Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 07:59:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What do you think is the origin of the human DNA?
Natural process of evolution from common ancestor - 39 (65%)
Humans have been seeded by advanced civilizations - 4 (6.7%)
Humans have been created by God - 8 (13.3%)
Humans have been seeded by advanced civilizations according to God's plan Smiley - 2 (3.3%)
Humans have evolved in the process of evolution influenced by God - 7 (11.7%)
Total Voters: 60

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The Origin of the Human DNA  (Read 5382 times)
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 01:43:21 AM
 #81

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.

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.

1513411172
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513411172

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513411172
Reply with quote  #2

1513411172
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
pepto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 218


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 01:50:47 AM
 #82


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.
I think it does mean that these things cease to exist when the last perceiving human stops perceiving. Animals   win by default, and were I one of them would chuckle at at the frivolous endeavors that humans seem so intent on persuing. Wink
pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:02:54 AM
 #83

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?

pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:10:59 AM
 #84

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.

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...

MrHempstock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


"Don't worry. My career died after Batman, too."


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:22:29 AM
 #85

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?

BTCitcointalk 1%ers manipulate the currency and deceive its user community.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:27:54 AM
 #86

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.

pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:47:54 AM
 #87

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.

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.

MrHempstock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


"Don't worry. My career died after Batman, too."


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:49:13 AM
 #88

We are the current pinnacle of evolution on Earth, yes.

BTCitcointalk 1%ers manipulate the currency and deceive its user community.
pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
 #89

We are the current pinnacle of evolution on Earth, yes.

Why?

And that doesn't even make sense...

MrHempstock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


"Don't worry. My career died after Batman, too."


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 03:15:47 AM
 #90

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.

BTCitcointalk 1%ers manipulate the currency and deceive its user community.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 03:35:18 AM
 #91

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.

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.

pepto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 218


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 03:35:30 AM
 #92

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  Grin
hawkeye
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 08:47:36 AM
 #93



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.
hawkeye
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 08:56:44 AM
 #94

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.
thoughtfan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602

thoughtfanwritesstuff.wordpress.com


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 12:48:25 PM
 #95

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.

Please disregard Litecoin and Zcash badges to the left. I have just gathered they are an April fool's joke!
Ekaros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 12:52:22 PM
 #96

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.

Other > Politics & Society... Isn't this already a off topic forum for serious talk and the Off Topic is for the non-serious talk.

12pA5nZB5AoXZaaEeoxh5bNqUGXwUUp3Uv
http://firstbits.com/1qdiz
Feel free to help poor student!
wtfvanity
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


WTF???


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 01:45:57 PM
 #97

Did he just try to prove that modern birds all came from the velociraptor?

Not necessarily the Velociraptor but dinosaurs.

 And not prove but simplified explain.

The Velociraptor is just the one where good feathered Remains have been found.

It sounds like you've read up a bit on dinosaurs but have some stuff confused. Birds descended from theropoda, okay. Not all dinosaurs.

Yes, I meant those. Of course not all Dinosaurs  Huh are you serious? Nobody can't be that hairsplitting.

 Sorry I'm not looking up every exact name.

2. Dinosaurs on two legs (like all birds today are on two legs)

Quote from: Wiki Theropoda
a suborder of bipedal saurischian dinosaurs

Birds evolved from Dinosaurs and are their direct descendants. In Fact a T-Rex is more closely related to a Turkey than to a Stegosaurus.

I'd love to see some scientific journals or something backing up such a bold claim. Or is that merely your conjecture?

http://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html

It not states the closer relation to the Turkey, but look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Taxonomy  ( Tyrannosauridae ; Aves ; and Stegosauria)



What better proof could there be than a xkcd about it  Grin


I hardly call that hair splitting. A lot of people think dinosaurs are all part of the same family, many have no idea. How do I know that you aren't one in that mind of thought?

And I hardly consider xkcd a scientific journal, and even they are specifically talking the sparrow, not the turkey.

          WTF!     Don't Click Here              
          .      .            .            .        .            .            .          .        .     .               .            .             .            .            .           .            .     .               .         .              .           .            .            .            .     .      .     .    .     .          .            .          .            .            .           .              .     .            .            .           .            .               .         .            .     .            .            .             .            .              .            .            .      .            .            .            .            .            .            .             .          .
wtfvanity
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


WTF???


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:02:44 PM
 #98

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.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely a lot of BULLSHIT in this thread... Wild ass claims stated as fact.

You think, that the BIG one, that humans currently have the ability to do something like you say? And on what time frame? Asteroids are found all the time whizzing by closer than the moon is too us with less than a day to go. You think that humanity would have the time to change the projectory on that short of a notice?

But still, you have something the size of Connecticut barreling towards Earth , and you really think we could divert it?

You've watched way too many movies son.

          WTF!     Don't Click Here              
          .      .            .            .        .            .            .          .        .     .               .            .             .            .            .           .            .     .               .         .              .           .            .            .            .     .      .     .    .     .          .            .          .            .            .           .              .     .            .            .           .            .               .         .            .     .            .            .             .            .              .            .            .      .            .            .            .            .            .            .             .          .
wtfvanity
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


WTF???


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:29:09 PM
 #99

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.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely a lot of BULLSHIT in this thread... Wild ass claims stated as fact.

You think, that the BIG one, that humans currently have the ability to do something like you say? And on what time frame? Asteroids are found all the time whizzing by closer than the moon is too us with less than a day to go. You think that humanity would have the time to change the projectory on that short of a notice?

But still, you have something the size of Connecticut barreling towards Earth , and you really think we could divert it?

You've watched way too many movies son.

It's not so bad. Last-minute detection probably means:
a) it's very small and therefore not a threat
and/or
b) it's heading for Earth from the direction of the sun in almost a straight line. Which implies a huge multi-decade or multi-century comet-like orbit, giving people plenty of time to look for it. And in the outer parts of its orbit it would be much slower and easier to deflect with a light nudge.

Oh, that makes perfect sense then. When it slows down to something like 30 km/s, we'll just bump it gently behind the sun.

Say these things out loud before you post them, really?

          WTF!     Don't Click Here              
          .      .            .            .        .            .            .          .        .     .               .            .             .            .            .           .            .     .               .         .              .           .            .            .            .     .      .     .    .     .          .            .          .            .            .           .              .     .            .            .           .            .               .         .            .     .            .            .             .            .              .            .            .      .            .            .            .            .            .            .             .          .
Akka
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 02:30:44 PM
 #100

And I hardly consider xkcd a scientific journal, and even they are specifically talking the sparrow, not the turkey.

Now you are just rolling. The whole Family of Tyrannosauridae is closer Related to Aves than to Stegosauria. The Aves Group just isn't old enough for that to make any difference. Of course there is no scientific article describing the relationship between this exact 3 Animals.

The family tree of Dinosauria is enough to show this.



And this tree is well enough documented, but this is work you can do yourself if you are really interested in this.

All previous versions of currency will no longer be supported as of this update
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!