evolution and death (1 Viewer)

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Didn't Richard Dawkins argue that since genes are essentially immortal and organisms are mortal that we are the means by which genes are reproduced - instead of vice versa "The Selfish Gene." That all altruistic behaviour could be explained since it would be contributing to the furtherance of the species more than the genus, family etc. We obviously feel more sympathy for our direct relations than strangers, and more for strangers than for other species etc. Morality is a way for the gene to triumph - even if it means death for the individual - ie fighting to the death to protect your family.

hahaha.. a philosophical view.. that reminds me of something... ahhhh... i havent even read my philosophy materials and i have my residential at unsw this weekend lol.

yes this where racism in humans originates... but this, i believe is not universal. ie only humans and some other animals feel this... there are animals who kill their young... this could be a good thing or bad thing depending on the environment and its purpose. therefore this arguement is flawed... everything and anything can exist by the law of probability but there are chemical and evolutionary mechanisms that must be overcomed. this defines what is likely to exist and what does not exist at all.

why do "all" living things reproduce or replicate? this must be a totally random chemical action that is selected by nature to exist. because if it did not reproduce... it wouldn't be here today because death is inevitable by acident, fate or whatever even though its not programed... so even if living things that did not reproduce existed we would not have known it did.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
This would mean that the more generations in x period of time the better - the shorter the life span of the individual the better for the group - as this would make it easier for the organism to quickly adapt to its environment - case in point, bacteria are quickly becoming resistant to antibiotics because of their incredibly short lifespans. Programmed death then would be advantageous to the species as a whole and as the individual is insignificant - apart from their carrying of genes - it would be the most logical outcome.
A possible exception would be grandmothers living longer (to look after their grandchildren) and thus increasing the chance of the grandchildren's survival in turn leading to the propagation of the genes leading to long life in women - women live longer than men because old men are useless - old women are still contributing.

yes thats the whole point... that is if my theory of non-repeating change, and proportionality in the rate of change is true... or any other means of explaining this.

im going to introduce a new theme on this idea. i believe that an organism is a program like computer programs. the complexity of this program is defined by how many basic units it has. ie the amount of molecule making up a DNA... the amount of DNAs making up the cell... the amount of cells making up the multicellular organism and so forth. the more complex an organism is the better chance it will have to be able to self-adapt to changes in an environment. thus this is a big advantage... just look at us humans... we control the environment to large extend now. this is the reason that we exist today even though our rate of change is so slow due to our compexity in turns of molecular makeup. i can argue that we are better off than bacteria... because soon we'll have the technology to destroy them by manipulation of the environment. so there are a good reason to become multicellular and live longer and a bad reason to it. thus humans are selected by natural selection but so is bacteria even though we are completely different species. we as humans are the most complex form of species that exists on earth today... thus natural selection has filtered out the even more complex species that could of existed because they died before they can even reach reproduction. therefore humans are one of them creatures who hit the jackpot in terms of maximising the complexity without being totally wiped out by its early disadvantages compared to other organims existing today... in terms of reproduction.

so how complex an organism is, ultimately determines how long it'll live because it takes a long time to generate with chemical reactions, this complex being... this directly determines the length of life but evolution just selects it and puts restriction on how complex we can become.

i think most of everything is explained... the assumption i made are all very much true... and i can explain some this assumptions with my logics if anyone wanted me to.

 

[Zarathustra]

Thanks for replying abdooooo! albeit belated.
This is the type of biology I chose the course for, not stupid plants . If only we had similar discussions in class... oh well:mad1:

 

[~TeLEpAtHeTiC~]

Originally posted by Zarathustra

This is the type of biology I chose the course for, not stupid plants . If only we had similar discussions in class... oh well:mad1:

u wont experience any of this such in high school bio lol... i mean high school bio is just oen step further than sex education in yr 6 as far as i see it... once u get into university u'll find these conversatiosn coming thick and fast..specially later yrs...
it only gets better

 

[abdooooo!!!]

at least you get to remember lots stuff in the hsc... its like that in all the subjects.

hey i always wondered whats going on with the teaching of enzyme... i mean is it too hard to tell student that an increase in substrate concentration means an increase in successful collision between the substrate and the enzymes as there are more molecules in a confined space... this can be therefore shown as a logarithmic function since each single increase has less effect on the multiples of the substrate as a whole...

all they teach you is because it just does... and you have to remember it and not figure it out like a good scientist would by using logical application of fundamental theorems... such as the collision theory.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Thanks for replying abdooooo! albeit belated.
This is the type of biology I chose the course for, not stupid plants . If only we had similar discussions in class... oh well:mad1:

belated??? umm... i had to finish my chem assignment which is due today... lol.

plants? hahaha... this is why some people don't take biology as a science... because most of the fundamental stuff is done in chemistry or already solved by math... they have nothing better do with a subject like biology so yea plants is good for the environment... so it must be good to study and memorize.

 

[~TeLEpAtHeTiC~]

Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
at least you get to remember lots stuff in the hsc... its like that in all the subjects.

hey i always wondered whats going on with the teaching of enzyme... i mean is it too hard to tell student that an increase in substrate concentration means an increase in successful collision between the substrate and the enzymes as there are more molecules in a confined space... this can be therefore shown as a logarithmic function since each single increase has less effect on the multiples of the substrate as a whole...

all they teach you is because it just does... and you have to remember it and not figure it out like a good scientist would by using logical application of fundamental theorems... such as the collision theory.

so true... and this is wer chemistry comes in.. and it was so frustrating in class whn my teacher would ask why substrate cocnentration has an effect on the rate, and then i'd go on to explain the collision theory and she'd be like, um u dont hav to go into detail, and then she blabed in bout this totally childish reply to the question ... but them days are over

 

[abdooooo!!!]

ahaha... not for me though... remembering stuff out of the syllabus is just not fun.

so you're doing psychology eh? umm... i would love to study neuroscience and memory one day.

 

[~TeLEpAtHeTiC~]

neuroscience and memory two of the best things in psychology, i learn them next semester and can not wait!!
looking through the course its soooo interesting..but sooo much hard work..
coincidently i'll be the one treating all the stressed out hscers one day lol

 

[abdooooo!!!]

lucky you... i always wanted to know why do we always forget facts and not forget skills... so interesting. its like those people who have brain damage can get taught new skills but forget that they ever learn't it in the first place.

 

[Zarathustra]

Did anyone hear the 2003 Reith lectures - by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran - The emerging mind . They were broadcast by radio national (ABC) over the holidays.
It was about how neuroscience will one day overtake aesthetics, philosophy, psychology and all other forms of "value" judgements.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Zarathustra


Did anyone hear the 2003 Reith lectures - by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran - The emerging mind . They were broadcast by radio national (ABC) over the holidays.
It was about how neuroscience will one day overtake aesthetics, philosophy, psychology and all other forms of "value" judgements.

yeh of course... go determinism.

but philosophy includes science right? thats why i think you can get a doctor of philosphy in science... and neuroscience obviously comes under that.