Formal Discussion between Key and thaumaturgy

thaumaturgy · Feb 27, 2007

Unable to address any points until after a 2 week ban.

(I will be permanently banned for this reply, no doubt)

Sorry but this board is apparently busy infantilizing their readers so the mods have to work super-hard!

Talk to you later.

Key · Feb 27, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
Unable to address any points until after a 2 week ban.

(I will be permanently banned for this reply, no doubt)

Sorry but this board is apparently busy infantilizing their readers so the mods have to work super-hard!

Talk to you later.

We will take a break till then, It would be wrong of me to now post when you can not respond.

Let me know when you can post again, and we will resume our discussion.

I hope all is well with you.

God Bless

Key.

Key · Mar 24, 2007

Welcome back...

thaumaturgy said:
To my knowledge this has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is Gould et al's explanation of data related to the rate of change in response to stressors.

That is one aspect, it is not the whole, I might have made a mistake regarding what I have read about that.

However, Lets carry on.

Evolution, fundamentally, is a non-directional process. While "Survival" is the ultimate benefit, survival is not a driving force. Evolution is a passive process in which deficits are removed.

That goes against every Adaptation model, (Evolution is not just Adaptation, at least not in Theory), However, Also note, that Adaptation is more then just Natural Selection.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html

Now According to this, Natural Selection is a Directive Force, or a Maintaining Force.

IE: It will force a Life Form into a New Direction to Survive, or it will Force a Life Form to maintain as it is to survive.

Now I may be confusing what you mean by a Passive action, as everything says that Natural Selection is a very aggressive, active and exacting process.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html

Co-Evolution relates to the interdependence of two systems. As I also pointed out, I do not wish to limit this stressor-stressee to solely biotic systems.

We have already agreed upon this. As far as I know, Co-Evolution means all environmental stressors, from the type of earth you walk on, to what you are going to eat, to what is going to eat you, to how hot or cold it is in the area.

IE: Caustic Evolution.

This is crucial and perhaps I misread your original points, but there is no definition of evolution that I am aware of that implicitly or explicity states evolution to be a "directional" process of any sort.

The directive of Natural Selection is Survival, the Premise of Adaptation is Survival.

All Adaptations are to increase the fitness of a life form to survive. They are not all necessarily genetic modification however.

Even co-evolution only relates as far as the stressor-stressee mutual relationship.

You are correct, and does not allow for mutations that have no bearing on the overall survival of the life form, IE: Eye Color of modern humans. However, it is still based on the Genomes Survival itself, IE: Does it get passed on, or does it pass away.

I this case, if only blue eyed people had offspring, the Genome for Brown Eyes dies out, it did not survive.

It is rational to assume that those factors which select against certain features will result in the proliferation of features that are the opposite of those selected against.

Perhaps you will need to find me a reference in which evolution is capable of "directing" something beforehand.

Please enjoy the link.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html

This is not what happens. Evolution, fundamentally, has only those inputs of genetic mutation, genetic drift, genetic flow and a passive filter to select against them.

Maybe my biggest problem here is, the use of the term Passive Filter.

Two species that carry between them a "co-evolutionary" relationship are linked in such a way that (let's take for example a lion and a gazelle), the lion is the environmental stressor that selects against slow gazelles or gazelles without sufficient visual acuity to note the presence of the lion. The faster gazelles are, themselves, a selective force against lions incapable of catching faster gazelles (the lion has to eat).

Yes. But this does not look passive. It is directed, the Lion needs to Eat (To survive), and Gazelle needs to Survive (Not Get Eaten), they both will develop means to overcome each others defenses or offensives. This the very foundation of Evolution and Adaptation.

Note how this is not the same as saying Lions make faster gazelles. Faster gazelles make faster lions. It will likely turn out that way, but that is a subtle and very important key difference in how evolution is acting.

Why it is not the same?

The Lion applies stressors to the Gazelles, thus the Gazelles need to Adapt (Develop) an Escape from Lions, the gazelles either Adapts or Die in this Case, as the Gazelles Adapt to overcome the Stress the Lions place upon them, the Lions equally need to adapt to overcome the Stress that the Gazelles now place upon them. They act upon each other, as such, they force Adaptations to occur and thus Evolution marches on.

The Stressor of each other action upon each other forces each one of them to develop adaptations to survive. This is the primary aspect of Evolution.

Now Genetic Drift is a passive change, only if it does not pass though the filter of natural selection.

The predator-prey relationship is a system of selection factors against mutations that are detrimental.

As well as ensure the passing on of beneficial ones, neutral ones, that offer no greater chance of survival may or may not pass on, but, the traits that will increase fitness of survival are pressured to pass on in this case.

So by the evidence we have, we know it more then just the removal of detrimental traits, as it also enforces the survival of beneficial traits. Thus is one aspect of Adaptation at its simplest form.

Adaptation is not simply Natural Selection, that is a very important thing to remember for this discussion.

To give an example, as it relates to our discussion, take Lucys Feet:

Lucy may have adapted flat feet from her migration habits to find forgeable food. In this sense, she may have been born with a high arch to her feet, but, because of her environment and necessity of travel, her feet became flat.

We can not tell one way or the other at this point. However, what we do have is that her feet were flat. That is what the evidence says. So that is what we have to work with.

Now this form of Adaptation is written into the Genetic code for this happen, but if it happens it does not become a new genetic trait that will be passed on to the offspring.

Another Example: If you worked a desk job, your hands would become suite for the desk job, nimble fingers for working at the keys, etc. this is a product of what you do with your hands, not a genetic trait of the hands themselves. If you changed your job and went to work mixing concrete your hands would become harder, stronger, tougher, and more resistant to damage over time. However these changes do not modify the genetic code of the hands themselves.

Your offspring would not inherit the traits your hands had due to your profession, but only what genetic traits you had at birth, as the variant in your hands to become as they became was a written variable to allow for you to adapt to your environment.

That is why Adaptation is not just Natural Selection.

Now, This type of environmental personal adaptation can become genetic code in a way, such as, if we had a group of humans that went from desk jobs to labor jobs, only those that had the genetic code to allow for their hands to change the most to accommodate the environment stressors would survive, this they would pass that code on to their offspring, and such the offspring would have the genetic adaptation trait that their hands would accommodate hard manual labor and become strong and resilient, with work.

This is the basic premise of the insects immune to pesticides, some of them had a genetic variant that allowed their immune system adapt to the pesticide, and they would pass this trait on to their offspring. Thus the next generation, some would still die from the pesticide, but those that possessed the adaptation qualities to survive would live, until all of them possessed this trait. But this is Genetic Drift.

There is no conception of evolution that I have ever heard of, read about, or learned in any paleo or bio class that meant that there was some "force" driving "toward" any particular goal.

Survival seems to the main Theme, the ability to best suit and fit your environment.

Even evolution has an Objective, even if it as simple as Not Die out

But let's look at all the facts on the table and no theory here.

