An Interesting Intellectual puzzle...

[jalane]

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.

I can definitely respect that, and i completely agree that, for the most part, everything i've read on here has been pretty civil.  Honestly, i was mostly just mildly annoyed that i kept getting notifications about this topic, seeing as how it's not guitar-related.  Carry on...  :icon_biggrin:

 

[elfro89]

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:

Jalane man, this thread isn't about politics or religion, no-body is here to knock/bash/disprove peoples belief's. Or at least thats not what i intended. I simply wanted to see what others believed and to have a nice open debate where many things are discussed in relation to this topic.

I hate to sound like im going against my own morals by saying this, but this is clearly posted in the off topic section of the forum, where you are free to choose to reply or not. Please feel free to exercise this right, but don't think its your place to tell me or anyone else that they should or shouldn't post of this kind of discussion on a forum you do not own. If the moderators feel i have violated the terms and rules, or if you feel i have and wish to launch a complaint, feel free to do so. But until it is removed i will also excerise my right to discuss it with other members with similar interrests in this topic.  :icon_thumright:

ok jalane i apologize for this outburst! totally uncalled for! but rather then delete it before you read it, i though i would let you know what was written! i apologize man!

 

[elfro89]

not to promote or sell somebody elses product, But i've found brian greene's books to be of great interrest to read. alot of the concpets i struggle to understand and i am definitely not mathematically gifted  :sad1: but seriously check out his books, they are a great read and really give some great insights into where physics is going nowadays!

 

[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:

Jalane man, this thread isn't about politics or religion, no-body is here to knock/bash/disprove peoples belief's. Or at least thats not what i intended. I simply wanted to see what others believed and to have a nice open debate where many things are discussed in relation to this topic.

I hate to sound like im going against my own morals by saying this, but this is clearly posted in the off topic section of the forum, where you are free to choose to reply or not. Please feel free to exercise this right, but don't think its your place to tell me or anyone else that they should or shouldn't post of this kind of discussion on a forum you do not own. If the moderators feel i have violated the terms and rules, or if you feel i have and wish to launch a complaint, feel free to do so. But until it is removed i will also excerise my right to discuss it with other members with similar interrests in this topic.  :icon_thumright:

ok jalane i apologize for this outburst! totally uncalled for! but rather then delete it before you read it, i though i would let you know what was written! i apologize man!

Hey man, i think you're right on this one.  I definitely didn't mean it to sound like i was bashing any of you guys taking part in this debate, what i was mostly saying was that every time i would log on more posts in this thread had been made, and it was surprising to me considering that it's not guitar-related (i know i know, 'off topic' section... :icon_thumright.  And basically, i'm lazy, and i was starting to get annoyed that everytime i logged on it was in my 'unread replies' thread.  I didn't know that i could undo that (thanks Cagey).  And all the 'Evolution is real/not real' debate was starting to sound creepily similar to a religious debate to me.

Also,

Seriously, it's unofficialwarmoth.com, not unofficialpretendlikeiknowwhatthef@cki'mtalkingaboutwhenitcomestounanswerablephilosophicalandscientificdebates.com

c'mon, that's funny, right?!  :icon_jokercolor:

But really though, i meant no offense to anyone, my apologies.  I'm going to go do 50 push-ups and write "I will not try to get in the way of a debate about Evolution ever again" 1,000 times on a chalkboard...  :icon_jokercolor:

 

[elfro89]

Seriously, it's unofficialwarmoth.com, not unofficialpretendlikeiknowwhatthef@cki'mtalkingaboutwhenitcomestounanswerablephilosophicalandscientificdebates.com

c'mon, that's funny, right?!  :icon_jokercolor:

well... maybe a little...  :laughing7:

it would be one hell of a page to remember...

 

[B3Guy]

Well, I consider myself a Christian (which to me simply means a person who tries their best to follow the example of Jesus Christ), and I believe in micro evolution, no sweat. (evolution within a species)  :icon_thumright:

where I run into disagreement is macro-evolution (evolution from one species into another, for which I haven't ever found any indisputable evidence). macro-evolution is a theory, and that's how I think it should be treated . . . as a theory, not fact. sure, you can look at fossils and say they connect "links", but that doesn't cut it for me.

part of the issue is bigger for me. in western society, scientific knowledge is considered the only form of truth. but I fell strongly that there are other sources and form of truth besides the systematic, mathematic scientific stuff. IDK, I guess I'm just a philosopher at heart, (or maybe just an artist) . . . not a scientist. Science can do lots of cool things and all, but if you think it has all the answers, then you have my pity.

anywho, that's my 2c. not trying to offend, push, shove or other wise be a d-bag, just adding my worldview into the discussion.  ccasion14: cheers.

 

[B3Guy]

Seriously, it's unofficialwarmoth.com, not unofficialpretendlikeiknowwhatthef@cki'mtalkingaboutwhenitcomestounanswerablephilosophicalandscientificdebates.com

c'mon, that's funny, right?!  :icon_jokercolor:

well... maybe a little...  :laughing7:

it would be one hell of a page to remember...

oh, and yes, it WAS funny  :laughing7:

 

[drewfx]

where I run into disagreement is macro-evolution (evolution from one species into another, for which I haven't ever found any indisputable evidence). macro-evolution is a theory, and that's how I think it should be treated . . . as a theory, not fact. sure, you can look at fossils and say they connect "links", but that doesn't cut it for me.

My question here would be, "Where have you looked for (indisputable) evidence?"

The genetic code, which determines how DNA is translated into proteins, is almost identical for virtually all living creatures. Note that there is an enormously huge number of possible genetic codes, but only this one particular one is used across wildly divergent species.

 

[AGWAN]

One sentence Show Review.

The Scarlet Pimpernel: Terrorist fails to please wife sexually,mocks gays.

 

[NLD09]

To answer the original question...

I would imagine that something came along (like a disease) that negatively affected whatever the organism (asexual) was. And the diseases particular function or goal was to inhibit whatever protein it was that allowed the organism to asexually reproduce, and in the reproduction process the organism was split into male and female halves rather than making an exact replica of itself. Some organisms were naturally immune to the disease and thus remained asexual whereas our new male/female organism was forced to mate. Through mating we get mutation which led to a quicker evolutionary process for male/female organisms (making them dominant over time) and here we are.

that's my best theory, coming from someone who hasn't really studied anything.

 

[Jusatele]

To answer the original question...

I would imagine that something came along (like a disease) that negatively affected whatever the organism (asexual) was. And the diseases particular function or goal was to inhibit whatever protein it was that allowed the organism to asexually reproduce, and in the reproduction process the organism was split into male and female halves rather than making an exact replica of itself. Some organisms were naturally immune to the disease and thus remained asexual whereas our new male/female organism was forced to mate. Through mating we get mutation which led to a quicker evolutionary process for male/female organisms (making them dominant over time) and here we are.

that's my best theory, coming from someone who hasn't really studied anything.

OK I can go with that except...... life forms that are both male and female. Why do we have some plants that need to have sex (flowers) but can fertilize themselves? Was that a backward evolution because some seed blew further than other? or did they do that first and then split into sexes.
The reason to ask is, if we still have such, is it more advanced than we are? Are we the top of the evolution of sexual reproduction of just waiting to evolve till we to can fertilize ourselves by having both sex organs?

 

[NLD09]

To answer the original question...

I would imagine that something came along (like a disease) that negatively affected whatever the organism (asexual) was. And the diseases particular function or goal was to inhibit whatever protein it was that allowed the organism to asexually reproduce, and in the reproduction process the organism was split into male and female halves rather than making an exact replica of itself. Some organisms were naturally immune to the disease and thus remained asexual whereas our new male/female organism was forced to mate. Through mating we get mutation which led to a quicker evolutionary process for male/female organisms (making them dominant over time) and here we are.

that's my best theory, coming from someone who hasn't really studied anything.

OK I can go with that except...... life forms that are both male and female. Why do we have some plants that need to have sex (flowers) but can fertilize themselves? Was that a backward evolution because some seed blew further than other? or did they do that first and then split into sexes.
The reason to ask is, if we still have such, is it more advanced than we are? Are we the top of the evolution of sexual reproduction of just waiting to evolve till we to can fertilize ourselves by having both sex organs?

we would be at the top of the evolutionary process, because unlike plants which can cross-pollinate allowing different genetic crosses, thus fighting disease, we have to procreate. If we were able to fertilize ourselves then we would be taking a step back in evolution because there would be no genetic crosses. Just asexual reproduction meaning that all our ancestors would be the same as we are now. way in the future if a major disease came through that affected all humans we wouldn't be able to survive through mutation.

and i would imagine the plants evolved into multi-cell organisms something similar happened. A disease inhibited whatever protein caused asexual reproduction, but instead of splitting into male and female halves in two different cells, the male and female halves existed within the same cell. which i suppose would explain why there hasn't been a plant that has evolved to the point of animals yet. The Male/Female process works best for evolution, Asexual reproduction works the least, and plants are kind of in limbo.

my best guess anyways.

 

[elfro89]

To answer the original question...

