A Bastard Universe

NO.

THe transplant notion only holds if ALL life on earth were transplanted.
Life on earth is fundementally related on a biochemical level. I'll spare you the science- but I've described it in this forum many times before.

 

Why? This is to claim then that there's no purpose to our being here, correct? Do you understand my reference to the term "bastard" then?

Do you believe there's an afterlife?

In terms of that which is natural, which our bodies are, yes, this is correct.

 

Without an intenal reality, how could we recognize an external reality? How can we acknowledge the truth without a mind?

And when we've trashed the eco-system there won't be an environment to live in now would there? Which is why I ask, Why do we continue to bastardize our existence?

Here's an interesting thread that I participated in called, the universe is all in our heads ...

So the Universe is inherently dumb then, correct?

 

Iacchus,
"Why? This is to claim then that there's no purpose to our being here, correct? Do you understand my reference to the term "bastard" then?"

Not at all. purpose isn't my bag. I have no opinion on such.I just look for the science part of the question and answer. I also guard for misrepresentations of science

I was "no-ing" the transplant idea.

"Do you believe there's an afterlife?"

I don't have these types of beliefs. At the moment, "afterlife" does not fit the definition of Reality, so it is not within my realm of interest. I have no opinion.
I can easily be swayed upon encountering objective evidence, however.

 

Yes, wherein does the ignorance lie?

 

Iacchus..

Have you considered that we are here to BE humanity....
And humanity is here because maybe this reality is structured to result in conscious
self aware beings.
Be they humanity or any others in this reality...

You cannot expect anyone to believe humanity has no purpose when we understand only a fraction of why and how reality itself works..
Let alone what it is for.

If YOU do not believe YOU have a purpose..say so...Dont say HUMANITY has none.For you speak only for yourself..not occam or the other 6.2 something billions of human
individuals..
Occam has made his own purpose...
Maybe .... That IS our purpose....

Occam

-----------
Maybe when the body and consciousness die,,,we go off to where we were before we were born.
nihilo

 

Not if it means giving ourselves credit for our own existence. No. Purpose does not just arrive at your doorstep without prior warning. Neither am I implying purpose doesn't eixst, because it does. It's just that we are the effects, as the result of some even greater purpose.

 

Iaachus

Good...Occams very core philosophy is that our lives are ours ..for free.
We did not self create them..We, each being gets existance for FREE..

Purpose is a thing only of conscious beings.
Rocks ask not of purpose...or suns. Their purpose is defined for them
You suggest we are the effects of purpose in our reality.
And occam agrees.
Why?
Because we each strive for meaning...
And we do so because reality has made us that way.
So REALITY holds the answers to purpose.

And while WE WORK OUT REALITY..Occam defines his purpose FOR HIMSELF..As the understanding of reality and our purpose.

Thus reality MAY..Allow the existance of beings such as you and occam to do one thing..
Understand why we exist...
When we do that...
maybe some 'god' will came calling with these words on its lips.

Thank myself ..some rational company.

Occam

 

Disarm Wrote:


"Mama evolution can go blow herself, for all I care. Evolution is a trial and error deal, where a change (however small) in the species happens suddenly to one animal due to gene/protein mixups when the baby is made, is more often than not fatal, and IF it proves helpful to the species (proven basically by the animal's survival) then more in the species get this alteration, through that animal's mating. I don't see this as perfect or even a good system. For example downs syndrome is certainly not good for the advancement of humans, but we continue to have children with it, due to no fault of our own, despite history teaching us that it is not an advantage but a handicap to the person. If the universe was perfect would species not 'learn' genetically that certain combinations were bad? No, it's trial and error, anything can happen when daddy sperm meets mummy egg."
-----------------------------------
GeckoPelli Responded with:

You simply have no grasp of evolution or genetics.
------------------------------------------

Geckopelli, Can you please explain why you accused Disarm of having no grasp of Evolution or Genetics based on what she wrote?

Can you tell us specifically (or even basically) where she went wrong and why?

Can you indicate how Evolution and Genetics works differently than how she suggested?

Thanks.. i really want to know?

 

You dont really care what the details are, since you will just refute them anyway, you just want fodder to argue about, that is my guess. i could very well be wrong, but that has been my experience.

 

I agree with Disarms post, the vast majority of mutations result in death. The rare advantageous ones survive and, advantageous, multiply. Thereby eventually becoming universally shared. I believe this.
Bad sight, hairlessness, etc. will someday be a shared trait of our kind, if this is true. These traits are not handicaps like they were before, and are becoming more common as a result.
A bunch of hairless, bespectacled fatheads without baby toes is what I see us heading for. Weak, tiny, and superbrainy....kinda like the et's in close encounters. (that is us, they are conspiring to prepare us for 'our' return in 8 years.........time is an illusion. The present is the only reality, God says so.)