The only things that life can and are proven to do:

1. Reproduce (imperfectly)
2. Die

It will die, eventually. The only question is, when and what it will do before it dies.

The span between Birth and Death is the major factors of Evolution, Life will be weeded out by Stressors, so only that which s best suited for its environment will survival to reproduced.

The only inputs available to cause any change are genetic factors (mutations, drift) and the only way for these factors to carry forward is through reproduction. If the animal is incapable of reproducing before it dies the mutations it carries or the reproduction-based variability (sexual reproduction as opposed to assexual which will not vary the genetic compositon) will not be passed along.

Yes. Absolutely !

Again, not to be overly pedantic, but indeed "survival" is the ultimate benefit, but evolution, no matter what model currently accepted by biologists, is not a driving directional force. It is a system by which detrimental features are selected against and removed. This will mean that those that make it through the filter will be capable of survival in that environment and will succeed.

I think the problem we have, is that I am trying to explain that it is a two way filter, and you are saying it is a one way filter. However, we might have an agreement.

Maybe if we looked at it this way: Whatever does not benefit the life from to survive will not pass the filter. The only variable unaffected by this filter are traits that carry no bearing on survival.

It does not, however, mean that the Angraecoid orchid did anything to force AFrican moths to grow longer proboscii, what it means is that the orchids with deeper flowers were a selection against moths with short proboscii (presumably moths with long proboscii could still work with shallower flowers).

Ok, I think there is a problem here. Think about this, the African Moth needs to eat, the Moth eats these flowers, the flower has very deep petals (Maybe developed to catch more moisture from the rain of something). The Deep petals of the flower acted upon the moth as a stressor, as such, only the moths with the longest proboscis could eat the flower. Now you may be right, they did not force the moth to grow the longer, but it did provide a force upon the moth to either find a way to eat the flower, or die off. This is selected the trait that will be allowed to pass on, and as such, those moths that did not have long enough ones, would die off, or eat something else. Now, we have seen that life will generate things to survive, like Fruit Flies when their diet changed to meat, developed the proper enzymes to digest meat. So, what do we say then?

Or the fact that Life on this planet Breaths Air?

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/07/01/backwards_probability_and_creationist_fl

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=5632

Lamarkism is the process you may be thinking of. In Lamarkism it is the efforts at adapting to an environment undertaken by a life form that help future generations survive. This is largely discredited.

There is some truth to his claim. If a life from does not have a means in its code to allow it to survive, then it will die out.

Unless this Code for allowable adaptation is tested by stressors, it will not become a part of life group, it will be a random trait, only though stressors will the effects of genetic drift act upon this variable in code to make it a common trait among the life group.

However, I do not agree with this Lamarkism Theory as a whole, If that is what it seems I have implied, then I am sorry, maybe I have over complicated my approach.

Evolution is a passive process in which factors can only be eliminated, not developed for a particular purpose. Even co-evolution to my knowledge falls under this term. Co-evolution is the relationship, but still dependent upon the fundamental core of evolution's mechanism.

I think my problem is the idea of Passive in this sense.

Thus, as it stands, what ever develops must pass though the filter of external stressors, to validate its continuance in existence. What is Important to its Survival will develop, what is not, will be removed.

That is all I have been looking at, this is why I listed the Advantages as they relate to the External Stressors upon the Human life.

Now all Adaptations focus only upon fitness for survival, as such, any adaptations that do occur will occur for the benefit of fitness of survival, that is the very nature of Adaptations. However not all Evolutionary (As per the Theory) changes in life group will be for survival IE: Genetic Drift.

Have I explained my stance, and are we on a level platform again, or do we need to discuss this out further?

I would like to add that, Although I accept Genetic Drift, and Natural Selection, I do not accept randomly occurring mutations as a viable means of evolutionary progress of animal life forms. Mainly because I do not see any evidence that shows in animal life where Mutations can occur that are not harmful. (Hybrids are not Mutations, they are Genetic Drift)

If you have evidence of positive mutations happening in animal life, then I would be more then happy to accept that, but we agreed that for this discussion, we only have the evidence.

I would hate for us to be failing to have this platform by which we can discuss this topic. So if we need to work out this issue, then let us work it out.

God Bless

Key.

thaumaturgy · Mar 25, 2007

Key said:
That goes against every Adaptation model, (Evolution is not just Adaptation, at least not in Theory), However, Also note, that Adaptation is more then just Natural Selection.

...

Now I may be confusing what you mean by a “Passive” action, as everything says that “Natural Selection” is a very aggressive, active and exacting process.

Let me explain why I think there is a very important point to be made about "Passive" terminology usage.

Evolution is really a pretty simply "machine". It is a SIEVE.

The sieve does one thing and one thing only: it allows those things smaller than the mesh to pass through. It is completely incapable of doing anything else. It cannot "grind" the particles finer, and it cannot "reaggregate particles" on the other side.

This is evolution in a nutshell.

One the TOPSIDE of the sieve is:

Genetic Mutation & Genetic drift (random/statistical process)

On the BOTTOMSIDE of the sieve is:

Surviving lifeforms.

The only INPUT you have to the system is a random process, the only output is a living creature. The sieve itself selects AGAINST those traits which make survival statistically unlikely.

It is obviously not a perfect filter, but as in all statistical processes it develops toward a "central tendency".

I am being overly pedantic on this point precisely because it is subtle but important.

This is why it is key (no pun intended) to understand that evolution is selecting AGAINST traints and not FOR traits. It can't select FOR a trait, because a survival trait and a trait that has no negative effect are indistiguishable. But a NEGATIVE trait can be distinguished by the sieve and rejected.

I think this is very important only because I don't want to come back to the topic if there is any disagreement on what is "driving" what.

There is no "drive" toward anything. Survival = reproduction = further survival of the genetic line. That's why it appears to be a "drive" because it keeps the life-form in the game. But the flower isn't working toward anything. It isn't gaming the system in any way. It just survives.

Literally that is all the flower does. It doesn't DO anything but photosynthesize. It just photosynthesizes and occasionally the gametes gather together and make a new seed which then falls to the ground and survives.

This is how a CHEMICAL REACTION works essentially.

Reactant A + Reactant B --> Product C

A doesn't SEEK B to make C, in fact this is a major point in reaction kinetics. A is in a vat with B and they are moving around RANDOMLY. If A is capable of reacting with B then the rate at which they react to form C is proportional to how often they literally BUMP INTO each other and with what amount of "Force". In chemical reactions the chemist can "game the system" by adding lots of A and B in and raising the temperature so they hit more often and with greater force and react to make C (NOTE: This is a gross simplification but apropos to the discussion).

Once the reactor vessel is sealed then there is nothing A can do about making more C faster than the conditions will statistically allow.

Evolution doesn't cause a life form to do anything. It is incapable of CAUSING an action. It is only there to REJECT A NEGATIVE TRAIT.

That's because that is all it can do. It is the SIEVE. Not the mill, not the cement. The sieve.

Everything rejected from the sieve is washed away.

