Members in Shoutbox
None.

Shoutbox Search
You may search for a phrase in the shoutbox.

Search for:


Shoutboxcommands
/w [name] Whispers.
/r Answers to whisperer.
/me Marks as action.

Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete one or more of your shouts at any given time without notice and reason.
The Shoutbox may be good to ask for small pieces of advice, but for real questions, you still want to use our Forums
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.

[2015-8-27. : 5:15 am]
Sand Wraith -- Sand Wraith
Sand Wraith shouted: jjf28 I meant to say the concept of survival of the fittest
i.e. natural selection*
[2015-8-27. : 5:05 am]
Sand Wraith -- I'm gonna go layman-guess that epigenetics translates eventually to chromosomes
[2015-8-27. : 5:02 am]
Sand Wraith -- jjf28
jjf28 shouted: Sand Wraith mm, but evolution must come down to genetic material, or you're talking about a definition outside of biology
I meant to say the concept of survival of the fittest
[2015-8-27. : 5:02 am]
jjf28 -- Sand Wraith
Sand Wraith shouted: in any case, it's safe to say that genetic inheritance does not solely play a role in evolution (afaik)
mm, but evolution must come down to genetic material, or you're talking about a definition outside of biology
[2015-8-27. : 4:57 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Oh_Man
Oh_Man shouted: That is a very simple basic explanation. There are exceptions and stuff, like lions/tiger crossbreeding resulting in ligers.
I think it's fertile offspring, which rules out lion/tiger pairings
[2015-8-27. : 4:56 am]
Oh_Man -- We aren't even biologists. It's just layman discussing with another layman.
[2015-8-27. : 4:55 am]
Oh_Man -- Well well, maybe epigenetics is bringing it back somewhat. But I'd still say that's just a redefinition of Lamarckism.
[2015-8-27. : 4:54 am]
Oh_Man -- "Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has continued (2009) as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation"
[2015-8-27. : 4:53 am]
Oh_Man -- All I'm saying is Lamarckian inheritance is an antiquated evolutionary theory that has been refuted for a long time.
[2015-8-27. : 4:52 am]
Dem0n -- :O
[2015-8-27. : 4:51 am]
jjf28 -- Dem0n
Dem0n shouted: Wut game
SC helms
[2015-8-27. : 4:50 am]
sakuckoinvius -- Honestly, Evolution is way more complex than everything that has been brought to this chat. Although debating how 1 single thing flip it upside down is the moment where I usually quit argueing
[2015-8-27. : 4:44 am]
Sand Wraith -- in any case, it's safe to say that genetic inheritance does not solely play a role in evolution (afaik)
[2015-8-27. : 4:42 am]
Sand Wraith -- no one mentioned epigenetics?
[2015-8-27. : 4:21 am]
Oh_Man -- species is probably a layman's term. I'm sure taxonomy is more thorough.
[2015-8-27. : 4:20 am]
Oh_Man -- That is a very simple basic explanation. There are exceptions and stuff, like lions/tiger crossbreeding resulting in ligers.
[2015-8-27. : 4:20 am]
Oh_Man -- From my limited understanding, not being an expert in biology, something is only classified as a new species if it cannot successfully reproduce with the other variant.
[2015-8-27. : 4:12 am]
Dem0n -- Wut game
[2015-8-27. : 4:12 am]
sakuckoinvius -- that make no sense... I just dunno how to argue with that image though...
[2015-8-27. : 4:11 am]
jjf28 -- gaming time, might come back to this later
[2015-8-27. : 4:09 am]
jjf28 -- sakuckoinvius
sakuckoinvius shouted: okay, so before chicken, what was it ? (I am sort of busy so I'm not making researches) Take step 1 and all of suddent boom a bunch of new born decided to change themself? nah
I wouldn't put it like that, here's a good illustration https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution.svg/631px-MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution.svg.png
[2015-8-27. : 4:09 am]
sakuckoinvius -- okay, so before chicken, what was it ? (I am sort of busy so I'm not making researches) Take step 1 and all of suddent boom a bunch of new born decided to change themself? nah
[2015-8-27. : 4:07 am]
jjf28 -- you can say the change happened at a specific moment in time; you ofc can't nail down when exactly this was, but you can say with a fair amount of confidence that the moment existed
[2015-8-27. : 4:07 am]
sakuckoinvius -- And that very moment is when people assume "species have changed". They where almost the same a day before that very moment, and a month before that you couldn't see the difference either
[2015-8-27. : 4:06 am]
sakuckoinvius -- names are given by human, only when human notice them or see enough changement to give a new name to something that already existed.
[2015-8-27. : 4:04 am]
jjf28 -- sakuckoinvius
sakuckoinvius shouted: In Evolution theory, you can't say "from that time, that happened". It happened before and will happen after that specific point. Chickens were chickens before they were named chickens,
usually you can say that that a change warranting a separate classification happened at a specific point in time, as it's very unlikely for two offspring to acquire the same heretitable change that warranted the new name
[2015-8-27. : 3:58 am]
sakuckoinvius -- In Evolution theory, you can't say "from that time, that happened". It happened before and will happen after that specific point. Chickens were chickens before they were named chickens,
[2015-8-27. : 3:55 am]
sakuckoinvius -- I'll give you an example how individual can "evolve" as a species. Would you agree that 50 years ago, there was a lot less fat people? Technologies that human created made changements, and the "homo sapiens" evolved into fatter kids (there are other reasons as well, I just don't wanna do a list of reasons). Would you say that we're a new species for that? I'd say we evolved as individual/society into fatter people, less nomad people etc
