Administration forces NASA to say Big Bang Theory

[Balta1701]

As for the work itself he essentially demonstrated characteristics of "strong" selection on magnitudes millions of times greater than other mammals.  If it comforts you into believing that was a random hapistance resulting from man's history of survival then so be it.

This is simply wrong, and there's no way around it being wrong. It is not only wrong, but it is completely wrong. From Prof. Lahn's page:

 

For each gene, the nonsynonymous-to-synonymous substitution ratio (Ka/Ks) was calculated separately for primates (based on human-macaque comparison) and for rodents (based on rat-mouse comparison). The Ka/Ks ratio is a measure of protein evolution rate as scaled to neutral mutation rate.

 

Our analysis showed that, on average, Ka/Ks for nervous system genes is higher in primate than in rodent (by more than 30 percent), indicating that the proteins encoded by these genes have evolved about 30 percent faster in primates. Moreover, when examining only the subset of genes that function predominantly in nervous system development, the primate-rodent disparity in Ka/Ks became even more pronounced (more than 50 percent higher in primates than rodents). By contrast, genes that function primarily in the routine physiology and maintenance of the nervous system showed much less primate-rodent disparity.

So, for those who haven't a clue what that means, here's some layman's terms.

 

They examined the rate of mutation of certain genes in humans and used rodents as a control group. In both cases, there are some proteins which do not change at all when a mutation occurs in the genes which code for that protein. That gives a background rate of mutation adoption - if there is no change in a protein, then the only thing which governs whether or not a mutation will be adopted is pure random probability. If I have a protein that looks the same if it is coded by sequence A or B, then it's just random chance which one will be adopted.

 

Therefore, this number gives us a background rate at which any random mutation will be adopted. Then, if you look at changes which do affect the proteins and compare that to the background rate, you can get a measure of how strong a selective pressure there is. The more strongly a trait is selected for, the more strongly and more rapidly it will be adopted as the more fit individuals take over a population.

 

First of all...a 50% increase is slightly different from the many thousands of times difference you're claiming.

 

Secondly...yes, humanity is a "priveledged species" in 1 sense...in the sense that humanity evolved in a situation where there was a very strong selective pressure towards the development of a more advanced brain. There is nothing designed about it, nothing religious about it, nothing done by Jesus. The process is exactly the same one we're talking about. Random mutations acted upon by selective pressures.

 

I think that almost anyone here can understand why there might be a selective pressure which would drive the body towards the evolution of a larger brain. The evolution of better tools, the evolution of better communication both come to mind immediately. Prof. Lahn is not saying, despite what you contend, that humanity is special in any sense beyond the fact that we faced a selective driving force towards the large brains that we have today which was not experienced by any other creature currently on earth, which isn't that surprising since, well, there are very few other rodents currently capable of building computers.

[NorthSideSox72]

What is NASA's stance on this? 

 

While finding the flying spaghetti monster pic, I came across this doonesbury comic, and thought it applied well to the topic of conversation.  Enjoy. 

 

http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/images/NipplesGRAB.jpg

 

LMAO!!!!

 

 

I cannot stop laughing. That is one of the funniest pictures I have ever seen.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The current administration in this country can't even see clear to approve stem-cell research, and you think people will have brain modifcations in two decades, eh?

 

Maybe it will happen in Japan.  Go there at once and report back your findings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have been there many times & I have complete internet access when I do. SOXTALK is well within reach. That won't help you.

 

As to your quip about the current administration this reply might be the easiest I've had to come up with:

 

We are loosing our capacity to produce technology today, it will only be that much worse 20 yrs from now so this technology will obviously originate outside of the US & yes Japan is most likely to mass-produce it first.

[NorthSideSox72]

What is NASA's stance on this? 

 

While finding the flying spaghetti monster pic, I came across this doonesbury comic, and thought it applied well to the topic of conversation.  Enjoy. 

 

http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/images/NipplesGRAB.jpg

 

Can I use that as my sig? Please?!

[SleepyWhiteSox]

We are living in the computer age.  Next comes the cyborg age.  Then after that comes the synthetic life age.  Selection isn't at work there.  We are.

 

"Come with me if you want to live."

[Kyyle23]

Can I use that as my sig?  Please?!

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not mine to give. It is for everyone to enjoy.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 05:18 PM)

We are living in the computer age.  Next comes the cyborg age.  Then after that comes the synthetic life age.  Selection isn't at work there.  We are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[YASNY]

So you're saying Flaxx is wrong for thinking that NASA shouldn't have to consider religious implications in its discussion of science because Flaxx wouldn't consider religious implications elsewhere?

 

I'm honestly confused.

 

You certainly are. The very first sentence stated the fact that I didn't think NASA should have to consider religion. I used this specific instance to point out to Jim, because he asked for someone to challange this issue, that challenging him on anything religiously oriented is a complete waste of time.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It is apparent to me that context is everything in this debate.  FSJ actually believes that we are simply at the top of the evolutionary chain now & that say a million years from now something else most likely will take our place.

 

But I don't believe that in any way, shape, or form. We're not at the top of any evolutionary chain, and thinking of evolution in a purpose-directed way like that is exactly the type of anthropocentrism and teleology that has no place in real evolution research and debate.

 

Evolutionary "trees" are almost as bad a metaphor as "chains". Rather, think of the whole of organic evolution as better represented as a cross between the classic tree analogy and spokes on a bicycle wheel. A central origin gives rise to several outward radiating lines. Each of these lines can divide furtther until you get to the rim of the wheel. That is the present time. Not all of the spokes make it to the rim because many lines go extinct, while those that do represent the successful evolutionary lines that have survived to the present time. ALL of these spokes have to be considered the winners thus far in life on earth, because they persist while otther lines have gone extinct. Humans are but one spoke – and a very, very short spoke at that. We have been wildly successful, yes, and that success has been because our brains have become specialized over time, as opposed to the wings of some other successful group, or the specialized sucking moutth parts of some successful insect group, the capacity to non-lethally infect vast numbers of hosts in some successful parasite, etc.

 

We're not at the top of any of these surviving evolutionary lines (unless you count our ability to selectively extirpate some of these as a measure of success). The bottom line is survival of populations and, hence, species, by successfully passing through the selective environmental filters in each generation and producing a maximum number of progeny with the inhereted capacity to do the same in successive generations. Using that measure, man is neck and neck with all other extant evolutionary linnes.

[Rex Kickass]

You certainly are.  The very first sentence stated the fact that I didn't think NASA should have to consider religion.  I used this specific instance to point out to Jim, because he asked for someone to challange this issue, that challenging him on anything religiously oriented is a complete waste of time.

 

OK. Clears it up enough for me.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Quote: Humans are but one spoke – and a very, very short spoke at that.

 

Give it up already. We're the whole F'g wheel now. All the other spokes? They will be completely under our control & dominion in time.

 

We're less that 50 yrs away from making use of nanomachines as cops to patrol our own bodies (think AV updates) & to control those populations of insects & animals we don't desire. We will be able to hunt whatever we want because we'll have the power to prevent extinction of what we want.

 

To say we have been wildly successful is a joke! We are on the path towards Godhood & our best attempt at immortality. That isn't just wildly successful. That's damn well dominating nature.

 

Thirty years ago we took our first steps towards AI. Now we have robots that look lifelike, can speak in human voices, & dance! That's on the basis of just 4 generations of leaps in architecture. We are expected to see no less than 8 such leaps over the next 30 yrs. Terrabytes will be a thing of the past.

 

Now I realize that doesn't mean much for most people but to a computer scientist it's a major change. Hardware has already out-paced software & that gap is going to widen significantly. In other words resources won't be a limiting factor to software designers. That's going to result in explosive growth of robotics & cyborg technology.

[Wong & Owens]

But I don't believe that in any way, shape, or form.  We're not at the top of any evolutionary chain, and thinking of evolution in a purpose-directed way like that is exactly the type of anthropocentrism and teleology that has no place in real evolution research and debate.

 

Evolutionary "trees" are almost as bad a metaphor as "chains".  Rather, think of the whole of organic evolution as better represented as a cross between the classic tree analogy and spokes on a bicycle wheel.  A central origin gives rise to several outward radiating lines.  Each of these lines can divide furtther until you get to the rim of the wheel.  That is the present time.  Not all of the spokes make it to the rim because many lines go extinct, while those that do represent the successful evolutionary lines that have survived to the present time.  ALL of these spokes have to be considered the winners thus far in life on earth, because they persist while otther lines have gone extinct.  Humans are but one spoke – and a very, very short spoke at that.  We have been wildly successful, yes, and that success has been because our brains have become specialized over time, as opposed to the wings of some other successful group, or the specialized sucking moutth parts of some successful insect group, the capacity to non-lethally infect vast numbers of hosts in some successful parasite, etc.

 

We're not at the top of any of these surviving evolutionary lines (unless you count our ability to selectively extirpate some of these as a measure of success).  The bottom line is survival of populations and, hence, species, by successfully passing through the selective environmental filters in each generation and producing a maximum number of progeny with the inhereted capacity to do the same in successive generations.  Using that measure, man is neck and neck with all other extant evolutionary linnes.

 

As usual, you are wrong, it is because of your one-sided interpretation of the term "evolutionary chain."

 

I had a conversation with a Mongolian monk in a chat room this week, and in Mongolia there is research being done that does not separate the spiritual "link" from the biometaphysichemical "chain." By understanding this philosophy, it is not hard to fathom that humanity will soon be replaced at the top of the chain by cyborgs.

 

Being as intelligent as I am, it can be hard to find others who have all the answers like I do, and then be able to discuss them in a spiritual context. Only a left-wing nutjob would attempt to argue otherwise, but on these boards the liberal slant is not surprising.

 

 

Sound about right?

[Kyyle23]

As usual, you are wrong, it is because of your one-sided interpretation of the term "evolutionary chain." 

 

I had a conversation with a Mongolian monk in a chat room this week, and in Mongolia there is research being done that does not separate the spiritual "link" from the biometaphysichemical "chain."  By understanding this philosophy, it is not hard to fathom that humanity will soon be replaced at the top of the chain by cyborgs.

 

Being as intelligent as I am, it can be hard to find others who have all the answers like I do, and then be able to discuss them in a spiritual context.  Only a left-wing nutjob would attempt to argue otherwise, but on these boards the liberal slant is not surprising.

Sound about right?

 

Standing Ovation!!

[JUGGERNAUT]

Hey if your ignorant to what cyborg technology is than I'm not surprised you would attempt to make fun of any reference to it. But that doesn't change the fact it will become a normal part of society in most of our lifetimes.

 

But you need a Phd or at least an MS in CS/CE plus a job in the field of robotics to understand that.

[Kyyle23]

Hey if your ignorant to what cyborg technology is than I'm not surprised you would attempt to make fun of any reference to it.  But that doesn't change the fact it will become a normal part of society in most of our lifetimes.

 

But you need a Phd or at least an MS in CS/CE plus a job in the field of robotics to understand that.

 

you say that about everything that we disagree with that comes out of your mouth.

[Wong & Owens]

Hey if your ignorant to what cyborg technology is than I'm not surprised you would attempt to make fun of any reference to it.  But that doesn't change the fact it will become a normal part of society in most of our lifetimes.

 

But you need a Phd or at least an MS in CS/CE plus a job in the field of robotics to understand that.

 

 

 

Old Glory Insurance, for when the metal ones decide to come for you.

 

And they will.

[WCSox]

I have no problem with anybody that believes in intelligent design, however it is simply a fact that intelligent design is a matter of faith, and not science.

 

Well-said.

[JUGGERNAUT]

you say that about everything that we disagree with that comes out of your mouth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you just hand the world of to us technocrats we can end the debate. We are the best qualified to run all matters of the world with machine-like efficiency.

 

There really is no need for liberal-speak in the world. You should just go about & live your life to the level of decadence you desire in the PRIVACY of your own home.

[Kyyle23]

If you just hand the world of to us technocrats we can end the debate.  We are the best qualified to run all matters of the world with machine-like efficiency.

 

There really is no need for liberal-speak in the world.  You should just go about & live your life to the level of decadence you desire in the PRIVACY of your own home.

 

yep, and you usually follow with that.

 

However, in the privacy of my own home, I will choose to let my children do their own homework because I feel that cheating is decadent.

Edited February 7, 2006 by kyyle23

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes, a very short spoke. Despite our formidable brain power and current wild success.

 

The average duration of defined species in the fossil record is 5 million years. Some persist much longer than that, but that's the average.

 

The earliest fossil record of any members of genus Homo is from about 2.5-2.7 million years ago, which is only half of the lifespan of the avrerage species. Restricting consideration just to H. sapiens, we only go back 200,000 years. That is the blink of an eye iin evolutionary terms. The 'last second of the last minute' in the classic earth-existence-as-a-single-day analogy.

 

You may turn out to be right about the techno-terror path our species is heading down. You are most certainly correct as to our increasing ability to destroy other species. But in terms of evolutionary success, although we are the inheritors of a unique lineage within the great apes, as a species we're barely a blip on time's radar.

Edited February 7, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[JUGGERNAUT]

yep, and you usually follow with that.

 

However, in the privacy of my own home, I will choose to let my children do their own homework because I feel that cheating is decadent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's about the level of comprehension I would expect from the left. She does her own homework. I just supplied an answer key for her Mom to help her with.

[Wong & Owens]

That's about the level of comprehension I would expect from the left.  She does her own homework.  I just supplied an answer key for her Mom to help her with.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

That's about the level of comprehension I would expect from the left.  She does her own homework.  I just supplied an answer key for her Mom to help her with.

 

Thats about the level of condescendence that I expect from you.

[Steff]

That's about the level of comprehension I would expect from the left.  She does her own homework.  I just supplied an answer key for her Mom to help her with.

 

 

 

My hobbies have been cut to the bone of late because most of my spare time is spent doing my kid's homework.  I won't go into the particulars.  Let's just say my eldest kid doesn't take after me when it comes to getting high marks.

 

The logic is clear: If I am doing the homework then she'll get high marks on it & she'll have more time to study. 

 

We tried grounding her from her social life early on but the emotional price for that was too much to bear.  So my darling daughter now gets to enjoy her social life & be free from homework.  All we ask in return is that she does well enough on tests to get high marks.

 

I know we have varying ages here at SOXTALK so I'll leave this whine with this thought: Nothing is more disheartening in this life than having to do another person's homework without the reward of getting an A on the test.  I keep hoping that she just needs me to get her on the right track & then I can be freed from being a homework slave. Everyone needs hopes & dreams.

 

 

 

:rolly

[YASNY]

:rolly

 

LMFAO!!!!