Greenpeace Rates Apple 4th Worst Eco-Friendly Tech Business, Apple Responds

[8PowerBooks]

Dated data used.

It's clear they didn't credit Apple with the new recycling program and Dell was credited. That alone would make Apple fall in the ratings. But I'd be supprised if there was not a bias towards giving Apple a low rating as a prompt to encourage even more change from Apple. At this years annual meeting the enviormental demands where dismissed and within weeks Apple created a new recycling plan. Apple has been and I'm sure will continue to be at the forefront of this work but their penchant for secrecy and failure to reply to calls for action have left them looking like they just don't get it. When a review of the facts shows a progressive company. Sometimes I wish Apple was a more open company but they have proven that in the long run they know what they are doing and for the most part are doing things right. Nobody and no company are perfect and they work in a very dirty industry.

 

[I'mAMac]

So you think it is more likely that the universe with its almost infinite degree of complexity was more likely to have been "created" ? Do you have any idea just how complex any single protein, that performs any one process within a single organelle of a single cell of a single organism, is?
It is incomprehensible that all of this could have come about from anything other than massively parallel random changes in response to environmental pressure.

But aside from this, proteins are made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of a number of subatomic particles with varying physical attributes. Did the "supreme creator" work all this out too? Did he say: "Well, I want to crate man, so first things first: I'll design a quark."

All we are, is the result of a fantastic set of random chances, which given enough time can, and will, produce anything.

I see where your coming from, seeing as im an atheist. I just find it hard to believe that everything on Earth was created by an imaginary man in the sky. Now this is a bit stupid but there is truth to it. All snowflakes are different right? Over 12 billion snowflakes fall on Earth everyday. If this man was designing 12 billion snowflakes a day how would he have time to do anything else?

 

[I'mAMac]

But the diversity in the world seems far too great to have happened over even 5 billion years. There have been mathematical models that have proven it next to impossible for the world to have achieved such scale of life. So, we are to look at finch beaks, as Darwin and others have done, or fossils that inherently have holes in between the big changes in species as our evidence? Or that bacteria can "evolve" are immune to certain anti-biotics? Seems like wild theory if I've ever heard one. It actually insults my intelligence to think of such a crazy story. Can you truly observe evolution? I mean, on a level that is relevant? A species that suddenly becomes more complex over generations? If there is one, tell me, maybe you'll change my mind. If you can't observe it, then it will always be a theory, not a fact. And debate on it should happen.


Not afraid of global warming. Actually, the upside of warmer temperatures is more farmland where there was none. Meaning more food for people. Oh yes, I know, we risk overpopulation, blah, blah, blah. Another tired old liberal argument that is absolutely ridiculous. The good news is that liberals don't have as many kids as conservatives do. Don't look now, but the libs might go the way of the dinos...



I would have thought that a company with Al freaking Gore on its board would probably be pretty worried about environmentalism. GP just threw a little mud in Al's eye if you ask me. If you want to put pressure on companies, hurt their bottom line! Stop buying their products! I'm all for it! I avoid Microsoft products at all cost. Big buyer of Apple. I'd wear Apple underwear if they made it.



I actually don't buy much, but maybe we should tell this to all these people that have to buy new clothes every season. Isn't that a bit wasteful? how many shoes do some people need to own? Why doesn't GP go after clothing companies and fashion designers? Do we really need all these clothes??? Oh wait, I'll bet that most fashion designers support GP. Hmmmm. Nothing like looking the other way!

Evolution is a fact not a theory. Ever seen a chimpanzee? Our genetic makeup is only about a 3% difference. And bacteria does evolve to become immune to antibiotics. Last time I checked, that's why we make new antibiotics. Fossils prove that over time animal skulls(from apes) have been slowly forming into what we are today. I can't believe someone is saying that evolution is a theory. Well, evolution may be a theory to you, but to me, god is imaginary. No proof. Nothing. Theory.

 

[MacinDoc]

Evolution is a fact not a theory. Ever seen a chimpanzee? Our genetic makeup is only about a 3% difference. And bacteria does evolve to become immune to antibiotics. Last time I checked, that's why we make new antibiotics. Fossils prove that over time animal skulls(from apes) have been slowly forming into what we are today. I can't believe someone is saying that evolution is a theory. Well, evolution may be a theory to you, but to me, god is imaginary. No proof. Nothing. Theory.

I'm sure you're not so closed-minded that you're not even listening, right?
Evolution is an indisputable fact. The origin and amazing diversity and complexity of life as a result of random chance is theory. Just because some of the evidence is consistent with the theory does not prove that it is fact, any more than the fact that a murder suspect is a male with blue eyes and blonde hair make every blonde-haired, blue-eyed man a murderer.

 

[digitalbiker]

I agree with gargoyle. Even thought it is long, i read it. and BTW, whoever said the man isnt at all responsible for global warming...well just read gargoyle's post. (he burned you digital biker)

How do you figure that! I respect gargoyles position. After all it is all over in the popular press. It must be right!

I belong to the geology and geophysical community and I have been an active member of the SEG for over 30 years. I have a degree in geophysics and I have been studying the Earth and other planets for over 30 years. I regularly read the journal of Geophysics and The Leading Edge.

I am among the many with my collegues who do not believe that man is causing global warming. Most of us feel instead that the majority of data collected from the Earth suggests that the Earth is warming and CO2 levels are rising along with the rise of sea level, etc.etc. but man is just along for the ride. We have not caused global warming nor can we stop it! However we do not have to contribute to it!

I do not advocate pollution. I advocate working toward energy efficiency and away from waste. I advocate reducing CO2 emissions, etc. etc. I just don't belong to a politcal believe that I have to deride, condem, and criticize mankind for the distruction of the earth and all life as we know it.

Just because a person writes in a forumn that all of the millions of natural processes on earth can be ruled out from causing the earth's temperature to rise. That he thinks the earth's temperature and CO2 levels are directly correlatable to man and his industrializing. Doesn't change my oppinion or the thousands of scientific journals entries that I have read with information to the contrary.

Also he said that all scientists are in concensus about the cause of global warming. This out and out is not true. Most classically trained Geophysicists and Geologists have a extremely large amount of data that indicates that the Earth has in the past and is again warming naturally. The exact cause is unknown, it is a very complex problem with millions of possible variable. The Earth's environment is not constant, never has been, never will be. Species have come and gone. Species will come and go.

But having said that I am not going to go out and create a forest fire, throw trash around, or pour gas and oil out in the lake.

 

[crazycat]

I will not stop using apple's sorry i can go back to oranges.

 

[Free2B]

So you think it is more likely that the universe with its almost infinite degree of complexity was more likely to have been "created" ? Do you have any idea just how complex any single protein, that performs any one process within a single organelle of a single cell of a single organism, is?
It is incomprehensible that all of this could have come about from anything other than massively parallel random changes in response to environmental pressure.

But aside from this, proteins are made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of a number of subatomic particles with varying physical attributes. Did the "supreme creator" work all this out too? Did he say: "Well, I want to crate man, so first things first: I'll design a quark."

All we are, is the result of a fantastic set of random chances, which given enough time can, and will, produce anything.

I find it more possible that life was created rather than randomly formed. The evolution theory still cannot explain how "life" formed. These wild explanations of how matter came together to form an organism is so outlandish, I can't believe "science" pushes this stuff on people.

It is hard to comprehend a higher intelligence because our own intelligence is limited. Why wouldn't a creator understand quarks and subatomic particles? A computer programmer understands every line of code in that program.

One of the main things I can't buy about evolution is the premise that change comes from natural selection through mutations. But how many mutations does it take to go from fish to man? And how many of those mutations are ones that aren't really needed for survival, but just a good idea? Why do you have eyelashes? Were those needed for survival once upon a time? I'll bet you can tell me a story that would make it seem so.

Darwin had a theory. And many people have set out to explain this theory. And so they look for data that would support this theory. And if it doesn't exist directly, they begin to weave a story about how it may have happened. And story upon story builds, until no one can tell what is exactly the truth anymore. Evolutionists are more story tellers than scientists.

 

[Free2B]

There are many professors that has stoped publishing in peer reviewed journals since they just dont cut it anymore. When they stop thye normally publish their "findings" in normal newspapers. Unless you see references to peer reviewed journals I would be very careful to put too much weight on what is written, regardless if the professor is from MIT or not.

This just why there are peer reviewed journals. Most non-scientists have no idea weather it is complete nonsense or not. That is why all publications are made in peer reviewed journals.

Look, Dr. Gargolye, I'm sure you're a smart person if you have published in a peer reviewed journal. Although I have to wonder how smart if you think that a tenured prof. at one of the highest regarded institutions in the world doesn't publish research in peer reviewed journals.

 

[Free2B]

Did you forget about the other half of the planet? The one that is living on less than $1 a day and starving to death?

By overpopulation people are forced into harsher and harsher environments - even in the US - look at what the interstate system has achieved: Urban sprawl into areas of questionable safety: Into hurricane prone areas, areas prone to flooding, areas prone to drought, areas prone to forest fires...

Doesn't it make more sense to have the same number of children that you equal now - e.g. 2-3 (allowing for mortality) ? What benefit to the the human race is there in having more kids?

The pension system of the US and of European countries are much better served by an expanding population. Some European countries are on the decline and has some of those folks pretty worried about their pension plans.

