h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Mornin',

I'm not denying the existance of coincidences Josh, that would indeed be bizarre. What I am saying is that every single event, ever, has to have countless coincidences for them to occur. Any single event only becomes a coincidence when a human observer comes along and decides that it is one.

That process is *purely* subjective. And as you know science aims to be as objective as possible. If you want to think that coincidence and fate rules your life, fine. But science has nothing to do with it and therefore the anthropic principle has nothing to do with science.

Josh the G, do you think that every "coincidence" is a sign that your God is at work? Is every single little event guided by His hand? Do you really believe that He is totally and utterly omnipotent?



Genetics is defined as the study of heredity, so, of course evolution acts through genetics. That is basic biology, not any invention of Dawkins. "You think genetics is only a small part of evolution, is that correct?": No, I think mutation is a small part of evolution.

"...what other factors contribute to the divergence of species?": Gene flow (or the lack of it), genetic drift (basically random sampling error from generation to generation of alleles) and natural selection (to the respective and different habitats). There are other factors but these are the biggies I think.



This popup conversations gadget is going to be the end of me...



Ste

Josh, have a read through this ....

http://www.tekline.co.uk/h_rohl.htm

Dear Madent and Ste,

In the future, perhaps you could, in addition to referring to my cousing as Josh the G, refer to me as Josh the K (as in: Keeper of the Towels). This will no doubt cut down on the confusion caused from just writing Josh. Thanks.

Dear Josh the G,
Call me some time! What'sa da deal?! We'ra famalia! (Ia cannota writea ina Italiana wortha crapa!)


Dear Madent,
If it is me you were referring to with that sight, I'm afraid that I can't visit it. The filter on this computer says that it's a restricted sight, and unfortunately I do not have the password. Perhaps you could enlighten me...

Still waiting to hear more about scientific mistakes and their impact on society's view of our origins,

Josh, MKOT (aka Josh the K)

Sorry, Madent, the ing filter won't let me look at it.

Hey, I feel really stupid about something here. You know how we were in need of an expert on quantum physics? Well, we still don't have one, but Josh the K here has made a bit of a personal study of quantum physics. Josh?

Ste: "Josh the G, do you think that every "coincidence" is a sign that your God is at work?"

I believe humans have free will. We obviously aren't robots being controlled by God, but I believe that ultimately God is in control. Nothing surprises Him and in the end, He gets what He wants, but He gives us the freedom to make choices for ourselves. Otherwise, you wouldn't be an athiest.

I've read some stuff by a guy named Stephen Jay Gould who appears to be somewhat at odds with Dawkins. Dawkins apparently believes evolution happens purely through mutation, whereas Gould agrees with you.

Natural Selection is another interesting point that seems difficult to me. Obviously the well suited species survive those who are not, but the problem arises in the history of evolution. According to evolution, Life's history is filled with species who diliberately move into regions they are not fit for. Fish get out of the water, apes come down from the trees, birds end up in Antarctica, etc. If these species are intent on survival above all else, what are they doing leaving their natural environment? Now, I realize that sometimes the surrounding environment changes. Then logic suggests that they adapt (i.e. get a woolier coat during the ice age). It makes sense, except that we don't think like that. When the weather gets cold, we migrate as many other creatures do, to warmer areas. The last thing we consider is the gene pool. Let me put this another way: What happens when a fish evolves lungs? It drowns. How do you explain this?

Does your school/home computers forbid you to look at anything questioning the bibles truth? sorry, joke

Let me assure you that no evolutionary biologist thinks that mutation alone is responsible for evolution. Dawkins may comment on mutation and natural selection a bit too much, but that doesn't mean he thinks that they are the sole factors.

"According to evolution, Life's history is filled with species who diliberately move into regions they are not fit for."
Most life-forms have little control of where they find themselves. Most (bacteria, plants, fungi, some insects, etc.) just have to put up with where their spores/seeds/parents happen to be.

But what if a motile species finds a different climate/habitat/whatever where it can take advantage of a niche in the ecology that allows it to flourish? Is this so difficult to imagine? I don't think so.

When a fish evolves lungs it's called an amphibian.

Looking forward to some quantum mechanics lectures.....



Ste

Dear Ste,

I'm not sure why the filter doesn't let me in... perhaps the computer is an athiest...

Who told you I was into quantum mechanics?

Josh the K, MKOT

Look at the top of post 124

Why has your computer got a filter on it anyway?

When some life form is taken out of its natural environment, it dies. That was the point I made with the fish. Natural Selection ought to destroy any life form that is ill suited to its environment.

I hope you weren't trying to send us to a porn site

Internet filters are indeed bizarre. They are firstly unnecissary and secondly they are disastrously incompetent, as you have seen. They will not protect you from the internet's "darker side" and they keep you from going to completely wholesome sites. My computer at home does not have a filter, so tonight I will try to look up that sight.

Anyone for a discussion on the fossil record? I have some big questions there.

When some life form is taken out of its natural environment, it dies. That was the point I made with the fish. Natural Selection ought to destroy any life form that is ill suited to its environment.

I hope you weren't trying to send us to a porn site

Internet filters are indeed bizarre. They are firstly unnecissary and secondly they are disastrously incompetent, as you have seen. They will not protect you from the internet's "darker side" and they keep you from going to completely wholesome sites. My computer at home does not have a filter, so tonight I will try to look up that site.

Anyone for a discussion on the fossil record? I have some big questions there.

mr genious i absolutley agree with you views but how do you feel about moderates?

"When some life form is taken out of its natural environment, it dies"
Are you sure? Why is that the case? Natural selection will favour those who happen to better suited to the new environment. In every population there is variation. Natural selection is not a bludgeoning hammer that "destroys" all that are not suited. It's more like a balancing act: the equilibrium can be tilted in the favour of a characteristic only slightly for it to be selected for over a number of generations.

As for the fossil record, I know little about it. Perhaps Potholer or Frogbit could help? Those are two rock people I know of on h2g2, Frogbot just wrote an entry on ammonites... Invite him along to this forum.

Porn site? Me? Never!

Ste

Strangely enough this seems to be a reply to post 19 . And I assume it refers to the original topic...

In fact, looking at Researcher 190979's homepage it looks like you have a twin Josh the G

Ste

Well, thanks, Josh the G, for informing them of my interest in Q-Physics! Now I'm gonna have to act like I actually know what I'm talking about!
Seriously, I am very interested in quantum physics, and have of late been doing quite a bit of research into the field. Josh the G's uncle, who is a scientist for NASA in California, has kept in touch with me and has (to a certain degree at least) helped me to understand the science better.
It is, in fact, one of the most intriguing fields that exist (no offense to microbiology...). The existance of subatomic fluctuations in space-time, the possibilities of micro-wormholes, the teleportation of particles, particles that appear to suffer no effects of time (i.e. they can travel from one point of the universe to the other in zero time); all of this poses new frontiers for the mind.
If anyone here thinks that any of this is even remotely interested, I would recommend reading Michael Crichton's newest book: Timeline. It does not even begin to scratch the surface, but it is what first interested me, and prompted me to find out more about it. Now, I've learned all sorts of wonderful things, like the fact that in a theoretical model of what is called Calabi-Yau space, the universe exists in 11 dimensions. This would seem absurd, but the theory is that, while we only seem to experience three dimensions of travel and (possibly) one of time, the rest of them are tightly wrapped up and are not, it would seem, accessible or even detectable to us.
The wave of the future in technology will probably figure heavily into quantum mechanics. Already, things like MRI's and retail store merchandise scanners rely on it. Scientists have recently successfully teleported a particle using q-phy principals. Anyway, it is a fascinating field.

And the reason I have a filter is that the Nazis (teachers) here at Dachau-Auschwitz (school) don't want me tapping into top secret government files (porn).

Yours in literature and (I suppose) quantum physics,
Josh the K...

Well, thanks, Josh the G, for informing them of my interest in Q-Physics! Now I'm gonna have to act like I actually know what I'm talking about!
Seriously, I am very interested in quantum physics, and have of late been doing quite a bit of research into the field. Josh the G's uncle, who is a scientist for NASA in California, has kept in touch with me and has (to a certain degree at least) helped me to understand the science better.
It is, in fact, one of the most intriguing fields that exist (no offense to microbiology...). The existance of subatomic fluctuations in space-time, the possibilities of micro-wormholes, the teleportation of particles, particles that appear to suffer no effects of time (i.e. they can travel from one point of the universe to the other in zero time); all of this poses new frontiers for the mind.
If anyone here thinks that any of this is even remotely interested, I would recommend reading Michael Crichton's newest book: Timeline. It does not even begin to scratch the surface, but it is what first interested me, and prompted me to find out more about it. Now, I've learned all sorts of wonderful things, like the fact that in a theoretical model of what is called Calabi-Yau space, the universe exists in 11 dimensions. This would seem absurd, but the theory is that, while we only seem to experience three dimensions of travel and (possibly) one of time, the rest of them are tightly wrapped up and are not, it would seem, accessible or even detectable to us.
The wave of the future in technology will probably figure heavily into quantum mechanics. Already, things like MRI's and retail store merchandise scanners rely on it. Scientists have recently successfully teleported a particle using q-phy principals. Anyway, it is a fascinating field.

And the reason I have a filter is that the Nazis (teachers) here at Dachau-Auschwitz (school) don't want me tapping into top secret government files (porn).

Yours in literature and (I suppose) quantum physics,
Josh the K...

OK then Josh the KoT,

Read post 92, written by Josh the G. What do you think of his "disproving" of quantum theory. I have only a laymans appreication of the subject but I am pretty confident that it's rubbish

Wasn't this why we needed a quantum person? Madent, help?

Ste

Interesting, but how do physicists discern that there are 11 dimensions? Is it mathematical, or did 11 just look like a good number. Like many other facets of quantum physics, this appears bizarre enough to be plausible, but rather insubstantiable.

Read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. It explains a lot of theoretical physics very well to the layman.

The 11 dimension thing is purely mathematical I think. Even though I thought it was 10! hahahaha. I'm useless at any sort of maths, that's why I am a biologist. But I know it's something to do with Riemannian metric tensors. Do a google search on that phrase, stuff should pop up.

I wouldn't be so hasty to call it "insubstantiable". Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's wrong. This stuff is all about logic and is well beyond using empirical data to prove a theory. More like philosophy really....

Ste

Madent,

Actually, you are right (in a way) about it only being ten dimensions. Originally, when the theory was proposed, it was thought to only be ten, but subsequent (mathematical) analyses showed that it was more likely to be eleven. I can't at the present remember exactly why, but I will go dig out my materials tonight and peruse them to get a good idea of exactly what the heck I'm talking about.

Josh, MKOT

Dear Folks,

OK, I read post 93. First of all, quantum theory DOES, at least in a small portion, deal with the possibility of existance of other universes. The theory is so broad and so wild that it would seem to give q-physics a bad name, so it is rarely talked about. But the theory does exist, and it does interact with q-physics.
Again, without refreshing my memory, I would be unable to accurately portray all of this wonderful stuff, but rest assured that I will do my homework and get back to you all on this.

Josh, MKOT

When I wrote post 93, I was refuting only part of the whole quantum theory. There is plenty of legitimate research going on in quantum phyics; I'm just contesting one small point. I am ghastly ignorant when it comes to quantum theory, but somebody has to play devil's advocate