Why do conservatives hate science so much?

apparently all life popped into existence in it's current form...the fossil records show otherwise...but if they close their eyes they can delude themselves I suppose...

 

macro evolution of the dog...
GOTCHA!

 

It is obvious your critical thinking skills have a bit to be desired. It is true that 99+% of species do not exist in our world as they did when they disappeared, most because they evolved into something else (Extinction events being an exception). Survival of the fittest though extremely simplified, has applied to virtually every life form that ever existed on our planet and is very clearly seen in nature when we bother to look.

Crocodiles are not the same creatures they were millions of years ago....that you seem to think they are expresses the limits of your knowledge:

"About 100 million years ago, toward the middle of the Cretaceous period, some crocodiles had begun to imitate their dinosaur cousins by evolving to enormous sizes. The king of the Cretaceous crocodiles was the enormous Sarcosuchus, dubbed "SuperCroc" by the media, which measured about 40 feet long from head to tail and weighed in the neighborhood of 10 tons. And let's not forget the slightly smaller Deinosuchus, the "deino" in its name connoting the same concept as the "dino" in dinosaurs: "terrible" or "fearsome."

One way in which prehistoric crocodiles were indeed more impressive than their terrestrial relatives was their ability, as a group, to survive the K/T Extinction Event that wiped the dinosaurs off the face of the earth 65 million years ago (why this is so remains a mystery, though it may be an important clue that no plus-sized crocodiles survived the meteor impact). Today's crocodiles and alligators are little changed from their prehistoric ancestors, a telling clue that these reptiles were (and remain) extremely well adapted to their environment. (See this article for possible theories about why crocodiles survived into the Cenozoic Era.)"
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm

If you refer to the last couple million years, then you understanding of the evolutionary process is even more lacking than I had assumed.

 

Ad hominems, that's the best you got?

Mutation is nothing more than genetic entropy. Species degenerate into extinction as the increasing number of mutations that are being passed down from generation to generation occur.

Your complete lack of basic physics is very telling.

Are you aware of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You should be as it is taught in high school, it's obvious you never went to college given your debate skills and resorting to 3rd grade level attacks...assuming you made it to high school that is. I have serious doubts on that, but I digress.

I'll enlighten you....

The fact that creatures, like the Crocodile and the shark have resisted mutation, have not gone through a complex evolution....is evidence that species which resist constant mutation....are indeed the Strong.

The average species lasts more or less 10 million years.

Do you honestly think the human species will last that long?

We are the strongest, in brain power of anything that has ever been on this planet. We dominate it from Pole to Pole. From the highest peak to the deepest ocean valley...Humans have conquered this planet...

but wait....

We are degenerating as a species...the weak...in essence are passing along genetic mutations...it is Entropy in action...we are evolving into a weaker species...as all species do that endure mutation after mutation

2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Law of Conservation of Energy.

i suggest you look at those and understand that open systems do not gain order...entropy makes sure of this. Evolution is merely another form of entropy and obeys the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's the equivalent to a piece of pipe...rusting on the side of the road. It is mutations which kill off the species...typically after a few million years, but on the scale of the Universe, that's nothing.
The entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process, and this includes genetic mutation.

Order to disorder is the natural flow of things.


Evolution is nothing more than genetic entropy...

 

Clearly unworthy of my time and attention.

Have fun insulting everyone and debating with yourself.

 

I'm more than happy to engage in a civil debate, but it's clear you're a punk.

Consider yourself schooled.

Survival of the fittest is a fallacy as applied on an evolutionary scale. Species resistant to mutation are the strong, they remain isolated and as expressed in the 2nd law of thermodynimcs...isolated systems will not decay...Law of Conservation of Energy is also applicable.

Resisting mutational evolution, will indeed benefit a species...in the longer term.

It's backed up by basic physics and bio systems follow the exact same physical laws as anything else.

I'm not an expert on "evolution"...correct. However I have a flight science background replete with 201 level physics courses and the same laws can be adapted to biologically based systems.

Mutations make a species....

Weaker.

Entropy.

 

wow...do you really know what the theory of Evolution means?....how it works?

 

The crocodile's immune system is far more effective than ours at warding off infections and viruses.

We're the apex species on this planet. We can go out and buy a rifle and shoot that croc right between it's eyes.
We can hunt it down...it's just a big dumb reptile.

yet, because the crocodile has resisted mutations, it is a highly successful creature..it survives. It doesn't adapt. It has by and large, kept the same genetic base for millions of years. it's big and dumb perhaps, but in other ways it is far stronger than we, the apex species. The Croc has remain isolated, on genetically and evolutionary based level. It is living proof that to resist entropy, resist evolving as much as possible. Genetic mutation are merely the equivalent to oxidiing rust as it reacts in an open system.

Basic science folks.

Darwin was wrong, he may have been an outstanding naturalist, but his knowledge of physics and natural laws leaves a lot to be desired. His premise was that species open to mutation and change, were the fit and strong...overlooking the reality that he was observing decay. A mutation that works was pure luck, but he inferred it was a species getting stronger. Genetically adapting is good Change is good for a species. Mutation is good.

I think not.

Wrong Charles...you got it Wrong.

Sharks, another species which resist mutations...guess what?

They don't get cancer.

People do!

We are biologically weaker creatures than the humble shark that swims eats and breeds. Yet the shark is resistant to genetic mutations..it is therefore...stronger than we, the apex species.

 

I see, so you feel my critique on you critical thinking skill and explanation that my assumption of such might be a bit on the kind side are an insult, and thus feel the need to respond with aggressive debasement.

Thin skin and uneven temperament make it clear my initial assessment was correct....pity, could have been an entertaining debate.

 

there's no need to interject side comments, that applies to me as well...so let's start that part over.

State your case, I'll read whatever you post.

I was wrong about sharks not getting cancer for example. They do in fact, get cancer.

I'm not a geneticist or a scientist...just an average Joe in terms of biology. I have a basic premise.
Evolution is evidence of decay in DNA. As a species gets more susceptible to mutation, it gets weaker. Sure there are sometimes mutations which help, but it's basically luck if it does so. Hence my example of surviving combat. There's a lot of luck involved.

Saying only the Strong survive meaning that animals that adapt, genetically. I believe is wrong. Animals that resist mutating up to a point anyway. Animals that resist changing in terms of their DNA, are in fact the Strong.

We are the weak. Will we last millions of years like the crocodile has?

I think not.

That's my argument.

Feel free to attack the argument. That's why we're here afterall.

I'm not saying anyone is dumb or smart, for having another argument. It's just another argument and perhaps it is better than mine and I'll concede it when I know I've stated something that is wrong.

 

Evolution means genetically changing. For example a species of bird that grows a longer bill to get at insects in a tree. The bird species evolves.

Yes I know what evolution is.

Evolution involves a change in a species DNA. My premise, which is sound in my opinion. It is backed up by irrefutable laws of physics. My premise again is that these changes in DNA, these mutations are evidence of decay. In an open system, things go from order to disorder. As DNA of a species decays, it mutates. A bird gets a long beak and is able to reach insects. This mutation is passed along. Howevr eventually a bad mutation is passed which harms the species. Resisting constant mutation, resisting entropy which is decay. is far stronger than mutating on an evolutionary level.

People are accusing me of being ignorant, but I believe they simply do not have a basic foundation in physics and how systems work...how energy transfers. There are laws which systems follow.

Order======>Disorder/Decay = 2nd law of thermodynamics

DNA (order)====>Mutation/Evolution/Decay = 2nd law of thermodynamics

The fact this bird developed the longer bill is evidence that the species is decayiing. It was random luck the bill adapted the bird better to get insects. The next mutation passed on, may send the species into extinction as it has for 99.9% of all species.

Life decays, it does not evolve.

