Hoodoo:
Dang it, I got my classes and genuses etc mixed up. I told it'd been a while since I studied this.
Rob
Dang it, I got my classes and genuses etc mixed up. I told it'd been a while since I studied this.
Rob
Cop for this Darwin.
- Thread starter HillBill
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
One more thing mate. Don't be so quick to assume we know more than they did. We didn't discover pluto until 1954/6 which ever it was. Yet it was known to civilisations at least 4000 years before that? How could it be that in these modern times where empires, countries etc do not have the longetivity that they once had and destroy things far more easily and quickly, can we claim to know more than a nation that lasted 4000 years (Sumaria) without much war and fighting? We can not, its that simple. It just smacks of arrogance and little understanding.
Also, i do not understand what you mean by this
"All this 'respect' and 'appreciation' of primitive knowledge and skills often smacks of patronisation"
??
So are we all patronizing the people who used a bow drill, by using a bow drill? Are Ray Mears and Mors being patronizing by showing people the skills of the wilds? Or were you just referring to to the ancients knowledge?
My definition of patronization is for example. A person who emulates an ancient cultures skills and practices, yet mocks their beliefs.
Other DNA facts you don't need to know:
- A parent and child share 99.5% of the same DNA.
- We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
- Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees.
- Every human on earth shares 99% of their DNA with every other human.
- Identical twins share the exact same DNA - meaning their DNA is 100% identical.
- We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.
- Researchers at Cambridge University are convinced that the mud worms not only share DNA with humans but that they are also our closest invertabrae relatives.
http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html
- A parent and child share 99.5% of the same DNA.
- We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
- Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees.
- Every human on earth shares 99% of their DNA with every other human.
- Identical twins share the exact same DNA - meaning their DNA is 100% identical.
- We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.
- Researchers at Cambridge University are convinced that the mud worms not only share DNA with humans but that they are also our closest invertabrae relatives.
http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html
I believe there is more genetic variation in a small group of chimps then there is in the whole human race too! I saw it on telly or something once, so it must be true!
xylaria
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
do you know that everyone that is not african (indo-european, amer-asiatic, polynesian) are descended from a bottleneck of a few thousand individuals and there is wider genetic variation in Congolese pygmies than there is in all the non-africans.
With plants there is the angiosperm phylogenetic group they are researching the genetic relationship between flowering plants. When they did the same thing with gilled fungi some of the taxons were moved around as there was closer genetic relationship. The resultant field guides aren't liked though, courtecuisse put the argarics (horse mushroom etc) in with the amanitas. It is the type of thing that irrates those that are more interested in knowing the name of what is front of them rather than the genetically correct history. When Freis put gilled fungi in order he used the features that can be seen with the naked eye, and essentially anything that makes it harder to answer the fundamental "what is that living thing" shouldn't be used. APG II has some really interesting information and I look forward to it been integrated slowly into field guides I just don't want names changing every two years like they have with fungi.
The initial new scientist arcticle is interesting. It is like when they genetically engineer a soya bean by using tobacco mosaic virus with some antifreeze genes from arctic chard, but they have found a natural mechanism for the same process. Science is just finding the out how things evolve thats all, and this reseach is really useful if you want to make a werewolf and take over the world
.................................................................................................
......................................
What is the point of these posts in a thread with a reasonable level of discussion? I though that this section was other chatter not other picture posting.
These posts clearly do not belong anywhere on the forum as they are neither bushcraft based OR "chatter".
(as part of a message they are acceptable)
A picture is worth a thousand wordWhat is the point of these posts in a thread with a reasonable level of discussion? I though that this section was other chatter not other picture posting.
These posts clearly do not belong anywhere on the forum as they are neither bushcraft based OR "chatter".
What is the point of these posts in a thread with a reasonable level of discussion? I though that this section was other chatter not other picture posting.
These posts clearly do not belong anywhere on the forum as they are neither bushcraft based OR "chatter".
