PDA

View Full Version : i dont belive in no evolution



luka
06-02-2009, 08:57 AM
do you

luka
06-02-2009, 09:05 AM
i do belive things cahnge from one form into another

beyond that
load of bollocks

poetix
06-02-2009, 09:10 AM
I believe in a change from nohowish, untalkaboutable, all-alikeness, to a somehowish and in-general-talkaboutable not-all-alikeness, by continuous somethingelseifications, and sticktogetherations.

Chris
06-02-2009, 09:13 AM
sure

Mr. Tea
06-02-2009, 01:18 PM
I believe in a change from nohowish, untalkaboutable, all-alikeness, to a somehowish and in-general-talkaboutable not-all-alikeness, by continuous somethingelseifications, and sticktogetherations.

Well that's easy for you to say.

Mr. Tea
06-02-2009, 01:19 PM
i do belive things cahnge from one form into another

beyond that
load of bollocks

I believe, primarily, in the power of love.

CHAOTROPIC
06-02-2009, 01:28 PM
I believe, primarily, in the power of love.

A force from ...













... above??

mixed_biscuits
06-02-2009, 02:20 PM
I believe in the power of American natives.

Mr. Tea
06-02-2009, 02:39 PM
I believe in the power of American natives.

You'd better believe it - a dream-catcher thrown by an Iroquois brave can take your head off from fifty paces.

poetix
06-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Well that's easy for you to say.

Incidentally, that parody by William James of Herbert Spencer's definition of evolution deserves to be much more widely known. What I find delicious about it is that he retains the word "continuous", while translating all the other terms from pseudo-scientese to mock-anglo-commonsensical. It tips the whole thing over into absurdity with beautiful tact.

Agent Nucleus
06-02-2009, 03:23 PM
if you believe in dna (why shouldn't you?), you have to believe in evolution. dna is the organism's blueprint, and it is open to mutations, even while you are alive. so the real question for me is, do you believe in DNA, and if not, what is wrong with you, psychologically?

zhao
06-02-2009, 03:29 PM
i believe in the awesome unstoppable cosmic power of the pho noodle soup:

http://offthebroiler.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/IMG_2671-1.JPG

Mr. Tea
06-02-2009, 03:38 PM
I believe the Internet is such an efficient time-wasting technology that it's now possible to waste up to 30 or 40 hours in a single day.

mixed_biscuits
06-02-2009, 03:59 PM
lol

josef k.
06-02-2009, 04:06 PM
If we're talking about beliefs....

What I believe - J.G. BALLARD

I believe in the power of the imagination to remake the world, to release the truth within us, to hold back the night, to transcend death, to charm motorways, to ingratiate ourselves with birds, to enlist the confidences of madmen.
I believe in my own obsessions, in the beauty of the car crash, in the peace of the submerged forest, in the excitements of the deserted holiday beach, in the elegance of automobile graveyards, in the mystery of multi-storey car parks, in the poetry of abandoned hotels.
I believe in the forgotten runways of Wake Island, pointing towards the Pacifics of our imaginations.
I believe in the mysterious beauty of Margaret Thatcher, in the arch of her nostrils and the sheen on her lower lip; in the melancholy of wounded Argentine conscripts; in the haunted smiles of filling station personnel; in my dream of Margaret Thatcher caressed by that young Argentine soldier in a forgotten motel watched by a tubercular filling station attendant.
I believe in the beauty of all women, in the treachery of their imaginations, so close to my heart; in the junction of their disenchanted bodies with the enchanted chromium rails of supermarket counters; in their warm tolerance of my perversions.
I believe in the death of tomorrow, in the exhaustion of time, in our search for a new time within the smiles of auto-route waitresses and the tired eyes of air-traffic controllers at out-of-season airports.
I believe in the genital organs of great men and women, in the body postures of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Princess Di, in the sweet odors emanating from their lips as they regard the cameras of the entire world.
I believe in madness, in the truth of the inexplicable, in the common sense of stones, in the lunacy of flowers, in the disease stored up for the human race by the Apollo astronauts.
I believe in nothing.
I believe in Max Ernst, Delvaux, Dali, Titian, Goya, Leonardo, Vermeer, De Chirico, Magritte, Redon, Duerer, Tanguy, the Facteur Cheval, the Watts Towers, Boecklin, Francis Bacon, and all the invisible artists within the psychiatric institutions of the planet.
I believe in the impossibility of existence, in the humour of mountains, in the absurdity of electromagnetism, in the farce of geometry, in the cruelty of arithmetic, in the murderous intent of logic.
I believe in adolescent women, in their corruption by their own leg stances, in the purity of their disheveled bodies, in the traces of their pudenda left in the bathrooms of shabby motels.
I believe in flight, in the beauty of the wing, and in the beauty of everything that has ever flown, in the stone thrown by a small child that carries with it the wisdom of statesmen and midwives.
I believe in the gentleness of the surgeon's knife, in the limitless geometry of the cinema screen, in the hidden universe within supermarkets, in the loneliness of the sun, in the garrulousness of planets, in the repetitiveness of ourselves, in the inexistence of the universe and the boredom of the atom.
I believe in the light cast by video-recorders in department store windows, in the messianic insights of the radiator grilles of showroom automobiles, in the elegance of the oil stains on the engine nacelles of 747s parked on airport tarmacs.
I believe in the non-existence of the past, in the death of the future, and the infinite possibilities of the present.
I believe in the derangement of the senses: in Rimbaud, William Burroughs, Huysmans, Genet, Celine, Swift, Defoe, Carroll, Coleridge, Kafka.
I believe in the designers of the Pyramids, the Empire State Building, the Berlin Fuehrerbunker, the Wake Island runways.
I believe in the body odors of Princess Di.
I believe in the next five minutes.
I believe in the history of my feet.
I believe in migraines, the boredom of afternoons, the fear of calendars, the treachery of clocks.
I believe in anxiety, psychosis and despair.
I believe in the perversions, in the infatuations with trees, princesses, prime ministers, derelict filling stations (more beautiful than the Taj Mahal), clouds and birds.
I believe in the death of the emotions and the triumph of the imagination.
I believe in Tokyo, Benidorm, La Grande Motte, Wake Island, Eniwetok, Dealey Plaza.
I believe in alcoholism, venereal disease, fever and exhaustion.
I believe in pain.
I believe in despair.
I believe in all children.
I believe in maps, diagrams, codes, chess-games, puzzles, airline timetables, airport indicator signs.
I believe all excuses.
I believe all reasons.
I believe all hallucinations.
I believe all anger.
I believe all mythologies, memories, lies, fantasies, evasions.
I believe in the mystery and melancholy of a hand, in the kindness of trees, in the wisdom of light.

Sick Boy
06-02-2009, 04:06 PM
In Soviet Russia, evolution believes in you.

empty mirror
06-02-2009, 04:09 PM
a poem from the movie sleeper:


A LITTLE BOY CAUGHT A BUTTERFLY
AND SAID TO HIMSELF,



"I MUST TRY TO UNDERSTAND
MY LIFE AND HELP OTHERS.



"NOT JUST MOTHERS AND FATHERS,



"BUT FRIENDS,
STRANGERS TOO,



WITH EYES OF BLUE AND LIPS
FULL RED AND ROUND."



BUT THE BUTTERFLY
DIDN'T MAKE A SOUND...



FOR HE HAD TURNED
INTO A CATERPILLAR,



BY AND BY.
</pre>

zhao
06-02-2009, 05:04 PM
If we're talking about beliefs....

What I believe - J.G. BALLARD

I believe in the power of the imagination to remake the world, to release the truth within us, to hold back the night, to transcend death, to charm motorways, to ingratiate ourselves with birds, to enlist the confidences of madmen.
I believe in my own obsessions, in the beauty of the car crash, in the peace of the submerged forest, in the excitements of the deserted holiday beach, in the elegance of automobile graveyards, in the mystery of multi-storey car parks, in the poetry of abandoned hotels.
I believe in the forgotten runways of Wake Island, pointing towards the Pacifics of our imaginations.
I believe in the mysterious beauty of Margaret Thatcher, in the arch of her nostrils and the sheen on her lower lip; in the melancholy of wounded Argentine conscripts; in the haunted smiles of filling station personnel; in my dream of Margaret Thatcher caressed by that young Argentine soldier in a forgotten motel watched by a tubercular filling station attendant.
I believe in the beauty of all women, in the treachery of their imaginations, so close to my heart; in the junction of their disenchanted bodies with the enchanted chromium rails of supermarket counters; in their warm tolerance of my perversions.
I believe in the death of tomorrow, in the exhaustion of time, in our search for a new time within the smiles of auto-route waitresses and the tired eyes of air-traffic controllers at out-of-season airports.
I believe in the genital organs of great men and women, in the body postures of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Princess Di, in the sweet odors emanating from their lips as they regard the cameras of the entire world.
I believe in madness, in the truth of the inexplicable, in the common sense of stones, in the lunacy of flowers, in the disease stored up for the human race by the Apollo astronauts.
I believe in nothing.
I believe in Max Ernst, Delvaux, Dali, Titian, Goya, Leonardo, Vermeer, De Chirico, Magritte, Redon, Duerer, Tanguy, the Facteur Cheval, the Watts Towers, Boecklin, Francis Bacon, and all the invisible artists within the psychiatric institutions of the planet.
I believe in the impossibility of existence, in the humour of mountains, in the absurdity of electromagnetism, in the farce of geometry, in the cruelty of arithmetic, in the murderous intent of logic.
I believe in adolescent women, in their corruption by their own leg stances, in the purity of their disheveled bodies, in the traces of their pudenda left in the bathrooms of shabby motels.
I believe in flight, in the beauty of the wing, and in the beauty of everything that has ever flown, in the stone thrown by a small child that carries with it the wisdom of statesmen and midwives.
I believe in the gentleness of the surgeon's knife, in the limitless geometry of the cinema screen, in the hidden universe within supermarkets, in the loneliness of the sun, in the garrulousness of planets, in the repetitiveness of ourselves, in the inexistence of the universe and the boredom of the atom.
I believe in the light cast by video-recorders in department store windows, in the messianic insights of the radiator grilles of showroom automobiles, in the elegance of the oil stains on the engine nacelles of 747s parked on airport tarmacs.
I believe in the non-existence of the past, in the death of the future, and the infinite possibilities of the present.
I believe in the derangement of the senses: in Rimbaud, William Burroughs, Huysmans, Genet, Celine, Swift, Defoe, Carroll, Coleridge, Kafka.
I believe in the designers of the Pyramids, the Empire State Building, the Berlin Fuehrerbunker, the Wake Island runways.
I believe in the body odors of Princess Di.
I believe in the next five minutes.
I believe in the history of my feet.
I believe in migraines, the boredom of afternoons, the fear of calendars, the treachery of clocks.
I believe in anxiety, psychosis and despair.
I believe in the perversions, in the infatuations with trees, princesses, prime ministers, derelict filling stations (more beautiful than the Taj Mahal), clouds and birds.
I believe in the death of the emotions and the triumph of the imagination.
I believe in Tokyo, Benidorm, La Grande Motte, Wake Island, Eniwetok, Dealey Plaza.
I believe in alcoholism, venereal disease, fever and exhaustion.
I believe in pain.
I believe in despair.
I believe in all children.
I believe in maps, diagrams, codes, chess-games, puzzles, airline timetables, airport indicator signs.
I believe all excuses.
I believe all reasons.
I believe all hallucinations.
I believe all anger.
I believe all mythologies, memories, lies, fantasies, evasions.
I believe in the mystery and melancholy of a hand, in the kindness of trees, in the wisdom of light.

amazing. i was just telling Ballard stories during lunch today... so good. did you read the one about the 3-dimensional city where you ride elevators up and down like the tube? or the one about the last fish in the atlantic? or the one about the island of mutants from a nuclear ship-wreck?

