Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
As recently as Victorian times, about half of children never reached adolescence. (Insert Bilmore joke about which half.) Now it's like 99% or something.

Of course, there are places in the world where natural selection is still a strong force on human development because medical intervention is so rare or ineffectual. Look for the first natural resistance to AIDS to come from sub-Saharan Africa.

Tri-knoh-asitahl

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sure, but what it takes to survive/pass on genes has drastically changed for both humans and animals given human intervention in the "natural" world. Animal preserves and the Endagered Species Act are both good example.

The fact that one species would destroy the habitat of other species to push them to the point of extinction and then selectively try to save them isn't inconsistent with survival of the fittest. It just means that the environmental pressures have changed.

A good example is the domestication of dogs. At one point in time, dogs were wolf-like animals that survived by being stronger and more predatory animals. At some point, they interacted with humans and this interaction with humans caused those that were more likely to form a bond with a human to be better able to survive and pass on their genes because the human master took care of the dog's survival needs. So the species evolved from a more wild predator, to a domesticated companion of humans.

The fact that a human being entered the picture and changed the environmental pressure doesn't mean that survival of the fittest doesn't occur.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
. . . the appendix plays are role in immunosurveillance of the gut.

Sounds like an Ashcroft plot.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Of course, there are places in the world where natural selection is still a strong force on human development because medical intervention is so rare or ineffectual. Look for the first natural resistance to AIDS to come from sub-Saharan Africa.

If by natural selection you mean environmental pressures that are not within human control, then yes, to a large extent those of us in developed nations are better able to control our environments and can alter who in the absence of environmental control would survive.

But the increasing ability to control our environment is still a form of survival of the fittest. It may not be natural selection in that your definition of natural means those environmental forces that we cannot control.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(Insert Bilmore joke about which half.)

I think my work here is done.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
The presence of vestigial organs only serves to prove we have evolved from different animals and are continuing to evolve.

No, your explanation of the existence of vestigial organs rebuts that criticism of evolution. Or at least purports to.

Vestigial organs themselves are not explained by evolution, the theory of which says they should disappear.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, your explanation of the existence of vestigial organs rebuts that criticism of evolution. Or at least purports to.

Vestigial organs themselves are not explained by evolution, the theory of which says they should disappear.

No. Organs don't disappear overnight. The process of evolution is ongoing. Right now we are evolving. 3000 years from now the lining of our lungs may be completely different and better able to handle airborne particulate matter. But that process will be a gradual one.

Vestigial organs should disappear. But the fact that they haven't disappeared completely yet is not inconsistent with evolution. It is consistent with evolution.

Anyhow, the appendix isn't a vestigial organ. It has a role in the immune system similar to the spleen and tonsils and adenoids. A person can live without all those organs, too. And
they often cause medical problems requiring their removal. But that doesn't mean that they don't have a physiological function.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
The process of evolution is ongoing.

Sure, but with that answer you can explain any current condition: Oh, it's just part of evolution; it will either go away or become important. I guess such a theory is a theorem, because it can never be subject to challenge. Kind of like creationism--Well, God made it that way. But it's rhetorically effective.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but with that answer you can explain any current condition: Oh, it's just part of evolution; it will either go away or become important.

You seem to lack even a rudimentary understanding of evolution.

Here is how it works. A genetic mutation occurs. This genetic mutation leads to an organism having a certain characteristic that makes it more likely to be able to reproduce. It reproduces and passes on this genetic mutation. Over time, this leads to survival of those organisms best adapted to their environments to be able to pass on their genes. Thus the species evolves to have those characteristics that ensure the ability to pass on genes to subsequent generations.

We are talking about mutations here. One or a few base mutations by and large that lead to genetic polymorphisms. These don't lead to an entire organ popping up in the species overnight and they don't lead to entire organs disappearing overnight.

Anyhow, organs that don't serve a function would only disappear if by remaining the organ somehow impaired the ability of the organism to pass on its genes.

The theory is that those physiological traits that increase the likelihood of passing on genes will increase in the population over time and those physiological traits that decrease the likelihod of passing on genes will decrease in the population over time.

As the environmental pressures change, those physiological traits that increase the likelihood of passing on your genes may change. For instance, that case from 9th grade biology class about the butterflies in England during the industrial revolution. They were grey butteflies to begin with because that allowed them to blend in with the particular kind of tree bark that was prevalent in the area. With the industrial revolution came soot from chimneys. This discolored the tree bark. Those lighter colored butterflies were now easier for birds to spot against the darker soot-covered tree bark so they were more likely to be eaten and not as likely to pass on their genes. Those that were darker blended in better with the tree bark and were more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

Over time, that species of butterflies (or maybe they were moths) changed color from a light grey to a black. Other characteristics that did not increase nor decrease chance of passing on genes remained stable during the same time period.

That is all there is to this theory. It is elegant in its simplicity and no one has identified evidence to disprove it. But there is a mountain of evidence supporting it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Long explanation of how evolution works

YOu have a knack for non-responsiveness.

I said vestigial organs undermine evolution.

You said, no they don't, they prove the theory because they show that we've evolved.

I said, that's not a very good bit of proof, because you could use any trait to justify evolution: either it serves a purpose or it once did. It is a robust theory indeed that is proven by every observation in the physical world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That is so fucked up and wrong. Those jokers out there who act like it's science are insane and should be put away for their own safety. at best, biblical stuff should be in a history class and some pansy-assed liberal arts college where all the spoiled brat kids with first names like brittney and kennedy are sent by their upwardly mobile parents who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag in front of a judge go. It's so pathetic how all these people on here call themselves lawyers when they can't even spew the diarrhea I call "rhetoric" out their ass-mouths. I'd kick their asses if they ever came up against me in front of a judge.


I wrote the above to demonstrate just how [bring] it is to respond to someone with a post acting like you are disagreeing with them but are really just using their post as a jumping off point for the same hackneyed bullshit rant that you've made countless times in the past.

Hey, I probably sneer at the religious with more "you're so fucking naive its pathetic" derision more than you, but I have to acknowledge that any idea which gets as many adherents as creationism is worth at least discussing in a history class. I'm not saying it should be discussed on its merits, but it is a footnote in history. When folks look back on the impact of Evolution, they should look at the idiocy it it spawned in reply. Such idiocy includes creationism and biblical literalism. Idiots and the backward tend to have quite an impact on history. In fact, far more so than they should.

I wrote this post to illustrate for those who may be late to the board today what a terrifically entertaining shrew you've been all day. Kids, this is what happens when the shrew hasn't had a good mating session in a while. Notice the fangs, the foam at the lips... the dialated pupils and furious typing. If she's not careful, she'll break a nail, which will make it really hard for her to crack open acorns in her lair.

[Not Me]

It is a myth that the appendix is vestigial:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

The appendix is part of the organ system known as the mucusal associated lymphatic tissue. It is similar to your tonsils in its function.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/...oid-tissue.htm

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, your explanation of the existence of vestigial organs rebuts that criticism of evolution. Or at least purports to.

Vestigial organs themselves are not explained by evolution, the theory of which says they should disappear.

You've done an excellent job of disproving evolution with this post, but its probably not in manner you intended.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wrote this post to illustrate for those who may be late to the board today what a terrifically entertaining shrew you've been all day. Kids, this is what happens when the shrew hasn't had a good mating session in a while. Notice the fangs, the foam at the lips... the dialated pupils and furious typing. If she's not careful, she'll break a nail, which will make it really hard for her to crack open acorns in her lair.

What happens on the FB stays on the FB.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What happens on the FB stays on the FB.

Ty... What does this mean?