As for the "other part of the world," not all people are living on $1 per day. And if they are, $1 goes a lot farther in China than it does in the US. Yes, there is extreme poverty in parts of the world. But most of that is brought on by corrupt government and failed economic systems.

And I can't believe you are insinuating that the US experiences overpopulation problems. There is so much land and resources in this country, we could support a far larger population. Once again, this overpopulation scam (much like the global warming argument) is one that the far left has used as a political tool to instill fear in people that we are on the brink of destruction. They use this fear to control people and to get elected.

 

[Free2B]

Even for it's time, it was very poorly researched, making many factual errors, but fundamentally, Behe's position boils down to "I can't imagine how this complex system could've evolved, so it must've been created." Fortunately, Behe's failure of imagination was not a limitation for other scientists, who've gone on to elucidate the evolutionary basis for many of the 'irreducibly complex' systems Behe describes, and work continues on more.

I disagree with you. He makes a case that these base systems are so complex, and that for each of the pieces to come together to make a whole would require an enormous amount of randomness which would otherwise have no mechansim to form. He doesn't say it must have been created, he simply says he doesn't buy the evolutionist explanation for how it came to be.

Behe's "failure of imagination" is simply his refusal to make up fantastic stories about how things came into being to explain a theory. Evolutionists sit around and theorize about how these things happened, and then all nod in agreement and say, that must be how it happened.

Not in science it hasn't. There is no scientific support for ID, and the scientific community has unequivocally rejected it as a Trojan Horse for Creationism used by religious fundamentalists to pervert the biology curriculum in the school system.

You should be careful about saying there is "no scientific support for ID". I believe Behe qualifies as a scientist. I believe the head of the Human Genome project qualifies. And I believe that the co-discoverer of the helix formation of DNA qualifies as well. Three scientists, which support a theory other than neo-Darwinism. There are others. It's amazing how pious evolutionists have become!

Only a political debate. There has been no doubt of the validity of evolutionary theory in the biological community for nearly a century. This is not to say that it is beyond question... all scientific theories are continuously under scrutiny, and must continue to provide explanatory power for all observed data. And evolutionary biology is a very active field of research... while there is no doubt that evolution happens, there is still a great deal we do not understand about specific mechanisms and evolutionary relationships between taxa.

Once again, you ignore the fact that there are scientists that don't agree with mainstream science. And science hasn't convinced mainstream America of the validity of evolution either. At least 50% of people don't believe in it. Here's your link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml. In fact, in this poll, only 13% of people thought there was no creator involved! The "debate" may be over in the mainstream biology community, but it's not over in most people's minds.

Like Behe's, you're failure of imagination, has no bearing on the problem. Personally, I can't imagine sub-atomic particles, or intergalactic distances, so I rely on the capabilities of the scientific method and the scientists in those fields to draw supportable conclusions based on data, rather than my limited imagination.

Agreed. I can imagine sub-atomic particles and intergalactic distances. You know why? Because that has been proven with hard evidence. Evolution has been pieced together from a spotty fossil record, a theory, and lots of story-telling. I have a master's in nuclear engineering. Hard to observe those U-235 decays resulting in neutrons which may or may not hit another U-235 atom, causing another fission. But the science is irrefutable in the operation of a nuclear reactor. Hard evidence is golden. I haven't seen any provided by Darwinists.

Link? Not that it really matters, as the empirical evidence proves that any such models are incorrect.

By "empirical evidence" what do you mean exactly? You mean because you're all drinking the kool-aid on Darwin's theory? It must be, right? Because what else could it be? Are you familiar with the Wistar Institute?

The fossil record is only one of many independent and mutually supportive lines of evidence that support the theory. If you are interested in the vast diversity of supportive evidence underpinning our current understanding of evolution, I suggest you enrol in a few biology courses at the university of your choice.

Since I have a full time job, I won't have time for that. I rely on other scientists for their opinions. And I find it interesting that there are many people who disagree with you. Which is a peculiar thing for science.

I'm sorry you find it insulting, but this is one of the most clear and well understood examples of evolution. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics all the time, and that's a big problem for us (despite the fact that we know how they do it, we can't stop it from happening, and it makes killing the damn things much more difficult).

But how is that evolution? Sounds to me that it's more of an adaptation to the environment. Evolution is predicated upon mutations that make the organism more complex. I see how this is understood, but I don't see how that helps support the larger theory of a single-celled organism turning into something a million times more complex. Hiding behind the prospect of millions of years just doesn't cut it.

Evolution is a well documented fact, and an astoundingly well-supported theory. We had a debate... it's been over since before you were born. Lot's of new evidence has emerged since the scientific debate over evolution was settled, and all of it supports evolution.