IdleRich
06-02-2009, 05:08 PM
did you read the one about the 3-dimensional city
Wooah a 3-dimensional city! What crazy mindfuck idea will he come up with next?

Sick Boy
06-02-2009, 05:13 PM
Wooah a 3-dimensional city! What crazy mindfuck idea will he come up with next?

hahaha beat me to it.

zhao
06-02-2009, 05:16 PM
Wooah a 3-dimensional city! What crazy mindfuck idea will he come up with next?

did you read the next part which says "where you ride elevators up and down like the tube" ?

in it this boy who was convinced that the sky existed somewhere (most people believing it to be myth and fiction), took the train UP for 2 months...

IdleRich
06-02-2009, 05:18 PM
"did you read the next part which says "where you ride elevators up and down like the tube" ?"
Well there it is, mutherfucking elevators that go up and down!



Sorry Zhao, just being a cunt.

Agent Nucleus
06-02-2009, 06:36 PM
sounds like Constance or Archigram. where is this again???

Chris
06-02-2009, 07:18 PM
wooah a 3-dimensional city! What crazy mindfuck idea will he come up with next?

rofl

nomadthethird
06-02-2009, 07:37 PM
i do belive things cahnge from one form into another

beyond that
load of bollocks

Um sorry to burst your bubble but there is nothing beyond "things change" really to evolution besides maybe natural selection, which is just a way of describing how things change the way the obviously do change.

Too bad believing or not believing won't change anything Luka.

Baby Jeebus cries every time someone converts to evolution.

nomadthethird
06-02-2009, 08:59 PM
I believe the Internet is such an efficient time-wasting technology that it's now possible to waste up to 30 or 40 hours in a single day.

I believe in wasting time.

Grievous Angel
06-02-2009, 10:06 PM
I want to know what love is.

I want you to show me.

luka
06-02-2009, 11:04 PM
i do find it funny how much people have invested in evolution.
i can understand it in a way. the creationists are so comically thick and evil and viscious that it makes everyone with an ounce of sense rally behind the darwin banner.
that sort of thing is strategically stupid though. like if i'd become a commie during the cold war cos i didn't like americans or soemthing.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 12:16 AM
i do find it funny how much people have invested in evolution.
i can understand it in a way. the creationists are so comically thick and evil and viscious that it makes everyone with an ounce of sense rally behind the darwin banner.
that sort of thing is strategically stupid though. like if i'd become a commie during the cold war cos i didn't like americans or soemthing.

that is part of the appeal of evolution though, isn't it? if one is to take a side most would rather wave the darwin flag then be sitting in the "creationist" section of the room. that doesn't make it true though.

the cold war point, well put.

Chris
07-02-2009, 12:53 AM
that is part of the appeal of evolution though, isn't it? if one is to take a side most would rather wave the darwin flag then be sitting in the "creationist" section of the room. that doesn't make it true though.

the cold war point, well put.

most people are desperate to fit in and will never have an opinion that might be unpopular. it's funny.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 01:14 AM
most people are desperate to fit in and will never have an opinion that might be unpopular. it's funny.

is either of the opinions, in terms of creation/evolution actually "popular"?

just curious as to the point you were making.

growing up with a parochial school education there was never anything taught beyond "creationism", though anything outside the school buildings/people i met that were friends of family, etc. insisted on evolution. made for an interesting upbringing. hippie parents/family who seemed to think bible-thumping schools were the best place for their kid.

so, not sure i ever fit in to either scenarios, nor wanted to.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:14 AM
most people are desperate to fit in and will never have an opinion that might be unpopular. it's funny.

If this is true, then this must be why the vast majority of Americans are creationists.

Chris
07-02-2009, 01:17 AM
If this is true, then this must be why the vast majority of Americans are creationists.

nah, I mean it for both sides. In the rural and suburban areas, you get a lot of phony christians, and in teenage and hip circles, everybody's fashionably atheist.

I'm not necessarily questioning the motivations of peoples' stances here, this board strikes me as a place where people at least think through and consider what they believe a bit. Which I respect, whichever conclusions they come to.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:20 AM
I think it's funny that people really think you can like choose whether evolution is true like it's a kind of belief system.

It's just the best working theory about how organic life has come to be what it is on Earth. The consensus is there. There's really no room to doubt evolution, only to have slightly different versions of how it happened, or when the different eras or ice ages happened. There's tons of room for interesting work to be done filling in gaps, but there's no doubt about the fact that organic life happens according to an evolutionary process.

Saying "I don't believe in evolution"...That's like saying, I don't believe in Pluto.

Oh, you don't? Oh good, phew, for a minute there I was worried that it might not matter what the hell you believe in, seeing as facts are facts.

luka
07-02-2009, 01:23 AM
of course it applies to both sides.
there is an unthinking acceptance on both sides. on both sides its holy writ.
as you all can probably guess im hardly up to date on the scientific consensus of the moment, if there is one. dawkins take on evolution is transparently silly, but he has plenty of detractors among scientists i take it. whats the current state of play?
natural selection doesn't explain things terribly well. i mean, if you just take death and success in breeding as the only factors in changing genetic makeup. then add a few mutations. burroughs was always going on about viruses becoming symbiotes. thats fairly accepted now right?

luka
07-02-2009, 01:25 AM
i thik you should probably engage your brain before leaping in sometimes nomad, particluarly if you insist on adopting such an aggrssive tone.
think maybe about what the context is. im fairly obviously not going to be a creationist.
and the title of the thread is i dont belive in no evolution.
also when is anything i say supposed to be taken at face value?

luka
07-02-2009, 01:27 AM
facts are facts is a pretty vacous thing to say

Chris
07-02-2009, 01:28 AM
is either of the opinions, in terms of creation/evolution actually "popular"?.

sorry, didn't see this post at first...

yeah, it depends which culture you're in.



growing up with a parochial school education there was never anything taught beyond "creationism", though anything outside the school buildings/people i met that were friends of family, etc. insisted on evolution. made for an interesting upbringing. hippie parents/family who seemed to think bible-thumping schools were the best place for their kid.

so, not sure i ever fit in to either scenarios, nor wanted to.

totally, and I've noticed that a lot of people who've come up in religious environments where it was forced strictly on them, like say Catholicism or Mormonism, end up allergic to religion. Understandably.

I came up seeing the best of the religious world, it was never forced on me at all, was uber-tolerant, rational while encouraging of all types of creativity... so I'm a religous apologist for the most part. I still tend to hang out with agnostics and atheists though, but that's just because the types of christians in my area at the mo are these awful, non-denominational Christian Right business types who have more in common with the beliefs taught at "positive-thinking" New Age seminars.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:30 AM
of course it applies to both sides.
there is an unthinking acceptance on both sides. on both sides its holy writ.
as you all can probably guess im hardly up to date on the scientific consensus of the moment, if there is one. dawkins take on evolution is transparently silly, but he has plenty of detractors among scientists i take it. whats the current state of play?
natural selection doesn't explain things terribly well. i mean, if you just take death and success in breeding as the only factors in changing genetic makeup. then add a few mutations. burroughs was always going on about viruses becoming symbiotes. thats fairly accepted now right?

Huh? No, I'm not sure sure, but nobody in the scientific community takes a lot of issue with the idea of natural selection, but that's MOSTLY because they're not interpreting the way I think you might be, which is not the scientific interpretation.

Evolution is the process by which organic life changes over time. This process is often affected by a) random genetic mutations, and b) the potential for these mutations to be "adaptive" given an organism's environment.

Success in breeding is not a "factor" in "changing" genetic makeup as such. I'm not even sure what that means. Explain.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:31 AM
facts are facts is a pretty vacous thing to say

Not in this context it isn't.

I don't believe in the moon! Therefore, it doesn't exist.

I don't believe in the phases of the moon. Therefore, they don't exist.

luka
07-02-2009, 01:31 AM
in that if you have a kid your genes get passed on and if you don't they dont.

luka
07-02-2009, 01:32 AM
if thats not right then my understanding of this stuff is even more flawed than i thought it was

littlebird
07-02-2009, 01:32 AM
natural selection doesn't explain things terribly well. i mean, if you just take death and success in breeding as the only factors in changing genetic makeup. then add a few mutations. burroughs was always going on about viruses becoming symbiotes. thats fairly accepted now right?

natural selection is too simplistic if it is just a death vs. breeding success, because as you pointed out there are mutations, viruses (mutated, but also man-made/created), the affect on environmental issues, etc.

seems there are the big buckets to fall into - creation vs. evolution. but once there, it is more a question of the science you are aware of/agree with, the known and the unknown factors, and what you choose to accept.

in some ways it is a belief system. whether it is just a question of science and variation, it is something one chooses to believe, is it not?

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:36 AM
in that if you have a kid your genes get passed on and if you don't they dont.

Sure. If you have a kid. But your kid's genes might mutate. Then the environmental conditions may change so your kid doesn't survive.

This is how I would explain it:

Say you have a very fast metabolism. This only works well, it's only "adaptive", when times are good and food is plenty, usually for people who live in agricultural societies and can rely on a harvest. But say you have two kids, and those kids' genes mutate, and one kid has a fast metabolism like you, and one has an even faster metabolism than you. Then your tribe moves, and there's a famine. You and your kids die very quickly from starvation, due to their fast metabolisms, and your genes aren't passed on to the next generation.

But your neighbor guy with the really slow metabolism who doesn't end up living as long as you, so he only had one kid--his genes win out in the end, because his kids survive the famine and go on to reproduce. Thus the slow metabolism gene is "selected" into the gene pool of a population that just experienced a long famine.

Does this make sense?

luka
07-02-2009, 01:36 AM
when i say i don't beleive in evolution, and this is wearisome, having to spell this out, as i would have liked to think, given contxt, that this was fairly clear, that there seems to be more factors at play. now a lot of these things are not heretical, scientifucally, as far as i know. for example, viruses etc. other organisms melding themselves into human dna or whatever (excuse my loose use of terms i don't have any clear knowedge of) or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
facts are facts is always a vacous thing to say. regardless of circumstance.

luka
07-02-2009, 01:38 AM
yeah nomad i understand that much, i have read books and watched tv and stuff.
i just mean my understanding of it is based around as i say, a couple of dawkins popular science stuff, some docos and school lessons 15 years ago

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:39 AM
when i say i don't beleive in evolution, and this is wearisome, having to spell this out, as i would have liked to think, given contxt, that this was fairly clear, that there seems to be more factors at play. now a lot of these things are not heretical, scientifucally, as far as i know. for example, viruses etc. other organisms melding themselves into human dna or whatever (excuse my loose use of terms i don't have any clear knowedge of) or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
facts are facts is always a vacous thing to say. regardless of circumstance.

Sorry I'm not really sure what you mean.

What documentary that claimed things "learned" in the course of a lifetime could be passed on? That seems kinda far-fetched but I'd be interested in any research that supports this. I mean wouldn't that be more likely to be from upbringing than DNA?

We are bacteria, Luka.

luka
07-02-2009, 01:43 AM
uhm, i didn't watch it. my dad told me about it. he liked it cos it was a way for him to blame himself for my wastrel ways.
maybe someone else watched it. it was on tv in the uk. maybe 4 or 5 years ago?

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:45 AM
Consciousness and other mediating factors (spirituality, blah blah, whatever) can also be part of human evolution, they're not mutually exclusive, or an either/or, where it's either evolution or humans with intelligence.

Intelligence or cognitive ability is part of what makes us unique as primates and even among primates.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 01:46 AM
totally, and I've noticed that a lot of people who've come up in religious environments where it was forced strictly on them, like say Catholicism or Mormonism, end up allergic to religion. Understandably.

i think for a good long while i would have defined myself as being "allergic to religion", though that would almost suggest that i am not tolerant of religion, which for the most part i am. and i've been intrigued/interested in the studies of differing religions. i suppose that is why i categorize/tend to socialize with agnostics, and athiests, too.

i grew up around the kind of "Christian Right non-denominational" types you refer to. actually went to grade school, for two years, at the "positive thinking" California-mecca that is that glass monstrosity (Crystal Cathedral) in Anaheim/Garden Grove. :confused:

(your location suggests you'll know where i mean)

and yes, it did have more in common with New Age-y rhetoric, then any religious doctrine that i've come in contact with.

luka
07-02-2009, 01:46 AM
anyway, i just wanted to laugh at people getting worked up and indignant, as usual.
i need to use my time more profitably.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:51 AM
anyway, i just wanted to laugh at people getting worked up and indignant, as usual.
i need to use my time more profitably.

You really underestimate people if you think Dissensus gets anyone "indignant"...pfff.

It's the internet. Look at any other message board, this one is like British Tea Time with the Queen or some shit.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 01:55 AM
or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.

would these 'learned' things include artistic talent? tendency towards chemical dependency? being say "tone deaf" or musically inclined? "psychic ability" if one believes in that existance?

this may be veering too far into an arguement of nature vs. nurture, but was just curious about the docu you mentioned (though i appreciate you also mentioned you hadn't watched it yourself).

luka
07-02-2009, 01:57 AM
incidently though, another thing which makes me think is
given theres such a panopoly of factors in play, it seems slightly blithe to suggest such and such a trait survives becasue it is adaptive.
given that it is always co-existing with a whole host of other factors which may or may not be adaptive. am i making myself clear?

luka
07-02-2009, 01:59 AM
so for instance, i do have a very fast metabolism, i also have asthma, poor eyesight,
long legs, blue eyes, quick reflexes, etc etc etc

littlebird
07-02-2009, 01:59 AM
It's the internet. Look at any other message board, this one is like British Tea Time with the Queen or some shit.

granted i am quite new here, so i do not have historical experience to base this on, but i've certainly seen forums get very ugly, making "indignant" seem a mild description.

it is the nature of any situation where one isn't face-to-face with the person/people they are conversing with, thus having a "distance" between what they say and the subsequent reaction.

but everyone here does seem "relatively" well-behaved (suppose that is what you meant by Tea Time, eh?)

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 01:59 AM
incidently though, another thing which makes me think is
given theres such a panopoly of factors in play, it seems slightly blithe to suggest such and such a trait survives becasue it is adaptive.
given that it is always co-existing with a whole host of other factors which may or may not be adaptive. am i making myself clear?

Of course. No scientist would ever suggest (or none ever should) that we can look back and map out which traits were selected in exactly when, how and why. We can only get a general picture of how these changes happened slowly, slowly, slowly over millions of years.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 02:01 AM
so for instance, i do have a very fast metabolism, i also have asthma, poor eyesight,
long legs, blue eyes, quick reflexes, etc etc etc

doesn't mean you would pass all of those "traits" along to a child, though. they have a chance of carrying on any of those things, or any of it from the other parent, or neither - skipping generations and carrying recessive genes/traits from say grandparents from either side.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 02:01 AM
granted i am quite new here, so i do not have historical experience to base this on, but i've certainly seen forums get very ugly, making "indignant" seem a mild description.

it is the nature of any situation where one isn't face-to-face with the person/people they are conversing with, thus having a "distance" between what they say and the subsequent reaction.

but everyone here does seem "relatively" well-behaved (suppose that is what you meant by Tea Time, eh?)

Oh, yeah, there are a couple of people here who have brought their sulking into basically every thread lately, but they're funny to watch. Nothing drastic.

luka
07-02-2009, 02:04 AM
doesn't mean you would pass all of those "traits" along to a child, though. they have a chance of carrying on any of those things, or any of it from the other parent, or neither - skipping generations and carrying recessive genes/traits from say grandparents from either side.

im fully aware of this. its another thing which makes me think that evolution theory isn't this magic tool which explain everything thereby freeing us from the need to ever think again.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 02:29 AM
im fully aware of this. its another thing which makes me think that evolution theory isn't this magic tool which explain everything thereby freeing us from the need to ever think again.

figured you were, in all actuality. just pointed it out as it seems as much as genetics explains, it leaves a lot of variables in place.

ah, the magic tool. suppose we'd all die of boredom if such a thing actually existed.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 03:46 AM
im fully aware of this. its another thing which makes me think that evolution theory isn't this magic tool which explain everything thereby freeing us from the need to ever think again.

Yeah, that's us scienticians, always not thinking.

luka
07-02-2009, 04:01 AM
tiresome

luka
07-02-2009, 04:05 AM
why dont we all just chose sides and shout at each other.
that would be fun.

luka
07-02-2009, 04:06 AM
think of all the things we could learn
like, erm, who has the loudest voice

Chris
07-02-2009, 04:16 AM
i grew up around the kind of "Christian Right non-denominational" types you refer to. actually went to grade school, for two years, at the "positive thinking" California-mecca that is that glass monstrosity (Crystal Cathedral) in Anaheim/Garden Grove. :confused:

(your location suggests you'll know where i mean)

and yes, it did have more in common with New Age-y rhetoric, then any religious doctrine that i've come in contact with.

yeah, I lived and went to High School in Anaheim, and am definitely familiar with Crystal Cathedral, as it's pretty hard not to see. :rolleyes:


Incidentally, I just read a few days ago that they've lost their big name pastor and millions (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008694351_schuller01.html)of dollars.

Chris
07-02-2009, 04:18 AM
think of all the things we could learn
like, erm, who has the loudest voice

hahaha, have you ever been to /b/?

it's actually kind of cathartic after all the politeness and manners here.

trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling....

luka
07-02-2009, 04:27 AM
never heard of it. one message board is a big enough waste of my time.

Chris
07-02-2009, 04:52 AM
never heard of it. one message board is a big enough waste of my time.

smart man.

second thought, yeah, stay away from /b/, nothing good comes of it.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 05:49 AM
think of all the things we could learn
like, erm, who has the loudest voice


heh. now what a lesson that would be.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 05:51 AM
yeah, I lived and went to High School in Anaheim, and am definitely familiar with Crystal Cathedral, as it's pretty hard not to see. :rolleyes:


Incidentally, I just read a few days ago that they've lost their big name pastor and millions (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008694351_schuller01.html)of dollars.

yeah. it is a monstrosity, truly it is.
i went to HS in Tustin. college in Fullerton, actually.

i hadn't learned they lost their pastor. doesn't surprise me much, though.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 06:04 AM
hahaha, have you ever been to /b/?

it's actually kind of cathartic after all the politeness and manners here.

trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling....

Ha I really love some of those places online where you can't tell who's kidding and who isn't.

I've been thinking of making my magnum opus as a "poe" on one of those evolution debate websites. Those just really get me laughing like nothing else.

But don't let this message board fool you. Even though it's really polite as far as message boards go, there are still some people who post things, very flagrantly, just to try to get a rise. Hell, they even admit to it.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 06:10 AM
tiresome

Yes, tiresome. Strike some pose that's supposed to be outre just for the sake of it.

It's almost like science, and especially evolutionary biology, are the new God. Nobody believes in it, but they don't hesitate to go running into its arms for antibiotics when they have a UTI and it feels like they're peeing razorblades, or when they get cancer and need chemotherapy.

