A Bastard Universe

[Iacchus]

But how could order come from absolutely nothing? There must have been pre-existing principles already in place to tell it how to order itself, right? Or, are you suggesting the whole Universe created itself on the fly, principles and all? That doesn't make any sense at all. Just look at the atomic structure of the elements, where everything is strictly ordered. Are you saying these things and, in fact the order of everything else, was arbitrarily assigned at the moment the Big Bang occurred? What an incredible accident, indeed! And all without rhyme or reason. And yet here we are today, trying to make sense of it all. Dude! If that in fact wasn't the ultimate contradiction. ;)

Of course it does tend to reflect the materialist's point of view regarding an afterlife ... From nothing we came, to nothing we go, because nothing is all we ever knew. Really? :D So hey, we may as well pretend like we were never here, because this is but a brief interlude, to "nothing." I mean what do you expect from a Universe which is contingent upon its own bastardization? ... Indeed, with all the little bastards (people) scurrying about within and, without a God.

[Iacchus]

Do you know why you're here? Except that "mama evolution" tells you so? That would be pure speculation if, in fact everything "stems" from nothing.

Well, what I want to know is who got mama pregnant? Could it be that we're all bastards, of some "grand idea" we don't know about? Indeed, it's much easier to blame the woman in that respect isn't it? Why? Because she's the one who has the direct proof.

Of course if we understood that we do in fact have a father (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11), maybe we would try and stop bastardizing everything else?

[geckopelli]

You want an answer?

0= (-1) + 1

Nothing dissolved into our universe, and it's been pulling itself together ever since.

[Disarm]

if ya think about it, like you say, something had to start it. Why is it hard to grasp that our universe started it? (I honestly have no real opinion on whether we're new or recycled but let's assume we're the first universe)

Someone on this forum used to say that the proof g-d created this universe is that it's perfect. Don't get me started on g-d's imperfections but let's look at it being perfect.

A Quark, if you don't know what it is, is the rate of attraction between 2 objects, this has been publicised as the attraction rate from sub atomic particles (most importantly) right up to people to planets to everything in between (in my newspapers anyway). We are told that the further apart things are, the greater the attraction, but the closer the less attraction. Yes, it is therefore uniform, in theory..but in terms of gravity, the closer I get to the centre of the earth the faster I accelerate toward it; we all have a small gravitational field and I have never seen dust, for example, gravitate toward me and then get less attracted as it gets closer.

What about animals/humans? If the universe was in perfect harmony and balance why humans at all? we destroy everything we touch, it seems, like a virus. If animals/humans were so perfect why do they hump those of the same sex? I'm not saying homosexuality is a sin/bad, but if we were all perfect, we would all be attracted to those which would help the species/environment by procreation, or something far more uniform..

Mama evolution can go blow herself, for all I care. Evolution is a trial and error deal, where a change (however small) in the species happens suddenly to one animal due to gene/protein mixups when the baby is made, is more often than not fatal, and IF it proves helpful to the species (proven basically by the animal's survival) then more in the species get this alteration, through that animal's mating. I don't see this as perfect or even a good system. For example downs syndrome is certainly not good for the advancement of humans, but we continue to have children with it, due to no fault of our own, despite history teaching us that it is not an advantage but a handicap to the person. If the universe was perfect would species not 'learn' genetically that certain combinations were bad? No, it's trial and error, anything can happen when daddy sperm meets mummy egg.

These are a few, I could give you millions, but the universe is certainly not perfect. If everything repeats itself and we do have another universe on our hands, this one could be shrink-wrapped and sent to whoever is in charge of creating it as an exemplar of how NOT to go about things.

Why is the beginning relevant? Why must we always try to comprehend what we can never understand or know?

[geckopelli]

"A Quark, if you don't know what it is, is the rate of attraction between 2 objects, this has been publicised as the attraction rate from sub atomic particles (most importantly) right up to people to planets to everything in between (in my newspapers anyway). We are told that the further apart things are, the greater the attraction, but the closer the less attraction. Yes, it is therefore uniform, in theory..but in terms of gravity, the closer I get to the centre of the earth the faster I accelerate toward it; we all have a small gravitational field and I have never seen dust, for example, gravitate toward me and then get less attracted as it gets closer."

There are so many inaccuracies in this statement, I don't know where to begin.
Better to scrap the whole thing.

"What about animals/humans? If the universe was in perfect harmony and balance why humans at all? we destroy everything we touch, it seems, like a virus."

We are as natural as the stars. We are a part of the enviroment. Our works are as natural as anything else.

"If animals/humans were so perfect why do they hump those of the same sex? I'm not saying homosexuality is a sin/bad, but if we were all perfect, we would all be attracted to those which would help the species/environment by procreation, or something far more uniform.."

If people only mated with "perfect" partners- then everyone would need the same definition of "perfect". And eventually, everyone would be so similar that genetic degradation would set in.

"Mama evolution can go blow herself, for all I care. Evolution is a trial and error deal, where a change (however small) in the species happens suddenly to one animal due to gene/protein mixups when the baby is made, is more often than not fatal, and IF it proves helpful to the species (proven basically by the animal's survival) then more in the species get this alteration, through that animal's mating. I don't see this as perfect or even a good system. For example downs syndrome is certainly not good for the advancement of humans, but we continue to have children with it, due to no fault of our own, despite history teaching us that it is not an advantage but a handicap to the person. If the universe was perfect would species not 'learn' genetically that certain combinations were bad? No, it's trial and error, anything can happen when daddy sperm meets mummy egg."

You simply have no grasp of evolution or genetics.

"Why is the beginning relevant? Why must we always try to comprehend what we can never understand or know?"

It is human nature to seek understanding, and maybe YOU can never understand- But me, I rather think saying things are "unknowable" is to willingly wallow in ignorance.

[Razorofoccam]

But how could order come from absolutely nothing? There must have been pre-existing principles already in place to tell it how to order itself, right? Or, are you suggesting the whole Universe created itself on the fly, principles and all? That doesn't make any sense at all. Just look at the atomic structure of the elements, where everything is strictly ordered. Are you saying these things and, in fact the order of everything else, was arbitrarily assigned at the moment the Big Bang occurred? What an incredible accident, indeed! And all without rhyme or reason. And yet here we are today, trying to make sense of it all. Dude! If that in fact wasn't the ultimate contradiction. ;)

Of course it does tend to reflect the materialist's point of view regarding an afterlife ... From nothing we came, to nothing we go, because nothing is all we ever knew. Really? :D So hey, we may as well pretend like we were never here, because this is but a brief interlude, to "nothing." I mean what do you expect from a Universe which is contingent upon its own bastardization? ... Indeed, with all the little bastards (people) scurrying about within and, without a God.
Iacchus

Occam proposes this as an opinion.

Reality is a result of direction...
Human observation of reality suggests that the complexity of reality.
Is a COMPLEXITY REQUIRED ONLY BY DESIRE.

There is no need for the complexity of our reality.
Unless a 'direction' DESIRES the most complex thing of all
Self aware beings.

Thus ..agnosticism...

And the POINT that some seem to miss when talking logic.
Desire is NOT logic.

Occam

[dangermoose]

okay, so your saying the universe can't just magicly appear, but an all powerful and perfect god can? or do you believe god just always existed? ...if thats the case, then why coudltn the universe have just always existed?

[Razorofoccam]

[QUOTE=dangermoose]okay, so your saying the universe can't just magicly appear, but an all powerful and perfect god can? or do you believe god just always existed? ...if thats the case, then why coudltn the universe have just always existed?[/QUO

Dangermoose

No..occam says that reality exists as we observe it.

How do YOU explain self aware beings?

And infinite regression destroys many logical paths...Yet WE exist..

Occam may even suggest that reality went through trillions of bigbang/collapse cycles to EVOLVE complexity.

WE DONT KNOW

And that, at this time, is the gist of it.

Occam

PS

That pic of you looks A LOT LIKE ME...did you steal it? No, your hair is curlier :)

You bastard... Tigerlily could wish to be with me...but she is WITH you...
And canada is a long ways by plane.
Yet a short ways by socialsystems.
Maybe tigerlily wants an OLDER guy..hehe...
No bloody likely

[TrippinBTM]

But how could order come from absolutely nothing? There must have been pre-existing principles already in place to tell it how to order itself, right? Or, are you suggesting the whole Universe created itself on the fly, principles and all? That doesn't make any sense at all. Just look at the atomic structure of the elements, where everything is strictly ordered. Are you saying these things and, in fact the order of everything else, was arbitrarily assigned at the moment the Big Bang occurred? What an incredible accident, indeed! And all without rhyme or reason. And yet here we are today, trying to make sense of it all. Dude! If that in fact wasn't the ultimate contradiction. ;)
Well, perhaps other universes had tried to start but with the wrong mix of laws, they would not have stayed formed, they'd have disappeared almost immediately. The fact that ours did have laws that could allow for a sustainable universe is why we are here to observe them. If it were any other way, we wouldn't exist, nor would the universe (at least as we know it now). So though it seems like it was planned by god because everything works together, it's just the way it is, because again, if it were different, we wouldn't be around to question these things.

Anyways, we humans evolved to be intelligent, thinking beings, without rhyme or reason. And the universe is far larger, far more mysterious. Just becaues it disagrees with how you'd like to feel or think, we shouldn't make rash judgements about the universe and it's origin. Without rhyme or reason? Probably, but that doesn't make it impossible (obviously).

[Iacchus]

Desire is NOT logic.Sounds logical. :) Perhaps logic is the frame which keeps desire in context?

[Scholar_Warrior]

here ya go: http://www.svpvril.com/musicuni.html

[Iacchus]

if ya think about it, like you say, something had to start it. Why is it hard to grasp that our universe started it? (I honestly have no real opinion on whether we're new or recycled but let's assume we're the first universe)In other words it sounds like you're saying the Universe was here before it was here, in order for it to magically appear? ;) Why the need to give rise to itself if it was already here?

[Iacchus]

We are as natural as the stars. We are a part of the enviroment. Our works are as natural as anything else.Do you mean like a freeway overpass? No, that is not natural. Or if it is, how is that we can define between that which is natural and that which is artificially contrived? Do you think the whole of the rest of nature has terms for such things? That wouldn't be natural would it?

[geckopelli]

Iacchus,

So are you denying that Humans are a natural part of the universe?

The difference between a freeway overpass and a beaver dam or ant hill, (all "natural" inhabitants of Earth) is a matter of degree only.

Or are humans supernatural?

Artificial has the meaning "man made"- but we are a pruduct of the Universe, just like every other known thing in it.

[Disarm]

In other words it sounds like you're saying the Universe was here before it was here, in order for it to magically appear? ;) Why the need to give rise to itself if it was already here?
i'm jus saying that in order for the universe to be here something has to precede it, like you said, but that there doesn't have to have been a universe before this one in order for this universe to function the way it does..I wasn't talking about HOW it began, or what began it, but whether something like it was there before it.

geckopelli, you really are an idiot.

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

So are you denying that Humans are a natural part of the universe?No, there's no denying that the natural world exists, neither can we deny that we're here. That does not mean, however, that there is no metaphysical realm which exists beyond our five senses. In other words there exists the realm of the mind.


The difference between a freeway overpass and a beaver dam or ant hill, (all "natural" inhabitants of Earth) is a matter of degree only. Do you mean like the difference between day and night? :) Do you see beavers building anything other than beaver dams or, ants building anything other than anthills? And, while we may have to make certain exceptions for ants (in terms of adaptability), we're generally speaking of a process which has evolved over the eons. Whereas most animals evolve within the environment, as opposed to outside of it. Also, if you have too much of any one thing, then you begin to suffer a loss of diversity as well as the eco-system. And that's not natural for an eco-system which has become fully established.


Or are humans supernatural? If there is a God the Creator, then yes, they have an aspect of God within themselves ... what is commonly referred to as a soul.


Artificial has the meaning "man made"- but we are a pruduct of the Universe, just like every other known thing in it.Yes, we are a product of the Universe, but the thing we need to ask is where does intelligence come from? If the Universe is so structured and designed to produce intelligence, why? Is the Universe inherently intelligent then? Or, is there something inherently intelligent which gave rise to it?

[Iacchus]

i'm jus saying that in order for the universe to be here something has to precede it, like you said, but that there doesn't have to have been a universe before this one in order for this universe to function the way it does..I wasn't talking about HOW it began, or what began it, but whether something like it was there before it.

geckopelli, you really are an idiot.Might I suggest that the Universe has always been here, except perhaps in another dimension, which is non-physical (immaterial), prior to the Big Bang?

[Iacchus]

So, is it possible that man may have appeared here as transplants? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49) Say like from another dimension, the same (immaterial) dimension which gave rise to the Universe in the first place? It might account for how something could appear to come from nothing don't you think? ;)

[geckopelli]

geckopelli, you really are an idiot.
you've totally miread every post I've made, and attributed ideas to me that are not mine, you silly little tart.

And now you deny that people are a natural part of existence.

Your mouth appears to work independently from your brain. And not very well, at that!

The universe was here before it was here indeed!

[geckopelli]

Iacchus,
"No, there's no denying that the natural world exists, neither can we deny that we're here. That does not mean, however, that there is no metaphysical realm which exists beyond our five senses. In other words there exists the realm of the mind."

It dosen't mean a "metaphysical world" exist, eithier. Your "realm of the mind", if it exist, is STILL a natural product of a natural ihabitant of the Universe.



"Do you mean like the difference between day and night? :) Do you see beavers building anything other than beaver dams or, ants building anything other than anthills? And, while we may have to make certain exceptions for ants (in terms of adaptability), we're generally speaking of a process which has evolved over the eons. Whereas most animals evolve within the environment, as opposed to outside of it. Also, if you have too much of any one thing, then you begin to suffer a loss of diversity as well as the eco-system. And that's not natural for an eco-system which has become fully established."

WE DO live within the evironment. To say we don't is non-sequitor.

"If there is a God the Creator, then yes, they have an aspect of God within themselves ... what is commonly referred to as a soul."

Complete assumptions. NOT A SINGLE FACT.

"Yes, we are a product of the Universe, but the thing we need to ask is where does intelligence come from? If the Universe is so structured and designed to produce intelligence, why? Is the Universe inherently intelligent then? Or, is there something inherently intelligent which gave rise to it?"

It may be an accident. Or it may be simply the next quatum level after self-awareness. REsearch is indicated, not all the assumption you've made.

[geckopelli]

So, is it possible that man may have appeared here as transplants? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49) Say like from another dimension, the same (immaterial) dimension which gave rise to the Universe in the first place? It might account for how something could appear to come from nothing don't you think? ;)
NO.

THe transplant notion only holds if ALL life on earth were transplanted.
Life on earth is fundementally related on a biochemical level. I'll spare you the science- but I've described it in this forum many times before.

[Iacchus]

NO. Why? This is to claim then that there's no purpose to our being here, correct? Do you understand my reference to the term "bastard" then?


THe transplant notion only holds if ALL life on earth were transplanted.Do you believe there's an afterlife?


Life on earth is fundementally related on a biochemical level. I'll spare you the science- but I've described it in this forum many times before.In terms of that which is natural, which our bodies are, yes, this is correct.

[Iacchus]

It dosen't mean a "metaphysical world" exist, eithier. Your "realm of the mind", if it exist, is STILL a natural product of a natural ihabitant of the Universe. Without an intenal reality, how could we recognize an external reality? How can we acknowledge the truth without a mind?


WE DO live within the evironment. To say we don't is non-sequitor. And when we've trashed the eco-system there won't be an environment to live in now would there? Which is why I ask, Why do we continue to bastardize our existence?


Complete assumptions. NOT A SINGLE FACT. Here's an interesting thread that I participated in called, the universe is all in our heads (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37564) ...


It may be an accident. Or it may be simply the next quatum level after self-awareness. REsearch is indicated, not all the assumption you've made.So the Universe is inherently dumb then, correct? :)

[geckopelli]

Iacchus,
"Why? This is to claim then that there's no purpose to our being here, correct? Do you understand my reference to the term "bastard" then?"

Not at all. purpose isn't my bag. I have no opinion on such.I just look for the science part of the question and answer. I also guard for misrepresentations of science

I was "no-ing" the transplant idea.

"Do you believe there's an afterlife?"

I don't have these types of beliefs. At the moment, "afterlife" does not fit the definition of Reality, so it is not within my realm of interest. I have no opinion.
I can easily be swayed upon encountering objective evidence, however.

[geckopelli]

[QUOTE=Iacchus]Without an intenal reality, how could we recognize an external reality? How can we acknowledge the truth without a mind?"

Again "Truth" is not within my realm.

"internal reality" and "external reality" are valid concepts, BUT, psychology also offers a tenative explanation WITHOUT assuming the existence of "metaphysics". Occam's razor.

Eithier way, if any event that is described as metaphysical is ever demonstrated as undeniably occuring, it is, by definition, a real event.
That's what interest me- Reality. "How" it works,not "Why".


"And when we've trashed the eco-system there won't be an environment to live in now would there? Which is why I ask, Why do we continue to bastardize our existence?"

I suggest to you that, just as the existence of a suitable harbor for life in the Universe is a low probability event, the development of intellect outstriping the technological development inherent with communicative intelligent species is, perhaps, a low probablility.

In other words, of the possible millions (billions? trillions?) of intellectual and communacative races in the Universe, only a small percentage are going to make it.

Consider that wolfs will eat so many deer, that die-back becomes nesacary.
Still, it's all natural- all a part of Reality.

"So the Universe is inherently dumb then, correct? http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif"

A judgement- not my thing.

I have come to have an inkling of an understanding of the statistical nature of Reality, so let's just say that getting it right is a low-probability event.

[Iacchus]

It dosen't mean a "metaphysical world" exist, eithier. Your "realm of the mind", if it exist, is STILL a natural product of a natural ihabitant of the Universe.

WE DO live within the evironment. To say we don't is non-sequitor.

Complete assumptions. NOT A SINGLE FACT.

It may be an accident. Or it may be simply the next quatum level after self-awareness. REsearch is indicated, not all the assumption you've made.Yes, wherein does the ignorance lie?

[Occam]

Iacchus..

Have you considered that we are here to BE humanity....
And humanity is here because maybe this reality is structured to result in conscious
self aware beings.
Be they humanity or any others in this reality...

You cannot expect anyone to believe humanity has no purpose when we understand only a fraction of why and how reality itself works..
Let alone what it is for.

If YOU do not believe YOU have a purpose..say so...Dont say HUMANITY has none.For you speak only for yourself..not occam or the other 6.2 something billions of human
individuals..
Occam has made his own purpose...
Maybe .... That IS our purpose....

Occam

-----------
Maybe when the body and consciousness die,,,we go off to where we were before we were born.
nihilo

[Iacchus]

Not if it means giving ourselves credit for our own existence. No. Purpose does not just arrive at your doorstep without prior warning. Neither am I implying purpose doesn't eixst, because it does. It's just that we are the effects, as the result of some even greater purpose.

[Occam]

Not if it means giving ourselves credit for our own existence. No. Purpose does not just arrive at your doorstep without prior warning. Neither am I implying purpose doesn't eixst, because it does. It's just that we are the effects, as the result of some even greater purpose.
Iaachus

Good...Occams very core philosophy is that our lives are ours ..for free.
We did not self create them..We, each being gets existance for FREE..

Purpose is a thing only of conscious beings.
Rocks ask not of purpose...or suns. Their purpose is defined for them
You suggest we are the effects of purpose in our reality.
And occam agrees.
Why?
Because we each strive for meaning...
And we do so because reality has made us that way.
So REALITY holds the answers to purpose.

And while WE WORK OUT REALITY..Occam defines his purpose FOR HIMSELF..As the understanding of reality and our purpose.

Thus reality MAY..Allow the existance of beings such as you and occam to do one thing..
Understand why we exist...
When we do that...
maybe some 'god' will came calling with these words on its lips.

Thank myself ..some rational company.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Disarm Wrote:


"Mama evolution can go blow herself, for all I care. Evolution is a trial and error deal, where a change (however small) in the species happens suddenly to one animal due to gene/protein mixups when the baby is made, is more often than not fatal, and IF it proves helpful to the species (proven basically by the animal's survival) then more in the species get this alteration, through that animal's mating. I don't see this as perfect or even a good system. For example downs syndrome is certainly not good for the advancement of humans, but we continue to have children with it, due to no fault of our own, despite history teaching us that it is not an advantage but a handicap to the person. If the universe was perfect would species not 'learn' genetically that certain combinations were bad? No, it's trial and error, anything can happen when daddy sperm meets mummy egg."
-----------------------------------
GeckoPelli Responded with:

You simply have no grasp of evolution or genetics.
------------------------------------------

Geckopelli, Can you please explain why you accused Disarm of having no grasp of Evolution or Genetics based on what she wrote?

Can you tell us specifically (or even basically) where she went wrong and why?

Can you indicate how Evolution and Genetics works differently than how she suggested?

Thanks.. i really want to know?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Disarm Wrote:


"Mama evolution can go blow herself, for all I care. Evolution is a trial and error deal, where a change (however small) in the species happens suddenly to one animal due to gene/protein mixups when the baby is made, is more often than not fatal, and IF it proves helpful to the species (proven basically by the animal's survival) then more in the species get this alteration, through that animal's mating. I don't see this as perfect or even a good system. For example downs syndrome is certainly not good for the advancement of humans, but we continue to have children with it, due to no fault of our own, despite history teaching us that it is not an advantage but a handicap to the person. If the universe was perfect would species not 'learn' genetically that certain combinations were bad? No, it's trial and error, anything can happen when daddy sperm meets mummy egg."
-----------------------------------
GeckoPelli Responded with:

You simply have no grasp of evolution or genetics.
------------------------------------------

Geckopelli, Can you please explain why you accused Disarm of having no grasp of Evolution or Genetics based on what she wrote?

Can you tell us specifically (or even basically) where she went wrong and why?

Can you indicate how Evolution and Genetics works differently than how she suggested?

Thanks.. i really want to know?
You dont really care what the details are, since you will just refute them anyway, you just want fodder to argue about, that is my guess. i could very well be wrong, but that has been my experience.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I agree with Disarms post, the vast majority of mutations result in death. The rare advantageous ones survive and, advantageous, multiply. Thereby eventually becoming universally shared. I believe this.
Bad sight, hairlessness, etc. will someday be a shared trait of our kind, if this is true. These traits are not handicaps like they were before, and are becoming more common as a result.
A bunch of hairless, bespectacled fatheads without baby toes is what I see us heading for. Weak, tiny, and superbrainy....kinda like the et's in close encounters. (that is us, they are conspiring to prepare us for 'our' return in 8 years.........time is an illusion. The present is the only reality, God says so.)

[Brocktoon]

BlackGuard.. your making a good case for devolution (the opposite of Evolutionist faith in ascension)

Based on what we observe - There are occasional losses or mutations of ALREADY existing Genes.

This means in a few million years we would be a whole bunch of retards ;)\

but seriously folks.. we need to see minimum 51% 'Good' Mutations in order for ANY upward evolving.

Considering we dont see any.. its not looking good for upward evolutionism

[BlackGuardXIII]

BlackGuard.. your making a good case for devolution (the opposite of Evolutionist faith in ascension)

Based on what we observe - There are occasional losses or mutations of ALREADY existing Genes.

This means in a few million years we would be a whole bunch of retards ;)\

but seriously folks.. we need to see minimum 51% 'Good' Mutations in order for ANY upward evolving.

Considering we dont see any.. its not looking good for upward evolutionism
I like to call it regression as opposed to progression.
We are going downhill. this whole ludicrous evolutions vs. creation crap is useless bullshit.......the perfect evidence of how far we have fallen.
glad i made myself clear on that point for ya. we are in the shit.

[geckopelli]

but seriously folks.. we need to see minimum 51% 'Good' Mutations in order for ANY upward evolving.

If you had the slightest grasp of mathematics and genetics you'd know how ignorant you sound.

"Upward" evolving is null. A human judgement, nothing more. "Survival of the fittest" means fit for the environment.

As for "needed percentages", a survival rate of 0.000000001% for genetic mutations would be far more than sufficent to account for Evolution.

So basically- once more you're mistaking your uninformed opinion for reality.

Wallow in your ignorance if you must, fool. But as Long as you present moronic religious beliefs as science I'll be there to call you on it.

[Sera Michele]

I find it interesting how Brocktoon just makes up information he thinks sounds good in order to try make a point. Seems to be if it sounds good to him, then it must be true!

To bad it doesn't work that way...

[Brocktoon]

If you had the slightest grasp of mathematics and genetics you'd know how ignorant you sound.

"Upward" evolving is null. A human judgement, nothing more. "Survival of the fittest" means fit for the environment.
You are not grasping mathematics and genetics when YOU decided to understand the word 'Upward' in emotional or 'popularity' terms.

CLEARLY I was speaking mathematics.

A walking talking real-life Elephant is MUCH MORE COMPLEX Mathematically speaking than a Germ.

BTW - Upward Mobility and Ascension are all words you hero's bandy about so deal with it.

As for "needed percentages", a survival rate of 0.000000001% for genetic mutations would be far more than sufficent to account for Evolution.]
This is easily a winner for this years most 'Astonishingly Dumbass and amazingly wrong' statement every made by someone who just pretended to understand basic mathematics.

WOW!

First of all Dr.Science - you DO NOT have a situation in which the negative mutation simply 'dont make it' LOL!

You have to have a HIGHER SURVIVAL RATE of 'Beneficial Mutations' than the SURVIVAL RATE of 'Regular BAD Mutations'.

Its true that many mutations are 'Lethal' to the organism before it reproduces .. but the ones we are talking about are the ones which survive in the organism - which then reproduces.

Your Theory is TOTALLY FUCKED LOL!

Not that there is ANY reason to believe that one in a million organism produces new and beneficial genes anyway!

Now because you intend to reply to this post with some flame-baiting 'dismissal'..

Here is an article that might 'make you think'.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/evolution/plaisted

In Particular:

Now, apes and humans are thought to have split about 10
million years ago, and have about a 2 percent difference in DNA. The
human genome has about 3 billion base pairs and about 300 million base
pairs of functional DNA (assuming 10 percent of 3 billion base pairs
are functional). Assuming that most of this 2 percent change is
non-functional DNA, this implies a rate of evolution of one percent in
10 million years, which implies 3 million point mutations in 10
million years in the functional DNA. Two-thirds of these would be
harfmul, or, 2 million in 10 million years. This is about one point
mutation in the functional DNA every five years, or about 6 every
generation. Counting both parents, this gives 12 mutations per
zygote, with a chance of only 1/(2.718 ^ 12) (less than 1 in 100,000)
that a zygote will survive and be able to have offspring at
equilibrium. Of course, this is ridiculous.

Interestingly (and based on REAL SCIENCE...)


From standard reference materials, observed mutation rates inhumans appear to be between .5 and 4 per 100,000 gametes (sperm oregg). The average is about one per 100,000 gametes among livingorganisms, but may be considerably higher. For humans, the average isabout four per 100,000 gametes. This would lead to eight harmfulmutations per zygote (fertilized egg) on the average, at 100,000 genesin the human. This would mean that at equilibrium, only about1/(2.718)^8 or less than 1/3000 of the zygotes could develop intoreproducing individuals!! This can only be reconciled with reality by assuming that thehuman race is only a few hundred generations old at most, initiallydefect-free, or that the harmful mutations are clustered in a fewindividuals who are very unlikely to have surviving offspring. In thelatter case, the number of effective mutations available for evolutionwould be much smaller.
So basically- once more you're mistaking your uninformed opinion for reality.
Wallow in your ignorance if you must, fool. But as Long as you present moronic religious beliefs as science I'll be there to call you on it.
Wow.. another flame-baiting insult comment from you.

Maybe you should prove me wrong and explain where Plastaid is gone wrong in his explanation of WHY YOUR NOT EVEN CLOSE to 'Getting' why you NEED 50 + ONE to even START progressing in your Evolutionism Myth!

[Brocktoon]

I find it interesting how Brocktoon just makes up information he thinks sounds good in order to try make a point. Seems to be if it sounds good to him, then it must be true!

To bad it doesn't work that way...
Sera.. what you just did there is known as 'Projecting'.

In case you thought i made THAT up - feel free to look it up.

Otherwise, please stop annoying the Boards.
Thanks

;)

[BlackGuardXIII]

Sera.. what you just did there is known as 'Projecting'.

In case you thought i made THAT up - feel free to look it up.

Otherwise, please stop annoying the Boards.
Thanks

;)
Hey, how come you can project, and she can't? You have done it dozens of times with me...even putting your own words down as being mine....
lol

[Brocktoon]

BlackyG.. before attempting another 'I know you are.. but what am I?' retort:
Please Read the original Post.

In it - I tease HER of Projecting.

So when your comeback starts with "Why can you project but she cant ..."
['Punchline' ensues]
....
....
See why that doesnt really work?
Please try again.

[thumontico]

Are you a Christian, Brocktoon?

If so you have seemed to have overlooked some of the important altruistic teachings of your savior. Do him a favor and subdue your ego, acquire a little humility, and refrain from being a jackass atleast some of the time.

[Sera Michele]

Bah, people are christians nowadays because they say they are. Hardly anyone really acts christian anymore.

[Brocktoon]

Its a good thing Jesus was perfect and able to respond to all with gentleness and respect..

.. Because whenever i run into mouth-breathers like you people I find it pretty much impossible not to go JackAss Jack on your arses.

In your case Sera... Ive become to believe you are clinically retarded and therefore I feel less need to hold you to any minumum standards of non-stupidity.

Geckopelli is usually stoned on hallucinogens - so you can never really get too offended by his cute and wacky dumbassery.

[Brocktoon]

Are you a Christian, Brocktoon?

If so you have seemed to have overlooked some of the important altruistic teachings of your savior. Do him a favor and subdue your ego, acquire a little humility, and refrain from being a jackass atleast some of the time.
Thumbotico... I suggest you do your god (you) a favour and follow the wise saying that says "Put up or Shut up"

Im not gonna hold my breath either ;)

[Sera Michele]

Well if I had any respect for you I may feel bad about myself. But I am not going to lose sleep over what some foolish, immature person thinks of me.

[thumontico]

What exactly am I supposed to Put Up?

[BlackGuardXIII]

BlackyG.. before attempting another 'I know you are.. but what am I?' retort:
Please Read the original Post.

In it - I tease HER of Projecting.

So when your comeback starts with "Why can you project but she cant ..."
['Punchline' ensues]
....
....
See why that doesnt really work?
Please try again.
brickwall.......
No I dont see.
I clearly wrote that you project all the time, yet you tease HER for doing the same. Answer the ?, if you want.
I dont care either way, you are very sure you are right, and any who differ are wrong. No amount of logic, scientific evidence, or rational deduction will ever change that.

[Brocktoon]

What exactly am I supposed to Put Up?
Anything!?

You are a perfect example of why Agnostisism is the refuge of the weakest minds.
The EASIEST thing for a human being to do is sit back and simply 'Question' the Ref. .. then announce whether they 'accept' or 'not accept' the answer they expected.

Who cares.. children can do that!

[thumontico]

I suppose that should have been evident, however, it wasn't.

I am an Atheist by the way. If you have been paying attention you would know that.

Why am I trying to explain something to an irrational bot?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Anything!?

You are a perfect example of why Agnostisism is the refuge of the weakest minds.
The EASIEST thing for a human being to do is sit back and simply 'Question' the Ref. .. then announce whether they 'accept' or 'not accept' the answer they expected.

Who cares.. children can do that!

NOT A CHANCE.
sure questioning is very easy, as you say,
but the far easier, and simpler (as in requiring zero thought) thing is to just accept what someone tells you outright, and NOT question it. Just go along, play the game, team..., if they all agree it must be right so why bother even firing up the ol neurons at all. It is like watching tv, you need do zip, it is all done for you, you just have to be there.
As far as questioning the ref., and then making your own call....that is what an adult does, in my estimation. Makes the call himself, the resulting events of that call are then at least not due to lack of making the call, and then blaming whoever it was that told you what to think.

[Brocktoon]

I do agree with most of what you said in your last post BlackG..
.. Then you go ahead and do something completely contrary by simply accepting without question a completely unfounded and bizarro assertion that the word 'Liar' refers to the Apostle Paul??

Your like a simple enigma loosely wrapped in a kindergarten riddle.
Aha!

[BlackGuardXIII]

I currently find it makes the most sense, in context with my bible research, and previous interpretations and conclusions. It is not just a whimsy.