Jump to content


Photo

"Evolution Is Stupid"


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:03 AM

note: he appears to be coming from the angle of christians that beleive in evolution are stupid, well thats as much as i read anyway



Can I not be curious? Maybe I'm Christian, maybe I'm not....I could be agnostic.... I could already agree with you and be playing devil's advocate... But you don't know, so don't go labeling me... You evidently know more about this than I do. So why not inform me...

And I never said Evolution was stupid... I know that it's a process of life... I'm asking questions to have a better understanding of every point of view. Just call me the "Neutralist"

BTW Morpheus, I'm a girl...

MSpencer... I still don't know how the single-celled organism "came to life." At least, not in a way that I can understand it.....

#22 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:09 AM

Well then I recommend you endeavor to understand it. I have certainly recommended enough books.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#23 Silent_Killa

Silent_Killa

    Village Idiot

  • Project Team
  • 790 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:23 AM

Spence, I doubt anyone who has little more than a passing interest in the subject will read one, let alone four textbooks on it.

I'm not one who should really be explaining these things, but from what I understand is that life in it's original form could hardly be considered life by today's standards. It was basically a chemical reaction which spawned the first single celled organisms, which were just a nice combination of biological materials that randomly ran into sustenance. Mutations occured due to the organisms running into different elements, and the good mutations naturally survived longer than the bad ones, and bingo, we have natural selection.

Now we wait for Spence to point out everything wrong with what I just said and call me an idiot in his own MSpencer way... but at least through this you'll get a decent explanation of evolution :lol:
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell

#24 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 17 September 2006 - 03:20 PM

That is a terrible generalization of things that took several billion years to happen (Chemical evolution is about... three trillion times slower than biological evolution), but I'd say that's about accurate. You should realize that while us multicellular organisms have been all happy on the planet for a few billion years, before us, protobionts spent billions of years just getting to be cells. It is believed that the ancient atmosphere prevalent in the early days of abiotic synthesis, and the increased amount of entropy in the environment, allowed bonds to form between chemicals more readily. Believe it or not, with some oil and water you can create your own protobionts, they're just going to be lipid-encased sacs which aren't metabolically active. Protobionts weren't very different, they were phospholipid encased metabolically active sacs, although both of those things took millions of generations to perfect. It's likely that the first protobionts would not even have any relation to the later, just pre-prokaryotic protobionts. They would probably just be proto-lipid enclosed water-based sacs no larger than a thousandth of a micrometer across. You wouldn't even run into the normal choline-phosphate-unsaturated lipid structure of every membrane today... that would have developed later and would have been a more fit characteristic which would have prevailed until today simply because it would have been present in the precursor of all life. The only reason why that hasn't changed is because, with less entropy on the planet and more complex, stable biological systems (organisms) evolving, chemical evolution stopped about the same time as the first archeabacteria.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#25 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 17 September 2006 - 09:41 PM

well it might not have stopped, but its so slow you don't really notice any difference for us. kinda like the technological singularity would become for us:

"Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make."

so to put it bluntly, chemical evolution is pwned by biological evolution in a manner equal to biological evolution being pwned by technologic evolution. makes sense to me ;)

Edited by duke_Qa, 17 September 2006 - 09:42 PM.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#26 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 17 September 2006 - 10:55 PM

Nope, chemical evolution has pretty much stopped. There's not enough entropy left on the planet to allow it to continue, long standing biological systems have pretty much ended the glory days of chemical evolution. It was a crappy thing anyways, and if it were still going on, chemistry would be a significantly harder subject.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users