wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, it is a matter of fact or based on fact...
Evidence please.
>
> Parents do not select themselves randomly! Note
> that in some species the courtship is actually
> very sophisticated and complex...
I never said anything about parents selecting each other...I said the actual process of procreation.
>
> Not really! This is also why we still cannot
> easily duplicate the processes and create
> clones...
Errr, yes, we create clones but that is because we're seeking to create clones...Scientists do manipulate DNA in a variety of organisms every day...
>
> Of course they are! The fact still is that they
> are "creating" a new life...In my book when one is
> creating a new life, one has creative powers or
> 'god' powers...
Well, that is your opinion and you are more than welcome to have that opinion. However, as miraculous as creating a baby can seem, this is a "miracle" that gets repeated over and over again all over the world, amongst every species on the planet. There is nothing special or particuliarly different between the way that humans or a cat may do it. The ability to reproduce is a criteria for life.
>
> > If that were the case, you'd find the number
> of unwanted pregnancies to be substantially
> > lower.
>
> Well, that is an irrational comment! What does
> that have to do with the power of being able to
> create life? Are you trying to suggest that the
> parents involved in these unwanted pregnancies
> don't know what they are doing? Of course they
> do...
Yes, I am suggesting that parents involved do not know what they are doing. If they have an active choice about whether to procreate or not, then you would find women getting pregnant when they wanted to and no unwanted pregnancies. They don't have a real choice in the matter unless they go to complete abstinence. The problem with unwanted pregnancies is that the parents, in this matter, aren't actively
thinking of the consequences. It is all about the moment and the physicality of the act itself.
>
> Well, if life was just a physical process then we
> would be able to easily create clones and also
> have some control over it...
We do.
>
> > Evolution is a constant process. There is
> significant evidence to show, particuliarly
> > in the insect world as well as among bacteria
> and viruses where "life"spans are
> > extremely short.
>
> I think that you mean 'mutations'! Note however
> that the bacteria are still bacteria and the
> insects are still insects...Extrapolating this
> very narrow "evidence" and then trying to suggest
> that the bacteria will become and insect or that
> the insect will become a bird, say after millions
> or billions of years is what you don't have any
> evidence of whatsoever!!!
I'm not saying that at all and no, I do not mean mutations solely, especially in regards to bacteria. Look at what we have done with antibiotics. We have created some seriously bad bacteria because people have a tendency to not take antibiotics throughout the entire course of the medicine. What happens? Some bacteria, which are more resistant/stronger to the antibiotic, survive and reproduce to create more resistant bacteria. A bit of the whole "survival of the fittest" thing.
Yes, what this planet is today is the product of billions of years of evolution. I can see what you are trying to say but the problem is that all that is today was accumulated over a very long period of time. Different critters form, some die, life goes on. What is your explanation for all the extinct creatures that once inhabited the earth? Where is homo erectus?
>
> So, your position is nothing more than a desperate
> believe that this is how it may work!
No, not at all. It's based on scientific studies that have examined the process of evolution as well as the fossil record.
> Well, your concept of a gene pool in nonsensical
> at best! The fact still is that many species have
> been wiped out throughout the years and will,
> therefore, most likely continue to be wiped out.
> These are the facts vs. your believes of how it
> should be...
Hardly. Do you know what a gene pool is? A gene pool is basically all the genetic information stored by a species. A diverse gene pool allows for a greater amount of diversity whereas a limited one has a limited amount of genetic diversity. Look at the human race today. Eventually, we will probably all be brown eyed, brown haired because our gene pool is very diverse. 100,000 years ago, you just had pockets of humanity, which allowed mutations to really take hold of the individual groups. These are facts. It's basic genetics.
>
> > However, in a limited gene pool, random
> genetic mutations can have a much more
> > profound effect on the population overall.
>
> Well, this is how all reality is programmed.
> Action-reaction or cause and effect. Again, this
> is exactly how it works vs. your believes of how
> it should be...
You make absolutely no sense here.
>
> > Reality is not flat for me at all. I have a
> good deal of background in ecosystems:
> > forest, freshwater and marine. It was a bit
> of a requirement for me considering
> > what my chosen field was to be...I am very
> well versed in the "food chain" which is a
> > bit deeper than big fish eating little fish.
> lol, you're making a very ill-informed
> > judgement there...Were you a biology major?
> Have you ever taken anything beyond 200
> > level bio?
>
> Look, I look at all of this from a much different
> reference and point of view and will not "pollute"
> my out of the box analysis with any particular
> orthodox view of reality! As such, my judgement
> could have been ill-informed, but I was just
> "reacting" to your post...
If you don't want to "pollute" your out of the box analysis with science, then you are severely limiting your own arguments. If you do thorough investigation of genetics, evolution and the processes which affect the earth today and still come back with the same ideas and evidence to back them up, then what is there to lose? Other than that, you are just admitting that you don't know and are looking at it with a limited knowledge base.
>
> Glad that you can easily see that the dominant and
> the stronger (higher force) will win. Therefore,
> it should also be easy for you to see that the
> more intelligent will also win...
Not necessarily and I am a perfect example of this. I was a talented and gifted student with an iq over 150. By your reasoning, I should be a "winner" in nature because of intelligence. However, if I was living 100 years ago, any potential offspring of mine and I would've died-- meaning that my genetics would not have been continued to be passed on into the gene pool.
>
> That is because it is all about
> action-reaction...As such the stronger (higher
> force) and more intelligent will always win.
> Meaning, therefore, that the only way for the
> weaker to win is by being more "devious" and this
> is exactly where such degeneration was
> introduced...
Interesting but a little off. Actually, it was the healthier stronger stock that survived and intelligence was secondary. The "weaker" having to be devious to survive is complete rubbish though. I am certainly not a "winner" evolution-wise (although I have the intelligence factor). I didn't survive by being devious. I survived by modern medical science. Whether my survival is going to cause degeneration into the gene pool or not, it is hard to say.
>
> In other words, the weaker had to be 'sneaky' to
> survive...
No, what is physically weaker is now surviving. That's not sneakiness. That's just the way the world works with medical technology.
>
> Well, in my book I see deviousness (which can also
> be viewed as a degenerated form of intelligence!)
> when some people expect the weaker to survive!!!
This seems to be a very limited point of view. You're not taking what has really changed about the way the human race lives into consideration.
>
> Essentially, the sneaky does not have a chance
> against an higher force with the same or higher
> level of intelligence. This is how plain and basic
> I can make it...
I think I have proven that intelligence does not always equate to survival.
Stephanie
In every man there is something wherein I may learn of him, and in that I am his pupil.--Ralph Waldo Emerson
