Log in

View Full Version : Creation or Evolution



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

MojoJojo
07-25-2004, 10:15 AM
Evolution, if only because I've been taught to think for myself and primarily from empirical data.

Dammit, that was sexy....

Lexi - everything you describe as being "perfect" is simply an example of "survival of the fittest".

Silverback
07-25-2004, 10:25 AM
One of the interesting misconceptions I see permeating many of these postings is the idea that humans exist at the pinacle of evolution. The old idea that evolution looks like a pyramid, with everything trying to be us. As much as we try to create god in our own image and place ourselves at the center of the universe, evil forces keep rearing their ugly heads and showing us that we're not as special as we want to be. And doesn't that just cause us to have a collective little tantrum. The truth is that the pattern of evolution is more like a candelabra. Everything is at the top of its evolution, for now.

Evolution is not about achieving a subjective qualitative level, but rather about adapting to the environment in which a species finds itself. The individuals with something that works just a little better live to reproduce disproportionately to those individuals that lack that particular characteristic. A great example of that is the moth that Madcap referenced. As England became more polluted and everything grew more dingy, the dominant lighter variant was at a disadvantage. They got eaten by birds that could easily pick them off the dirty tree bark. Those very few moths with a darker coloration had a selecive advantage. They were better camoflauged in the dirtier new order. They didn't become bird food so quickly and lived to reproduce. A very good representation of natural selection in action. Adaptation in response to a changed environment.

There is no pinacle of evolution. There's only what fits, what fits better, and what doesn't fit. As impressed with ourselves as we get, there are bacteria that live in toxic heat vents at the bottom of the ocean in a place where we would find ourselves ill suited and, quickly, dead. In that place, being a bacteria works better.

In the end, a body is just a gene's way of making more genes. And genes don't care what form that body takes.

Also, as much as I love science fiction, there is, unfortunately, no biological mechanism available that will allow any of us to evolve into gods or energy beings. Again, fitting into the enviornment is really the only goal. Actually, it's not even so much a goal as an effect. Nothing trys to fit. It's just that forms that fit better are better represented in subsequent generations.

As to the assertions that we're the only animals that feel emotion. I would suggest that anyone who believes that has been severely deprived of the opportunity to live with the other inhabitants of this planet.

As to the assertion that we're the only one's with souls (yeah, I know, off topic):


"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, very, very few persons."
--James Thurber

"You think dogs will not be in heaven? I tell you, they will be there long before any of us."
--Robert Louis Stevenson

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
--Unknown

If there is a heaven, it's certain our animals are to be there.
--Pam Brown

"The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's."
--Mark Twain


You knew I was going to stick in a few lifted quotes here, someplace, didn't you? ;)

Lexi
07-25-2004, 11:05 AM
Evolution, if only because I've been taught to think for myself and primarily from empirical data.

Dammit, that was sexy....

Lexi - everything you describe as being "perfect" is simply an example of "survival of the fittest".


I told ya I was just rambling. LOL

Madcap
07-25-2004, 12:37 PM
Well, "survival of the fittest" is kind of misleading, too. It's actually "Survival of the best suited to it's environment."

MojoJojo
07-25-2004, 02:21 PM
"survival of the fittest" is kind of misleading

Yup....which is something I've always liked about that statement.

FBR
07-25-2004, 02:27 PM
When I consider the miracle of conception or how all the myriad entities on Earth and perhaps throughout the universe work together like a well oiled machine I have to believe there is some intelligence behind it. Not sure if it is a personal God or just a guiding hand but I have a hard time believing its just a pure accident.

FBR

RYAN
07-25-2004, 03:04 PM
In the grand scheme, scientists know exaclty nothing. They have maybe one piece of a puzzle containing billions of pieces. The amount they ubderstand is so minute, it equals nothing.

Silverback
07-25-2004, 03:43 PM
Possibly, but the amount of crap people can make up simply because they'd like something to believe in is, pretty much, infinite.

MojoJojo
07-25-2004, 03:52 PM
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/largevalues.jpg


But on a more serious note:
In the grand scheme, scientists know exaclty nothing. They have maybe one piece of a puzzle containing billions of pieces. The amount they ubderstand is so minute, it equals nothing.

First, you say they know exactly nothing, but then they have maybe one piece, which is already more than exactly nothing.

Second, your statement about "the amount they ubderstand" has absolutely no scientific basis.

Third, it astonishes me that people feel that it is more "reasonable" to believe that some all powerful something or other sprinkled pixy dust on the universe to magically create life, rather than considering the various theories regarding the creation of life.

Madcap
07-25-2004, 05:16 PM
In the grand scheme, scientists know exaclty nothing. They have maybe one piece of a puzzle containing billions of pieces. The amount they ubderstand is so minute, it equals nothing.


Ryan~

First let me say that i respect your opinion. It's as valid as mine is.

But...

Let me also say that you should actually read up before you say scientists know exactly nothing. As far as now much scientists don't know, all you need do is ask a scientist. They will be the first to admit how much they don't know. But what they DO know is pretty mindblowing, and a hell of a lot more mindblowing than mystical stuff ever was. Try reading up on Quantum theory, you might like it. A lot of what you say (minus the reincarnation stuff) is validated by Quantum. Other dimensions, time, souls, maybe even god. Superstring theory is another one you might like. If thgere's any evidence of God to be found, superstring is likely where it's at.

Jay Zeno
07-25-2004, 05:43 PM
If a scientist has a theory, carries out experiments to test the theory, and the experiments go to prove the theory, it's generally an indication that the scientist "knows something."

If the scientist then makes a prediction and the results bear out the prediction, that would be further indication that the scientist "knows something."

As Ryan and the rest of us type into our computers, and our actions become digital impulses that are calculated by thumbnail-size chips carrying out millions of other calculations, and are then transmitted through the air, copper wires, fiber optic wires, to each other's computer where that same process goes into reverse, it's all because scientists "know something."

When we fire up the car engine and explosions of fossil fuels propel us along on our wheels and we crank the electronics to pick out minuscule signals in the airwaves, and pick up our cell phones to answer a call, it's because scientists "know something."

The difference between trying to understand something and accepting on faith what seems right is huge. It's the difference between trying to find out what's really happening and accepting whatever seems right at the moment.

It's getting dark. Excuse me while I go flick the light switch, which sends out a little feather to tickle the faerie's ass inside the light bulb to make her glow. ::)

A_Guy
07-25-2004, 06:07 PM
In the grand scheme, scientists know exaclty nothing.


Oh come on now ::). Granted, there is sooo much out there that is considered "unknown" and probably will not be "known" anytime in the near future, but how far have we come in the past 100, 50, 10 even 5 years? Proven hypotheses become theories, which breed new hypotheses, which may or may not become theories (and so on and so forth). Until one of the first theories (such as, "when ogg no drink water, ogg no feel good") is eventually proven false, than we are truly advancing our knowledge - at a dramatic pace I might add.

On another note, I just read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. Absolutely an excellent book. It deals with the struggle and conflict of religion and science. I highly recommend reading this book! (it's fiction btw). EDITED TO ADD: It also involves the discussion of the view that the advancement of science further separates man from the belief of gods or a god. Quite on the contrary. As we grow to learn more of our world and the universe we live in, the complexity yet harmony of life will further prove the existence of a higher power or being. A perfect scientific understanding of the universe, IMHO, will lead to a perfect understanding of God.

Oh, and JZ, well said! ;D

Lexi
07-26-2004, 12:21 AM
When I consider the miracle of conception or how all the myriad entities on Earth and perhaps throughout the universe work together like a well oiled machine I have to believe there is some intelligence behind it. Not sure if it is a personal God or just a guiding hand but I have a hard time believing its just a pure accident.

FBR


Thats whay I am saying. :)

Madcap
07-26-2004, 02:36 AM
Maybe there is a god, i don't know. i wish i did.

MojoJojo
07-26-2004, 02:51 AM
First let me say that i respect your opinion. It's as valid as mine is.
Madcap is a lot nicer than I am.


Maybe there is a god, i don't know. i wish i did.
Now come on....if we knew the answer to this, can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? Not to mention losing a great topic to discuss in a room full of drunkerds! I always like bringing up religion and politics during happy hour :)

Madcap
07-26-2004, 02:53 AM
Hey, we like to respect others, at least i do.

MojoJojo
07-26-2004, 03:16 AM
Hey, we like to respect others, at least i do.

Yes, sir. I respect every single person here and every single opinion. Honest.

RYAN
07-26-2004, 09:16 AM
That's it, im just expressing my opinion, and I respect everyone else's. I do not believe in the bible creation, but I do beleive there is some higher force, or higher sea of knowledge to make this whole thing work. Who knows the truth. I just don't agree with scientists trying to pass some shit off as fact when it isn't.

MojoJojo
07-26-2004, 04:20 PM
Scientists don't ever try to pass shit off as fact when it isn't. Scientists (at least the credible ones) pass shit off as theories if it is something that cannot be proven. Scientists are more skeptical of scientific theory than anyone else.

Jay Zeno
07-26-2004, 08:56 PM
That's it, im just expressing my opinion, and I respect everyone else's.

Ryan, that's all well and good, but when you spout off an emotional, unreasoned statement like "scientists know exactly nothing," as you sit at your computer in your lighted house with your picture retained by a scanner or digital camera staring back at you - the computer, lights, house, scanner, camera, all developed by scientists - then you can surely expect your respected opinion to be returned to you.

RYAN
07-28-2004, 12:02 AM
I was referring to the field of human origin, NOT electronics and electricity.

I was simply stating that the amount (percentage wise) that scientists know about creation, the planet and the universe is so small that it actually equals nothing. Just stating a fact.

I am quite aware of our amazing technological breakthroughs in the electronics world in the past 15 years. I was more talking about the topic of the thread, not scanners and fax machinesa and pagers. Of course humans know about the history of these things becasue we created them. Humankind, the moon, sun, and universe on the other hand remain as much of a mystery as they did for millenia. Man knows no more when sitting out at night lookin up at the stars about our creation than he did doing the same 10,000 years ago. My guess is that in another 10,000 years we will not know any more. Becasue although we may have theroys, how will we ever know how we ended up on this little planet spinning around the sun, in the middle of space, amongst trillions of other palnets, moons, stars and suns. The earth is literally like 1 grain of sand amongst all of the grains of sand on earth. The earth would be like 1 cell of a human body that contained 80 trillion cells.

Our brains simply don't have the mathmatical capacity to see how immensly big our whole plane of existence really is.

erotictonic
07-28-2004, 01:00 AM
Ryan, for once I agree with you. We don't know shit about where the fuck we are, or how the fuck we got here. We are a tiny little dot in a fucking macrocosm. To limit our understanding to a book written around 3,000 years ago about human existence would be like a human cell limiting its beliefs to a book written by the oldest cell in the human body....

I am going against the grain here and saying that scientists have come a long way obviously, but in the grand scheme of things, we don't know shit. We can't even prove what happens to a human "soul" when the body dies....

MojoJojo
07-28-2004, 01:27 AM
Our brains simply don't have the mathmatical capacity to see how immensly big our whole plane of existence really is.

Only the brains that believe that something equals "exactly nothing" and then says it's a fact.

erotictonic
07-28-2004, 01:32 AM
Our brains simply don't have the mathmatical capacity to see how immensly big our whole plane of existence really is.

Only the brains that believe that something equals "exactly nothing" and then says it's a fact.


Scientists are reaching as far as they can go, and they do know that their understanding is incredibly limited. Ryan is actually right in theory; his ideas just aren't well-expressed.

MojoJojo
07-28-2004, 01:35 AM
I disagree. They have a clear understanding of their limitations, and strive continuously (and achieve) at discovering more and reaching farther.

erotictonic
07-28-2004, 01:37 AM
I disagree. They have a clear understanding of their limitations, and strive continuously (and achieve) at discovering more and reaching farther.


That's precisely what I said.... and when did Ryan disagree? ???

MojoJojo
07-28-2004, 01:40 AM
Oh shit...I misread your post. My most humble apologies. Although I still disagree with Ryan's "theory" that states that something is exactly nothing. I'm not sure that's even a theory....but that's really not the point.

EDIT
Yanno....I deliberately and successfully avoided reading this thread for a while because I knew I'd get my geek panties in a bunch. :-P

erotictonic
07-28-2004, 01:52 AM
Why did you change your "name" to mojojojo?

MojoJojo
07-28-2004, 01:55 AM
Why did you change your "name" to mojojojo?

Evolution.

j/k - Rhiannon told me too....so I did. I'm a pleaser...can't help myself.

Jay Zeno
07-28-2004, 05:52 AM
I was referring to the field of human origin, NOT electronics and electricity.

I was simply stating that the amount (percentage wise) that scientists know about creation, the planet and the universe is so small that it actually equals nothing. Just stating a fact.


Like Mojo, I'm telling myself to just let it go....

Yes, science developed technologically cool stuff. But it didn't create them - it just developed the means to capture and direct and use the processes that are already there.

See, evolutionary processes, the heating of matter in a mircrowave, the splash of plasma on a luminescent surface, all follow the same quantum processes. We can tell how far families have drifted in our evolution through DNA examination. We can predict where a black hole will be through the burst of Xrays as matter gets sucked into it. We know that a star goes through hydrogen fusion, creating helium, and then will undergo helium fusion. We know through spectrometric signatures what things are made of billions of miles away.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, is that a whole lot? Probably not. As one scientist said, "The universe is not only more complex than we imagine, but that we can imagine." (I doubt that's an exact quote, but you get the idea.)

But is it something? You bet. Copernicus, that ignorant heretic, figured out that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around. Erastosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth when everyone else thought it was flat. Our knowledge is, say, 50,000 times what it was then. Is it much, relative to the size of the universe? Nah. Is it something? Of course.

Genetics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biochemistry - it's amazing how much we've learned and incomprehensible how much we have yet to learn, and how much we never will.



Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.
--Albert Einstein

MojoJojo
07-28-2004, 09:07 PM
Our brains simply don't have the mathmatical capacity to see how immensly big our whole plane of existence really is.

I can prove the Pythagorean theorem. However, I cannot prove Fermat's last theorem....right now. Does that mean that my brain is incapable of doing so? No. Is my brain incapable of doing so? Dunno. If my brain is incapable of doing so, does that mean that ALL brians are incapable of doing so? Of course not.

Conclusion? Your brain's inability to handle these concepts does not mean all brains lack the ability.

Silverback
07-28-2004, 09:22 PM
Well, it's been so long since I've seen the Pythagorean theorem that I'd have to look it up. But, since I don't remember it offhand, I'm gonna argue that it doesn't exist and that all mathematics is really just the random scratching of giant superintelligent reincarnated kung fu space gophers.

MojoJojo
07-29-2004, 03:46 AM
Math facts consist of undefined terms, definitions, axioms (fundamental assumptions), and theorems. For example, the symbol 1 is an undefined term, the fact that 2 = 1 + 1 is the definition of 2, the fact that "equals can be substituted for equals" is an axiom, and the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem. We are assuming the traditional "formalist" philosophy of mathematics. From this viewpoint, theorems are "math facts" that are "proven" to "follow from" already established math facts by a step-by-step process of deductive logic.


RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAAAAAAY!

wasfatboy
07-29-2004, 12:28 PM
I think my brain just imploded!
:o ??? :o ??? :boggled: :beat: :banghead:

im soooooooo confused, ill just crawl back into my cave where i can hide.

VenusGoddess
07-29-2004, 01:05 PM
Math facts consist of undefined terms, definitions, axioms (fundamental assumptions), and theorems. For example, the symbol 1 is an undefined term, the fact that 2 = 1 + 1 is the definition of 2, the fact that "equals can be substituted for equals" is an axiom, and the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem. We are assuming the traditional "formalist" philosophy of mathematics. From this viewpoint, theorems are "math facts" that are "proven" to "follow from" already established math facts by a step-by-step process of deductive logic.


RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAAAAAAY!



F*ck that...this is the exact reason why I have never gotten my Music Theory and Composition degree. If it weren't for those damned stupid mathematical classes which make no fricking sense to me what-so-ever...I would have gotten my degree 3 years ago...and with a nice 3.85 GPA. You damn Math Nazis. :D

dancer87
07-29-2004, 01:24 PM
I believe in evolution, no doubt about it.

MojoJojo
07-29-2004, 04:09 PM
You damn Math Nazis.

Most math teachers are terrible. I was the exception. I can teach anyone how to do math. It's easy. Still boring as Hell, though.

hardkandee
07-29-2004, 04:33 PM
You damn Math Nazis.

Most math teachers are terrible. I was the exception. I can teach anyone how to do math. It's easy. Still boring as Hell, though.


You were a math teacher MojoJojo? I had no idea. Math was always my favorite class... :glasses: (self-proclaimed nerd here...)

Lexi
07-29-2004, 05:13 PM
Teach me! Teach me something other than knowing how to count money. LOL ::)

I've always passed math with Bs, and even a C here and there. I suck!

MojoJojo
07-29-2004, 07:39 PM
Yup...I was a math teacher.

I just did teach you something, Lexi...but let me explain it in non-mathy terms. Basically, all the math we do is based on the assumption that numbers are worth a certain amount. That is something that is not provable. The symbol "1" is worth 1 item. The symbol "2" is worth two items, etc. You can demonstrate it...but you cannot mathematically "prove" it. From there, we are able to prove all kinds of things, including how to balance your checkbook....but it's all based on these assumptions that we "know" to be true...but cannot prove it.

Whattya think?

Darren
07-30-2004, 11:44 AM
If it weren't for those damned stupid mathematical classes which make no fricking sense to me what-so-ever...


Nothing to be ashamed of though.

Again, I recommend "The Blank Slate : The Modern Denail of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker

http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html

The reality is that most of us are not innately good at higher mathematics. For millions of years we have had no need for advanced math, so our brains haven't developed the ability. Put another way, you don't need math to raise crops, attract a mate, have sex, hunt, raise children, farm, read stories, write stories, believe in a god, etc., the activities that most people spend their lives doing for eons, and that many still do in 3rd world countries. The modern world is a relatively new thing, and the demand for people skilled in mathematics, hard core science, etc., is also relatively new. Some relatively few people are naturally good at math, but even among those many come across some concepts later in college that they struggle with (whille a different person may struggle with a different set of concepts).

And now with that in mind, the point I wanted to make to Ryan...

While I agree that scientists don't know a lot, I think it is because of science and not in spite of that our horizons have been broadened.
I don't really see a lot of difference between an individual that claims we know almost everything, or one that claims we know almost nothing. Both seem to be hung up on the wrong thing. Unfortunately they both don't know what they don't know, and so neither really knows how close we are, or aren't, to a "complete understanding".

It doesn't take any real special ability to imagine there are a zillions of things out there that we don't know. We all pretty much have that ability, and we can all imagine a variety of things, but our ability to imagine is actually a limitation.

"There are more things in heaven and hell then are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Willian Shakespeare.

And scientists are pushing our understanding beyond what can be imagined.

Physicists, mathematicians, chemists, bio-chemists, and so on have been forced into the positions of having to move past what they can imagine to make sense of the way things really are. They fully understand that there is a lot they don't understand, but so many of the modern miracles we take for granted today are based on years of work and concepts that are completely foreign to what our mind perceives, can understand, or even imagine. Fortunately because there are so many of us we can thank some hard working, hard code individuals that push the envelope of understanding and create tools and concepts that account for how things really behave, not just what we can imagine. And the proof is in the pudding so to speak. The modern miracles we enjoy everyday are built on mounds and mounds of some truly bizarre concepts that scientists work with, even though most of them can't mentally imagine/picture those concepts, they have tools that describe those concepts.

Do we know everything? No, but scientists have been doing a hell of a good job broadening our horizons.

RYAN
07-30-2004, 12:21 PM
great opinion darren

MojoJojo
07-31-2004, 04:54 AM
Valid points about mathematics.....hmmm....thinking about starting an education thread....

montythegeek
07-31-2004, 06:06 AM
Yup...I was a math teacher.

I just did teach you something, Lexi...but let me explain it in non-mathy terms. Basically, all the math we do is based on the assumption that numbers are worth a certain amount. That is something that is not provable. The symbol "1" is worth 1 item. The symbol "2" is worth two items, etc. You can demonstrate it...but you cannot mathematically "prove" it. From there, we are able to prove all kinds of things, including how to balance your checkbook....but it's all based on these assumptions that we "know" to be true...but cannot prove it.

Whattya think?

Correct me if I am wrong Dancing Monkey boy, but isn't this proven in Bertrand Russell's "Principia Mathematica".

And Lexi, I have a quation for you. Is the final statement in you last post (to wit "I suck"), an admonishment of yourself or an enticement to the would-be math teacher?

MojoJojo
07-31-2004, 06:40 AM
Monty - what do you mean by "this"? Is it proven that the number one is one, or is it proven that the base definitions are unproveable?

montythegeek
07-31-2004, 06:49 AM
Monty - what do you mean by "this"? Is it proven that the number one is one, or is it proven that the base definitions are unproveable?

Sorry for the imprecise wording MojoJojo, but I was referring to the 1+1=2 comment. I know there is a lot of accuracy lost in the discussion in non-technical terms of symbolic logic. Mostly, it was a failed attempt at humor.

MojoJojo
07-31-2004, 06:55 AM
LOL....great...you make a joke and I go out and start reading:

"Logicism is the view that (some or all of) mathematics can be reduced to (formal) logic. It is often explained as a two-part thesis. First, it consists of the claim that all mathematical truths can be translated into logical truths or, in other words, that the vocabulary of mathematics constitutes a proper subset of the vocabulary of logic. Second, it consists of the claim that all mathematical proofs can be recast as logical proofs or, in other words, that the theorems of mathematics constitute a proper subset of the theorems of logic. In Bertrand Russell's words, it is the logicist's goal "to show that all pure mathematics follows from purely logical premises and uses only concepts definable in logical terms."

Lexi
07-31-2004, 11:22 AM
Yup...I was a math teacher.

I just did teach you something, Lexi...but let me explain it in non-mathy terms. Basically, all the math we do is based on the assumption that numbers are worth a certain amount. That is something that is not provable. The symbol "1" is worth 1 item. The symbol "2" is worth two items, etc. You can demonstrate it...but you cannot mathematically "prove" it. From there, we are able to prove all kinds of things, including how to balance your checkbook....but it's all based on these assumptions that we "know" to be true...but cannot prove it.

Whattya think?


Oh i know exactly what you are talking about. ;) You dug it out of my memory banks. BUT the way I was in math class was basically that I would do great with in-class exercises, would do OK at home as well but once test came, I would forget all the little things that made a difference.
My teacher Mr. Carey once said... "You put a negative in there. Its not -9. Its 9" and I said, "It was just a sign error!" lol and he said, "You would have been closer had you put down 8. -9 is way off the mark" LOL I knew what he meant, and he also knew what I meant, but he was right.

MojoJojo
07-31-2004, 11:35 AM
Mr. Carey is exactly correct. "Same thing" or "close enough" are two answers that are pet peeves of mine.

What you experienced was simply a lack of preparation. Just like with any sport (or dancing) - once you do it to the point of doing it correctly, you then have to do it enough that you no longer have to think about it. THEN you are ready for the test. "Practice until you can do it without thinking about it...then do it again."

Problem is....math is a little tedious in that sort of setting. But I honestly don't know any way around it...that would pass in the education system.

Jay Zeno
07-31-2004, 05:05 PM
"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain