level. Regardless that's not my point, my point was that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

In other words, there are major things that you do not know about evolution.

I'd like to know what you think is "very unknown". That's what science thrives on, continued research into the unknowns. While the "holes" become more numerous with time, they become smaller and more specific.

I hope you're not implying a "god of the gaps" idea.

Though evolution and creation don't have to be mutually exclusive, I really don't see any need or evidence for a "creator" in any part of the evolutionary process. All of it can be explained by blind but powerful forces of selection.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

how caterpillars can evolve to look like snakes, how trees can evolve to other creatures needs, etc. But I always love the investigation of evolution. Somethings just seem too perfect to be by chance. dinos learning to fly is by chance. The ability of a tree to understand that creatures that shit are good for moving seeds, despite their lack of conscience, is a little far fetched to be by chance.

 

[Stigmata]

The ability of a tree to understand that creatures that shit are good for moving seeds, despite their lack of conscience, is a little far fetched to be by chance.

Simple. The plants that produced edible fruit around their seeds had their seeds transported far away, allowing them to spread much more quickly and into many more well-fertilized areas. The plants that didn't do this were more likely to die out. The plants that did were more likely to survive.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

yea, but the way they adapt to attract animals. specific scents for specific creatures. How does the tree know which is best for the perfect seed-carrier. (strangler vines release a scent only bats like. they fly, and move better then land creatures)

Also that there is a tree that is going extinct because dodos went extinct. how come it adapted to this specific bird only?

 

[theotherguy]

yea, but the way they adapt to attract animals. specific scents for specific creatures. How does the tree know which is best for the perfect seed-carrier. (strangler vines release a scent only bats like. they fly, and move better then land creatures)

Also that there is a tree that is going extinct because dodos went extinct. how come it adapted to this specific bird only?

Simple answer: they don't know. The ones that produce slightly more attractive seeds than others have a slightly higher number of offspring. The next generation then has slightly more attractive seeds. If another plant has even more attractive seeds, it will produce more offspring and the next generation will have more attractive seeds. Repeat for 10 billion years and you've got apples and oranges.

Evolution is a completely blind force based on happenstance and current situations. If a tree depended on dodos for reproduction, it is simply because in the distant past there was probably a dodo-like creature that had success in eating the fruits of that plant, and that plant befitted from having the dodo eat its fruit. This dodo produced more offspring than the other dodos, and its progeny would also have an affinity for this particular fruit. The plant would also produce more offspring than its competitors. Repeat this process millions of years and you have trees and dodos specifically adapted towards one another.

 

[theotherguy]

how caterpillars can evolve to look like snakes, how trees can evolve to other creatures needs, etc. But I always love the investigation of evolution. Somethings just seem too perfect to be by chance. dinos learning to fly is by chance. The ability of a tree to understand that creatures that shit are good for moving seeds, despite their lack of conscience, is a little far fetched to be by chance.

For the caterpillar:
In the distant past there was a species of caterpillars that existed in an environment with a particular kind of snake. Caterpillars that looked like snakes, even slightly, would have a better chance of surviving than caterpillars that did not look at all like snakes. Over time, the caterpillars that looked most like snakes would produce more offspring. In addition, their predators would adapt to better differentiate between caterpillars and snakes. An "arms race" ensues in which caterpillars look gradually more like snakes and predators get better and better at discerning between snakes and caterpillars.

This process works for any adaptive camouflage, on any animal, in any environment.

 

[Stigmata]

yea, but the way they adapt to attract animals. specific scents for specific creatures. How does the tree know which is best for the perfect seed-carrier. (strangler vines release a scent only bats like. they fly, and move better then land creatures)

The exact same answer applies to this. I'll try to answer in more detail.

Procreation within a species occasionally results in random genetic mutations of the offspring. Sometimes these mutations produce negative effects, resulting in the detriment or death of the offspring. Sometimes the mutations provide positive effects, giving the offspring a higher chance of surviving longer or in harsher conditions, procreating, and so forth.

Right? Right.

So let's say we have some random tree that produces some random fruit with its seeds in it. The fruit is bitter to the taste, so animals do not eat it. Then, a new offspring of this tree grows nearby, but with a slight genetic mutation. Because of this mutation, the tree produces and stores sugar compounds in its fruit. This, of course, means that the fruit of this specific tree now tastes good, meaning animals are more likely to eat the fruit. Animals eat the fruit, swallow the seed, and then excrete the seed hours later. So over a period of a few years, the seeds of this tree with sweet fruit get spread miles around, unlike the bitter-fruited trees, whose seeds simply fall to the ground a few feet away (and these seeds are unlikely to grow because the parent tree is taking all the nutrients from the ground).

The sweet-fruited tree has more of its seeds survive, due to them being strewn across places that are likely to have more nutrients, meaning more of the trees grow. And this means that many more of these sweet-fruited trees grow and have animals eat the fruits, and excreting these seeds even farther away... and so on and so forth.

