Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/21/08 12:54 PM, drDAK wrote: Like you said, we will never know. All we really know is that death is mandatory.

I wouldn't say we know that. If we can reverse aging (which, as I understand, is not as impossible as it would seem), then death may not be mandatory. There could be people alive today who'll just keep going until the universe reaches thermal equilibrium.

At 7/21/08 11:28 AM, poxpower wrote:
also, nothing he ever says makes sense

or maybe all variables in an environment have a level of change that they affect on EVERYTHING around them.

this is not excluding evolution obviously.

I'm just using logic.

At 7/22/08 11:48 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/21/08 12:54 PM, drDAK wrote: Like you said, we will never know. All we really know is that death is mandatory.

I wouldn't say we know that. If we can reverse aging (which, as I understand, is not as impossible as it would seem), then death may not be mandatory. There could be people alive today who'll just keep going until the universe reaches thermal equilibrium.

But death is necessary for evolution. Aging is an idea. Sure you can tackle one aspect of aging... but there are certainly many other aspects that will kill the organism.

At 7/20/08 02:23 PM, Creek wrote: Have robot children, because robots are more fit to survival.

How is that supposed to work?

At 7/22/08 02:04 PM, drDAK wrote: But death is necessary for evolution. Aging is an idea. Sure you can tackle one aspect of aging... but there are certainly many other aspects that will kill the organism.

Aging is the gradual deterioration of an organism. It's possible to stop it.

Also, death being necessary for evolution doesn't have anything to do with what we're donig right now, since technological evolution progresses so much faster than biological.

At 7/20/08 01:46 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: I've had a bit of an idea recently.

As we all probably know, natural selection is the idea of survival of the fitest, species with a certain trait that allows them to overcome the dangers of their enviornment surviving while species without that trait die out.

Sort of, Natural selection is basically how easy a creature can adapt. Sure that may mean "the fittest" in the sense that a creature can easily adapt to that environment. However "the fittest" can be all sorts of things like strength, speed, sight etc. And (more or less) they're irrelevent. If a cow can adapt much easier than a T-Rex then who is the fittest?

When Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection, he didn't take into account the fact that technology would become as advanced as it is today.

Evidently not.

As such, the interference of technology has stagnated natural selection. Animals such as the panda would've died out by now had we not intervened with advanced technology.

Was it not the technology that put it on the brink of extinction in the first place due to poaching?

This technology is also what allows the stupid to survive and propogate.

And what do you suggest we do with these stupid people? What is classed as a stupid person?

Discuss.

At 7/20/08 01:46 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: I've had a bit of an idea recently.

As we all probably know, natural selection is the idea of survival of the fitest, species with a certain trait that allows them to overcome the dangers of their enviornment surviving while species without that trait die out.

When Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection, he didn't take into account the fact that technology would become as advanced as it is today.

As such, the interference of technology has stagnated natural selection. Animals such as the panda would've died out by now had we not intervened with advanced technology.

This technology is also what allows the stupid to survive and propogate.

Discuss.

You do realize that Darwin was an effing racist right?
Natural selection is the 2 parter to the evolution theory of death, no we humans will not kill eachother for survival of the fittest, you are dead wrong.
To simplify my understanding why is it that the earliest people used primitive tools and wore clothing made from animal skin?

Not because we evolved not to have fur, how the fuck would that be an upward process?
We may have once been completely fine and survival wan't an issue, all the animals were vegetarian and the world was tropical so we didn't need cloths as the Bible explains.

There is no evidence that people came from anything other than people and no evidence that any animals came from a different one.
Fair is fair and I will proclaim that the only proof of God is the belief itself, you will not argue with human nature.

I'm not looking to start a debate cuz frankly I'm very sick of hearing the crap that comes out of it, every time I give a simple fact or question idiots just call me names and laugh never answering me or coming up with anything better.

The laws are laid out and you will follow them, talking about God now, you will believe or you will go to Hell. People ask if that is fair, yes it is because God is himself perfect and he won't lower his perfect standards for us, only through Jesus Christ can we be forgiven and cleansed.

Free will is what started this damn post and free will will end it, not blind chance due to chemical reactions in a person's brain, you are not a fucking animal.

At 7/22/08 10:53 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: You do realize that Darwin was an effing racist right?

you know you have to back up statements like that.

Not because we evolved not to have fur, how the fuck would that be an upward process?

an upward process?

There is no evidence that people came from anything other than people and no evidence that any animals came from a different one.

no, of course not. the theory of evolution was thought up for shits and giggles.

I'm not looking to start a debate cuz frankly I'm very sick of hearing the crap that comes out of it, every time I give a simple fact or question idiots just call me names and laugh never answering me or coming up with anything better.

is it because you never produce any actual facts or evidence for your cause? but instead you continuously demonstrate how little you actually know about evolution, biology and science in general?

The laws are laid out and you will follow them, talking about God now, you will believe or you will go to Hell. People ask if that is fair, yes it is because God is himself perfect and he won't lower his perfect standards for us, only through Jesus Christ can we be forgiven and cleansed.

what does this have to do with evolution being wrong or right? and do we have to once again explain to you that evolution is not an attempt to disprove God?

you are not a fucking animal.

once again, basic biology isn't your thing.

At 7/22/08 02:48 PM, Elfer wrote: Aging is the gradual deterioration of an organism. It's possible to stop it.

Also, death being necessary for evolution doesn't have anything to do with what we're donig right now, since technological evolution progresses so much faster than biological.

Indeed but an organism deteriorates in many different ways, ways so minor it would theoretically be impossible to live forever.

Sure we can relieve death for a while, make it painless, or actually assemble organisms and bring them to life... but everything that begins must end.

Ok let me break it down.

Somthing dies, thats it?
No, the theory of evolution states that death= progress, somhow.
A roach cna become immune to a pestacide, but only if it lives long enough to reproduce, it has to already have an immunity in order to have any affect on it's offspring.

A germ can become immune to a type of antibiotic, not if it kills it.
Like the human body, if evolution is real then we are evolving every second, our immune system fights off diseases all the time n our cells store the information on how to do so efficiantly, what would clinch it would be if the germ could learn how to bypass our immune system.

The only orginism we know of that can hault a human's immune system in staring at your computer getting ready to type up another stupid reply.
When you were concieved your DNA was different than your mom n dad's, your mother's immune system sent out the antibodies to destroy you, you sent out signals stopping them n ordering the cells around you to care for you and feed you.

A roach may become immaune to pestacide but it will never be immune to a sludgehammer.

At 7/23/08 05:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: A roach may become immaune to pestacide but it will never be immune to a sludgehammer.

Just look at us humans. Although we are all human, we all vary. Some are tall, some are short, some are born stronger, some born faster, some smarter. And these attributives are inheritable. That means, if you have very tall parents, then you will most likely be tall too.

This isn't some special power for humans only. All life has it. Small changes from the norm, inherited from the parents. If one roach is born with a slightly more durable body, then it might just survive a situation where a normal average roach might have been crushed. This roach lives to get offspring where a normal roach would have died. Over a long long time where this is repeated, you will have roaches with a lot harder body.

I mean, to deny this is to deny that we get traits from our parents. Am I tall just due to luck, and not because everybody in my family on both sides are tall?

At 7/22/08 10:53 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: you are not a fucking animal.

Humans are actually the very definition of animals.

You are correct shaggy, evolution happens on a microscopic, micro-second, level.

All the time.

Here's an interesting question: if our technology didn't prevent weaker beings from dying more often, would people who can contribute more to technology be naturally selected?

Or more simply put: if we kill all idiots, will technology advance? Can intelligence be naturally selected just like animals with bigger legs or better wings?

At 7/24/08 05:05 AM, Toast wrote: Here's an interesting question: if our technology didn't prevent weaker beings from dying more often, would people who can contribute more to technology be naturally selected?

Only if said ability is genetically based.

Technology has been developed in that manner since the beginning.

EVERYTHING develops through natural selection, whether it's genetic or not.

At 7/24/08 05:12 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Only if said ability is genetically based.

Congratulations. An ability, used by people (who are created through genetics), that isn't...genetically based?

You should rethink that ;o

At 7/24/08 05:05 AM, Toast wrote: Here's an interesting question: if our technology didn't prevent weaker beings from dying more often, would people who can contribute more to technology be naturally selected?

Or more simply put: if we kill all idiots, will technology advance? Can intelligence be naturally selected just like animals with bigger legs or better wings?

There isn't much point to technology if you are going to kill the people it intends to save. And why kill off the stupid people? Why not have them contribute to society in other ways not having to do with technology? Let the better adept deal with technology.

Someone has already taken the liberty of naming that idea "artificial selection."

At 7/23/08 12:50 AM, drDAK wrote: Indeed but an organism deteriorates in many different ways, ways so minor it would theoretically be impossible to live forever.

Not really. There would be a threshold where the effects of aging become so minor that the ability to counter it progresses faster than aging itself progresses, i.e. the point at which it only takes one year to develop the technology to extend the human lifespan by one year plus an arbitrarily small amount.

P.S. Shags, evolution doesn't imply that death is progress, it implies that birth is progress. Word.

Eugenics. Read about it

At 7/24/08 03:04 PM, Elfer wrote: Not really. There would be a threshold where the effects of aging become so minor that the ability to counter it progresses faster than aging itself progresses, i.e. the point at which it only takes one year to develop the technology to extend the human lifespan by one year plus an arbitrarily small amount.

Yes but then there is the question of the end of human civilization (well, I assume at one point it won't be just humans... so we'll say the end of our current civilization). Is it not a fact that even if it takes billions and trillions and countless years that our great organization must fall?

P.S. Shags, evolution doesn't imply that death is progress, it implies that birth is progress. Word.

True dat.

At 7/24/08 08:09 PM, trogdor136 wrote: Eugenics. Read about it

Barbaric. If you do not see technology as being better for mankind and allowing everyone to evolve through technological advances, you will never have an advanced society.

At 7/24/08 05:17 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Congratulations. An ability, used by people (who are created through genetics), that isn't...genetically based?

Okay. The ability we were talking about was being able to develop new technologies.
Say Guy A and Guy B, well, exist.
Both equally intelligent at birth, guy A decides to become an engineer of some description and takes appropriate tertiary education to become one, and guy B decides to become a lawyer (and so on.
Guy A develops amazing new technology that helps the world. Guy B is just a lawyer.

For evolution to occur in this scenario (as in, real, Darwinian scientific evolution), as suggested in Toast's post, the ability to develop new technologies as Guy A did must be passed down through his genes to his offspring.
Because unless the ability to be good at technology is inherent, guy B's son is just as likely, at birth, to be as good at developing technology as Guy A's son.

My point is, generally evolution only

WATCH THIS MOVIE.

Also, what this man says is true, AS LONG AS OUR SPECIES LIVES LONG ENOUGH.

I suppose that by technology you mean civilization, then you are correct. I however disagree with the assertion that natural no longer applies due to the human specie, because, well, it's natural. There's no purpose to it. We might as well kill of every other animal on the planet, and that will count as "survival of the fittest". We are the fittest, we won the battle of species. Question is, what do we do now? How do we cope of the consequences of ruining the natural balance?

At 7/24/08 03:03 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Someone has already taken the liberty of naming that idea "artificial selection."

I disagree. If we cure and reproduce someone who would otherwise die, the faulty genes that are passed on no longer decrease the chances of survival, therefore there are no grounds for "selection". Both the cured and healthy will function the same.

I prefer calling medicine an equalizer because it allows for faulty genes to co-exist with normal ones, as if they were normal themselves.

At 7/25/08 02:26 AM, misterDAK wrote: Is it not a fact that even if it takes billions and trillions and countless years that our great organization must fall?

No, it's not a fact. It's more of a philosophy on human nature, which could possibly be correct.

At 7/20/08 01:46 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: This technology is also what allows the stupid to survive and propogate.

if you need an example, you could as use yourself. :p

At 7/20/08 02:24 PM, BrotherJohn wrote: Retarded 87% rule

Technology is making us much more capable than any evolution would do in our lifetimes. Evolution hasn't even been observed, so I doubt you can rely on it yet before you go off on a rant about how our technology is degenerating us.

Sure, our technology has out-gunned our responsibility with it's use since it existed as a rock used to open a coconut (or defeat foes that SHOULD have naturally defeated us in physical battle for survival - be that our man-like enemies or the predators that became our prey on the food chain). It's just that now we can use computers to help us make little statistical projections of just how much damage we are doing and how much more we need to do to help alleviate some of the implications.

I understand what you're saying, but there's no real response to this part other than saying I agree.

Your logic is too intelligent for NewGrounds.