darwin was a commie.

try to spot him lol. modern anti communist propoganda, its laughable.

rofl

CoolKidX wrote:

rofl

watch all episodes please.

Evolution has nothing to do with "coincidences." In fact, it's just the opposite. Man, not only is this guy wrong about Communism, but he's wrong about Evolution.

I'm RAGING.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Evolution has nothing to do with "coincidences." In fact, it's just the opposite. Man, not only is this guy wrong about Communism, but he's wrong about Evolution.

I'm RAGING.

i stopped watching after episode 4 it was too crazy...

WeiWuWei wrote:

Evolution has nothing to do with "coincidences." In fact, it's just the opposite. Man, not only is this guy wrong about Communism, but he's wrong about Evolution.

I'm RAGING.

Actually the mutations themselves are all coincidental. Just saying.

Wow, marx and engels enjoyed Darwin. Therefore, Darwin is a communist. I think lilith would have something to say about that logic.

And i dunno about dialectics, but there's nothing wrong with materialism. Even if there is some spriitual realm out there, it's beyond our capacity to comprehend it, so why not focus on what we can comprehend and influence?

This Harun Yahya seems sensible enough.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Actually the mutations themselves are all coincidental. Just saying.

Coincidental or circumstancial?

Black_Cross wrote:

And i dunno about dialectics, but there's nothing wrong with materialism. Even if there is some spriitual realm out there, it's beyond our capacity to comprehend it, so why not focus on what we can comprehend and influence?

Perhaps the problem with materialism is when it doesn't go hand in hand with humanity's capability for abstraction which is pretty much one if not the most important difference we have with animals.

Coincdental. The mutations themselves are radom, WHAT happens and WHEN. There's no ryme or reason to when or what can happen. Natural selection is even pridictable, but the mutations are not at all, unless of course created in a lab, but that doesn't count.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Coincdental. The mutations themselves are radom, WHAT happens and WHEN. There's no ryme or reason to when or what can happen. Natural selection is even pridictable, but the mutations are not at all, unless of course created in a lab, but that doesn't count.

The problem is, how are they created in a lab? This surely means that there's something triggering mutations.

I believe there's some kind of moth or butterfly (some chiropter) that is white. Then factories were stablished where the populations of this animal are located. The waste from these factories blackened many surfaces and, in order to preserve camouflage, these animals mutated into a darker version.

Another example is Chenobyl where we know the radiation created numerous mutations. This radioactive circumstance is what caused the mutations.

(On a side note, I can't believe we're having this discussion in Spamistan. This could well be for State University or Secret Research Facility)

All I mean is that mutations don't happen by chance but by influence of factors extrinsic to the organism.

Tyrong, I think ZK covered what I was going to well enough.

Black_Cross wrote:

And i dunno about dialectics, but there's nothing wrong with materialism. Even if there is some spriitual realm out there, it's beyond our capacity to comprehend it, so why not focus on what we can comprehend and influence?

By materialism, Marx and Engels - and Feuerbach - were talking about something more than that. Their basic view of history - excluding the part about dialectics - is that changes in the material condition of things opens society to changes in the economic order. So take the Industrial Revolution as an example of this: the changes in the material condition - i.e. the industrialization of production - gave birth to Capitalism. I mean, this is a really broad way to describe it, but that's what materialism basically is about - when you throw the dialectics into the mix, it makes the changes in the material condition teleological.

So it's kind of false for this video to say that it's "conflict" that makes history; rather, it is the changes in the material condition of society that makes conflict happen.

For me, though, I'm used to using the word materialism in the way that you have here, which is pretty much the way Bakunin used the word materialism to mean, strictly, the stuff that we can interact with and prove to be real.

I hate words with more than one meaning.

Quote :

The problem is, how are they created in a lab?

Through a lot of gene manipluations that I won't ever pretend to understand.

Quote :

This surely means that there's something triggering mutations.

Yes and no. A mutation occurrs when the DNA self replicates wrong. SImple as that. Most of the time it fixes itself. Other times nothing happens at all. Less often bad, bad things happen. SOmetimes something that could be cinsidered good may happen. Those that nothing happen with can over time do something like griow a horn, or something. Not needed for survival, but a use wll likwly be found by the animal. Either way, most are neutral.

Quote :

I believe there's some kind of moth or butterfly (some chiropter) that is white. Then factories were stablished where the populations of this animal are located. The waste from these factories blackened many surfaces and, in order to preserve camouflage, these animals mutated into a darker version.

Yes and no.There were already these darker ones, they simply rarey survived due to not being camoflaged. With this new camoflage the light coloured ones died more foten. Over a long period of time the dark ones could become all that there are.

Quote :

Another example is Chenobyl where we know the radiation created numerous mutations. This radioactive circumstance is what caused the mutations.

It's posible for it to happen, yes, but more likely those mutations will be detrimental and result in death. Naturally occring mutations are when DNA slef replicated incorrectly.

Quote :

(On a side note, I can't believe we're having this discussion in Spamistan. This could well be for State University or Secret Research Facility)

he, he, eh. indeed.

Quote :

All I mean is that mutations don't happen by chance but by influence of factors extrinsic to the organism.

Again, no. With the Pepered Moths of Britan te mutation was already there. The environment simply allowed it to flourish. And radiation at those levels normally cause death, so a moot point. THe mutations are randomly ocurring. It's natural selection that is predictable and non random. Evolution is a non random prediction brought about by random causes.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Through a lot of gene manipluations that I won't ever pretend to understand.

This, nonetheless, implies "triggering" the mutation.

Tyrong_Kojy wrote:

This surely means that there's something triggering mutations. Yes and no. A mutation occurrs when the DNA self replicates wrong. SImple as that. Most of the time it fixes itself. Other times nothing happens at all. Less often bad, bad things happen. SOmetimes something that could be cinsidered good may happen. Those that nothing happen with can over time do something like griow a horn, or something. Not needed for survival, but a use wll likwly be found by the animal. Either way, most are neutral.

Problem here is that something may trigger this wrong self-replication. I mean, as far as I know, most mutations have occured in response to something, mainly changes in the environment.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes and no.There were already these darker ones, they simply rarey survived due to not being camoflaged. With this new camoflage the light coloured ones died more foten. Over a long period of time the dark ones could become all that there are.

Accoridng to one TV program I watched on that (and I won't pretend to give 100% validity to it), moths started being born darker as product of this.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

It's posible for it to happen, yes, but more likely those mutations will be detrimental and result in death. Naturally occring mutations are when DNA slef replicated incorrectly.

Well, in Chernobyl there are lots of animals and plants, mainly trees, that have had quite bizarre mutations and that nonetheless have survived quite well. A Ukrainian site about Chernobyl I read statated "this tree developed a curved structure to survive the new radioactive environment". Similar things with the trees that started growing from asphalt and the walls of buildings.

This in regards to detrimental mutation.

Either way, I think that while mutation may be random it certainly can also be triggered and if it can be triggered, how to demonstrate a certain mutation was or not triggered?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Coincdental. The mutations themselves are radom, WHAT happens and WHEN. There's no ryme or reason to when or what can happen. Natural selection is even pridictable, but the mutations are not at all, unless of course created in a lab, but that doesn't count.

Yes he is right, errors or variation of script in the DNA can be total random.

Quote :

This, nonetheless, implies "triggering" the mutation.

Yes but not naturally.

Quote :

Problem here is that something may trigger this wrong self-replication. I mean, as far as I know, most mutations have occured in response to something, mainly changes in the environment.

No, the mutations are not triggered by the environmet. The environment chooses which of the currently active mutations are benificial.

Quote :

Accoridng to one TV program I watched on that (and I won't pretend to give 100% validity to it), moths started being born darker as product of this.

Then it was wrong, sorry. Some simply were born like that, and most died. AFter the change, the darker ones spread their genes more. Give it 100-1000 years and the white ones might vanish all together, assuming that mutation stops ocurring.Like cancer with humans, the colour change in the Peppered Moth can always occur in the babies. Well maggots. Whatever. They might evolve away, but might not.

Quote :

Well, in Chernobyl there are lots of animals and plants, mainly trees, that have had quite bizarre mutations and that nonetheless have survived quite well. A Ukrainian site about Chernobyl I read statated "this tree developed a curved structure to survive the new radioactive environment". Similar things with the trees that started growing from asphalt and the walls of buildings.

And how many died off? How many are unable to create offspring? Radiation CAN cause mutations, and sometimes an organism can even live through them. But, and this is ignoring radiation sickness of course, usually many, many things will go wrong. But that's the nature of mutations. ANYTHING can happen, therein, and an organism can end up surviving, ad even fourishing if they get that mutation to allow that in teri environment.

Quote :

This in regards to detrimental mutation.

Even with radiation, not ALL are detrimental. just most. Again, nature can and will remove most radiation, and organisms, especially plants and insects can survive surprising things. ust most mutations brought on by radiation exposure are detrimental. Sometimes some won't be, assuming one survives the radiation itself.

Quote :

Either way, I think that while mutation may be random it certainly can also be triggered and if it can be triggered, how to demonstrate a certain mutation was or not triggered?

As I said, naturally te environment does not CAUSE mutation, it simply takes advantage of those already there. Most organisms WILL die. Inf act, 99.99% of all organisms that have ever lived have died out. An actual triggering is in the lab only, or through radiation that most will die from, especially an organism like ourselves. We won't grow another pair of arms or control lightening. What will happen is our organs will liquify, and our skin blister and peel. Not a pretty death. now, a minor ammoutn of radiation to a populace over a long periiod of time may do something liek make some of the people grow an extra toe, or somesuch. But most would end up dieing in stillbirth with horrid mutations, as is evident in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and is still happening at a significantly increased rate.

Quote :

Yes he is right, errors or variation of script in the DNA can be total random.

Indeed.

I would love to know how you post the video itself, Tyrlop.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Coincdental. The mutations themselves are radom, WHAT happens and WHEN. There's no ryme or reason to when or what can happen. Natural selection is even pridictable, but the mutations are not at all, unless of course created in a lab, but that doesn't count.

