Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/10/09 12:56 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 3/10/09 12:23 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/9/09 10:11 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:
Evolution, and atheism with it, stands.

Of course atheism is just as possible if not more possible than a mass of sentient matter.

That's obvious.

I don't like the idea that people look at a mathematical probability and take the low bar, off of fate.

Science supports evolution, and does not support God. The Church supports God but not atheism. About half of the people in America do not believe in evolution and most believe in a God.

Doesn't, does, science has nothing to do with evolution, we've covered this before, evolution is a wad of fake evidence n twisted science rolled up together n thrown at people to push the religion onto them, yes evolution is a religion since they have every aspect a religion has. And you don't know if science proves God, and you admit your ignorance of that in saying the exact oposite that we all know better than to believe.

Science reeks of credibility, the Church does not.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I think it's safe to say that a 20/80% chance that there is a God is extremely generous on their behalf. That means almost every person in America would bet that their randomly thrown dart will land on a section covering 1/5 of a dart board.

Actually it is a 100% chance there is a God, only shit is that people have different God's n stuff, there a 0% chance of you getting off scot free with a simple end to your existence, why? Because we're here to begin with, which means we weren't put here for nothing, and random chance has been brought up and destroyed repeatedly.

That's using generous numbers.

See you in Hell.

At 3/10/09 05:29 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: See you in Hell.

You know what scares me? You are allowed to have children, you are allowed to walk in the same streets as normal people do. Fuck, even your vote in the elections is equal to mine.

It's just fucking dangerous.

At 3/10/09 05:29 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 3/10/09 12:56 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 3/10/09 12:23 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/9/09 10:11 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:
Evolution, and atheism with it, stands.

Of course atheism is just as possible if not more possible than a mass of sentient matter.

That's obvious.

I don't like the idea that people look at a mathematical probability and take the low bar, off of fate.

Science supports evolution, and does not support God. The Church supports God but not atheism. About half of the people in America do not believe in evolution and most believe in a God.

Doesn't, does, science has nothing to do with evolution, we've covered this before, evolution is a wad of fake evidence n twisted science rolled up together n thrown at people to push the religion onto them, yes evolution is a religion since they have every aspect a religion has. And you don't know if science proves God, and you admit your ignorance of that in saying the exact oposite that we all know better than to believe.

While there are a few unknowns currently, evolution has a lot of evidence to support it. Since you want to say evolution is a lie. Care to explain a few of the following things?

1 - Can you explain the existance of Homo erectus (our ancestral cousin), Homo ergaster (assumably Homo Sapiens's direct ancestor).
2 - The birth of new creatures throughout history. If we trace fossil records, why are there no Human and Dinosaur fossils together? Why are there so many series of fossils with newer species on top of older species. If evolution didn't exist what so ever, and everything existed at the same time then wouldn't there logically be evidence of everything co-existing?
3 - Do you deny even micro-evolution happens?

Science reeks of credibility, the Church does not.

Actually it is a 100% chance there is a God, only shit is that people have different God's n stuff, there a 0% chance of you getting off scot free with a simple end to your existence, why? Because we're here to begin with, which means we weren't put here for nothing, and random chance has been brought up and destroyed repeatedly.

Do you actually read what you write? How has random chances been brought up and destroyed? Why do you think that there has to be a reason for us being here? Why do you believe that there must be a God?

That's using generous numbers.

See you in Hell.

And no, I'm not trying to tell you that there is no God. But I'm sick of people like you saying that there is scientific evidence of God, and many of the unbelievable things out of the Bible that most proof shows is impossible.

Noah's flood - Impossible. 1) not enough water, 2) not enough living beings to repopulate the Earth 3) evidence points otherwise.
Tower or Babel - Not likely since it would mean that ancient civilizations were far more advanced than we are today. And a highly advanced civilization would relearn to communicate and not just wander off in directions.

At 3/10/09 06:11 AM, ReiperX wrote:
Tower or Babel - Not likely since it would mean that ancient civilizations were far more advanced than we are today.

There is the tale of Atlantis, of course...

But anyhow, it is very unsatisfactory the answer holy books try to sell us. Especially when it comes to scientific details. they are decent storybooks filled with symbolism and moral (the Bible would say one big parable).

When it comes to science and the truth, I think we just have to accept that we will never find all the answers of life just by looking at it scientifically. We can only explain a little amount of the gross construction of the universe. What's outside this set, is something left upon our imagination. This still leaves us with 2 options. One way is to accept we'll never know and sweep it under the rug as 'not important'. The other is to fill it in by non-scientific means like philosophy and religion. As long as you don't go bombing everything, this last option might be quite relieving.