That is a pretty damn good example of how natural selection works. It has nothing to do with whether or not a living thing is sentient, or has consciousness, or any sort of outside forces acting on it. It's genetic mutations that sometimes give an offspring a higher chance of surviving.

Also that there is a tree that is going extinct because dodos went extinct. how come it adapted to this specific bird only?

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. But just because you don't know doesn't mean scientists don't know.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

I know all of this, but something just seem too unlikely to be random. Whatever, I'm using my Lassie Fair tolerance rule and accepting your views honorably.

It's just that if over generations things tend to aim to certain standards so that a relationship forms, it seems a little guided. even those tiny random mutations away from the path is still visible. It just seems that if a nub becomes a thumb over 50 generations, something is guiding it. That the mutations keep happening on that particular numb to eventually form a thumb is odd.

 

[Feath]

I went to a Lassie Fair once. When they all performed the "rescuing the boy from the well" trick it was really entertaining.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

Lassie Fair is the system of tolerance to all peoples and letting things resolve themselves.

 

[Higlac]

Well tell me. Why can't we genetically engineer bacteria to eat our waste?

SHUT UP! And bacteria already eat our shit. They just stay the hell away from what's coming out of your mouth.

Lassie Fair is the system of tolerance to all peoples and letting things resolve themselves.

Laissez-faire is a free-trade system that lets the market govern itself based off of supply and demand, without taxes or other interference by a government.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

No, your thinking of an Lassie Fair Economic system, I was applying th same method to people's beliefs.

And I still don't know why we can't create a bacterium that applies photosynthesis and eats CO2. they always say how carbon stays high in the atmosphere and trees can't get it, so why not send the solution to the problem?

 

[Higlac]

No, your thinking of an Lassie Fair Economic system, I was applying th same method to people's beliefs.

And I still don't know why we can't create a bacterium that applies photosynthesis and eats CO2. they always say how carbon stays high in the atmosphere and trees can't get it, so why not send the solution to the problem?

That is called algae, it can be found on 70% of the earth's surface, doing exactly what you want it to do. Can't you at least spell Laissez-Faire right?

 

[Pesmerga]

how caterpillars can evolve to look like snakes, how trees can evolve to other creatures needs, etc. But I always love the investigation of evolution. Somethings just seem too perfect to be by chance. dinos learning to fly is by chance. The ability of a tree to understand that creatures that shit are good for moving seeds, despite their lack of conscience, is a little far fetched to be by chance.

Trees don't "understand" anything. They're not ****ing sentient. God dammit, it's evolution. Think of it like a global trial and error scheme.

Here, let me break it down, yo.

1) A species changes its genetic code by chance (due to cosmic radiation I think?) at birth.
2) If those genetic changes are helpful to the survival and, consequently, reproduction of that species, those traits are "favorable".
3) If not, the species dies and no one ever knew they existed.


So those trees didn't change to meet the needs of other animals, the trees just changed and they formed a mutual give/take connection with other species. It didn't happen like that the first time, it happens after many generations.

Now if you see trees uproot from the ground, wielding large mighty wood arms for weapons and communicating to whales via sonar to start a war against humanity, THEN I'll start thinking that something beyond evolution is up. But until then, BOOYAH SCIENCE WORKS, BITCHES.

 

[Feath]

Laissez-faire is a free-trade system that lets the market govern itself based off of supply and demand, without taxes or other interference by a government.

I preferred my sarcastic reply.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

I'm talking about increasing their numbers. And I'm not sure, but are they capable of being all the way up in the atmosphere? Because I know something does but doesn't eat CO2. so take that thing and make it to eat co2



And I believe everything evolution says is correct, but seeing as the environment is constantly changing, how does one trait stay favored all the time?

 

[theotherguy]

I'm talking about increasing their numbers. And I'm not sure, but are they capable of being all the way up in the atmosphere? Because I know something does but doesn't eat CO2. so take that thing and make it to eat co2



And I believe everything evolution says is correct, but seeing as the environment is constantly changing, how does one trait stay favored all the time?

It doesn't stay favored all the time, it just so happens that in periods of stability certain traits are useful and certain traits are not. But there will always be species that are better adapted to the environment than others (even if they're only slightly better), with the rare exception of a world in which no life can exist at all. As the environment changes, many species become extinct and others survive. What was useful during the time of the dinosaurs would not be useful today, and vice versa. This is why things are constantly changing. If there were limitless resources, no competition, and a perfect environment, species could not evolve.

 

[Pesmerga]

And I believe everything evolution says is correct, but seeing as the environment is constantly changing, how does one trait stay favored all the time?

Traits don't stay favorable all the time... moths in heavily industrialized area started dying off because they were brightly lit against the soot against the trees. A random genetic difference changed the colors of some moths to dark colors; the dark colored ones survived and reproduced, the bright lit ones were eaten by birds. When standards were introduced to clean up those forests, the dark moths died and the bright onces prevailed.

