Is there intelligence behind the process of evolution?

#151 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -
#152 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: you didn't know how mutations are caused, I logically concluded that maybe they are triggered by a chemical signal, which turned out to be true, I was just pointing out I'm not as stupid as you guys like to make out.

I'm not moving from anything to anything, I was simply stating that physicist found the mapping of the brain cell to be the same as the mapping of the universe, google it. Now I find that quite interesting, with brain cells making up the brain and the brain providing intelligence, which makes me think maybe the universe is a massive brain cell, if you believe in the multiverse theory all the universes come together to make one big brain, therefore the universe maybe intelligent, nature maybe intelligent, This is just an example of how my brain puts these crazy ideas together.

I've never been able to openly express my thoughts I don't associate with people who discuss such things, so that's why it's all coming out now.

"99% of all species are extinct. So did the intelligence activate the wrong mutations?"

Like you say the process of evolution wiped out the weak species leaving only the strong, it did this by trying out different mutations, the species with successful mutations were given more mutations and so on and so on, the other species that didn't adapt to survive inevitably died out, it's why I said evolution is like an experiment. It's a good way of insuring only the worthy inherit the world.

#153 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58099 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: that's a stupid analogy clearly 1+1=17 is wrong where as with my theory you may think I'm wrong but unless you do know the secrets of life then you don't know for sure.

We could use any mathematical question in this analogy. If the question were a difficult one, the answer wouldn't be obvious and we would be fools to call the mathematician a robot. The point he makes, I think, is that attempting to answer a question through guessing is less advisable than listening to someone that knows the proper method. There are times when we should question things, but not before we fully understand the basics first.

#154 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58099 posts) -

@ariabed said:

Like you say the process of evolution wiped out the weak species leaving only the strong, it did this by trying out different mutations, the species with successful mutations were given more mutations and so on and so on, the other species that didn't adapt to survive inevitably died out, it's why I said evolution is like an experiment. It's a good way of insuring only the worthy inherit the world.

And like I said, in what possible world do the weak survive instead? Without the universe being a giant brain, as you say, are you suggesting that the strong die and the weak survive? Saying that the strong survive because of planning is unnecessary. The strong survive because they are strong.

And since the intelligence you postulate was merely "experimenting", we shouldn't give it any credit for creating these strong creatures. So what did this intelligence do besides throwing shit at the wall because some would stick?

#155 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -
#156 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: @SolidSnake35: I'm saying the experiment was set up so only the strong would survive, the intelligence didn't know which mutations were effective so had to test all of the mutations by process of illimination, forget it, you don't understand where I'm coming from, I'm not saying I'm right or your wrong, it's just the ramblings of a fool ignore me.

#157 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@thegerg: "You can ponder anything you wish, but that doesn't mean it's logical to call people that understand how science helps them understand the world "robots."

Your missing the point, I'm thinking past what science has learnt, someone like you absorbs facts, and you have no questions and no thoughts of what the unknown might be. That's why I call you a robot you only can only think within the constraints of what you have learned and you refuse to speculate on anything past that, Now that's fine to be like that but don't have a go at me for thinking outside the box and also don't tell me I don't know the basics of evolution I do know the rudiments of evolution.

#158 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@br0kenrabbit: it's freedom of speech in here if I wanna project my thoughts and ideas on a subject I will, just because you lack the mental capacity to think outside the box and discuss it, don't try stopping me from doing so, you blindly accept what your taught and you don't question anything or try and think past what you're taught, if my baseless assumptions annoy you don't reply to them you will only get more.

hahahahaha
You are worth your weight in gold

#159 Edited by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -
@ariabed said:

@thegerg: clearly as you can tell I'm not a scientist, so does that mean I can't ponder on the mysteries of life, you guys are all robots, you can only think within the constraints of your programming. Of course you can't learn anything from speculation, but you can have a good discussion, bounce ideas around let the mind wonder. I'm not here to impress anyone with vast knowledge of facts evidently, but I have learned a thing or two since coming on here.

That is for damn sure

#160 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@chaoscougar1: "hahahahaha

You are worth your weight in gold"

Hmmm I have a feeling you don't mean that in a good way, but fanx anyway.

#161 Posted by foxhound_fox (88111 posts) -

Unless you are being sarcastic about the term "intelligence" then no, there could not be any intelligence behind the process. There have been too many evolutionary dead-ends, odd mutations and nearly nonsensical additions to the gene pool for anyone within their right mind to consider a "directed" process.

Unless the person or thing directing it has a sadistic sense of humour. Then again, you might be talking about the God of the Old Testament, so this could in fact be true.

#162 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: I actually find you quite dull and boring lostrib not because you disagree with me but your post have no substance, you don't really have anything interesting to say or any interesting views.

#163 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: have you heard of physicist who mapped a brain cell found it to be the same as the mapping of the universe, what do you think to that?

#164 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@foxhound_fox: have you heard of physicist who mapped a brain cell found it to be the same as the mapping of the universe, what do you think to that?

Conclusive

#165 Edited by thegerg (15101 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: that's a stupid analogy clearly 1+1=17 is wrong where as with my theory you may think I'm wrong but unless you do know the secrets of life then you don't know for sure.

Maybe those are special intelligent numbers or something, and they can multiply themselves just like our bodies can replicate cells. The brain is made of brain cells, maybe those numbers are cells in a giant brain. If you weren't stuck in your robot way of thinking you'd see it, I'm just here to have a conversation about it. You only think I'm wrong.

#166 Posted by thegerg (15101 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: @SolidSnake35: I'm saying the experiment was set up so only the strong would survive, the intelligence didn't know which mutations were effective so had to test all of the mutations by process of illimination, forget it, you don't understand where I'm coming from, I'm not saying I'm right or your wrong, it's just the ramblings of a fool ignore me.

You're thinking like a robot. Experimentation is part of the scientific method. Only robots talk in terms of science.

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: "You can ponder anything you wish, but that doesn't mean it's logical to call people that understand how science helps them understand the world "robots."

Your missing the point, I'm thinking past what science has learnt, someone like you absorbs facts, and you have no questions and no thoughts of what the unknown might be. That's why I call you a robot you only can only think within the constraints of what you have learned and you refuse to speculate on anything past that, Now that's fine to be like that but don't have a go at me for thinking outside the box and also don't tell me I don't know the basics of evolution I do know the rudiments of evolution.

"someone like you absorbs facts, and you have no questions and no thoughts of what the unknown might be."

Again, this is untrue. Stop this bullshit. You've already been told that it is not true. If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop posing lies like this. No one here is against speculation in any way.

#167 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@thegerg: "Maybe those are special intelligent numbers or something, and they can multiply themselves just like our bodies can replicate cells. The brain is made of brain cells, maybe those numbers are cells in a giant brain. If you weren't stuck in your robot way of thinking you'd see it, I'm just here to have a conversation about it. You only think I'm wrong."

I don't get what you mean, you are just mocking hey?

#168 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@thegerg: "You're thinking like a robot. Experimentation is part of the scientific method. Only robots talk in terms of science."

I'm not against science, i like science if there is a higher intelligence at work it's science is far superior to ours, and it conducts experiments just like us but on a larger more complicated scale, but I can invision our science could be as good in say 100 years or maybe sooner.

#169 Edited by MonsieurX (30038 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@foxhound_fox: have you heard of physicist who mapped a brain cell found it to be the same as the mapping of the universe, what do you think to that?

It's not the mapping of the universe

http://disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

Below it is a simulated rendering of what astrophysicists believe to be the universe’s structure

#170 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed: at least I know how evolution works

#172 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: only thing you know lostrib is how to be uninspiring dull and boring, you stimulate no conversation what so ever.

#173 Posted by MonsieurX (30038 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@MonsieurX: yes they believe it to be the mapping of the universe, and for them to believe that, they must have some evidence. So if they believe, I believe.

I guess you didn't read my quote

#174 Posted by thegerg (15101 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: "You're thinking like a robot. Experimentation is part of the scientific method. Only robots talk in terms of science."

I'm not against science, i like science if there is a higher intelligence at work it's science is far superior to ours, and it conducts experiments just like us but on a larger more complicated scale, but I can invision our science could be as good in say 100 years or maybe sooner.

"i like science if there is a higher intelligence at work"

What if there isn't?

#175 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed: perhaps it's because you ask stupid questions

#176 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@MonsieurX: your right I misread your post sorry.

#177 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: "@ariabed: perhaps it's because you ask stupid questions"

Reply

Same old boring reply, Jeese!

#178 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed: because you've yet to say anything interesting, or take the time to educate yourself

#179 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: lostrib don't talk to me about not saying anything interesting, your the least interesting person on here.

#180 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed: all you've done is babble about ridiculous crap. The only thing it has accomplished is to make everyone think you're an idiot

#182 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: I don't care Lostrib, I'd rather be an idiot than a boring predictable dull human being.

#183 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed said:

There may come a time when we as humans can send living organisms through space to another earth like planet to begin the cycle all over again, maybe that's what happened with us. Humans far more advanced than us on a distant planet sent living organisms here to earth to continue the human race, not just human but all animal life.

...they sent a bunch of single celled organisms in hopes that the same thing would be replicated billions of years later? sounds like a shitty plan

#184 Edited by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: I don't care Lostrib, I'd rather be an idiot than a boring predictable dull human being.

I only work with what I'm given, so if it's dull that's your fault. Now, go read a book

#185 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: lostrib don't blame me for your dullness you was dull and boring long b4 I got here. Go outside get some fresh air talk to some real people your on here too much.

#186 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@thegerg: There may come a time when we as humans can send living organisms through space to another earth like planet to begin the cycle all over again, maybe that's what happened with us. Humans far more advanced than us on a distant planet sent living organisms here to earth to continue the human race, not just human but all animal life.

#187 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: lostrib don't blame me for your dullness you was dull and boring long b4 I got here. Go outside get some fresh air talk to some real people your on here too much.

Do you just enjoy looking like an idiot?

#188 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: lostrib your a dull lifeless corpse now why don't you be the bigger person and stop replying, your making yourself look like an idiot, repeating the same things over and over. Have you really got nothing better to do with your life, other than waste your time arguing with me. I feel very sorry for you

#189 Edited by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: lostrib your a dull lifeless corpse now why don't you be the bigger person and stop replying, your making yourself look like an idiot, repeating the same things over and over. Have you really got nothing better to do with your life, other than waste your time arguing with me. I feel very sorry for you

Yes, I'm the one that looks like an idiot, not the guy who can't use "your" and "you're" properly or makes a thread about evolution without the faintest idea of how evolution works.

#190 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: lostrib I'm loving all this attention you're giving me you're making me feel very loved indeed xx

#191 Edited by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: lostrib I'm loving all this attention you're giving me your making me feel very loved indeed xx

*you're

#192 Posted by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@lostrib: thank you lostrib for correcting me you're a darling.

#193 Posted by thegerg (15101 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: There may come a time when we as humans can send living organisms through space to another earth like planet to begin the cycle all over again, maybe that's what happened with us. Humans far more advanced than us on a distant planet sent living organisms here to earth to continue the human race, not just human but all animal life.

OK. That has nothing to do with anything I've posted, but thanks for sharing.

#194 Posted by foxhound_fox (88111 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@foxhound_fox: have you heard of physicist who mapped a brain cell found it to be the same as the mapping of the universe, what do you think to that?

What does that imply? Structures form similar patterns at different scales?

Most things in nature follow the Fibonacci sequence when growing. Doesn't mean a conscious entity made it that way. You are making a specious conclusion.

#195 Edited by Ariabed (1104 posts) -

@thegerg: "What if there isn't"

Well then there isn't, I find it unlikely though, it's seems impossible for there to be such a long list of random events of luck coincidence and accidents that have aloud us to exist and live on this planet comfortably, everything we need has been provided for us, Shit if we were that lucky we would all be winning the lottery without fail. Science is so against there being a creator in what ever form, I think the reason for that is science is religions number1 enemy, science would rather go with the ridiculous idea that this is all random, they don't want to give strength to the idea that maybe there is a god. Science already admits there must be other life forms out there without any evidence of them, they say this universe is so big there must be other life out there, but dismiss the fact that maybe one of those life forms is god or the creator of things, why don't they use that same open mindedness about that.

I know there is the odd scientist that might believe in god or a creator but I'm talking about science as a whole.

#196 Posted by lostrib (36271 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: "What if there isn't"

Well then there isn't, I find it unlikely though, it's seems impossible for there to be such a long list of random events of luck coincidence and accidents that have aloud us to exist and live on this planet comfortably, everything we need has been provided for us, Shit if we were that lucky we would all be winning the lottery without fail. Science is so against there being a creator in what ever form, I think the reason for that is science is religions number1 enemy, science would rather go with the ridiculous idea that this is all random, they don't want to give strength to the idea that maybe there is a god. Science already admits there must be other life forms out there without any evidence of them, they say this universe is so big there must be other life out there, but dismiss the fact that maybe one of those life forms is god or the creator of things, why don't they use that same open mindedness about that.

I know there is the odd scientist that might believe in god or a creator but I'm talking about science as a whole.

Actually the last poll I saw said just over 51% of scientists believed in some form of a higher power.

In addition, considering the timeline of life it doesn't seem that unlikely. It took like a billion years for the first single cell organisms to develop and then over a billion years later for multicellular organisms to exist

#197 Edited by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: "What if there isn't"

Well then there isn't, I find it unlikely though, it's seems impossible for there to be such a long list of random events of luck coincidence and accidents that have aloud us to exist and live on this planet comfortably, everything we need has been provided for us, Shit if we were that lucky we would all be winning the lottery without fail. Science is so against there being a creator in what ever form, I think the reason for that is science is religions number1 enemy, science would rather go with the ridiculous idea that this is all random, they don't want to give strength to the idea that maybe there is a god. Science already admits there must be other life forms out there without any evidence of them, they say this universe is so big there must be other life out there, but dismiss the fact that maybe one of those life forms is god or the creator of things, why don't they use that same open mindedness about that.

I know there is the odd scientist that might believe in god or a creator but I'm talking about science as a whole.

Yeah
Probability has no place in science
It was all divine power

#198 Edited by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@thegerg: "You're thinking like a robot. Experimentation is part of the scientific method. Only robots talk in terms of science."

I'm not against science, i like science if there is a higher intelligence at work it's science is far superior to ours, and it conducts experiments just like us but on a larger more complicated scale, but I can invision our science could be as good in say 100 years or maybe sooner.

I guess our invisioning skills just aren't up to par

#199 Posted by Korvus (3585 posts) -

*Sees 4 page thread* This must be an interesting conversation

*Sees yet another unending back-and-forth between Ariabed and lostrib* oh...

*Posts stupid message and leaves*

#200 Edited by always_explicit (2799 posts) -

I cant believe people have actually spent time trying to correct the idiocy in this thread and yet TC still fails to understand it may be more beneficial to read some books. Just because you are the guy that like to ask "why" repeatedly doesn't make you less "robotic" and more free spirited than the rest of us. It just shows you lack knowledge on the fundamentals of evolution and fill those gaps in your knowledge with speculation and "how do you knows".

I could have a conversation with professor Stephen hawking about some of his speculations regarding space and time. I could then ask "why" infinitely not because I am "thinking outside the box" but because I lack the knowledge necessary to have an informed conversation.