Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (23726)	5/30/2006 12:38:11 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 28931

<It's not a problem, but some evolutionary scientists have doubts about proving that evolution is 'random'.> <<Other Indications of Lamarckian Evolution The gradual changes that occur from random mutations in individuals of a species dictate that Natural Selection has abrupt but slow evolutionary changes. Lamarck's hypothesis predicts that characteristics change in large populations and therefore have a more rapid evolution. Recent studies have concluded that evolutionary changes can be quick. According to Megan Higgie and colleagues at the University of Queensland, Australia, a type of male fruit fly altered within just nine generations the chemical signals it puts out to attract females in its species. Andrew P. Hendry and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, learned that just after only 13 generations, sockeye salmon developed distinctly different sizes depending on whether they spawned in a river or lake. Ruth Shaw, University of Minnesota, and University of California researchers, David N. Reznick and F.H. Rodd captured guppies from two downstream pools and placed them in pools upstream of waterfalls. In the downstream pools the guppies had been plagued by large predators but in the upstream pools, only small predators were around. After four years, these guppies began reaching maturity. They quickly adapted to their new and less threatening surroundings by growing larger and by producing fewer offspring. >> sciencemag.org It's interesting to note that if one considers the previous topic (physics) or more broadly 'knowledge' as evolving... then the 'paradigm shifts' or right brained "Ahaa" discoveries could be examples of this. Or perhaps the sudden "new paradigm" as seen often in sports (physical endevor ala Roger Bannister, Dr. J, Gretsky, etc) where once an entirely new barrier has been broken, many break it... it becomes the norm. DAK

To: LLCF who wrote (23726)	6/4/2006 9:00:42 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

“But it looks like it needed that thumb to eat bamboo“ Of course it helps. If it was able to think and to reason out the outcome of procreation it would (of course) have created something a bit better than a bone spur!! “Well, it wouldn't be stupid! LOL“ That is my point. The ability to survive from an evolutionary perspective is neither smart nor stupid. These are qualities that reference mental agility and rational self interest. “Human consciousness/awareness/intelligence appears to 'evolve':“ Consciousness is a consequence of biology so it flows from biological fitness. Humans are able to pass on information in other than genetic ways--which may or may not increase the time left to us until extinction. “What's wrong with survival of the fittest... death, extinction, new life and new forms replacing the old?? It's not ridiculous at all IMO“ I’ve not said it was ridiculous. But neither am I asserting that it denotes intelligence. That would be an extraordinary claim for which there is no scientific evidence. A claim which, however, may be advanced as philosophical speculation.