Resisting mutation is the better path for long term survival.

The strong do not mutate and decay. They remain isolated to a mutation, where again in an isolated system entropy does not increase. Decay slows to a crawl. Species last for millions and millions of years.

That is my argument and I believe it be a sound one.

 

There are certainly situations where genetic mutation does not increase an organisms ability to survive, we see it often in our own genome. There are also many cases where these mutations allow for more complex and beneficial changes that do indeed lead to a "Fitter" or stronger organism...there are many, many documented and verified instances to be seen. The simple influenza virus uses these changes in genetic structure to adapt constantly and thus survive long enough to infect a host.
Survival of the fittest does not simply mean that only the strong survive, this interpretation of this theory is what I was critiquing in the first place. Survival is simply the ability to reproduce and thus pass on those mutations to another generation. This is a very simple example of Evolution at it's core. Many of these passed on mutations lead to additional complexity of the organism and over large time frames this complexity creates what we would call a "New" organism, due to it no longer resembling the original enough to be classified as the same.

 

Yes a species must breed above all else. Mate selection often involves certain genetic traits which are then passed along. I agree.

The DNA itself though is what decays, the core "genome" for lack of a better word of the species. What makes an elephant, an elephant. It ages. The ability to replicate itself precisely deteriorates leading to more and more mutations...some good, some bad, but it's still incurs the process of decay.

I guess, my point is, is that many think Darwin's theory means life gets stronger and stronger with each generation. It never decays. I don't believe this interpretation is accurate.

You're exactly right, as this DNA decays, it eventually degrades to the point of a new species is created. The core process of evolution is the entropy of DNA itself...it's built in to break down, mutate. I find it weird some species like the crocodile don't seem to mutate as much. Their DNA resists breaking down leading to various mutations. It's weird how life has different rates of this decay on the genome level. Faster for some species that mutate in a matter of generations and others which remain almost unchanged for million of years.

I find that odd, a real mystery.

 

The mystery is really not much of one....we refer to it as "Environment" amongst other things. A very powerful aspect of this mutation process involves the idea that a helpful mutation would likely allow an organism to survive in the environment it inhabits.....whether within another or in the forest, thus it reprocess and this mutation does so as well. The chromosome 2 example does indeed represent an example of what could be considered a degradation of DNA....but is actually a means of adding complexity.

"All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[3] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan."

This chromosome seems to be one of the most complex, and can take up large chunks of human DNA.

 

The horseshoe crab, for example is estimated to be 450 million years old. Lots of sea creatures share the environment with the crab, yet the horseshoe crab's genome has precisly replicated itself for millions of years. I believe the cure for cancers and anti-aging is found in these creatures DNA. The crocodiles, the hammer head sharks, the horse shoe crab. These genomes have slower rates of decay, regardless of the environment. As each one breeds, the genome replicates precisely the same creature. Not much variance for millions of years. I believe this is where the key to cancer treatment will be found. Strengthening a genome to resist decay / mutation. Cancer is basically a mutation, wouldn't you agree? How to lower the rate of decay to the level of one of these living fossils. Where each person who has a child...replicates the human genome perfectly, no mutations, or at least minimal. The species perpetuates resistant to change....perfect replication for every new born. You find the thing in the genome which triggers this decay, this mutation, you switch it off, you slow it down at least. Cancer rates will drop dramatically.

 

The environment of these creatures, as well as previous adaptations to it do not require large scale mutations to survive and reproduce....basically these creatures follow the trends of the evolutionary process as well, but rather than mutation being a positive it is an unneeded change. the oceans do not change rapidly as the land areas do, and migration to newer areas more acceptable to a species is far easier. Different environments will effect the resulting evolution.
Mutation is a constant, and no two members of a species are the same because of it. The combinations of separate DNA sequences MUST produce a new one....simple reality.