Humans just have favorable traits most of the time because we have no natural predators. Sometimes, though, we're born with genetic disorders. They don't reproduce, thus it being an unfavorable trait that is tossed away.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm talking about increasing their numbers. And I'm not sure, but are they capable of being all the way up in the atmosphere? Because I know something does but doesn't eat CO2. so take that thing and make it to eat co2



And I believe everything evolution says is correct, but seeing as the environment is constantly changing, how does one trait stay favored all the time?

Think of it like this: traits can benefit a species either under a specific condition or a range of conditions. Humans, for example, can survive in a range of temperatures and a range of climates, which is how we survive a constantly-changing environment. Many types of fish, on the other hand, can only survive in water with a very specific temperature and salt content, and even a slight deviation can kill them.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

otherguy, when has the earth been stable? there's an ice age every 10,000 years and it seems every 500 or so years a major earthquake, volcano, or (insert catastrophe) happens.

Pesmerga/stigmata, if your talking about moths, those genes are already present. what about new ones to make things evolve? I understand how these things would work in a stable environment, but looking here at Earth, it's rare to have a stable environment. some things obviously don't require a stable enviorment, like size and color, but for somethings, how do they form? Like ants living in colonial societies and, as I said earlier, a caterpillar looking-like snake, it seems something needs to force them into such a way.

 

[Pesmerga]

Hurr??

Evolution to drastically change a species into another one takes millions of years.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

and the environment changes drastically over millions of years back and forth, so things should not evolve slowly, but rapidly, which seems to only have happened post-last-ice age. Not sure where I'm going here, but I guess I'm saying things just seem force-evolved sometimes, and naturally other times.

 

[Avoidist]

When there are mass-extinction events lots of animals go extinct (O RLY?). Those that are better adapted and survive these conditions while species like the dinosaurs and the mammoths die out. That's not evolution per se, that's just immediate natural selection. What you are saying is that creatures radically change their physiology in short periods of time by means of their genetic code. That doesn't happen. While they may be strongly interlinked, there is a large difference between Natural Selection and Evolution.

Can we please get back to politics now? If you can't think of anything more to say, just go ape at Huckabee's success in Iowa, or cheer for Obama or Paul or whatever it is you guys do.

 

[theotherguy]

otherguy, when has the earth been stable? there's an ice age every 10,000 years and it seems every 500 or so years a major earthquake, volcano, or (insert catastrophe) happens.

Pesmerga/stigmata, if your talking about moths, those genes are already present. what about new ones to make things evolve? I understand how these things would work in a stable environment, but looking here at Earth, it's rare to have a stable environment. some things obviously don't require a stable enviorment, like size and color, but for somethings, how do they form? Like ants living in colonial societies and, as I said earlier, a caterpillar looking-like snake, it seems something needs to force them into such a way.

As long as the catastrophe doesn't cover an entire species niche, it should be able to survive and continue to evolve. Some areas (like the tropics) are especially stable and harbor tons of genetic diversity. Often, when a catastrophe like an ice age destroys genetic diversity at the poles and temperate regions, more tropical regions will continue to harbor many species, which will spread back into the temperate regions after the catastrophe is over. (This is exactely what happened during the last ice age. Tropical and subtropical regions of Africa and Asia produced large game which moved into the colder climates as the ice age started to end. These subtropical climates also produced hominids and eventually humans.)

However, some catastrophes, like asteroid impacts, are truly global, and result in mass extinctions, where the vast majority of species die off and the evolutionary slate is wiped clean. (Example: the dino killer)

What "forces" the caterpillar to evolve is an arms race with predators.

As for ants, their evolution into social animals happened very early in their development, and it happened very gradually. Ants were probably only mildly social animals like wolves at first, but as they began to burrow underground for protection from the elements and predators, the social aspect gradually became more specialized until they are the machines we see today.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

well ok whatever. I'm leaving the forums now for a week, and I really just think some things seem more then coincidences. Bye, busy on my half life movie.

 

[Pesmerga]

Success. Come on guys, let's share a pint with Darwin's lifeless bones.

 

[Avoidist]

I assure you, Darwin's bones are ripe with bacteria. Far from lifeless.

 

[Pesmerga]

But are they airborne bacteria that devours huge quantities of CO2?

 

[Avoidist]

Umm... yes?

Charles Darwin's Corpse: #1 Cure to Global Warming.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

DIG UP HIS BONES! PULL THEM APART! CURE GLOBAL WARMING! caps

 

[Avoidist]

Actually, this is one thing I'm kinda curious about (global warming politics in America, not digging up Darwin). What are the various candidate's policies on the topic? It was a relatively important issue in the recent Australian Federal election, and our new PM Kevin Rudd only just signed Kyoto. Is it still a factor over there, or elsewhere for that matter?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Actually, this is one thing I'm kinda curious about (global warming politics in America, not digging up Darwin). What are the various candidate's policies on the topic? It was a relatively important issue in the recent Australian Federal election, and our new PM Kevin Rudd only just signed Kyoto. Is it still a factor over there, or elsewhere for that matter?

Most of the democrats accept humans done did some of it.

As for republicians, I can't say. I think Ron Paul accepts humans done did it, but none of the others do.