An Interesting Intellectual puzzle...
- Thread starter elfro89
- Start date
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
In this case what's the difference between chance and accident?
After the 1st of the 2 sexes was born, how did they reproduce? A better question might be what was the 1st born from and what did they reproduce with? It's very chicken and egg. And like the chicken and egg, it's not meant to have an answer, only a question. Rhetorical.
Whether one believes in creation or one of the many versions of evolution, everything came from one, so I could care less. Doesn't change what's for dinner. E. Pluribus Unum, or Many from One.
After the 1st of the 2 sexes was born, how did they reproduce? A better question might be what was the 1st born from and what did they reproduce with? It's very chicken and egg. And like the chicken and egg, it's not meant to have an answer, only a question. Rhetorical.
Whether one believes in creation or one of the many versions of evolution, everything came from one, so I could care less. Doesn't change what's for dinner. E. Pluribus Unum, or Many from One.
Justinginn
Hero Member
- Messages
- 631
I've yet to hear an explaination for evolution that makes a lick of sense to me, everything else aside. There's much less proof than we're expected to believe. If you take a look at some of the stuff Darwin himself wrote toward the end of his life he says that if x is found, my theory is sunk. We've already found x, y, and z. :toothy10: We've known all this since Newton: something doesn't come out of nothing. And don't give me the "Stephen Hawking says". He basically said "we can't know anything so let's assume." That's not science.
Justinginn
Hero Member
- Messages
- 631
*Ducks and runs for cover behind his Marshall Stacks*
Justinginn said:
Can't really say i know enough about the subject to argue with you, I honestly don't know enough. However, all hypothesis' are an assumption, until tested in various ways and when observations are proven correct again and again it becomes a working theory, when and if something turns up to
You could argue that everything we see, touch, smell or believe is an assumption and can never be proved, so why bother trying? well if people hadn't you wouldn't be sitting at your computer on this forum. There are things being tested and discovered out there that just defy's all belief.
scientists are able to predict electron movements with almost pinpoint accuracy. It's almost like saying, "I'm going to light this rocket and fire it by hand-eye coordination at the nearest star beside our own, and its going to land on this this 2"x2" section of it." That's the kind of accuracy scientists can produce when locating electrons in the atom. There are some theories that are so accurate that if something was to crop up that conflicts with it. It's probably the new information that's wrong.
elfro89 said:
Actually pin points being on the order of... who knows how much bigger than an electron, there's no braggin' rights there :laughing7:
Back in my school days, we had a nice discussion about the nature of science. One of the "flaws" in our science is that we observe things, calculate, and make comparisons and evaluations from our own perspective, without even knowing what other perspectives there are.
For instance - we measure in light-years, or how long it would take light to travel from point A to point B. Thats not a constant, since time is not a constant in a fluid universe. We evaluate the universe as an evenly spaced three dimensional grid, but there is no telling that it actually is. We do know that the fabric of space and time can be altered - the concept of worm holes, black holes, etc. But there is no proof or disproof that the rest of what exists is orderly, so we just apply it our own sense of whats orderly and say its so. So we would be happy to say, the speed of light is a constant "except" if it came though a worm hole, but refuse to say it could be variable throughout the rest of existence.
Like fishing reports - local science is the best science.
I understand what you are saying and I have trouble finding any argument against it. But one of the things most scientists except is that they could be wrong, the reason why we haven't found other perspectives is because we can't see them or what we have now works and has worked for centuries, sure there are conflicts and problems but that's how science has always expanded, by exploring these issues and finding ways in which they could work, which brings me back to my previous point, some of the mathematical frameworks explain things with stupid degree's of accuracy that it would be silly to retreat to along the lines of thought you mentioned. When it comes to time and space there are two frameworks which exist, both Einstein's relativity and special relativity which explain both how space and time can warp and provide the arena in which space and time interact. and then there is quantum mechanics which explain the motion of things at the sub atomic level. For some reason I'm not sure of, the mathematical framework of both don't work together when applied to things like wormholes/blackholes and other such things of violent characteristics. One of the ways scientists have tried to overcome this is with string theory(it should really be called hypothesis since the new framework is totally unproven and untested) But now they think they have an answer into the building blocks of spacetime. The hypothesis works on paper, but now they are in the stages of attempting to gain some kind of evidence to support it.=CB= said:
There was that many problems with string theory that its taken decades to find answers to all the questions that kept appearing. Alot now rests on whether or not they discover some of the hidden particles which has eluded modern physics. But an interesting point to note is that they managed to predict the existence of most of the particles they were looking for without even discovering them first. That in itself shows the accuracy of the maths.
Edit* ^^ when i said predict the existence, i am referring to the particles they have actually found, not the ones they are still looking for.
elfro89 said:
So true. All those government funded study, global warming scientists are first ones to admit they're wrong......
Scientist one:
How old are these rocks? They're a million years old. How can you tell? The fossils are of species that lived a million years ago.
Scientist two:
How old are these fossils? They're a million years old. How can you tell? They are in rocks that were formed a million years ago.
And so it goes. Its like radio-carbon dating. Its terrible except for short term. We have no proof that radio-carbon levels or rates of absorbency were uniform over long time periods. Yet.... its gets touted all over the place as science, which I say... is science from todays perspective, todays tape measure, whereas the tape measure is really made of rubber, and only good for todays measurements.
