Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 04:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's in plain English language that any ten year old can understand.


Is that why you can't answer the question that real life asked?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 04:43 pm
The link I posted and real's question are two separate issues; you prolly didn't know that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 04:44 pm
I'm waiting for some answers, but I know they will not be forthcoming. I will not answer any questions from any of you until you first answer mine - seriously.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:29 pm
Intrepid wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's in plain English language that any ten year old can understand.


Is that why you can't answer the question that real life asked?


I'm not sure that CI knows what point he is trying to make with the website.

It mentions a dinosaur that is 'related' to T Rex and has massive claws (as one might expect from an animal that must kill to eat ) , but is a veggie eater. To reconcile this, it is postulated that the vegetarian actually needed super large claws to attack the trees (figuratively) to eat.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:37 pm
and don't forget about the feathered dinosaur. Perhaps a missing link to Big Bird? ;-)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:39 pm
Intrepid
Quote:
Or, as you just said in your first sentence. Scientists use the remains to make educated guesses.
. Yep, what do you do?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:47 pm
I have a question about medicine and evolution...creationists need not respond.....

It's possible to see "medicine" as an enemy of the species in that it allows "bad" genes a better survivability.

Conversely, it's possible to see medicine itself as an adaptation of the species that removes the reduced survival rate that the "bad" gene should cause.

Long term though, wouldn't the effect of medicine be to "weaken" the human gene pool, at least in the sense that we will become less able to contend with a return of primitive conditions (should that occur) than our ancestors ?

Is this true of other things besides medicine?

I'd love to see Farmerman's response but he is away, yes?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:49 pm
LOL how's my timing !?!

Welcome back FM !
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:51 pm
Eorl wrote:
I have a question about medicine and evolution...creationists need not respond.....


Responding.....
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:55 pm
There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.

You shouldn't otherwise trust a petulant prince, however he plays in the provinces.


Medicine does what it does. Being unable to predict the future, there's no way to tell if it's "good" or "bad" in this sense. Perhaps it's allowing for a population that will be susceptible to some future crisis. Perhaps its allowing proliferation of both numbers of people and of genetic diversity that will be crucial to survival of some future crisis. And if you're a forest dying off in an ongoing drizzle of acid rain, perhaps the former scenario is the good one and the latter bad. Who knows?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:56 pm
Eorl, I believe what you say is true; our bodies build up resistence to drugs, and our ability to fight off disease become compromised. That's the reason the drug companies will never go out of business, because they will continue to find newer drugs. It's sort of a catch-22; we die if we don't, and by using new drugs, we continue to improve the defensive mechanisms of the disease. I believe the benefits outweighs the bad consequence. HIV/AIDS patients now live longer because of the improvement in drugs.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 07:10 pm
C.I. Yes the benefits to the individual are great but that's kinda my point...individuals today survive and have children that would not have survived pre-medicine....Long term that means more and more of those genes in the system.

eg if you are born with a heart defect and it is corrected, and you pass it to your children, etc, etc...and then we LOSE medicine...that faulty heart gene has been allowed to proliferate against the "natural" selection laws.

The whole point of medicine is to fight natural selection at every turn...which is why you could view it as the "enemy" of the species.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 07:12 pm
Wolves are a lot closer to extinction than dogs are.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 07:15 pm
Eorl, It's been shown that cancer is genetically passed through the generations. That doesn't mean we must ignore the disease to find a cure. Maybe, some day, through DNA and biotech, we'll find a way to stop the genetically transferred disease to the next generation.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 07:18 pm
Eorl wrote:
C.I. Yes the benefits to the individual are great but that's kinda my point...individuals today survive and have children that would not have survived pre-medicine....Long term that means more and more of those genes in the system.

eg if you are born with a heart defect and it is corrected, and you pass it to your children, etc, etc...and then we LOSE medicine...that faulty heart gene has been allowed to proliferate against the "natural" selection laws.

The whole point of medicine is to fight natural selection at every turn...which is why you could view it as the "enemy" of the species.


The same could be said of lots of advances that we enjoy. Do computers allow persons who are not strong physically to survive and thrive and thus work against evolution (the survival of the fittest) ? Depends on what your definition of fittest is, I suppose. Does fittest include brain, or only brawn?

Perhaps you shouldn't help your neighbor if they are sick or old because you are working against evolution there. You're messin' with the system, pal.

If we are delaying or reversing the normal effects of evolution, is Captain Kirk gonna kick our posteriors for violating the Prime Directive?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 07:43 pm
C.I. yeah changing the genes directly via medicine changes the whole thing entirely - turns them from villain to hero (potentially).

RL yeah I think you are right, it could be said of things other than medicine although the effect would be less.

Yes, of course survival of the fittest includes brain and brawn...depends on the environment of course.

As for using the future direction of the species to influence my individual reaction to my neighbour....what do you think I am? some kind of deranged monster ???

oh yeah you do think that !! :wink:
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 07:55 pm
Eorl wrote:
C.I. yeah changing the genes directly via medicine changes the whole thing entirely - turns them from villain to hero (potentially).

RL yeah I think you are right, it could be said of things other than medicine although the effect would be less.

Yes, of course survival of the fittest includes brain and brawn...depends on the environment of course.

As for using the future direction of the species to influence my individual reaction to my neighbour....what do you think I am? some kind of deranged monster ???

oh yeah you do think that !! :wink:


Should I copy and frame this post? Eorl and I are agreeing. (except the monster part. I don't think that.) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 08:00 pm
patiodog, I agree.

and the dog thing, good symbiotic relationships makes dogs better adapted to a human dominated world, right?

..but what if the bird flu gets us all ?

Who wins wolves v dogs (sans humans) ?

I figure that's what you are saying..."good" adaptation is always relative to surviving another sunset.

Hey RL, who on the ark had the bird flu anyway? Two french hens? And how certain are you that it will not evolve into a human born virus?

edit: caint spel goode
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 08:12 pm
Quote:
and the dog thing, good symbiotic relationships makes dogs better adapted to a human dominated world, right?


Spectacular diversity generated under the auspices of a protective external force -- like (and including) medicine.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 08:27 pm
Eorl wrote:
patiodog, I agree.

and the dog thing, good symbiotic relationships makes dogs better adapted to a human dominated world, right?

..but what if the bird flu gets us all ?

Who wins wolves v dogs (sans humans) ?

I figure that's what you are saying..."good" adaptation is always relative to surviving another sunset.

Hey RL, who on the ark had the bird flu anyway? Two french hens? And how certain are you that it will not evolve into a human born virus?

edit: caint spel goode


That's a funny question. Did anyone on the ark have the flu? Maybe, but perhaps they were resistant enough to simply carry it and not succumb. No one and no animal on the ark died, at least, during that time.

(I've always had lots of questions about the ark. Many folks believe that representatives of some of the larger species were possibly taken aboard as young or even newborn (almost) to preserve space and food, etc. Some think that hibernation may have helped control some animals for part of the ride and conserve food as well. No way to know for sure, but these would be practical solutions.)

Back to question: Will bird flu be transmitted human-to-human? It's very possible.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 235
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 08:55:57