 

The environment pressuring a mutation implies determinism over randomness doesn't it? In other words if a creature is pressured to adapt, say it gets colder where it lives, it implies the mutation isn't just random decay.
I'm not sure about that. I think an interpretation is made that we see changes from creatures pressured by the environment to change, therefore the environment caused the change. I believe it is still a random process of decay, only one of the mutuations which would have occurred regardless as the genome decays, just happened to increase the species survivability...for the shorter term. Again, in the longer term, if the genome decays slowly, is resistant to any sort of change, whether it is environmentally pressured to do so or is simply a random change; I believe in the longer term this increases a species survivabilty.

They say change is good?
I argue change is bad. We want to keep the change caused by a system decaying, to a minimum. It's like waxing a car to protect it from the elements. We need to protect the human genome from mutational decay. We need to apply an undercoat on our gene bank and keep it looking the same, identical no changes from generation to generation. That does not mean we all look the same and this is some Aryan dream. No it means we don't decay as quickly into mutations.

Again I'm not a scientist. I had prostate cancer and I did a lot of reading about what cancer is and how our genetics play a role. i was fascinated with how can you decrease genetic entropy, or at least slow it down. How can we minimize as you say, DNA degradation.

 

In my opinion, based on research into current understanding.....Evolution does not have a preference one way or another. Changes in a species can play one way or another, and the interpretation that "WE" decide upon has no effect whatsoever on the resulting change a thousand or million years from now.
There will always be helpful and negative changes in the extremely complex genomic puzzle that is life. Some things we see as negative (less complex...whatever), may very well be beneficial in ways we cannot see. Some of the complexity will devolve and sometimes eliminate a species over time.

No one claims to understand the processes of evolution, yet many are comfortable accepting the general theory based on very sound and ample evidence.

 

So Conservatism is just common sense. Got it.

 

Don't you think that a system, such as the genome, by going from a lower ordered state to a higher ordered state would be violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It would be as though a car would be building itself. Since the Big Bang, energy has moved from higher order to lower order. We're interpreting evolution going from one celled amoebas to us, complex beings, as a higher order but from nature's point of view, it's a by product of decay. If indeed this is what is going on, one can't help but interpret this as supranormal...entropy is decreasing as a system moves from a lower order to a higher order...it's unnatural.

Therefore the interpretation must conclude the evolutionary process is a form of decay. Our observation of it is what is skewed thinking it involves the transfer of energy and mass to a higher order. A car does not build itself, it decays once built....once the Big Bang went off, the entire Universe began to decay.

If evolution is the process of transferring energy from lower to higher order, it is clear evidence of the supranormal taking place. Do you accept this? or take the more logical path, it is evidence of decay, skewed by an incorrect interpretation of observation. What we view as complexity is in reality...a state of decay for an open system of energy like we have here on Earth.

 

Got Me? LOL!!!!!

After we finished completely mapping the Human Genome we compared it to the Mapped Genomes of thousands of other species and what we found was that every single species had one particular Ancient Viral DNA Encoding that was the same.

A VIRUS is NOT ALIVE as the Nobel Prize Winners for their work in Virology won the Nobel in the CHEMISTRY CATEGORY....not in the BIOLOGY CATEGORY....as a Virus does have DNA but is not a Living Thing.

Now when a Virus infects a living organism or an animal such as you and I....it will encode it's DNA into our Genomes. So since every single species on Earth we now know has one specific Ancient Viral DNA encoding...the only possible way this could be is if all life evolved from an original single celled organism.

This is PROOF POSITIVE that EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

AboveAlpha

 

I know you were just kidding!

GOTCHA!!! LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

Logically was just KIDDING WITH ME....as he was not serious nor is he stupid enough to actually believe what he posted as it was a JOKE for those of us who can understand such humor.

AboveAlpha

 

Life on earth does not exist in a closed system, thus the SLT has limited implications. One need also understand that we are not talking about energy transfer of creation, but manipulation.

 

uuummmmm.....did you miss the:

at the bottom? Cool your jets there, Tex. We're both on the same side.