At 3/10/09 07:57 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/10/09 06:11 AM, ReiperX wrote: While there are a few unknowns currently, evolution has a lot of evidence to support it.

The 'unknowns' are rather compelling in their own right.

Some interesting questions, and a few I'd like to try my hand at (although as you say these are mostly questions still being studied by evolutionary biologists, especially question 2, which we had numerous lectures on at university. Still, I can throw a few ideas about for possible answers, and I don't doubt you know most/all of this already, but there will be plenty reading this thread that don't or haven't thought about just how interesting these subjects are).

1 - the endosymbiotic theory involving mitochondria -- HOW is it that they survived endocytosis?

This could be related to question 3, or it could be a separate mechanism. Possibly when unicelluar organisms maintained symbiotic relationships with one another. As they evolved they began to grow closer and closer until one entirely engulfed the other, unrelated to endocytosis. Alternatively the endocytosis mechanism in one individual was mutated and lost function, and when the mitochondria precursor was engulfed it was beneficial to survival of the cell and thus the trait was passed on. Either way given the evidence of separate mitochondrial genomes it does seem that the process occurred somehow, even if the how isn't certain.

2 - what evidence explains the leap from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?

There is an awful lot of debate over this. What is sure is that sexual reproduction is positively selected for, as it enables the removal of harmful mutations from the genotype while asexual reproduction doesn't. Exactly how it happened isn't easy to explain, but then these processes occurred over long stretches of time and therefore aren't exactly easy to observe! Probably something along the lines of bacterial conjugation was the precursor to sex and it evolved from there.

3 - what evidence explains the leap from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms?

The best example I can think of is the Porifera- sponges. These organisms are made up of many identical cells that can survive both individually and as a large group/sponge. One of my favourite lab experiments at university was blending a sponge. Leave it for one day and you find small sponges regrowing within the flask as the cells reaccumulate. I imagine multicellular organisms evolved in a similar way, at least initially, evolving into more complex forms later.

4 - what evidence explains Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family differentiation?

They are more human constructs than strictly observed phenomena, and in a lot of cases the classes are debatable, with a lot of crossover between groups. Really they are only used to classify, not as a strict evolutionary path. Saying that, some of the observations may be a result of organisms surviving in particular environments or niches. Take cats for example- most species live in essentially the same niche, but simply in separate locations, thus creating a distinct group. Or alternatively the famous Galapagos finches diverged into separate niches within the same location.

5 - why is it assumed that any fundamental change (e.g. #s 1-4) happened only a very long time ago? If evolution is a process that is constantly occurring then why is there no evidence of these fundamental changes STILL occurring, e.g. unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms under controlled lab conditions?

Because these changes take a much longer time than we as humans can observe. They probably are still happening right now, we just can't see it very easily (though there are examples such as bacterial antibiotic resistance, and moth species changing colour in response to pollution that we can observe.) In the case of unicellular to multicellular changes, I'd suggest we don't know the required conditions to recreate the process in the lab, and with all evolutionary changes there is an element of chance to create the correct mutations in the first place. In a vast primordial soup the probability of the right change occurring somewhere is high. In a solitary lab flask it is exceedingly low.

6 - what evidence truly explains the speed of evolution? There are several competing theories: constant-rate gradualism, punctuated gradualism, phyletic gradualism, variable gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc... honestly, "Cambrian Explosion" anyone?

Lots of theories is better than none! There are examples that seem to suggest each of the above occurring, and certainly explosions do seem to happen after mass extinctions (punctuated evolution was always a favourite of my lecturers, though the others are equally valid). Really in the context of this thread what matters is that it does happen. How fast isn't easy to observe for the same reasons stated above.

7 - being that cells are already equipped to repair damage-to and mutation-of their genetic material, by what failure or allowance are mutations (beneficial or not) permissible?

I always found it fascinating that some bacteria have a mechanism to deliberately randomly mutate their DNA under extreme stress, the theory being that in a vast colony of millions of cells it takes just one to stumble upon the right mutation to survive and reproduce a new colony. What repair mechanisms there are aren't 100% effective, possibly deliberately as the ability to mutate is beneficial in organisms that need to adapt to their environment. So a non-perfect repair system is itself selected for as any species that developed a perfect one would become extinct as it failed to adapt to a changing environment.

Another question I've had since several ways about how biology works is this:

Animals and evolution acts in a way to survive and multiply. Biological this seems one of the basic axioms, that any living being fights for survival and it defines all of their actions.

But if we take a living being apart, we get into cells, fighting for survival and then we get on a molecular level.

But molecules have no will of their own. So they wouldn't care if they were alive or not. How come larger systems suddenly start caring for this? Physics should be saying that an 'alive' state is more stable than a 'death' state and that this should be the result of some sort of differential equation, which solution is the 'alive' state.

But clearly being death is a much more stable state than being alive. Because dying is an irreversible process.

So somewhere there is a breach between the insentient molecular level and the sentient being-level. Why is it there, how can you explain this scientific?

Possibly there are theories, but i don't know them.

If so, can someone explain it to me?

Note: I'm not aiming to imply the existence of a God, so don't negate my question by saying that this does not mean that there is a God.

See you in Hell.

Aren't you supposed to be banned when you post stupid shit without evidence?

My posts didn't needed to be supported for obvious reasons, but you just spit out lie after lie.

For the love of God, please don't ruin this thread like EVERY OTHER THREAD you get your boney, diseased fingers on.

Shaggy, what were your parents like?

K so I'm really pissed at what this conversation has disintegrated into. Grow up people.
This idea is derived from a basic knowledge of string theory and logic. The plain and simple fact is that every 3-D object has a 4-D counterpart, which takes the forms of the objects entire existence of the object in the universe. That means that there is an infinitely massive being somewhere who for simplicity's sake begins for people as a fertilized egg. As you look further along this snake-like being you see this person in all the stages of his life. In fact, when this person dies and goes to bone and ashes, the single line that was the person's life splits as the ashes (the body is merely a collection of particles grouped together) and atoms scatter.
So you look at this being and at some places you see a child, adult, old man, skeleton, and for the most part, ashes.

SO I posed this god idea because in a way we are our own gods, but at the same time we are not. This is because we cannot determine for ouselves the shape of this being until we have experienced the stage ouselves. To be able to see this figure would be to say we have a fixed destiny. So if we could see it, we would know it would have a god power over us. However, humans often intend to live certain ways and so like a clumsy potter, we roughly attempt to mold our 4-D self into the appearance that we desire. It's like playing with silly putty really since we know that our 4-D self must exist and it must be a complete structure. But the question is how complete is it and what is at the end of it?

String theory of course comes in because of the silly putty factor, our 4-D self could actually be revealed to have an infinite amount of possible appearences. Possibility and probability rules the shape and sound of the higher dimensions.

Though scientific 4D is perfectly acceptable, perhaps (heck mathematic even 253657829 dimensions are not so special), the insertion of a God is playing silly philosophy games.

It's like when people argue the existence of ghosts because the notion of quantum tunneling exists.
Ir's a fun game, but don't pin something fundamental thereon.

At 3/10/09 09:33 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Another question I've had since several ways about how biology works is this:

Animals and evolution acts in a way to survive and multiply. Biological this seems one of the basic axioms, that any living being fights for survival and it defines all of their actions.

But if we take a living being apart, we get into cells, fighting for survival and then we get on a molecular level.

But molecules have no will of their own. So they wouldn't care if they were alive or not. How come larger systems suddenly start caring for this? Physics should be saying that an 'alive' state is more stable than a 'death' state and that this should be the result of some sort of differential equation, which solution is the 'alive' state.

But clearly being death is a much more stable state than being alive. Because dying is an irreversible process.

So somewhere there is a breach between the insentient molecular level and the sentient being-level. Why is it there, how can you explain this scientific?

Possibly there are theories, but i don't know them.

If so, can someone explain it to me?

Note: I'm not aiming to imply the existence of a God, so don't negate my question by saying that this does not mean that there is a God.

It's pretty simple actually. Life that "dies" will not produce copies of itself anymore. Thus, only the life geared towards surviving will have many offspring and be fruitful. If there was some life form that aimed for death, it would simply die, and we would never know of it. The dead does not speak.

At 3/10/09 01:01 PM, Drakim wrote:
It's pretty simple actually. Life that "dies" will not produce copies of itself anymore. Thus, only the life geared towards surviving will have many offspring and be fruitful.

Yes this works on a biological level. But it doesn't make sense on the molecular level. (and molecules are the elementary constructs of everything)
I can't think of an elementary law in Physics that states that a system of DNA molecules will try to multiply itself at all costs.

At 3/10/09 11:11 AM, EKublai wrote: K so I'm really pissed at what this conversation has disintegrated into. Grow up people.
This idea is derived from a basic knowledge of string theory and logic. The plain and simple fact is that every 3-D object has a 4-D counterpart, which takes the forms of the objects entire existence of the object in the universe. That means that there is an infinitely massive being somewhere who for simplicity's sake begins for people as a fertilized egg. As you look further along this snake-like being you see this person in all the stages of his life. In fact, when this person dies and goes to bone and ashes, the single line that was the person's life splits as the ashes (the body is merely a collection of particles grouped together) and atoms scatter.
So you look at this being and at some places you see a child, adult, old man, skeleton, and for the most part, ashes.

SO I posed this god idea because in a way we are our own gods, but at the same time we are not. This is because we cannot determine for ouselves the shape of this being until we have experienced the stage ouselves. To be able to see this figure would be to say we have a fixed destiny. So if we could see it, we would know it would have a god power over us. However, humans often intend to live certain ways and so like a clumsy potter, we roughly attempt to mold our 4-D self into the appearance that we desire. It's like playing with silly putty really since we know that our 4-D self must exist and it must be a complete structure. But the question is how complete is it and what is at the end of it?

String theory of course comes in because of the silly putty factor, our 4-D self could actually be revealed to have an infinite amount of possible appearences. Possibility and probability rules the shape and sound of the higher dimensions.

Frankly I have very little idea what you are on about, as I'm a biologist, not a physicist. But with my extremely loose understanding I'm guessing you are saying as we can't see 'living' beings in the 2D/1D realms, a 4D individual would not be able to comprehend us, nor would we be able to see it, thus being a God character that we couldn't observe. Which is all well and good, but to me much more likely is that there are NO living beings in the 2D/1D realm, as we haven't observed any, and thus a similar assumption could be made of the 4D realm. After all the null hypothesis must surely be if we can't see something or observe it or measure it in any way we must assume it is not there.

Forgive me if I have completely missed the point, but I see no evidence for a God character using the string theory you suggest, merely a highly theoretical means by which one 'could' exist.

At 3/10/09 01:06 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/10/09 01:01 PM, Drakim wrote:
It's pretty simple actually. Life that "dies" will not produce copies of itself anymore. Thus, only the life geared towards surviving will have many offspring and be fruitful.

Yes this works on a biological level. But it doesn't make sense on the molecular level. (and molecules are the elementary constructs of everything)
I can't think of an elementary law in Physics that states that a system of DNA molecules will try to multiply itself at all costs.

That makes no difference. As was stated before, we only see those that actually end up replicating themselves and 'surviving'. There are no doubt many more cells that die as something goes wrong, but we don't ever see them. If it is there to be observed it must be able to replicate and survive or it would be long dead/extinct. It doesn't need will power per se, and it works on both molecular and biological levels.

Its similar to the argument of abiogenesis. Sure, the likelihood of replicating organic molecules forming from a soup by pure chance is very small. But the very fact we are here to observe it suggests that we originated from one such unlikely instance, if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to notice it. In the same way if the DNA does not replicate we are unable to observe it. Only that which is replicating we can observe within living organisms.

At 3/10/09 01:06 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/10/09 01:01 PM, Drakim wrote:

I can't think of an elementary law in Physics that states that a system of DNA molecules will try to multiply itself at all costs.

Yeah because DNA does not try to replicate at all costs.
It doesn't have any intent. DNA replicates when it's in the proper environment and doesn't replicate when it's on a bad environment.

It's simple :o
Just like water freezes when it's cold and becomes steam when it's hot. You don't ask "but what's the law that tells water to become solid at all costs".

That doesn't make sense.

At 3/10/09 01:45 PM, Sentio wrote: Only that which is replicating we can observe within living organisms.

But there is a difference between observing and understanding.
In evolution, for instance, we can observe fossils and we can observe evolution taking place. But unless we can guess how evolution works, the theory is rather empty.

And when a scientist has 2 theories that seemingly contradict eachother, he will not be satisfied until he can find 1 theory to explain both. He will not be satisfied with saying "Huh, both theories contradict eachother, but apparently this case does occur, so there is no problem."

At 3/10/09 02:01 PM, poxpower wrote:
Just like water freezes when it's cold and becomes steam when it's hot. You don't ask "but what's the law that tells water to become solid at all costs".

But water does freeze/become steam because of fundamental physic laws.

If I mix 2 vials of liquid and the resulting liquid becomes blue. Then I'm not gonna write in my science journal: "when I mix this chemicla with that chemical, the result is blue."
I'm going to research which transactions occur between the two chemicals and why it becomes blue. I'll pose this as a question to all other chemists and they will research it and eventually maybe one will come up with the answer.

At 3/10/09 02:12 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

But water does freeze/become steam because of fundamental physic laws.

The same is true of DNA.
They are chemicals that react with each other according to their respective properties.

At 3/10/09 02:14 PM, poxpower wrote:
The same is true of DNA.
They are chemicals that react with each other according to their respective properties.

Biophysical and in basic interactions, yeah that's true.

But it gets funny proportions. We make white bloodcells to fight off bacteria. We make platelets to heal wounds as soon as they exist.
We fight other creatures to stay alive. We (as a sane person) stop ourselves from jumping under a truck and are generally afraid to die.
These actions go far beyond molecule A interacts with molecule B and some electromagnetism occurs.

At 3/10/09 02:06 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/10/09 01:45 PM, Sentio wrote: Only that which is replicating we can observe within living organisms.

But there is a difference between observing and understanding.
In evolution, for instance, we can observe fossils and we can observe evolution taking place. But unless we can guess how evolution works, the theory is rather empty.

And when a scientist has 2 theories that seemingly contradict eachother, he will not be satisfied until he can find 1 theory to explain both. He will not be satisfied with saying "Huh, both theories contradict eachother, but apparently this case does occur, so there is no problem."

But there isn't any contradiction here, I'm afraid your completely missing the point. As you rightly say death is the more natural state from a molecular standpoint, and no doubt many many more molecules fail to replicate/die than do replicate. But that simply isn't observed, so what we see are the DNA molecules that 'survive' and thus these are the ones that selection acts upon (in a way the first selection barrier is the initial reproduction of the DNA/cell that many fail to pass). So there is no survival instinct in these molecules- they don't aim to survive. Simply those that do then undergo the selection pressures of evolution.

I think you are just trying to over-complicate something that isn't complicated at all.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy...

Say you have 100 students. The natural state of a student is sleep. A study aims to see the brain rhythm of these students at a particular time of day, say 3AM. 72 of these students are asleep and the study progresses smoothly on them, the remaining 28 are awake and ignored. This doesn't mean a contradiction, simply a number of the subjects aren't taken as part of the observations. The students don't aim to be asleep, they either are or they aren't.

You have 100 molecules. The natural state is not to replicate. A study aims to observe evolutionary forces acting on the molecules when they replicate. 24 replicate and the study goes ahead on them. The remaining 76 don't replicate and thus aren't observed (they are 'dead'). The molecules don't aim to replicate, they either do or they don't.

Ok, now I'm just confusing myself...

At 3/10/09 02:23 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

But it gets funny proportions. We make white bloodcells to fight off bacteria. We make platelets to heal wounds as soon as they exist.
We fight other creatures to stay alive. We (as a sane person) stop ourselves from jumping under a truck and are generally afraid to die.
These actions go far beyond molecule A interacts with molecule B and some electromagnetism occurs.

You're all over the place and I have no real idea of what you're talking about.
Explain in a concise way what it is you're talking about.

At 3/10/09 02:23 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: But it gets funny proportions. We make white bloodcells to fight off bacteria. We make platelets to heal wounds as soon as they exist.
We fight other creatures to stay alive. We (as a sane person) stop ourselves from jumping under a truck and are generally afraid to die.
These actions go far beyond molecule A interacts with molecule B and some electromagnetism occurs.

It's the same concept on a macroscopic scale. Creatures composed of DNA which has mutated to form platelets will survive better than those that have not. Creatures with DNA that has mutated to form them more quickly will have an even better chance of survival.

All you're saying is that we don't yet have the capability to perform a simulation of a full-scale biological process from the molecular level. Okay. Does that mean that it's wrong? No.

At 3/10/09 02:27 PM, Sentio wrote: So there is no survival instinct in these molecules- they don't aim to survive. Simply those that do then undergo the selection pressures of evolution.

So it is just that there is a state 'alive' and a state 'dead', like you have one chemical that decays into another chemical. Because we see the first chemical interacting with other things, doesn't necessarilly mean this chemical is evading decaying into the second chemical?

Yes, that is true.

but I still think it's odd that actions exist like I posted above. Our body really tries to heal itself and stay together. It regulates itself and fights anomalies. It's not just giving in, unless it's really overpowered.

