FreeThinker

If you doubt science has the answers, turn of your computer.

From a scientific point of view, one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven).

It is confusing. The first sentence seems to be directly attacking evolution and confirming that some structures are irreductibly complex. The second sentence confirms that it, irreductble complexity, follows a scientific method. I do not agree that it is testable for the reasons mentioned in the original post. There is no way we could come up with all the possible ways a particular organ , or system, could have evolved. This paragraph, the way I intepret it, in no way reflects how I feel on the issue.

check out Canibus.. same sort of thing

Of course they both evolved at the same time, how else would either one have offspring?

I have been going to the gym four time a week, for three years. I also study science full time and spend most of my free time reading. So much for the stereotype...

and I don't believe in evolution so the section annoys me.

If you don’t know how to answer these questions, how can you "no believe” in evolution. Shouldn't you first learn the basics of evolution before you start not believing it?

I say this having done some review insane_alien' date=' ID is probably more opinion than fact. More religion than science.

However ID may have a place in the future when science is more advanced.

A book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav, is an over view of modern physics. At one point it compares Hindu Beliefs to Quantum Physics. For instance on page 309 Gary says "While it would be naive to overstate the similarities between Bohm's physics and eastern philosophies, it would be foolish to ignore them."

Perhaps when science is more advanced and our understanding of who or what the “intelligent designer” might be (god, space aliens etc.) is more developed, someone could describe ID in the form of a theory based on their new found understanding that could be proven incorrect or otherwise through experimentation or observation. Nevertheless perhaps it would be best for ID to take a back seat to other theories for now, theories with more credibility.

 

And Ecoli is right, I often read newspapers and see news footage about science related topics, when they mention almost as a foot note, the opinions of these “credible scientists” and the mysterious “experts” who always seem to appear out of no where just for the report.[/quote']

 

I will keep my theory of the "Giant, intelligent, flamengo who made this world to suit his needs for a blue planet in the universe" to myself until science is "advanced enough" to prove it.

Did you calibrate the measuring scale?

I would say, no. Species do not exists and we label animals adapted to different conditions for the sake of convinience.

That's been my argument. It's not that it's necessarily hard to evolve intelligence, but it won't evolve unless the other traits are present to make it an advantage.

My argument is that all those traits evolving simultaneously appears to be a very rare event in evolution.

Dolphins. They are intelligent, but are probably limited on how they can exploit that intelligence. Larger brains would likely be a burden. Why couldn't similar limitations have existed with dinosaurs?

I am referring to the combination of traits that contribute to intelligence, not a specific feature (like the brain). Wings on birds would be of little use when talking about flight if it wasnt for all the other body parts that make flight possible.

Loosing information(defined as base pairs) doesn't equate with loosing information = ). Maybe you mean function' date=' we all should agree that a vast majority of observable mutations are negative, 1/100,000(Huxley's commonly accepted figure, only one is beneficial) or 1/1,000,000(Dawkins, only one is beneficial) both ofcourse are speculation.

 

You say the deletion of base pairs doesn't cause equate with a loss of information or complexity, we can pretend it doesn't and say some are neutral(which they are, supposedly). What I'm probaly ignorant of is the studies showing clear deletions of base pairs giving rise to novell function or producing vertical evolution to a higher taxaa.[/quote']

 

A deletion of base pair would most likely have a negative effect on the organisms if the nucleotides deleted were not codons (three or multiples of three). But if an codon was deleted it might have a possitive effect on the organims. Most mutations are negative, but given the ammount of time on earth, numbers like 1/100,000 or 1/1,000,000 are suffient to give us enough positive mutations to account for the diversity of life we observe.

 

By the way, deletion mutations are not the only mutations possible and others such as Subsitutions have a greater chance of producing positive changes in the organism.

 

Beneficial mutations have been observed in the lab and in the wild. I think you need to get to know the subject better before trying to argue against it.

The number of stars in the known universe is currently estimated to be somewhere on the order of:

1000000000000000000000 give or take a few zillion

That's why I think it's overwhelmingly likely (though nothing is certain) that there is "intelligent" life of some sort' date=' somewhere, if not somewhere in almost every direction we can look (at some distance ...).

[/quote']

 

 

 

With my , rough, calculations the the odds are 1:400 million that an intelligent species will evolve in an enviroment simmilar to earth. While we dont yet know if there are any worlds that sustain any form of life, it is obvious that there are many more ways of not being intelligent than being intelligent. But a figure such as 1:400 million can be missleading. Intelligence is one outcome out of a simingly infinte number of ways a species can evolve. We might have been extremly lucky and the real odds could be something like 1:100000000000000000000.

Right. So, like flight, it may be that the some of the conditions did not exist earlier, and until they did, they extra burden of a large brain would have been a detriment instead of an advantage.

An organism with a large brain would benefit by having a body that could exploit the brains capabilities. If a large brain, relative to body size, did arise in some species of dinosaurs, it would have provided the pressure for the rest of the body to develop to suit increasing intelligence. I don't think this happened and see difficulty in assuming that intelligence only developed because evolution "progressed" towards greater complexity. It is safer to assume, I think, that intelligence is really rare in evolution and Homo sapiens are the rare species that acquired the characteristic. I don’t disagree that a greater complexity within the brain gave rise to higher intelligence but I do think that for the process to get started is a rare evolutionary event. If it was otherwise, shouldn’t we see other intelligent species in the present time?

2. Rap is opium for the already brain-dead.

Well some of the methaphors used in rap can be quiet complex and well thought out. It is not all about " Hoes , money and cars"

You haven't established that intelligence hasn't evolved before. Things like flight, and they eye, have independently evolved before because it's a useful trait, and was attainable from existing features.

I agree. But if intelligence, at the human level, had evolved before I would assume, maybe wrongly so, that we would find some evidence for it.

It took more than 3 billion years for flight to evolve. Why didn't it evolve sooner? Well, you need land animals to start with. Nobody would reasonably expect flight to have evolved before that. So I think you have to look at intelligence the same way: what other features, and requirements demanded by the environment, are also necessary?

Flight evolved when all the conditions ( land animals, right body structure...) were present.If we look at intelligence as 'software' and our bodies as 'hardware' the mechanics for intelligence to evolve were present in the age of dinosaurs. Especialy since any progress in software would pressure the hardware evolution as well.

My only point is that intelligence might be a "one off" and therefore extremly rare where ever life is found in the universe.

Why should they have?

Its like saying " why should flight have evolved?". For flight to be possible all aspects of the body have to be modified , its not just the wings. Yet, we have seen this happen in a number of species independently ( insects, bats , birds...) Intelligence , as we know it, requires the rest of the body to be modified as well. But is there only one, human, way that intelligence could have developed? Even if so, given such a long time, why hasn't it happened before?

Some songs can be good. Has anyone heard of Canibus? Almost all his songs are inspired by science, even though it seems like he tries to use big words to impress his listeners. But he has done some good stuff as well like Poet Laurett II. All the RAP on TV is CRAP besides maybe the early Eminem. He was very different in his first two albums from the crap other rappers were talking about.

Overall, I vote crap, with a few exceptions.

Our tool-making ability is tied in to our opposable thumbs' date=' which allow us to exploit the intelligence. Complex verbal communication requires a certain physiology, too.

 

And I think dolphins are considered to be pretty intelligent. (Mice, too, if you believe Douglas Adams.)[/quote']

 

Yes, but why didn't these things evolve in another species before Homo Sapiens?

Not as much an issue if you lay eggs' date=' though.

 

While I'm not sure by how much the original premise is flawed (I'm not sure how intelligent the dinos were) I think you have to ask: what good would a higher level of intelligence have done for the dinosaurs? A feature won't remain in a population if it doesn't somehow add to, or at least not reduce, reproductive success. The example of intelligence in humans has to be coupled with our ability to exploit it by making tools. Lacking that ability would certainly limit how far intelligence would evolve.[/quote']

 

 

The question is: Why didn't some species in that era exploit tool making, language and all other things Homo sapiens did? Intelligence can not be pointed down to one single point, it is a combination of things. It is pretty safe to asume it only arose once in the history of life on this planet. The question , which I think is a very interasting and important one, is why hasn't this happened more than once in the history of life on earth? We have seen organs such as the eye and wings develope independently in a number of ogranisms. Why hasn't intelligence done the same?

The truth is we dont really know. That is why I think it is very unlikley that there is intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. Intelligence looks like one of those very rare , to put it midley, evolutionary events.

I don't think they'll care excessively about fossil fuels as long as their economy depends on it, and I think they're developing far more silos and resources than is required for a civilian program. For this reason I think the US is probably correct in their suspiscions of iranian intensions.

I was being sarcastic.

What if Iran is building a nuclear power plant and not a nuclear bomb? Maybe they just care about the damage fossil fuel is doing to our planet and want to find a more efficient/enviromental friendly way of producing energy?

IMO' date=' soccer is by far the most boring code that has ever had the name "football" attached to it.

I really don't know how people are able to sit through a whole match without falling asleep. Any of the other three football codes in Australia (AFL, Rugby Union and Rugby League) are a much better alternative. In fact, i'd even go as far as to say that American Football and Golf are more entertaining.[/quote']

 

Well football ( soccer) is the world game. You really have to be brought up with it to understand it. When you do understand the game, no other sport compares.

Neon