We don't have to discuss this too much more as long as you note that I am merely asking that no PROACTIVE action or INTENT be applied to Evolution.

And to also keep in mind that it is a statistical process. There are tails to the distribution: animals born with horrible defects, some born with genetic diseases that make their lives horrible but which they are capable of passing along to offspring, etc.

Anything that is NOT rejected before the animal reproduces and doesn't statistically impact the reproductive abilities of the progeny cannot be differentiated from a BENEFICIAL mutation.

So bad genetic disease such as Huntingtons Disease can and do get passed along despite the fact that they are bad diseases. I can't imagine a survival benefit that arises from Huntingtons, but it is indistinguishable to the SIEVE from a BENEFICIAL mutation.

As long as the animal can pro-create before it dies and its progeny can pro-create before they die this mutation will be passed along.

Key · Mar 26, 2007

I believe this is wrong on many levels.

I know this is a simple idea, however, we both know that "acting against negative traits" is not a simple as it works.

Evolution is the overall affect, not a process, but a description of the process as we think it happens.

The sieve as you call it, is Natural Selection, , which is only One part of the Evolutionary process, and not the whole.

Evolution is the Process of Adaptations (Directed changes in the Life form to better survive IE: The Hand example), or Genetic Acclimation of those adaptations (IE: Reproduction).

genetic Drift, IE: Skin tones, eye colors, longer limbs or appendixes to get nectar from flowers, etc, etc, that allow for the life form to survive (Via it's offspring).

Genetic Drift, and Adaptation are grinders, they are active as they control the outcome of the next generations, Drift only has effect on the posterity, where Adaptation affects both the current life and it's posterity.

Now, When we look at the Caustic Model, we see that forces, IE: Predators, environment, food sources, etc, etc, etc, All act upon the life from, triggering adaptations and filtering out any drift that does not produce positive combinations of genetic code for the posterity.

This is why we can use this model to generate safe bacteria, and make other forms of medical advancements (Given it is the Adaptation Model, but it still works).

Mutations (Which I give no credit to) are equally "Grinders" shall we say, as they perform the duty of active change, to recombine and mutate the DNA strands to see if they will fit though the sieve of "natural selection"

In this case, yes, Evolution has a Sieve, it also has Grinders, and combiners.

And yes, there is direction, just as the sieve works, if you change the sieve, what passes though it will equally change, as such, any modification to the sieve, modifies what can pass it, as such, this is directed, by changes in the Sieve. The Sieve is not in Stasis, it equally changes, as it changes, what it filters changes as well. Hence, the Direction may be viewed as "Pass though the Sieve" that is what all life desires to do.... survive, and to do that, they need to make though the sieve of "Natural Selection" or "Caustic Affects upon it".

Maybe this is where we have our problem.

But so far, this has been informative, No links provided, as all info has been previously provided in prior links.

God Bless

Key

thaumaturgy · Mar 26, 2007

Key said:
I believe this is wrong on many levels.

In statistical inference there are two choices for the scientist:

1. Reject the Null Hypothesis
2. Fail to reject the null hypothesis

There is no "Accept the alternate hypothesis", although the alternate hypothesis is usually written such that by rejecting the null the alternate is accepted.

In jury trials the defendent is guilty or "not guilty". Never is the defendant found "innocent".

This is a similar differentiation.

So that I don't derail this too far I just want to make sure that we both agree that animals are not capable of "Inducing" any genetic changes in themselves. Flowers are not "doing" anything to make themselves more attractive to the butterfly.

The gazelle is not taking a few minutes out each day to "visualize" his DNA changing to make his offspring faster.

I know that sounds flippant but there are some out there who will no doubt think that animals and plants and bacteria can do something about their survival.

If I am born a lame gazelle there is naught that I can do to avoid statistically being devoured by a lion. Nothing.

IF, however I am an old gazelle who has been able to avoid being eaten it was precisely because I had whatever combination of random chance and good genes to make me fast and capable of survival.

I will gladly drop this line of discussion if and only if ("IFF" in mathematics parlance) we agree that animals and plants are not directly responsible for their adaptations. That indeed the "adapted" survive the "maladapted" perish.

Once an animal is made it can do nothing to ensure it's own survival.

Evolution is the Process of Adaptations (Directed changes in the Life form to better survive

I am still kind of stuck on "directed" because it makes it sound like the something is "directing" it, or pushing it forward. While I realize this is not necessarily what you are trying to say, I think this is where I have the hang-up. "Directed" indicates a preferred route. In fact there are many many routes to survival. A genetic mutation that results in a null or survival advantage (ie is NOT selected against by natural selection) is not necessarily the ONLY way the process could have gone.

"Directed" also indicates to me that we could, ab initio, develop a model that would tell us the ONLY way an animal will adapt to survive and the animal will indeed adapt that way.

Genetic Drift, and Adaptation are grinders, they are active as they control the outcome of the next generations,

Ah ha! THis is the key. They are not technically speaking "doing" anything. Imagine if you were to play a game where you stepped out your front door with a coin in your hand. You take 7 steps and flip a coin to determine if you go right or left, heads = right, tails = left. The coin is the random input. You are not going to be able to predict with certainty any "route" you will take. In other words, the inputs are random and the outputs are not "directed" in any specific way.

Drift only has effect on the posterity, where Adaptation affects both the current life and it's posterity.

Can you give me an example where an animal actively changed its genetic make-up such that the survival of progeny was impacted?

Surely I can adapt to living in a different climate. I can wear heavy coats and take vitamin supplements to get the necessary vitamins I might miss from my native climate. But if I reproduce my offspring will have to do the exact same things I did. If I adopt my child out to another family who just moved into the area and don't know how to survive in this climate my child will likely die.

I may have adapted after a fashion but there is nothing I can do, even given several generations of this that will keep my offspring alive to adapt to this new environment.

The giraffe did not "extend" its neck until it could eat from high branches. High branches became available to giraffes with long necks.

triggering adaptations

I am unaware of how this process works. So if I buy a thousand puppies and kill those who have a brown spot on their left ear fur, I will cause the remaining puppies to "trigger" a non-brown-spot gene?

Or do you really mean those who just happen to NOT have this gene will be able to reproduce and ultimate I will weed out all the brown-spotted ear puppies?

THIS is what I'm talking about.

Mutations (Which I give no credit to)

So you are claiming that there is no genetic mutation? That the only input is "genetic drift"?

are equally "Grinders" shall we say, as they perform the duty of active change,

Just as your "random walk" with the coin does. It is not directed in any way.

to recombine and mutate the DNA strands to see if they will fit though the sieve of "natural selection"

And this is my point exactly. A random change is thrown at the sieve and if it doesn't pass it is removed, if it does it is passed along, perhaps to the next sieve.

In this case, yes, Evolution has a Sieve, it also has Grinders, and combiners.

The Grinders are random.