 

BlackGuard.. your making a good case for devolution (the opposite of Evolutionist faith in ascension)

Based on what we observe - There are occasional losses or mutations of ALREADY existing Genes.

This means in a few million years we would be a whole bunch of retards \

but seriously folks.. we need to see minimum 51% 'Good' Mutations in order for ANY upward evolving.

Considering we dont see any.. its not looking good for upward evolutionism

 

I like to call it regression as opposed to progression.
We are going downhill. this whole ludicrous evolutions vs. creation crap is useless bullshit.......the perfect evidence of how far we have fallen.
glad i made myself clear on that point for ya. we are in the shit.

 

If you had the slightest grasp of mathematics and genetics you'd know how ignorant you sound.

"Upward" evolving is null. A human judgement, nothing more. "Survival of the fittest" means fit for the environment.

As for "needed percentages", a survival rate of 0.000000001% for genetic mutations would be far more than sufficent to account for Evolution.

So basically- once more you're mistaking your uninformed opinion for reality.

Wallow in your ignorance if you must, fool. But as Long as you present moronic religious beliefs as science I'll be there to call you on it.

 

I find it interesting how Brocktoon just makes up information he thinks sounds good in order to try make a point. Seems to be if it sounds good to him, then it must be true!

To bad it doesn't work that way...

 

You are not grasping mathematics and genetics when YOU decided to understand the word 'Upward' in emotional or 'popularity' terms.

CLEARLY I was speaking mathematics.

A walking talking real-life Elephant is MUCH MORE COMPLEX Mathematically speaking than a Germ.

BTW - Upward Mobility and Ascension are all words you hero's bandy about so deal with it.

This is easily a winner for this years most 'Astonishingly Dumbass and amazingly wrong' statement every made by someone who just pretended to understand basic mathematics.

WOW!

First of all Dr.Science - you DO NOT have a situation in which the negative mutation simply 'dont make it' LOL!

You have to have a HIGHER SURVIVAL RATE of 'Beneficial Mutations' than the SURVIVAL RATE of 'Regular BAD Mutations'.

Its true that many mutations are 'Lethal' to the organism before it reproduces .. but the ones we are talking about are the ones which survive in the organism - which then reproduces.

Your Theory is TOTALLY FUCKED LOL!

Not that there is ANY reason to believe that one in a million organism produces new and beneficial genes anyway!

Now because you intend to reply to this post with some flame-baiting 'dismissal'..

Here is an article that might 'make you think'.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/evolution/plaisted

In Particular:

Now, apes and humans are thought to have split about 10
million years ago, and have about a 2 percent difference in DNA. The
human genome has about 3 billion base pairs and about 300 million base
pairs of functional DNA (assuming 10 percent of 3 billion base pairs
are functional). Assuming that most of this 2 percent change is
non-functional DNA, this implies a rate of evolution of one percent in
10 million years, which implies 3 million point mutations in 10
million years in the functional DNA. Two-thirds of these would be
harfmul, or, 2 million in 10 million years. This is about one point
mutation in the functional DNA every five years, or about 6 every
generation. Counting both parents, this gives 12 mutations per
zygote, with a chance of only 1/(2.718 ^ 12) (less than 1 in 100,000)
that a zygote will survive and be able to have offspring at
equilibrium. Of course, this is ridiculous.

Interestingly (and based on REAL SCIENCE...)


From standard reference materials, observed mutation rates inhumans appear to be between .5 and 4 per 100,000 gametes (sperm oregg). The average is about one per 100,000 gametes among livingorganisms, but may be considerably higher. For humans, the average isabout four per 100,000 gametes. This would lead to eight harmfulmutations per zygote (fertilized egg) on the average, at 100,000 genesin the human. This would mean that at equilibrium, only about1/(2.718)^8 or less than 1/3000 of the zygotes could develop intoreproducing individuals!! This can only be reconciled with reality by assuming that thehuman race is only a few hundred generations old at most, initiallydefect-free, or that the harmful mutations are clustered in a fewindividuals who are very unlikely to have surviving offspring. In thelatter case, the number of effective mutations available for evolutionwould be much smaller.

Wow.. another flame-baiting insult comment from you.

Maybe you should prove me wrong and explain where Plastaid is gone wrong in his explanation of WHY YOUR NOT EVEN CLOSE to 'Getting' why you NEED 50 + ONE to even START progressing in your Evolutionism Myth!

 

Sera.. what you just did there is known as 'Projecting'.

In case you thought i made THAT up - feel free to look it up.

Otherwise, please stop annoying the Boards.
Thanks

 

Hey, how come you can project, and she can't? You have done it dozens of times with me...even putting your own words down as being mine....
lol

 

BlackyG.. before attempting another 'I know you are.. but what am I?' retort:
Please Read the original Post.

In it - I tease HER of Projecting.

So when your comeback starts with "Why can you project but she cant ..."
['Punchline' ensues]
....
....
See why that doesnt really work?
Please try again.