The problem is, how are they created in a lab? This surely means that there's something triggering mutations.

I believe there's some kind of moth or butterfly (some chiropter) that is white. Then factories were stablished where the populations of this animal are located. The waste from these factories blackened many surfaces and, in order to preserve camouflage, these animals mutated into a darker version.

Another example is Chenobyl where we know the radiation created numerous mutations. This radioactive circumstance is what caused the mutations.

(On a side note, I can't believe we're having this discussion in Spamistan. This could well be for State University or Secret Research Facility)

All I mean is that mutations don't happen by chance but by influence of factors extrinsic to the organism.

one of the reasons why we got mutations on animals on earth is cosmic radiation and the radiation from our earth( centrum)

zealot wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes and no.There were already these darker ones, they simply rarey survived due to not being camoflaged. With this new camoflage the light coloured ones died more foten. Over a long period of time the dark ones could become all that there are.

Accoridng to one TV program I watched on that (and I won't pretend to give 100% validity to it), moths started being born darker as product of this.

they where not mutated , but did allready existed, you proberly remember wrong, dark butterflies (called something els in danish) did allready exist but there where many white trees in that region so there was also alot of white butterflies, untill factories came and many white butterflies was replaced by darker ones. the darker ones used to live on the other trees

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Well, in Chernobyl there are lots of animals and plants, mainly trees, that have had quite bizarre mutations and that nonetheless have survived quite well. A Ukrainian site about Chernobyl I read statated "this tree developed a curved structure to survive the new radioactive environment". Similar things with the trees that started growing from asphalt and the walls of buildings.

And how many died off? How many are unable to create offspring? Radiation CAN cause mutations, and sometimes an organism can even live through them. But, and this is ignoring radiation sickness of course, usually many, many things will go wrong. But that's the nature of mutations. ANYTHING can happen, therein, and an organism can end up surviving, ad even fourishing if they get that mutation to allow that in teri environment.

Quote :

This in regards to detrimental mutation.

Even with radiation, not ALL are detrimental. just most. Again, nature can and will remove most radiation, and organisms, especially plants and insects can survive surprising things. ust most mutations brought on by radiation exposure are detrimental. Sometimes some won't be, assuming one survives the radiation itself.

radiation is the only cause for mutations, the natural radiation like cosmic radiation and radiation from the inside of the earth,
so high radiation and short lifetime of a animal, is good for the evolution of the animal, since the animal can evolv quicker,

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Either way, I think that while mutation may be random it certainly can also be triggered and if it can be triggered, how to demonstrate a certain mutation was or not triggered?

As I said, naturally te environment does not CAUSE mutation, it simply takes advantage of those already there. Most organisms WILL die. Inf act, 99.99% of all organisms that have ever lived have died out. An actual triggering is in the lab only, or through radiation that most will die from, especially an organism like ourselves. We won't grow another pair of arms or control lightening. What will happen is our organs will liquify, and our skin blister and peel. Not a pretty death. now, a minor ammoutn of radiation to a populace over a long periiod of time may do something liek make some of the people grow an extra toe, or somesuch. But most would end up dieing in stillbirth with horrid mutations, as is evident in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and is still happening at a significantly increased rate.

i agree 100%

to noseman : [youtube]

WeiWuWei wrote:

By materialism, Marx and Engels - and Feuerbach - were talking about something more than that. Their basic view of history - excluding the part about dialectics - is that changes in the material condition of things opens society to changes in the economic order. So take the Industrial Revolution as an example of this: the changes in the material condition - i.e. the industrialization of production - gave birth to Capitalism. I mean, this is a really broad way to describe it, but that's what materialism basically is about - when you throw the dialectics into the mix, it makes the changes in the material condition teleological.

So it's kind of false for this video to say that it's "conflict" that makes history; rather, it is the changes in the material condition of society that makes conflict happen.

For me, though, I'm used to using the word materialism in the way that you have here, which is pretty much the way Bakunin used the word materialism to mean, strictly, the stuff that we can interact with and prove to be real.

I hate words with more than one meaning.

For real, but that wasn't the cause of the problem here; That would be my fault. I didn't mean to say explicitly that materialism is an immaculate conception/theory by saying there's "nothing" wrong with it. I just meant they're fabricating a problem where none exists.

Now, i do believe material conditions are the biggest influence upon our consciousness and our development, but certainly, as ZK said, abstraction plays its position by allowing us to philosophize, theorize, and generally conceive of things beyond the material.

Quote :

radiation is the only cause for mutations,

It is not. When DNA replicates itself msitakes can be made. These are mutations. No radiation needed.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

radiation is the only cause for mutations,

It is not. When DNA replicates itself msitakes can be made. These are mutations. No radiation needed.

those mistakes happends thanks to radiation, all the time we get radiated by something called "backgrounds-radiation" in danish. the small ammount of natural radiation make the mutations on the DNA when it replicates itself, since its there its very harmfull .