Were it not for evo biology, we'd not have discovered DNA and be mapping the human genome, and we'd be getting nowhere on stem cell research, which is going to have literally thousands of direct medical applications.

Chris
07-02-2009, 06:19 AM
college in Fullerton, actually.

wauuu...

same here... !?

I wouldn't be so surprised, if it weren't for that there's hardly any Americans, let alone Californians, let alone Orange County survivors on this forum. Hey.

littlebird
07-02-2009, 06:30 AM
wauuu...

same here... !?

I wouldn't be so surprised, if it weren't for that there's hardly any Americans, let alone Californians, let alone Orange County survivors on this forum. Hey.

it is odd, for the reasons you stated. when i saw your location it took me by surprised, i admit.

those of us who survived growing up behind the "orange curtain" need to stick together, i suppose. though i don't live there any longer (still in CA, just not in OC).

i am around there still sometimes, though, as my best friend still lives there. and i'm rather fond of mcclains, the continental, sunset lounge and the olde ship.

mixed_biscuits
07-02-2009, 07:50 AM
I don't see why the initial conditions of life and the evolutionary mechanism could not have been created in the first place.

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/TRVCJKVR/CREATIONISM/EVOLUTION/NOT&#37;20NECESSARLY%20MUTUALLY%20EXCLUSIVE/bus.jpg

doom
07-02-2009, 08:18 AM
Thats the idea behind 'Intelligent Design' or whatever the nouveu riche bible bashers are calling it isnt it?

Natural Selection has basically been consigned to dustbin of history has it not? Maybe just the circles I run (around) in. You get all these wierd permutations like Group Selection blahblahblah & end up at the gas chamber, not a good look.

It has a really hard time explaining alot of (pretty) universal traits, the panopoly of self destruction. Bataille did more to describe that than any Darwinist ever could.

The idea that evoloution is silentally moving us 'forward' towards bigger & better mutations is obv. bollocks. Burroughs interpolated that if a virus & the host reach a point where each party is mutally benefiting from the arrangment then the virus ceases to be a virus, or seen as a virus. This can be anything, from The Word, to Love.

Any system where there are as many connections as discrete elements approachs chaos.

That goes alot further, for me, to describing what we've been observing in the natural world.

Of course Evolution is a belif system, comprable to one of the 'big 3' - this doesn't mean that the idea of evolution isnt constanly shifting its parameters or make it any less 'true' or 'false' Likewise, just cos I don't believe in their book doesn't undermine the relevance of 2000+ years of lived experiance.

luka
07-02-2009, 08:43 AM
thank you doom, nice to see an intelligent response.
thats touches on a lot of what i was hinting at.

Chris
07-02-2009, 08:56 AM
it is odd, for the reasons you stated. when i saw your location it took me by surprised, i admit.

those of us who survived growing up behind the "orange curtain" need to stick together, i suppose. though i don't live there any longer (still in CA, just not in OC).

Nice to hear you moved on. I should be off to teach in Europe, once I'm done taking my time with school, but people seem to get stuck here... maybe because most of their friends never leave. Never quite got why Orange County natives never venture out, but it seems to be a thing here.



i am around there still sometimes, though, as my best friend still lives there. and i'm rather fond of mcclains, the continental, sunset lounge and the olde ship.

Yeah, I like those spots. I'm right around the corner from the Continental myself, by old town Fullerton. I do really like it here... not bad at all for Orange County.

poetix
07-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Natural Selection has basically been consigned to dustbin of history has it not?

News to me.


The idea that evoloution is silentally moving us 'forward' towards bigger & better mutations is

nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

Sinko
07-02-2009, 02:21 PM
Natural Selection has basically been consigned to dustbin of history has it not? Maybe just the circles I run (around) in.

yeah, maybe just your circles...

littlebird
07-02-2009, 03:16 PM
Nice to hear you moved on. I should be off to teach in Europe, once I'm done taking my time with school, but people seem to get stuck here... maybe because most of their friends never leave. Never quite got why Orange County natives never venture out, but it seems to be a thing here.

i honestly couldn't wait to get out.

taking time with school is a good thing, though. good luck with your studies and travels.


[QUOTE]Yeah, I like those spots. I'm right around the corner from the Continental myself, by old town Fullerton. I do really like it here... not bad at all for Orange County.

first apt i had was near there, as well. Truslow. close to the train station and what used to be the Hub. for OC, Fullerton was not so bad, college town feel to it/personality.

doom
07-02-2009, 03:41 PM
nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

Not that I said it was.

The problem with ideas (like Darwinian evolution or Marxism or...) when they become articles of faith is that they get layed over the top of existing beliefs. So people who have a predominately Christian value system are brought up with Darwin & the two are inextricably linked, but not always on a conscious level.

I'm sorry, but Selection only goes so far into explaining many of the complex phenomena we can observe in nature, in ours & other species. I doubt it was ever intended to become the justification for passive or active genocide that it has, just like it was never intended to imply an invisable hand at work or that (modern) humans evolved from (modern) primates.

Natural Selection is really usefull for the Intelligent Design mob, for a reason.

josef k.
07-02-2009, 04:09 PM
Isn't the main point about Darwinian evolutionary theory that it doesn't have any kind of teleological aspect to it. Adaptation happens in an environment - a particular kind of beak is advantageous for a particular kind of food supply. But there is nothing in the evolutionary descent of these beaks which is objectively "fitter" than any other kind of beak per se. The better adapted beak isn't better than the worse adapted one in any sort of moral way, no more than psychopath in the criminal underworld is better than a nun, who would be hard pressed to survive there. Evolution isn't proceeding to any final denouement.

But one interesting difference between man and the other animals is that man actively alters his own environment. I'm not sure how Darwinian theory accounts for this.

Mr. Tea
07-02-2009, 04:12 PM
i do find it funny how much people have invested in evolution.
i can understand it in a way. the creationists are so comically thick and evil and viscious that it makes everyone with an ounce of sense rally behind the darwin banner.
that sort of thing is strategically stupid though. like if i'd become a commie during the cold war cos i didn't like americans or soemthing.

This is stupid. I'd still "believe in" evolution if there were no creationists, because it's, you know, real. I'm not rallying behind anyone's banner, I just accept it like I accept that the Earth orbits the Sun and that matter is made up of atoms. It's not something you can meaningfully question: the only alternative is to dogmatically deny it because it disagrees with your holy book of choice.

josef k.
07-02-2009, 04:16 PM
"I just accept it like I accept that the Earth orbits the Sun and that matter is made up of atoms."

But are these matters of belief? Or of knowledge, or fact. It strikes me that there's a difference. Perhaps the main one being, that the former doesn't really imply anything, whereas beliefs seem to commit their adherents to bigger claims.

I think some people do believe in evolution, and have had their minds warped as a consequence.

poetix
07-02-2009, 04:26 PM
I'm sorry, but Selection only goes so far into explaining many of the complex phenomena we can observe in nature, in ours & other species.

Speciation is a consequence of adaptation, and the primary mechanism of adaptation is mutation plus selection: it's a branch-and-prune heuristic.

Can you give me an example of some complex natural phenomenon, supposedly explained by natural selection, that cannot in fact be explained in that way? The Aurora Borealis will not do as an example, since that is not among the phenomena supposedly explained by natural selection. Ditto asteroid collisions, volcanic eruptions, or the expansion (or contraction) of glaciers.

doom
07-02-2009, 04:56 PM
... because it's, you know, real. ...

& this is the exact moment that science becomes religion.


I wish I could belive that everyone waving the flag for evolution was doing so thinking / knowing that 'fitter' doesn't mean 'better' My experiance tells me otherwise.


Can you give me an example of some complex natural phenomenon, supposedly explained by natural selection, that cannot in fact be explained in that way?

I would say, roughly, about 99&#37; of the things every human being is doing, right now. Sorry, it does look in previous posts as tho I'm saying selection doesn't exist at all, of course it does, but I don't think it has the first & last say that it has had in the past.

Tree lobsters are a great example. There are several species that are almost totally unrelated but evolved in similar circumstances to similar ends. On tiny islands floating in the middle of the Pacific. So you have several, similar, systems with a limited amount of connections between elements in those systems, ending up with unrelated but similar results.

That works fine under controlled conditions, when organisms find themselves in (increasingly) complex & dense systems it doesn't work so well. Selection is still at work but there are so many differant factors at play it becomes impossiable to say condition A led to mutation B which was selected over X, Y & Z because of C.

poetix
07-02-2009, 05:10 PM
I would say, roughly, about 99&#37; of the things every human being is doing, right now

Disqualified by the "supposedly explained by selection" clause, I think. Although I would say less than 99%.


Tree lobsters are a great example. There are several species that are almost totally unrelated but evolved in similar circumstances to similar ends. On tiny islands floating in the middle of the Pacific. So you have several, similar, systems with a limited amount of connections between elements in those systems, ending up with unrelated but similar results.

That works fine under controlled conditions, when organisms find themselves in (increasingly) complex & dense systems it doesn't work so well. Selection is still at work but there are so many differant factors at play it becomes impossiable to say condition A led to mutation B which was selected over X, Y & Z because of C.

I don't see how that works. Why is it impossible? It might just be very hard. Is it demonstrably impossible, or is this the argument from personal incredulity?

Mr. Tea
07-02-2009, 05:39 PM
Thats the idea behind 'Intelligent Design' or whatever the nouveu riche bible bashers are calling it isnt it?

Natural Selection has basically been consigned to dustbin of history has it not? Maybe just the circles I run (around) in. You get all these wierd permutations like Group Selection blahblahblah & end up at the gas chamber, not a good look.

It has a really hard time explaining alot of (pretty) universal traits, the panopoly of self destruction. Bataille did more to describe that than any Darwinist ever could.

The idea that evoloution is silentally moving us 'forward' towards bigger & better mutations is obv. bollocks. Burroughs interpolated that if a virus & the host reach a point where each party is mutally benefiting from the arrangment then the virus ceases to be a virus, or seen as a virus. This can be anything, from The Word, to Love.

Any system where there are as many connections as discrete elements approachs chaos.

That goes alot further, for me, to describing what we've been observing in the natural world.

Of course Evolution is a belif system, comprable to one of the 'big 3' - this doesn't mean that the idea of evolution isnt constanly shifting its parameters or make it any less 'true' or 'false' Likewise, just cos I don't believe in their book doesn't undermine the relevance of 2000+ years of lived experiance.

This has to rate as one of the stupidest posts I've ever read on Dissensus. It's like every smug, ignorant, po-mo anti-science clich&#233; rolled into one.

"Natural selection is like soooo last century, no-one takes that outdated empiricist-modernist schlock seriously any more, I mean get with the preaugram!"

Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust.

Evolution as a belief system - because after all, isn't science just another kind of religion????!!!

Blah blah Burroughs, some confused math-speak, the old teleology straw man and oh, some French philosopher clearly knows more about biology than any of those stupid biologists...

Mr. Tea
07-02-2009, 05:42 PM
& this is the exact moment that science becomes religion.


How so? Is you definition of 'religion' equivalent to knowing facts? There is a huge body of evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection, and so far there's been no serious, rigorous research that contradicts it. To accept something as true when it's as well-supported as that is not religion, it's the complete opposite of religion. Religion revolves wholly around blind faith and received wisdom, it's completely antithetical to empiricism.

Mr. Tea
07-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Tree lobsters are a great example. There are several species that are almost totally unrelated but evolved in similar circumstances to similar ends. On tiny islands floating in the middle of the Pacific. So you have several, similar, systems with a limited amount of connections between elements in those systems, ending up with unrelated but similar results.

This is called parallel evolution and is a well known phenomenon. Surely the fact that separate species converge towards a similar adaptation in similar environments is good evidence in favour of Darwinian selection and evolution?

josef k.
07-02-2009, 05:49 PM
"Religion revolves wholly around blind faith and received wisdom, it's completely antithetical to empiricism."

Of course, one abiding irony of contemporary religion is that it has begun to present itself in pseudo-scientific terms. Creationists say that creationism is a theory - and granted, this is ridiculous, but questions of scientific method and what is the correct relationship to science to adopt come into play here, and these are not simple questions.

Some religious types precisely think they know that they know facts.

Here is a question: Would you accept that there is a religion of science? A religion which is not the same as science but which science sometimes may tend to bleed into?

And if you would, would you agree or disagree with the idea that there is now today a religion of Darwinism?

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 06:40 PM
Thats the idea behind 'Intelligent Design' or whatever the nouveu riche bible bashers are calling it isnt it?

Natural Selection has basically been consigned to dustbin of history has it not? Maybe just the circles I run (around) in. You get all these wierd permutations like Group Selection blahblahblah & end up at the gas chamber, not a good look.

It has a really hard time explaining alot of (pretty) universal traits, the panopoly of self destruction. Bataille did more to describe that than any Darwinist ever could.

The idea that evoloution is silentally moving us 'forward' towards bigger & better mutations is obv. bollocks. Burroughs interpolated that if a virus & the host reach a point where each party is mutally benefiting from the arrangment then the virus ceases to be a virus, or seen as a virus. This can be anything, from The Word, to Love.

Any system where there are as many connections as discrete elements approachs chaos.

That goes alot further, for me, to describing what we've been observing in the natural world.

Of course Evolution is a belif system, comprable to one of the 'big 3' - this doesn't mean that the idea of evolution isnt constanly shifting its parameters or make it any less 'true' or 'false' Likewise, just cos I don't believe in their book doesn't undermine the relevance of 2000+ years of lived experiance.

Natural Selection has not been "consigned to the dustbin of history". SOCIAL DARWINISM has.

In case maybe this is a mystery to all of you, Bataille and Burroughs believed in evolution.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 06:44 PM
How so? Is you definition of 'religion' equivalent to knowing facts? There is a huge body of evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection, and so far there's been no serious, rigorous research that contradicts it. To accept something as true when it's as well-supported as that is not religion, it's the complete opposite of religion. Religion revolves wholly around blind faith and received wisdom, it's completely antithetical to empiricism.

Mr. Tea, it is now cool to pretend that science is the same as blind faith in Spaghetti Monsters.

I think what the people here are doing is mixing up social darwinism with the well-accepted tenets of Darwinian evolution.

Of course people have used science (or tried to use science) to prop up their stupid ideologies in the past. They still are--check out any creationist "scientist" if you want to see some really horrific anti-science. The logic leap from here to "science is the same as religion or any other belief system" is pretty ridic.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 06:54 PM
I would say, roughly, about 99% of the things every human being is doing, right now. Sorry, it does look in previous posts as tho I'm saying selection doesn't exist at all, of course it does, but I don't think it has the first & last say that it has had in the past.

Tree lobsters are a great example. There are several species that are almost totally unrelated but evolved in similar circumstances to similar ends. On tiny islands floating in the middle of the Pacific. So you have several, similar, systems with a limited amount of connections between elements in those systems, ending up with unrelated but similar results.

That works fine under controlled conditions, when organisms find themselves in (increasingly) complex & dense systems it doesn't work so well. Selection is still at work but there are so many differant factors at play it becomes impossiable to say condition A led to mutation B which was selected over X, Y & Z because of C.

Whaa??

Whaaaaaattt?????

Actually selection is still at work in our own complex and dense system. How many species is it that go extinct each year? Hundreds if not thousands.

Tree lobsters may be a rare case of an individual species surviving with no nearby ancestors in conditions that seem nearly impossible for them to have survived, but this almost certainly is MORE proof of natural selection. They must have benefited from some sort of mutation that made them eventually adaptive to the land environs. Lobsters and insects aren't so different, really. Lobsters and scorpions.

nomadthethird
07-02-2009, 07:11 PM
Also, I just looked at one of these "tree lobsters" and they just look like a large insect with a red exoskeleton. I think the "lobsters" designation is poetic more than literal.

luka
07-02-2009, 11:06 PM
one FACT is that things change from one form into another.
thats fine. forms which survive often seem adapted to the niche they inhabit, to a greater or lesser extent. well sure, the beaks thing is lovely, i love the beaks. and survival has, as one of its preconditions, the need to extract energy from the enviroment. im not sure how far that gets you. you are saying, in effect, things which are alive meet the preconditions for existance.
but i don't think you're dealing with facts when you attempt to blithely assert that all this is a product of natural selection and random mutations. i don't think thats a FACT. or at least not one that has been established with any degree of certainty. here you are dealing with probablities and educated guesses. i think there's room to believe in either, pure chaos, as doom suggests, or an intelligence byond the level of the individual, not limited to traditional conceptions of god. or perhaps, a thousand other things and patterns to lay over reality.
in the chaos scenario there is no why. or at least the number of factors at play are so numerous and so hopeleslly tangled and interlinked that any attempt to explain is hubristic.
in the other case, well, im sure its something everyone here has thought about at one time or another, and if not, i would sigguest you're sorely lacking in imagination. (or scarred by a religious upbringing.)

luka
07-02-2009, 11:17 PM
Can you give me an example of some complex natural phenomenon, supposedly explained by natural selection, that cannot in fact be explained in that way?

i think it probably depends on how you are defining NS.
certainly not every phenomeon appears to be adaptive, but thats neccesarily true in a continuously changing enviroment. if you are take every phenomenon, and say either that it exists becasue it is adaptive, or that it exists because it is a mutation which either hasnt been 'selected' (misleading word) out of the gene pool, or is so utterly inconsequential that there are no pressures bearing upon it, well sure, you can explain everything in that way.
but again, whether that makes it a FACT in Mr Tea sense, im not so sure.

luka
07-02-2009, 11:20 PM
you're making the arguments after the facts. so once something dies out you assert it died out because it wasn't well adapted to its enviroment.
im not sure how helpful that is.

luka
07-02-2009, 11:21 PM
can evolution be boiled down to
a)things which are alive are those things which meet the preconditions for existance
b)things which die out are things which were unable to meet the preconditions for existance.
if not, what is there beyond that.
if so, in what way is it helpful?

luka
08-02-2009, 12:04 AM
i don't think you lot are competent enough to answer my queries though. im going to buy this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selection
sounds good.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:08 AM
There is no reason to believe that evolution is not a "chaotic" process. You seem to be adding strange value-added sort of judgments onto the theory of evolution that do not belong there, and I'm not sure why.

No, evolution cannot be boiled down to "a)things which are alive are those things which meet the preconditions for existance
b)things which die out are things which were unable to meet the preconditions for existance."

To be honest, I don't even know for sure what these statements mean.

Evolution describes the process by which organic life forms genetically mutate and therefore change over time, dynamically, in relation to environmental cues and circumstances. That is all.

This was a hugely important discovery, for the reasons I've already mentioned. We've mapped the human genome. We already know for a fact that we share DNA with certain other species, we have common ancestors with other primates. This has confirmed the theory of evolution in ways no one ever anticipated that it would be confirmed.

Using DNA, we've found the genetic basis for many illnesses. We've discovered that MS shares glial cell malformation similarities with epilepsy and bipolar disorder and that the three may be genetically linked. My grandmother spent most of her life lying in nursing home paralysed from the neck down with MS. Oddly enough, I have TLE and bipolar disorder as do other members of my family. These sorts of discoveries make a difference to me, and to a lot of other people who've suffered with these diseases. The more we know the closer we get to better treatment modalities and cures.

We've made a lot of headway with Alzheimers, Parkinson's, I could go on for hours. We can now treat severe pain well enough to perform major surgeries. Heart transplants, lung transplants, FACE transplants. The applications for this knowledge are endless.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:11 AM
Because we have such close genetic cousins in other primates, they make great research subjects in place of humans, as well. If we had never discovered that humans are primates, and all primates evolved from a common ancestor, we wouldn't have discovered nearly anything medical that we have, especially in the field of neurology.

Of course, some people think it's wrong to use other species of animals for the sorts of research we wouldn't conduct on humans. But that's another thread.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:14 AM
i think it probably depends on how you are defining NS.
certainly not every phenomeon appears to be adaptive, but thats neccesarily true in a continuously changing enviroment. if you are take every phenomenon, and say either that it exists becasue it is adaptive, or that it exists because it is a mutation which either hasnt been 'selected' (misleading word) out of the gene pool, or is so utterly inconsequential that there are no pressures bearing upon it, well sure, you can explain everything in that way.
but again, whether that makes it a FACT in Mr Tea sense, im not so sure.

There is only one scientific definition of natural selection.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:19 AM
Nothing gets "selected out" of the gene pool. Some things end up getting selected in randomly due to the dynamic relationship between genetic factors and environmental ones.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:39 AM
But I suppose people who want to find a cure for cancer, or learn about anything that isn't purely imaginary or aesthetic--they're just dumb.

