too-open-minded

Newton kills it in the rap battle anyways, I mean he uses his equation in the rap itself.

I understand completely what you're saying. However I don't think saying "We don't know" is better than saying "We aren't entirely sure but....." To me, saying we don't know is giving them, the whole "Well the only explanation then is god." If we tell them it's from the brain, that's not insulting their intelligence. Maybe even a compromise could be made. One being something like, "if god is responsible for consciousness he needs to have a mechanism in our natural world to cause this. That mechanism being neuronal function in the brain. I would assume god created atoms, photons, and molecules for the same reasons." I just can't personally accept "We don't know." Because we do know a little more than none, as don't implies.

I used selective breeding without even knowing what it meant..... DOH!!! Not so much is it possible to adapt without selection, but is it possible to adapt without "who lives long enough to reproduce" being the say so? For instance is it a wild idea to think that our Genes and DNA can alter hereditary while being transmitted to our offspring without the need of reproductive selections. Reproductive selections as in natural selection or selective breeding? For example something like this - http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/exposure-stress-child-can-permanently-affect-your-dna If this studies hypothesis is correct, lets say we have two groups with the control being children who have relatively normal childhoods. The other group of children having stressful childhoods. Lets say these groups have offspring and the same offspring follow as their parents. Lets say 10 generations deep and the variable group of children now have a normal childhood, would we be able to notice a difference in their telomere length? Even though they themselves didn't have a stress induced change, could it end up being hereditary from the DNA? That's the best example I could come up with, as I'm sure there are many variables in this. Epigentics, never even knew what that was either. I love you guys on SF! So helpful, all of you

Does evolution require selective breeding to move forward? I've read articles about stress changing DNA and how in an individual lifetime DNA can be impacted by environment. So what I'm asking is, is it possible to adapt without selective breeding?

I could see how this not having much effect on reproductive efficiency, thus not having enough environmental pressure for us to evolve.

Here's what I think, for short term space travel. We could probably get away with cultivating crops. Nasa is working on this right now - http://www.nasa.gov/content/veggie-plant-growth-system-activated-on-international-space-station/#.U62wIfmuORU However, for longer travels and even sustaining life on a vessel. I would think that with suspended animation to be necessary that we would need food that could last long periods of time. Something like cornsyrup and oils, However how hard would that be to cultivate crops then manufacture food with long shelf life?

Thankyou y'all for the input! I think it's a really neat topic and something we as a species should seriously consider for the future.

I'm with you, although Tyson got some flow too doe.

How is that ceding intellectual honesty high ground? Our debates, controversies, discrepancies, entirety of not seeing eye to eye with people like creationists isn't something we can dance around. Expecting them to play our game of facts and logic, thus educating them. I don't think it's going to work that way. In the tense that debate was in, neither side gets no where with both sides being sure they won. All I'm saying is arguments along the lines of - "Well if your god created everything he had to have a way to do it, not just out of thin air. Can we agree that he had to have mechanics to do it, you believe in atoms, why is consciousness coming from the brain such a crazy notion?" One thing to take into consideration, we're not debating someone who isn't intelligent. If you ask me people who are die-hard religious bible thumpers, are more scared of ceasing to exist. This is all they have in their head and it's more of a psychological factor. That's just me though, maybe I'm wrong Bottom line though, how does an argument along the lines of which I'm speaking, how does that cede intellectually honest high ground and lead to a path of intellectual dishonesty?

wasn't too sure where to post this, I thought engineering complimented it best. If we were to sustain life on a vessel in space, what would be the most practical method to feed ourselves? I would assume livestock be out of the picture. With resources at much less availability than on a celestial body and ventilation not as free as a biosphere, what would be the most practical method? Corn, roots, moss, maybe even chemically synthetic minerals? What would be the most efficient way to feed ourselves in space? Growing crops and harvesting them? Livestock?

Wouldn't the environmental pressures of our diet being diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol. Wouldn't we naturally select and adapt to these changes in our body over the course of multiple generations?

I understand the opposing argument, creationists will ask down to the point where we have to say "I don't know." My argument is why should we give them just that? Why should we give them what they want to hear? We may not entirely know, but we sure as hell know more than nothing. We know enough to put up an argument, in my opinion that is. Side note - and if they really have to ask, how did the brain develop? Say - "I don't know, but it looks to me like your god created something called evolution. Maybe you should ask him."

If say every human on the planet had a diet of processed foods high in sugar, salt, fat, and oils. All the corn syrup goodness and mechanically separated filler meat . If every human on the planet had this diet, how would our digestive system and bodies adapt? Could we adapt and if so what would it's changes be in 1,000 or even 100,000 years?

If I were on the podium, I could have at least given something better than "We don't know." If I was Bill Nye, I would've said something along the lines of. - "You ask where does consciousness come from, that is your question. Ken over here says, consciousness came from god and that's it. Where is the beauty in that? Where is the aesthetically pleasing notion that there is something great going on right before our eyes. To say god did it, that's not right. Even if you're right and god did do it, he had to have a way to do it! Gravity, force, cells, atoms, all the laws of physics and nature themselves exist because they're the mechanics to the ticking clockwork that is life itself. Maybe we shouldn't argue if god did it or not, maybe we should argue how god did it. Something did it and if it was god, god had to have the mechanics to do it right. Consciousness, I'll explain where science comes along in this. Our brains are the most complex organs in our body, were still learning about the brain. With what we do know significantly less than what we don't. Our brains have senses, things that enable us to process our environment. Humans have evolved and adapted some of the most complex senses we know of, those being emotions. What the brain does is it takes in information with it's emotions and basic senses, processes it, and projects a relative reality. Our relative reality is consciousness, we think were here and were aware of our existence, that's consciousness. We have the senses to sense the world around us in an instance, the attention span to remember those instances, and a brain to process it all. It's sights, sounds, touches, tastes, smells, anger, love, jealousy, empathy, happiness, sadness, fear, curiosity, and memories all together that truly captivate what consciousness really is. Scientists are on the brink of explaining how consciousness works through neuronal processing. Right down to the electrical impulse and synapse release in the brain. Maybe electrical impulse and synapse release in the brain isn't aesthetically pleasing to you, but to us trying to understand the universe. To us wanting to unlock the mysteries to life, it is. This is why I'm here right now debating you. You're views hinder scientific growth, God did it... That's a cop out. If God did do it, can we atleast agree that god did it and this is how he did it." Wam-bam-slam.

I was thinking back to the ken ham and Bill Nye debate, when where does consciousness come up. Nye completley dropped the ball, in my opinion. How could he say we don't know? If you ask me, consciousness comes from the brain. It is the projected processing from all of our senses and emotions tied together. How could he have just said "I don't know, it's a mystery."

Who won?

Thankyou

http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05/25/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient/

I'm pretty sure we just die mainly so we do not overpopulate. Death also allows for greater biodiversity. Doesn't everything have a cycle in life? A consciousness is formed and then becomes trees and planets and stars again, maybe one day.... to be a consciousness again.

The one that says atom, molecule, organism. It would be cool if we had other variations to choose from. A physics one, for the physicists to recognize each-other, maybe have equations written out and more complex ones for larger milestone posts. A chemistry one, have compounds getting more and more complex. You get the point. I think it would be cool, what do ya'll think?