Non-controversial science news.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Non-controversial science news.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat May 16, 2009 2:46 pm

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Do slime moulds no longer adapt to new pathogens? Have there been no new species / sub-species of Coelocanth in the last few million years? Evolution doesn't have to be in huge leaps. That is one of the things that cretinists always get wrong with their "Why are there still monkeys?" bollocks. Evolution doesn't cease simply because a creature is extremely well adapted to its niche and has no need for major restructuring. Small aspects are evolving constantly.

Micro-evolution is occurring all the time - even in humans - we are a lot more resistant to bubonic plague than we once were, and asian flu, thanks to the millions that left the gene pool.

While it is true that the first, recognisable slime moulds evolved many hundreds of millions of years ago, it is not true that those that are around now have not evolved since.
That's just maintaining, IMHO. Not evolving. (Now comes the argument about what "evolving" means. 8-) )
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Non-controversial science news.

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sat May 16, 2009 3:05 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Do slime moulds no longer adapt to new pathogens? Have there been no new species / sub-species of Coelocanth in the last few million years? Evolution doesn't have to be in huge leaps. That is one of the things that cretinists always get wrong with their "Why are there still monkeys?" bollocks. Evolution doesn't cease simply because a creature is extremely well adapted to its niche and has no need for major restructuring. Small aspects are evolving constantly.

Micro-evolution is occurring all the time - even in humans - we are a lot more resistant to bubonic plague than we once were, and asian flu, thanks to the millions that left the gene pool.

While it is true that the first, recognisable slime moulds evolved many hundreds of millions of years ago, it is not true that those that are around now have not evolved since.
That's just maintaining, IMHO. Not evolving. (Now comes the argument about what "evolving" means. 8-) )
Then, your onion, humble though it might be, is wrong.

Evolution is adaptation to a changing environment through natural selection. That can be on a macro or micro level but both are still evolution. Just standing still in this dangerous, everything-eats-everything-else world of ours (maintaining as you term it) requires continuous adaptation.

You are referring to speciation I believe. This is a separate process, closely allied to evolution, but not the same thing. Evolution tends to take an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude (if you will forgive the run-away personification.)
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
Inscrutable Inoculator
Posts: 2942
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:50 am
Location: In Absentia
Contact:

Re: Non-controversial science news.

Post by ScholasticSpastic » Sun May 17, 2009 7:58 pm

Once again, it's all been covered by the time I stumble back onto the scene.

So all I'm going to say here is Word, XC!

Evolution can be defined several ways, with the most general definition being change in allele frequency in a population over time. By that definition, there is never any end to evolution as no population ever ceases to endure mutations and selection events. It doesn't matter if an organism looks the same and eats the same foods the same ways, it's been evolving.
"You've got to be a real asshole to quote yourself!"
~ScholasticSpastic

(I am not a police officer. I am unarmed.)

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Non-controversial science news.

Post by Trolldor » Tue May 19, 2009 10:24 am

FrigidSymphony wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:I know that, I just meant I don't know if our dominance over the entire planet is a sign of prowess or not. We seem to be the most evolved species on the planet so far.
T-rex was highly evolved. But the sauropods weren't cheering when he came along.
Maybe the ends justifies the means :dono: Was T-rex more important to the evolutionary scale than his victims?

It's not really a fair analogy, though, as T-rex didn't follow the same patterns as human beings do.
We are hardly 'more evolved'. We have plenty far to go.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests