Wow, are we really that bored with talking about bitcoins that this is deemed interesting??!! This is currently one of 2 'god' topics that currently make up 2/3rds of blockchained's top 10 bitcointalk topics!!
...and I'll second the person who suggested this belongs in 'Off Topic' because it has nothing to do with bitcoins.
Topic: The Origin of the Human DNA - page 2. (Read 5635 times)
What is this "nothing" that people speak of? Have they ever seen the "nothing". Do they know there is a "nothing"?
It might seem abstract but think about it, we all know the "something", the universe. We don't even know if there is a nothing that the universe supposedly came into.
Maybe the bible describes that there was nothing, but we all know it's scientific track record.
It might seem abstract but think about it, we all know the "something", the universe. We don't even know if there is a nothing that the universe supposedly came into.
Maybe the bible describes that there was nothing, but we all know it's scientific track record.
Free will is a very easy argument in my perspective, there is no "real free will", non of the important things in your life, the things that define what you are, you have any choice in the matter, you don't choose your parents, you didn't chose where you're born, the color of your skin, you don't choose to born with a debilitating disease, you don't choose the person you fall in love with, your favorite color, your religion, if you analyze your life, you haven't chosen anything, and I'm disregarding things like you ordering a caramel icecream instead of a chocolate one, I concede we may have "micro free will" and even that is debatable.
So do you really think you have free will?
There are multiple ways of approaching the question of free will. All of them point to the same answer, there is no free will. We live in a universe governed by physical processes. We are physical beings, there is no reason we aren't governed by the same cause and effect laws as the rest of the universe. Cause and effect breaks down when you get to the quantum level but there's no way to get to free will through quantum mechanics either.
In saying all that, it "feels" like I have free will. But then, it feels like the sun rises and sets every day. Intellectually, I know it's not true, yet every day I treat it as if it is true and it is the same with my will. I make decisions every day even though I know they were the decisions I was always going to make. The universe may be deterministic, but trying to gather enough information to predict the future seems impossible with humans. We can only predict things like where planets will be because they are relatively easy and don't require much information.
Given choice and given that a choice can be made, nothingness might be preferable to somethingness. Particularly if somethingness is more problematic and less satisfying than nothingness. Of course this implies that nothingness is somehow more than it appears.
Forgive me, I flunked philosophy class, honestly
Forgive me, I flunked philosophy class, honestly
One thing most people can agree on is that the human brain is the pinnacle of evolution.
The importance of its recent development (in the last 2 million years) is that it has become fully self-referential and can examine the environment in the abstract and in past and future states, with apparent free will. So, for 99.99% of Earth's history natural selection was a mindless process generating fitter and fitter organisms, then a tipping point was reached where an end-product of natural selection has became a significant force in it.
Today the human brain is the most important influence in the evolution of life by transforming the world (usually not for the best). Whole species have been transported to new continents, others made extinct, acidification of the oceans, domestication of animals and plants, genetic engineering have effectively put evolution into fast forward.
The importance of its recent development (in the last 2 million years) is that it has become fully self-referential and can examine the environment in the abstract and in past and future states, with apparent free will. So, for 99.99% of Earth's history natural selection was a mindless process generating fitter and fitter organisms, then a tipping point was reached where an end-product of natural selection has became a significant force in it.
Today the human brain is the most important influence in the evolution of life by transforming the world (usually not for the best). Whole species have been transported to new continents, others made extinct, acidification of the oceans, domestication of animals and plants, genetic engineering have effectively put evolution into fast forward.
Sorry, I have to disagree, you do not now, and you cannot make such a claim!
We now have the capability of destroying the environment, will it be by nuclear war, global warming, super-virus, doesn't matter, plus we face the asteroid menace, in these scenarios, humans will probably became extinct, but many other forms of life will continue their lives, like cockroaches and Nautilus, because they have the characteristics that permit them to perpetuate their species in this "new world".
There's no pinnacle of evolution, there's just change and adaption.
Jellyfish were probably the pinnacle once.
Yes, there is always change and adaptation, but more and more change is consciously intended. 300 years ago CO2 levels were 50% of today's. It wasn't a conscious decision to begin shoving 500 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, but it is a conscious decision to continue that course by adding the next 500. Natural selection will respond to this massive global change.
And yes, a lot of other doom-and-gloom scenarios exist. The asteroid impact which killed the dinosaurs would not happen in the 21st century as humans would divert the asteroid while still in space. Yet another scenario for the future is nanotech grey-goo - which might become a very real concern.
We are the current pinnacle of evolution on Earth, yes.
Why?
And that doesn't even make sense...
How does that not make sense?
We are the most advanced species that we know of (unless you can enlighten otherwise). I'm basing my assumption, the way science does, only on the empirical evidence at my disposal. Of course there are plenty of things I don't know. I know that.
How is it hard to understand that with our current understanding of biology/paleobiology and the fossil record that we are the most advanced species to date on this planet?
Make some sense, by all means.
We are the current pinnacle of evolution on Earth, yes.
Why?
And that doesn't even make sense...
We are the current pinnacle of evolution on Earth, yes.
One thing most people can agree on is that the human brain is the pinnacle of evolution.
The importance of its recent development (in the last 2 million years) is that it has become fully self-referential and can examine the environment in the abstract and in past and future states, with apparent free will. So, for 99.99% of Earth's history natural selection was a mindless process generating fitter and fitter organisms, then a tipping point was reached where an end-product of natural selection has became a significant force in it.
Today the human brain is the most important influence in the evolution of life by transforming the world (usually not for the best). Whole species have been transported to new continents, others made extinct, acidification of the oceans, domestication of animals and plants, genetic engineering have effectively put evolution into fast forward.
The importance of its recent development (in the last 2 million years) is that it has become fully self-referential and can examine the environment in the abstract and in past and future states, with apparent free will. So, for 99.99% of Earth's history natural selection was a mindless process generating fitter and fitter organisms, then a tipping point was reached where an end-product of natural selection has became a significant force in it.
Today the human brain is the most important influence in the evolution of life by transforming the world (usually not for the best). Whole species have been transported to new continents, others made extinct, acidification of the oceans, domestication of animals and plants, genetic engineering have effectively put evolution into fast forward.
Sorry, I have to disagree, you do not now, and you cannot make such a claim!
We now have the capability of destroying the environment, will it be by nuclear war, global warming, super-virus, doesn't matter, plus we face the asteroid menace, in these scenarios, humans will probably became extinct, but many other forms of life will continue their lives, like cockroaches and Nautilus, because they have the characteristics that permit them to perpetuate their species in this "new world".
There's no pinnacle of evolution, there's just change and adaption.
One thing most people can agree on is that the human brain is the pinnacle of evolution.
The importance of its recent development (in the last 2 million years) is that it has become fully self-referential and can examine the environment in the abstract and in past and future states, with apparent free will. So, for 99.99% of Earth's history natural selection was a mindless process generating fitter and fitter organisms, then a tipping point was reached where an end-product of natural selection has became a significant force in it.
Today the human brain is the most important influence in the evolution of life by transforming the world (usually not for the best). Whole species have been transported to new continents, others made extinct, acidification of the oceans, domestication of animals and plants, genetic engineering have effectively put evolution into fast forward.
The importance of its recent development (in the last 2 million years) is that it has become fully self-referential and can examine the environment in the abstract and in past and future states, with apparent free will. So, for 99.99% of Earth's history natural selection was a mindless process generating fitter and fitter organisms, then a tipping point was reached where an end-product of natural selection has became a significant force in it.
Today the human brain is the most important influence in the evolution of life by transforming the world (usually not for the best). Whole species have been transported to new continents, others made extinct, acidification of the oceans, domestication of animals and plants, genetic engineering have effectively put evolution into fast forward.
As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.
interlagos, sorry, but you lack even the minimum understanding of the laws of nature.
Go on Khan Academy and watch the Evolution videos, search the website I've already pointed you to...
It's pointless we try to explain you why pigs don't have wings when you lack the minimum understanding of how life works.
...
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his concerns though. There are some things that seem to influence evolution in obvious ways, yet science can't readily explain them.
Current science can't readily explain. How often has that been true in our past of universal facts?
For example: free will. The jury has been out on that one for ages, and they're still arguing about it.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
Isn't our reproductive drive still controlled by what we find attractive? Thus, we seek out women with big boobs and big hips, and women seek out slim, muscular men? I don't think there's a lot of free will in what we find attractive, eve if cultural biases change.
I don't think there's free will at all in that matter, we like what we like, and fall in love with whom we fall in love without having any choice in the matter.
Another good example, I failed to mention in the previous post, sexual orientation, no one chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual or something elsesexual, there's no free will in this matter, I never made any choice, it's what I'm, if it's genes, social interactions, whatever it is, I didn't chose it...
As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.
interlagos, sorry, but you lack even the minimum understanding of the laws of nature.
Go on Khan Academy and watch the Evolution videos, search the website I've already pointed you to...
It's pointless we try to explain you why pigs don't have wings when you lack the minimum understanding of how life works.
...
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his concerns though. There are some things that seem to influence evolution in obvious ways, yet science can't readily explain them.
For example: free will. The jury has been out on that one for ages, and they're still arguing about it.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
On the one hand, evolutionists seem pro-free will because it gives organisms extra flexibility to adapt and it avoids the pitfall of rigid programming outliving its usefulness.
On the other hand, free will implies some kind of "god's handiwork" as it cannot be explained by purely physical effects such as chance. Thus they face the strange situation where a metaphysical conscious mind with godlike powers of free will results in superior evolution than a world without any of that metaphysical stuff!
Free will is a very easy argument in my perspective, there is no "real free will", non of the important things in your life, the things that define what you are, you have any choice in the matter, you don't choose your parents, you didn't chose where you're born, the color of your skin, you don't choose to born with a debilitating disease, you don't choose the person you fall in love with, your favorite color, your religion, if you analyze your life, you haven't chosen anything, and I'm disregarding things like you ordering a caramel icecream instead of a chocolate one, I concede we may have "micro free will" and even that is debatable.
So do you really think you have free will?
Pardon a beginners intrusion. I think that nothingness and anythingness only exist for humans,
Sure, humans are the only ones who can perceive these things.
But it doesnt mean these things seize to exist if humans arent there perceiving them.
Maybe I should have said that "nothingness" isnt more legitimate than "somethingness".
Therefore, both have to exisit for the sake of equlibrium.
For example: free will. The jury has been out on that one for ages, and they're still arguing about it.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
Isn't our reproductive drive still controlled by what we find attractive? Thus, we seek out women with big boobs and big hips, and women seek out slim, muscular men? I don't think there's a lot of free will in what we find attractive, eve if cultural biases change.
What I find attractive has morphed continuously over the years, and it's largely because of my choices and my lifestyle. In times when I've made more reckless choices, I've been attracted to more 'reckless' women with a certain physical appearance. Over the past few years when I've been trying to become a responsible adult, my tastes have changed.
For example: free will. The jury has been out on that one for ages, and they're still arguing about it.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
Assuming it doesn't exist, when it comes to sexual reproduction we have no choice in the matter because we're just machines obeying our DNA programming.
Assuming it does exist, our free choices could legimately affect future generations.
Isn't our reproductive drive still controlled by what we find attractive? Thus, we seek out women with big boobs and big hips, and women seek out slim, muscular men? I don't think there's a lot of free will in what we find attractive, eve if cultural biases change.
As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.
The coccyx in humans is the rudiment of a tail (most of which has disappeared).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
So, again, we got rid of the tail instead of growing a bigger one because it made sense, not because it reduced our ability to survive. I bet tails would make an office clerk's life troublesome
It wasn't because "it made sense," it was because our particular species of ape migrated to the grass plains for whatever reason, and had to rely more on running around than jumping around branches and hanging on trees. Long tails between our butt cheeks made running a tad inconvenient, and only gave predators something to grab on to.
You'd think that there would have been umpteen examples of life starting in the billions of years the planet has been around but we know that it only happened once.
Actually we don't. It could have happened billions of times, in millions of puddles around the world, and just died out before it could get anywhere.
If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it.
I believe the answer to this is philosophical.Why does anything have to exist at all?
Because, I believe, everything must have an opposite. Including "nothingness".
In order for there to be "nothing" there also has to be "something".
Likewise, in order for there to be darkness, there has to be light.
In order for the opposite of nothingness to exist, there has to be a creating intelligence behind it. Which is why intelligent life evolves in the universe.
Quote
the big bang, which came from where?
This intelligence, if it reaches the maximum intelligence possible, will be able to create other universes (big bangs) in which life will evolve in order for the perpetual creation of universes to be sustained.In other words, DNA comes from a process originating from nothing at all.
I mostly agree with these ideas. But if nothingness and somethingness necessitate each other, then there must be some relational medium binding both nothingness and somethingness...a set containing both, or an archetype for all sets in general.
I'd like to see a definition of "species" sufficient enough to account for all of life, without exception, before answering this question.
By the way, the best definition I can think of for a human is that "a human has two human parents," but that would be problematic for evolution (i.e. the first human would have to have come from non-human parents). So...complicated question.
By the way, the best definition I can think of for a human is that "a human has two human parents," but that would be problematic for evolution (i.e. the first human would have to have come from non-human parents). So...complicated question.
That's because there is not such thing as the first human, every animal or plant is always "between" species...
Yep. I made reference to this being "problematic for evolution" because speciation is included in modern theories of evolution -- it answers the question, "What do we call this new thing that can no longer get it on with that other thing?"
Jump to: