An Interesting Intellectual puzzle...

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

The thing with a theory too, it can be tested and replicated...usually.  I haven't seen The Big Bang Theory get tested and replicated yet, unless one means re-runs.

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences; i.e. it can be tested and replicated. A theory, on the other hand, is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (i.e. an explanation based on the result of testing hypotheses). It's semantics, but in science it's important to make that distinction.

To be perfectly honest, I've lost my train of thought and forgotten where I was going with that. However, I'm going to post it anyway, 'cuz definitions are fun.  :doh:

Good call.

 

[erogenousjones17]

The thing with a theory too, it can be tested and replicated...usually.  I haven't seen The Big Bang Theory get tested and replicated yet, unless one means re-runs.

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences; i.e. it can be tested and replicated. A theory, on the other hand, is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (i.e. an explanation based on the result of testing hypotheses). It's semantics, but in science it's important to make that distinction.

To be perfectly honest, I've lost my train of thought and forgotten where I was going with that. However, I'm going to post it anyway, 'cuz definitions are fun.  :doh:

Good call.

Thanks.  :icon_thumright:

And here I was all set to apologize for being a jerk ain my last post.

 

[Jusatele]

I have the answer to all of this
there is a reason we developed the sexual reproduction thing...........................so that men would be interested in woman, otherwise what would be the use of being around them.


::running and hiding::

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

And we learned to work on cars and open jars.  Why else do they need us around?

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Thanks.  :icon_thumright:

And here I was all set to apologize for being a jerk ain my last post.

When you're right, you're right.  I get that confused with the hypothesis, and even more confused with the differences between a law and theory.

 

[kboman]

And here I was all set to apologize for being a jerk ain my last post.

I pretty much returned to this thread now to say exactly what you did (but more poorly worded), so thanks! :icon_thumright:

It's a pretty important piece of semantics, because in scientific practice theory is a very long way from "guess", which appears to be what most people think it is.

 

[-CB-]

So let me ask this question of all you learned individuals.

If a genetic mutation arose, that by its nature prohibited reproduction, would you expect that mutation to gain a strong presence in the gene pool, or would you expect it to remain nearly non-existent?

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

So let me ask this question of all you learned individuals.

If a genetic mutation arose, that by its nature prohibited reproduction, would you expect that mutation to gain a strong presence in the gene pool, or would you expect it to remain nearly non-existent?

I think I see where you're going.  Is homosexuality genetic or chosen?

Damnit, we were doing so good.  I've thought about this.  There's plenty of evidence that both are true.  Perhaps it's a latent gene (if genetic), like gray hair, as an analogy to the straight person that turns gay.  It can change the older you get.  You spread the non-reproductive gene after you've reproduced?

 

[AprioriMark]

I've enjoyed this thread quite a bit. 

I actually have a huge personal beef with Aristotle over how we now think.  The knife of Reason is an imperfect idea, and does not leave room for all possibilities.  Over time, it ends up as self-correcting (sorta), but it's a painfully boring process.  Some things (especially guitars, women, and to a certain extent God), I don't want to try to define.  Leave me in ignorant bliss; happy and whole.  The reality of the impact to my life is much more important to me than the weight of any assumed value.

-Mark

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

So let me ask this question of all you learned individuals.

If a genetic mutation arose, that by its nature prohibited reproduction, would you expect that mutation to gain a strong presence in the gene pool, or would you expect it to remain nearly non-existent?

I think I see where you're going.  Is homosexuality genetic or chosen?

Damnit, we were doing so good.  I've thought about this.  There's plenty of evidence that both are true.  Perhaps it's a latent gene (if genetic), like gray hair, as an analogy to the straight person that turns gay.  It can change the older you get.  You spread the non-reproductive gene after you've reproduced?

Without spewing my own belief on that, if genetic, there are dominant and recessive genes.  Let's turn it to hair color.  My Mother and Aunt are both redheads.  They look too much like their parents to even suggest illegitimacy, yet no one in memory in our family is a redhead but them.  They are because both parents carried that recessive gene and through random pairing, it was dominant.  I am not a redhead, but carry that gene.  If my spouse also carries that gene and they are paired, voila.  So it is possible to carry and pass on what you would call a mutation even though exibiting no dominant signs.

 

[-CB-]

So then, a pairing of genes that produces sterility in offspring would not be passed on, yes?  As in, one reason we dont see mules running around in the general equine gene pool?

