So I am new here wanted to say hello... a While back I tried to create my own religion www.Goofyism.org and well I was told it was similar to discordian... well I am to tired to rant so I will post an old one!
So I use to work at Fun Plex which is an amusement park and I could not believe how stupid people can be. They never listened to you at the go carts so they would take off and not pay attention. They would try to climb into one of the rides that I had to open for them. On time a guy locked himself between the latch and the thing that was suppose to hold him in and wondered why the handles were poking him in the back. Yesterday at one of the meetings a coworker told me of one time a guy called in trying to accuse him of giving him ancient technology because he believed the Panasonic commercials that every thing was wireless and did not need plugged in. As a tech guy we got calls about people complaining that they broke the coffee cup holder on there computer or that it kept going in and knocking over there coffee... It was the CD drive come on people.
I just wonder if the world will not turn out to be as a bunch of idiots running the world. Are we degrading as a society or what? Are our brains just for show?
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 05, 2008, 06:15:01 AM
Are our brains just for show?
Well, that's why *I* keep mine on the outside.
I'd say in Britain and Ireland it does seem to be going that way; I call it Reverse Darwinism
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 05, 2008, 06:15:01 AM
So I am new here wanted to say hello... a While back I tried to create my own religion www.Goofyism.org and well I was told it was similar to discordian... well I am to tired to rant so I will post an old one!
So I use to work at Fun Plex which is an amusement park and I could not believe how stupid people can be. They never listened to you at the go carts so they would take off and not pay attention. They would try to climb into one of the rides that I had to open for them. On time a guy locked himself between the latch and the thing that was suppose to hold him in and wondered why the handles were poking him in the back. Yesterday at one of the meetings a coworker told me of one time a guy called in trying to accuse him of giving him ancient technology because he believed the Panasonic commercials that every thing was wireless and did not need plugged in. As a tech guy we got calls about people complaining that they broke the coffee cup holder on there computer or that it kept going in and knocking over there coffee... It was the CD drive come on people.
I just wonder if the world will not turn out to be as a bunch of idiots running the world. Are we degrading as a society or what? Are our brains just for show?
Yes, they are.
NOW WATCH SOME MORE TV.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 05, 2008, 08:44:27 AM
I'd say in Britain and Ireland it does seem to be going that way; I call it Reverse Darwinism
:x
ah it's not that bad Kai, look at it this way, we'll never be short of burgers and things to complain about in our old age at least :lulz:
It's the use of the word Darwinism in a social context.
We've already had this discussion in another thread recently.
You should look it up. There is a good reason for the " :x "
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 05, 2008, 06:15:01 AM
I just wonder if the world will not turn out to be as a bunch of idiots running the world. Are we degrading as a society or what? Are our brains just for show?
Turn out to be?
Someone's not paying attention.
Word. That ship sailed and sank the day we decided to leave the trees.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 05, 2008, 01:17:54 PM
It's the use of the word Darwinism in a social context.
We've already had this discussion in another thread recently.
You should look it up. There is a good reason for the " :x "
ahhhh I see, sorry for the confusion but i meant it ironically and by the fsct that tis the, shall we say, folk aforementioned who appear to be more fecund and twill be social and real darwinian evolution, alas
Y'know, just stop using the word "Darwin," unless you're talking about a guy that lived about 100 years ago.
evolution then :wink:
ITT, forum darwinism rears its ugly head.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 05, 2008, 02:42:33 PM
ITT, forum darwinism rears its ugly head.
And so it begins...
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 05, 2008, 02:35:50 PM
evolution then :wink:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/STFU/STFUCasab.jpg)
what? I promise to not use the D word anymore
:argh!:
Don't listen to them! Keep digging! You're almost there!
I'm lost now....almost where?
I think I've ended up somewhere else now instead...look at the pretty flowers....
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 05, 2008, 03:51:04 PM
I'm lost now....almost where?
I think I've ended up somewhere else now instead...look at the pretty flowers....
So you were just digging, and didn't have a clue what you were actually talking about?
PAH! I had hope for you, too.
~~~Payne: Disillusioned.
sorry it's a friday lol...so we're being devolved (tm)(c) patent pending etc back to our simian forebears is where I was going, encourage the chav masses to outbreed us and thus, make society easier to control?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/STFU/stfuMONKEY.jpg)
ook?
oh and stick it up your big hairy arse you bloody monkey! :evilmad:
(http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh309/Paesior/PayneSTFU.png)
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/chimp2.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on September 05, 2008, 02:23:13 PM
Y'know, just stop using the word "Darwin," unless you're talking about a guy that lived about 100 years ago.
TITCM.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEVOLVE UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE TIME GO BACKWARD.
We can evolve into something stupider, though.
Quote from: Nigel on September 05, 2008, 10:57:15 PM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEVOLVE UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE TIME GO BACKWARD.
Ok, well. If a species, due to some environmental factor adapts with some feature, and then the environmental factor goes away, and the feature goes away too, then it would be convenient to have a label indicating that it evolved into a form that it previously had, right? Why is Devolution a bad word to describe this?
....it's the band, isn't it?....
they fvcked it up for the whole log, didn't they?
(disclaimer: ianaeb)
Quote from: Nigel on September 05, 2008, 10:57:15 PM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEVOLVE UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE TIME GO BACKWARD.
yes there is, I just made it up and can claim all the royalties when scientists start using it ;)
ok I was being facetious but only for giggles
answer de-evolving... is that your finally answer?
According to the Mayans we are in the time of evolving!
Quote from: Iptuous on September 05, 2008, 11:29:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 05, 2008, 10:57:15 PM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEVOLVE UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE TIME GO BACKWARD.
Ok, well. If a species, due to some environmental factor adapts with some feature, and then the environmental factor goes away, and the feature goes away too, then it would be convenient to have a label indicating that it evolved into a form that it previously had, right? Why is Devolution a bad word to describe this?
....it's the band, isn't it?....
they fvcked it up for the whole log, didn't they?
(disclaimer: ianaeb)
Whereas,
the original name for the whole process was called Descent with Modification, and
whereas, since Evolution (L. unrolling) was coined by Henry Spencer who did not understand that Natural Selection did not mean progress,
and whereas, since we understand Evolution takes the place of Descent with Modification, but
under the original definition that Descent with Modification works under, and not the unrolling progress of Henry Spencer's evolution,
Therefore, Evolution means the modification of lineages over time, and should have no connotation of progress,
and furthermore, cannot be modified to "de-evolution" under this definition.
Its a horrible buzzword for people who don't understand the process, and nothing more.
Example of a lineage where more basal (ancestral) forms have returned: the wingless condition in the Phasmodea (walking sticks). The winged condition has been lost in several families of that order of insects, due to an interesting gene sequence. The correct term for this would be "return to more ancestral body plan". A biologist would never use the term "de-evolved".
but i'm not a biologist....i was being ironic only.....not seriously scientific
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 06, 2008, 03:49:55 PM
but i'm not a biologist....i was being ironic only.....not seriously scientific
Its ooooooooooooooooooooooold.
And overdone. Please, I hear enough from creationists to make it so completely unfunny.
I also claim all right to abuse people for annoying me about this stuff, wallow in my mistakes and apologize for it later (if necessary).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/DevoFreedomofChoice.jpg)
I left my wip at her house.... damn it! :argh!:
Perhaps this is what is confusing me....
Do use "evolve" : incorrect connotations but commonly used and understood, except by those that don't understand (fuckem)
however
Do never use "de-evolve" : incorrect but commonly used and understood, except by those that don't understand (fuckem)
Insist on "return to more ancestral body plan" : correct but not commonly used or convenient enough to ever likely gain common use.
Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to appeal to your authority as a biology guy to understand the motivation behind the terminology. Is there a movement in the biology field to replace the term 'evolution' because it has deeply ingrained connotations of progress towards some ultimate goal?
Also, can you point me at good reading material on debate over whether evolution is in fact progressing towards a goal? (perhaps of greater ability to live and reproduce in wider array of environments)
Thx
Quote from: Iptuous on September 06, 2008, 08:45:32 PM
Perhaps this is what is confusing me....
Do use "evolve" : incorrect connotations but commonly used and understood, except by those that don't understand (fuckem)
however
Do never use "de-evolve" : incorrect but commonly used and understood, except by those that don't understand (fuckem)
Insist on "return to more ancestral body plan" : correct but not commonly used or convenient enough to ever likely gain common use.
Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to appeal to your authority as a biology guy to understand the motivation behind the terminology. Is there a movement in the biology field to replace the term 'evolution' because it has deeply ingrained connotations of progress towards some ultimate goal?
Also, can you point me at good reading material on debate over whether evolution is in fact progressing towards a goal? (perhaps of greater ability to live and reproduce in wider array of environments)
Thx
Charles Darwin in his original draft of On the Origin of Species did not use the term evolution. Neither did he use the term "Survival of the Fittest". He actually dislikes both these terms very much. They were coined by his contemporary Henry Spencer, and he did not include them in his book until the 5th reprinting. They had become so popular with the public that he was more or less forced to adopt them with respect to his hypothesis. The reason he didn't like the terms is because, while he did observe an increase in complexity over geological time, he did not see this unrolling (which is the literal meaning of evolution) of species, which suggests progress, and in the public eye, progress towards perfection, some goal, utopia, etc. He saw lineages become extinct as often as he saw them making it.
Modern science tries to stay with this early understanding of the mechanics of what is now called evolution, but is really an adaptation of Darwin's modification with descent. To see some sort of inherent progress in biology is a very human bias, as we have a tendency to see progressions in nearly any medium. Thats how we think. To combat this bias, biologists refrain from using phrases such as more evolved or less evolved. Instead, we talk of phylogeny, the origin of lineages, and of particular species or groups being basal or derived in characters with relation to their common ancestors. This removes the human bias of progress, and allows us to see the processes much more clearly.
For example (one that I gave in another thread) the evolution (in the context of descent with modification) of wings in the insect order Phasmodea. Humans tend to see wings as progress and "more evolved", so before genetic evidence they grouped the winged walking sticks and the unwinged walking sticks separatly, with the winged ones "more evolved" and the unwinged ones "less evolved". As it turned out though, wings in walking sticks have been "lost and found" again in several lineages, due to an "on off switch" for the genetic sequence for wing development. This does not denote any sort of progress, no less than mammals returning to the oceans in the form of whales and dolphins show any sort of upward movement. The goal of life is "whatever works", and the species are here today are simply the lineages that have made it, while 99% of all other species that have ever lived have been lost.