Well, I was born, and I've re-opened the debate. I want to see this "evidence". Evidence, mind you, not stories.

 

[Free2B]

For someone who claims to have 2 masters degrees, you seem to have a pretty provincial outlook on the world. To think that your particular life experience is the same as the rest of the world is pretty absurd.

And you have a pretty cavalier attitude about the Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic, but I still take your comment as an insult. If you were to make that comment on any other religion, most people would be appalled.

We pay farmers to not produce food, true. But, America (I'm assuming you live here), also happens to be the wealthiest country in the world. And has a relatively small population compared to land and food.

Additionally, the US, if not for immigration and the poor, would have a negative population growth rate. Which is typical for a first world post-industrial country.

And my point was simply, this world can support a higher population. Whether or not a specific government or economic system is in place to support that is another issue. But inherently, the world is not overpopulated. In some places locally, sure, there may be overpopulation issues, but on a global scale, it's not true.

Which, like I said, is what one needs to do to control population: educate and create wealth.

And why is that? Because as people move up the economic/education ladder, they realize what it costs to properly raise a child. They understand the concept of proper nutrition, education, health, etc. In the US it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in food, clothing, medical care, education costs, etc. to raise a child. The cost of duplicating my education for a child today would be well over 400 thousand dollars. Now obviously, there are things in place where you can transfer those costs to others. But I for one, would rather support my child on my own, rather than rely on the largesse of the people. Hence, I really can't afford to have 10 children.

You might be well educated, and apparently, you must be extremely wealthy, to plan on having lots of children. Otherwise, I suppose you can thank my taxes and alumni giving for supporting your children. Which is another reason I can't have a large family. I'll be supporting yours.

I think my grandparents understood how to raise a child just fine. That has nothing to do with how much education you have. Raising a family is definitely expensive in this country. And I agree that people should be popping kids out if they don't have the financial means. But I don't believe the $400k number to be true of everyone. That may be true of upper middle class, but not everyone. Most people my age have chosen not to have kids out of pure selfishness. They'd rather have their career instead of raising a family. Which is actually too bad. A career is just a means to an end.

 

[Free2B]

By what yardstick? How on earth can you judge that? Everything as it is now, did originate by mutation, but once it becomes "the norm" it no longer looks like a mutation. Being a genetic mutant is only a relative term.

But how does a mutation become the norm? It obviously has to provide a benefit to the species. And then has to breed with other members. And this mutation has to be a dominant trait, which most mutations are not. (If you cite the bacteria thing again, I'm going to scream. Let's talk about something that isn't asexual, and hopefully on a bigger scale.)

For instance, what first caused a monkey to stand upright? And why was that a surviving trait? And are you sure that other members of the population would want to breed with an outsider?

 

[Free2B]

Evolution is a fact not a theory. Ever seen a chimpanzee? Our genetic makeup is only about a 3% difference. And bacteria does evolve to become immune to antibiotics. Last time I checked, that's why we make new antibiotics. Fossils prove that over time animal skulls(from apes) have been slowly forming into what we are today. I can't believe someone is saying that evolution is a theory. Well, evolution may be a theory to you, but to me, god is imaginary. No proof. Nothing. Theory.

The fact that you use the argument of a 3% difference in our genetic makeup is so shortsighted. I can't believe that's used as a reason to believe in evolution. It obviously makes one curious as to a possible common ancestor. But it in no way proves anything! Just because organisms are similiar in their makeup could easily mean that the designer modified the design a little bit. Nothing more.

If you want to believe you came from a monkey, have at it. How depressing. God is a leap of faith--but the evolution explanation is the same. The "science" is very squishy, meaning it can't be proven by observation. Hence all the story-telling that goes on to try and "reason" how a monkey evolved into a man. I'm sorry, a bacteria "evolving" to adapt to an anti-biotic is too simplistic.

 

[Free2B]

Check out these links.

Interesting links, but big deal. A flower eventually becomes another type of flower. But show me a flower that becomes a tree. Or a fish that sprouts legs that are functional. (Would probably need the respiratory system as well to make it land-dwelling, so that the legs were actually required.) The problem with the theory of evolution is the fact that scientists take small events and extrapolate them into grandiose changes. Maybe this isn't observable. In that case, it's definitely still a theory, and should be discussed as such.

 

[Paul Randall]

Greenpeace targeted Apple unfairly

Guy's you have got to know that Apple should score one of the highest ratings for environmental practices in manufacture and recycling.

Greenpeace based their judgement on the amount of information that each company releasd to the public in their various public statements and not actual figures and didn't take into consideration so many facts about Apple including the OS's longjevity on old hardware and Mac users themselves. A company that is ten times worse than another company could score better using greenpeace's test case if they say stuff like "we aim to remove all toxic chemicals from production by 2008" even if they have no intention of doing so or realistically can't do so. Just because Apple choose to be honest and don't believe in guessing dates and targets in case the targets they set for themselves are not met doesn't mean that they are not making every effort to achieve them.

There are so many areas in the Greenpeace slur documents that lower Apple's score only because Apple failed to disclose their full information on policies. It's pathetic to mark someone down for that. If Greenpeace wanted to produce accurate scores they should send a representative to each company and discuss what has been achieved so far and see for themselves what efforts are going into making products greener.

Here is my argument based on my personal experience of Apple's products over the last 13 years.

HP and Dell scored higher than Apple but Apple do not sell a range or cheap disposible computers with CRT monitors like both HP and Dell. CRT Monitors contain lead and so are the most environmentally unfriendly displays out there. CRT's also consume many times as much electricity as LCD displays which means burning more fossil fuel to support them. Also have you looked at the size of apple packaging compared to other electronics manufacturers lately? If they made it less minimalistic it wouldn't be sufficient to protect the items inside!

How many of you have actually thrown away a Mac in a skip (dumpster) over the last ten years?

When I upgrade I have given my old machines to my dad or my kids or sold them on Ebay when I upgrade because Mac's have such a long useful life compared to Windows boxes. Every upgrade of Mac OS 10 has made my machines faster so most of the time I had no need to upgrade them. In fact any new version of Mac OS X I install on my network always feels like an upgrade.

Macs also respond faster with more memory installed (unlike Windows machines) so upgrading RAM also gives them a longer useable life. I just this morning put another 2 gigabytes in my G5 and it flies.

Windows poor multitasking and bad memory management and bloated poorly optimised code base doesn't get any faster when installing more RAM in my experience.

Now how many PC's will end up in landfills when VISTA is released and MS forces people to use it rather than stay with XP. Bloody millions!!!!! Look at the minimal system requirements for Windows!!! Really it's Microsoft that GP should be going after because the constant upgrading Windows sufferers are subjected to is a massive landfill disaster every time an upgrade comes around.

If Greenpeace included these facts in their pathetic pseudo research figures Apple would come out on top. Apple has to as there can't be any where near as many Macs scrapped per year than Dell boxes.

I reckon Greenpeace are just targeting Apple because of it's current popularity with the iPod and they think it will make more people take notice of them. If they targeted a smaller name instead it would have far less impact.

It's like a bad journalist or a dodgy politician. They only take into consideration the information that makes their point stand up and disregard the rest as it weakens their argument.

Greenpeace are about self awareness, nothing else!!!

So to the people on here agreeing with Greenpeace I urge you to read these articles on roughlydrafted.com written by a person who has done their research and see what a pathetically destructive poor excuse for an environmental organisation Greenpeace is.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/92974C85-AD76-436C-A4AC-EB52E4D969D6.html

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

Then make up your mind about the company we are usually proud to buy from.

 

[bryanc]

Darwin had a theory. And many people have set out to explain this theory. And so they look for data that would support this theory. And if it doesn't exist directly, they begin to weave a story about how it may have happened. And story upon story builds, until no one can tell what is exactly the truth anymore. Evolutionists are more story tellers than scientists.

It's quite clear from this quote that you have no idea what the scientific method is (masters degree in engineering notwithstanding). Nobody is making up stories in evolutionary biology. People make testable hypotheses and then apply the scientific method in an attempt to *falsify* the hypotheses. Hypotheses which do not match the empirical evidence are discarded or modified until they do.

Intelligent design is not an empirically testable hypothesis, so it is not science.

Evolution has been tested in so many ways for so long, and has been supported by all observational and experimental biology, that it is now accepted as fact, and forms the foundation of all modern biological thought.

I'm a research scientist working on embryonic development, and I've been working with biologists for decades. I know thousands of biologists personally, and I've never even heard of a *biologist* (not some M.D. or physicist, who can't be expected to know any better), who isn't completely convinced of the validity of evolution. (BTW, Francis Crick, who it appears you are referring to WRT the discovery of DNA, is an ardent supporter of evolutionary biology... he just has some rather unorthodox ideas about how life on earth may have got started, which has nothing to do with evolution).

The fact that so many Americans do not understand or accept evolutionary theory, is simply a tragic illustration of the failure of the American education system.

As this topic has clearly got nothing to do with the Greenpeace criticisms of Apple, I think we should drop it. But in all seriousness, if you think there are 'many prominent biologists' who question evolutionary biology, or that evolutionary theory is full of holes, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Cheers.

 

[Pale Rider]

Interesting links, but big deal. A flower eventually becomes another type of flower. But show me a flower that becomes a tree. Or a fish that sprouts legs that are functional. (Would probably need the respiratory system as well to make it land-dwelling, so that the legs were actually required.) The problem with the theory of evolution is the fact that scientists take small events and extrapolate them into grandiose changes. Maybe this isn't observable. In that case, it's definitely still a theory, and should be discussed as such.

bryanc responded better, but I cannot resist. Forget about understanding theory, you have little sense of understanding "thinking." What you cite as a "problem" is one of the things that make scientific inquiry marvelous. Discussing "evolution" as a "theory" is fine, though your "reasoning"--if we can call it that--is not what gets us there; you clearly have no clear concept of what a theory is or what it means to test a theory. But it's still a one-theory discussion. Nothing else credible--that does not require some leap of faith--has been advanced by the anti-evolutionists.

 

[Pale Rider]

<SNIP>

So to the people on here agreeing with Greenpeace I urge you to read these articles on roughlydrafted.com written by a person who has done their research and see what a pathetically destructive poor excuse for an environmental organisation Greenpeace is.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/92974C85-AD76-436C-A4AC-EB52E4D969D6.html

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

Then make up your mind about the company we are usually proud to buy from.

His deconstruction of the Greenpeace report is wel done.

 

[Spectrum]

But how does a mutation become the norm? It obviously has to provide a benefit to the species. And then has to breed with other members. And this mutation has to be a dominant trait, which most mutations are not. (If you cite the bacteria thing again, I'm going to scream. Let's talk about something that isn't asexual, and hopefully on a bigger scale.)

Ok, here is something which isn't asexual, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, bakers and brewers yeast. Used in the scientific community as model system for understanding cellular processes performed in eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei - just like human cells, etc). Many human genes have very similar genes in yeast - more so, if the gene is essential for supporting life.

Real world example: The yeast can contain two different forms of the same gene - both are mutant, preventing the yeast from growing without the external addition of this particular nutritional compound - arginine (an amino acid).

The spontaneous mutation rate, to cells that can now grow happily without arginine is about 1 in 10,000. This mutation rate occurs purely as a result of tiny errors during the copying process of its DNA every time the cell duplicates itself. Now, 1 in 10,000 may sound a rare, but bare in mind just how small a single cell is, and how rapidly it divides: On average you would get your first mutant after only 14 generations - it would take less than a day for this to occur - in much less than 1ml of liquid.
If the environment suddenly became devoid of arginine, the yeast would have evolved in less than 24 hours. And this would be the ONLY yeast surviving. It would no longer me considered mutant - it would BE the new species.

But this is only for this one gene. The changes can be occurring randomly in all parts of the yeast genome at similar rates. In all genes. Some mutations will be silent. Some will be beneficial. But only the deleterious mutations (in a given environment) will not be propagated to the daughter cells.

Now, you could argue that the likelihood of getting two PARTICULAR spontaneous mutations is very low. 10,000 x 10,000 => 1 in 100,000,000. But it would actually only take 27 generations to achieve this randomly. It occurs in a yeast culture every 2 days. Three simultaneous PARTICULAR mutations would take 40 generations - 3 days.

But the point is that evolution does not dictate that PARTICULAR genes be modified. It is random - solutions to an environmental pressure can come about from completely unexpected combinations of otherwise silent mutation, which are occurring continually WITHOUT selection.

Thus if you required 1000 specific simultaneous mutations to occur, you would only need to grow the yeast - from a single cell - in nonselective conditions for 1000 days, and then apply the selection. Now that's less than three years: About 1 billionth of the time since "life" began.

Since the yeast is a sexual organism (just like us), it has even better chance of success, because it can freely interbreed with other members in a completely random way permitting the rapid accumulation, or loss, or recombination, of different mutations, which some of the time may become beneficial, and serve as a selective advantage over others. This line would then become the prevalent strain.

Given enough time, and appropriate selection, the yeast will not resemble its ancestors. Has it become a new species? Only if the original species coexists and is sufficiently different to prevent interbreeding with the new form. This, in fact, is a critical aspect to the origin of a new species: The inability to interbreed is not only used to define a new species, it also permits subsequent additional differentiation of the two lines. And on and on it goes...

Now in response to your specific question about monkeys...(I think you mean apes):

For instance, what first caused a monkey to stand upright?

Selective advantage

And why was that a surviving trait?

Selective advantage

And are you sure that other members of the population would want to breed with an outsider?

It is not about what they want or what they don't want: If the new characteristic had a selective advantage then it will be propagated.

This discussion is way off topic, but quite compelling. Maybe it should be moved?

 

[ergle2]

I believe the head of the Human Genome project qualifies.

The leader of the Human Genome Project isn't an intelligent design proponent. He believes in directed evolution. Link.

 

[I'mAMac]

How do you figure that! I respect gargoyles position. After all it is all over in the popular press. It must be right!

I belong to the geology and geophysical community and I have been an active member of the SEG for over 30 years. I have a degree in geophysics and I have been studying the Earth and other planets for over 30 years. I regularly read the journal of Geophysics and The Leading Edge.

I am among the many with my collegues who do not believe that man is causing global warming. Most of us feel instead that the majority of data collected from the Earth suggests that the Earth is warming and CO2 levels are rising along with the rise of sea level, etc.etc. but man is just along for the ride. We have not caused global warming nor can we stop it! However we do not have to contribute to it!

I do not advocate pollution. I advocate working toward energy efficiency and away from waste. I advocate reducing CO2 emissions, etc. etc. I just don't belong to a politcal believe that I have to deride, condem, and criticize mankind for the distruction of the earth and all life as we know it.

Just because a person writes in a forumn that all of the millions of natural processes on earth can be ruled out from causing the earth's temperature to rise. That he thinks the earth's temperature and CO2 levels are directly correlatable to man and his industrializing. Doesn't change my oppinion or the thousands of scientific journals entries that I have read with information to the contrary.

Also he said that all scientists are in concensus about the cause of global warming. This out and out is not true. Most classically trained Geophysicists and Geologists have a extremely large amount of data that indicates that the Earth has in the past and is again warming naturally. The exact cause is unknown, it is a very complex problem with millions of possible variable. The Earth's environment is not constant, never has been, never will be. Species have come and gone. Species will come and go.

But having said that I am not going to go out and create a forest fire, throw trash around, or pour gas and oil out in the lake.

I agree with you that we shouldn't contribute to it but the fact is, we are. I'm all for energy efficiency but you can't deny the fact that the enormous amount of cars in the world are giving off enough CO2 to contribute. Yes, cars are a little more efficient that they used to be but not enough. Here is an article about it.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=5&fid=53

 

[I'mAMac]

I find it more possible that life was created rather than randomly formed. The evolution theory still cannot explain how "life" formed. These wild explanations of how matter came together to form an organism is so outlandish, I can't believe "science" pushes this stuff on people.

It is hard to comprehend a higher intelligence because our own intelligence is limited. Why wouldn't a creator understand quarks and subatomic particles? A computer programmer understands every line of code in that program.

One of the main things I can't buy about evolution is the premise that change comes from natural selection through mutations. But how many mutations does it take to go from fish to man? And how many of those mutations are ones that aren't really needed for survival, but just a good idea? Why do you have eyelashes? Were those needed for survival once upon a time? I'll bet you can tell me a story that would make it seem so.

Darwin had a theory. And many people have set out to explain this theory. And so they look for data that would support this theory. And if it doesn't exist directly, they begin to weave a story about how it may have happened. And story upon story builds, until no one can tell what is exactly the truth anymore. Evolutionists are more story tellers than scientists.

An example of a natural mutation is wheat. In the days of early man wheat used to blow around because it was light enough for the wind to carry it. That is why early men were nomads. But then a mutation occured in the wheat seed. It became heavier, just heavy enough so it couldn't be scattered by the wind. So, when early man grew wheat they expected it not to be gone so they would have to move but it wasn't gone. The mutation made it possible for the wheat to stay in one place so tribes wouldn't have to be nomadic. They formed villages, which later became towns, they had time to do other things. They formed a language gave names to towns and so on and so forth I'm takling to you today.

As for you not being able to comprehend how life randomly formed I may have an explanation. If you accelerate two ultrathin particle beams in opposite directions in a particle accelerator (at idk roughly 180,000 miles an hour maybe faster) and they collide head on with eachother, each beam's energy is compressed into a single point. Matter will appear out of nowhere. As you know particle beams are not matter. This proves how the "big bang" came to be. There wasn't just a huge random explosion. There were particle beams travelling at unthinkable speeds. They collided and then there was light...and planets.

 

[I'mAMac]

The fact that you use the argument of a 3% difference in our genetic makeup is so shortsighted. I can't believe that's used as a reason to believe in evolution. It obviously makes one curious as to a possible common ancestor. But it in no way proves anything! Just because organisms are similiar in their makeup could easily mean that the designer modified the design a little bit. Nothing more.

If you want to believe you came from a monkey, have at it. How depressing. God is a leap of faith--but the evolution explanation is the same. The "science" is very squishy, meaning it can't be proven by observation. Hence all the story-telling that goes on to try and "reason" how a monkey evolved into a man. I'm sorry, a bacteria "evolving" to adapt to an anti-biotic is too simplistic.

And what is the argument to believe in god? Something that must make much more sense. An imaginary being in the sky maybe? So since you can't find an explanation you just believe in god as an excuse not to do anything? I happen to wonder where we come from and I'm not just going to believe in some higher being. And where is there proof that the christian god is real huh? Show me, because there are many other religions that BELIEVE their god is real. So do christians. How do we know which god is the "creator" anyway. When you start an argument with an illogical idea you can say anything. The premise of the argument must be logical.

 

[I'mAMac]

Ok, here is something which isn't asexual, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, bakers and brewers yeast. Used in the scientific community as model system for understanding cellular processes performed in eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei - just like human cells, etc). Many human genes have very similar genes in yeast - more so, if the gene is essential for supporting life.

Real world example: The yeast can contain two different forms of the same gene - both are mutant, preventing the yeast from growing without the external addition of this particular nutritional compound - arginine (an amino acid).

The spontaneous mutation rate, to cells that can now grow happily without arginine is about 1 in 10,000. This mutation rate occurs purely as a result of tiny errors during the copying process of its DNA every time the cell duplicates itself. Now, 1 in 10,000 may sound a rare, but bare in mind just how small a single cell is, and how rapidly it divides: On average you would get your first mutant after only 14 generations - it would take less than a day for this to occur - in much less than 1ml of liquid.
If the environment suddenly became devoid of arginine, the yeast would have evolved in less than 24 hours. And this would be the ONLY yeast surviving. It would no longer me considered mutant - it would BE the new species.

But this is only for this one gene. The changes can be occurring randomly in all parts of the yeast genome at similar rates. In all genes. Some mutations will be silent. Some will be beneficial. But only the deleterious mutations (in a given environment) will not be propagated to the daughter cells.

Now, you could argue that the likelihood of getting two PARTICULAR spontaneous mutations is very low. 10,000 x 10,000 => 1 in 100,000,000. But it would actually only take 27 generations to achieve this randomly. It occurs in a yeast culture every 2 days. Three simultaneous PARTICULAR mutations would take 40 generations - 3 days.

But the point is that evolution does not dictate that PARTICULAR genes be modified. It is random - solutions to an environmental pressure can come about from completely unexpected combinations of otherwise silent mutation, which are occurring continually WITHOUT selection.

Thus if you required 1000 specific simultaneous mutations to occur, you would only need to grow the yeast - from a single cell - in nonselective conditions for 1000 days, and then apply the selection. Now that's less than three years: About 1 billionth of the time since "life" began.

Since the yeast is a sexual organism (just like us), it has even better chance of success, because it can freely interbreed with other members in a completely random way permitting the rapid accumulation, or loss, or recombination, of different mutations, which some of the time may become beneficial, and serve as a selective advantage over others. This line would then become the prevalent strain.

Given enough time, and appropriate selection, the yeast will not resemble its ancestors. Has it become a new species? Only if the original species coexists and is sufficiently different to prevent interbreeding with the new form. This, in fact, is a critical aspect to the origin of a new species: The inability to interbreed is not only used to define a new species, it also permits subsequent additional differentiation of the two lines. And on and on it goes...

Now in response to your specific question about monkeys...(I think you mean apes):

Selective advantageSelective advantageIt is not about what they want or what they don't want: If the new characteristic had a selective advantage then it will be propagated.

This discussion is way off topic, but quite compelling. Maybe it should be moved?

You are right. The monkey stood upright because of a selective advantage. In fields of tall grass if it stood up it could see predators coming much better than walking on all fours. (sorry im doin all these posts but i keep thinking of things)

 

[I'mAMac]

The fact that you use the argument of a 3% difference in our genetic makeup is so shortsighted. I can't believe that's used as a reason to believe in evolution. It obviously makes one curious as to a possible common ancestor. But it in no way proves anything! Just because organisms are similiar in their makeup could easily mean that the designer modified the design a little bit. Nothing more.

If you want to believe you came from a monkey, have at it. How depressing. God is a leap of faith--but the evolution explanation is the same. The "science" is very squishy, meaning it can't be proven by observation. Hence all the story-telling that goes on to try and "reason" how a monkey evolved into a man. I'm sorry, a bacteria "evolving" to adapt to an anti-biotic is too simplistic.

But you can't deny it. IT IS HAPPENING, It has been observed. Are that loyal to"god" or are you just ignorant? Humans have adapted. We have opposable thumbs. We learned to use tools. We didnt just evolve and know how to make a computer. The complexity of out brain is so much more so than a bird or a squirrel. This happened by chance.
Polar Bears live where there is snow. Why do you think they are WHITE? adaptation. Bats are nocturnal, why do you think they can see better at night than in day? Adaptation. If bacteria didnt evolve and adapt then why are we making new anti biotics. Like I said before, your arguing from an illogical premise so you can say anything.