I thought the top one was Waylands avatars kid, theres definately a resemblance
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I think we should just restate the fundamental ideas of Darwin:
1. There is variation, at least some of which is inheritable
2. There is a strong tendency to "overbreed" (i.e. more offspring than can be supported)
3. Resources are finite
----
Conclusion: The offspring that are best adapted to the current conditions will gain most of the scarce resources, and thus have more offspring, and therefore pass on their genes. Repeat for about 4E9 years.
If an individual got a certain trait by mutation, gene transfer or even van Dänicken travelling back in time and doing some genetic manipulation is irrelevant. Darwins ideas was formulatred before anyone had bothered to read a math-heavy paper by some monk from the back end of nowhere, or Garrod had found out what a gene actually was (and gotten ignored as well). Evolution is a way to explain this mechanism.
What is the point of these posts in a thread with a reasonable level of discussion? I though that this section was other chatter not other picture posting.
These posts clearly do not belong anywhere on the forum as they are neither bushcraft based OR "chatter".
'Cos the gobbledygook is way over my head and i can relate to pictures..
What is the point of these posts in a thread with a reasonable level of discussion? I though that this section was other chatter not other picture posting.
These posts clearly do not belong anywhere on the forum as they are neither bushcraft based OR "chatter".
Well you would be the expert in acceptable behaviour wouldn't you Barney.
Not really sure how its in any way shape or form "One in the eye for Darwin" its just another aspect that affects evolution.
Mutation has always been seen as the primary mechanism that provides novelty in the gene pool. However, horizontal gene transfer suggests yet another mechanism that provides heterogeneity in the gene pool for natural selection to work on. Darwin is famous not for the idea of evolution, which predates his theories, but for his proposal that natural selection was the main engine that drives it. Nothing about horizontal gene transfer conflicts with this idea.
Darwin seems to think so. To quote the man himself.
Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
All from here
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
I find it quite amusing that the man himself not only doubted his own theory but confessed to it being absurd. Yet now, people still say he wasn't wrong, and hold his theory as fact.
So it would seem that what is in the original article is the explosives in the foundations of darwins theory. The man himself agrees. That does not really leave us in a position to say any different.
Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
All from here
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
I find it quite amusing that the man himself not only doubted his own theory but confessed to it being absurd. Yet now, people still say he wasn't wrong, and hold his theory as fact.
So it would seem that what is in the original article is the explosives in the foundations of darwins theory. The man himself agrees. That does not really leave us in a position to say any different.
You can make anyone say just about anything you want if you only quote half of what was said, the next few words Darwin said was
"But I can find out no such case."
Page 157 Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
"half a lie is still a lie" Jinn Qui-Gon
Irrideducible complexity has been proven to be a non-starter. The man who wrote Darwins Black Box was forced to admit his mistakes. Hillbill, please provide us with an example of one of the irreducbily complex organisms in question.
The eye and the ear exist in many different states already from light receptive cells in worms , simple lenses up to highly complex organs.
It is like Dawkins says to the question "what use is half an eye?"
The answer is
"1% better than 49% of an eye"
The eye and the ear exist in many different states already from light receptive cells in worms , simple lenses up to highly complex organs.
It is like Dawkins says to the question "what use is half an eye?"
The answer is
"1% better than 49% of an eye"
Your logic escapes me. You talk about the article as if you truly understand it and so far I have not seen any evidence of that. In fact, just the opposite. Why is it people think they are suddenly experts because they can Google some terms.
All you do is quote talking heads. The people that created that website can be contacted below. Their spin is part of their political agenda and does not reflect an understanding of the science. Believe what you want HillBill, but please don't pretend to uderstand something when it's obvious you don't. Selective quoting and putting a spin on it with a hidden agenda might work on some folks but the reality is, you really have very little knowledge on this topic. You can yap all you want about it, Google it to death, but it's a waste my time to try to explain the science to someone like you because a) I don't think you really care about the science and b) you obviously have some kind of agenda outside of a discussion of science.
AllAboutGOD.com
PO Box 49625
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80949