Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Australopitthecus walks into a bar

"Ill have a beer please'

...I need a punch line

aat least we caan try to amuse ourselves whle the host is off somewhere.

I accept Einherjar's definition (although point #1 seems a bit controversial.)

We'll need you to give the summary a nod joe, that is apparently the entire purpouse of this thread.

farmerman wrote:

Australopitthecus walks into a bar

"Ill have a beer please'

...I need a punch line

aat least we caan try to amuse ourselves whle the host is off somewhere.

"We don't serve Homos here."

Kindra Coates makes an interesting observation:

"Trying to find a definition for biological evolution, or more commonly known as just evolution, was a illuminating task. Once you begin to search for a concrete definition, you realize how differently we define the same word. In the class discussions of Ringworld and Childhood's End, personal concepts of what evolution is and what it is capable of fluctuated. No one's explanation matched anyone else's."

Well there is here.

Can we go with this?

Please say something interesting now.

ebrown_p wrote:

Well there is here.

Can we go with this?

Please say something interesting now.

I must have missed it! Where was the commonly agreed definition?

Ros: It's an unequivocal observation. There is NOT the alleged, and earnestly hoped for, agreement for evolution definition amongst evolutionists.

Einherjar wrote:

Evolution, short version.


1. A population of individuals exist.

2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.

3. This results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.

4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)

5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects will be more common in this generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)

6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not passed along by the preceding generation.

7. repeat from step 2.



Over numerous generations harmful genes are weeded out, and beneficial ones become more common. Mutations provide an endless supply of new genetic material, minor adjustments to the design, to be put to the test of natural selection. Selective pressure may guide a species to an equilebrium, aproximating an ideal model, all mutations being harmful. Changes in selective pressure, making previously harmfull genes beneficial and vica versa, can then cause evolution to take a different path.

A species isolated in two geographically sepparated locations can evolve in different directions, resulting in speciation.

Lets all rally around this, and see what bib comes up with.

ebrown_p wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Australopitthecus walks into a bar

"Ill have a beer please'

...I need a punch line

aat least we caan try to amuse ourselves whle the host is off somewhere.

"We don't serve Homos here."

That punchline would only work if Australopithecus were in the genus Homo, which it isn't, or if this particular Australopithecus was gay, in which case the bartender is simply being rude, not funny.

Einherjar wrote:

Evolution, short version.

1. A population of individuals exist.
[fairly obvious]
2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.
[ditto, ignoring the important point 'why'!]
3. This [their interaction, sexually]results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.
[not necessarily, but yes, usually]
4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)
['beneficial' is a value judgment, unrelated to genetics; even survival is not necessarily a positive thing, lets leave out the 'ethical' choices from a mechanical system; and the individuals simply survive to procreate, not necessarily 'raise' their offspring, and definitely no guarantee of 'success'! - if the offspring occur, the genes have been passed on; end of story.]
5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects will be more common in this generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)
[remember reproduction takes two (to tango), recessive genes will not necessarily be more prevalent in the 'next' generation, even though 'present'. And again lets not editorialize on the 'value' of the gene/mutated, or not.]
6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not passed along by the preceding generation.
[so they do, and remember, 99% of them render the subject unable to survive to reproduction; it is the other 1% (approx. - of course) that affect all the changes (i did not say improvements!)]
7. repeat from step 2.[including comments]



Over numerous generations harmful genes are weeded out[dropped; weeded out implies a 'direction', and beneficial ones become more common. [nonsense; genes that permit the individual to survive, also survive; ones that do not, do not - simple!]Mutations provide an endless[minute - endless over huge eons of time, but tiny to any specific individual] supply of new genetic material, minor adjustments to the design, to be put to the test of natural selection. Selective pressure may guide a species to an equilebrium, aproximating an ideal[reproductively successful] model, all[most] mutations being harmful. Changes in selective pressure, making previously harmfull genes beneficial and vica versa, can then cause evolution to take a different path.
[the effects of genes will vary in a specific invironment, but there is no 'beneficial' or 'harmful', only success, and failure.]
A species isolated in two geographically separated locations can[will] evolve in different directions, [perhaps]resulting in speciation.

Lets all rally around this, [opting out, except as noted]and see what bib comes up with.

I still give EBrown points for creativiity, even if the subject is a bit colored, and the details are a bit askew. Besided, maybe we can work with it...

The Australopithecus replies, "listen you idiot, I'm an Australo", to which the bartender says, "I was talking about your purse". The Australo pulls out a club and glares at the bartender. The bartender takes a closer look and says, "Oh, sorry Lady".

Ros: OK then, let's take Einherjar's definition on post #1051179 (Monday, 6 December 2004) as your commonly agreed definition for evolution.

=====================================


According to ebrown: "All of us agree that evolution is a scientific fact..."

Einherjar's definition #1: "A population of individuals exist."

I have a question...

Q1. How did such a population come to exist - what process brought them into being?

rosborne979 wrote:

I still give EBrown points for creativiity, even if the subject is a bit colored, and the details are a bit askew. Besided, maybe we can work with it...

The Australopithecus replies, "listen you idiot, I'm an Australo", to which the bartender says, "I was talking about your purse". The Australo pulls out a club and glares at the bartender. The bartender takes a closer look and says, "Oh, sorry Lady".

I still like mine better.

Besides, your version was funnier before you changed it, where the Australopithecus, instead of pulling out a club, says "what makes you think I'm a man?" That plays upon the double meanings of "man" and "homo," which is consistent with the premise of the joke: that it's an Australopithecus who walks into the bar and not just some regular customer. This new version is just a rather tired variation on the "woman as battleaxe" kind of joke. No need for the customer to be an early hominid for that.