Justinginn
Hero Member
- Messages
- 631
Black holes contain singularities, or points of infinite density. That means that the gravitational attraction to those points is basically infinite and when you start putting infinite into math, things start to break down, so as far as we know, our math doesn't tell us much about what's inside a black hole. I will say though that it's dumb to assume what's in there so saying that "everything came from nothing at a singularity where the rules of the universe don't apply" doesn't have any evidence for it.
you could say the same for religion, when faced with arrogance then sure, you are completely correct. I am saying every scientist is a perfect being of complete objectionality? no, we are all human and take things for granted, and hate to be told when we are wrong. But the feeling i've always had is that scientists strive to be impartial and accurate. There are total wankers in every aspect of life.=CB= said:
I don't know enough about global warming to agree or disagree with your statements, or how carbon dating works.
With no offense intended to yourself, you have proved your own point in regards to close minded thinking with that sarcasm :icon_tongue:
drewfx
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,204
elfro89 said:
You are making an assumption that each species required either only itself to reproduce or 2 sexes. If you consider the possibility that at one time an organism existed that could either reproduce on it's own or in concert with a partner, and there was an evolutionary advantage to having a partner. Over the eons, if the advantages of having a partner were significant enough, they would prevail accordingly.
Justinginn
Hero Member
- Messages
- 631
Not to be combative (at all) but you see we've got an assumption either way; either we need two sexes for certain species (as we see currently) or we assume there was an organism that could do both. I think there may be a kind of frog that does both but that's a frog, not a human or anything close. Darwinism seems to me to require a whole lot of faith.
sure there is alot of assumptions, but at some point along there chain regardless of how life started, whether it was on earth or on an asteroid or whatever, or whoever created it. the only two possibilities exist is that we started out as a self reproducing organism or we didn't
If both just existed then where did they come from? the only thing bugging me is if things were fine being a hermaphrodite, then what changed that required there to be 2 genders, why was that more beneficial to survival? assuming we did evolve from a harmaphrodite (or whatever single reproducing organisms are) then when the very first one arrived, how did it reproduce unless both male and female were born. whoever came first is irrelevant since both are needed to reproduce.
I like the argument someone came up with earlier about there needing to have more diversity among the genes, but again if we all came from 1 organism, thats hardly diverse... so that could mean that we didnt come from 1, but from many... but then where did they come from!! argh!
If both just existed then where did they come from? the only thing bugging me is if things were fine being a hermaphrodite, then what changed that required there to be 2 genders, why was that more beneficial to survival? assuming we did evolve from a harmaphrodite (or whatever single reproducing organisms are) then when the very first one arrived, how did it reproduce unless both male and female were born. whoever came first is irrelevant since both are needed to reproduce.
I like the argument someone came up with earlier about there needing to have more diversity among the genes, but again if we all came from 1 organism, thats hardly diverse... so that could mean that we didnt come from 1, but from many... but then where did they come from!! argh!
O
OzziePete
Guest
A few years back I was reading a book about Animal Behaviour and it described how a species of fox started to demonstrate domesticated like characteristics (like a dog, barking and yapping and breeding cycle altered etc...) within 3 generations & there was also observations of domestic animals having to endure about 3 generations of surviving as a domestic animal before they went trully feral and changed appearance and started adapting to life as a wild animal.
When you consider the environmental and cultural changes that humans have endured since the Industrial Revolution, has there been any major change to our appearance or character? I know that medical science, and an increase in general education and hygiene, has been credited to a larger human being and one that lives longer if eating healty, but biologically has anything changed from the Victorian era human? If Darwin's Theory and these Animal Behaviour studies are to be accepted as science, why then aren't the human species changing to meet the changing circumstances of our survival? You would imagine we'd have a better lung filtering process to avoid infections from the air pollution and changes to race colours due to integration and global inter racial marriages & changed DNA thanx to the developed world having major Immunisation programs in place for the 50 years. The majority of the world has not seen smallpox or polio for some time too, so maybe we should have our DNA altered to reflect that too (no immunity neccessary?)..I am very unknowledgeable about science itself, it's one subject that I failed at High SChool, but from the outside looking in, if the Darwin Theory is to be believed we have to start seeing minor adaptions to our species too, now the world has changed from what it was 200 years ago. :dontknow:
When you consider the environmental and cultural changes that humans have endured since the Industrial Revolution, has there been any major change to our appearance or character? I know that medical science, and an increase in general education and hygiene, has been credited to a larger human being and one that lives longer if eating healty, but biologically has anything changed from the Victorian era human? If Darwin's Theory and these Animal Behaviour studies are to be accepted as science, why then aren't the human species changing to meet the changing circumstances of our survival? You would imagine we'd have a better lung filtering process to avoid infections from the air pollution and changes to race colours due to integration and global inter racial marriages & changed DNA thanx to the developed world having major Immunisation programs in place for the 50 years. The majority of the world has not seen smallpox or polio for some time too, so maybe we should have our DNA altered to reflect that too (no immunity neccessary?)..I am very unknowledgeable about science itself, it's one subject that I failed at High SChool, but from the outside looking in, if the Darwin Theory is to be believed we have to start seeing minor adaptions to our species too, now the world has changed from what it was 200 years ago. :dontknow:
Similar threads