In conclusion, yes, that is the connotation, and yes, biologists, or the ones who aren't all political about it, tend to be very specific with terms in order to remove that bias of progress.
As far as reading, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. We already have organisms that can survive extreme environments, we have tardigrades that can survive cryptobiotically in outer space for a time, we have bacteria and other organisms that live in extreme cold and extreme heat, we have deep thermal vent organisms that are chemosynthetic, completely cut off from the sun, there are aquatic organisms in deserts that can survive long periods of dessication, or in the artic and antartic, frozen conditions.
Actually, there have been a bunch of books written on extremophiles. What you are talking about are unfilled niches in environments. Niches empty and fill all the time, its actually a rather essential part of the modification of lineages; open resources are quickly acquiesced, cladogenesis occurs all over the place because of it. Life pretty much covers the planet, there are very few niches which have not been filled on a large scale since the invasion of land in the early Paleozoic.
Thanks for listening.
damn.
that's the most interesting thing I've read today, at least.
Good response. thanks for taking the time.
You have mentioned that it is simply human nature to think of the process as a sort of progress even though it isn't. You may very well be correct, but I'm having a hard time giving up on that idea, too. (Again, not trying to simply be belligerent or closed minded)
Considering the notion of an 'ultimate form' that an organism might progress towards, a superficially obvious definition that occurs to me would be one that allows the creature to live and reproduce in any environment that might befall it. You mentioned the extremophiles that we have cataloged but are these organisms able to exist in a broad range? I guess the examples that pop into my mind are the sea vent creatures at very high temps. I don't know, but i'm guessing they are not able to exist at temperatures much beyond that niche that they are in. Would it not be 'progress' if they could withstand these temps and lower ones? This would likely involve more complexity, though, right? Would it be innacurate to say that there has been an increase in complexity of organisms over time? And would this indicate that the higher levels of complexity are advantageous over a broader range of environment?
You mentioned the genetic switch that controls the wingedness of that insect. I find that very interesting that a fully functional and complex feature can be coded in the genetic sequence of an organism with only a gene or two that allows/causes it to be expressed. If a creature had a highly complicated genetic repetiore of features like this that allowed it to very quickly adapt to changing environments, it would seem reaaaaly hard for me to not think of it as 'more advanced' that a creature that didn't, and would be unable to adapt as quickly to a changing environment...
Quote from: Iptuous on September 07, 2008, 04:03:28 AM
Good response. thanks for taking the time.
You have mentioned that it is simply human nature to think of the process as a sort of progress even though it isn't. You may very well be correct, but I'm having a hard time giving up on that idea, too. (Again, not trying to simply be belligerent or closed minded)
Considering the notion of an 'ultimate form' that an organism might progress towards, a superficially obvious definition that occurs to me would be one that allows the creature to live and reproduce in any environment that might befall it. You mentioned the extremophiles that we have cataloged but are these organisms able to exist in a broad range? I guess the examples that pop into my mind are the sea vent creatures at very high temps. I don't know, but i'm guessing they are not able to exist at temperatures much beyond that niche that they are in. Would it not be 'progress' if they could withstand these temps and lower ones? This would likely involve more complexity, though, right? Would it be innacurate to say that there has been an increase in complexity of organisms over time? And would this indicate that the higher levels of complexity are advantageous over a broader range of environment?
You mentioned the genetic switch that controls the wingedness of that insect. I find that very interesting that a fully functional and complex feature can be coded in the genetic sequence of an organism with only a gene or two that allows/causes it to be expressed. If a creature had a highly complicated genetic repetiore of features like this that allowed it to very quickly adapt to changing environments, it would seem reaaaaly hard for me to not think of it as 'more advanced' that a creature that didn't, and would be unable to adapt as quickly to a changing environment...
The 'genetic switch' is really quite simple. Protein-coding genes have to be 'read' by other molecules before they can be expressed as a protein. (Developmental biology is still working out how little bitty proteins get complicated structures to organize. But we know that they do.) All you have to do to switch off a feature, then, is to code for a protein that latches on to the DNA of another gene, thereby preventing that gene from being read. Think of it like putting a wad of gum on a record - no matter how complex the music, a simple little wad of gum will prevent it from playing correctly. (This is a little bit of an oversimplification. There are lots of other ways that genes are regulated, and the proteins that they produce can also be regulated. There are even genes that can code for totally different proteins in different circumstances!)
Now, about your idea of progress meaning being broadly adapted. That is certainly
a way for an organism to be more viable, especially against habitat loss. But you'll find that specialization increases efficiency. The ocean vent dwelling extremophiles, for example, are anaerobic, meaning that they do not require O2 to keep their metabolisms going - in fact, I believe that O2 is toxic to them. Most organism are aerobic, at least, they are after the Earth's atmosphere became 20% O2. An organism that had one metabolic pathway that used oxygen and another that could function without oxygen would have an advantage in the greater range of habitats it could live it - but it takes more energy to keep two totally different metabolisms going. So in oxygen, the aerobic organisms would have an advantage by not having to lug the dead wait of an entire energy system that is non-functional around O2, and anaerobic organisms for the same reason without oxygen. Therefore, evolution favors speciation into two organisms, each to its own niche, as the best competitors.
Think of it this way: you're carrying around survival gear for every possible environment, while I am merely specialized for say, the desert we're in. (I've reread Dune recently.) We've both got moisture conserving tricks and ways to beat the heat in the day and the freezing temperatures at night. You, however, are also lugging around a bulletproof vest, a spacesuit, a SCUBA mask, a snowsuit, and forest camo gear. Guess who can get food while expending the least amount of energy? Me, which means in the long run I'll have more energy to devote to my offspring. Sure, you can handle outer space - but we're not in space. So I win.
Now as for your idea about having a super-adaptable toolkit-like DNA, remember that mutations are random. So if your organism could easily adapt by recovering its ancestral wings when those would be a net plus, it would be just as likely for it to recover its ancestral wings when they would do more harm than good.
About organism becoming more complex over time... sorta. Cells with mitochondria are more 'complicated' than cells without mitochondria, and they ded came later. Multicellular organisms did come after single-celled organisms, and came before organisms with organs. But then again viruses came
after cellular life.
ETA: Kai, I think it's pretty amazing that we have member dedicated to bringing us science news, identifying our insects, and explaining biology terminology. Keep it up!
Quote from: Iptuous on September 06, 2008, 08:45:32 PM
Also, can you point me at good reading material on debate over whether evolution is in fact progressing towards
The idea of directed evolution is quite popular among the Intelligent Design crowd.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 07, 2008, 04:03:28 AM
Good response. thanks for taking the time.
You have mentioned that it is simply human nature to think of the process as a sort of progress even though it isn't. You may very well be correct, but I'm having a hard time giving up on that idea, too. (Again, not trying to simply be belligerent or closed minded)
Considering the notion of an 'ultimate form' that an organism might progress towards, a superficially obvious definition that occurs to me would be one that allows the creature to live and reproduce in any environment that might befall it. You mentioned the extremophiles that we have cataloged but are these organisms able to exist in a broad range? I guess the examples that pop into my mind are the sea vent creatures at very high temps. I don't know, but i'm guessing they are not able to exist at temperatures much beyond that niche that they are in. Would it not be 'progress' if they could withstand these temps and lower ones? This would likely involve more complexity, though, right? Would it be innacurate to say that there has been an increase in complexity of organisms over time? And would this indicate that the higher levels of complexity are advantageous over a broader range of environment?
You mentioned the genetic switch that controls the wingedness of that insect. I find that very interesting that a fully functional and complex feature can be coded in the genetic sequence of an organism with only a gene or two that allows/causes it to be expressed. If a creature had a highly complicated genetic repetiore of features like this that allowed it to very quickly adapt to changing environments, it would seem reaaaaly hard for me to not think of it as 'more advanced' that a creature that didn't, and would be unable to adapt as quickly to a changing environment...
Well, there are generalists and specialists. Now, I'm not sure this is true, but when there is a great deal of environmental change, the generalist will win out, but when change is much slower, the specialists will easily be more successful in their actualized niches, because they can take full advantage of the resources therin, whereas a generalist can only take partial advantage. Compare norway rats and beavers. Both are very successful within their range, one is an extreme generalist, the other is a relatively good example of a specialist. The norway rat is able to take advantage of a wide variety of environs, but is unable to access all the resources of any single niche they might fill in any environment. The beaver, on the other hand, selects for poplar lined streams, builds a dam and creates an artifical lake, and feeds on the poplar, their prefered food source. This is a much more specialized animal, it requires a specific habitat, but it can take much more advantage of the resources in that single habitat than the norway rat would be able to in any single habitat.
Makes sense? This is why we have generalists and specialists. There are temperature generalists, but because they have a wide range of temperature tolerance they can't specialize and survive very extremes of hot and cold. Then there are temperature specialists, like the hot thermal vent bacteria, or hot spring organisms, or amphibians from the arctic circle that can stand frozen conditions, but they can't live much where else.
Ecology abhors an organism that is 'perfect', in the human sense of able to access all environments and all resources. The reason for this is generally because such an organism would cause an ecological catastrophy, eventually leading to the breakdown of the whole system, and the extinction of that organism. About the only example I can think of is
Homo sapiens sapiens, and its only through technological means that we are able to survive in some of these environments, and not well. We still cannot access all resources of any environment. We can't digest cellulose, we can't survive temperature extremes, we can't survive in aquatic habitat, or saline. We are terrestrial ominvorous generalists with large brains and tool making capacities beyond other organisms on this planet, but that does not by any means dictate we are better than all the rest. We /think/ we are, but I suppose any species with a cognitive sense thinks they are the best.
Now, complexity. This has always been a rather debated topic. Complexity is usually refering to forms that are more derived from their basal ansestral counterparts. But we see systems simplify as often as they complexify. We see diverse lineages being lost /more often/ than we see them being retained.
The Burgess shale is a good example of this. Its a fossil bed in British Columbia that dates back to the Cambrian period, 540 mya or therabouts. Just /prior/ to the Cambrian period, about 570 mya, there was a great diversification of life over about a 10 million year arch, where almost all modern phyla of life arose. This is usually termed the Cambrian explosion, which is a misnomer, since it took place in the Precambrian and over a ten million year period, not really all that explosive if you ask me (The Cambrian explosion was neither Cambrian nor an explosion. DISCUSS.) Anyway, back to the Burgess Shale. In this fossil formation, we find a massive variety of body plans, many of which are not seen today, things like half arthropod, half fish, or weird worms with jointed appendages. All of these organisms did not continue their lineages past the Cambrian period. Only a few select body plans were successful afterwards, and the rest were lost. Diversification led to simplification, leads to diversification leads to more simplification. In fact, we could say that generalists are not more complex but more simplified than their specialist counterparts, they have a more general body plan, more general, less specialized behavior. You find more system complexity in specialized habitats, where complex behavior and biology are needed to take full advantage of the resources. And diversification and simplification cycles like this, in species, in lineages, in phyla.
GA: the gum on the record is the best metaphor I have heard for the gene switches. If I remember right, it has something to do with the unrolling and reroling of the DNA molecule so that some areas are all bunched up tightly and can't be accessed and other are more loose and linear, allowing DNA Helicase to work correctly, and then there are enzymes that can roll and unroll the helix. Its been years since I've had genetics, am I even close?
Quote from: GA on September 07, 2008, 04:41:03 AM
Now, about your idea of progress meaning being broadly adapted. That is certainly a way for an organism to be more viable, especially against habitat loss. But you'll find that specialization increases efficiency. The ocean vent dwelling extremophiles, for example, are anaerobic, meaning that they do not require O2 to keep their metabolisms going - in fact, I believe that O2 is toxic to them. Most organism are aerobic, at least, they are after the Earth's atmosphere became 20% O2. An organism that had one metabolic pathway that used oxygen and another that could function without oxygen would have an advantage in the greater range of habitats it could live it - but it takes more energy to keep two totally different metabolisms going. So in oxygen, the aerobic organisms would have an advantage by not having to lug the dead wait of an entire energy system that is non-functional around O2, and anaerobic organisms for the same reason without oxygen. Therefore, evolution favors speciation into two organisms, each to its own niche, as the best competitors.
Think of it this way: you're carrying around survival gear for every possible environment, while I am merely specialized for say, the desert we're in. (I've reread Dune recently.) We've both got moisture conserving tricks and ways to beat the heat in the day and the freezing temperatures at night. You, however, are also lugging around a bulletproof vest, a spacesuit, a SCUBA mask, a snowsuit, and forest camo gear. Guess who can get food while expending the least amount of energy? Me, which means in the long run I'll have more energy to devote to my offspring. Sure, you can handle outer space - but we're not in space. So I win.
This. In fact, I might steal that last paragraph if I ever need to explain this to someone again. That is the perfect human example of generalization versus specialization, and why both exist.
QuoteNow as for your idea about having a super-adaptable toolkit-like DNA, remember that mutations are random. So if your organism could easily adapt by recovering its ancestral wings when those would be a net plus, it would be just as likely for it to recover its ancestral wings when they would do more harm than good.
Also remembering that we still aren't quite sure how much genetic drift, a completly random process, plays a role in all of this.
QuoteAbout organism becoming more complex over time... sorta. Cells with mitochondria are more 'complicated' than cells without mitochondria, and they ded came later. Multicellular organisms did come after single-celled organisms, and came before organisms with organs. But then again viruses came after cellular life.
Do you know much about symbiogenesis theory for eukaryotic organism? Just interested, its been one of those things I've been excited about for years now.
QuoteETA: Kai, I think it's pretty amazing that we have member dedicated to bringing us science news, identifying our insects, and explaining biology terminology. Keep it up!
Thanks! I really love talking about it. Its one of the few things I'm good at.
Very good.
I have realized in thinking about this short conversation that, although i have heard and, in fact, used many of these arguments against ID proponents (who, btw, i will never forgive you for lumping me in with,GA :wink:), that i have not really internalized the notion that it isn't progress due in no small part to the fact that i simply want it to be progress. This is perhaps innevitable because of my engineering mindset that sees an iterative process that does not progress towards some ultimate goal (or, i guess, in the case of natural phenomena, along the direction of some motivating force) to be absurd, but that doesn't mean that it ain't so.....
I can perhaps assuage myself by focusing in on the definition that the goal of all life (as defined by myself) is "to live and reproduce as successfully as possible over an unbounded time frame and environment", on the key phrase "all life". Would it be fair to say that life on this planet as a whole has been progressing (albeit with setbacks) towards this ultimate goal?
One last thread that i would like to snip is the genetic switch as mentioned. In the analogy of the swiss army knife animal being more generally prepared for diverse environments, but not suited to outperform a specialist in a static environment, why would this apply to one whose genetic repetoire is not expressed in its form at any given time? The only disadvantage that i can see to an animal having this hidden treasure box of features in waiting is that it would have more genetic material that something could go catastrophically wrong with, or that if it is a creature that does not breed/live in large numbers the possibility that features becoming expressed at innoportune times in a single individual would have a significant effect on the species as a population.... Perhaps you can think of another disadvantage that it would pose to justify it as not necessarily 'better prepared'.
I guess the absurdly scifi 'ultimate creature' is imagining an organism with the features of a great deal of life as we know it in its genetics that are almost all not currently expressed. It is currently of the form of a simple microorganism that is able to withstand the vacuum and radiative hazards of space, but upon landing upon a celestial body, a la panspermia thing, it would be able to develop the features that would allow it to thrive in whatever the habitat might be in relatively short time, without having to rely on random gene modification to reinvent the wheel. sort of a genetically modular creature.....
Please do your best to cut that thread as it is unignorably tickling my brain...
Quote from: Iptuous on September 07, 2008, 04:43:27 PM
Very good.
I have realized in thinking about this short conversation that, although i have heard and, in fact, used many of these arguments against ID proponents (who, btw, i will never forgive you for lumping me in with,GA :wink:), that i have not really internalized the notion that it isn't progress due in no small part to the fact that i simply want it to be progress. This is perhaps innevitable because of my engineering mindset that sees an iterative process that does not progress towards some ultimate goal (or, i guess, in the case of natural phenomena, along the direction of some motivating force) to be absurd, but that doesn't mean that it ain't so.....
I can perhaps assuage myself by focusing in on the definition that the goal of all life (as defined by myself) is "to live and reproduce as successfully as possible over an unbounded time frame and environment", on the key phrase "all life". Would it be fair to say that life on this planet as a whole has been progressing (albeit with setbacks) towards this ultimate goal?
One last thread that i would like to snip is the genetic switch as mentioned. In the analogy of the swiss army knife animal being more generally prepared for diverse environments, but not suited to outperform a specialist in a static environment, why would this apply to one whose genetic repetoire is not expressed in its form at any given time? The only disadvantage that i can see to an animal having this hidden treasure box of features in waiting is that it would have more genetic material that something could go catastrophically wrong with, or that if it is a creature that does not breed/live in large numbers the possibility that features becoming expressed at innoportune times in a single individual would have a significant effect on the species as a population.... Perhaps you can think of another disadvantage that it would pose to justify it as not necessarily 'better prepared'.
I guess the absurdly scifi 'ultimate creature' is imagining an organism with the features of a great deal of life as we know it in its genetics that are almost all not currently expressed. It is currently of the form of a simple microorganism that is able to withstand the vacuum and radiative hazards of space, but upon landing upon a celestial body, a la panspermia thing, it would be able to develop the features that would allow it to thrive in whatever the habitat might be in relatively short time, without having to rely on random gene modification to reinvent the wheel. sort of a genetically modular creature.....
Please do your best to cut that thread as it is unignorably tickling my brain...
For that sort of thing to occur there would have to be some sort of environmental pressure for organisms to take that route. There is none. There likely will never be. Not only that, but it costs way too much energy to invest in such a thing compared to the abundant resources on this planet. An organism, more or less, IS a swiss army knife. Genetic variation with only isolated beneficial mutation is what leads to the majority of evolutionary modification on this planet. The creative possibilities of life are near endless within the structure of the original framework and given the time frame involved. Theres just no inertia, biological, behavioral or otherwise to set organisms out into space to seed other planets over time and space. Assuming microorganisms could get there, and there were ample resources, that is essentially all you would need to create the diversity of life on this planet over the same timescale. it would be wildly different, but it would happen, just not in the spectacular way you see it sci fi. I wouldn't hope. Rather, look to the amazing diversity on this planet. Here, Life is god, creation is occurring all around you.
Okay, so I get a bit spiritual about biology. Its part of who I am. A really interesting book I'm reading right now is
Reinventing the Sacred by Stuart Kauffman. Its essential thesis is the movement towards creative nature = God, and uses arguments of biology being emergent and irreducible to physics, as systems that are doings rather than happenings, with individuals that posses teleos (will). It also contains lots of interesting science tidbits with philosophical leanings, and I haven't found anything thus far that would turn me off, no new agishness, no buzzwords.
Maybe thats right up your alley.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2008, 03:58:44 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 06, 2008, 03:49:55 PM
but i'm not a biologist....i was being ironic only.....not seriously scientific
Its ooooooooooooooooooooooold.
And overdone. Please, I hear enough from creationists to make it so completely unfunny.
I also claim all right to abuse people for annoying me about this stuff, wallow in my mistakes and apologize for it later (if necessary).
fair enough, fair enough...I'm not a creationalist either just conscious, not of intelligent design (sneezes) but of perhaps some pattern to evolution, let's call it natural inclination to environment and stimuli or something along those lines. We evolved but why only humans, why no other forms of life also?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2008, 03:58:44 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 06, 2008, 03:49:55 PM
but i'm not a biologist....i was being ironic only.....not seriously scientific
Its ooooooooooooooooooooooold.
And overdone. Please, I hear enough from creationists to make it so completely unfunny.
I also claim all right to abuse people for annoying me about this stuff, wallow in my mistakes and apologize for it later (if necessary).
fair enough, fair enough...I'm not a creationalist either just conscious, not of intelligent design (sneezes) but of perhaps some pattern to evolution, let's call it natural inclination to environment and stimuli or something along those lines. We evolved but why only humans, why no other forms of life also?
Oh.
My.
Fucking.
God.
Excuse me, but I need to go apeshit on you for a second. WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN "ONLY HUMANS?" You believe in mahdjickal extra-reality beings but deny the existence of every animal other than Homo Sapiens? You've never seen an insect, bird, reptile, or fish? There are PLENTY of other forms of life on this planet.
