by Xerographica » Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:03 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bombadil » Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:16 am
by Imperium Sidhicum » Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:53 am
by New Greater Netherlands » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:00 am
De Telegraaf: In Brussels there were violent protests against the current government and against the Christian Conservative policy between 19:00 and 21:30. Minister of the Belgian States Kees van der Staaij says he wants to have a talk with the rebels, since this has to be arranged through the House of Representatives and / or the King (with other officials: The Ministers have little to say) van der Staaij is going to have between 23:00 and 4:00 a debate in the Lower House with Minister-President Dave Hagen and the other Political Parties
by Pope Joan » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:41 am
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:It's just gas moving through the bowels. I think it has nothing to do with evolution, there being more obvious and unmistakable ways of indicating hunger.
by The Grim Reaper » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:44 am
Xerographica wrote:Why does your stomach growl when you are hungry? It provides a physiological explanation but no evolutionary one.
Though stomach growling is commonly heard and associated with hunger and an absence of food in the stomach, it can occur at any time, on an empty or full stomach.
by Xerographica » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:22 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bombadil » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:38 am
Xerographica wrote:Otherwise it would imply that most of nature is random.
by Xerographica » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:19 am
Bombadil wrote:Xerographica wrote:Otherwise it would imply that most of nature is random.
Do you think gene mutation has a purpose in and of itself.. truth is the result of that mutation is either damaging, of no consequence or an advantage to the organism.. the mutation can fit a purpose but not have inherent purpose, it's a random mutation.
Evolution is random, at best one could say that life increases in complexity but that is a statistical issue not a purpose of evolution.
You're straying into the Puddle Theory of things
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. - Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species
It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Purpelia » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:43 am
by The Grim Reaper » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:08 am
Purpelia wrote:In general I agree with you. That's what I think. That and that I am happy someone else on this forum has picked up the torch of realizing our bodies are machines crafted by evolution and not some sort of magical god given thing that does things because it can. Everything inside us, every mechanism and behavior no matter how complex or voluntary/involuntary/automatic can be explained through evolutionary sources.
As to why things are as odd as they are, I'll have you all keep in mind that evolution is a process not toward the best but toward the cheapest that works. And cost here is measured primarily by how much energy the system uses. Evolution it self is basically a process that goes something like this: Make bunch of random variants -> throw away the worst mistakes -> return to square 1. Not very sophisticated engineering but it gets the job done.
Xerographica wrote:Are the physiological explanation and the evolutionary explanation mutually exclusive? When babies are hungry they cry. Their crying obviously has a physiological explanation... but you'd figure it would also have a pretty obvious evolutionary explanation as well. My guess is that most biological things have an evolutionary explanation. Otherwise it would imply that most of nature is random.
by Philjia » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:25 am
Xerographica wrote:Bombadil wrote:
Do you think gene mutation has a purpose in and of itself.. truth is the result of that mutation is either damaging, of no consequence or an advantage to the organism.. the mutation can fit a purpose but not have inherent purpose, it's a random mutation.
Evolution is random, at best one could say that life increases in complexity but that is a statistical issue not a purpose of evolution.
You're straying into the Puddle Theory of things
Mutations are random but evolution sure isn't. All organisms are subject to selection by nature...It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. - Charles Darwin, On the Origin of SpeciesIt is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by Trumptonium » Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:39 am
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:19 am
by Dumb Ideologies » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:23 am
by Galloism » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:45 am
Bombadil wrote:Though the rate and force of peristalsis typically increases in the presence of food, activity also increases after the stomach and small intestines have been empty for approximately two hours.
Doesn't seem to prove you're hungry according to your article, it might be louder.. but it doesn't only happen when hungry. The growl might just be sound side effect of the evolutionary advantage of pushing substance through your stomach and intestinal system.
by New Gaireniahr » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:31 am
by Xerographica » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:50 am
The Grim Reaper wrote:Your understanding of evolution is an anti-scientific application of your economic ideals onto primitive societies, and furthermore is directly contradictory to the modern anthropological understanding of how the division of resources works in pre-market societies. Food was communally distributed, it wasn't just arbitrarily the responsibility of a guy who was eating a meal to share his meal with hungry people.
Deception in communication results in a fitness increase that is gained by the signaler and a fitness loss that is paid by the receiver (Mock 1999). - Mark E. Hauber and Caitlin K. Ramsey, Honesty in host-parasite communication signals
From that insight, Trivers reasoned that a physically weak offspring might use ‘psychological weaponry’ — specifically, begging signals that inflated its true needs. This would con parents into the desired (and, for the parents, deleterious) skew. It is not clear what might constrain such deceit, although various costs of the signals themselves have been proposed as forcing the whole system back to honest signalling. - Douglas W. Mock, Driving parents cuckoo
More generally, if there are mechanisms that allow honest communication without a handicap, these less expensive alternatives should be favored over handicap signals, which can impose an arbitrarily high cost on their creators. - W. Tecumseh Fitch and Marc D. Hauser, Unpacking "Honesty": Vertebrate Vocal Production and the Evolution of Acoustic Signals
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Greed and Death » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:09 am
Pope Joan wrote:Imperium Sidhicum wrote:It's just gas moving through the bowels. I think it has nothing to do with evolution, there being more obvious and unmistakable ways of indicating hunger.
Right, it reminds me of the way the pipes in my housed rattle and knock at times, something to do with "water hammer".
Our house has not evolved its plumbing
by Xerographica » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:38 am
The Two Jerseys wrote:So what do my farts signal?
According to a new video from the American Chemical Society (above), it’s all about one canine literally sniffing out important information about the other—its gender, emotional state, diet, and more. “Think of it kind of like speaking with chemicals,” the video’s narrator says, referring to the glandular secretions released by glands in a dog’s anal sac. “In fact, this butt-sniffing action is just one of many examples of chemical communication in the animal kingdom.” - David Freeman, Why Do Dogs Sniff Each Other’s Butts? It’s More Complicated Than You Might Imagine
“Man smells poorly,” Aristotle wrote, while Charles Darwin concluded that a sense of smell was of “extremely slight service” to the civilised human. When it comes to detecting odours, we have long dismissed human abilities as second-rate.
Now this view has been challenged in a scientific analysis that argues the human sense of smell has not only been underestimated, but that it may rival that of dogs and rodents. - Hannah Devlin, Not to be sniffed at: human sense of smell rivals that of dogs, says study
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Purpelia » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:47 am
The Grim Reaper wrote:That is a wonderful general description of evolution that in no way validates Xero's claim that the human body has evolved a way to 'honestly signal' people about its hunger via a mechanism that is neither honest nor a meaningful signal.
by Xerographica » Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:48 pm
Purpelia wrote:Personally I feel that the mechanism has more to do with telling you that you are hungry than telling other people.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Holy Tedalonia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:28 pm
by Galloism » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:29 pm
Holy Tedalonia wrote:My belly used to occasionally growl when I wasn't hungry. People usually interpreted it to do with hunger. Every time I roll my eyes.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Almighty Biden, Ancientania, Big Eyed Animation, Bimflurpity, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Ineva, Kannap, Kareia, Kaztropol, Khoikhoia, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, New Westmore, Shrillland, Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries, The Holy Therns, The Jamdoin, The Jamesian Republic, Tungstan, Uiiop, Uvolla, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement