it is pretty interesting, but it seems like there are too many differing opinions to really make it a theory rather than a collcetion of neat ideas.
There are more PhD holding historians who deny the holocaust than there are PhD holding biologists who deny common ancestry. I assure you, any holes you believe you found in the theory have been found, looked into and explained by hundreds of people much, much smarter than you.
I siply mean that if I try and use the Bible to try and explain God, you guys will be all like "no he didn't bring that weak mojo in here" so I'm trying to represent my case in a somewhat naturallistic view
There are more PhD holding historians who deny the holocaust than there are PhD holding biologists who deny common ancestry. I assure you, any holes you believe you found in the theory have been found, looked into and explained by hundreds of people much, much smarter than you.
They aren't holes I found, Read the case for a creator by lee strobel
I siply mean that if I try and use the Bible to try and explain God, you guys will be all like "no he didn't bring that weak mojo in here" so I'm trying to represent my case in a somewhat naturallistic view
Well I would not think it fair of you to use the bible on THIS thread, since this is the Atheism thread. If you want to start talking about the bible you should either make a new thread, or go to one with a different set of starting assumptions.
If you want to prove that God exists HERE, you probably should stick to natural laws, since that is something most atheists will respond to.
Also, I am not trying to be mean, but your first few posts seemed to have a lot of thought put into them, these later ones, not so much. Your probably should think a bit more before posting, especially in the debate area.
These protiens would have to be specifically placed and arranged to do exactly the right job for the cell they are attached to to move, and if the probability of one-thousand just falling into place is well outside of impossible (impossible is anything over 1x10 to the -50)
Heres a little game for you to play.
Roll one thousand dice. What are the chances that they will all land on 6 at the exact same time? Slim to nihil. What are the chances that each one will land on 6 at some point though?
Try this:
Roll one thousand dice. They don't all land on 6 at the same time, but some of them do in fact land on 6. Those you can just set aside. Why? Because if they have already fallen in place then there is no need to reroll them again now is there?
So once you have rolled 1000 dice and set aside all the ones that have landed on 6, reroll the remaining dice. Roughly about a sixth of those will land on 6, right? So set those aside with the rest of the sixes and continue on with what remains.
If you keep at this long enough, eventually all of the dice will have "fallen in place".
The point here is that these proteins don't all have to arrange themselves at the same time; they can arrange themselves gradually over the course of millions of generations. As the pieces fall into place, they form structures that can become useful for a number of purposes. As more pieces accumulate, these structures can grow and change to either perform their purpose better or take on a new purpose. Sometimes multiple structures can come together and have synergy.
Think about it in terms of Magic: the Gathering. You could say that some combos are irreducably complex in that you need all of the cards that make it up in order to pull off the combo. If one combo piece is missing, the combo falls apart. However, in some cases many of the components of these combos are useful all by themselves. Dark Ritual, Yawgmoth's Will, and Tendrils of Agony all have seperate functions. They do not require each other to perform their individual functions, but when they do come together they can have an additional function that can potentially win the game.
You can also think of this in terms of Captain Planet. Each of the five magical rings worn by the Planeteers is useful all by themselves. One of them lets the kid shoot fire, one of them lets the kid make rocks pop out of the ground... heck, even the heart one, while only conditionally useful, is indeed useful sometimes. Each ring has a power unto itself, but when all five rings come together they can call upon the awesome power of Captain Planet. Genes work kind of like that.
I can go on with a parable about Power Rangers (or Gao Gai Gar or Voltron or whatever you prefer) but I think I've made my point. Each of those proteins is useful by itself but together they have synergy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
these examples would be good if individual strands of protien just hangin off a cell were inherently useful, but they're just little rods of chemicals.
i would also like to bring up tthe topic of a concious mind. At what point did a body say,"you know, I would like to make a concious mind that could make possibly self sacrificing ideals or notions and set them loose with another little idea I popped up: a concience." ? the concious mind hasnt been explained in any texts ive read and is a big, big thing. i would also like to point out that if you put a lot of computers together, they dont form a concious ness, no matter how complex the programming is. The brain doesn't work exactly this way, but you get my point.
these examples would be good if individual strands of protien just hangin off a cell were inherently useful, but they're just little rods of chemicals.
Who says they aren't useful? Even if they are only conditionally useful, like The Power of Heart, it's better to have them than to not have them at all.
i would also like to bring up tthe topic of a concious mind. At what point did a body say,"you know, I would like to make a concious mind that could make possibly self sacrificing ideals or notions and set them loose with another little idea I popped up: a concience." ? the concious mind hasnt been explained in any texts ive read and is a big, big thing. i would also like to point out that if you put a lot of computers together, they dont form a concious ness, no matter how complex the programming is. The brain doesn't work exactly this way, but you get my point.
Again, evolution is not sudden and drastic; it's gradual.
The body never simply decided one day to have a concious mind, it developed over time from more simplistic behaviors. Look at nature. There is no magical on/off switch between the human mind and the minds of more simplistic organisms. Rather, there is a pattern of gradation between the most simplistic organisms and their behaviors and the more complex organisms and their behaviors. The human mind is more complex than that of our predecessors which is in turn more complex than that of their predecessors which is in turn more complex than that of their predecessors, etc.
The thing you have to understand that the brain is modular. You have one part of your brain for motor control, you have another part of your brain for social skills, you have another part of your brain for short term memory and another part for long term memory, and many other individual parts that serve their own individual functions. If you take away the part of your brain that allows you to perform mathematics, you lose the functionality of that part of the brain but the rest of the brain will still function. Each of those functions can develop seperately over time stemming from the primitive reptilian brain that our distant ancestors initially started out with to regulate their autonomous bodily functions.
The brain is not irreducably complex. It's possible to function with 50% of a human brain or less, most organisms on this planet do!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
these examples would be good if individual strands of protien just hangin off a cell were inherently useful, but they're just little rods of chemicals.
That's completely false. One of the defining characteristics of a protein is that it can change its shape, in other words it can do some sort of work and perform some sort of function. A single structure of "muscle" protein can contract and relax and perform some fort of function in a simple organism.
fine, I won't use that argument as long as you dont
That's fine by me, but that also means you can't use the "life is too complex to happen by chance" argument at all, because it begs one of those two answers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
So effectively what you're saying is if I make a computer complex enough, it will give me some 'tude when i tell it to turn off? the complexity does matter, but what part of the brain is conciousness located in? i am also surprised you guys havent jumped on the Cambrian explosion thing. i haven't read up on brain chemistry, so I might not be able to rebut everything.
Look, I kinda hijacked this thread, so im gonna not post anymore.
So effectively what you're saying is if I make a computer complex enough, it will give me some 'tude when i tell it to turn off?
It's possible, we don't really know. But there are some fundamental differences between the way a computer functions and the way a brain functions. No matter how fast or how many bits throughput a processor has, it still functions linearly, that is it takes some input, does something with it, and outputs something, then takes some input, etc. A brain receives input through multiple channels simultaneously and is constantly updating it's output accordingly.
If a computer had a few hundred million complete microprocessors all working together instead of one or two processors like computers today, it might function closer to how a brain works.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
So effectively what you're saying is if I make a computer complex enough, it will give me some 'tude when i tell it to turn off?
Ever see the movie Terminator?
And I'll give you two species, a pre-cambrian explosion lifeform(shell-fish) and a modern day cow.
Uh huh...
The cambrian explosion was a period of time when there was only a few types of shellfish, then in around 10,000 years there were a multitude of body types that could noot have developed in that time.
You wanna give me some evidence to back that positive statement up, champ? How do you figure that those body types could not have developed in that time?
Lets bear in mind that in more simplistic organisms like shellfish, genetic changes tend to be more visible due to the fact that they have fewer genes compared to that of cows and that genetic drift becomes noticable more quickly due to their shorter life spans and faster reproductive cycles.
There are 0 transitional forms for the pre-cambrian animals and the post cambrian animals. Zero.
Define "transitional form". Everytime I've heard this from creationists in the past I get the impression that they are expecting me to show them some kind of bizzarre chimeric monster to prove that "a mosquito can come from an elephant!!!1" (Thats no straw-man. I've actually heard this from my own parents.)
Strictly speaking, anything can be a transitional form. Every species has to have evolved from another species, and in turn every species can branch out and evolve to the point that some of it's members speciate into a new species. In that sense, every species that has ever existed is a potential transition from one species to another.
Unless you are talking about "half a wing" or something. As I pointed out in earlier posts, the smaller structures that make up larger "irreducably complex" structures can have individual functions that are useful by themselves. For example, the bone structures that make up wings can be useful for climbing while the excess layers of skin can be useful for regulating body temperature or for making yourself appear larger to scare away predators. Thus, a "transitional form" may not be easily recognizable as such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
So effectively what you're saying is if I make a computer complex enough, it will give me some 'tude when i tell it to turn off? the complexity does matter, but what part of the brain is conciousness located in?
That last question, nobody can answer. That is because conciousness is an arbitrary property. One will call something concious, another will not.
The same goes for intelligence. Something isn't just intelligent or not. Organisms may be more or less intelligent than any other. The size or complexity of a computer has really not much to do with its intelligence. A computer with 100 GB is not smarter than one with 100 MB. It may store more information, but it is not smarter. You could even say that a graphic calculator (25 Kb) is smarter than a remote hard drive (100 Gb), because it can do much more.
An adult human has a brain weight of 1,350 grams. [source]
An killer whale has a brain weight of 5,620 grams. [source]
Does that make a killer whale 4 times more intelligent than man? No. Do killer whales speak in natural language? No.
Another thing, on the spontaneous protein discussion:
The example of the dice is very close. Not all proteins are created perfectly at one single time. Many of them failed, and are forgotten, but only the best survived. Where did we hear this before? Evolution!
Why don't we find many fossils of "transition forms" between apes and humans? because they were highly unstable. So there weren't many of them. And, even more, they lived millions of years ago. So the chances of a skeleton lying around in perfect shape for millions of years, is extremely unlikely.
I study artificial intelligence at an university in Amsterdam. One of the projects that came by was something like Spontaneous Walking.
You started with a cube, then added another cube at any side. It can move now. Then, you add another one. Each time, you pick the 'bot' that moves the most optimal of all, and you add another cube to it. After a while, you get a walking bot, only consisting of some joint cubes.
One of these experiments was done in 'water' (free movement, no floor), and the optimal solution was found in a snake-form.
So, evolution was shown, with only very simple rules. Every other form (something like a T or a V form) just wasn't up to the test, so it died soon.
Some may say these experiments prove the Theory of Evolution.
There are more PhD holding historians who deny the holocaust than there are PhD holding biologists who deny common ancestry. I assure you, any holes you believe you found in the theory have been found, looked into and explained by hundreds of people much, much smarter than you.
Why do you need to diss the man by saying such thing. You don't need to be a genious to have an opinion. So don't use a fallacy of an explaination by probably, but nacessairy so, smarter people than him.
Further more, I'm a Biology student and do believe in the evolution. But, seriously there are some big holes. And this doesn't mean that because there are some holes God excists. But not everything can be solved, how badly people want it though.
My example is this; you've got the step of non-sexual to sexual reproduction. A Jellyfish is a creature with a medusa stage and a polyp stage. Maybe I'm mistaken here because of the translation, but this Jellyfish explains everything from the beginning till forward of the sexual reproduction. The hole is actually before the sexual reproduction. The development of sexual organs is not really something which can be explained by, change in genes, etc, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
I've updated the first post with several quotes and definitions. It's starting to look more like an actual FAQ. Any comments or tips are welcomed.
So another question for the thread:
We can measure anything, from heat to density, from length to color. Then why have we never measured anything resembling a god?
Afterwards, ask yourself the question: did these creatures seem intelligent to you? Maybe even a little? If they did, you may want to reconsider your beliefs of intelligence, because you have been watching a bunch of blocks.
About the computer replica thing. It is very uncertain if the computer can be called concious. But if it is as highly complex as you mentioned, and especially if it is a replica of a concious person, why would it not be concious?
Another fun question is: If two identical twins are born (which were the same person for a while) and one of them is concious, could that person claim for sure the other is too?
The problem with Christianity is in order to believe in Christianity (and ultimately a Christian God) you have to intentionally disregard logic. Under no other context is believing in something you can't prove or disprove acceptable. You can't disprove the existence of a secret organization of people that tracks every single thing you do, records it to a database, and then later uses that information to punish you on your death bed. Of course not! But pretending that a magical man in the sky is this secret book keeper makes it completely okay?
I'm sorry, but just because it was written 2,000 years ago does not make it okay.
I'm atheist because it's less offensive to my human intelligence than believing in something imaginary.
For someone who tries to avoid offenses to your own intelligence, you sure are good at offending others'.
I'm no expert in the field, but I'd say conjugation is a very likely precursor to actual sexual reproduction, and it's not such a huge leap to go from asexual to conjugation either.
No it isn't. Allthough you can see it as sexual reproduction, it isn't.
See in conjugation you just need another mate, sexual reproduction is about fusion of gametes and getting zygote.
So how do you explain a plain polyp becoming a medusa producing polyp. That's a hole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
I can't say that I know much about Jellyfish medusa polyps, but what if variation in the size or other characteristics of the polyps? That is, some Jellyfish would produce much larger polyps but in smaller number while other Jellyfish would produce smaller polyps in greater number?
Perhaps the larger polyps contain more raw material for the developing Jellyfish to get a head start on life and become successful that way while the smaller polyps would be more successful simply by being more numerous and widespread. The medium sized polyps would have neither of these advantages so they would be less successful.
The thing about the smaller polyps is that they would contain less material with which to form a jellyfish, so two small polyps would be less successful if they conjugated together. The small polyps that conjugate with the larger polyps could take advantage of the extra material they contain and thus become successful that way.
The larger polyps could be successful if they conjugated together as they would have all that extra material to work with, but being so small in number and so large and slow moving it would be difficult for them to find eachother. The smaller polyps are more viable to pair up with since they are so plentiful.
Thus, you have a division between a small number of large and more precious polyps and a large number of small expendable polyps. Thus, you have the ancestors of eggs and sperm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I can't say that I know much about Jellyfish medusa polyps, but what if variation in the size or other characteristics of the polyps? That is, some Jellyfish would produce much larger polyps but in smaller number while other Jellyfish would produce smaller polyps in greater number?
Perhaps the larger polyps contain more raw material for the developing Jellyfish to get a head start on life and become successful that way while the smaller polyps would be more successful simply by being more numerous and widespread. The medium sized polyps would have neither of these advantages so they would be less successful.
The thing about the smaller polyps is that they would contain less material with which to form a jellyfish, so two small polyps would be less successful if they conjugated together. The small polyps that conjugate with the larger polyps could take advantage of the extra material they contain and thus become successful that way.
The larger polyps could be successful if they conjugated together as they would have all that extra material to work with, but being so small in number and so large and slow moving it would be difficult for them to find eachother. The smaller polyps are more viable to pair up with since they are so plentiful.
Thus, you have a division between a small number of large and more precious polyps and a large number of small expendable polyps. Thus, you have the ancestors of eggs and sperm.
It's actually the Medusa form, the Jellyfishes which make the gametes. These fuse and form a polyp after settling.
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
I am also not an expert in polyps. Not even in biology for that matter. (But you can ask me about psychology (including religion), physics and computer science any time.)
Having a hole in biology is not really a big problem. Our knowledge of all sciences grows every day with new hypotheses, new experiments to test them, and new papers distributed every day. One day even this hole will be filled, backed up with scientific proof. I am sure that there is an explanation of the phenomena you described above.
I am still hoping for an answer to my question:
If two identical twins are born (which were the same person for a while) and one of them is concious, could that person claim for sure the other is too?
So another question for the thread:
We can measure anything, from heat to density, from length to color. Then why have we never measured anything resembling a god?
The very nature of God is that he/she/it is an entity that exists outside of and is not bound by the laws of physical reality as we know it. Therefore the tools we have for measuring such things are useless. I might even go so far as to say if we did manage to scientifically measure something and classigfy it as "God", the very act of measuring would necessarily invalidate that classification.
On the flip side of the coin you have the ... hmm I can't remember the name for it but it's the belief that the universe is God. In that case, the answer would be that we already have.
Another fun question is: If two identical twins are born (which were the same person for a while) and one of them is concious, could that person claim for sure the other is too?
I don't understand the question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
On the flip side of the coin you have the ... hmm I can't remember the name for it but it's the belief that the universe is God. In that case, the answer would be that we already have.
I'm not sure what it is called either, I thought deism. However, claiming that the universe is god would mean that god == universe. I find this first of all a strange theory in its very core. If god is exactly the same as everything in the universe, then he is not a supernatural being. It would be just a name to classify the universe. Which we already have a word for.
Second, I find this statement very unfair. If you claim: god is everything, then it is impossible to disprove god anymore, because we know some things exist. This way you abuse a definition to "prove" your own right.
With that statement you proved your right, but gained nothing with it. Logically it may be valid, but you denied everything all other theists stand for, saying that god is not a supernatural being.
If I define that god is a teabag I am holding, and then I burn that teabag, the teabag stops to exist (to be a teabag). Will that prove atheism, since god does no longer exist?
If you have two identical twins, say Dan and Stan. Some time ago, between conception and birth, they were one and the same embryo, right?
Then they split and lived on to be seperate individuals. If Dan claims that he is absolutely sure that he is conscious, can he claim that Stan must be also (since they were once the same person)?
I will answer the question soon, but first give others the time to answer.
The very nature of God is that he/she/it is an entity that exists outside of and is not bound by the laws of physical reality as we know it. Therefore the tools we have for measuring such things are useless. I might even go so far as to say if we did manage to scientifically measure something and classigfy it as "God", the very act of measuring would necessarily invalidate that classification.
But how would someone know that about the nature of God?
God couldn't tell someone about it, because sound is something that is scientifically measured by our brain. Same with a telepathic way, because your brain would still have to process the information. Thus invalidating the message.
On the flip side of the coin you have the ... hmm I can't remember the name for it but it's the belief that the universe is God. In that case, the answer would be that we already have.
I believe that is Panthiests http://www.pantheism.net/
"Larry King: Do you believe in God? Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe." Larry King Live, December 25, 1999
If you have two identical twins, say Dan and Stan. Some time ago, between conception and birth, they were one and the same embryo, right?
Then they split and lived on to be seperate individuals. If Dan claims that he is absolutely sure that he is conscious, can he claim that Stan must be also (since they were once the same person)?
Yet another argument that an embryo isn't a human.
80% of embryos abort themselves, hardly something to brag about being God's Perfect Creation (Sorry for going off topic, but important to point out) (sorry.. )
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
~Carl Sagan
T2:Rafiq ControlWUG EDH:Ramirez Extended:NinjaffinityUXB Peasent: Rites of InitiationUR Themed:Oðinn's ArmyGR Multiplayer[T1.5]:Elves of RivendellG
That last question, nobody can answer. That is because conciousness is an arbitrary property. One will call something concious, another will not.
What do you mean by arbitrary? A 'mongrel concept' it is, surely; but I will not assent to the claim it is arbitrary.
I study artificial intelligence at an university in Amsterdam.
I'm guessing you take a very computer science, GOFAI-based approach to that effort.
Are you hopeful for strong A.I.?
One of the projects that came by was something like Spontaneous Walking.
You started with a cube, then added another cube at any side. It can move now. Then, you add another one. Each time, you pick the 'bot' that moves the most optimal of all, and you add another cube to it. After a while, you get a walking bot, only consisting of some joint cubes.
One of these experiments was done in 'water' (free movement, no floor), and the optimal solution was found in a snake-form.
[image]
So, evolution was shown, with only very simple rules. Every other form (something like a T or a V form) just wasn't up to the test, so it died soon.
I'd really like to know more about the exact way the 'genetic material', and evolution, was simulated. It's hard to draw conclusions without it.
Some may say these experiments prove the Theory of Evolution.
Wait, what? Tell me, how could these simulations have worked out, that could have disproved, or let's say thrown doubt on, the theory of evolution?
*~*~*~
That's a fun question, flappy. I never thought of that experiment before. But still that twin could be assured of the other's consciousness as far as he is sure that consciousness has a solely material basis - which there is no evidence for (beyond our convictions in materialism itself).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
There are more PhD holding historians who deny the holocaust than there are PhD holding biologists who deny common ancestry. I assure you, any holes you believe you found in the theory have been found, looked into and explained by hundreds of people much, much smarter than you.
They aren't holes I found, Read the case for a creator by lee strobel
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=120176
But that's precisely what you did. So quit it.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
fine, I won't use that argument as long as you dont
This would be double post #3. Stop it.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=120176
If you want to prove that God exists HERE, you probably should stick to natural laws, since that is something most atheists will respond to.
Also, I am not trying to be mean, but your first few posts seemed to have a lot of thought put into them, these later ones, not so much. Your probably should think a bit more before posting, especially in the debate area.
Heres a little game for you to play.
Roll one thousand dice. What are the chances that they will all land on 6 at the exact same time? Slim to nihil. What are the chances that each one will land on 6 at some point though?
Try this:
Roll one thousand dice. They don't all land on 6 at the same time, but some of them do in fact land on 6. Those you can just set aside. Why? Because if they have already fallen in place then there is no need to reroll them again now is there?
So once you have rolled 1000 dice and set aside all the ones that have landed on 6, reroll the remaining dice. Roughly about a sixth of those will land on 6, right? So set those aside with the rest of the sixes and continue on with what remains.
If you keep at this long enough, eventually all of the dice will have "fallen in place".
The point here is that these proteins don't all have to arrange themselves at the same time; they can arrange themselves gradually over the course of millions of generations. As the pieces fall into place, they form structures that can become useful for a number of purposes. As more pieces accumulate, these structures can grow and change to either perform their purpose better or take on a new purpose. Sometimes multiple structures can come together and have synergy.
Think about it in terms of Magic: the Gathering. You could say that some combos are irreducably complex in that you need all of the cards that make it up in order to pull off the combo. If one combo piece is missing, the combo falls apart. However, in some cases many of the components of these combos are useful all by themselves. Dark Ritual, Yawgmoth's Will, and Tendrils of Agony all have seperate functions. They do not require each other to perform their individual functions, but when they do come together they can have an additional function that can potentially win the game.
You can also think of this in terms of Captain Planet. Each of the five magical rings worn by the Planeteers is useful all by themselves. One of them lets the kid shoot fire, one of them lets the kid make rocks pop out of the ground... heck, even the heart one, while only conditionally useful, is indeed useful sometimes. Each ring has a power unto itself, but when all five rings come together they can call upon the awesome power of Captain Planet. Genes work kind of like that.
I can go on with a parable about Power Rangers (or Gao Gai Gar or Voltron or whatever you prefer) but I think I've made my point. Each of those proteins is useful by itself but together they have synergy.
There is an imposter among us...
i would also like to bring up tthe topic of a concious mind. At what point did a body say,"you know, I would like to make a concious mind that could make possibly self sacrificing ideals or notions and set them loose with another little idea I popped up: a concience." ? the concious mind hasnt been explained in any texts ive read and is a big, big thing. i would also like to point out that if you put a lot of computers together, they dont form a concious ness, no matter how complex the programming is. The brain doesn't work exactly this way, but you get my point.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=120176
Who says they aren't useful? Even if they are only conditionally useful, like The Power of Heart, it's better to have them than to not have them at all.
Again, evolution is not sudden and drastic; it's gradual.
The body never simply decided one day to have a concious mind, it developed over time from more simplistic behaviors. Look at nature. There is no magical on/off switch between the human mind and the minds of more simplistic organisms. Rather, there is a pattern of gradation between the most simplistic organisms and their behaviors and the more complex organisms and their behaviors. The human mind is more complex than that of our predecessors which is in turn more complex than that of their predecessors which is in turn more complex than that of their predecessors, etc.
The thing you have to understand that the brain is modular. You have one part of your brain for motor control, you have another part of your brain for social skills, you have another part of your brain for short term memory and another part for long term memory, and many other individual parts that serve their own individual functions. If you take away the part of your brain that allows you to perform mathematics, you lose the functionality of that part of the brain but the rest of the brain will still function. Each of those functions can develop seperately over time stemming from the primitive reptilian brain that our distant ancestors initially started out with to regulate their autonomous bodily functions.
The brain is not irreducably complex. It's possible to function with 50% of a human brain or less, most organisms on this planet do!
There is an imposter among us...
That's completely false. One of the defining characteristics of a protein is that it can change its shape, in other words it can do some sort of work and perform some sort of function. A single structure of "muscle" protein can contract and relax and perform some fort of function in a simple organism.
That's fine by me, but that also means you can't use the "life is too complex to happen by chance" argument at all, because it begs one of those two answers.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Look, I kinda hijacked this thread, so im gonna not post anymore.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=120176
It's possible, we don't really know. But there are some fundamental differences between the way a computer functions and the way a brain functions. No matter how fast or how many bits throughput a processor has, it still functions linearly, that is it takes some input, does something with it, and outputs something, then takes some input, etc. A brain receives input through multiple channels simultaneously and is constantly updating it's output accordingly.
If a computer had a few hundred million complete microprocessors all working together instead of one or two processors like computers today, it might function closer to how a brain works.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Ever see the movie Terminator?
Uh huh...
You wanna give me some evidence to back that positive statement up, champ? How do you figure that those body types could not have developed in that time?
Lets bear in mind that in more simplistic organisms like shellfish, genetic changes tend to be more visible due to the fact that they have fewer genes compared to that of cows and that genetic drift becomes noticable more quickly due to their shorter life spans and faster reproductive cycles.
Define "transitional form". Everytime I've heard this from creationists in the past I get the impression that they are expecting me to show them some kind of bizzarre chimeric monster to prove that "a mosquito can come from an elephant!!!1" (Thats no straw-man. I've actually heard this from my own parents.)
Strictly speaking, anything can be a transitional form. Every species has to have evolved from another species, and in turn every species can branch out and evolve to the point that some of it's members speciate into a new species. In that sense, every species that has ever existed is a potential transition from one species to another.
Unless you are talking about "half a wing" or something. As I pointed out in earlier posts, the smaller structures that make up larger "irreducably complex" structures can have individual functions that are useful by themselves. For example, the bone structures that make up wings can be useful for climbing while the excess layers of skin can be useful for regulating body temperature or for making yourself appear larger to scare away predators. Thus, a "transitional form" may not be easily recognizable as such.
There is an imposter among us...
That last question, nobody can answer. That is because conciousness is an arbitrary property. One will call something concious, another will not.
The same goes for intelligence. Something isn't just intelligent or not. Organisms may be more or less intelligent than any other. The size or complexity of a computer has really not much to do with its intelligence. A computer with 100 GB is not smarter than one with 100 MB. It may store more information, but it is not smarter. You could even say that a graphic calculator (25 Kb) is smarter than a remote hard drive (100 Gb), because it can do much more.
An adult human has a brain weight of 1,350 grams. [source]
An killer whale has a brain weight of 5,620 grams. [source]
Does that make a killer whale 4 times more intelligent than man? No. Do killer whales speak in natural language? No.
Another thing, on the spontaneous protein discussion:
The example of the dice is very close. Not all proteins are created perfectly at one single time. Many of them failed, and are forgotten, but only the best survived. Where did we hear this before? Evolution!
Why don't we find many fossils of "transition forms" between apes and humans? because they were highly unstable. So there weren't many of them. And, even more, they lived millions of years ago. So the chances of a skeleton lying around in perfect shape for millions of years, is extremely unlikely.
I study artificial intelligence at an university in Amsterdam. One of the projects that came by was something like Spontaneous Walking.
You started with a cube, then added another cube at any side. It can move now. Then, you add another one. Each time, you pick the 'bot' that moves the most optimal of all, and you add another cube to it. After a while, you get a walking bot, only consisting of some joint cubes.
One of these experiments was done in 'water' (free movement, no floor), and the optimal solution was found in a snake-form.
So, evolution was shown, with only very simple rules. Every other form (something like a T or a V form) just wasn't up to the test, so it died soon.
Some may say these experiments prove the Theory of Evolution.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
Why do you need to diss the man by saying such thing. You don't need to be a genious to have an opinion. So don't use a fallacy of an explaination by probably, but nacessairy so, smarter people than him.
Further more, I'm a Biology student and do believe in the evolution. But, seriously there are some big holes. And this doesn't mean that because there are some holes God excists. But not everything can be solved, how badly people want it though.
My example is this; you've got the step of non-sexual to sexual reproduction. A Jellyfish is a creature with a medusa stage and a polyp stage. Maybe I'm mistaken here because of the translation, but this Jellyfish explains everything from the beginning till forward of the sexual reproduction. The hole is actually before the sexual reproduction. The development of sexual organs is not really something which can be explained by, change in genes, etc, etc.
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
So another question for the thread:
We can measure anything, from heat to density, from length to color. Then why have we never measured anything resembling a god?
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
You may find it fun to watch.
Video
Afterwards, ask yourself the question: did these creatures seem intelligent to you? Maybe even a little? If they did, you may want to reconsider your beliefs of intelligence, because you have been watching a bunch of blocks.
About the computer replica thing. It is very uncertain if the computer can be called concious. But if it is as highly complex as you mentioned, and especially if it is a replica of a concious person, why would it not be concious?
Another fun question is: If two identical twins are born (which were the same person for a while) and one of them is concious, could that person claim for sure the other is too?
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
I'm sorry, but just because it was written 2,000 years ago does not make it okay.
I'm atheist because it's less offensive to my human intelligence than believing in something imaginary.
For someone who tries to avoid offenses to your own intelligence, you sure are good at offending others'.
No it isn't. Allthough you can see it as sexual reproduction, it isn't.
See in conjugation you just need another mate, sexual reproduction is about fusion of gametes and getting zygote.
So how do you explain a plain polyp becoming a medusa producing polyp. That's a hole.
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
Perhaps the larger polyps contain more raw material for the developing Jellyfish to get a head start on life and become successful that way while the smaller polyps would be more successful simply by being more numerous and widespread. The medium sized polyps would have neither of these advantages so they would be less successful.
The thing about the smaller polyps is that they would contain less material with which to form a jellyfish, so two small polyps would be less successful if they conjugated together. The small polyps that conjugate with the larger polyps could take advantage of the extra material they contain and thus become successful that way.
The larger polyps could be successful if they conjugated together as they would have all that extra material to work with, but being so small in number and so large and slow moving it would be difficult for them to find eachother. The smaller polyps are more viable to pair up with since they are so plentiful.
Thus, you have a division between a small number of large and more precious polyps and a large number of small expendable polyps. Thus, you have the ancestors of eggs and sperm.
There is an imposter among us...
It's actually the Medusa form, the Jellyfishes which make the gametes. These fuse and form a polyp after settling.
http://bio1152.nicerweb.com/doc/class/bio1151/Locked/media/ch33/33_08ObeliaLifeCycle.jpg
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
Having a hole in biology is not really a big problem. Our knowledge of all sciences grows every day with new hypotheses, new experiments to test them, and new papers distributed every day. One day even this hole will be filled, backed up with scientific proof. I am sure that there is an explanation of the phenomena you described above.
I am still hoping for an answer to my question:
If two identical twins are born (which were the same person for a while) and one of them is concious, could that person claim for sure the other is too?
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
The very nature of God is that he/she/it is an entity that exists outside of and is not bound by the laws of physical reality as we know it. Therefore the tools we have for measuring such things are useless. I might even go so far as to say if we did manage to scientifically measure something and classigfy it as "God", the very act of measuring would necessarily invalidate that classification.
On the flip side of the coin you have the ... hmm I can't remember the name for it but it's the belief that the universe is God. In that case, the answer would be that we already have.
I don't understand the question.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I'm not sure what it is called either, I thought deism. However, claiming that the universe is god would mean that god == universe. I find this first of all a strange theory in its very core. If god is exactly the same as everything in the universe, then he is not a supernatural being. It would be just a name to classify the universe. Which we already have a word for.
Second, I find this statement very unfair. If you claim: god is everything, then it is impossible to disprove god anymore, because we know some things exist. This way you abuse a definition to "prove" your own right.
With that statement you proved your right, but gained nothing with it. Logically it may be valid, but you denied everything all other theists stand for, saying that god is not a supernatural being.
If I define that god is a teabag I am holding, and then I burn that teabag, the teabag stops to exist (to be a teabag). Will that prove atheism, since god does no longer exist?
If you have two identical twins, say Dan and Stan. Some time ago, between conception and birth, they were one and the same embryo, right?
Then they split and lived on to be seperate individuals. If Dan claims that he is absolutely sure that he is conscious, can he claim that Stan must be also (since they were once the same person)?
I will answer the question soon, but first give others the time to answer.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
But how would someone know that about the nature of God?
God couldn't tell someone about it, because sound is something that is scientifically measured by our brain. Same with a telepathic way, because your brain would still have to process the information. Thus invalidating the message.
I believe that is Panthiests
http://www.pantheism.net/
"Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking:
Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe."
Larry King Live, December 25, 1999
EDIT
Yet another argument that an embryo isn't a human.
80% of embryos abort themselves, hardly something to brag about being God's Perfect Creation (Sorry for going off topic, but important to point out) (sorry.. )
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
~Carl Sagan
T2:Rafiq ControlWUG
EDH:Ramirez
Extended:NinjaffinityUXB
Peasent: Rites of InitiationUR
Themed:Oðinn's ArmyGR
Multiplayer[T1.5]:Elves of RivendellG
I live in a blue state now (NV)
What do you mean by arbitrary? A 'mongrel concept' it is, surely; but I will not assent to the claim it is arbitrary.
I'm guessing you take a very computer science, GOFAI-based approach to that effort.
Are you hopeful for strong A.I.?
I'd really like to know more about the exact way the 'genetic material', and evolution, was simulated. It's hard to draw conclusions without it.
Wait, what? Tell me, how could these simulations have worked out, that could have disproved, or let's say thrown doubt on, the theory of evolution?
*~*~*~
That's a fun question, flappy. I never thought of that experiment before. But still that twin could be assured of the other's consciousness as far as he is sure that consciousness has a solely material basis - which there is no evidence for (beyond our convictions in materialism itself).
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].