If you can read it in a book, and it might make a difference to someone in the real world, there just can't be any imagination involved, and therefore it's worthless and stupid. Some of the greatest, most imaginative minds of all time weren't scientific. Nope. Da Vinci, Huxley, Eisenstein (more math, but...), Watson, Hawking, Einstein.

Scientists should just give it all up and masturbate in front of mirrors while reciting poems they wrote about universes that don't really exist.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 12:43 AM
the real world

I've been there!

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:47 AM
Applause!

luka
08-02-2009, 12:55 AM
this is a bit strange.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 12:58 AM
The pomo "I'm sooo over evolution, I'm so way too cool for it" part, or the other people who are trying to explain it part?

luka
08-02-2009, 01:02 AM
But I suppose people who want to find a cure for cancer, or learn about anything that isn't purely imaginary or aesthetic--they're just dumb.

If you can read it in a book, and it might make a difference to someone in the real world, there just can't be any imagination involved, and therefore it's worthless and stupid. Some of the greatest, most imaginative minds of all time weren't scientific. Nope. Da Vinci, Huxley, Eisenstein (more math, but...), Watson, Hawking, Einstein.

Scientists should just give it all up and masturbate in front of mirrors while reciting poems they wrote about universes that don't really exist.

you actually edited this to make sure it sounded really good. this is the product of effort. and serious thought/consideration.
its a silly manuvere, scientists/real world vs arty types/imagination
i find science difficult and, in the minute particulars, deeply dull. im not good at rememering names of a thousand things. thats obvious. you are good at things that i find terrily difficult and vice versa.
i find a lot of science stuff very intriguning and i'd like to get a better handle on it.
if you wanted to write a poem and you showed it to me i wouldn't abuse it even though it would probably be a bit shit.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:03 AM
haha
im sorry, i know thats not very honest....
but really though, i had hoped to a more intelligent co-operative response to my admitedly antagonistic questions.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:05 AM
i reserve the right to be antagonisitc, just as you insist on your right to be abusive.
its the way i function. i find it entertaining.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:06 AM
you actually edited this to make sure it sounded really good. this is the product of effort. and serious thought/consideration.
its a silly manuvere, scientists/real world vs arty types/imagination
i find science difficult and, in the minute particulars, deeply dull. im not good at rememering names of a thousand things. thats obvious. you are good at things that i find terrily difficult and vice versa.
i find a lot of science stuff very intriguning and i'd like to get a better handle on it.
if you wanted to write a poem and you showed it to me i wouldn't abuse it even though it would probably be a bit shit.

First of all, that post took about ten seconds to type up. Then I edited it to make sure I included Da Vinci because he's important. And put the "math" qualifier in there for Einsenstein so Mr. Tea didn't have to do it for me later.

Nothing really needed to be added to the thread after Mr. Tea and Poetix came on and were "OTM" as they say in message board land.

You are the one who insinuated that anyone who believed in evolution or liked science did so out of failure of imagination. So fuck off. That's bullshit and you know it.

I'm a professional writer. I don't know what your perception of my ability to write poetry has to do with any of this...

luka
08-02-2009, 01:09 AM
you claim to be whatever suits you at any particular time. its one of your more endearing traits.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:10 AM
you claim to be whatever suits you at any particular time. its one of your more endearing traits.

Claim to be what? I've always claimed to be a professional medical grant writer. Because that is what I am.

Look me up on craiglist, my resume should be up. My name is J3771c4 Gr4v3s.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:11 AM
You are the one who insinuated that anyone who believed in evolution or liked science did so out of failure of imagination.

i didn't insinuate anything. i stated baldly that if someone had never considered the possibility of an intelligence operating beyond the level of the individual they were unimaginative. i didn't say or insinuate that there WAS such an intelligence or that failure to belive in such an intelligence was evidence of a lack of imaginiation.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:13 AM
i didn't insinuate anything. i stated baldly that if someone had never considered the possibility of an intelligence operating beyond the level of the individual they were unimaginative. i didn't say or insinuate that there WAS such an intelligence or that failure to belive in such an intelligence was evidence of a lack of imaginiation.

Did someone claim that evolution states that people are not intelligent?

luka
08-02-2009, 01:14 AM
i don't see what that has to do with anything. im a professional
labourer/painter and decorator/barista/securtiy guard.
why are you sharing that information? to bolster what particular claim?

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:15 AM
i don't see what that has to do with anything. im a professional
labourer/painter and decorator/barista/securtiy guard.
why are you sharing that information? to bolster what particular claim?

You seemed to be implying that I'm lying about being professional writer. Well, I'm not buddyo.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:15 AM
Is this you?

http://usera.imagecave.com/cherryvintage/BARLOW114dues.jpg

luka
08-02-2009, 01:16 AM
Did someone claim that evolution states that people are not intelligent?

you're making me doubt my ability to communicate effectively.
i meant, for example, god.
or, intelligent DNA, or alien intelligence guiding the development of life on earth, or whatever other thing you care to dream up.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:18 AM
Is this you?

Nope. Is that who you got on google image? This is me:

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/347/2335252gw7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

luka
08-02-2009, 01:18 AM
but what does it prove? that you're 'better' at writing than me?
or what? what is the purpose of telling me that.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:19 AM
but what does it prove? that you're 'better' at writing than me?
or what? what is the purpose of telling me that.

No. You're the one who is trying to tell me I'm some kind of shit writer, Luka. What is the purpose of that?

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:19 AM
Is this you as well:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Sales-Rebuttals-For-Getting-Past-Gatekeepers&id=1232655

This person seems fairly sensible.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:21 AM
Actually, I'm definitely going to use some of these tips in the future.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:21 AM
Is this you as well:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Sales-Rebuttals-For-Getting-Past-Gatekeepers&id=1232655

This person seems fairly sensible.

No. Mostly I wrote grants, or business proposals, so I write for the institution/company to either private foundations or pharmaceutical companies (in the case of my most recent job in the private sector). I don't get to take byline credit.

The gatekeeper thing is sort of like what I would have to write to train program associates though.

swears
08-02-2009, 01:23 AM
Look me up on craiglist, my resume should be up. My name is ________.

You sure you wanna be posting your name and pic, nomad? Didn't you have trouble with that before for some reason? Sorry if this sounds a bit patronising or whatever...

luka
08-02-2009, 01:24 AM
what is the purpose of that? well, the purpose is, you were hurling abuse at me and i thought i should respnd in kind.
is that not reasonable?
i have no idea if you can write, im just assuming that im the best.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:24 AM
You sure you wanna be posting your name and pic, nomad? Didn't you have trouble with that before for some reason? Sorry if this sounds a bit patronising or whatever...

No, I didn't.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:25 AM
i enjoy a healthy sense of self-esteem.
whats the problem?

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:25 AM
what is the purpose of that? well, the purpose is, you were hurling abuse at me and i thought i should respnd in kind.
is that not reasonable?
i have no idea if you can write, im just assuming that im the best.

Hurling abuse? I was defending evolution against the idea that it's a useless, worthless system of belief tantamount to a religion!

luka
08-02-2009, 01:26 AM
i mean you did say i spend all my time writing poems about universes that dont exist and masturabting in front of the mirror. i think some sort of response is justified.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:28 AM
i mean you did say i spend all my time writing poems about universes that dont exist and masturabting in front of the mirror. i think some sort of response is justified.

No I didn't say that you did that, I said that if scientists are so evil, maybe it would be better if they did that instead of trying to cure cancer.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:29 AM
Why does everyone read everything that's obviously an abstract joke in response to some weird implications about everyone who's into something being unimaginative (for example) and assume I'm saying it about them specifically?

Guh. The internet.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:29 AM
there's no creationists here after all, as far as i can see.
i was just thinking to myself that evolution is something i accepted as true without really understanding it or examining it and that the same was almost certainly true of many other people. that the evidence, regardless of whehter it exists or not, is just assumed to exist and so we don't have to worry about it. now, perhaps you hav studied evolution in great detail and know it to be true in every particular. well good for you, but thats not really what i was getting at.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:30 AM
This is a good thread. I am here smoking cigarettes and writing about a doomed love affair.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:31 AM
Isn't the way that the internet can layer narratives quite remarkable?

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:31 AM
there's no creationists here after all, as far as i can see.
i was just thinking to myself that evolution is something i accepted as true without really understanding it or examining it and that the same was almost certainly true of many other people. that the evidence, regardless of whehter it exists or not, is just assumed to exist and so we don't have to worry about it. now, perhaps you hav studied evolution in great detail and know it to be true in every particular. well good for you, but thats not really what i was getting at.

Well, this is definitely true, but I think it's part of a much larger symptom where people don't know or search out knowledge about anything anymore. Even though it's all at their fingertips thanks to the internets.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:33 AM
Isn't the way that the internet can layer narratives quite remarkable?

Yes, it's a hypertext that is fun to contribute to as it expands infinitely in all directions. Especially when it is so cold outside that there is almost literally nowhere to go.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:33 AM
you are being disengenous. dont insult my intelligence. i have a pop at people all the time. theres no reason why you shouldn't admit to having a pop at me.
my feelings aren't hurt by messages on a message board, though sometimes they might spur me into attack mode. i don't see a problem with it. its what happens when people communicate.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:35 AM
in fact its so hot outside theres no where to go. and while i agree these are always the best threads to read and i enjoy particiapting im not sure its good for my highly polished reputation.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:35 AM
Nomad and I are in agreement on something. Now the world has to end.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:36 AM
you are being disengenous. dont insult my intelligence. i have a pop at people all the time. theres no reason why you shouldn't admit to having a pop at me.
my feelings aren't hurt by messages on a message board, though sometimes they might spur me into attack mode. i don't see a problem with it. its what happens when people communicate.

But I really wasn't, I was just saying, if it's sooo evil of scientists to want to cure cancer, maybe they should just retreat into their rooms and do the jerk off teenager thing.

I don't know, is that what you do all day? I guess I don't know you well enough. If I hit a sore spot it was by accident. I swear to God.!!!

luka
08-02-2009, 01:36 AM
its around 40 degrees.
what dissensus suffers from is the huge lag in response time. i think these threads are good partly becasue they take place in real time. (though i know the best part is the weird personal vibes and insults and unjustified assumptions and stuff)

luka
08-02-2009, 01:38 AM
you know full well that that is how i like to spend my time. we've discussed this at great length. why are you pretending otherwise? you were telling me how well i masterbate in front of the mirror. though i admit you may just have been being polite.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:39 AM
the idea of somebody masturbating in front of a mirror is really quite gruesome

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:40 AM
you know full well that that is how i like to spend my time. we've discussed this at great length. why are you pretending otherwise? you were telling me how well i masterbate in front of the mirror. though i admit you may just have been being polite.

I do know you like to write, and I do know that I have enjoyed your writing, and that topically it has touched upon teenagerhood and such but I never really had a mental picture of you as a sit around and jerk off while reciting poetry type, but hey!

You learns something new everyday, especially on Dissensus.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:40 AM
you just don't have a pretty enough face.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:41 AM
if i looked like kafka i wouldn't masterbate in front of the mirror either.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:41 AM
the idea of somebody masturbating in front of a mirror is really quite gruesome

I like to take the most gruesome thing I can think of and then take it a couple of steps further and then say it. Mostly online but also in the real world.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:42 AM
Things are beginning to clarify.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:43 AM
Oh noes, I'm ugweee.

sniffle.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:43 AM
maybe if you held your sheaf of poems in front of your face you might find it more palatable.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:44 AM
the whole world is perhaps masturbating in front of a mirror, holding up things in front of their faces.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:45 AM
I have a friend whose apartment walls were entirely mirrored. Sort of with a Miami Vice/disco vibe to it. It was horrifying, sleeping there was impossible.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:47 AM
the whole world is perhaps masturbating in front of a mirror, holding up things in front of their faces.

and dreaming a dream of evolution.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:47 AM
isnt that a borges story?

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:48 AM
the whole world is perhaps masturbating in front of a mirror, holding up things in front of their faces.

Agent to thread with link to article about narcissism and polypharmokinetics.

BTW Agent that article you linked up yesterday was really good if you're reading this, which I don't blame you if you're not.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:51 AM
so i guess im the winner, no one believes in evolution anymore and i have single-handedly toppled one of the towering pillars of modern science.
on a message board.

josef k.
08-02-2009, 01:53 AM
now you must take on the laws of physics.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 01:55 AM
That's Mr. Tea's bag.

You fuckers think I'm abusing you on here, but I'm really abusing myself, since I have been sitting on the floor to type this dumbness for about two hours now and I think I'm going to have a hunchback before I log off.

luka
08-02-2009, 01:59 AM
self-abuse, you too?

luka
08-02-2009, 02:00 AM
i got a date with a mirror, see you next time.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 02:30 AM
self-abuse, you too?

No I am a woman, women don't do nasty things like that! Gasp.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 02:32 AM
But just so we all get one thing clear, I'm a lot of things on here--snide, bitchy, obnoxious, rude, whatever--but I'm not a liar. Anything I've told you about my life or what I do is true. Just ask Swears.

swears
08-02-2009, 02:39 AM
But just so we all get one thing clear, I'm a lot of things on here--snide, bitchy, obnoxious, rude, whatever--but I'm not a liar. Anything I've told you about my life or what I do is true. Just ask Swears.


I really don't know anything about you apart from your posts here, nomad...
Are you getting me mixed up with someone? Don't think you're a liar, tho.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 02:45 AM
I really don't know anything about you apart from your posts here, nomad...
Are you getting me mixed up with someone? Don't think you're a liar, tho.

Was just kidding!

I think it's hilarious how people here act like there's something strange about someone having a personal life, though. As if simply having details of a personal life is strange in and of itself. I know some people would rather not post about theirs, and that's fine. But the incredulity, it always makes me wonder--do other people not have a personal life? Do they not have parents with a nationality? Or any medical history whatsoever? I can't figure out what it is that is especially strange about being a professional writer that makes it somehow suspicious. Lots of people on here are professional writers, aren't they?

swears
08-02-2009, 02:52 AM
I don't like to post my name or Facebook or whatever because I don't really want the people I work for or whatever reading about me doing ecstasy in the past or being a manic depressive, etc.. I haven't told anyone IRL about dissensus, it's nice to have a little place removed from everything else, imo. But if you're happy doing that, fine.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 02:59 AM
I don't like to post my name or Facebook or whatever because I don't really want the people I work for or whatever reading about me doing ecstasy in the past or being a manic depressive, etc.. I haven't told anyone IRL about dissensus, it's nice to have a little place removed from everything else, imo. But if you're happy doing that, fine.

First, right now I am freelancing. So technically I don't work for any of those people anymore. And nobody at those places is spending time googling my name, and then poring over random message boards to figure out if it's really me who posted this or that-- that I know for sure. They are busy people with lives and better things to do. I am nowhere near special enough for them to care about that much.

I don't mind if people know I have a mood disorder that is genetic and that is not my fault and that is, at the moment, well-controlled by medication. Not a problem in my mind. American culture is very different about this, I've gathered, than British culture is, in a lot of ways. We don't see this as a shameful thing, anymore than it would be shameful if I had glaucoma. I'm proud of myself for how far I've come in it, honestly. I wouldn't hesitate to discuss this with my employers if I needed to at any time. We have anti-discrimination laws here to protect sick people from being unfairly terminated only on the basis of their condition.

As far as Dissensus being "removed from real life", my boyfriend used to read it, I don't know if he still does, but that's about it from my "real life"... even if it were removed from real life, I think that a lot of things I've learned about in life, I've learned in part because of the struggles I've had with certain things, and yeah, that's ok with me.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:05 AM
And anybody who would not hire you because you experimented with ecstacy once?

I mean, if they ruled out everyone in the world who experimented with drugs at some point in their lives, there would be no one to hire in the world. That's just silly.

I would never post a long Hunter S Thompson story on my Facebook, because some employers search those (you can always put it on PRIVATE, though)...other than that, I don't think message boards are the sort of things employers are trolling.

swears
08-02-2009, 03:07 AM
And nobody at those places is spending time googling my name, and then poring over random message boards to figure out if it's really me who posted this or that-- that I know for sure. They are busy people with lives and better things to do. I am nowhere near special enough for them to care about that much.

I've worked with some very nosy people in the past... they really don't have anything better to do, haha. I know a girl at work who had all kinds of rumours spread about her, and a picture of her in a bikini on holiday from her myspace was sent round on people's phones, that's the the mentality sometimes, sad.



I don't mind if people know I have a mood disorder that is genetic and that is not my fault and that is, at the moment, well-controlled by medication. Not a problem in my mind. American culture is very different about this, I've gathered, than British culture is, in a lot of ways. We don't see this as a shameful thing, anymore than it would be shameful if I had glaucoma. I'm proud of myself for how far I've come in it, honestly. I wouldn't hesitate to discuss this with my employers if I needed to at any time. We have anti-discrimination laws here to protect sick people from being unfairly terminated only on the basis of their condition.

This is all very true, and we have similar laws in the UK, but there are people I work with who've called me weird just for being a bit quiet and not liking typically blokey stuff like lad mags and football. If they knew about my mental health issues they'd have a field day.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:09 AM
Jeez that's terrible. If any of that happened over here there would be instant LAW SUITS galore.

Are you serious that someone took a picture and sent it around just to be mean?

I guess I was fortunate to work with people who were more focused on, err, the task at hand while at work...

swears
08-02-2009, 03:11 AM
And anybody who would not hire you because you experimented with ecstacy once?

I mean, if they ruled out everyone in the world who experimented with drugs at some point in their lives, there would be no one to hire in the world. That's just silly.

I would never post a long Hunter S Thompson story on my Facebook, because some employers search those (you can always put it on PRIVATE, though)...other than that, I don't think message boards are the sort of things employers are trolling.

The company I worked for dismissed two people for doing coke one weekend, I don't think I'd be sacked for doing ecstasy when I used to go out clubbing, but I wouldn't want to risk it.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:14 AM
The company I worked for dismissed two people for doing coke one weekend, I don't think I'd be sacked for doing ecstasy when I used to go out clubbing, but I wouldn't want to risk it.

What?!??!

Did they have some kind of proof, or was this just conjecture?

It's definitely very different over here, the attitude.

swears
08-02-2009, 03:15 AM
Are you serious that someone took a picture and sent it around just to be mean?



They sent it round to perv at her, she's a good looking girl... she posted it on her myspace, nothing risqu&#233;, just her and a friend on the beach. Dumb, but that's what you're dealing with: nosey, bored office workers.

The coke thing was on a works night out, there were witnesses, and much talk of the company's reputation being damaged. I think they were asked to resign, kinda thing.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:15 AM
It's funny, most of the girls at RU were on SSRIs and shit. They all talked openly about it. And their shrink appointments.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:18 AM
They sent it round to perv at her, she's a good looking girl... she posted it on her myspace, nothing risqué, just her and a friend on the beach. Dumb, but that's what you're dealing with: nosey, bored office workers.

See this is so weird to me.

My professors used to have me and some of my friends over to their homes, some of them would do things they shouldn't have with us. I've been in similar professional situations. It's not a big deal over here.

I do understand keeping real friends and work friends separated, though--I try not to use Facebook for party-related photos or risque photos because I have lots of work people on it.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:20 AM
The coke thing was on a works night out, there were witnesses, and much talk of the company's reputation being damaged. I think they were asked to resign, kinda thing.

Ah, ok, this I can understand I guess...

It's just in NY there are some industries that are well known as "party" and drug friendly...

Like music industry, PR, event planning, and most obviously wall street

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 03:26 AM
I don't know, maybe Agent and Peter Gunn can attest to this as well, but the more I read on here from Brits, the more I realize that drugs really are part of the fabric of everyday life for Americans, in a unique way.

They're really truly not that uncommon, even in professional situations.

doom
08-02-2009, 05:22 AM
Evolution as a belief system - because after all, isn't science just another kind of religion????!!!

Slow down turbo.
Of course it is!
I'm not talking about university campus, academia science.
But, the way these things operate in the wild.

Science, Marxism, "insertwhateverthefuckyouwanthere" operate as (or in the same way as) religous crutches, articles of faith, they don't simply come in, clean house & replace pre-existing ideas or ways of thinking.

"Nothing gets "selected out" of the gene pool."

Is a nice way to think about it. Ideas & belifs get layered over the top of one another.

In practice everything implies value, science can't escape politics & people need to believe in some fact/god/power outside of themselves, something to defer to. People become invested in an idea & yeah, thats the end of science & the start of religion. It it all comes down to whats in your share portfolio.

Yep, tree lobsters (it is a cute name) are a great example / argument for selection, god bless those tiny specs of dirt floating in huge expanses of ocean!

whatever
08-02-2009, 09:14 AM
Slow down turbo.
Of course it is!
I'm not talking about university campus, academia science.
But, the way these things operate in the wild.

Science, Marxism, "insertwhateverthefuckyouwanthere" operate as (or in the same way as) religous crutches, articles of faith, they don't simply come in, clean house & replace pre-existing ideas or ways of thinking.

"Nothing gets "selected out" of the gene pool."

Is a nice way to think about it. Ideas & belifs get layered over the top of one another.

In practice everything implies value, science can't escape politics & people need to believe in some fact/god/power outside of themselves, something to defer to. People become invested in an idea & yeah, thats the end of science & the start of religion. It it all comes down to whats in your share portfolio.

Yep, tree lobsters (it is a cute name) are a great example / argument for selection, god bless those tiny specs of dirt floating in huge expanses of ocean!
first of all, this is post is ridiculous

second, this is nonsense: "science, Marxism, insert-what-you-like-here, operate as religious crutches..."

Oh wait, just a minute ago, i was BREATHING, and when I stopped to think about it, I ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT BREATHING MADE SOME LOCAL MOMENTARY SENSE ... but that must have been a "religious crutch" , right ?

um, NO. just b/c someone thinks about a certain problem with certain methods (which both scientists and marxists tend to do) does not mean that they are leaning on RELIGION , guffaw

clean up yr thinking there, doom .

crazy fun thread though, damn , who knew saturday nites could be so much fun :D

Agent Nucleus
08-02-2009, 04:38 PM
darwin turns 200 years old in 4 days: http://www.darwin200.org/ my guess is that middle aged schoolteachers (and their students) are celebrating this somehow. i learned about evolution in a lot of detail in public school in georgia (one of the worst public school systems in the US). if evolution is right in principle, there should be a species that lives for 1000+ years and has a constant reproductive cycle, with a gestation period of 2-3 hours.

swears
08-02-2009, 06:18 PM
if evolution is right in principle, there should be a species that lives for 1000+ years and has a constant reproductive cycle, with a gestation period of 2-3 hours.

I guess if you had the right enviroment then maybe a species like that would evolve, but there are limits on space, energy, etc...

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 06:43 PM
darwin turns 200 years old in 4 days: http://www.darwin200.org/ my guess is that middle aged schoolteachers (and their students) are celebrating this somehow. i learned about evolution in a lot of detail in public school in georgia (one of the worst public school systems in the US). if evolution is right in principle, there should be a species that lives for 1000+ years and has a constant reproductive cycle, with a gestation period of 2-3 hours.

Really, why do you say this?

Agent Nucleus
08-02-2009, 07:33 PM
technology's evolution is outpacing biological evolution on some kind of exponential/fractal scale - that is if you consider, for example, Moore's Law to be a form of evolution. I'm trying to imagine a species of animal that would absolutely dominate the evolutionary landscape in Darwinian terms, and i think i was more or less describing plants and insects. With Darwin it's all about quantity over quality (in terms of spawning new generations with new mutations), but mammal evolution for example doesn't follow that model - it's more about social cooperation and complexity, time-binding intelligence, etc.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 07:52 PM
technology's evolution is outpacing biological evolution on some kind of exponential/fractal scale - that is if you consider, for example, Moore's Law to be a form of evolution. I'm trying to imagine a species of animal that would absolutely dominate the evolutionary landscape in Darwinian terms, and i think i was more or less describing plants and insects. With Darwin it's all about quantity over quality (in terms of spawning new generations with new mutations), but mammal evolution for example doesn't follow that model - it's more about social cooperation and complexity, time-binding intelligence, etc.

This is an interesting thought, and I probably agree with it, but as Swears mentions, we're limited by our environment. And if human evolution continues to rely upon industrial means of production, I can see us extinctifying ourselves sooner rather than later.

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 08:34 PM
http://speculativeheresy.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/the-semantic-apocalypse/

By the author of Neuropath:


CONSCIOUSNESS AS COIN TRICK: THE BLIND BRAIN HYPOTHESIS

What if we’ve been duped, not simply here and there, but all the way down, when it comes to experience? What if consciousness were some bizarre kind of hoax?

The final secondary argument offered in the novel is based on something called the ‘Blind Brain Hypothesis.’ Consciousness is so strange, so little understood, that anything might result from the current research in neuroscience and cognitive science. We could literally discover that we are little more than epiphenomenal figments, dreams that our brains have cooked up in the absence of any viable alternatives. Science is ever the cruel stranger, the one who spares no feelings, concedes no conceits no matter how essential. In the near future world of Neuropath, this is precisely what has happened under the guise of the Blind Brain Hypothesis, the theoretical brainchild of the story’s hero, Thomas Bible.

Consider coin tricks. Why do coin tricks strike us as ‘magic’? When describing them, we say things like “poof, there it was.” The coin, we claim, “materialized from thin air” or “appeared from nowhere.” We tend, in other words, to focus on the lack of causal precursors, on the beforelessness of the coin’s appearance, as the amazing thing. But why should ‘beforelessness’ strike us as remarkable to the point of magic?

From an evolutionary standpoint, the uncanniness of things appearing from nowhere seems easy enough to understand. Our brains are adaptive artifacts of environments where natural objects such as coins generally didn’t ‘pop into existence.’ Our brains have evolved to process causal environments possessing natural objects with interrelated causal histories. When natural objects appear without any apparent causal history, as in a coin trick, our brains are confronted by something largely without evolutionary precedent. Instances of apparent beforelessness defeat our brains’ routine environmental processing.

The magic of coin tricks, one might say, is a function of our brains’ hardwired abhorrence of causal vacuums in local environments. The integration of natural objects into causal backgrounds is the default, which is why, we might suppose, the sense of magic immediately evaporates when we look over the magician’s shoulder and the causal history of the coin is revealed. The magic of coin tricks, in other words, depends on our brains’ relation to the coin’s causal history. Expose that causal history, and the appearing coin seems a natural object like any other. Suppress that causal history (through misdirection, sleight of hand, etc.), and the appearing coin exhibits beforelessness. It seems like magic.

I bring this up because so many intentional phenomena exhibit an eerily similar structure. Consider, for instance, your present experience of listening. The words you hear ‘are simply there.’ You experience me speaking; nowhere does the neurophysiology–the causal history–of your experience enter into that experience as something experienced. You have no inkling of sound waves striking your eardrum. You have no intuitive awareness of your cochlea or auditory cortex. Like the coin, this experience seems to arise ‘ready made.’

The Blind Brain Hypothesis proposes that this is no accident. Various experiential phenomena, it suggests, are best understood as a kind of magic trick–only one that we cannot see through or around because our brain itself is the magician.

Whether or not the so-called ‘thalamocortical system’ turns out to be the ‘seat of consciousness,’ one thing is clear: the information that finds its way to consciousness represents only a small fraction of the brain’s overall information load. This means that at any given moment, the brain’s consciousness systems possess a kind of (fixed or dynamic) information horizon. What falls outside this information horizon, we are inclined to either overlook completely or attribute to the so-called ‘unconscious’–a problematic intentional metaphor if there ever was one.

...

nomadthethird
08-02-2009, 08:35 PM
If you get a chance to read that entire thing, do. It's one of the best things I've ever read on the internets. I completely disagree with the rebuttals, but I think Scott is right on.

Edit: sorry had the authors switched around at first

Agent Nucleus
09-02-2009, 04:08 AM
This is an interesting thought, and I probably agree with it, but as Swears mentions, we're limited by our environment. And if human evolution continues to rely upon industrial means of production, I can see us extinctifying ourselves sooner rather than later.

this is something I've thought about - we are limited biologically by how much energy, etc. we can harness and process, but i think we (humans) sidestep that with language, technology - anything that binds the past to the present, or encodes memories or information across time, gives us a huge advantage compared to animals. with technology though i think there are fewer external limits (energy, etc) because technologies create their own environment. in a sense we've changed the rules of evolution. genetic algorithms are one example, Moore's law, the singularity, etc. also indicate some kind of fundamental acceleration of biological/evolutionary time compared to the fossil record. to me this means that evolution is real but it isn't a fixed law in the sense of, say, one of the laws of thermodynamics. evolution as a process is correct in principle but the pace of evolution is completely relative. i mean, there could be planets that orbit their host stars at a different speed, and are home to organisms that evolve at a greatly accelerated or decelerated rate, who knows.

scottdisco
09-02-2009, 07:29 PM
i believe in the awesome unstoppable cosmic power of the pho noodle soup:

http://offthebroiler.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/IMG_2671-1.JPG

thank you Zhao, i'm with you on this one my man, all day long and into the next night sweet please

craner
09-02-2009, 11:07 PM
That looks revolting!

And I live with South Koreans, so I understand kimchi-breath, but still...

craner
09-02-2009, 11:07 PM
Lovely portrait, Nomad.

nomadthethird
10-02-2009, 12:40 AM
Thanks, Craner. I know I've transgressed the First Law of Internet Aloofness--never put your photo up! Oh my.

We should have a thread with our auto-retratos kind of like that good one we had of our neighborhoods a while ago...

craner
10-02-2009, 12:43 AM
We should have a thread were we flirt with each other like maniacs.

Agent Nucleus
10-02-2009, 12:45 AM
Agent to thread with link to article about narcissism and polypharmokinetics.

BTW Agent that article you linked up yesterday was really good if you're reading this, which I don't blame you if you're not.

it's hard to keep up sometime. i'm not sure which one you're referring to. btw i posted a couple anthologies of pirated essays on my blog :)

nomadthethird
10-02-2009, 01:05 AM
it's hard to keep up sometime. i'm not sure which one you're referring to. btw i posted a couple anthologies of pirated essays on my blog :)

The Newman one on post-anarchism.

luka
22-10-2013, 12:47 PM
i still dont believe in evolution. im reviviing bergson. intelligent evolution. thats my bag.

Mr. Tea
22-10-2013, 03:32 PM
intelligent evolution.

That would presumably make the giant panda's existence an exercise in applied trolling.

zhao
22-10-2013, 04:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6QHzIJO5a8#t=35