gentle -> caress

Aloha, Hawaiigurl! And to everyone else, too!

Hi Spider.

You've switched over to discussing macroevolution (which is a smart move, as I think you could make a stronger argument that way), but your original post deals with an example of microevolution. Microevolution is empirical fact, however, and meets your criteria of what constitutes science. One of the easiest way to track microevolution is with fruitflies because they have such short life-spans and we can track hundreds or thousands of generations to see how various variables influence the genetic progression of the species. We can see which flies die and which thrive, which ones pass along their traits to the next generation and which ones cannot. We have a solid grasp of how these things work, even if we have much to learn yet.

Macroevolution is much less fact than theory, but there is strong evidence to support it. The species of the Galapagos Islands, for example, are similar but distinct from nearby species — and charting continental drift we are able to approximate when they were separated and could no longer breed due to distance. The species are enough similar to the indigenous species of the nearby lands that it is extremely likely that it's more than a mere coincidence.

To be honest, I hated Biology 101 (we spent all our time dealing with plants, plants, and more plants... enough with the damn ferns already!), so I haven't done extensive study into all the genetic similarities and what the subtly different theories are about. What I do know, however, is that the theory of evolution is less a theory _that_ evolution occurs than _how_ it occurs. The reason scientists are so confident that macroevolution happens in some way is because the similarities that seem to exist between various species, when combined with other data (like regional similarities, fossil data over time, etc.), are too vast to be just coincidence. It would be like finding a trail of pennies and as you follow them, you approach someone with a big bag full of pennies. If there had been only one or two or even ten pennies before you met the person with the bag, you wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that the pennies belonged to the bag-owner — but when you find a thousand pennies leading to the bag-holder, you are compelled to believe that they belong to the person holding the bag. In a similar way, macroevolution has a lot of evidence but no absolute proof, but all the evidence we have leads us to the present when we can observe microevolution and we theorize that there is likely a connection between the two processes. Not everyone agrees, of course, and there are other models for macroevolution (though most scientists dismiss them as being less likely than the Darwinian model).

Anyway, my previous post was basically just to point out that the situation you presented wasn't necessarily contrary to evolutionary science and that you were asking one question but the situation pointed to a different question. No biggie, though — I like to work through a puzzle from time to time.

Cheers!

I haven't read everyone's posts, so I apologize if someone already covered the following:

The argument Spider puts forth makes a few assumptions, including:

1) if evolution exists, then evolution is always the direct result of environmental stimuli

2) that nothing else but chili peppers, and nowhere else but the northern hemisphere, has ever existed in the span of human existence that might contain capsaicin or something quite similar

3) that the enzyme serves no other purpose

To address the first assumption, evolution is not a direct response — that would merely be an adaptation. For example, kings used to purposely ingest poisons, starting out in minute quantities and gradually increasing the dosage, in an effort to foil would-be assassins. The king would become immune to the toxin in doses that would typically kill a person, so any attempt to poison him would most likely fail. That is an adaptation, not evolution. Mere exposure to something will not result in an evolutionary change in a species — which explains how many species become extinct when their environment changes to the point that they cannot survive. (I'm not being critical here — the theory that the environmental conditions in one generation forced a change in the next was common for years. The idea was that in giraffes, for example, the stretching of the neck to reach the leaves on tall trees resulted in the next generation having longer necks. Eventually, however, people determined that you could bob a dog's tail every generation and the offspring of each continue to have tails, which led people to an understanding of how genetics plays a role in evolution.)

Genuine evolution often occurs when there are anomalies within a species that make some members better suited to handle the environment. Those who have traits that don't coincide with the environment or don't improve the chances for reproduction will more likely die off, and the ones with the better-suited traits will survive (though not necessarily thrive). In the next generation, some members may be yet better suited for the environment, and so on — until an evolutionary advance has been made. It takes very many generations to make significant changes in an entire species. But the important part here is to note that no particular member of the species _develops_ a trait based on a condition of the environment — one already has it or doesn't.

Evolution can also occur naturally, for no environmental reason — as long as the trait doesn't make it more difficult for members to survive or propagate. Over many generations, changes in mating patterns or a mutation can result in new dominant traits forming in certain individuals, and after many more generations, those traits can change the entire species (or a vast percentage of a species).

Regarding the second assumption, it isn't impossible or even unlikely that capaicin or a very similar substance existed in a plant (other than the chili pepper) at some time during human development. Even if natural selection were the only evolutionary way for humans to have developed the enzymes necessary, it's not unfathomable that there was a capaicin source thousands of years ago.

And regarding the third assumption, it's important to note that one enzyme does not have only one purpose. The enzymes that helps break down capaicin surely serve other digestive functions. Even if the argument that nobody should have the enzymes because nobody had ever been exposed to capaicin were otherwise valid, it would not hold up. The very fact that we are not immune to the burning, as are birds, is an indication that the enzymes are not fully adequate and cannot handle capaicin and very likely serve other purposes.

On a final point, it is important to note that Spider's argument questions microevolution — which even the staunchest supporters of creationism do not generally try to deny, as it is a phenomenon that we can witness, track, and guide in laboratory settings and in nature. Microevolution is not in question, and the argument Spider puts forth does not actually attempt to refute microevolution (even though Spider himself presented it that way). His real question is, "how do you explain when something happens that evolution can't explain?"

The question is not whether evolution happens — we have proof of microevolution, and very strong evidence for macroevolution — but, rather, whether there is a guiding hand that makes it all possible. Creationism typically denies macroevolution, and that is possibly an argument someone can make with compelling theories (since there is a much longer time span involved and more room for speculation); denying microevolution, however, is not a winnable argument. Arguing for intelligent design has much stronger philosophical support and would be, by far, a better argument than trying to disprove evolution.

"I Just Want to Be Your Everything" by Andy Gibb

classyjeff: Your post reminds me of an antecdote I heard awhile back:

A man visits his friend who happens to be working in his yard, lush with green grass, full bushes, and colorful flowers, and remarks, "It's amazing what you and the Lord have done with this yard." His neighbor replies, "Yeah, you should have seen it when the Lord was tending it by himself."

Some say that God helps those who help themselves. I consider that to be a cop-out. I figure it's better — even if you believe strongly in God — to live our lives as if there's no divine intervention. I believe we're on our own, regardless of whether God exists, and that we need to take full responsibility for our future. Nothing good can come from blaming our problems on God, other people, fate, or even ourselves. We need to figure out what we truly want in life and what we need to do to achieve our goals — and then do it.

I suppose it would be fair to call me an atheistic agnostic — meaning that I don't believe in the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, but believe that the possible existence of some non-physical reality cannot be known.

I won't go into detail about my reasoning, but I see no point to living life based upon the possible, but unlikely, existence of another reality in which we share no apparent part.

Sorry, CommissarRed... no offense intended. Unless you're a D&D _dork_ ...

*just kidding*

Hello my sexy Hawaiian babe!

I was being light, by the way. Half of my first paragraph was tongue-in-cheek. I just didn't feel like using emoticons. I figured my 'medical warning' would alert everyone that I was using hyperbole.


So, how you doin', baby?

A game should be just that — a game. But WoW often turns otherwise normal people into the computer equivalent of D&D dorks from 15-20 years ago who act as if the game is an extension of their real life. Some people are more susceptible to the addiction aspect than others. Most people get incredibly engrossed in the game and consider the people they 'meet' in the online gaming world to be their BFFs. So, until you know how you'll react to World of Warcraft, please do no operate heavy machinery. Consult your physician if you develop headaches, night sweats, or the urge to wield magic in your day-to-day life.

To answer Coco:

World of Warcraft (WoW) is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which people from all over the world log onto gaming servers and assume the role of a character of one sort or another (dwarf, elf, mage, etc.). The game players enter into quests of various sorts in the online world (which has forests, caves, villages, and so forth), perform other tasks to earn money, and battle against one another.

I don't think the game is at all bad, but I think people need to be careful to limit how much time and energy they invest in any online activity. We need real-world activity to keep us grounded and sane.

None of the above, for me. It's true that I don't believe in God/s and don't assign any meaning to confession, but confession never did much for me when I was religious in adolescence either.

I think people tend to feel better, however, after confessing their 'sins' — or discussing them with a counsellor or friend. It is a cathartic experience for most people. However, if people use confession to rid themselves of guilt, I believe that is a step backward. I find a lot of people use confession as a means of ridding themselves of guilt and absolving themselves of responsibility, when it should be about working toward assuming full responsibility and taking measures to make amends for transgressions against others.