I would imagine that something came along (like a disease) that negatively affected whatever the organism (asexual) was. And the diseases particular function or goal was to inhibit whatever protein it was that allowed the organism to asexually reproduce, and in the reproduction process the organism was split into male and female halves rather than making an exact replica of itself. Some organisms were naturally immune to the disease and thus remained asexual whereas our new male/female organism was forced to mate. Through mating we get mutation which led to a quicker evolutionary process for male/female organisms (making them dominant over time) and here we are.

that's my best theory, coming from someone who hasn't really studied anything.

i like that, but that would mean that both male and female had to have been created at the exact same time, or it would have ment complete death for the organism. But im sure i remember reading somewhere about that being next to impossible? i don't know much about biology at all.

But if for some benign reason we had an asexual reproductive organism that mutated into an organism that then required both sexes... isnt that a bit of a giant leap in how the species reproduces?

so that could mean that it was something that developed over along period of time, but then, what was the pivotal moment that it needed a mate to reproduce... and where was this mate? unless it produced it itself...does that sentance even make any sence?

 

[drewfx]

i like that, but that would mean that both male and female had to have been created at the exact same time, or it would have ment complete death for the organism. But im sure i remember reading somewhere about that being next to impossible? i don't know much about biology at all.

But if for some benign reason we had an asexual reproductive organism that mutated into an organism that then required both sexes... isnt that a bit of a giant leap in how the species reproduces?

so that could mean that it was something that developed over along period of time, but then, what was the pivotal moment that it needed a mate to reproduce... and where was this mate? unless it produced it itself...does that sentance even make any sence?

You seem to be approaching this from the point of view of a single organism evolving from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction in a single step, and I believe this makes the question seem more confounding.

Instead think of a colony of thousands (or millions) of organisms evolving over time - initially a few start "mixing" their DNA in one way or another, which in certain environments gives them an advantage. Over an extremely long period of time (millions or billions of years) the descendants of the colony evolve to reproduce sexually instead of asexually, because sexual reproduction's advantages significantly outweigh its disadvantages over the long term in the (possibly changing) environment the colony lives in. It doesn't just happen to a single individual in one step.

 

[Jusatele]

Now for one more fly in the ointment
If we are on top of the evolutionary sexual production ladder............
There is a fish in the ocean, that if there are not enough fish of a certain sex, can change it's sex to fertilize the eggs of the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictichromis_diadema
would not that be further up the ladder than ourselves?
Why do we have to believe we are on top?

I am not arguing for the sake of it, I am just adding points to an argument that offer a different viewpoint, As that with evolution we need to see why each has done as it has and how it helped that species and why we did not need to do such.

 

[Nightclub Dwight]

I love you guys!  I'm not even drunk, and I say that.  Really, this discussion is great, whether any of us are right or wrong, its pretty cool to swap ideas like this.  And pretty cool of Warmoth to let the discussion roll due to its civility.  Thank you to everyone involved.  ccasion14:

(I'm trying to resist the temptation to say "truely an evolved group we've got here.")

 

[NLD09]

Now for one more fly in the ointment
If we are on top of the evolutionary sexual production ladder............
There is a fish in the ocean, that if there are not enough fish of a certain sex, can change it's sex to fertilize the eggs of the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictichromis_diadema
would not that be further up the ladder than ourselves?
Why do we have to believe we are on top?

I am not arguing for the sake of it, I am just adding points to an argument that offer a different viewpoint, As that with evolution we need to see why each has done as it has and how it helped that species and why we did not need to do such.

lol yeah but we've evolved "intellectually" enough to do that surgically, so its all good.

 

[Cagey]

(I'm trying to resist the temptation to say "truely an evolved group we've got here.")

I know what you mean. I'm trying to resist the temptation to say a lot of things <grin>

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Now for one more fly in the ointment
If we are on top of the evolutionary sexual production ladder............
There is a fish in the ocean, that if there are not enough fish of a certain sex, can change it's sex to fertilize the eggs of the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictichromis_diadema
would not that be further up the ladder than ourselves?
Why do we have to believe we are on top?

Frogs can do that too.  In Jurassic Park, you'll remember the missing dinosaur DNA was spliced with frog DNA to fill in the missing pieces.  In the movie, to curb and control the population, all animals were born female, but they found nests of fertilized eggs in the park.  Jeff Goldbloom's Chaos Theroy Scientist character explains it away as, "...life finds a way."  The book's reason is that the frog DNA is compensating for the lack of the opposite sex.  The gender swapping aspect was probably too much for a movie aimed at kids.  On a side note, Samuel L. Jackson's smoking wasn't, ore even Samuel L. Jackson.

 

[Justinginn]

So I think it's genius how they used blood from insects stuck in amber for Jurassic park but a lot of dinosaur bones we find are still part bone and have dino dna right there. Kinda ironic right? So hey, maybe we could pull of Jurassic Park.  :icon_jokercolor: