Primitive snakes

[spidergecko]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid err...that's a stupid comment Bolton. If we started all the way from the beggining (same big-bang, spreading matter through the void in the same way, under the same laws of physics) the universe would be created as an exact copy the existant.

If this was true we should be able to predict what the earth will look like in a million years.

I don't understand how you believe probability has no effect on the outcome of the universe.

[JimmyDavid]

That's correct. But you would need to know an infinite number of variables. That makes it impossible.
Think of it this way: when you build a domino formation you know from the moment the first domino falls, the last one has the same fate. If you build the exact same formation again, the results will again be the same, and so on. The universe works that way, only the variables are infinite.

[spidergecko]

Then I understand completely what you are saying. You believe the universe has a set path and that regardless of our belief that the universe is random, it is, in fact predetermined.

If this is true then there really is no point discussing the issue since "scientists" believe the universe is random and never duplicated.

[JimmyDavid]

You can say it's fated. Not predicted (because it's impossible) but yes fated.

[Double J]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid

You have been reading too much x-men comics.

Clearly RMBolton has been reading *textbooks*

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
If you spend a life-time running around you will develop strong legs, your genetic sistem will adapt to a certain level, and your children will benefict from that and so on. But the changes will only be visible after many generations.
If it was just about passing on what you got, we would still be stuck as the first carbonic creatures that existed because how could you ever become something different? (duh) .

Again.. this idea is incorrect, and disproven. The idea you are referring to is strikingly similar to Lamarck's theory of gemmules.
This was before the discovery of DNA and chromosomes. Essentially, Lamarck beleived that animals inherited characteristics through the transmission of gemmules, and these gemmules were affected by physiological change duting the lifespan of the animal. I will use the classic example of giraffes to illustrate how gemmules work. It is a fact, that the ancestors of giraffes were short necked animals. Lamarck then proposed that the ancestral giraffes strtched their necks out furthur and further to reach higher into the trees throughout their lifespan. This trait then, according to Lamarck, would be passed onto the progeny of these giraffes. Each generation would then stretch their necks out further, until we have the grafes of today. I think the flaw in this logic is rather clear. If traits wer passed in this fashion, then an animal that has lost a limb woud give birth to limbless babies. Thus, it is logically clear that physiological change has no efect on genetic material. Let's not forget theoodles molecular data to support this.

Let's not forget that not all evolution occurs via random mutation. Rather, adaptation often occurs as a result of extremes of variation.

[JimmyDavid]

Finally someone is bringing good points of view and not just trying to be a smartass.
double J, what you say makes sense, but still i disagree in certain things.
First, the limbless thing is not a good example. I said that you pass the traits in a slow way, taking many generations.
Someone posted that selective breeding is responsable for evolution. But for that you need 2 genetic doners. Let's say mankind had gone sterile, and
we adopted the cloning process to continue existing trough generations (only 1 doner). Would our evolution forever freeze?

[Removed_2815]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JimmyDavid

[i]err...that's a stupid comment Bolton.

That's not my comment, it's the basis of contingency. That's the essence of Gould's work.
If we went back to a random point in Earth's history, let's say, at the beginning, and allowed the tape to play again, we WOULD NOT ARRIVE AT THE SAME PLACE WE ARE NOW! We're talking about an infinite number of chance events. Perhaps you should have a chat with Simon Conway Morris, he's Gould's opponent and his ideas are almost universally discredited. I have interviewed him, you're just as annoying as he is.

The fact that you think it is a "stupid comment" just validates how little you know about biology.

Anyway, I truly feel the value of this post expired long ago. Unless you have some legitimate questions, and are willing to accept the answers for what they are, then I suggest you drop it.

Ryan

[JimmyDavid]

It would not be, assuming it's rather unlikely that the exact same conditions would be at play. But i believe we were, pass that point, talking IF it all took place the same way.

What does that have to do with Biology?

If you think i'm being annoying why are you participating in this thread?

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
talking IF it all took place the same way.

So you're saying that if it were the same, then it would be the same... That's a heck of an insight.

[JimmyDavid]

That's exactly why i said it was a stupid comment to start with.

[Removed_2815]

Is this guy making anyone else's ears bleed?

[JimmyDavid]

Are your ears bleeding? Maybe that's because your brain is sick, pal.

[CamHanna]

You're not alone Ryan.

[JimmyDavid]

I've seen a handfull of threads being closed because of you, man. It's not that you don't bring good debate material or are short of information. It's just that, at some point, you have no more patience to listen to others and get nasty.

[HeatherRose]

I've seen a handfull of threads being closed because of you, man.

I haven't... which threads are these?

There is only so much patience one can have when someone calls their information 'stupid' and doesn't have anything substantial to counter with or prove it wrong.

That said, can we please attempt to keep it just a little more civil? This is an awesome thread, lots to think about.