El Conquistador

I think it all comes down to the person you're dating. Clearly, you can wait too long and in so doing send the message that you aren't interested, but calling too soon can ruin a bit of the anticipation. If the date went well, chances are the guy told his date that he had a good time and that he'll call her. But if he calls first thing the next morning, it doesn't allow the excitement and anticipation of speaking again to ruminate. There is truth to the old saying that absence makes the heart grow fonder.

You can, but the result is one static frame only and all transparency lost (turned to black, it seems).

I agree, Alanna. You need to have separate lives. Too much togetherness means neither person is bringing any new experiences or perspectives to the relationship. And I _fully_ agree on the ownership aspect. If I'm dating a woman, what right do I have to put any sort of claim on her? Her respect for and loyalty to me should be her choice, not something she by which feels obligated. If I claim to trust her and love her, then I should show it and give her free reign to show her love and commitment to me in whatever ways she feels comfortable.

Just my two cents worth.

You'll figure it out. Just don't think too much about it. If nothing develops, so be it. If something does, it may be great. Just don't obsess over it and you'll be fine.

Well, I do enjoy making people think.


But in all seriousness, I think life is a lot more gratifying if we enjoy what comes rather than putting too many expectations on what we think should happen. There are certainly things that are deal-breakers, but otherwise new and unique experiences are what make the journey worth traveling.

Whatever you do, I hope it all works out for the best.

Thank you, Hawaiigurl, and Aloha to you too!

I don't think you're being selfish at all, Puffins. I just think you may be robbing yourself of a potentially _great_ relationship with someone for whom you didn't initially feel a strong spark. Most couples didn't feel 'lust at first sight' — but almost all shares a lot of passion as they got to know one another. The infatuation and strong passionate love lasts approximately six to eight months, after which time the relationship grows into something deeper (or falls apart, depending on compatibility). I'm not saying that you should go without the passionate phase of a relationship, but it isn't always so instantaneous. I'm just concerned that you may be tossing a good guy aside before you have really gotten to know him.

Hi KeepingTheFaith.

Online dating sites connect us with people of similar interests, compatible personalities, etc., but all we see of the other person is (to borrow Plato's analogy) 'shadows on the wall.' We see an aspect of the person, perhaps one that we wouldn't have noticed otherwise even, through online conversations and visits on the telephone, but a relationship needs day-in and day-out interaction.

Long distance relationships rarely work, and almost never work out when that's the way they begin. I've known people to talk for a few weeks online, 'fall in love,' and fly out to meet the other person for a weekend or a week. Then, it's back to typing and talking on the phone. Growing a relationship and truly getting to know someone well enough to determine you want to spend a large chunk of your life with that person is excruciatingly slow, but often people think they really know the person.

If I talk to you online or by phone, you are probably seeing me only when I'm at my best. If I'm having a problem, if I'm frustrated, or if I'm angry, I probably won't be available during those times. There isn't a lot of growth if you only ever see me at my best (and vise versa).

As far as I'm concerned, a dating site works to connect people who live within easy travel distance, but that's about all it's capable of doing. I've used this site primarily as a means of chatting with various people, but not with the intention of getting a date (unless by chance I were to find someone nearby whom I could meet in person).

So, I've taken the long way around to say that I agree with you. Technology is a good thing when it's used wisely, but there aren't that many wise people. To know someone well, you need to see them, pick up on subtle body language, catch the glint in their eye when they talk about something they love, see the tension in their face when they are frustrated, breathe in their pheromones from time to time, and so forth. Two months of dating is more telling of a relationship than two years of phone conversations.

Thanks for the provocative topic.

Not settling doesn't mean that you can't have an active social life, and it doesn't mean that going out with this guy again will be a waste of time. You may not have felt sparks on your first date, but there's nothing saying that when you get to know him a bit that you won't be smitten. Or, maybe not. But at least you'll know for certain one way or the other. And, so early in the dating process, he certainly should have no delusions that this is necessarily a 'forever' thing. If you go out with him casually a couple of times, just let him know where things stand — don't leave him guessing.

Good luck.