And yes, there is direction, just as the sieve works, if you change the sieve, what passes though it will equally change,

Ah but will you agree that if I find a gazelle who can outrun a bunch of dumb lions and I suddenly put it in an ecosystem where it now faces smart wolf-packs equally hungry for flesh, that its adaptation is now rendered useless. There was no "direction" for it to go. It adapts to whatever stressors are available not "toward some goal".

The Sieve is not in Stasis,

yes the sieve changes. Yes the predators wind up more capable of catching the prey and yes this feedback alters what survival traits in the prey are "valuable". But I just want to be clear that the gazelle doesn't wake up one day and review the "tactics" the lions took only to realize the lions have now started using a "flanking strategy" to offset the speed advantage of the gazelle so the gazelle thinks "I'm going to visualize my DNA changing such that not only am I now smarter than the lions but my offspring will also be smarter!"

(This is not to sound flippant in any way. I really want to make sure we don't end up down the road hashing out a claim that "this animal couldn't adapt this way because it is against the direction of adaptation" etc. etc.

If we allow "direction" then we allow for data not in evidence, ie some external driver to the process.

If we play chess we are only going to use the pieces on the board and not my pattented "Rook Tank" that occasionally comes in with armor piercing rounds that can destroy 2 knights of the opposing side with one volley.

Hence, the Direction may be viewed as "Pass though the Sieve" that is what all life desires to do.... survive, and to do that, they need to make though the sieve of "Natural Selection"

I can agree to this whole-heartedly. But the animal, in most cases is not aware that it is doing anything in particular. Certainly the flower is not deciding how to leverage its assets to better survive.

Key · Mar 26, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
In statistical inference there are two choices for the scientist:

1. Reject the Null Hypothesis
2. Fail to reject the null hypothesis

I would love to agree with that, but it seem we are discussing a special "Theory" where "Acceptance with Change" is an acceptable approach. Not my rules. If it was my rules, I'd throw Evolution to the Curb and shut up until we really figured it out. But as it stands, the "Theory of Evolution" can evolve.

I'll get to your other points later.. out of time right now..

This is looking to be a wonderful discussion, even if we have not started our "discussion"

God Bless

Key.

Key · Apr 26, 2007

Sorry for the Long delay.. life has been very.. overwhelming.

(This is not to sound flippant in any way. I really want to make sure we don't end up down the road hashing out a claim that "this animal couldn't adapt this way because it is against the direction of adaptation" etc. etc.

Something can not "Adapt" against it's stresses, on that.. do we agree?

Maybe, that is what I have been trying to convey, something can not evolve in a way that are not inline with the "stress" placed upon it, IE: A Lion would not evolve to have no claws, as it needs it's claws to be an effective hunter, the stress placed upon the lion would make it so that a lion with out claws would not come to be.

If we allow "direction" then we allow for data not in evidence, ie some external driver to the process.

For this discussion, can we agree that "Stress" is a form of direction, IE: Fast Lions make Fast (or dead) Zebras? In that case, there is a "Direction" - speed is a factor.

I can agree to this whole-heartedly. But the animal, in most cases is not aware that it is doing anything in particular. Certainly the flower is not deciding how to leverage its assets to better survive.

That is equally true, we do not "control" how we survive, we either do... or we do not... The External Stress placed upon us, decides what we need to survive we do not.

Are we at an Agreement Yet?

God Bless

Key

thaumaturgy · Apr 29, 2007

Welcome back!

And agreed.

Key · May 10, 2007

Sorry for the delay, I have not really had the time to be able to sit down and compose a very well supported and thought provoking post, so been working on this in bits, I hope it all makes sense.

Now, we need to look at the overall effect of things, and how this species or life form called human came to be. Now I made the claim that Humans are not the Product of any natural environment, nor are they natural in their existence, this meaning that an unnatural or artificial influence, was the focus of and source of their existence. Now is when I start to present this case, we seem to have worked out the issues and bugs of how life is affected by Co-Evolution and the effects of Natural Selection, as well as Acclamation of the Life form (if feel we have not worked that one out, let me know).

Now, here we have the Human, a Land bound, bipedal animal. The question here is, why is Human bipedal and land bound?

That is what this section of the discussion is about really. The answer is simple, there was stressed placed upon the human species to either walk upright, or die off. But that does not explain much, when you think about it. All it really does is add more questions, and ask more whys. Now, given the limited advantages, as well as some major disadvantages this would not seem logical.

Disadvantages include:

Bipedal walking puts more impact on the ankles, knees and feet this there is a higher risk of wear down and problems, as well as preventing the continual long term maintaining of high speed or even medium speed applications. Such is the case with professional runners and sprinters. Given of all the high impact sports, running causes humans the most injuries and that is with our raised instep, as opposed to Lucys flat foot.

Source:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9940449.htm

http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/cybertherapist/bysport/running.htm

http://www.cellhealthmakeover.com/most-common-sports-injuries.html

http://www.askmen.com/sports/fitness_top_ten/31_fitness_list.html

Humans possess far less acceleration and a much lower top speed then most quadrupeds that would prey upon them, as such, they have lost their flight capabilities. This, they have no natural escape from any predator that would consider them to be a meal.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(speed)

http://www.animalplanetasia.com/predators_prey/run/index.shtml

http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/14/cx_mh_0514running_print.html

http://www.spfdbus.com/JessZoo/lionstuff/aboutlions.htm

If we take this moment to look at Lucys feet, (because we can not use modern man for this application), In this case, I am going to use Taungs feet, because that is all I have available, but I have already provided images of Lucys foot prints.

We see that Lucy has feet that are very similar to our own, this she has lost half her climbing abilities, as with all other animals that climb trees, they use both their arms and legs as locomotion up the rough bark, or have heavy reinforced arms that will allow them to climb. Lucy at this point, also does not have the arms necessary to allow for the loss of her feet as a climbing aid. So being able to climb away to safety equally has been removed from Human flight abilities. Thus we are stuck on land, and only have the land to escape to. This flight ability is lost.

Source:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html#anchor1842003

http://www.outtoafrica.nl/animals/engchimpanzee.html?zenden=2&subsoort_id=1&bestemming_id=1

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

So in the physical sense, it seems to be against the flow of fitness in the field of mobility and survival for Humans to stand bipedal, unless, it was the byproduct of another necessity of fitness for survival.

One then needs to ask, what would this be? Well it cant be the brain or intelligence, as walking stance as opposed to tripetail or quadruped has no affect on that, so it has to be a physical trait that is related to our survival.

Do you agree with this assessment?

God Bless

Key

thaumaturgy · May 11, 2007

Key said:
Now, here we have the Human, a Land bound, bipedal animal. The question here is, why is Human bipedal and land bound?

A very similar question can be asked about kiwis. Why are they bipedal and landbound?

If this is an important point for the establishment of humanity as a non-natural creature, or whose form is dictated by non-natural forces, we must add in that in all further discussion we also include the kiwi, the penguin, the chicken, the ostrich and the emu.

Agreed?

The answer is simple, there was stressed placed upon the human species to either walk upright, or die off.