Noticably evolved I mean, as in from (maybe) monkeys, to us supposedly intelligent creatures here today......why has intelligence of this sort come only to us? I mean no more by it than that it makes me very curious is all.
why not have other parallel evolved intelligent beings? I'm trying to deconstruct the idea that evolution's sole purpose was to arrive at US, we who have stayed pretty much the same for thousands of years
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 03:15:20 PM
Noticably evolved I mean, as in from (maybe) monkeys, to us supposedly intelligent creatures here today......why has intelligence of this sort come only to us? I mean no more by it than that it makes me very curious is all.
why not have other parallel evolved intelligent beings? I'm trying to deconstruct the idea that evolution's sole purpose was to arrive at US, we who have stayed pretty much the same for thousands of years
Monkeys and apes are intelligent. You're the one assuming that humans are unique here.
Homo Sapiens has changed quite a bit in the past 10-20k years. For example, (some) humans can now metabolize lactose well into adulthood.
Get this through your head: Evolution has no purpose. It is nothing more than the conclusion of applying basic probability to a system with random inheritable mutations.
that's your opinion and that's fine, I'm not here to argue
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 03:41:50 PM
that's your opinion and that's fine, I'm not here to argue
You posted this in the wrong forum if you don't want to argue.
Just saying.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 03:41:50 PM
that's your opinion and that's fine, I'm not here to argue
It is not my opinion that many human adults can metabolize lactose. That is fact.
Quote from: GA on September 08, 2008, 03:35:51 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 03:15:20 PM
Noticably evolved I mean, as in from (maybe) monkeys, to us supposedly intelligent creatures here today......why has intelligence of this sort come only to us? I mean no more by it than that it makes me very curious is all.
why not have other parallel evolved intelligent beings? I'm trying to deconstruct the idea that evolution's sole purpose was to arrive at US, we who have stayed pretty much the same for thousands of years
Monkeys and apes are intelligent. You're the one assuming that humans are unique here.
Homo Sapiens has changed quite a bit in the past 10-20k years. For example, (some) humans can now metabolize lactose well into adulthood.
Get this through your head: Evolution has no purpose. It is nothing more than the conclusion of applying basic probability to a system with random inheritable mutations.
THAT is your opinion so either prove me WRONG, personally prove your point to put up and cease so be so narrow minded and opinionated eh?
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 08, 2008, 03:43:26 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 03:41:50 PM
that's your opinion and that's fine, I'm not here to argue
You posted this in the wrong forum if you don't want to argue.
Just saying.
good point chief, I have heeded it too ;)
"truth or reguritation of another man's truth, which is better?" I asked the Master.
"Mu!" was the Master's only reply.
You're both talking bullshit anyway.
Science has got nothing to do with mysticism, or with either proving or disproving it exists.
Insufficient data.
that's what I was trying to say, in my rather roundabout way! Lol
I agree with you there mate, just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist and just because something similar has been 'proven' doesn't make it absolute truth...it's a new form of fundimentalism in my mind.....
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 04:21:56 PM
that's what I was trying to say, in my rather roundabout way! Lol
I agree with you there mate, just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist and just because something similar has been 'proven' doesn't make it absolute truth...it's a new form of fundimentalism in my mind.....
Scientific theories evolve as new data is gathered and processed, and as new experiments show expected results.
There isn't yet a Scientific Absolute Proof, but it is a worthy goal to strive for. You CAN prove things, and they WILL be true until a new model comes along and you have to reassess that truth.
Scientific fundamentalism usually comes from laymen who don't really understand what is actually going on and try to impose their own perceptions on results.
Stop hating on science.
I wasn't, didn't knock science just those people who claim it is omniscient and/or superior to everything else. All other ideas are wrong, etc etc....closed mindedness annoys me!
I accept science is great and our lives maybe improved because of it, as our knowledge too has been. However, many of it's adherants don't like established 'facts' (except those we irrefutably know to be true; sun comes up each day, stuff falls down, etc) being challenged by alternate opinions like mine.
One thing that winds me up is someone presenting a modern scientific fact as cast in stone, absolute fact. I prefer to keep an open mind. Can't knock science, dude, unless I decide to live in a cave and eat all of my food raw.
Thing I have a problem with is that while no "fact" as you call it is set in stone, it will evolve over time or be completely rewritten in the next scientific revolution, other explanations (such as yours) for these facts do not make anywhere near as much sense as the scientific explanation.
fair enough mate, it's all about differing worldviews and experiences; I've had experiences science has failed to explain, therefore i looked for others which seemed to fit better. They don't have to be right any more than they have to be wrong. Believe it or not I am very logically minded and this creates no end of problems for me because, while logic cannot explain some things I am sure are the case, the logical part of my mind sometimes refuses to accept them......sigh the lot i have been given eh?
I would love for science to be able to explain a few things to me; only quantum theory has come close but, unfortunately, mathematics was never my strong suit so I've never got my head around that fully
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 04:34:39 PM
I wasn't, didn't knock science just those people who claim it is omniscient and/or superior to everything else. All other ideas are wrong, etc etc....closed mindedness annoys me!
I accept science is great and our lives maybe improved because of it, as our knowledge too has been. However, many of it's adherants don't like established 'facts' (except those we irrefutably know to be true; sun comes up each day, stuff falls down, etc) being challenged by alternate opinions like mine.
One thing that winds me up is someone presenting a modern scientific fact as cast in stone, absolute fact. I prefer to keep an open mind. Can't knock science, dude, unless I decide to live in a cave and eat all of my food raw.
Wait, what "opinions"?
That you associate weird personal experiences with alien intelligence? That's not science, dude. That's called "making shit up".
not necessarily it isn't.....have a look and see that there is plenty of evidence. You can choose to dismiss it or not mate. My opinion is that there is plenty which science cannot explain and there might be plenty of stuff we consider wierd and out there which may one day be explained and factual. No need to get personal now is there? You disagree, good for you. Just because lots of people with beards agree with you doesn't make it fact, though there's plenty of chance it is.
However, why always do people who disagree with this viewpoint always get personal?? I thought you were above that dude...
I have had experiences (not just me either) which current science cannot explain and so excercised the very human faculty of wanting to understand and make sense of these. I found possibilities which i can consider. Just because science can't explain it doesn't make it utter rubbish does it?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 05:21:27 PM
However, why always do people who disagree with this viewpoint always get personal?? I thought you were above that dude...
Please to point out where I got personal.
I still have time to, if you want.
not you my good Dr, sorry
You said always.
You aren't being very clear there. It leads me to think that perhaps you aren't being very clear with the rest of your ideas?
I should have quantified SOME people, ok fine..I'm atr work and it's busy suddenly and have a cold so am not at my sharpest, sorry. I did not mean you
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 05:21:27 PM
not necessarily it isn't.....have a look and see that there is plenty of evidence.
Evidence of what?
QuoteYou can choose to dismiss it or not mate. My opinion is that there is plenty which science cannot explain and there might be plenty of stuff we consider wierd and out there which may one day be explained and factual.
Yes, but so far science has given better, more concise answers for that phenomena. And yes, the current models do not easily explain some stuff.
QuoteI have had experiences (not just me either) which current science cannot explain and so excercised the very human faculty of wanting to understand and make sense of these. I found possibilities which i can consider. Just because science can't explain it doesn't make it utter rubbish does it?
I never said that.
I said that,
since you don't have enough information, it remains in the state of "unknown".
My disagreement with you is that because you don't know enough science to identify it, you jump to a parascientific explanation.
Which is just about as bad as saying you were visited by seraphim, if you ask me.
I said i could not explain things nor that I am right if you'd read all of my posts LMNO...I believe this to be the case but do not hold it as truth....I merely took exception and someone's attitude and attempt to force their opinions on me in a patronising way.
If i'm wrong them fine, I will accept that when it is proven, otherwise I'll stick to what i know
But you just said you don't know...
So; let us begin again.
Please describe an experience you've had that you've had, in as much detail as possible.
never mind, I cannot be arsed now
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 05:44:01 PM
never mind, I cannot be arsed now
You're going to QUIT now?!?!
We could be on the verge of a great discovery!
such is life, I'm very busy and have a stinking cold and have had enough of arguing over a point i don't feel I made and, I suspect, am being wound up
Ok, then I'll take a blind shot:
Law of Fives.
Epilepsy.
Limbic System Cascade.
A combination of any of the above.
How'd I do?
could be or could not be; I already said I don't know
could be chemical or physiological or could be something else; therre could be morer forces (i'm talking forces such as gravity etc here not literary/religio-mystic forces) at work in the universe which are beyond scientific means of explaination...
but there have been occurences which have been studied and recorded, though no explainations have been discovered.
Plus I know people, including cynics, who have experienced the same things I have and cannot explain them either, so i'm not sure about nuerochemical imbalance...again your opinion is fine (also I've learnt that you never share personal experiences and/or information on a forum, ever!)...so i'll not go into details if that's ok with you.
I think i've already brought up Occam's razor before.
In this case, a neurochemical cascade combined with the Law of Fives is WAAAAAAY simpler and more solid an explanation than "mysterious forces that science has not even named, much less proved."
like I said, I think what i think and too stubborn to change now
if you've never experienced anything which could be termed paranormal then maybe you have never had a need to try and explain them, until you have, you won't need to. I'm just saying some things I have experienced led to me seek answers and was curious
Yes, I've experienced Weird Shit.
I've been interested in the occult since 1987, and tried my hand at several disciplines. Some have had odd results, some have been dull, some have been terrifying. And I have looked for answers.
I see you say that you were curious, and sought answers; but why did you stop at poorly-understood quantum effects laid on top of clumsily-phrased mysticism?
horses for courses mate, that's all I can say...the scientific route did it for you and it didn't for me.
Um... Please note I never said I found all the answers to my questions.
And it's not about "doing it"... Sometimes the answers are less romantic than you'd like them to be, but that's not really the fault of the answer, is it?
You came here asking questions, but it seems you don't really want to hear what we have to say.
THIS IS THE MOST BORING ARGUMENT EVER
BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT IT'S SOME FUCKING PINEALIST DOUCHEBAG ANNOUNCING HE'S FOUND THE ANSWERS AND POUTING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FALLING FOR HIS BULLSHIT
UNNNNGGHHHH
SHUT UP AND PUT ON YOUR BIZARRE UNDERWEAR.
