NationStates Jolt Archive


We Need to Boycott Evolutions!

Exomnia
25-04-2007, 00:18
First off, it's not equal opportunity: Only the 'fittest' survive. Well, Evolutions, who are you to decide what is and isn't fit. Equal rights for all life.
Secondly, it's dangerous: many things that kill things are the products of evolutions. Case and point: Lions and Tigers and Bears (they are things that kill things and they evolved).
Thirdly, it corrupts our youth: young people wouldn't want to have sex if it weren't for their inborn sex drive, courtesy of evolutions.
And finally, it causes cancer! Cancer is evolution of the cellular level, cancer cells have an advantage because they reproduce wildly. They survive because they cannot be differentiated from the regular cells of the body easily. And so on.

So I propose a nationwide ban on evolutions.

Seriously though, cancer is an evolutionary process. Saying that microevolution can happen and yet macroevolution can't seems silly to me because I would call cancer a form of macroevolution, let me tell you why. We are, simply put, colonies of cells. Each individual cell in our body is almost an individual life form. There really is a very small difference philosophically, between a multi-celled organism and a super organism (like an ant colony or a beehive). They're both collections of almost-living* things working for the good of the group. Now if by a random mutation, female bee's were suddenly fertile, and they became independent of the hive, but they still used it for honey and procreation, this would be analogous to cancer and this would be speciation, macroevolution. Ergo, it can be argued that cancer is macroevolution. It is simply the cells in your body reverting to an independent state while still draining the resources of the collective.

Man, doesn't evolving suck? :(

*I say almost-living because ant drones lack one crucial criterion for life, reproduction. They cannot reproduce by themselves. N.B. most definitions of life make it hereditary, therefore ant drones are considered alive.
Zarakon
25-04-2007, 00:23
...

You know, he does have a point.

:p

Oh! Obligatory Onion article:

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution
TOPEKA, KS—In response to a Nov. 7 referendum, Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life.
"From now on, the streets, forests, plains, and rivers of Kansas will be safe from the godless practice of evolution, and species will be able to procreate without deviating from God's intended design," said Bob Bethell, a member of the state House of Representatives. "This is about protecting the integrity of all creation."

The sweeping new law prohibits all living beings within state borders from being born with random genetic mutations that could make them better suited to evade predators, secure a mate, or, adapt to a changing environment. In addition, it bars any sexual reproduction, battles for survival, or instances of pure happenstance that might lead, after several generations, to a more well-adapted species or subspecies.

Violators of the new law may face punishments that include jail time, stiff fines, and rehabilitative education and training to rid organisms suspected of evolutionary tendencies. Repeat offenders could face chemical sterilization.

To enforce the law, Kansas state police will be trained to investigate and apprehend organisms who exhibit suspected signs of evolutionary behavior, such as natural selection or speciation. Plans are underway to track and monitor DNA strands in every Kansan life form for even the slightest change in allele frequencies.

"Barn swallows that develop lighter, more streamlined builds to enable faster migration, for example, could live out the rest of their brief lives in prison," said Indiana University chemist and pro-intelligent-design author Robert Hellenbaum, who helped compose the language of the law. "And butterflies who mimic the wing patterns and colors of other butterflies for an adaptive advantage, well, their days of flouting God's will are over."

Human beings may be the species most deeply affected by the new legislation. Those whose cytochrome-c molecules vary less than 2 percent from those of chimpanzees will be in direct violation of the law.

Under particular scrutiny are single-cell microorganisms, with thousands of field labs being installed across the state to ensure that these self-replicating molecules, notorious for mutation, do not do so in a fashion benefitting their long-term survival.

Anti-evolutionists such as Hellenbaum have long accused microorganisms of popularizing "an otherwise obscure, agonizingly slow, and hard-to-understand" biological process. "These repeat offenders are at the root of the problem," Hellenbaum said. "We have the fossil records to prove it."

"No species is exempt," said Marcus Holloway, a state police spokesman. "Whether you're a human being or a fruit fly—if we detect one homologous chromosome trying to cross over during the process of meiosis, you will be punished to the full extent of the law."

Although the full impact of the new law will likely not be felt for approximately 10 million years, most Kansans say they are relieved that the ban went into effect this week, claiming that evolution may have gone too far already.

"If Earth's species were meant to change over successive generations through physical modifications resulting from the adaptation to environmental challenges, then God would have given them the genetic predisposition to select mates and reproduce based on their favorable heritable traits and their ability to thrive under changing conditions so that these advantageous qualities would be passed down and eventually encoded into the DNA of each generation of offspring," Olathe public school teacher and creationist Joyce Eckhardt said. "It's just not natural."

Some warn that the strict wording of the law could have a deleterious effect on Kansas' mostly agricultural economy, since it also prohibits all forms of man-made artificial selection, such as plant hybridization, genetic engineering, and animal husbandry. A police raid on an alleged artificial-insemination facility outside McPherson, KS on Friday resulted in the arrest of a farmer, a veterinarian, four assistants, one bull, and several dozen cows.

Agribusiness leaders, who rely on evolution science to genetically modify crops, have voiced concerns about doing business with Kansas farmers.

"If Kansans want to ban evolution, that is their right, but they must understand that we rely on a certain flexibility in the natural order of things to be able to deliver healthy food products to millions of Americans," said Carl Casale, a vice president with the agricultural giant Monsanto. "We're not talking about playing God here. We are talking about succeeding in the competitive veggie-burger market."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807
Exomnia
25-04-2007, 00:27
...

You know, he does have a point.

:p

Oh! Obligatory Onion article:


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

I have a point! :D

Kansas, lawl.
New Limacon
25-04-2007, 00:29
I am in complete agreement with you. I have already taken part in this boycott, by not buying anything that is the product of evolution (it's actually easy when you're not allowed to use paper money). Not only do I not eat organic material, but I refuse to accept anything that contains elements that are the product of novae. Why should I profit from the death of a star? That's why I only eat elements with atomic numbers smaller than carbon. I suggest that everyone else does the same.
Ashmoria
25-04-2007, 00:43
my husband could have written that strange rant. he watched some science channel program on evolution the other day and went on a rant about how unfair evolution is.
Skibereen
25-04-2007, 00:51
First off, it's not equal opportunity: Only the 'fittest' survive. Well, Evolutions, who are you to decide what is and isn't fit. Equal rights for all life.
Secondly, it's dangerous: many things that kill things are the products of evolutions. Case and point: Lions and Tigers and Bears (they are things that kill things and they evolved).
Thirdly, it corrupts our youth: young people wouldn't want to have sex if it weren't for their inborn sex drive, courtesy of evolutions.
And finally, it causes cancer! Cancer is evolution of the cellular level, cancer cells have an advantage because they reproduce wildly. They survive because they cannot be differentiated from the regular cells of the body easily. And so on.

So I propose a nationwide ban on evolutions.

Seriously though, cancer is an evolutionary process. Saying that microevolution can happen and yet macroevolution can't seems silly to me because I would call cancer a form of macroevolution, let me tell you why. We are, simply put, colonies of cells. Each individual cell in our body is almost an individual life form. There really is a very small difference philosophically, between a multi-celled organism and a super organism (like an ant colony or a beehive). They're both collections of almost-living* things working for the good of the group. Now if by a random mutation, female bee's were suddenly fertile, and they became independent of the hive, but they still used it for honey and procreation, this would be analogous to cancer and this would be speciation, macroevolution. Ergo, it can be argued that cancer is macroevolution. It is simply the cells in your body reverting to an independent state while still draining the resources of the collective.

Man, doesn't evolving suck? :(

*I say almost-living because ant drones lack one crucial criterion for life, reproduction. They cannot reproduce by themselves. N.B. most definitions of life make it hereditary, therefore ant drones are considered alive.

I was under the impression that a cancer cell was a malignant mutation not adaptation and therefore not the cell evolving.

Not trying to nit pick but dont ruin your good satire with bad science.
Exomnia
25-04-2007, 00:53
I was under the impression that a cancer cell was a malignant mutation not adaptation and therefore not the cell evolving.

Not trying to nit pick but dont ruin your good satire with bad science.

Evolution happens at all scales. From genes to cells to organisms to populations. I didn't come up with the idea that cancer is a form of evolution. A cancer cell is simply a damaged cell that has an evolutionary advantage in that it doesn't kill itself. It is more prone to survival than non-cancer cells. Ergo, evolution.

Plus, bad science makes good satire.
New Limacon
25-04-2007, 00:53
I was under the impression that a cancer cell was a malignant mutation not adaptation and therefore not the cell evolving.

Not trying to nit pick but dont ruin your good satire with bad science.

True, if the cell is cancerous it's not an useful adaptation, and therefore does not lead to evolution.

Cancer is more a side effect of evolution.

I would like to encourage this boycott. I already do not buy, eat, in any way engage with goods that are the product of evolution. I am also beginning not to use any elements past carbon, as they can only come about through novae. Who am I to profit from the deaths of stars?
Exomnia
25-04-2007, 00:58
True, if the cell is cancerous it's not an useful adaptation, and therefore does not lead to evolution.

Cancer is more a side effect of evolution.

I would like to encourage this boycott. I already do not buy, eat, in any way engage with goods that are the product of evolution. I am also beginning not to use any elements past carbon, as they can only come about through novae. Who am I to profit from the deaths of stars?

Cancer isn't advantageous to the organism as a whole, but it is beneficial to the cells themselves.
JuNii
25-04-2007, 01:00
First off, it's not equal opportunity: Only the 'fittest' survive. Well, Evolutions, who are you to decide what is and isn't fit. Equal rights for all life.
Secondly, it's dangerous: many things that kill things are the products of evolutions. Case and point: Lions and Tigers and Bears (they are things that kill things and they evolved).
Thirdly, it corrupts our youth: young people wouldn't want to have sex if it weren't for their inborn sex drive, courtesy of evolutions.
And finally, it causes cancer! Cancer is evolution of the cellular level, cancer cells have an advantage because they reproduce wildly. They survive because they cannot be differentiated from the regular cells of the body easily. And so on.

So I propose a nationwide ban on evolutions.

Seriously though, cancer is an evolutionary process. Saying that microevolution can happen and yet macroevolution can't seems silly to me because I would call cancer a form of macroevolution, let me tell you why. We are, simply put, colonies of cells. Each individual cell in our body is almost an individual life form. There really is a very small difference philosophically, between a multi-celled organism and a super organism (like an ant colony or a beehive). They're both collections of almost-living* things working for the good of the group. Now if by a random mutation, female bee's were suddenly fertile, and they became independent of the hive, but they still used it for honey and procreation, this would be analogous to cancer and this would be speciation, macroevolution. Ergo, it can be argued that cancer is macroevolution. It is simply the cells in your body reverting to an independent state while still draining the resources of the collective.

Man, doesn't evolving suck? :(

*I say almost-living because ant drones lack one crucial criterion for life, reproduction. They cannot reproduce by themselves. N.B. most definitions of life make it hereditary, therefore ant drones are considered alive.
*waits for the plan to detect and stop Evolutions from happening.*
The Lone Alliance
25-04-2007, 01:04
I have a point! :D

Kansas, lawl.

We already have. They're called Doctors.

Natural Selection:
Premies die
Appendisitis is death
C section required births would be death.
Illinesses
Blah
Blah
Blah
Skibereen
25-04-2007, 01:06
Cancer isn't advantageous to the organism as a whole, but it is beneficial to the cells themselves.

No, it isnt an adaptation at all, it is a mutation. Therefore it is not evolution, at least not successful evolution. Successful evolution means species continuation...cancer destroys that possibilty...hence it is a lemming...evolutionary failure. Mutation.
JuNii
25-04-2007, 01:07
No, it isnt an adaptation at all, it is a mutation. Therefore it is not evolution, at least not successful evolution. Successful evolution means species continuation...cancer destroys that possibilty...hence it is a lemming...evolutionary failure. Mutation.

ahh.. but he didn't say successful evolution, just evolution.

so Cancer is actually a sign of Evolution... :p
Dryks Legacy
25-04-2007, 03:02
Does anyone else think that we're messing with nature by keeping people and other animals that should die alive?

my husband could have written that strange rant. he watched some science channel program on evolution the other day and went on a rant about how unfair evolution is.

:eek: Life is unfair?...stop the presses we need to get the word out before it's too late!
Sane Outcasts
25-04-2007, 03:07
Does anyone else think that we're messing with nature by keeping people and other animals that should die alive?

We just exert our own pressure on evolutionary process by changing the criteria for survival from adaptive success to success based on access to medical care. Not exactly a stable or consistent pressure, to be sure, but its there.
The Pictish Revival
25-04-2007, 07:49
Does anyone else think that we're messing with nature by keeping people and other animals that should die alive?


Only in the same way that wearing clothes and living in artificial structures is messing with nature. We don't like the natural climate so we create a microclimate.
Similarly, we don't like bleeding to death so we apply bandages.
UpwardThrust
25-04-2007, 08:03
ahh.. but he didn't say successful evolution, just evolution.

so Cancer is actually a sign of Evolution... :p

The definition of evolution requires generational spanning, cancer does not fit that deffinition. It also requires trait inharitence. If you try to stretch the definition that far it becomes useless.

It is mutation, trying to classify it as Evolution is intellectually dishonest at best.
Dryks Legacy
25-04-2007, 08:14
It is mutation, trying to classify it as Evolution is intellectually dishonest at best.

Cancer cells are like a group of hicks. They've lost their minds/control due to a genetic mutation, all they can do is multiply rapidly until there are so many of they smother and kill off their entire area.
Free Soviets
25-04-2007, 08:15
First off, it's not equal opportunity: Only the 'fittest' survive. Well, Evolutions, who are you to decide what is and isn't fit. Equal rights for all life.

interestingly, evolution seems to at least not be hostile to groups adopting such an approach. see also, 'radical success of evolved human social organization'.
Good Lifes
25-04-2007, 15:47
The definition of evolution requires generational spanning, cancer does not fit that deffinition. It also requires trait inharitence. If you try to stretch the definition that far it becomes useless.

It is mutation, trying to classify it as Evolution is intellectually dishonest at best.

It matters if it's a cancer that occurs before or after the age of reproduction and if it's genetically linked. If it's a genetically linked cancer that occurs before reproduction age, and we save the person and allow them to reproduce the gene that is linked to the cancer we weaken the gene pool from an evolution point of view.
Ifreann
25-04-2007, 15:51
This is indeed a strange thread. I've never seen anyone address the process of evolution itself.
THE LOST PLANET
25-04-2007, 17:40
...

You know, he does have a point.

:p

Oh! Obligatory Onion article:


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807If Evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will Evolve.
UpwardThrust
25-04-2007, 20:45
It matters if it's a cancer that occurs before or after the age of reproduction and if it's genetically linked. If it's a genetically linked cancer that occurs before reproduction age, and we save the person and allow them to reproduce the gene that is linked to the cancer we weaken the gene pool from an evolution point of view.

It is considered evolution if the mutation is non beneficial for reproduction?
Ralina
25-04-2007, 22:10
First off, it's not equal opportunity: Only the 'fittest' survive.

I just want to point out that "only the fittest survive" is not evolution, it's natural selection.
Dosuun
25-04-2007, 22:31
I am also beginning not to use any elements past carbon, as they can only come about through novae. Who am I to profit from the deaths of stars?
I believe that would actually be Iron, not Carbon.

Many lawlz were had by me when reading this. GJ.
Transcendant Pilgrims
25-04-2007, 22:34
1 word: Muahhhahahahhah!!!

I am also beginning not to use any elements past carbon, as they can only come about through novae.

Hmm, I think you'd have to avoid use of any element on the periodic table greater than #1. As most everything from helium up comes from stars.

Personally, I consume only zero-point energy. Matter is the evolution of energy, and thus, contrary to God's will.