Jump to content

Dr. Maybe

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology & Neuroscience

Dr. Maybe's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. you are studying Biology and Neuroscience, and nothing I wrote makes any sense to you ? then you need the money back from your education..
  2. Cut the attitude ? fuck you... of course, evolution has nothing to do with biology, it is all physics.. you moron.
  3. this is my EXACT QUOTE.........not what you said that I said... non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all. I am sorry, but your lack of serious communication skills, and your overall LACK of biology, puts a stop to me reading your useless dribble... you constantly miss quote me, because you can't read maybe ? or you do not understand what you read very well your words are like your name.............POO don't know what you wrote, and really dont care...........study some Biology, live a little, then come back and play....
  4. Yes, you are right. Sex is the key, lol, of course it is. but then comes the important question. why even bother ? lol, I mean what does a sunflower care, if there are no more sunflowers after it dies ? why do parents spend so much effort to care for there young ? why do they care, if "after they are dead" any more of there species/bloodline survives...? you are right.. sex is the key, sexual reproduction.... planning for the survival of an entire species, and that's all done by "single celled" organisms..( who "TECHNICALY" are not even the "species" being planned for....) only an "intelligent" being, would plan for the "future".....
  5. First of all, is it possible for you to communicate by loosing this copy and paste stuff, or does that require too much effort on your part ? second of all, the standard model is as I said, "most" scientists claim that single celled organisms have no intelligence, do you really need the links, or are you just out of touch in the scientific community ? second, the standard theory is not correct, but the technology to prove this is not here yet, just like so many things that need proof, the technology is not yet here to prove it. That is not my fault, but I do understand the truth, from a scientific and a biological stand point. Life is intelligent, as a matter of fact, intelligence is an aspect of life, that is how life evolved, by figuring out the problems, by thinking... and I am not claiming anything "big", it just is the way things are...I do not mean to come off as arrogant, but I can easily say, how is it, that you do not understand this truth ? "think" about it non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. intelligence - ants thought - neurons NO, this is actually my quote.....so you are either incompetant, or you lied.,, maybe your not so good at reading, but good at pasting ? I told you once already, your gonna quote me , do it right( miss quoting someone on purpose to try to disprove them, is a useless tactic against me...nice try though.. besides, you demand I "prove" my theory, yet the very theory I am challenging, can not be proven. that is a little hypocritical, don;t you think.. .kind of like me saying to a priest that theres no God, and he says "prove it"..... and NO OFFENSE, but your going to school for Physics ? that qualifies you to talk in authority about Biology................. how ????????
  6. I never said ants produce neurons, if you are gonna reply, at least get my statements correct.... that comes from actually READING my post... not COPY AND PASTING IT !!!!
  7. I made the winning comment in reply to someone saying someone else was getting the better or the case against me, hence winning. So that not my start, Anyways, scientifically called un itelligent random chemical actions from our neurons produce thought, and a sense of "self". I do not need to prove that. Scientists say single celled organisms are not intelligent, but millions to billions connecting together produce intelligence, and thought. The standard model is that these organisms do so without any level of intelligence on there own, only that they "somehow" magically produce "intelligence", and "thought" when so many of them connect and communicate. I say that is wrong, and these single celled organisms have intelligence, and only produce higher intelligence through these connections, hence thought. And by intelligence I "do not" mean "brain - neural" type cognitive thinking, but intelligence none the less. and I say, that is how , evolutionary changes are made, and when scientists "prove" how thought is produced ( EXACTLY ), you have will have my Proof....
  8. You are right in saying that one single celled organism on it's own "can not" produce thought, or think. It requires multiple cells, but that does not change the truth. Intelligence is "required" to solve such complexities. An organism needs to know the threat, in order to "predict" the best changes based upon current circumstances, that is intelligence, I do not need to "prove that ", do I ??? And I did not say making genetic changes out of thin air, miss quoting is a sign of loosing... In order to even "see" the "box"... you first, have to "think" outside of it.... You are nothing more, then the collective signals of Billions of Neurons....Yet you think....... non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all. it makes more sense to say, intelligent beings connecting together create different levels of intelligence based on there complexity, the most complex being able to produce actual thoughts... think on that for a bit...
  9. The "proof" is in the organisms themselves all around you. The proof is in how your own mind works, in how "you" can even think to reply to me.. other then that I can not "prove" my point, no more then anyone can "prove" me wrong. and this is the section for "evolution" , hence I posted here. it is Science, but there is not "ONE" universally proven hypothesis. So mine is valid, under such rules.
  10. I am not quoting anyone. My own words, lol. And since as of today, Neuro scientists "DO NOT" have a complete understanding of exactly "how" human beings can "produce" thought, or "thinking", it serves no purpose for him to state that something "can not" think, when in truth, no one knows exactly, how thought is produced, from hence consciousness or subconsciousness comes from. Sure we know a lot, but so much is yet unknown, about neurons, memory, DNA coding, genetics, etc.. it is easy to say...NO.......but say "no" with "proven" science backing you up..not "best guesses" or "opinions" No kind sir. it is me, who is winning..
  11. Each person should be able to 'determine" if they do or do not desire to live anymore. And if someone is "unable" to rationally make this judgement, then I'm open to suggestions.
  12. No, you are wrong in your "opinion". Think again. And please explain your "knowledge" on "exactly" how living beings "think", starting with Humans please.........
  13. A "virus" or "bacteria" is a living organism, and hunts and kills just like any other predator. Asking why this or that "virus" inflicted this person instead of that person, is like asking why did the Tiger kill that Human as opposed to that Human, Or why did the shark attack that swimmer and not that one. call it luck of the draw if your the predator, or bad luck if your the prey.. Sure other factors, such as Toxins, diet, genetic coding, general health, age, etc. has an affect, but any good predator, knows the "weak" easy ones to go after.........
  14. There are multiples of evey other thing so far found in existence, of nothing that I can think of, is there only one of it's kind in existence. so why not muliple "verses"
  15. could it not just be this simple. There are "different" laws depending on the "relative" "mass" of said systems. and if this is the case, then systems bigger then the universe, might also have different laws. It is a simplistic approach, I realize that, but could it just be "that simple" ?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.