Aliens

[Diageo]

Regarding the chicken and egg argument, it's obviously the egg.

[The Mad Monkey]

Regarding the chicken and egg argument, it's obviously the egg.

 

That depends, do you name the type of egg it is by what laid it, or what hatches from it?

[Diageo]

It doesn't matter. The egg the chicken was in came before the chicken itself.

[drahkon]

A genetic mutation has to be commonplace for it to cause evolution, if only one person got it, then they could easily die without passing it on.

 

Then the only struggle humans are facing is to reproduce more and before they die in order to pass on their genes.

[Grazza]

My point, really, is that it's not about human potential. Albert Einstein was a genius, but he was still just human. To my mind, a different type of creature, not necessarily a human, could spring up which has massively greater intelligence than us, not just through study, but a greatly more capable brain.

 

One rather depressing alternative is that we are the most advanced civilisation, but advanced civilisations destroy themselves in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

[The Mad Monkey]

It doesn't matter. The egg the chicken was in came before the chicken itself.

 

 

Of course, as was a pheasants, a snakes or all sorts of lizards.

The egg always comes before birth, but with no mother there can be no egg.

It's a circular argument, which is the point I was making.

 

Then the only struggle humans are facing is to reproduce more and before they die in order to pass on their genes.

 

One word, genetics, children inherit the traits and abilities of their predecessors, just as they pass on diseases and disabilities. A more able parent will create a more able child.

[drahkon]

One word, genetics, children inherit the traits and abilities of their predecessors, just as they pass on diseases and disabilities. A more able parent will create a more able child.

 

Acquired abilities aren't inherited.

Pushing oneself into becoming stronger, or better at something won't make your children more able because it doesn't change your DNA.

If a sportsman gets kids these won't necessarily become as good as their dad at his sport or even have the potential to do so.

 

It's a circular argument, which is the point I was making.

 

Scientifically it's not a circular argument. Metaphorically it is. Just wanted to clarify.

Edited December 3, 2010 by drahkon

[Diageo]

Of course, as was a pheasants, a snakes or all sorts of lizards.

The egg always comes before birth, but with no mother there can be no egg.

It's a circular argument, which is the point I was making.

 

 

 

One word, genetics, children inherit the traits and abilities of their predecessors, just as they pass on diseases and disabilities. A more able parent will create a more able child.

The term "chicken" itself is one chosen by humans, because there is variation between species. A chicken is an animal that can mate with other animals we call chickens and produce fertile offspring.

 

There was an animal that looked like a chicken but it could not produce fertile offspring with what we call chickens today. During conception of it's young, there was a mutation for whatever reason, and that new animal could mate with modern chickens and produce fertile offspring. Although it still looked like it's parent, as evolution is gradual.

 

That animal in that egg is a chicken as we define it today, it is in an egg. It then hatched from this egg. Therefore the egg came first.

[The Mad Monkey]

Acquired abilities aren't inherited.

Pushing oneself into becoming stronger, or better at something won't make your children more able because it doesn't change your DNA.

If a sportsman gets kids these won't necessarily become as good as their dad at his sport or even have the potential to do so.

 

Can you prove this?

I don't think so.

In a lot of businesses, athletic, political, scientific, etc, there are dynasties, that proves the potential, and if some children attain higher than their parents, does that not prove that improvement can be passed on genetically?

 

There's been a theory of genetic memory floating about for quite some time, not sure it's been proven or not, but it could account for a lot.

 

Scientifically it's not a circular argument. Metaphorically it is. Just wanted to clarify.

 

I know.

[Diageo]

Can you prove this?

I don't think so.

In a lot of businesses, athletic, political, scientific, etc, there are dynasties, that proves the potential, and if some children attain higher than their parents, does that not prove that improvement can be passed on genetically?

 

There's been a theory of genetic memory floating about for quite some time, not sure it's been proven or not, but it could account for a lot.

 

 

 

I know.

It's more likely to be a case of nurture, as it plays a major part in what a person achieves. Being raised by successful parents would increase their chances to be successful, because their parents will teach them how, and raise them to be how they want. Doesn't necessarily need to be genetics.

 

And there is proof that learned skills are not passed on genetically.

[drahkon]

In a lot of businesses, athletic, political, scientific, etc, there are dynasties, that proves the potential, and if some children attain higher than their parents, does that not prove that improvement can be passed on genetically?

 

No, it doesn't. If children attain higher than their parents it only proves that they put in much more effort. Other parent's children can attain even higher than those children, even if they are not related.

Dynasties might have this particular structure that children improve in the things their parents were good at, but that's because normally they start the 'training' when they are very young.

 

There is no non-genetic inheritance. As I've said numerous times now, acquired abilities cannot be inherited. It's something that has been proven years ago.

Darwin disproved Lamarck's theory of non-genetic inheritance.

 

Edit: Diaego can you please stop being faster than me? :p

 

There's been a theory of genetic memory floating about for quite some time, not sure it's been proven or not, but it could account for a lot.

 

Ubisoft can cover that.

[The Mad Monkey]

It's more likely to be a case of nurture, as it plays a major part in what a person achieves. Being raised by successful parents would increase their chances to be successful, because their parents will teach them how, and raise them to be how they want. Doesn't necessarily need to be genetics.

 

And there is proof that learned skills are not passed on genetically.

 

I don't know, I'm just a layman, but yes, obviously nurture does play a part in some cases, but I think nature could have a bigger hand, there is natural ability. If a child can surpass a parent, surely they have more than their parent could have taught them? I don't know, from what I've heard the subject is mainly theoretical, but I'm a scifi geek, I like to follow these things.

[drahkon]

If a child can surpass a parent, surely they have more than their parent could have taught them?

 

Isn't it far more likely for those children to have better devices for developing their abilities than their parents had instead of 'better genetics'?

[Diageo]

There are people who are predisposed to certain things, so there are people who are predisposed to be more successful, and their children can inherit that. I'm not sure what your point was any more.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Diageo

[The Mad Monkey]

Isn't it far more likely for those children to have better devices for developing their abilities than their parents had instead of 'better genetics'?

 

Is it?

I don't know, do you?

 

There are people who are predisposed to certain things, so there are people who are predisposed to be more successful, and their children can inherit that. I'm not sure what you're point was any more.

 

Something to do with aliens, I've forgotten now myself, was fun though.

[Diageo]

Can't believe I said you're instead of your. Change it in the quote please! :p

[The Mad Monkey]

Can't believe I said you're instead of your. Change it in the quote please! :p

 

No, your mistake will show you are capable of mistakes and weaken your arguments.

 

Besides, I can't seem to edit for some reason.

[drahkon]

Is it?

I don't know, do you?

 

Of course I don't know, but I do believe so. I didn't say that what I'm saying is the truth but for me that's the most likely scenario.

 

Something to do with aliens, I've forgotten now myself, was fun though.

 

Yeah, we've really gotten very off topic. But it's a nice discussion.

[The Mad Monkey]

Of course I don't know, but I do believe so. I didn't say that what I'm saying is the truth but for me that's the most likely scenario.

 

 

 

Yeah, we've really gotten very off topic. But it's a nice discussion.

 

Yep, throwing theories about is fun. Should really get back to the alien stuff.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Just to clarify, evolution doesn't spring from a need. It's a common misconception. All genetic evolutions are entirely random. We just get the impression that they're deterministic because we only see the direct line. Tonnes of mutations were disadvantages, and even some animals with genetic advantages just got unlucky.

[Diageo]

A bit late to the party Dannyboy?

[Supergrunch]

This thread makes me facepalm. (the discovery is cool though)

 

Oh, and just to confuse everything more, Darwin (unlike modern scientists) believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Supergrunch

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

A bit late to the party Dannyboy?

 

I wasn't sure this had been pointed out clearly enough.

 

Oh, and who are you facepalming at, specifically, Grunchie?

[Supergrunch]

Oh, and who are you facepalming at, specifically, Grunchie?

Just the entire discussion of evolution and chicken/egg arguments.

 

Essentially, selection (whether it be natural, sexual, kin, or whatever, but not artificial) is a non-random non-teleological process, with mutation and random genetic drift being the random processes that feed selection. Evolution is what we term the interaction and results of all these phenomena when we combine them with genetic inheritance. Note that acquired characters can be inherited culturally, but not genetically.

 

Also, the bacterium isn't just capable of living in arsenic, it appears to use arsenic instead of phosphorus in all its macromolecules, which is pretty crazy. It brings to mind the astrobiological proposals of silicon-based lifeforms using ammonia as a substrate.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Supergrunch

[The Bard]

Supposedly any element that can form four covalent bonds could be taken as an essential substrate for life, but if you look at the mass number of Silicon, its about 2.3 times greater than that of carbon which means those would be some fucking heavy set life forms.

 

Anyway, this is cool. I assume that the search for life on planets was predicated on being able to locate what we deemed to be the "essential" elements for life in its atmosphere or surface, and this would now be subject to change, since phosphorus isn't necessarily essential any more. Wonder what this means for the rest of the components.

 

As well as this, it means there's probably going to need to be some changes to our categorisations of life forms. What would be really interesting is if they managed to find some eukaryotes with this molecular makeup.