[2015-8-27. : 3:50 am]
sakuckoinvius -- Let's say thru evolution, there are species, but every years the whole species evolves, slowly but surely. The moment you decide to call a change of species in the name of evolution, you do put the species's name on the animal itself, not on the current sperm of it's dad.
[2015-8-27. : 3:50 am]
jjf28 -- sakuckoinvius
sakuckoinvius shouted: but that's just to point out "stronger genes" doesn't always apply... Badluck happens to everybody and every species... these are theories made on "really closed mind world", which is why I disagree to accept that theory as an arguement
it doesn't matter if it doesn't always apply, it can still be the primary reason species evolve
[2015-8-27. : 3:47 am]
sakuckoinvius -- but that's just to point out "stronger genes" doesn't always apply... Badluck happens to everybody and every species... these are theories made on "really closed mind world", which is why I disagree to accept that theory as an arguement
[2015-8-27. : 3:45 am]
sakuckoinvius -- Okay and let's say white rhino are extincted while other rhino didn't, just because human decided that white rhino's fur would make wonderful coats.
[2015-8-27. : 3:44 am]
Oh_Man -- Like, tigers may be really fucking strong on land. But if the world floods then the tigers will die, and the weak fish will rule.
[2015-8-27. : 3:43 am]
Oh_Man -- It's not strong as in Arnold Swarnezzeger. By strong one would mean ''has the highest chance of survival IN THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES"
[2015-8-27. : 3:43 am]
jjf28 -- species can die out due to substantial enviornmental changes, this says nothing about evolution
[2015-8-27. : 3:42 am]
sakuckoinvius -- I do disagree with the "stronger genes". So many stronger species died for many many reasons (example human's fault that specific species extinction)
[2015-8-27. : 3:42 am]
Oh_Man -- why should i put time and effort in explaining the why Lamarckism is incorrect when you can just read the wiki article yourself
[2015-8-27. : 3:41 am]
jjf28 -- it's due to individuals with stronger genes*
[2015-8-27. : 3:41 am]
Oh_Man -- look man unless you read that article we can't have a conversation
[2015-8-27. : 3:41 am]
jjf28 -- species evolve, but it's due to stronger genes surviving till maturity or undergoing more reproduction, not changes to genes over an individuals lifetime
[2015-8-27. : 3:39 am]
sakuckoinvius -- "progression"
[2015-8-27. : 3:39 am]
sakuckoinvius -- "evolution chain"
[2015-8-27. : 3:39 am]
jjf28 -- what chain is this?
[2015-8-27. : 3:39 am]
sakuckoinvius -- if I don't evolve doing that and I don't pass it on, the chain is broken
[2015-8-27. : 3:38 am]
sakuckoinvius -- then chain is broken and nobody evolves ? o.O
[2015-8-27. : 3:38 am]
jjf28 -- you won't change then DNA you'll be passing on
[2015-8-27. : 3:37 am]
sakuckoinvius -- yourself will "evolve" into being able to deal with colder/hotter weather within your lifetime. that is evolution (changement within yourself)
[2015-8-27. : 3:36 am]
sakuckoinvius -- or hotter, with desert and such
[2015-8-27. : 3:36 am]
sakuckoinvius -- Let's say, I dunno people who go in colder country... (simple as that)
[2015-8-27. : 3:35 am]
sakuckoinvius -- first... Wiki article... second yet you just point out different thing
[2015-8-27. : 3:34 am]
Oh_Man -- read up on that wiki article and you'll be on the same page
[2015-8-27. : 3:34 am]
Oh_Man -- nope, that is factually untrue
[2015-8-27. : 3:34 am]
sakuckoinvius -- if you train to become a swat officer, I assume your child has higher chance to have athletic body
[2015-8-27. : 3:32 am]
sakuckoinvius -- well, that's exactly how we lost almost all our hairbody
[2015-8-27. : 3:32 am]
jjf28 -- it wouldn't be evolution per say, but it would result in a chicken from a prior species
[2015-8-27. : 3:32 am]
Oh_Man -- If I train to become a SWAT officer, and have a child, my child doesn't gain that training.
[2015-8-27. : 3:32 am]
Oh_Man -- Lamarckism is not correct.
[2015-8-27. : 3:31 am]
Oh_Man -- You're thinking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
[2015-8-27. : 3:31 am]
jjf28 -- Oh_Man
Oh_Man shouted: and it occurs during the combination of the sperm and the egg, not DURING an individual's life
sure it could, all their genetic material could spontaneously change in the same way, thus forming a chicken :kame:
[2015-8-27. : 3:31 am]
sakuckoinvius -- so, people who can survive extreme weather, or specific condition with training is mutation or evolution to you ?
[2015-8-27. : 3:30 am]
Oh_Man -- and it occurs during the combination of the sperm and the egg, not DURING an individual's life
[2015-8-27. : 3:30 am]
Oh_Man -- evolution is random mutation combined with natural selection
[2015-8-27. : 3:30 am]
Oh_Man -- yeah and then that would be mutation, not evolution
[2015-8-27. : 3:29 am]
jjf28 -- individuals could spontaneously have every cell undergo a random mutation; course that's ridiculously rediculous :)
[2015-8-27. : 3:29 am]
Oh_Man -- I won't change species in my life time. I was born homo sapien and I will die homo sapien
[2015-8-27. : 3:29 am]
sakuckoinvius -- every single species changes, but for that to happen, every individual does change a little. It's like saying "continents move but not my house"
[2015-8-27. : 3:29 am]
Oh_Man -- yeah, over the course of many generations. An individual doesn't evolve.
[2015-8-27. : 3:28 am]
Oh_Man -- species evolve
[2015-8-27. : 3:28 am]
sakuckoinvius -- life is known to adapt itself to the condition it's put into...



Members Online: Deactivated; testing around! :)