AT LEAST I'M NOT WILLFULLY IGNORANT ABOUT MY UNDERWEAR
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 06:36:19 PM
THIS IS THE MOST BORING ARGUMENT EVER
BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT IT'S SOME FUCKING PINEALIST DOUCHEBAG ANNOUNCING HE'S FOUND THE ANSWERS AND POUTING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FALLING FOR HIS BULLSHIT
UNNNNGGHHHH
NOT found the answers; read the post and I said I hadn't found any answers; I was simply wondering if anyone else had any ideas...ah fuck it
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 06:36:19 PM
THIS IS THE MOST BORING ARGUMENT EVER
BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT IT'S SOME FUCKING PINEALIST DOUCHEBAG ANNOUNCING HE'S FOUND THE ANSWERS AND POUTING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FALLING FOR HIS BULLSHIT
UNNNNGGHHHH
NOT found the answers; read the post and I said I hadn't found any answers; I was simply wondering if anyone else had any ideas...ah fuck it
EXCUSE ME.
YOU'RE INSISTING THAT THE ANSWERS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY FOUND ARE INSUFFICIENT, BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM.
EITHER WAY ALL YOU'RE DOING IS BEING A WANKER.
Ok fine, I give up for today I think.....that was not my intention at all and if it came across like that then fair enough....I'm just stating that this is not what i believe, how exactly is that being a wanker? Basically your opinion is, agree with what I believe in or you're a wanker?? Fuck you and the boat you came in on
I'M CALLING YOU A WANKER BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER OTHER ARGUMENTS, REFUSE TO LEARN WHAT QUANTUM ACTUALLY MEANS, AND CONSTANTLY RETREAT TO "WELL THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION AND THIS IS MY OPINION AND I'M NOT GONNA CHANGE EVER LALALALALALALALANOTLISTENINGFUCKYOULALALALALAL"
i acknowledged my lack of knowledge in the arena and commented on it no more....just because that stance doesn't work for me you resort to abuse, fine....not really helping in convincing me is it?
you refuse to accept my point of view too so how does that work?
THUS YOU ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT
WAYSA?
yeah badger yeah, I think the term is whatever?
do you even consider my viewpoint?
Your viewpoint is that you don't really know but you've formed a half-assed hypothesis based on soemthing you are completely ignorant about.
Woops, hypothesis is too scientifical. I meant to say opinion.
my opinion, ok, but you rejected that out of hand yes?
I did.
Here's my thought: If you don't believe the premise of your post, why didn't you try to research that premise deeper to see what it might really have been made of?
Furthermore, when other ideas were proposed, why did you say you were too stubborn change your mind, if you didn't believe what you were saying in the first place?
I always find it interesting when someone looking for answers doesn't look any deeper than a paragraph in a comic book saying, "maybe it's____________."
Ok, perhaps too harsh.
I gave the possibility of your opinion as you stated it being true at about 5%.
I gave the possibility of my explanation as being true at about 85%.
So, yeah.
I started this thread and I am now lost... :?
I have looked inot other explainations which also fail to explain things therefore i'm undecided....to be honest, it's almost the end of the a very long day and I was only on here for a bit of fun and it has stopped being that a long time ago. If you disagree with me then fine, no skin off of mine, really.
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 08, 2008, 07:18:12 PM
I started this thread and I am now lost... :?
USE BRAIN MUCH?
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 08, 2008, 07:18:12 PM
I started this thread and I am now lost... :?
became a bit of a flame fest mate, to be honest I'm not sure how it happened either, one comment of mine set this all off somehow, I've just been repeatedly trying to kill it off because that's not what I'm here for
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 08, 2008, 07:18:12 PM
I started this thread and I am now lost... :?
became a bit of a flame fest mate, to be honest I'm not sure how it happened either, one comment of mine set this all off somehow, I've just been repeatedly trying to kill it off because that's not what I'm here for
You could have just not responded instead of saying "Well...that's just, like, your OPINION man..."
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
i could have but I didn't; some people got personal and I chose to take exception.
like I said, you don't like how i dealt with it? Fine.
You've already formed your opinion and I have better things to do with my time than try to change it.
Bad debator... you never met jlar or mushy at the CoG
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 08, 2008, 07:18:12 PM
I started this thread and I am now lost... :?
became a bit of a flame fest mate, to be honest I'm not sure how it happened either, one comment of mine set this all off somehow, I've just been repeatedly trying to kill it off because that's not what I'm here for
You kill it by starving it.
Just saying.
Quote from: Dr Goofy Mofo on September 08, 2008, 07:24:24 PM
Bad debator... you never met jlar or mushy at the CoG
To be honest I registered an account there but I never posted because I couldn't find anything interesting.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 03:55:50 PM
Prove your point to put up and cease so be so narrow minded and opinionated eh?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbarklike I said, I think what i think and too stubborn to change now
:?
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Hopefully you've learned your lesson: if you get into an internet slapfight, devote your full attention to it.
Though on the other hand, having excuses is a good way to save face when you crash and burn in three threads simultaneously.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Now you know. What you said could basically be equated to going to an Astronomer's forum, and saying it was your opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and everyone should respect that.
have you not finished yet? You're slap fighting yourself and if that tickles your fancy, well I do have opinions on that but we'll save them for another day
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Now you know. What you said could basically be equated to going to an Astronomer's forum, and saying it was your opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and everyone should respect that.
I didn't actuallly say that anyone HAD to agree with my opinions though. If anyone can prove my opinions wrong I'll gladly accept correction but until they can I won't....no theory, hard, cold facts.
You might wanna just quit while you're not too far behind. Shouldn't you be working or something? Getting over that cold?
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:34:22 PM
Though on the other hand, having excuses is a good way to save face when you crash and burn in three threads simultaneously.
Three? Which one am I missing?
well you'd carry on if i weren't here anyway so why deny you any fun?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:35:20 PM
have you not finished yet? You're slap fighting yourself and if that tickles your fancy, well I do have opinions on that but we'll save them for another day
I'd agree with you, except you keep posting.
let's just say i'm startingf to be amused by certain people thinking they're actually upsetting me or 'winning'
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:37:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Now you know. What you said could basically be equated to going to an Astronomer's forum, and saying it was your opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and everyone should respect that.
I didn't actuallly say that anyone HAD to agree with my opinions though. If anyone can prove my opinions wrong I'll gladly accept correction but until they can I won't....no theory, hard, cold facts.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:40:22 PM
let's just say i'm startingf to be amused by certain people thinking they're actually upsetting me or 'winning'
We're ALREADY amused by certain people.
so much for discordians supposedly having open minds....that's another opinion of mine proven wrong i suppose
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:37:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Now you know. What you said could basically be equated to going to an Astronomer's forum, and saying it was your opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and everyone should respect that.
I didn't actuallly say that anyone HAD to agree with my opinions though. If anyone can prove my opinions wrong I'll gladly accept correction but until they can I won't....no theory, hard, cold facts.
You're not one of those people who feel that all theories have an equal value of truth, are you?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:42:34 PM
so much for discordians supposedly having open minds....that's another opinion of mine proven wrong i suppose
My mind is perfectly open to any well-argued point.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:42:34 PM
so much for discordians supposedly having open minds....that's another opinion of mine proven wrong i suppose
Wait-- we're supposed to take every half-baked sci-fi premise as true?
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:37:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Now you know. What you said could basically be equated to going to an Astronomer's forum, and saying it was your opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and everyone should respect that.
I didn't actuallly say that anyone HAD to agree with my opinions though. If anyone can prove my opinions wrong I'll gladly accept correction but until they can I won't....no theory, hard, cold facts.
You're not one of those people who feel that all theories have an equal value of truth, are you?
yes I am because most scientific theories have been disproven over time so many theories held today could well be. Not gravity and so forth obviously but some
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 06:17:06 PM
like I said, I think what i think and too stubborn to change now
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:42:34 PM
so much for discordians supposedly having open minds....that's another opinion of mine proven wrong i suppose
:?
not true, possible
I was going to compare theories to the vast number of species that fail to successfully evolve, but I'm sure you don't understand evolution either so...
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:37:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
I mean, you're the worst debater I have seen in a long-ass time. Ignorant AND inarticulate! What a combo!
oh what a charmer and wonderful debater you are too! I've got a stinking cold and am work so am often interrupted mid post...I also had no idea that thrown about ideas would be taken so seriously or so vociferously disagreed with. get personal if you like though, whatever floats your boat really
Now you know. What you said could basically be equated to going to an Astronomer's forum, and saying it was your opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and everyone should respect that.
I didn't actuallly say that anyone HAD to agree with my opinions though. If anyone can prove my opinions wrong I'll gladly accept correction but until they can I won't....no theory, hard, cold facts.
You're not one of those people who feel that all theories have an equal value of truth, are you?
yes I am because most scientific theories have been disproven over time so many theories held today could well be. Not gravity and so forth obviously but some
Gravity is actually in need of some serious reworking. The major unresolved problem in physics is how to reconcile relativity's interpretation of gravity with quantum mechanics.
Higgs boson.
Next?
I didn't know that but i accept your point
so basically I'm not from a scientific background nor massively well read on the subject therefore I'm thick because I look for alternative explainations to some things? That's the gist eh?
Jlar wrote a novel then told you you were close minded or did not read it when you responded and mushy well he just called you and idiot and never said anything different. The topics there have died in the last couple months or so. That is why I am here that and you guys raided us which was awesome
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
You're not one of those people who feel that all theories have an equal value of truth, are you?
yes I am because most scientific theories have been disproven over time so many theories held today could well be. Not gravity and so forth obviously but some
I theorize that the statement "all theories have an equal value of truth" is false.
WHAT NOW?!
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
so basically I'm not from a scientific background nor massively well read on the subject therefore I'm thick because I look for alternative explainations to some things? That's the gist eh?
Essentially, yes. Don't go looking for alternatives until AFTER the primary way doesn't work.
You're looking for alternatives FIRST.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
so basically I'm not from a scientific background nor massively well read on the subject therefore I'm thick because I look for alternative explainations to some things? That's the gist eh?
Well, since you haven't looked deeply into the most plausible explanations, and you haven't even researched the alternative explanations with any sort of rigor, then... yes.
Hell, if you had a coherent alternative explanation that actually made some sort of well-thought out sense to it, we could get down to it and see where it led.
Instead, you give me a 50/50 true/false matrix, and say that all things are either equally false, or equally true.
I think it's called an impasse isn't it?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
so basically I'm not from a scientific background nor massively well read on the subject therefore I'm thick because I look for alternative explainations to some things? That's the gist eh?
It's not hard to find pieces that explain science in simple, easily understood terms. You're "thick" because you didn't bother to find them, didn't bother to read them, didn't even bother to flesh out your "alternative explanations", and won't bother to change your mind now because you've spent waaaay too much effort defending your "opinions" to back down now.
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on September 08, 2008, 07:52:38 PM
...and won't bother to change your mind now because you've spent waaaay too much effort defending your "opinions" to back down now.
This, and the fact that you called
us narrow minded.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 08, 2008, 07:51:57 PM
I think it's called an impasse isn't it?
Not even close. It's called "monstering".
With apologies to Spider Jerusalem.
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2008, 09:58:50 PM
Okay, so I get a bit spiritual about biology. Its part of who I am. A really interesting book I'm reading right now is Reinventing the Sacred by Stuart Kauffman. Its essential thesis is the movement towards creative nature = God, and uses arguments of biology being emergent and irreducible to physics, as systems that are doings rather than happenings, with individuals that posses teleos (will). It also contains lots of interesting science tidbits with philosophical leanings, and I haven't found anything thus far that would turn me off, no new agishness, no buzzwords.
Maybe thats right up your alley.
I don't know if you will wade through the muck to see this reply, but i wanted to ask if you could expand on what Kauffman is talking about re: 'movement towards creative nature'. That might be interesting. that would imply a progress, though, no?
I recently read a book by Douglas Hoffstadter (sp?) (He's the fella that wrote "Godel, Escher, Bach"....one of my favorite authors) titled "I am a Strange Loop" that explores consciousness in the context of a type of self reference he calls a 'strange loop'. I think he goes a bit off the deep end in the second half of the book, but one of the concepts that he goes on about is the apparent 'top down causality' that can occur in complex systems with emergence. I have thought about that and have a vague notion that it could be extrapolated generally to the universe at large, lending some sort of 'intelligence' that I am willing to think of as 'God'. of course it could be a 'teleos' about as comprehensible to us as ours is to objects the scale of which we haven't drilled deep enough to label, though......
I, too, find the 'mundane' world around us to be spiritually interesting, without resorting to some 'otherness'.....
Quote from: Iptuous on September 08, 2008, 08:31:31 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2008, 09:58:50 PM
Okay, so I get a bit spiritual about biology. Its part of who I am. A really interesting book I'm reading right now is Reinventing the Sacred by Stuart Kauffman. Its essential thesis is the movement towards creative nature = God, and uses arguments of biology being emergent and irreducible to physics, as systems that are doings rather than happenings, with individuals that posses teleos (will). It also contains lots of interesting science tidbits with philosophical leanings, and I haven't found anything thus far that would turn me off, no new agishness, no buzzwords.
Maybe thats right up your alley.
I don't know if you will wade through the muck to see this reply, but i wanted to ask if you could expand on what Kauffman is talking about re: 'movement towards creative nature'. That might be interesting. that would imply a progress, though, no?
I recently read a book by Douglas Hoffstadter (sp?) (He's the fella that wrote "Godel, Escher, Bach"....one of my favorite authors) titled "I am a Strange Loop" that explores consciousness in the context of a type of self reference he calls a 'strange loop'. I think he goes a bit off the deep end in the second half of the book, but one of the concepts that he goes on about is the apparent 'top down causality' that can occur in complex systems with emergence. I have thought about that and have a vague notion that it could be extrapolated generally to the universe at large, lending some sort of 'intelligence' that I am willing to think of as 'God'. of course it could be a 'teleos' about as comprehensible to us as ours is to objects the scale of which we haven't drilled deep enough to label, though......
I, too, find the 'mundane' world around us to be spiritually interesting, without resorting to some 'otherness'.....
Yes, I waded through. I've seen this sort of thing time and time again. I find it both sad and highly amusing. I'm actually very near flaming this person, for being ridiculous (i.e. worthy of ridicule), for causing a 3 page thread to skyrocket to 10 pages in a day while I am away at class, and because I just find it fun. My flaming is always good for a laugh.
The progress that he talks about in the book is not biological, but social. His idea is that humans should move away from the traditional concept of god to a more scientific concept as god being the creativity in nature. You CAN mix spirituality and science, you just can't mix religion and science. Spirituality is personal and can be adapted to something as ever changing as science, while religion is very hard to change, very static.
I was reading last night about Kauffman's autonomic molecular idea. He believes that the least derived form of life that would be posessing of teleos, will, would be an autonomic molecular system that does work against a equilibrium gradient. He also talks quite a bit about abiogenesis in the process. Its all in all a very very interesting book, and I'm actually /learning/ about science while reading. Everything that humans write will be biased, but at least this book has a bias that I can comprehend and stand.
When I wrote the Process of Sustaining 2 years ago, I was trying to form a spiritual basis in a life that was dominated by scientific reasoning. Using biological principles of ecology, I formulated a personal ethic that feels trancendent yet keeps me grounded. Kauffman is trying to do the same with this book, and I respect and admire that.
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
I was just gonna ignore him, but...think maybe I should flame instead? I mean, I want to continue this convo with Ip, but can do that elsewhere.
Kai,
Always has room for a Scientastic Takedown.
With a rcommendation like that, i'll definitely have to check it out.
Is the work you mentioned writing what i found when searching written by buddhist_monk_wannabe?
Oh, btw, i just noticed that the current issue of SciAm has an article about genetic switches in it. I'll have to read that tonight.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 08, 2008, 11:33:49 PM
With a rcommendation like that, i'll definitely have to check it out.
Is the work you mentioned writing what i found when searching written by buddhist_monk_wannabe?
Oh, btw, i just noticed that the current issue of SciAm has an article about genetic switches in it. I'll have to read that tonight.
This: http://pseudobuddhaodiscordopastafarian.blogspot.com/2006/11/process-of-sustaining-in-universe-all.html
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
My username is a joke but thank you for comparing me to strangers. You can check around and find I was very polite and reasonable until people started to get personal and childish; I thought this site was going to avoid all of that rubbish; it would seem that i am wrong.....some folk appear to enjoy making fun of complete strangers they'll never meet wherever you go...shame really
If by willfully ignorant you mean "disagrees with me" then yes I indeed am and proud of it. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and realise your opinion is not what Western Civilisation is built upon.
I don't wear sweat pants period. In case you wish to draw any further poorly judged ideas about m, let me clear it up before I say ba-bye to this place (one day of this is enough, came here for a laugh, not an ego brawl); I am a National Cross Country Mountain Biking Champion and therefore not fat. I am a published author and therefore not in need of affirmation or respect. I am happily married and therefore not needy or of questionable sexuality. Just because I avoid mathematically based sciences, i am no fool and never will be but thanks for the mature comments, i shall treasure them always. I came on here for a bit of fun, a bit of research and irreverant chat. I met with supersized egos and the usual pack mentality one finds on these kinds of webpages, why do I bother. Neophobes the lot of you (not all, sorry some of the people I've met have been rather cool). Oh and no, not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
anyway, I've had enough so have fun and I shan't be back here again.
Ciao
I'm sorry, you can't be afraid of the "new" if you've already seen it a thousand times.
I'm sorry we don't think exactly the same way you do.
hey, his opinions are completely valid just because they're his opinions!
you be nice!
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
My username is a joke but thank you for comparing me to strangers. You can check around and find I was very polite and reasonable until people started to get personal and childish; I thought this site was going to avoid all of that rubbish; it would seem that i am wrong.....some folk appear to enjoy making fun of complete strangers they'll never meet wherever you go...shame really
If by willfully ignorant you mean "disagrees with me" then yes I indeed am and proud of it. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and realise your opinion is not what Western Civilisation is built upon.
I don't wear sweat pants period. In case you wish to draw any further poorly judged ideas about m, let me clear it up before I say ba-bye to this place (one day of this is enough, came here for a laugh, not an ego brawl); I am a National Cross Country Mountain Biking Champion and therefore not fat. I am a published author and therefore not in need of affirmation or respect. I am happily married and therefore not needy or of questionable sexuality. Just because I avoid mathematically based sciences, i am no fool and never will be but thanks for the mature comments, i shall treasure them always. I came on here for a bit of fun, a bit of research and irreverant chat. I met with supersized egos and the usual pack mentality one finds on these kinds of webpages, why do I bother. Neophobes the lot of you (not all, sorry some of the people I've met have been rather cool). Oh and no, not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
anyway, I've had enough so have fun and I shan't be back here again.
Ciao
Honest question - what'd you write?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
My username is a joke but thank you for comparing me to strangers. You can check around and find I was very polite and reasonable until people started to get personal and childish; I thought this site was going to avoid all of that rubbish; it would seem that i am wrong.....some folk appear to enjoy making fun of complete strangers they'll never meet wherever you go...shame really
Bull. Shit.
You were being far from polite and reasonable, and I never got personal and childish with you. Neither did LMNO, afaics. This site is filled with hairless apes, we often act like it.
Making fun of strangers? Not really, making fun of their patently ridiculous and poorly thought out "opinions" more like.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
If by willfully ignorant you mean "disagrees with me" then yes I indeed am and proud of it. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and realise your opinion is not what Western Civilisation is built upon.
Science and the scientific method ARE what a great deal of western civilisation is built on. Is this another of your poorly judged and researched comments
again? Hey, weren't you railing against the prevelance of this type of thought earlier in one of these threads?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
I don't wear sweat pants period. In case you wish to draw any further poorly judged ideas about m, let me clear it up before I say ba-bye to this place (one day of this is enough, came here for a laugh, not an ego brawl); I am a National Cross Country Mountain Biking Champion and therefore not fat. I am a published author and therefore not in need of affirmation or respect. I am happily married and therefore not needy or of questionable sexuality. Just because I avoid mathematically based sciences, i am no fool and never will be but thanks for the mature comments, i shall treasure them always. I came on here for a bit of fun, a bit of research and irreverant chat. I met with supersized egos and the usual pack mentality one finds on these kinds of webpages, why do I bother. Neophobes the lot of you (not all, sorry some of the people I've met have been rather cool). Oh and no, not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
anyway, I've had enough so have fun and I shan't be back here again.
Ciao
I don't care who you are IRL, or what you've done. I tried to point you in the right direction several times, but you ignored it.
I don't really think we'll miss you, or be anything but amused by your flounciness,
Mmmh, this thread had so much great stuff, it's a pity that there are mud holes everywhere.
maybe you should have eplained it to him in an easy way, I'll try, I can't write complicate English, cause it's not my native language:
@Lupi:
You said only humans evolved (oh, I can't even write this without getting goosebumps!): what makes you think so?
Have you been outside recently?
Apes are not very far from humans, in fact, they have self awarness, sense of humor, are able to play 'pretend' and Bonobos even have sex for fun and many birds recognize themselves in mirrors. just because they don't like sitting on a desk in a city office cube all day doesn't mean they didn't "evolve".
For my opinion, humans are no superior being in any way, they can't run fast, can't fight very good and have hardly any insulation left. We are pretty professionalized in cognitive thinking and are able to write our knowledge down for future generations, that's true, but that's all (or would you be able to invent the car new from scratch?).
And, as mentioned, it happended a lot the last thousand years: lactose tolerance in some areas (as mentioned), less ability to digest raw food, esp. meat, and our jaw went smaller, too: no room for wisdom teeth anymore... I'm sure there's more, esp. on molecular bases.
changes also depend on how fast the generation-change of a spezies is.
The only parts, where changes are faster and more obvious in long living animals, is usually when humans stick their fingers in (as to say breeding). But breeding is not adapting, those animals are less suitable for nature.
For me it's pretty obvious, that nothing on this planet is 'processing' towards a goal. Why? You never know how the environment will change (or how we will make it change)! There's nothing planned, it's adaption.
I have a question and hope I don't sound stupid, I don't have a professional insight into this and didn't read much books:
Are you able to lose information forever?
In bred animals, most professionals (sheep with ever growing hair, pigs with hardly any fat, hens who lay eggs, even when not fertilized...) are not able to survive in nature anymore. But we have seen, that some survive and adapt perfectly into niches again (Dingos, horses... and even regular house pigs managed to survive outside in winter). What would you call this re-adaption in a very short time (took less time than the breeding)?
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 09, 2008, 08:15:22 AM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
My username is a joke but thank you for comparing me to strangers. You can check around and find I was very polite and reasonable until people started to get personal and childish; I thought this site was going to avoid all of that rubbish; it would seem that i am wrong.....some folk appear to enjoy making fun of complete strangers they'll never meet wherever you go...shame really
Bull. Shit.
You were being far from polite and reasonable, and I never got personal and childish with you. Neither did LMNO, afaics. This site is filled with hairless apes, we often act like it.
Making fun of strangers? Not really, making fun of their patently ridiculous and poorly thought out "opinions" more like.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
If by willfully ignorant you mean "disagrees with me" then yes I indeed am and proud of it. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and realise your opinion is not what Western Civilisation is built upon.
Not you mate, you weren't rude but look at people spoiling for a fight who immediately were rude and insulting. I responded to them, perhaps I should have kept it out of the forum and for that I apologise. However, instead of just trashing my ideas, why not fill the gaps in my knowledge and calmly and pleasantly explained their viewpoint I'd have read and listened. "Oi you're thick and therefore a wanker" does little to endear however. I did say that I didn't include you in my less friendly comments though.
Simply I am bored though, I had hoped people would explain their views to me nicely before lilith did (which i appreciate by the way) but they chose not to. I do apologise to anyone who was offended but I'd already been wound up by apes by then
Science and the scientific method ARE what a great deal of western civilisation is built on. Is this another of your poorly judged and researched comments again? Hey, weren't you railing against the prevelance of this type of thought earlier in one of these threads?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
I don't wear sweat pants period. In case you wish to draw any further poorly judged ideas about m, let me clear it up before I say ba-bye to this place (one day of this is enough, came here for a laugh, not an ego brawl); I am a National Cross Country Mountain Biking Champion and therefore not fat. I am a published author and therefore not in need of affirmation or respect. I am happily married and therefore not needy or of questionable sexuality. Just because I avoid mathematically based sciences, i am no fool and never will be but thanks for the mature comments, i shall treasure them always. I came on here for a bit of fun, a bit of research and irreverant chat. I met with supersized egos and the usual pack mentality one finds on these kinds of webpages, why do I bother. Neophobes the lot of you (not all, sorry some of the people I've met have been rather cool). Oh and no, not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
anyway, I've had enough so have fun and I shan't be back here again.
Ciao
I don't care who you are IRL, or what you've done. I tried to point you in the right direction several times, but you ignored it.
I don't really think we'll miss you, or be anything but amused by your flounciness,
Quote from: Cain on September 09, 2008, 01:49:23 AM
I'm sorry we don't think exactly the same way you do.
Mate, that was never my point, it was HOW certain people disagreed which I had a problem with. I know some folk enjoy ranting on the internet but I'm not one of them. If just one person had calmly explained I would have listened but various people immediately seized the opportunity to jump all over my opinions rather than discussing, which is what i was hoping for.
I choose to leave (just wanted to see how long this would carry on without me here before I left, is that i don't feel there is much for me to gain here, so I'll look for an alternative instead.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2008, 04:26:44 AM
hey, his opinions are completely valid just because they're his opinions!
you be nice!
everyone's opinions are valid because they ARE their opinions. If you don't agree with their opinions you can TRY to convince them of yours. You may not always succeed but once you realise debate is not about winning or losing but perhaps learning from each other, you begin to accept that. I wasn't at my debating best yesterday and apologise that I let emotion get in the way. I will delete this account once I've replied to any posts I've received and then move on, ne'er to darken these portals again.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 10:59:14 AM
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 09, 2008, 08:15:22 AM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
My username is a joke but thank you for comparing me to strangers. You can check around and find I was very polite and reasonable until people started to get personal and childish; I thought this site was going to avoid all of that rubbish; it would seem that i am wrong.....some folk appear to enjoy making fun of complete strangers they'll never meet wherever you go...shame really
Bull. Shit.
You were being far from polite and reasonable, and I never got personal and childish with you. Neither did LMNO, afaics. This site is filled with hairless apes, we often act like it.
Making fun of strangers? Not really, making fun of their patently ridiculous and poorly thought out "opinions" more like.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
If by willfully ignorant you mean "disagrees with me" then yes I indeed am and proud of it. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and realise your opinion is not what Western Civilisation is built upon.
Science and the scientific method ARE what a great deal of western civilisation is built on. Is this another of your poorly judged and researched comments again? Hey, weren't you railing against the prevelance of this type of thought earlier in one of these threads?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
I don't wear sweat pants period. In case you wish to draw any further poorly judged ideas about m, let me clear it up before I say ba-bye to this place (one day of this is enough, came here for a laugh, not an ego brawl); I am a National Cross Country Mountain Biking Champion and therefore not fat. I am a published author and therefore not in need of affirmation or respect. I am happily married and therefore not needy or of questionable sexuality. Just because I avoid mathematically based sciences, i am no fool and never will be but thanks for the mature comments, i shall treasure them always. I came on here for a bit of fun, a bit of research and irreverant chat. I met with supersized egos and the usual pack mentality one finds on these kinds of webpages, why do I bother. Neophobes the lot of you (not all, sorry some of the people I've met have been rather cool). Oh and no, not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
anyway, I've had enough so have fun and I shan't be back here again.
Ciao
I don't care who you are IRL, or what you've done. I tried to point you in the right direction several times, but you ignored it.
I don't really think we'll miss you, or be anything but amused by your flounciness,
Not you mate, you weren't rude but look at people spoiling for a fight who immediately were rude and insulting. I responded to them, perhaps I should have kept it out of the forum and for that I apologise. However, instead of just trashing my ideas, why not fill the gaps in my knowledge and calmly and pleasantly explained their viewpoint I'd have read and listened. "Oi you're thick and therefore a wanker" does little to endear however. I did say that I didn't include you in my less friendly comments though.
Simply I am bored though, I had hoped people would explain their views to me nicely before lilith did (which i appreciate by the way) but they chose not to. I do apologise to anyone who was offended but I'd already been wound up by apes by then
Fixt.
Quote from: GA on September 09, 2008, 04:49:39 AM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2008, 11:22:46 PM
Lupernikus is some sort of bizarre synthesis of Wolfpoet and Eldora.
he is also either the dumbest or the most willfully ignorant person I've seen on here in a long time, including Lamanite and CowAss.
also, further proof that anyone with a username relating in any way to wolves is almost certainly a dipshit.
also also, I bet he wears sweatpants in public.
My username is a joke but thank you for comparing me to strangers. You can check around and find I was very polite and reasonable until people started to get personal and childish; I thought this site was going to avoid all of that rubbish; it would seem that i am wrong.....some folk appear to enjoy making fun of complete strangers they'll never meet wherever you go...shame really
If by willfully ignorant you mean "disagrees with me" then yes I indeed am and proud of it. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and realise your opinion is not what Western Civilisation is built upon.
I don't wear sweat pants period. In case you wish to draw any further poorly judged ideas about m, let me clear it up before I say ba-bye to this place (one day of this is enough, came here for a laugh, not an ego brawl); I am a National Cross Country Mountain Biking Champion and therefore not fat. I am a published author and therefore not in need of affirmation or respect. I am happily married and therefore not needy or of questionable sexuality. Just because I avoid mathematically based sciences, i am no fool and never will be but thanks for the mature comments, i shall treasure them always. I came on here for a bit of fun, a bit of research and irreverant chat. I met with supersized egos and the usual pack mentality one finds on these kinds of webpages, why do I bother. Neophobes the lot of you (not all, sorry some of the people I've met have been rather cool). Oh and no, not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
anyway, I've had enough so have fun and I shan't be back here again.
Ciao
Honest question - what'd you write?
thanks; science fiction, some poetry and a bit of fantasy fiction...novel in progress now which is what I'm researching
Quote from: Lilith on September 09, 2008, 10:18:47 AM
Mmmh, this thread had so much great stuff, it's a pity that there are mud holes everywhere.
maybe you should have eplained it to him in an easy way, I'll try, I can't write complicate English, cause it's not my native language:
@Lupi:
You said only humans evolved (oh, I can't even write this without getting goosebumps!): what makes you think so?
Have you been outside recently?
Apes are not very far from humans, in fact, they have self awarness, sense of humor, are able to play 'pretend' and Bonobos even have sex for fun and many birds recognize themselves in mirrors. just because they don't like sitting on a desk in a city office cube all day doesn't mean they didn't "evolve".
For my opinion, humans are no superior being in any way, they can't run fast, can't fight very good and have hardly any insulation left. We are pretty professionalized in cognitive thinking and are able to write our knowledge down for future generations, that's true, but that's all (or would you be able to invent the car new from scratch?).
And, as mentioned, it happended a lot the last thousand years: lactose tolerance in some areas (as mentioned), less ability to digest raw food, esp. meat, and our jaw went smaller, too: no room for wisdom teeth anymore... I'm sure there's more, esp. on molecular bases.
changes also depend on how fast the generation-change of a spezies is.
The only parts, where changes are faster and more obvious in long living animals, is usually when humans stick their fingers in (as to say breeding). But breeding is not adapting, those animals are less suitable for nature.
For me it's pretty obvious, that nothing on this planet is 'processing' towards a goal. Why? You never know how the environment will change (or how we will make it change)! There's nothing planned, it's adaption.
I have a question and hope I don't sound stupid, I don't have a professional insight into this and didn't read much books:
Are you able to lose information forever?
In bred animals, most professionals (sheep with ever growing hair, pigs with hardly any fat, hens who lay eggs, even when not fertilized...) are not able to survive in nature anymore. But we have seen, that some survive and adapt perfectly into niches again (Dingos, horses... and even regular house pigs managed to survive outside in winter). What would you call this re-adaption in a very short time (took less time than the breeding)?
thanks lilith, I appriate that.
I think something similar, how have humans adapted in civilised society to actually survive? Outside of our very specialised and artiificial envirnment, how long would we survive without our technology and lacking hunter's adaptations (except our brains). One theory I consider is that maybe our ability to create for creation's sake and to record is our purpose, to record and act as a kind of sensory apparatus for the universe. It's hard to explain but my belief is that everything in the universe is interconnected (an extrension of Gaia theory I suppose) in the same way the cells in our bodies are interconnected yet independant. We are our own private universes and processes and events take place every second of which we have no awareness or control yet they occur, for our good or our detriment. Now I'm not saying the universe is some vast spaghetti monster or suchlike, just that life attracts more life and is somehow connected through means we cannot yet quantify nor understand but are maybe on the verge of suspecting. Religion stood on the verge and then got frightened and turned back. Realisation that we are very small and unimportant in the universe is not a nice thought to have.
But yes, back to your post, we are not behaving well towards our own survival nor that of those creatures around us, maybe we're a virus?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 11:23:58 AM
I think something similar, how have humans adapted in civilised society to actually survive? Outside of our very specialised and artiificial envirnment, how long would we survive without our technology and lacking hunter's adaptations (except our brains). One theory I consider is that maybe our ability to create for creation's sake and to record is our purpose, to record and act as a kind of sensory apparatus for the universe. It's hard to explain but my belief is that everything in the universe is interconnected (an extrension of Gaia theory I suppose) in the same way the cells in our bodies are interconnected yet independant. We are our own private universes and processes and events take place every second of which we have no awareness or control yet they occur, for our good or our detriment. Now I'm not saying the universe is some vast spaghetti monster or suchlike, just that life attracts more life and is somehow connected through means we cannot yet quantify nor understand but are maybe on the verge of suspecting. Religion stood on the verge and then got frightened and turned back. Realisation that we are very small and unimportant in the universe is not a nice thought to have.
But yes, back to your post, we are not behaving well towards our own survival nor that of those creatures around us, maybe we're a virus?
More a parasite.
I personally don't believe in a cause. I also don't believe in a unite conscience.
We are living now on this planet and have the questionable luck to realize it. We are curious but not able to explain everything we see, so we think about stuff.
But that's no explanation.
If you look at the mind blowing space and time in the universe, we are a pretty unimportant dust spot in space and nobody cares if we will kill this planet, cause it'll blow up with the sun anyway in a few seconds. It's very probable that there is intelligent life somewhere else, but they are very likely in the same position.
Hey, we won't even make it as long as the dinosaurs did (with a brain the size of a walnut), so where's the big advantage here?
For my part, it could even be that we are in a Microcosmos and our universe is part of an atomic nucleus in another being playing hockey (or whatever they did in MIB!)... but we won't find out and actually I don't care much :)
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
... [I am] not published as in on a wee webpage or stapled periodical either.
HE WAS PUBLISHED AS IN A HEAVY WEIGHT SATIN PAPER, SPIRAL BOUND, EMBOSSED, DIE-CUT, HOLOGRAPHIC-ASS
TOME! :cramstipated:
This is all the info you're getting out of me, and it's from a wee webpage:
Quote from: LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
... We were interested in the source of discovery: the neurocognitive processes of creativity. ... We applied specific complex magnetic fields of less than 1 microTesla over the right hemisphere. The most frequent result was the experience of the sense of a presence or of another Sentient Being.
... We have found that: 1) the verbal label (usually supplied by the culture) the person places upon the experience strongly affects how it is recalled even within a few seconds after the end of the experiment, 2) experiences along the left side are usually aversive while those associated with the right side are more positive and may have "thoughts" associated with them,3) increased geomagnetic activity in association with right hemispheric stimulation encourages the incidence of a sensed presence, 4) when a person attempts to "focus" upon the sensed presence it appears to become dynamic (to "move") since the act of focusing alters brain activity and hence how the applied complex fields interact with the brain, 5) an inordinate number of people who experience a sensed presence attribute them to gods or deceased individuals, 6) about 7% of the population, particularly males with enhanced temporal lobe lability and who attend a religious place frequently), report that if god told them to kill they would in his name, and 7) certain patterns of applied magnetic fields produce subjective experiences that are sometimes considered "parapsychological" or "paranormal". By applying a specific sequence of magnetic fields through the brain of a person who had experienced a "haunt", we generated the experience as well as paroxysmal electrical activity that suggested a source deep within the right temporal lobe.
http://oldwebsite.laurentian.ca/neurosci/_research/mystical.htm
THOSE TESTIMONIALS SOUND AWFULLY CONVINCING. FUCK THOSE NARROW MINDED SCIENTISTS FOR DISCOUNTING SOOPER-VALID OPINIONS! CLEARLY THEY HAVE STUMBLED UPON A QUANTUM PORTAL DIRECTLY INTO GAIA'S WORMHOLE.
YUO CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT.
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Netaungrot on September 09, 2008, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
... We were interested in the source of discovery: the neurocognitive processes of creativity. ... We applied specific complex magnetic fields of less than 1 microTesla over the right hemisphere. The most frequent result was the experience of the sense of a presence or of another Sentient Being.
... We have found that: 1) the verbal label (usually supplied by the culture) the person places upon the experience strongly affects how it is recalled even within a few seconds after the end of the experiment, 2) experiences along the left side are usually aversive while those associated with the right side are more positive and may have "thoughts" associated with them,3) increased geomagnetic activity in association with right hemispheric stimulation encourages the incidence of a sensed presence, 4) when a person attempts to "focus" upon the sensed presence it appears to become dynamic (to "move") since the act of focusing alters brain activity and hence how the applied complex fields interact with the brain, 5) an inordinate number of people who experience a sensed presence attribute them to gods or deceased individuals, 6) about 7% of the population, particularly males with enhanced temporal lobe lability and who attend a religious place frequently), report that if god told them to kill they would in his name, and 7) certain patterns of applied magnetic fields produce subjective experiences that are sometimes considered "parapsychological" or "paranormal". By applying a specific sequence of magnetic fields through the brain of a person who had experienced a "haunt", we generated the experience as well as paroxysmal electrical activity that suggested a source deep within the right temporal lobe.
http://oldwebsite.laurentian.ca/neurosci/_research/mystical.htm
So what you're saying is that it's all mind control laz0rs, right?
That is actually quite interesting, I do think there is some electromagnetic component in these phenomenon though. Interferance of some kind certainly. Did they go further in these experiments? If it can be artificially induced, perhaps there are conditions where it can naturally occur?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 09, 2008, 11:49:03 AM
That is actually quite interesting, I do think there is some electromagnetic component in these phenomenon though. Interferance of some kind certainly. Did they go further in these experiments? If it can be artificially induced, perhaps there are conditions where it can naturally occur?
WHEN IT NATURALLY OCCURS I TRAVEL THROUGH GAIA'S WORMHOLE WITH THE FULL FORCE OF A RHINOVIRUS.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 09, 2008, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Netaungrot on September 09, 2008, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
... We were interested in the source of discovery: the neurocognitive processes of creativity. ... We applied specific complex magnetic fields of less than 1 microTesla over the right hemisphere. The most frequent result was the experience of the sense of a presence or of another Sentient Being.
... We have found that: 1) the verbal label (usually supplied by the culture) the person places upon the experience strongly affects how it is recalled even within a few seconds after the end of the experiment, 2) experiences along the left side are usually aversive while those associated with the right side are more positive and may have "thoughts" associated with them,3) increased geomagnetic activity in association with right hemispheric stimulation encourages the incidence of a sensed presence, 4) when a person attempts to "focus" upon the sensed presence it appears to become dynamic (to "move") since the act of focusing alters brain activity and hence how the applied complex fields interact with the brain, 5) an inordinate number of people who experience a sensed presence attribute them to gods or deceased individuals, 6) about 7% of the population, particularly males with enhanced temporal lobe lability and who attend a religious place frequently), report that if god told them to kill they would in his name, and 7) certain patterns of applied magnetic fields produce subjective experiences that are sometimes considered "parapsychological" or "paranormal". By applying a specific sequence of magnetic fields through the brain of a person who had experienced a "haunt", we generated the experience as well as paroxysmal electrical activity that suggested a source deep within the right temporal lobe.
http://oldwebsite.laurentian.ca/neurosci/_research/mystical.htm
So what you're saying is that it's all mind control laz0rs, right?
NO.
THE SUBJECT'S REPORTS WERE ALL 100% ACCURATE—A SUPERNATURAL WORMHOLE OPENS UP WHEN THEY TURN ON THEIR ELECTROMAGNETS WITH THE SACRED FLUID INJECTED. I THINK THEY ALSO MIGHT MAGIC THE FUCK OUT OF SOME COMPUTERS AND SACRIFICE A FEW HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR GOOD MEASURE.
Lupe, you must take into account that many, many people here have already heard 90-95% of the Alternative Science/Madgick/Paranormal theories and explanations out there.
And we've discussed them, and processed them, and held them up to the light. And we've come to our own conclusions.
So, you're kind of mistaken when you call us neophobes. It's just that we're a couple of steps ahead, and have been there, done that.
I think you might be under the misapprehension that we've never heard of your theories before. We have.