 

[Cagey]

The gene is passed on, but its progeny may not reproduce, as it may be sterile. But, not all genes are expressed in the offspring. Part of what makes heterosexual reproduction a survival trait is the natural filtering that takes place through DNA repair when the two strands are "anded". This has a tendency to repress mutations, or at least reduce the likelihood of their being reproduced unless the mutation begins to show up in larger populations.

 

[jalane]

Here's an interesting intellectual puzzle for ya...How the f@ck is this thread 5 pages long?  Seriously, it's unofficialwarmoth.com, not unofficialpretendlikeiknowwhatthef@cki'mtalkingaboutwhenitcomestounanswerablephilosophicalandscientificdebates.com
How is this thread allowed to go on when politics and religion talk is supposedly forbidden? 

Sorry, i'd be happy to ignore this thread and let y'all have your chicken v. egg debates, but i was stupid enough to post some smartass comment early on in the thread, and now it keeps showing up in my 'replies' section... :doh:  Should have seen that one coming, why wouldn't a random philosophy question generates 5 pgs. worth of banter on a guitar building forum?  ???  :dontknow: :doh:  :sad1: :confused4:

 

[kboman]

One of the best threads we've had in a long time, friends! Intelligent and civil, me likey.

Anyway, it appears that "macro evolution" is not an accepted term among those who actually work in the field, but here are two observed examples:
- Genetic change in E. coli bacteria - The slow progress of the process makes it very difficult to observe, but it seems it can be done, and has been. Bacteria would be the natural place to start looking I guess.
- The beginnings of speciation between to flycatcher populations - The ornithologist in me perked up a bit, very cute birds!

Another very fascinating possible example is the Silver fox domestication experiment in Siberia. I saw part of a tv program on this and basically, they have produced more or less tame foxes in 40 generations by selecting for one desirable behaviour (tameness) as defined by the experiment's hypothesis. Parallell to this they have also bred a control group without any particular selection and they remain as ferocious as regular wild foxes. The conclusion of the research group as I understand it is that only genetic change could have brought about this change in behaviour, as the foxes have very little contact with humans.


Jalane: Religion is not against the guidelines afaik (reread them recetly as per the mod's recommendation) and since everyone is behaving very well I don't see the problem Well, apart from the "Updated thread" thing, I know how annoying that can be :icon_jokercolor:

 

[Cagey]

Sorry, i'd be happy to ignore this thread and let y'all have your chicken v. egg debates, but i was stupid enough to post some smartass comment early on in the thread, and now it keeps showing up in my 'replies' section... :doh:  

There's a "Notify" selection at the top of the thread where it says  Mark Read  |  Notify  |  New Topic  |  Post new poll  Click on that and you can turn off notifications of posts to the thread.

 

[Jusatele]

Love the thread and the points brought up
Evolution, Religion, Sexual Preferences, normally things that cause arguments, to think a bunch of musicians can discuss it and not argue, What a strange thing.
I still want to explore why we need sexual difference to reproduce when so many primitive forms do not, and what that has done to promote the species, Besides amoebas, and such, a lot of plants are either male female or both, so why did some evolve and others not? Before we can answer a lot of the questions, and put theory to rest and have fact, we should explain why some have and others have not, but both have not gone extinct. In other words, why, under the same conditions do some have to change and others do not, And what ws the benefit of the change?

 

[-CB-]

The gene is passed on, but its progeny may not reproduce, as it may be sterile. But, not all genes are expressed in the offspring. Part of what makes heterosexual reproduction a survival trait is the natural filtering that takes place through DNA repair when the two strands are "anded". This has a tendency to repress mutations, or at least reduce the likelihood of their being reproduced unless the mutation begins to show up in larger populations.

I'm just talkin mules here... so the mule cannot pass on the "I am a mule" trait, yes?

 

[Cagey]

I'm just talkin mules here... so the mule cannot pass on the "I am a mule" trait, yes?

Right.

 

[-CB-]

Gotcha.

 

[Wyliee]

One of the best threads we've had in a long time, friends! Intelligent and civil, me likey.

Jalane: Religion is not against the guidelines afaik (reread them recetly as per the mod's recommendation) and since everyone is behaving very well I don't see the problem Well, apart from the "Updated thread" thing, I know how annoying that can be :icon_jokercolor:

You'll note the guidelines are not exhaustive in their terms and bylaws.  There is a general spirit laid out.  Speaking for the administration, we're not interested in playing word games or thread the needle with the guidelines..  This is a guitar centric forum, not a free for all.  Issues like policitics, religion, sex, etc... tend to be highly divisive.  Threads of this nature are subject to deletion without notice.  If the thread can remain respectful and civil of people's opinions and beliefs, I'm willing to allow some room to stretch.