No. Bipedalism was not necessarily a prerequisite for survival. It could have been something that came along "for the ride". Remember, my insistence that these stressors cannot cause a positive change but only select against negative results.

This is where this subtle distinction comes in handy. Bipedalism may not serve an overall "good" in terms of survival, but it certainly cannot be a "negative".

Disadvantages include:

Bipedal walking puts more impact on the ankles, knees and feet this there is a higher risk of wear down and problems, as well as preventing the continual long term maintaining of high speed or even medium speed applications.

Bipedalism also has advantages such as:

Improved perception. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that a crucial stage in the evolution of some or all bipeds was the ability to stand, which generally improves the ability to see (and perhaps otherwise detect) distant dangers or resources.
Free forelimbs. In vertebrate species, for whom evolution of additional limbs would be an enormous genetic change, it can serve to free the front limbs for such other functions as manipulation (in primates), flight (in birds), digging (giant pangolin), or combat (bears).
Wading. Raccoons and some primates may adopt a bipedal position in water, allowing them to stand or walk in deeper water while still breathing air.
Faster movement. In animals without a flexible backbone, such as lizards or cockroaches, bipedalism may increase running speed.
Greater reach. Gerunuk antelope adopt a bipedal position to browse the leaves from trees.
Camouflage. It has been speculated that bipedalism in octopuses allows them to move while keeping the rest of their bodies still for camouflage.
Face attacker while directing anal glands. The defense posture of the spotted skunk, which involves walking on its forelimbs, allows the skunk to face the attacker while simultaneously directing its anal glands at them. The anal glands can squirt an offensive smelling oil.

So indeed, while there are down sides, there may also be upsides.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism

Humans possess far less acceleration and a much lower top speed then most quadrupeds

BUT, unlike many quadrupeds, humans do have a larger brain, better static visual accuity, and can climb trees.

Again, speed is not the be-all-end-all of survival techniques.

that would prey upon them, as such, they have lost their flight capabilities. This, they have no natural escape from any predator that would consider them to be a meal.

I have a dog. Presumably a dog or wolf who is not my pet would find me a potential meal or certainly something that could be hunted and killed. What are my advantages?

1. Approximately 6X more detailed vision
2. Higher color gamut perception
(Source: http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/davis2.htm)

3. May have better static vision
Source: http://psychlops.psy.uconn.edu/eric/class/dogvision.html)

Of course the relative value of any adaptation or any physical feature is how well it can be applied. What works to help the dog hunt does not mean that ONLY dogs can hunt, what works for a primate to see does not mean that ONLY primates can see effectively.

We see that Lucy has feet that are very similar to our own, this she has lost half her climbing abilities, as with all other animals that climb trees, they use both their arms and legs as locomotion up the rough bark, or have heavy reinforced arms that will allow them to climb. Lucy at this point, also does not have the arms necessary to allow for the loss of her feet as a climbing aid.

Presumably I am even more separated from Lucy than Lucy was from tree-friendly primates, and I can climb a tree. (At least I used to when I was younger, I essentially lived in the trees in our backyard).

So being able to climb away to safety equally has been removed from Human flight abilities. Thus we are stuck on land,

Patently false statement. We are demonstrably not stuck on land. In fact, as pointed out earlier, now we can wade into deeper waters because of our bipedalism.

oops, gotta run. Got a meeting.

Key · May 12, 2007

I will await the rest of your response.

I just want to make a quick note, before you use the Penguins, Chickens, Emu, Kiwi, or Ostrich. Just to help you with your next post, as I would hate for you to have this build up in that direction, and then need to post this, in this sense I am hoping to save some issues and troubles.

Penguins are not Land Bound, they are Aquatic animals. And in most cases when they are on land, there are few, if any predators that they need to compete against for survival. In Both Cases, to escape land predators they can flee to the water, and flee from marine predators by running to the land.

Chickens, are a domestic (Agricultural) animals, as such, as far as I can tell are a product of artificial selection (By humans). IE: They are Unnatural in their Development.

Just as a Kangaroo, an Emu is bipedal, but equally so, there are no large predators in Australia that would pose a risk to these animals. In this sense, it may or may not have any bearing one way or the other, and might be an advantage, again, we need to look at Co-Evolution in this picture, not just data sheets and specs, but also at how do things compare, a large picture.

Regarding the Kiwi, there are as far as I can tell, also no large predatory animals in New Zealand as well, so same deal with Australia.

Humans were not so lucky, as Africa, does have, lots of large predatory animals. Which brings us to your last example:

The Ostrich (Living in Africa with the Humans) is a great example, however, the Ostrich is one of the fastest land birds ever (Not to mention the fastest biped as far as I have been able to find out), clocking speeds of 40 MPH, which is comparable to many quadrupeds (Equal to that of a Zebra). Please note, that birds, like the Ostrich do not have the same draw backs that humans possess when walking and running.

Please understand, if the above reasons are why I shall not be including these other animals in the discussion. However, thank you for bringing up this point.

God Bless

Key.

thaumaturgy · May 13, 2007

Key said:
I will await the rest of your response.
.

Ah, so bidpedalism is only special in humans. I see. So the ostrich, while bipedal is safe because he's fast, the penguin, while bipedal is safe because he's good under water. But humans, while bipedal have no additional adaptations that can save them? Not the visual acuity, higher vantage point, larger brain, all of the is rendered moot or null and void?

If these are the terms and the ONLY thing we are considering in human evolution is "bipedalism" well then there's no way to continue.

Physics of motion aside, the very fact that we currently live our entire lives of >70 years here in the West fully bipedal with no apparent supernatural intervention would indicate to me that bipedalism is indeed not a significant detractor.

Your point is that bipedalism should never have arisen, but that is falling into the trap of assuming bipedalism was a single-positive, rather than either a "ride along" (it came about as a net neutral change) or it came along simultaneous with other adaptations that offset the net "negative" of slowed speeds.

And remember, speed is not everything. It is a lot. But there are animals who adapt to fast predators by other means.

So revisit my dog or wolf predation model for a comparison.

Then go running as fast you can past the most aggressive dog in your neighborhood and hopefully, after you get out of the hospital, you'll realize in this particular instance speed was a "disadvantage" since dogs have their best visual acuity for quickly moving objects.

Your bigger brain and your adaptable thought process is your advantage, and if you are like me and not even that smart, your ability to climb a nearby tree is enough to keep you safe. Remember, while we are not as good at climbing trees as a chimpanzee, we are still primates and we share a lot of those skills. And I don't even need a journal article to prove that. As I said, I used to live in the trees in our backyard as a child.

Key · May 13, 2007

It seems we have gotten a little side tracked, maybe I put way to much into my post, that may have been a bit misleading, and caused this directional change in our discussion. Please allow then this moment to try and correct this issue. So that we may have a peaceful and progressive discussion, in light of learning and growth.

thaumaturgy said:
No. Bipedalism was not necessarily a prerequisite for survival. It could have been something that came along "for the ride". Remember, my insistence that these stressors cannot cause a positive change but only select against negative results.

Free forelimbs. In vertebrate species, for whom evolution of additional limbs would be an enormous genetic change, it can serve to free the front limbs for such other functions as manipulation (in primates), flight (in birds), digging (giant pangolin), or combat (bears).

Your point is that bipedalism should never have arisen, but that is falling into the trap of assuming bipedalism was a single-positive, rather than either a "ride along" (it came about as a net neutral change) or it came along simultaneous with other adaptations that offset the net "negative" of slowed speeds.

This was mainly the point I was trying to bring up, because of the disadvantages that I posted (Which in many cases were exclusive to Humans), that bipedal was not the requirement, but was a byproduct of the requirement.

Do we have an agreement here, as we both can see this as a viable option of the situation.

And it seems you support this stance.

Just a few other notes to clear some issues:

This is where this subtle distinction comes in handy. Bipedalism may not serve an overall "good" in terms of survival, but it certainly cannot be a "negative".

I would agree with you on the grounds that it can not be negative in and of itself, but, if it is a byproduct of another necessity of survival it can have drawbacks that are superseded by the advantages of the other traits.

Sickle Cell Anemia is a great example of this. sickle cell in and of itself is a major drawback, however, when looked at in a co-evolution environment it is a necessity of survival because those with out this problem are more prone it a greater risk.

Improved perception. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that a crucial stage in the evolution of some or all bipeds was the ability to stand, which generally improves the ability to see (and perhaps otherwise detect) distant dangers or resources.

Agreed, and addressed, however, this in no way would place requirement for habitual bipedal, but momentary bipedal would supply this, IE: Chimpanzees, Raccoons, even squirrels, do this, and they are mainly quadruped.

The distinction here is the difference between Habitual and Momentary. Humans are Habitual, where a squirrel is only momentary, in both cases this advantage confers to both of them, but the squirrel does not have any disadvantages of the habitual state.

Wading. Raccoons and some primates may adopt a bipedal position in water, allowing them to stand or walk in deeper water while still breathing air.

Another great example, but in this case, Momentary Bipedal, and Habitual Bipedal both confer this advantage.

Faster movement. In animals without a flexible backbone, such as lizards or cockroaches, bipedalism may increase running speed.

Good example, however, we are still looking at Humans here, and as such, Humans have a flexible backbone, so this would not apply.

Greater reach. Gerunuk antelope adopt a bipedal position to browse the leaves from trees.

Again, Momentary and Habitual confer the same advantage here. There is no need for habitual, as momentary would be superior in these situations

Camouflage. It has been speculated that bipedalism in octopuses allows them to move while keeping the rest of their bodies still for camouflage.

Another great example, but I do not see how this applies to Humans.

Face attacker while directing anal glands. The defense posture of the spotted skunk, which involves walking on its forelimbs, allows the skunk to face the attacker while simultaneously directing its anal glands at them. The anal glands can squirt an offensive smelling oil.

Another great example, but again, I am not sure how this applies to humans.

So indeed, while there are down sides, there may also be upsides.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism

I never implied there were not upsides, I only said there were some major drawbacks, as it applies to humans. In this case, and in many of the cases you listed, Human application does not seem to fit. If I have missed something, please let know, as I would hate for us to have a disagreement here regarding this.

BUT, unlike many quadrupeds, humans do have a larger brain, better static visual accuity, and can climb trees.

Yes, we do have these traits, however, we are not really at a place yet to know what visual abilities Lucy may or may not have had, sadly we are limited by what we know as the evidence, and what we have to work with. And we agreed to only to look at the evidence, our eye development may have come later, but we can only speculate on this.

I will admit that a larger brain was there, however, brain size has no baring on limbs used for locomotion.

We seem to also be having an issue regarding the climbing of trees. Now I will admit that humans can climb trees, and Ill address this a bit below.

Again, speed is not the be-all-end-all of survival techniques.

You may be correct, however, on the open planes, speed is the king of escape abilities.

I have a dog. Presumably a dog or wolf who is not my pet would find me a potential meal or certainly something that could be hunted and killed. What are my advantages?

1. Approximately 6X more detailed vision
2. Higher color gamut perception
(Source: http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/davis2.htm)

3. May have better static vision
Source: http://psychlops.psy.uconn.edu/eric/class/dogvision.html)

These are speculation, sadly, as I would like to apply them because they could help support my stance, however, since I can not say with accuracy what vision Lucy may or may no have had, this would be speculation.

Yes, in modern humans we have these advantages.

Of course the relative value of any adaptation or any physical feature is how well it can be applied. What works to help the dog hunt does not mean that ONLY dogs can hunt, what works for a primate to see does not mean that ONLY primates can see effectively.

Fair enough, and Agreed.

Presumably I am even more separated from Lucy than Lucy was from tree-friendly primates, and I can climb a tree. (At least I used to when I was younger, I essentially lived in the trees in our backyard).

I see there is an issue with the limitations I have placed on climbing.

Patently false statement. We are demonstrably not stuck on land. In fact, as pointed out earlier, now we can wade into deeper waters because of our bipedalism.

We can not swim for extended periods of time (Like we can walk), we can not climb for extend periods of time (Like we can walk) although we can climb and swim, our abilities in both areas do not allow us to transverse that environment, or that method of travel as a viable means of locomotion.

IE: a penguin is far more adapt at walking on land then we are at swimming in the water.

Your bigger brain and your adaptable thought process is your advantage, and if you are like me and not even that smart, your ability to climb a nearby tree is enough to keep you safe. Remember, while we are not as good at climbing trees as a chimpanzee, we are still primates and we share a lot of those skills. And I don't even need a journal article to prove that. As I said, I used to live in the trees in our backyard as a child.

I see the problem here with the application of climbing trees. Maybe I should change my wording regarding this, or expound this point. We can not transverse trees in a manner that would make them a viable escape option from a predator large enough to kill us in the first place. IE: a lion can jump 40 feet, a Dog can jump around 6 to 7 feet in the air. In this case, we can not transverse the tree fast enough to overcome both the speed of the dog coming at us, and the dogs inherent jumping abilities.

A Squirrel on the other hand, can transverse a tree fast enough to do this, and can spiral around the tree to make the Jumping abilities of the predator moot, as they do not need height but can use the tree itself as protection. Also, Humans have soft hands comparability to primates, as well as soft skinned feet which would get torn up and maybe injured if they used climbing as an escape route. However, I do not know the toughness value of Lucys feet to say the same would happen to her, but, I can tell from her make up, that her climbing abilities would be more suited for nesting and resting away from lower predators as opposed to an escape route. Much in the same way a seal would come on land to rest away from the marine predators, as a seal can walk on land, it is at best an auxiliary means of travel, but allows for a rest spot to be safe to sleep. I would assume that given what I see of Lucys make up, Lucy would use trees in the same manner.

Also note, have you noticed that your climbing skill and abilities seems to decrease with age, and physical condition, Thus Lucy would not be able to flee to the trees if she was pregnant or carrying a child, again, a major problem when it comes to living.

Now notice also that Lucy lived on the planes, so we need to take that into very strong consideration when we look at survival.

However, all this is auxiliary, and I hope we can progress in our discussion, if you have major disagreements with this, please let me know as I deeply value your points and insight regarding this. So far this has been a wonderful discussion and has I hope provided us both with much to think about.

God Bless

Key

thaumaturgy · May 14, 2007

You might wish to read:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.18/01-running.html

It is a discussion of early hominid running skills. Clearly early hominids were not as pathetic at all things "motile" as you would wish them to be.

But even that aside, I fear you are drifting over into making "special pleadings" against human adaptations.

Humans are fulltime bipedal but in your posts there are no other advantages that humans have. Kiwis are fulltime bipedal but don't have the same predators (but kiwis do indeed have predators such as eagles and falcons) yet somehow all their other adaptations allow them to survive, ostriches are fast but bipedal.

You must admit that humans are more than a pair of feet. Lucy and Taung are clearly hominids. Hominids have many features in common with each other and while we know they were bipedal we also know something about their brains and a rough correlation between brain size and structure and function. We know quite a bit about hominids and primates in general.

Indeed humans are not as fast as a cheetah, but is that the only way to survive? If that is the metric, then clearly Kiwis couldn't survive because their main predators are good-sited flying hunting birds.

Grant that hominids do have adaptations that would allow for them to survive or admit you want a special case only for humans in which the ONLY way for a hominid to survive was by superfast running.

At that point the debate is over.

Unfortunately you will have to lose it as well since I can equally claim that since dogs have poor static vision that there is no way they could have survived in the wild. Since cheetahs are good SHORT TERM sprinters there is no way they could have survived (presumably they could outrun a single lion, but if they run into another lion territory they will be too tired to escape from THAT lion, and the fact that other animals do hunt in packs to maximize the efficiency and offset their inherent slowness compared to the prey, wolves do this).

Let's work backwards a second here:

Humans today. Why am I not in danger of being eaten by lions? Is it a non-natural ("miracle") process? No, it is because I am a:

1. Hominid with large brain.
2. a SOCIAL creature (as most hominids and primates are)
3. Adaptable

Which of those things does not equally apply to other primates? It is a matter of degree, not quantum leap.

Humans don't have to run fast. Just as the kiwi doesn't have to run fast, but can use OTHER methods to maintain their numbers at a breeding propulation.

Sure the ostrich is fast. It isn't very smart though. When it is killed it isn't because it wasn't fast enough...it is because it wasn't smart enough.

What do we know about Lucy's brain? We know what her skull looked like pretty well. So we know she had a primate brain, which is a whole heckuva lot better than an ostrich brain. She didn't have to be as fast as an ostrich. She just had to be smart enough to survive.

And don't fall into the trap of thinking all members of an evolutionarily viable lineage had to die of old age. All an animal has to to do to be an evolutionarily viable animal is survive long enough to BREED. Social animals have an even better advantage when other members of the society will take care of offspring from parents who have died.

So, in short, unless you can prove that the only way early hominids could have survived was solely by upright ostrich-like speeds then I'm afraid we are at a standstill.

Key · May 14, 2007

I believe we have an issue, and it may be because of my many words, and I will have to correct that issue regarding our discussion as I would be truly regretful if it stopped over a small dispute like this.

Allow me to try to correct the direction, in this post, sadly this will push and jump the discussion forward faster then I would have liked, but, that sometimes is the nature of the discussion, and might in the end of things be for the best.

thaumaturgy said:
You might wish to read:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.18/01-running.html

It is a discussion of early hominid running skills. Clearly early hominids were not as pathetic at all things "motile" as you would wish them to be.

Please understand, it is not a desire of mine, or a wish that humans be as we are. I am only showing what we are, as evidence shows us what we are.

Even so, that advantage did not come in till much more recent in the human development, only in the last 1 to 2 million years.

But even that aside, I fear you are drifting over into making "special pleadings" against human adaptations.

That I feel is a faulting on my part, for using too much and not working or showing a direction as I should.

Humans are fulltime bipedal but in your posts there are no other advantages that humans have.

Perish the thought, we have many advantages, just being bipedal in and of itself, is not one of them.

But that is all I have been trying to say, our stance, is a spin off of another aspect of ourselves.

Allow this simple version:

Humans are Habitual Bipedal land bound animals (IE: We are like the Gorilla, we can not use the trees to escape), and we are not aquatic, nor are we air born.

So what is the point of us walking on our hind legs, as opposed to all fours?

Well, speed (or escape) is not one of them.

Height, Reach,Wading, and other seeming advantages are equal to both habitual and momentary. So no point in selecting against those humans that could not maintain a continual bipedal walk.

and given the special issues of the weakness of our human ankles (Which is special to just humans and not to birds), we have issues with this.

Hence nature would not select against those that could not maintain this walk, unless there was another reason.

But it has to be a physical reason, not simple static sight, or large brain mass, as both those would be unaffected by posture or walking stance.

So we look at something else, something you brought up, a very integral aspect of our development.

Manipulation, by walking upright, our Hands become free.

In this sense, given the drawbacks of our walk, natural selection would never target that in and of itself as a necessity of survival, however, given the gain of our hands for manipulation, that would be a target of selection.

IE: Those that can not manipulate will die out.

Here is where I ask if you agree, or have objections.

God Bless

Key

thaumaturgy · May 14, 2007

Key said:
I believe we have an issue, and it may be because of my many words, and I will have to correct that issue regarding our discussion as I would be truly regretful if it stopped over a small dispute like this.

...

God Bless

Key

Key, the reason you seem to perceive "issues" is because of the way you are attempting to structure the debate. I am fully aware that you have some "plan" overall to try to get me to acquiesce to a specific set of points, the exact ones of which I am unsure just yet, but for that precise reason I am raising as many red flags along the way as I can.

I am no fool, I understand your method of debate. And while you have gone to great lengths to maintain it on an even keel, I am also equally aware that I am being "led". I don't necessarily appreciate this tactic, even when it was done to me by superiors. To that end I am going to fight tooth and nail for every single point.

I realize this sounds somewhat harsh and you would just like for me to make a "misstep" and acquiesce to something so you can make your mysterious point. But it won't happen easily.

I will be fully honest and upfront and hope that I have been so far: I am an atheist and a scientist. One does not necessitate the other, but as both of those things I will not accept any "magical" or "non-natural" "evidence" because no such thing exists.

Suppose you are able to somehow convince me that bipedalism in humans is so very improbable and such a grotesque negative that no amount of other positives could ever outweigh it, you will not convince me it is a de facto sign of the Almighty.

You will gut your own argument in my estimation and you will not convince me otherwise.

If, however, you wish to propose some alternative hypothesis bounded by all of the physics and chemistry at work in the real world, then please do me the very great favor of presenting this hypothesis at this time.

That will save me the annoyance of fighting every single point you raise, no matter how pedantic it appears.

