Treeees!!!

[WaKKO15169]

Re: Treeees!!!

It seems to me that the basic discussion of evolution here is being neglected for a debate on god. I do belive that there is a god out there. Me and him just don't get along. As for evolution. It is simply the name given to the random chages caused through breeding and enviormental conditions.

Evolution has nothing to do with god or for that matter science. It is not a theroy. It is plain and simple understanding of how changes effect living organisims. Evolution is what we term long term changes.

Nothing more nothing less.
Evolution has nothing to do with god or belifs. You can change the name of Evolution and that would be the next leap in our evolving language.

 

[Lucidus]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"WaKKO15169\")</div>

Evolution has nothing to do with god or for that matter science. It is not a theroy. It is plain and simple understanding of how changes effect living organisims. Evolution is what we term long term changes.

.[/b]

This is without a doubt one of the strangest statements I have ever seen. I am not trying to pick a fight, I just had to comment on your creative application of the English language.

Understanding how changes effect living organisms is a science and evolution is what we call the theory that explains the mechanisms of these changes.

 

[WaKKO15169]

Re: Treeees!!!

I think the basic point that most of you are missing is that every single change our bodys undergo is a form of evolution.

Evolution in itself is only a word for the change over time through enviorment and breeding.

I has nothing to do with God.

What is intresting to think about in my eyes is what is the next step??
What will be our overall trend of development? The next major change to occur to our species. In my opinion we have already changed in small ways. Change is inevitable and can not be rushed.

If you look on the web you can find references to small changes in the way the human body works for some people.

How many times have you heard you don't digest corn.

Back in the late 20's apparently most people would not be able to digest corn. Now most people can.

I saw a show where it explained that most people when confronted with large periods of cold there limbs shut down to heat there heart but people in colder parts of the world have actually adapted to forcing there libs to heat up even more when in this situation.

Have you noticed anthing along the lines of aggressive adaptation?

 

[fanavans]

Re: Treeees!!!

I am someone who has read Darwin's Origin, and I can summerise it thus:

Survivers Survive.

Yes, it is an incredibly dull book.

Leaving that aside, I don't discount that we are growing or evolving in some way. I beleive the whole universe is. I just don't think that it is dumb. I beleive that evolution is guided by consciousness.

Think of Karma - it gives you the CHANCE to grow, if you use your conciousness to choose to grow.

Fanavans

 

[fanavans]

Re: Treeees!!!

I happened across two articles which relate to this post - both in my view show how little 'science' there is to the science in/of this area.
-----------------
What Determines Species Diversity?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/90

I read this Article as saying a big - We dont know!!!

What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/79

This article starts of by saying that scientist 'prefer' to link conciousness with biology. Then concludes with "Ultimately, scientists would like to understand not just the biological basis of consciousness but also why it exists." Does that strike you as assuming what needs to be proved?

Fanavans

 

[Harte]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div>

I happened across two articles which relate to this post - both in my view show how little 'science' there is to the science in/of this area.
-----------------
What Determines Species Diversity?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/90

I read this Article as saying a big - We dont know!!![/b]

The fact is, we don't know. The statement that there exists a thing about which we know very little (or nothing) is where all scientific inquiry begins. I don't understand your statement that this somehow implies that there is "...little 'science'...to the science...of this area." Many areas have "little science" to them by this definition. We know almost nothing about black holes except for what we can predict mathematically, and such analyses must by their very nature be predicated on assumptions that could turn out to be wrong.
If we don't know about a thing, and we say we don't know about that thing, and we decide to research that thing to find out more about it, possibly solve the riddle, how is that not science?

Compare this to the assertion that life was created here by Big Juju or aliens. How much science is there to the "science in/of this area..."?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div>

What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/79

This article starts of by saying that scientist 'prefer' to link conciousness with biology. Then concludes with \"Ultimately, scientists would like to understand not just the biological basis of consciousness but also why it exists.\" Does that strike you as assuming what needs to be proved?

Fanavans [/b]

I suppose that you would prefer the scientist not link conciousness to biology? If they did not, what would be their basis for thinking they could study it?

You say this is "assuming what needs to be proved." I say this is assuming that there is a physical event taking place associated with conciousness, and this assumption must be made before any decision can be made to research conciousness in a scientific manner (as opposed to a philosophical manner).

These scientists are attempting to describe what conciousness is in a physical way, they are not attempting to prove that conciousness is linked to biology. There is enough evidence that it is to justify their researching it with the assumption there that they will find some answers in the physical realm. It's not as if they said "Let's assume conciousness has a biologigal link. Then we can prove conciousness has a biological link."

Harte

 

[fanavans]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

Compare this to the assertion that life was created here by Big Juju or aliens. How much science is there to the \"science in/of this area...\"?
[/b]

Probably as much as gets funded!

I suppose that you would prefer the scientist not link conciousness to biology? If they did not, what would be their basis for thinking they could study it?
...
These scientists are attempting to describe what conciousness is in a physical way, they are not attempting to prove that conciousness is linked to biology. There is enough evidence that it is to justify their researching it with the assumption there that they will find some answers in the physical realm. It's not as if they said \"Let's assume conciousness has a biologigal link. Then we can prove conciousness has a biological link.\"

I would prefer if science DID link conciousness to biology - but they haven't. It is a classic case of corrolation being mistaken for causuality. That is, because a human body happens to be one place consciousness is found, then consciousness must stem from it.

I'm not arguing that this is not the case, I am arguing that is has not been proved to be the case.

I take your point that science is trying to desribe/understand conciousness in a physical way. That is probably because science is in a very real way tied to the physical. I submit that it is a very real flaw. There are few people who I know that would argue that the physical is the be all and end all!

Fanavans

 

[thenumbersix]

Re: Treeees!!!

consciousness is a holy grail of study and understanding.

I wonder if it seems so un-reachable because of our blinkered view of the world and ourselves in general ? Far too many things are a given nowadays with anomolies to mainstream hidden or crushed.

 

[shane]

Re: Treeees!!!

Perhaps consciousness, by its very nature, can not understand itself. Does a computer know it's a computer? Does a rock know it's a rock? Does a soul know it's a soul? Does a god know it's a god?

Nueroscience has yet to provide a valid explanation of free will, and if it continues on its current track, it never will. This leads me to believe that there is more to the mind than just the brain.

Consider your awareness, sensory and otherwise, a one way window in front of you. You can see everything in front of that window but nothing behind it, including yourself. Perhaps there is something behind you looking through another window, watching you watch your world, but you can never achieve awareness of this beyond abstract speculation. Perhaps we are effected by an entire universe that we can not perceive or directly effect in turn, much as a rock would not realize that we were throwing it into a river. That rock does effect us, though only through our experience of it and not through some act of will. I suppose then you would have to assume that there is another universe in which the rock has a will, though perhaps it is so far in front of us that we can not see it either.

 

[WaKKO15169]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"shane\")</div>

Perhaps consciousness, by its very nature, can not understand itself. Does a computer know it's a computer? Does a rock know it's a rock? Does a soul know it's a soul? Does a god know it's a god?.[/b]

This is more along the lines of self awareness.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"shane\")</div>

Nueroscience has yet to provide a valid explanation of free will, and if it continues on its current track, it never will. This leads me to believe that there is more to the mind than just the brain.
[/b]

I would have to disagree. Maybe we don't fully understaned all of the brains functions or it could be due to the fact that our brains our evolving even now. I do know and belive that "Change is inevitable"


Today I heard disturbing news. While watching CNN a story came on explaining how we came to power. Human species dominating the food chain.

A meteor of Ice and metal fell to earth and although we know now sarted the Ice age it wasn't because of a giant cloud. It was from the ice on the meteor melting and the insesent rain that followed (for all you bible buddys this is noahs supposed flood)

Well after this point reptilian life started to die off and mammels and other warm blooded creatures started to move up the food chain. Several evolutionary changes occured and most importantly ....It got real cold because of the currents changing flow due to the rapidly melting ice.

The earth went through a large terraforming process and now we have our current climate.

Now we use the fossils from those who died before us to fuel our every day tasks and dutys. The dead leave behind crude oil which is then refined until it is usable. Now the ice caps are melting again and we are feeling the effects.

Back to the CNN story which was talking about everything I mentioned and....

There is an island off the coast of Hawaii and Tahiti which is slowly but surly flooding and diappearing into the ocean. While Its amusing that people would live on this island even though 65% of its original mass is under water but there they were on CNN complaining that rich people in europe need to pay someone to fix there problem.


Chgange is inevitable. Who knows maybe these fine human beings will one day evolve into fishies and Harte over there will be able to provide his friend with that wonderful cross species proof he has been asking for.

But I think they will Adapt, anouther form of evolution.

In english
"Those mother ****ers will either move or die."