The Taboos of Science

[leddis3]

Why do you assume we couldn't be faster?

Again, what rules are there to evolution? There are none. Species that adapt to better exploit their enviroment survive, and those who don't or are left behind die off. That is the only basis.

Nothing says a species must exist for x amount of years to achieve sapience, this isn't Spore and we aren't accumulating XP to level up the species.

 

Saying that we're faster or better is only true if you assume that sapience is the end goal of evolution, when it really isn't. Sapience is an evolutionary niche like any other. A rather fortunate one for us, because it makes us able to think about and try to understand the universe around, but as far as nature goes, it's just something that allows us to survive and propagate ourselves.

 

I have a very open mind as long as it's within reason. Showing evidence that a extremely random and chaotic process is... random and chaotic doesn't really change anything.

[R733]

Why do you assume we couldn't be faster?

Again, what rules are there to evolution? There are none. Species that adapt to better exploit their enviroment survive, and those who don't or are left behind die off. That is the only basis.

Nothing says a species must exist for x amount of years to achieve sapience, this isn't Spore and we aren't accumulating XP to level up the species.

 

Saying that we're faster or better is only true if you assume that sapience is the end goal of evolution, when it really isn't. Sapience is an evolutionary niche like any other. A rather fortunate one for us, because it makes us able to think about and try to understand the universe around, but as far as nature goes, it's just something that allows us to survive and propagate ourselves.

 

I have a very open mind as long as it's within reason. Showing evidence that a extremely random and chaotic process is... random and chaotic doesn't really change anything.

 

You don't know how science works. You DO make assumptions based on analogy unless there is logical/experimental evidence that the assumption is wrong. This is how math (which basically operations on logic) was/is created;  you make observations and formulate patterns based on your observations. Then you formulate assumptioms that would meet you observations, then you test the assumptions. Unfortunately, in real science you are rarely capable to fully test assumptions, math is different as it's abstract, defined system and even there are some problems with finding proofs to intuitively obvious theory. There is much evidence that evolution is very slow in both mammals and reptilians, what makes evolution of advanced primates look particulary suspicious.

 

It would be unscientific to reject well documented assumption of slow evolution process in order to accept whacky, poorly documented assumption of spontaniously accelerated evolution of particular species.

 

As for your assumption that goal of evolution is creation of most survival capable organism is wrong; the most resistant organic structures have been created long ago - Bacterias. There are bacterias that can survive inside nuclear reactor, they can survive thousends of years in vacuum exposed on gamma radioation etc. generally the more complex structure the more vulnerable to enviromental changes. this is  why 65 mln years ago evolution had made a big leap backwards.

 

Goal of evolution is rising the complexity(amount of data) and quality(coherence/effectivness) of structures. There are important philosophical implications of this, but I don't want to go there in this thread.

[leddis3]

Sigh. There is no goal. Once again, stop acting like evolution is someone playing Spore.

Nobody is keeping a tally on who gets to survive best and first. More complex life evolves because it can. Saying that the "goal" of evolution is to create complex organisms is like saying the goal of gravity is to create solar systems.

 

I've tried to be polite, but since you're bordering on the patronising I'll just say YOU don't know one goddamn thing about science.

Science is not drawing conclusions on utterly baseless assumptions. You have no comparisons to how fast a sapient species should evolve and until you actually find evidence that our evolution was influenced somehow that does not consist of "Well I don't understand what the word random is therefore it's worth investigation!" then you literally have nothing.

[Something]

leddis, I don't mean to sound patronizing but do listen from someone who has experience. Don't try applying logic, thought, and reason against him, you'll only hurt yourself.

[R733]

leddis, I don't mean to sound patronizing but do listen from someone who has experience. Don't try applying logic, thought, and reason against him, you'll only hurt yourself.

 

Hilarious, especially that you are follower of illogical beleif system - christianity (it's not  an insult it's a fact) and whenever we talk you prove to be incapable to apply even most basic logic in your reasoning. 

[R733]

Sigh. There is no goal. Once again, stop acting like evolution is someone playing Spore.

Nobody is keeping a tally on who gets to survive best and first. More complex life evolves because it can. Saying that the "goal" of evolution is to create complex organisms is like saying the goal of gravity is to create solar systems.

 

I've tried to be polite, but since you're bordering on the patronising I'll just say YOU don't know one goddamn thing about science.

Science is not drawing conclusions on utterly baseless assumptions. You have no comparisons to how fast a sapient species should evolve and until you actually find evidence that our evolution was influenced somehow that does not consist of "Well I don't understand what the word random is therefore it's worth investigation!" then you literally have nothing.

 

If there is a process there is a goal (result of the process);  there is no need to mystify the word "goal" neither I attempt to; it's just is and should be considered.  The rest of your post is baseless and sugest that you have very little interest in palaeontology. 

 

Randomness... If you can explain how purely logical process can manufacture illogical structures I'll be glad to listen.

 

And yes the only  logical explanation of quatum weirdness is interpretation that reality is just outcome of quantum computer - virtual reality (computer game)  that is just manufactured by other fundamental reality that is in fact subjective.

[R733]

[R733]

"

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.

 

 

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

 

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time.

 

New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment. 

 

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

"

Max Planck - father of quantum mechanics.

 

[Something]

Sorry, you're still full of it.

[R733]

Sorry, you're still full of it.

 

Full of uncomfortable truth?

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/the_latest_on_chimp_and_human052291.html

[Something]

We share 98% of our DNA with chimps? Sorry, old news. We also share ~75% of our DNA with bananas, and 25% with bacteria IIRC. Try again.

[Strelky]

Fuck truth, it doesn't exist

[polluxval]

Fuck truth, it doesn't exist

 

it does exist, here:

 

 

 

 

[R733]

We share 98% of our DNA with chimps? Sorry, old news. We also share ~75% of our DNA with bananas, and 25% with bacteria IIRC. Try again.

 

You obviously didn't even read the article. It was saying that about 98% DNA which was considered trash is in fact not trash. Part of our DNA have been deactivated to make humans dummmer and more easy to condition - with great results.

 

Here is test conducted recently on one of Andromedan motherships (they have two jupiter size and many smaller with diameter around 500-1000 miles)

 

[Something]

You would think Earth orbits two suns and it's not just a trick of light refraction that two were visible at the time 

[R733]

You would think Earth orbits two suns and it's not just a trick of light refraction that two were visible at the time 

 

This interpretation of that phenomena (along with others like explosion of red giant etc) will have to be rejected when it occurs next time for a prolong duration.

[Strelky]

You lost me at hello

[R733]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOOZ_IPb6Y

 

[Something]

Extraterrestrials have a PAC now? 

[formel]

Ah I can't await the moment when the u.s. goverment has to confess that their are aliens among us i think that is the exakt moment when i die laughing about the silliness of humanity. These people should take a good look into a physiks book befor they go to the medias and quack about aliens maybe then they recognize how silly they sound.

[R733]

[Something]

You are literate, aren't you R733? So say what you're going to say.