An Atheist Philosopher reconsiders.

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'll hafta let you know when I've mulled it a bit. You don't speak the same lingo in your biology clothes.

I never knew about the rocky coastal areas being the original home of pteranosaurs. The first dump ducks.

I thought dinos were pretty much classed as Aves nowadays. They look birdlike to me, but what do I know?

cantdog

Yeah, they had a very birdlike bone structure which is why the condensed theory exists of "they evolved into birds". This is an inaccurate way of putting a truthful statement, but it works to convey the essential gist. Birds are an offshoot of dinos.

Sorry about the lingo change. It's like my superhero outfit, but far sadder and geekier.

 

[cantdog]

I'm glad there's no backsliding on the birds thing. It seemed to parse so well.

I am always cool with lingo. Lingo is the spice of convo, for me.

For example, there was a propositon that multiple universes could exist, but Joe defined it off the turf, saying "universe" meant "all that is." Whereas, in the lingo of the cosmologist, as a technical term, I feel pretty sure it refers to a bubble of space-time such as the one we find ourselves in now, essentially an object started by a big bang and with characteristic contents. On that basis, although they would likely be unknowable to denizens of our own, I see no logical reason to assume there haven't been many such. What rule would preclude more than one cosmic egg?

There was even speculation from the direction of the people with the big mass accelerators that there might well necessarily have to be another, one with mostly anti-matter, created simultaneously. Those guys can't seem to make a lot of the particle things happen without also producing anti-particles at the same time.

If it's a by-product of the "regular matter" universe's formation, then the technical term should probably include both, since you can't have one without the other.

But other cosmic eggs would make other pairs of universe(s), if there were such.

 

[nushu2]

If you want to look at mutation in our lifetimes, look at our domesticated animals. Dogs, cats, cows etc. That's not evolution, technically, but follows the same principles. It's hard to look at a St. Bernard and a toy poodle and say they're the same species. I was going to say chihuaha but I'm not too sure about them.

The basic process of evolution is genetic mistakes. Some of the mistakes are better at exploiting a certain aspect of the enviroment. There is no goal of evolution, just survival. If a giraffe's neck seems improbable, consider our own brains, which are far more complex than needed. Although, walking through the malls at this time of year, I begin to doubt that.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If you want to look at mutation in our lifetimes, look at our domesticated animals. Dogs, cats, cows etc. That's not evolution, technically, but follows the same principles. It's hard to look at a St. Bernard and a toy poodle and say they're the same species. I was going to say chihuaha but I'm not too sure about them.

The basic process of evolution is genetic mistakes. Some of the mistakes are better at exploiting a certain aspect of the enviroment. There is no goal of evolution, just survival. If a giraffe's neck seems improbable, consider our own brains, which are far more complex than needed. Although, walking through the malls at this time of year, I begin to doubt that.

No, not just genetic mistakes (random mutations), but also chance incorporations (mitochondria, beneficial bacteria, etc) and viral transpositions (genetic code added from elsewhere). And that's not including the methods for bacteria and the human inclusion (humans editing genetic sequences to incorporate a particular trait).

Yes, to the rest though and the main gist.

 

[cantdog]

The dog breed thing, to my mind, is a good example of the sort of pressure natural selection would exert to tone down variation and to standardize.

The dogs can still reproduce with one another, genetically, but physically it gets more and more unlikely as the forms diverge. Like high-bottom cows, which necessitate the bull bring something to stand on.

cantdog

 

[Pure]

cant: It seems that if the population is under stress, being aggressively hunted, or poisoned, or driven out by wolves, or whatever the stress is, the coyote moms begin making much larger litter sizes happen.

Lamarckian features put to one side, and also rejecting the idea of voluntary control by the mother of the number of eggs which will be fertilized, what this means is that there is some kind of built in response system, maybe triggered with hormones. It goes into effect, shifts the reproductive production into high gear, as it were, when the pack is under real threat.

What sensory trigger, though, can it be using? What would tell a given organism that the pack was in need of greater replenishment? The whole system was mysterious and puzzling.

Speculatively --- you know the problem of 'just so' stories-- I can think of several triggers. A pack under stress and attack and pressure, is a) on the run, b) deprived of sleep, c) deprived of food, d) scared, e) affected by disappearance of one's pals.

All of these are linked with pack shrinkage situations. In such a situation, picture two female coyotes (or two reproducing pairs), one who produces more kids and one who doesn't. Well, with certain assumptions--that kids don't further deplete the available nutrients-- more kids may well be an advantage. Hence selected for, etc.

 

[Pure]

bump.