TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T influenza virus shit

thats why i said animals

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit fair enough. this is true. thats why you have mutations. Look at the side effects of people who live in hiroshima with their genetic disorders due to human influenced selection.. Im telling you that this genetic change is not evolution by nature but evolution imposed by our change on the environment. Human influence on the environment creating branches for evolution is not more right. Its just more uncontrolled randomness that spurts. Besides you wont be able to tell if evolution will create something thats more RIGHT in the future. IT takes hundreds and hundreds of years. I can guarantee though the future simply holds more genetic problems with complex organisms and thus by your definition the most RIGHT organisms of this world are the insects and bacteria that continue to flourish and have remained unchanged for millions of years.

What makes an organism or a change RIGHT? There's no right or wrong, its just change.

Yeah theres no right or wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail What makes an organism or a change RIGHT? There's no right or wrong, its just change.

well the original argument was that Evolution depcits whats right and i said

How can evolution be right when the environment is wrong.


so im just saying RIGHT to define psy-t's stance (which i am arguing)

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit How can evolution be right when the environment is wrong.

1. Evolution is always 'right'. It forces organisms to adapt to their environment
2. An environment can't be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit fair enough. this is true. thats why you have mutations. Look at the side effects of people who live in hiroshima with their genetic disorders due to human influenced selection.. Im telling you that this genetic change is not evolution by nature but evolution imposed by our change on the environment. Human influence on the environment creating branches for evolution is not more right. Its just more uncontrolled randomness that spurts.

i think this has gone on long enough: humans are a part of the environment as are all other creatures we know of, we are internal to it, we are it, and as most everything else, we affect everything else. the fact that we do some of it consciously as opposed to other animals doesn't mean much in this discussion.

by your backwards reasoning, the moment a living organism preformed an action, any action, the environment became unnatural, because the organism affected the environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Besides you wont be able to tell if evolution will create something thats more RIGHT in the future. IT takes hundreds and hundreds of years.

who said i want/need to?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I can guarantee though the future simply holds more genetic problems with complex organisms and thus by your definition the most RIGHT organisms of this world are the insects and bacteria that continue to flourish and have remained unchanged for millions of years.

first of all, it's not my definition, i just threw us a bone to play with.
second of all, which insects or bacterias have remained unchanged for millions of years?
third of all, the most "right" organisms at any point in time are the ones living.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail 1. Evolution is always 'right'. It forces organisms to adapt to their environment 2. An environment can't be wrong.

it can be unatural though.

Evolution is not always right It just happens randomly. It doesnt affect single orgamisms, it implies random changes over generations towards the genetics of a species to either weed out strains and variations of the species, or create a new species out of that species.

The resultant is that species that are genetically more adaptable to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce their offspring and spread their genes.

NOW IF THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES A SPIN OR A DRAMATIC CHANGE. then the evolution has failed in created an organism that is best suited to the environment. (for instance an ice age or what not)


so in theory, evolution is not the best answer in creating organisms most suitable for the environment, but in fact SIMPLICITY in organisms is the best solution.

If we look at the types of species that have remained on this planet for the longest, you'll find that its the less complex organisms that have thrived, not the ones that have gone through the most evolutionary change.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit it can be unatural though. Evolution is not always right It just happens randomly. It doesnt affect single orgamisms, it implies random changes over generations towards the genetics of a species to either weed out strains and variations of the species, or create a new species out of that species. The resultant is that species that are genetically more adaptable to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce their offspring and spread their genes. NOW IF THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES A SPIN OR A DRAMATIC CHANGE. then the evolution has failed in created an organism that is best suited to the environment. (for instance an ice age or what not) so in theory, evolution is not the best answer in creating organisms most suitable for the environment, but in fact SIMPLICITY in organisms is the best solution. If we look at the types of species that have remained on this planet for the longest, you'll find that its the less complex organisms that have thrived, not the ones that have gone through the most evolutionary change.

Even in cases where drastic 'unnatural' changes have occured, evolution had adapted new organism. I can't recall the name, but there's a large crater that was created by an asteroid several million years ago. It is alive with life, with many of the organisms being completely unique to the crater. I'm not entirely sure what you mean why unnatural though.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit If we look at the types of species that have remained on this planet for the longest, you'll find that its the less complex organisms that have thrived, not the ones that have gone through the most evolutionary change.

and if we look at people that have remained on this planet for the longest, we'll find that it's the older people who have been here for the longest.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and if we look at people that have remained on this planet for the longest, we'll find that it's the older people who have been here for the longest.

True that, I didn't catch that.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i think this has gone on long enough: humans are a part of the environment as are all other creatures we know of, we are internal to it, we are it, and as most everything else, we affect everything else. the fact that we do some of it consciously as opposed to other animals doesn't mean much in this discussion.

your argument of relativism is weak here. You cannot disagree that human influence within the past hundred of years or so has caused the most genetic variation within this century then a couple of thousands of years combined (cancer, genetic disorders etc)

quote:

by your backwards reasoning, the moment a living organism preformed an action, any action, the environment became unnatural, because the organism affected the environment.

thers a difference between the cattle walking on the grass and killing it, to a shernobyl fuck up.

quote:

who said i want/need to?

you dont, im just saying evolution cannot be the definition of right as opposed to natural selection against an organism being wrong. This with the original constraint being a natural environment no longer being natural.

quote:

first of all, it's not my definition, i just threw us a bone to play with. second of all, which insects or bacterias have remained unchanged for millions of years? third of all, the most "right" organisms at any point in time are the ones living.

I dunno cocroaches, beetles, ants you name it. they probably got smaller and bigger but they are pretty much the same.

now im hungry for chicken

I'm hungry for children.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I'm hungry for children.

SOLVE THJE MATH!

I don't want to go outside and get my 89.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit your argument of relativism is weak here. You cannot disagree that human influence within the past hundred of years or so has caused the most genetic variation within this century then a couple of thousands of years combined (cancer, genetic disorders etc) thers a difference between the cattle walking on the grass and killing it, to a shernobyl fuck up.

the extent of the effect is irrelevant, as long as there was an effect by the 'cattle walking on the grass', then according to your reasoning, we've been living in an unnatural world. it was unnatural before we got here.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I dunno cocroaches, beetles, ants you name it. they probably got smaller and bigger but they are pretty much the same.

i asked which have remained unchanged for 'millions of years', and you answer me with "eh, group A, group B, and group C, but they all probably changed".

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T the extent of the effect is irrelevant, as long as there was an effect by the 'cattle walking on the grass', then according to your reasoning, we've been living in an unnatural world. it was unnatural before we got here. i asked which have remained unchanged for 'millions of years', and you answer me with "eh, group A, group B, and group C, but they all probably changed".

im talking about size, not genetics.

For instance

take pirhanas. You put them in a small tank they remain small. You put them in a HUGE TANK they will grow to be maybe 10 to 20 times larger.

I think this also holds for insects.

The evolution dates for the following

Ants:

quote:

120 to 170 million years ago

from wikipedia source



cocroaches:

quote:

354�295 million years ago

wikipedia

Now evolution didnt manipulate these organisms very much, yet they are the most succesful creatures. If change needs to be imposed on an organism, it just indicates that it is not versatile or adaptable. thus Evolution is basically an eradication of a species when it occurs. The more it occurs the more likley the species will diminish.

If you let pigs go wild they grow hair and tusks. Same with small children.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit im talking about size, not genetics. For instance take pirhanas. You put them in a small tank they remain small. You put them in a HUGE TANK they will grow to be maybe 10 to 20 times larger. I think this also holds for insects.

and size isn't influenced by genetics and evolution? what the fuck are you on, karim?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Now evolution didnt manipulate these organisms very much, yet they are the most succesful creatures. If change needs to be imposed on an organism, it just indicates that it is not versatile or adaptable. thus Evolution is basically an eradication of a species when it occurs. The more it occurs the more likley the species will diminish.

first of all, it did manipulate them 'very much', there are more than 11,000 known species of ants
second of all, most successful creatures? i thought we are working on my proposed definitions here, and those definitions stated that any species alive at the point in time in which the evaluation is being made is a successful species.
and lastly, the more evoltionairy change occurs, the more likely the species it occurs on is to evolve, not die and/or diminish.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and size isn't influenced by genetics and evolution? what the fuck are you on, karim?

with certain animals its not ( i gave a good example with the pirahnas and the fish tanks). Im pretty sure this also applies to insects.

quote:

first of all, it did manipulate them 'very much', there are more than 11,000 known species of ants

true but certain species have existed for millions of years.

quote:

second of all, most successful creatures? i thought we are working on my proposed definitions here, and those definitions stated that any species alive at the point in time in which the evaluation is being made is a successful species.

alright i drifted off. Im merely proposing that evolution does not relate to RIGHT AND WRONG. If the pretext is wrong, you will still have wrong. and the cycle continues heading in that direction. like a fork in the road. YOU go the wrong way, your giong to continue to fork off the wrong way with the set path (the environment being analagous to that path and evolution being analagous to forking).

quote:

and lastly, the more evoltionairy change occurs, the more likely the species it occurs on is to evolve, not die and/or diminish.

this is incorrect, the definition of evolution dictates speciation to occur. So once a species has fully evolved it can no longer reproduce with its own kind and thus is a new species. (the genetic changes have been made significant enough so the species can not interact).

So in fact evolution basically dictates RANDOM genetic changes in which an organism that is best suited for an environment will continue to reproduce in and survive in it. When the genetic change is significant, evolution ensues and causes speciation.

End result, evolution doesn not necessarily mean right, it means RANDOM changes that allow an organism to cope with its environment, when the random genetic changes are significant enough, speciation (evolution)occurs. and you have two speicis who can nolonger reproduce with eachother. The specie which is more suited for that environment will survive, while the other fails.


Now this is my standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit alright i drifted off. Im merely proposing that evolution does not relate to RIGHT AND WRONG. If the pretext is wrong, you will still have wrong. and the cycle continues heading in that direction. like a fork in the road. YOU go the wrong way, your giong to continue to fork off the wrong way with the set path (the environment being analagous to that path and evolution being analagous to forking).

except as i unfortunately have to state repeatedly here, there is no such thing as an unnatural nature, and when you mean unnatural by "wrong", there is no wrong environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit this is incorrect, the definition of evolution dictates speciation to occur. So once a species has fully evolved it can no longer reproduce with its own kind and thus is a new species. (the genetic changes have been made significant enough so the species can not interact). So in fact evolution basically dictates RANDOM genetic changes in which an organism that is best suited for an environment will continue to reproduce in and survive in it. When the genetic change is significant, evolution ensues and causes speciation. End result, evolution doesn not necessarily mean right, it means RANDOM changes that allow an organism to cope with its environment, when the random genetic changes are significant enough, speciation (evolution)occurs. and you have two speicis who can nolonger reproduce with eachother. The specie which is more suited for that environment will survive, while the other fails. Now this is my standpoint.

jesus titty fucking christ, get some reading comprehension karim.
you could've spared yourself all that typing by writing "this is incorrect. this is correct".

Closed because this has been painful to read.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.