Because in the end pedantic points is all your going to be able to move this forward until you come "clean" and lay out your summary hypothesis.

It is not a debate when you haven't really suggested anything more than "man is not a product of a natural system". In fact that particular hypothesis is exactly equivalent to schizophrenic word-salad. Glossalalia may be fine in church, but it isn't a valid hypothetical stance.

So in order to move this along, make your claim clearly and fully and stop attempting to "lead" me. I barely stood for it when my dissertation committee members attempted to do it to me and they were making a point.

Thanks,
-T.

Key · May 15, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
Key, the reason you seem to perceive "issues" is because of the way you are attempting to structure the debate. I am fully aware that you have some "plan" overall to try to get me to acquiesce to a specific set of points, the exact ones of which I am unsure just yet, but for that precise reason I am raising as many red flags along the way as I can.

Seems fair enough.

I am no fool, I understand your method of debate. And while you have gone to great lengths to maintain it on an even keel, I am also equally aware that I am being "led". I don't necessarily appreciate this tactic, even when it was done to me by superiors. To that end I am going to fight tooth and nail for every single point.

My Apologies then. I shall for the remainder of this debate, try to keep it simple, but you must agree that structure is necessary, you can not grasp physics, until you have learned the basics of math. right?

I realize this sounds somewhat harsh and you would just like for me to make a "misstep" and acquiesce to something so you can make your mysterious point. But it won't happen easily.

That is not the case at all, and I apologize if that is how I have been coming across.

I believe either the evidence is there, or it is not.

It should never be a matter of trickery or deception. Those things are of no use to me. If that is what you have been expecting, then again, I am sorry if that is how I have come across.

I thought I have put forth viable, non-mystic, solid evidence down, with out the expectation of the belief.

If I have failed to do that, then again, I am sorry.

I will be fully honest and upfront and hope that I have been so far: I am an atheist and a scientist. One does not necessitate the other, but as both of those things I will not accept any "magical" or "non-natural" "evidence" because no such thing exists.

I believed that on the outset of this debate, that was to be the case.

Have I presented any form of Mysticism as evidence in any shape so far?

If I have, then I apologize.

Suppose you are able to somehow convince me that bipedalism in humans is so very improbable and such a grotesque negative that no amount of other positives could ever outweigh it, you will not convince me it is a de facto sign of the Almighty.

Please read my above post, again, I explained this, and religion does not enter the picture.

You will gut your own argument in my estimation and you will not convince me otherwise.

My argument is, Look at the Evidence.

If, however, you wish to propose some alternative hypothesis bounded by all of the physics and chemistry at work in the real world, then please do me the very great favor of presenting this hypothesis at this time.

Again, regarding our Bipedal nature, please read the post above. It explains the direction I was going in.

That will save me the annoyance of fighting every single point you raise, no matter how pedantic it appears.

Yes, about that, I really wish you would not fight so hard, it ends up with me trying to explain how other things could have happened Via the Theory of Evolution, which I do not believe, and in the end I need to ignore some of your points, I mean you no disrespect when I do that, but when you bring them up, it shows the impossibility of how Evolution could have made this happen and reinforces why I do not believe in Evolution, as they can not be explained by natural means.

I would so very like for you to stop doing that.

It is difficult to respond to those points, because I have agreed not to put my Bible into this Discussion. As such, I am left with no explanation for some of the counters you throw at me, as "God Did it that Way", would not be acceptable for this debate and the rules we have set forth.

Because in the end pedantic points is all your going to be able to move this forward until you come "clean" and lay out your summary hypothesis.

That might be difficult, as it is quite long winded.

It is not a debate when you haven't really suggested anything more than "man is not a product of a natural system". In fact that particular hypothesis is exactly equivalent to schizophrenic word-salad. Glossalalia may be fine in church, but it isn't a valid hypothetical stance.

I made a Hypothesis, we are not a product of any natural environment, then, I need to support this Hypothesis. Right now, that is what I am trying to do, support the Hypothesis.

So in order to move this along, make your claim clearly and fully and stop attempting to "lead" me. I barely stood for it when my dissertation committee members attempted to do it to me and they were making a point.

Again, I apologize, I did not know this was such an issue for you, I'll try in my next post to clear that up.

Thanks,
-T.

key said:
Hence nature would not select against those that could not maintain this walk, unless there was another reason.

But it has to be a physical reason, not simple static sight, or large brain mass, as both those would be unaffected by posture or walking stance.

So we look at something else, something you brought up, a very integral aspect of our development.

Manipulation, by walking upright, our Hands become free.

In this sense, given the drawbacks of our walk, natural selection would never target that in and of itself as a necessity of survival, however, given the gain of our hands for manipulation, that would be a target of selection.

IE: Those that can not manipulate will die out.

Here is where I ask if you agree, or have objections.

Now, this is what I said in my previous post.

Now, again, I am not trying to "lead" you, but I am trying to explain my point, and in some cases, to just jump to the end, would not offer any insight or even make sense. Hence why I feel that to explain my point, I need to explain it in steps.

Now, I am not trying to get you to just agree with me, nor am I trying to get you to make a mistake. I am only trying to show the evidence, and then explain what I have gained from it.

Now, if you want the whole Thing in one shot, you will have to give me some, and allow me to put up a few posts in a row, that will explain the whole point and then you can either, agree or disagree.

Which would you rather?

It seems you would rather me just dump the whole thing down, and I am ok with doing that.

I had been enjoying our exchange, as it has given me a lot to think about, and I have even been enjoying your rebuttals to each of my points.

But what ever will make you happy.

God Bless

Key

thaumaturgy · May 15, 2007

Key said:
Yes, about that, I really wish you would not fight so hard,

No matter what, I'm probably going to fight each and every point to nail down a very precise and well-bounded proposition.

I made a Hypothesis, we are not a product of any natural environment, then, I need to support this Hypothesis. Right now, that is what I am trying to do, support the Hypothesis.

I would very much like the summation. In the efforts to make it fair I will give you my nickel tour of my hypothesis:

1. Anything that occurs in nature and is preserved in the lineage cannot have been a net negative without some trade-off to offset it. It cannot have been preserved if it was such a negative that it would not have allowed for the creature to reproduce and pass along the trait.

2. Bipedalism is something that has clearly been in evidence since early on in hominid evolution.

ERGO;

3. Man is the product of wholly natural forces and his bipedalism could not have been such a negative as to have rendered it untenable to preservation further along the lineage.

My Evidence:
1. Humans are currently bipedal.
2. Bipedalism, while not wholly a postive, is not an overall net negative in that it does provide advantages, especially when leveraged against other features of our biology.

That's it. That's pretty much all I got. I greatly look forward to however many posts it takes you to lay out your hypothesis.

I think then and only then will we really have any discussion. As you know, you always see the ABSTRACT before you delve into the article. It gives away the ending. But once you know the ending you know what to discuss.

Formal Discussion between Key and thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

The Opener of Locks

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency