|
On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc.
Interesting...
I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear.
Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring.
It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that.
|
On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that.
Quite interesting. I really can't express my view on this until I read more on the subject. I'll have to research it when I have some time.
|
On June 03 2011 01:59 Riku wrote:
Seriously, if I ever have to explain my Darwin view on evolution again and told I am being illogical when the counter argument is that animals somehow "modify" their genes to adapt to their environment... I am going to throw the closest object out of the closest window.
I found this amusing considering that the real-life namesake of my SC2 character and TL account name, Trofim Lysenko, was a major proponent of these ideas in the Soviet Union, and his prominence led to a couple of Stalin's purges of academic geneticists in the 1930s.
Seemed like an appropriate name for a Zerg player, since the Zerg are always "evolving" things in response to their environment. 
I am not, for the record, actually a proponent of Lamarckism, though I have heard recently that there is some renewed interest in the idea as it relates to certain processes involved in genetic expression. Sounds a little like what the previous poster is talking about, but I am not enough of an expert to tell if we're talking about the same research.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 03 2011 13:17 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that. Quite interesting. I really can't express my view on this until I read more on the subject. I'll have to research it when I have some time.
Ironically on an internet forum I thought the following would be an interesting link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
The idea with epigenetics is linked with "information memes", or genetic memes. Dawkins himself in his follow up to the Selfish Gene outlined how the gene is not the only unit of information passed on, simply the most basic.
If you have read the Selfish Gene I would suggest you read The Extended Phenotype where he expounds on the concept of information memes. It fits quite nicely with epigenetics.
Just for information sake here is the wikipedia link for Epigenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
|
so lyk i totelli hred yuo leik kreayshinizm n stuff, n intelijense is leik really importent n stuff.
I know some people that type like that and it really irks me. Its like you're 20+ years of age, surely the little extra effort can't do that much harm...
|
It's both. They go hand in hand with each other.
Why is it even a question?
|
On June 03 2011 01:59 Riku wrote:
Seriously, if I ever have to explain my Darwin view on evolution again and told I am being illogical when the counter argument is that animals somehow "modify" their genes to adapt to their environment... I am going to throw the closest object out of the closest window.
Reminds me of early HS and a programming contest. Had a problem where I had absolutely no clue how to get even close to a solution within the maximum run time of 1s. So I just looped with rand() solution vectors and checked them. I managed to pass 20% of the tests. So if I could play god and get it right 20% of the time with a 1s limit then I'm pretty sure the universe playing god with billions of years limit can't do much worse. And I'm not even touching well thought evolutionary algorithms here.
|
On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that.
Don't know why you mention Lamarkism here; has nothing to do with any of this. Epigenetics and imprinting is a very interesting and current topic, but does not run contrary to the ideas of modern evolutionary synthesis. In fact, it has more to do with smaller-scale gene expression transfer between 1-2 generations (ok, more research needs to be done here, but generally speaking..) rather than large-scale changes in gene pool (which essentially is what evolution is).
EDIT: Ok, wikipedia, as always, explains this better than I did. Wikipedia on epigenetics' implications on evolution:
Evolution
Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[37][38]
|
On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out:
Ok. No need for evolution 101. I just thought "my Darwin view on evolution" was an awkward phrase -- sort of in a double positive way -- and wasn't sure what you meant. "Darwinian view" would have sufficed and would be clearer.
|
Norway28733 Posts
I liked unichan's post the most in this thread. it shows a realistic outlook on the whole process.
as for dating, it's pretty damn simplistic and can essentially be covered by a couple questions determining whether you are sexually and relationally compatible, and a couple more questions determining whether you should approach a relationship.
do you like talking to *person*? both need to answer yes there.
do you like looking at *person*? and both need to answer yes there as well.
then you need to ask "do I like talking to and looking (the combination of the two - nothing wrong with finding another person more physically attractive than your girl or boyfriend) at another person more than this person?" both need to answer no here.
then you need to ask "are we both looking for the same?", because if one person is looking for sex and the other is looking for a soulmate, it's not gonna work out.
if you're just looking for sex which is fair enough then you can remove "talk to" from the equations, but if you actually want a relationship then none of these questions should yield a wrong answer.
|
On June 03 2011 04:33 jrkirby wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:06 IskatuMesk wrote:
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space? You, sir, are truly hilarious. On topic, I was recently talking to a bunch of people about how sexy a girl who know her math is. I think I said,"Yeah, if they're good looking, that's nice, but if they don't know their math, I'm not touching that!" And my standard for women: If they don't know calculus, they're either too young or to stupid.
I feel bad for that girl who has to pass a math test to date you ^^. You know. Girls being academics is kind of a new phenomenon from the 20 century. Many people were happily married also before that 
|
On June 05 2011 05:50 Mactator wrote:I feel bad for that girl who has to pass a math test to date you ^^. You know. Girls being academics is kind of a new phenomenon from the 20 century. Many people were happily married also before that
Of course if a guy would prefer to talk math with his partner, it's a valid enough standard that she have an interest in it.
|
On June 05 2011 05:50 Mactator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 04:33 jrkirby wrote:On June 03 2011 02:06 IskatuMesk wrote:
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space? You, sir, are truly hilarious. On topic, I was recently talking to a bunch of people about how sexy a girl who know her math is. I think I said,"Yeah, if they're good looking, that's nice, but if they don't know their math, I'm not touching that!" And my standard for women: If they don't know calculus, they're either too young or to stupid. I feel bad for that girl who has to pass a math test to date you ^^. You know. Girls being academics is kind of a new phenomenon from the 20 century. Many people were happily married also before that
I argue that you are wrong or that our definitions of "happily married" differ greatly. I see your happy and raise you constant wars including two global!
|
Lamarkism
Normally I wouldn't correct spelling on TL, but since it appears that there's some somewhat-informed knowledge of this topic here, it's worth pointing out that it's "Lamarckism."
|
On June 03 2011 03:48 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:16 deepfield1 wrote:
pre med.. yet he has problems with evolution? <boggle> You would be surprised at the number of medical students (yes students, not premeds. premeds are a dime a dozen, I'd bet >80% of premeds never make it to medical school) don't believe in evolution, or maybe believe in the "micro" vs "macro" evolution bullshit. This is especially true here in the good ole south. While medicine is founded on the basis of biological science, learning to be a doctor is more like learning to be a mechanic than a scientist, the facts that support evolution that are everpresent in biology don't present themselves as much in the medical field.
A lot of med students suck balls. They're just tryhards who want a guaranteed income. Scientists on the other hand. Those are badasses.
|
On June 05 2011 05:10 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that. Don't know why you mention Lamarkism here; has nothing to do with any of this. Epigenetics and imprinting is a very interesting and current topic, but does not run contrary to the ideas of modern evolutionary synthesis. In fact, it has more to do with smaller-scale gene expression transfer between 1-2 generations (ok, more research needs to be done here, but generally speaking..) rather than large-scale changes in gene pool (which essentially is what evolution is). EDIT: Ok, wikipedia, as always, explains this better than I did. Wikipedia on epigenetics' implications on evolution: Evolution Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[37][38]
Thanks. I only mentioned it because it has relevance in the macro/micro evolution "debate". Like I said my view is very similar, this is just an interesting development. I personally believe that genes are going to be found to be less and less relevant as the research progresses. The fact that we have so few genes that are interpreted in such a variety of ways suggest to me that there is something we are missing. As of now there is little evidence to support this but epigenetics seems one possible route of exploration.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
|
On June 05 2011 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I liked unichan's post the most in this thread. it shows a realistic outlook on the whole process.
as for dating, it's pretty damn simplistic and can essentially be covered by a couple questions determining whether you are sexually and relationally compatible, and a couple more questions determining whether you should approach a relationship.
do you like talking to *person*? both need to answer yes there.
do you like looking at *person*? and both need to answer yes there as well.
then you need to ask "do I like talking to and looking (the combination of the two - nothing wrong with finding another person more physically attractive than your girl or boyfriend) at another person more than this person?" both need to answer no here.
then you need to ask "are we both looking for the same?", because if one person is looking for sex and the other is looking for a soulmate, it's not gonna work out.
if you're just looking for sex which is fair enough then you can remove "talk to" from the equations, but if you actually want a relationship then none of these questions should yield a wrong answer.
That covers a lot of the basics, for example whether you should date or not to begin with, but I find that trust is a very important concept in a relationship that is inherently tied with self-esteem. If you or your partner, or both, have self-esteem issues then you will probably have trust issues in the relationship. This can strain the relationship unnecessarily, and may lead to a break up (or may not, it depends). Jealousy also factors in here, as those with self-esteem issues are also more likely to be jealous, even if their partner hasn't done anything wrong.
On topic, brains and looks are both important. I probably wouldn't become friends with a girl if she was stupid, and I wouldn't sleep with a girl if I didn't find her attractive, so to date her I would probably need both. I am, however, more likely to date a girl initially if I find her attractive. Later on, if she turns out to be stupid, then I would probably break off the relationship since I find that I like talking about "the intellectual shit", as someone earlier called it, more than hanging out getting drunk and partying. Not to say that the two are opposed, but I mean it as a I prefer to talk over doing something, and I am terrible at small talk. I would much rather discuss our place in the universe or analyze people. But that just happens to be me, and "intellectual shit" is different for different people. My knowledge of math or physics is pretty poor when compared with my knowledge of history or philosophy, so I will gravitate towards the latter. *shrug*
|
Sort of an odd OP, just imo, but the responses/the overall thread are/is really interesting :>
...and as usual, discussion dies after my post ;;
|
On June 07 2011 12:50 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I liked unichan's post the most in this thread. it shows a realistic outlook on the whole process.
as for dating, it's pretty damn simplistic and can essentially be covered by a couple questions determining whether you are sexually and relationally compatible, and a couple more questions determining whether you should approach a relationship.
do you like talking to *person*? both need to answer yes there.
do you like looking at *person*? and both need to answer yes there as well.
then you need to ask "do I like talking to and looking (the combination of the two - nothing wrong with finding another person more physically attractive than your girl or boyfriend) at another person more than this person?" both need to answer no here.
then you need to ask "are we both looking for the same?", because if one person is looking for sex and the other is looking for a soulmate, it's not gonna work out.
if you're just looking for sex which is fair enough then you can remove "talk to" from the equations, but if you actually want a relationship then none of these questions should yield a wrong answer. That covers a lot of the basics, for example whether you should date or not to begin with, but I find that trust is a very important concept in a relationship that is inherently tied with self-esteem. If you or your partner, or both, have self-esteem issues then you will probably have trust issues in the relationship. This can strain the relationship unnecessarily, and may lead to a break up (or may not, it depends). Jealousy also factors in here, as those with self-esteem issues are also more likely to be jealous, even if their partner hasn't done anything wrong. On topic, brains and looks are both important. I probably wouldn't become friends with a girl if she was stupid, and I wouldn't sleep with a girl if I didn't find her attractive, so to date her I would probably need both. I am, however, more likely to date a girl initially if I find her attractive. Later on, if she turns out to be stupid, then I would probably break off the relationship since I find that I like talking about "the intellectual shit", as someone earlier called it, more than hanging out getting drunk and partying. Not to say that the two are opposed, but I mean it as a I prefer to talk over doing something, and I am terrible at small talk. I would much rather discuss our place in the universe or analyze people. But that just happens to be me, and "intellectual shit" is different for different people. My knowledge of math or physics is pretty poor when compared with my knowledge of history or philosophy, so I will gravitate towards the latter. *shrug*
Lawl when I said that I didn't like talking about intellectual bs I meant like long-winded political or science/math type discussions that I see some my friends as couples having. This is probably because I don't give a damn about politics and intellectual stuff beyond school extends to math competitions and that's it - not necessarily something I'd want to discuss with a significant other anyways, I don't want to get too competitive with a boyfriend about this kind of stuff. I'm not saying that I like small talk, or just talking about ourselves all the time, it's just that I like to discuss chill things like games or TV or movies, but I really hate it when this devolves into theorycrafting or discussions on the film maker's purpose, or the underlying theme/meaning/crap blah blah. That kind of stuff is better left to talking about with friends or in classroom settings because I hate it when people try to push their opinions on me and I hate feeling like I'm pushing my opinions on others - which inevitably happens in a one on one conversation. In a discussion with multiple people it feels less like you're shoving your ideas in their face and more like you are gently presenting them. Obviously I don't want to just go out with an idiot who is like hurr durr derp all the time and says things that are so stupid they make me cringe, or someone who is completely clueless when I mention something like quasars or p-values (to be fair, I'd probably be completely clueless if someone mentioned something relating to current world issues or politics). This probably relates to the fact that I am a super chill person and never take anything seriously - when someone is taking shit more seriously than me I start to get kind of mad and I type out long things where I yell at them for coming to me about their serious crap since they know I can't help and I don't care (yeah this happened recently lol, I don't mean personal problems I meant he kept complaining to me about balance and shit, which I really don't give a shit about). You're probably like wtf right now, this isn't a chill post unibro you just typed a whole fucking essay, which is kind of true, but sometimes I start typing and I can't stop, gg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