At 3/10/09 02:35 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: but I still think it's odd that actions exist like I posted above. Our body really tries to heal itself and stay together. It regulates itself and fights anomalies. It's not just giving in, unless it's really overpowered.

This is merely the natural result in any system where things that do "give in" are irreparably damaged and can't reproduce.

At 3/10/09 02:34 PM, Elfer wrote:
It's the same concept on a macroscopic scale. Creatures composed of DNA which has mutated to form platelets will survive better than those that have not. Creatures with DNA that has mutated to form them more quickly will have an even better chance of survival.

OK, I think I get this.

In the end the fact that we our body fights diseases and heals itself, the fact that we eat other animals, the fact that we show emotions or even have this discussion online is nothing more than the coincidental result of a system of particles in interaction.

In the end, all of our actions are nothing more than as an object moves in a field of gravitation.

At 3/10/09 02:35 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/10/09 02:27 PM, Sentio wrote: So there is no survival instinct in these molecules- they don't aim to survive. Simply those that do then undergo the selection pressures of evolution.

So it is just that there is a state 'alive' and a state 'dead', like you have one chemical that decays into another chemical. Because we see the first chemical interacting with other things, doesn't necessarilly mean this chemical is evading decaying into the second chemical?

Yes, that is true.

but I still think it's odd that actions exist like I posted above. Our body really tries to heal itself and stay together. It regulates itself and fights anomalies. It's not just giving in, unless it's really overpowered.

I think where you are confused is this issue of 'design' or 'purpose'. The body does not try to heal itself. There is no conscious input or anything else designing white blood cells etc. Rather random mutations have occurred, followed by selection, and those organisms which are able to heal are more likely to pass on those genes to the next generation. In exactly the same way as the previous examples there are many individuals that failed to evolve in this way and died out. We don't see them as they are gone/dead, we just see the result.

There is no purpose for particular parts of the body, or a design for a particular role, nor any input saying it should do a particular task. Simply the DNA that has enabled the organism to best survive and pass on said DNA has survived, and what you see is the end result.

What you are doing is looking at the problem from the wrong end. You see a role that needs filling and assume the body needs to design something to fill that role, such as white blood cells. In reality the body is simply as it is by selection pressures and each individual part is not designed, rather it is present because it enables DNA to be passed on better than the next individual. DNA continues to be passed on and the organism survives its environment more effectively, evolving.

It's a hard concept to explain, but critical to evolution. There is never ever a design, just an end product of random mutations.

So in the end there is no fight for survival, nor is there free will. We're as inanimate as a particle in a forcefield.

Heh, feels weird though to say it out loud, since my words are as void as the gust of air passing the window.

At 3/10/09 02:46 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: In the end, all of our actions are nothing more than as an object moves in a field of gravitation.

Possibly, yes. Just be thankful that you're fortunate enough to have the capacity to appreciate the situation.

Also, on the subject of the original post, I think it's worth noting that we, as "three dimensional beings," are, in fact, incapable of physically creating "two-dimensional beings." In a drawing, what we're creating is in fact a three dimensional representation of a two dimensional image. The actual two dimensional image only exists as an idea in our minds.

At 3/10/09 02:53 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: So in the end there is no fight for survival, nor is there free will. We're as inanimate as a particle in a forcefield.

Heh, feels weird though to say it out loud, since my words are as void as the gust of air passing the window.

In a manner of speaking, yes. We have no choice how we really are, certainly physically and probably emotionally (though that is a combination of genetics and environment, so change the environment and you can make some changes). You have no choice but to heal. You have no choice but to naturally want to reproduce (though whether you do or not is another issue). You can't just stop your heart beating or stop breathing.

From an evolutionary standpoint you make no choices- you are a carrier of DNA best suited to pass said DNA onto the next generation within your particular environment, just like every other organism on Earth.

Saying that we still have a consciousness. We can still make our own choices, that while ultimately don't change our purpose of reproduction, do mean we can make changes and alter our lives, for better or worse. We can kill ourselves and end our genetic line, though I think you would agree you naturally fight against that urge. You can interact with others (though again that is an evolved state that aids reproduction- after all it takes two to tango!).

I don't believe in God, but consciousness... that is something I don't think anyone can properly explain. Sure, to be able to make decisions, such as not walking in front of a bus, is evolutionarily beneficial, but to decide to watch a football match? To choose to eat pizza instead of curry? You can be happy or sad, and I see little evolutionary benefit to any of that.

Now that is a really interesting subject if you ask me.