Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Goat]

Nice post, Daniel. Very concise.

It appears my argument gets stuck when I try to compare biology to technology. The counter argument is that they're just not the same thing. Why? Because technology rests on conscious thoughts and ideas, as you stated:

an idea is implicit of a consciousness which assumes a designer. Indeed even technologies environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought, we could call this evolution by design.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from? If our consciousness arises exclusively out of the fact that we have brains... well, brains evolved, didn't they? If we agree that "environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought", then we should also agree that conscious effort and thought are derivatives of biological evolution.

It is not the 'technology need precise thoughts' that you get hung up on. it's far before that.

Your example are not self replicating , self catalyzing reactions that have variations to the succeeding generations. Worrying about where consciousnesses comes from, while is something that is being worked on, is not needed at all to understand evolution, and is actually a distraction unless you want to specifically understand what it is.

All your technological examples fall flat, because the technology is not self replicating with variation, nor is there a selection process for the succeeding generations for improvement.

[DanieltheDragon]

Nice post, Daniel. Very concise.

It appears my argument gets stuck when I try to compare biology to technology. The counter argument is that they're just not the same thing. Why? Because technology rests on conscious thoughts and ideas, as you stated:

an idea is implicit of a consciousness which assumes a designer. Indeed even technologies environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought, we could call this evolution by design.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from? If our consciousness arises exclusively out of the fact that we have brains... well, brains evolved, didn't they? If we agree that "environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought", then we should also agree that conscious effort and thought are derivatives of biological evolution.

Thank you for your gracious response although it seems you snipped the quote a bit short. The bolded red above changes what we do agree upon. Throughout the universe environmental pressures are not a result of conscious effort but instead the collisions and interactions of non-living unconscious particles. The fact that consciousness exists is not evidence of a grand design, but rather a modestly successful mode of replication. Indeed the root of technological-evolution indirectly are ultimately influenced by these non-conscious pressures.

If you imagine a giant circle that is evolution your comparison is just a small circle intersecting it like a vin diagram. They may share some traits, but it's a fool's errand to compare them.[/quote]

[scourge99]

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
There is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells " the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Given such a complicated definition of life, I am sure that you will agree that life never began to exist from non-life.

People who can only understand the world with black and white thinking, certainly will have that problem.

For those of us who can comprehend that not all things in our world fit perfectly into categorizations, its not a problem.

[olavisjo]

.

People who can only understand the world with black and white thinking, certainly will have that problem.

For those of us who can comprehend that not all things in our world fit perfectly into categorizations, its not a problem.

Believe it or not, I too am capable of warm and fuzzy thinking, it is just that I don't like to bring it to discussions involving matters of science.

I think this may be the reason why you "believe" in evolution and I don't.

[arian]

IMO the evolution of life is inevitable in any system with sufficient chemical complexity and environmental stability. It will be very interesting to see if we can find that any simple life once existed on Mars when we finally get there with enough resources to do a complete search. I would be very pleased if we discovered some very simple lifeform still exists under the surface of Mars.

I suspect we can find life on Mars, the ones we take there, like the artificial alien DNA we are creating in humans by spraying deadly chem-trails into the air mixed with human DNA from blood. This artificial DNA is so powerful that nothing can kill it, and it thrives on toxics found on Mars. This find will become convincing even to those who created them. It's all in good faith in ones own made-up religion.

Besides, what do you mean "some very simple life form still exists" on Mars, ... don't you remember, .. we moved by beaming up and clinging on to a passing-by comet, .. or have you forgotten? It's all written in our religious text on Evolution, .. the Recycle chapters.

Over population forced us to come to earth, remember Mars Agenda 16, .. sustainable development? By destroying Mars atmosphere with nuclear bombs, which didn't quite do it, but with HAARP we succeeded in bursting a bubble in the O-zone layer, convincing a few of us to move to a nearby planet we called Earth.

So here we are, only once again we overpopulated, we can barely move since there is just so many of us. Have you drove through Texas, New Mexico and Arizona in one shot lately? It is a nightmare! Every single square meter of dirt you pass is full of thousands of 'very simple lifeforms'. I mean we can't even lay down without laying on a few thousand of us evolving mold, bacteria, bugs and vermin.
Knowing this and meditating day and night on it, I can barely breath I tell you! I can feel it in my every breath even in the air, billions of us tiny bacteria! We have to move to another lifeless planet, our life depends on it!

So here we go again, but this time with Agenda 21, and soon we will finally HAARP through this here earths o-zone also, and once more prove to mankind that, too many lifeforms just cannot be sustained.
Once we rip the O-zone, the remainder of us will hop on another meteor by committing suicide, .. and on to the next planet with some primordial soup.

Besides, either way we are running out of time, our sun is about to burn out, it has at best about 4 to 6 billion years left, and then what?
We have to recycle the earth NOW before it is too late and run out of time to even commit suicide. The word is 'Recycle', through our knowledge and faith-in 'Evolution', for the sake of 'Sustainable Development', all very religious beliefs.

----
Someone said; "Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. Then these religious Big-bang Evolutionists asks us to respect this, which it calls faith!" ... LOL Can you imagine that? - revised by arian.

[DanieltheDragon]

I[Replying to post 83 by arian]

like the artificial alien DNA we are creating in humans by spraying deadly chem-trails into the air mixed with human DNA from blood.

I tuned out here, go start a thread for each of your conspiracy theories and we can discuss those there.

[arian]

I[Replying to post 83 by arian]

like the artificial alien DNA we are creating in humans by spraying deadly chem-trails into the air mixed with human DNA from blood.

I tuned out here, go start a thread for each of your conspiracy theories and we can discuss those there.

Sorry, I thought this thread was about Evolution which is and was used by the Nazis as a conspiracy to exterminate those they deemed sub-human.

* Does the theory of Evolution deem all humans as 'human animals', specifically apes, or not?

* Did the Germans plan to exterminate themselves along with those they deemed sub-human or not?

See... Evolution is a conspiracy to exterminate all that THEY label animals, or sub-human, .. except themselves of course. Who are THEY?

THEY deem themselves gods (see the movie 'Thor', 'Pacific Rim', 'Tron' for more information)

Thank you.

[arian]

Given such a complicated definition of life, I am sure that you will agree that life never began to exist from non-life.

Note that the definition quoted says 'all or most of the following characteristics'. I can easily imagine a series of evolutionary stages that display at first only one one or two of the items listed, then three or four of list, then finally all of them. At what point the result would count as 'alive' is of interest only to pedants.

That definition makes it easier to get life from non-life, by allowing for intermediate stages between living and non-living.

Almost certainly life arose from non-life through a series of stages, each more 'nearly alive' than the one before.

May I ask as to "how many stages, or how many generations does it take for 'life' to evolve from 'non-life'"?

When a cell dies, or a man dies, how many stages/generations does it take for that cell, that man to come to life again?

Thanks.

[DanieltheDragon]

I[Replying to post 83 by arian]

Sorry, I thought this thread was about Evolution which is and was used by the Nazis as a conspiracy to exterminate those they deemed sub-human.

that is called eugenics not evolution

* Does the theory of Evolution deem all humans as 'human animals', specifically apes, or not?.

humans are classified as hominids and that is known as taxonomy which evolution uses to organize specie.

* Did the Germans plan to exterminate themselves along with those they deemed sub-human or not?

this is a silly question no just no.

See... Evolution is a conspiracy to exterminate all that THEY label animals, or sub-human, .. except themselves of course. Who are THEY?
clearly you don't understand what evolution actually is
THEY deem themselves gods (see the movie 'Thor', 'Pacific Rim', 'Tron' for more information)

Thank you.

I don't get my facts from fictional movies

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 81 by DanieltheDragon]

I'm actually not arguing for grand design here, perse - just plain old design. While I do believe in God, I don't mean to argue for his existence by this means... I'm working on the notion that humans could have been created (by anyone or anything), whilst still being part of a very complex evolution. I'm arguing for two concurrent, equally important perspectives - one that gives us scientific knowledge to help with medicine, technology, etc; the other that gives us a sense of meaning and direction that drives us to even care about those practical matters.

My point is this: if we are so bold as to consider ourselves 'intelligent', why do we not credit the same description to the complex system that made us so? Conversely, if we consider the roots of our existence to be inanimate, how can we not believe our very selves to also be inanimate?