Post: #126

Well if there is no disproof scenario for one's beliefs, then this isn't an argument. Hence after this I will cease typing in this thread.

Objective metaphysics are the path to truth, for if we all accept we are looking at the same world, we can reach the truth through argument, exploration, and thought. If we instead dwell in subjective (arbitrary) metaphysics, our thoughts are grounded in nothing, our words have no meaning and argument is pointless, and there is no reason to explore to discover the truth.

Post: #127

All you need to create life is Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and you can also add sulfur to it. Acronym C.O.H.N.S for short.

All these five elements are present on barren planets and abundant as fuck on comets.

DNA/RNA/Protein are made out of C.O.H.N.S

Amino acids is the building block of protein, protein sometimes contain sulfur. That is the S in C.O.H.N.S

Most chemical catalysts are metal based or metal derivatives. Planetary/comet rocks provides the metal elements, oxides, and metal compounds that catalyze reactions.

Intense temperature and pressure are necessary for certain chemical reactions to take place, especially in the absence of a suitable catalyst. Afterall the role of a catalyst is to lower the activation energy, without a catalyst or a suitable catalyst, you expend more energy in terms of temperature and pressure.

DNA/RNA are sugars.

Having understood that DNA/RNA are sugars, scientist have created a different kinds of DNA/RNA that are also sugars i.e. If DNA/RNA are sugars, why not use other kinds of sugars to create a different kind of DNA/RNA? Scientists have already done this. And it worked. Not just worked, they were able to replicated these completely different kinds of DNA/RNA.

Life is left-handed. Our DNA/RNA are left-handed in their rotations; Scientist have created right-handed DNA/RNA that replicated itself.

Virus are the simplest form of life that we currently know. Using pure chemistry in the laboratory, scientists have synthesized/created a virus from absolute scratch. The virus then replicate itself.

It my suspicion that there are microscopic alien viral-like things on the planet Venus. Venus has COHNS in abundant; it constantly rains sulfuric acid downpour on planet Venus; unrelenting, violent lightening coruscated through Venus atmosphere and Planetary surface. Lightening provides electric energy, a jumpstart, an action potential. The planet Venus has a highly oxidized ferrous rocks, volcanic actions, and other metal compounds which will serve suitably as catalyst.

The only thing is the insane atmospheric pressure which makes all launched probe, that have so far penetrated Venus atmosphere to not live beyond a couple of minutes before being destroyed.

I find it difficult that a planet constantly barraged with violent electric currents, with oxidized metal compounds, lots of COHNS will not have some primitive viral like organisms on it.

Post: #128

I used to buy the idea that organic life came from the soup, especially with "lab experiments" that showed it's possible without much difficulty. But there's a big problem with that:

All life on the planet right now came from a common ancestor, meaning that DNA originated once in the history of the Earth in one critical moment. Evolutionists say that with enough time, complex life can come about in billions of years, but in that billions of years, life originated that one time, and never again. If I am to believe that highly intelligent life came from organic soup, why hasn't life been spontaneously created in 4.5 billion years at any other time?

You can't have it both ways in saying "anything can happen" in 4.5 billion years but escape that fact that certain things (other forms of life) have not come about. This is why I have seriously considered computer simulation theory and the "comet from outer space" theories instead of the accepted evolutionary narrative.

As for believing in god, I may be arriving at a point where the existence of a god is more statistically probable and less a leap of faith than evolutionary processes which, as I wrote in my article, don't even hold well for modern times, as humanity descends into Idiocracy-like retardation.

Post: #129

RooshV, I know you were a microbiologist at one point, but have ever read any books on evolutionary theory? Just curious.

And did the name of this forum change? I haven't logged on in months.

Post: #130

Scorpion: I agree with you that strict atheism is an obviously ridiculous position, but there are better cases to be made against the materialist worldview than the one you're making now.

The materialist explanation for the origins of life, as explained already in this thread, isn't that fully-formed life emerged "from a rock." Rather, if you mix a giant COHNS soup and subject it to heat, pressure, electricity, comets, and whatever-the-hell-else, eventually you'll get something that replicates. Once you have replicators, those replicators can compete, and some forms of replicators will multiply faster than others. Once you have replicators that can mutate, you can have descent with modification.

The real case for theism (or at least deism) is that our universe appears to be perfectly fine-tuned to support complex life. Even atheistic scientists concede that this is true; their explanation is that our universe is one of many, and that the reason our universe appears designed, is because all the universes that don't appear designed, don't have anyone around to observe them. Wikipedia has good articles on The Fine-Tuned Universe Theory and The Anthropic Principle. Check em out.

I'll reiterate my belief that our current understanding of evolution is probably similar to Newtonian physics: true as far as it goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if we discover some new mechanism of action, i.e. Zelcorpion's links to morphogenetics - I haven't clicked them yet, but based on his quick summary, it's the kind of wacky-sounding idea that I wouldn't completely rule out.

Post: #131

(06-06-2015 02:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I used to buy the idea that organic life came from the soup, especially with "lab experiments" that showed it's possible without much difficulty. But there's a big problem with that:

All life on the planet right now came from a common ancestor, meaning that DNA originated once in the history of the Earth in one critical moment. Evolutionists say that with enough time, complex life can come about in billions of years, but in that billions of years, life originated that one time, and never again. If I am to believe that highly intelligent life came from organic soup, why hasn't life been spontaneously created in 4.5 billion years at any other time?

You can't have it both ways in saying "anything can happen" in 4.5 billion years but escape that fact that certain things (other forms of life) have not come about. This is why I have seriously considered computer simulation theory and the "comet from outer space" theories instead of the accepted evolutionary narrative.

As for believing in god, I may be arriving at a point where the existence of a god is more statistically probable and less a leap of faith than evolutionary processes which, as I wrote in my article, don't even hold well for modern times, as humanity descends into Idiocracy-like retardation.

The best counter-argument to this point is that the first successful replicator would almost immediately expand, sans competition, to snatch up all the valuable elements, eliminating the possibility of competition.

Or, DNA and some non-DNA replicator came into existence contemporaneously, the more viable of the two would eventually out-compete the other.

Post: #132

Quote:The best counter-argument to this point is that the first successful replicator would almost immediately expand, sans competition, to snatch up all the valuable elements, eliminating the possibility of competition.

And then what organic matter would be left to....... create life? The oceans would then be full of molecules and nothing more. There would be no available resources for "evolution."

This is the problem with evolution: it rationalizes anything to keep the theory alive, and these rationalizations, if not immediately shown to be false like your idea, can never be proven anyway. Once you know the final result, it's quite simple to come up with "counter arguments," but this is just your mind desperately trying to keep the zombie theory alive. There's no other theory that I know of that we do this too, yet evolution is a special idea that must not die no matter what.

Post: #133

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:The best counter-argument to this point is that the first successful replicator would almost immediately expand, sans competition, to snatch up all the valuable elements, eliminating the possibility of competition.

And then what organic matter would be left to....... create life? The oceans would then be full of molecules and nothing more. There would be no available resources for "evolution."

This is the problem with evolution: it rationalizes anything to keep the theory alive, and these rationalizations, if not immediately shown to be false like your idea, can never be proven anyway. Once you know the final result, it's quite simple to come up with "counter arguments," but this is just your mind desperately trying to keep the zombie theory alive. There's no other theory that I know of that we do this too, yet evolution is a special idea that must not die no matter what.

Replicators are life, or at least ur-life. Once you have things that can replicate, those things can compete and differentiate.

If the world at one point had DNA, and several other replicators that were like DNA but slightly inferior, DNA would eventually outcompete them.

I can't rule out a supernatural explanation of the origin of life, but the materialist explanation is certainly plausible.

Post: #134

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:The best counter-argument to this point is that the first successful replicator would almost immediately expand, sans competition, to snatch up all the valuable elements, eliminating the possibility of competition.

And then what organic matter would be left to....... create life? The oceans would then be full of molecules and nothing more. There would be no available resources for "evolution."

The winning replicators would be available along with a soup of other molecules that are not replicators but that would make a great cell membrane or other simple cell parts. Remember the replicators are just molecules that can replicate via a simple chemical reaction with the help of other molecules. They would make up only a certain percentage of the random organic molecules floating around.

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  This is the problem with evolution: it rationalizes anything to keep the theory alive, and these rationalizations, if not immediately shown to be false like your idea, can never be proven anyway. Once you know the final result, it's quite simple to come up with "counter arguments," but this is just your mind desperately trying to keep the zombie theory alive. There's no other theory that I know of that we do this too, yet evolution is a special idea that must not die no matter what.

Given that life seems to have arisen only once on Earth now that we've traced back the DNA, it seems most likely that life was brought here (at least IMHO). Given the relatively young age of the Earth and the bad conditions for life on the primitive Earth, it seems somewhat more likely that it arrived from somewhere else.

Fortunately we can test that hypothesis. We are currently sending probes to the other planets (Mars) and some moons (Europa). If we are able to find life somewhere else we will be able to determine if it is the precursor for life on Earth or something different altogether. On the other hand, if we are unable to find even primitive life anywhere else where the conditions for life have been good for a very long time, that would certainly make one think long and hard about the materialist hypothesis.

Post: #135

That is actually a good question, Roosh. Life should constantly evolve from the primordial soup, not just once-- it should be a constant process.

I honestly don't know the answer. There are a bunch of little oddities like that, e.g. Why is life anti-clockwise? The molecules, DNA, RNA, etc tend to be anti-clockwise. Even the spirals on a seashells and oysters tend to be counter-clockwise. the fucking DNA is counter-clockwise. With their fibbonaci patterns.

Why are jumps from one quantum states to another non-linear, the issue of blackbody radiation? Aufbau principles. Plancks equation just provides a way to solve the problem, not an explanation. Schrodinger equation was a genius intuitive solution-map not an actual explanation. The universe is fill with such mysteries.

Some people are talking about alternative universes, multiverses, etc. This video based on physics research is very good. It deals with multiple dimensions. It also provides a possible explanation for a God-like entity or entities

(06-06-2015 02:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  .....
All life on the planet right now came from a common ancestor, meaning that DNA originated once in the history of the Earth in one critical moment. Evolutionists say that with enough time, complex life can come about in billions of years, but in that billions of years, life originated that one time, and never again. If I am to believe that highly intelligent life came from organic soup, why hasn't life been spontaneously created in 4.5 billion years at any other time?

You can't have it both ways in saying "anything can happen" in 4.5 billion years but escape that fact that certain things (other forms of life) have not come about. ...

Post: #136

How does epigenetics fit into the current trends of western society?

Even though your genes may code for survival traits, it may be turned off epigenetically through environmental factors, making you act or behave in ways contrary to your genetic programming. (perhaps, this explains homosexuality, post-op transgendered males, women's lowering their SMV through garish tattoes, masculine behavior, ugly haircut etc.)

Quote:In laymans terms, epigenetics is essentially the study of external or environmental factors that turn genes on and off and affect how cells read genes... without altering the underlying DNA codes

Epigenetics is more Lamarckian, in contrast to the Darwinian evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.

I think the principles of epigenetics can explain the anti-life behavior of current generations and trends of society, than darwinian evolutionary models. If an entire organism or swaths of organism is behaving in ways that is detrimental to their own survival, i am inclined to think epigenetic factors are at play. You have genetic imprinting and transgenerational epigenetic factors, they've noticed this in a lot of identitical twins separated at birth.

Post: #137

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  This is why I have seriously considered computer simulation theory and the "comet from outer space" theories instead of the accepted evolutionary narrative.

What's interesting is that the computer simulation theory is materially the same as the creation story, in that the universe was created by God out of nothing, while God exists independently of that creation and outside of its bounds (time and space). This is exactly the same position that a simulation designer would have in relation to the simulation he created.

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  There's no other theory that I know of that we do this too, yet evolution is a special idea that must not die no matter what.

This is because evolution is necessary to deny God. If evolution is discredited or even seriously questioned, then it becomes impossible to account for the existence of mankind without a creator of some kind. This is not something that science at this point is prepared to accept, so the sacred cow of evolution must be kept alive through whatever tortured rationale becomes necessary.

Post: #138

(06-06-2015 03:09 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  Given that life seems to have arisen only once on Earth now that we've traced back the DNA, it seems most likely that life was brought here (at least IMHO). Given the relatively young age of the Earth and the bad conditions for life on the primitive Earth, it seems somewhat more likely that it arrived from somewhere else.

Actually, recent research from studying zircons points to Earth being a lot cooler in it's earlier stages than we original thought. It is now believed that continental crust was present as early as 4.4 billion years ago. This means that we might have had water at an incredibly earlier time period than we thought before.

http://geoscience.wisc.edu/geoscience/pe...rly-earth/

http://geoscience.wisc.edu/geoscience/wp...Earth_.pdf

Post: #139

(06-05-2015 07:11 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 03:40 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Believing in evolution is inherently a faith-based proposition, it's nothing more than a modern scientific religion.

I don't believe in evolution, I understand it. I don't play the lottery anymore, I change situations to put the odds in my favor. I use evolution as the basis for my entire world, with game as a subset of the evolution mindset. My before and after results are all I need to understand why it works.

Religion is also a product of evolution. Religion, particularly Christianity, has come up with some great social and family programming that forms the basis of modern societies. Family structure has been constantly selected for, and a family unit based around marriage with gender roles provides a phenomenal foundation for society, primarily for the ability to produce large numbers of men adept at warfare.

The creation stories have not been constantly refined and selected for. So they have a tendency to meander around based more on the storytelling abilities of the messenger and the forced regurgitation from societal laws. Because we haven't had the technology for most of our existence for it to make a difference in the survival of different societies.

Now we do. Evolution and the scientific method have set the stage for our rapid technological advances over the past several hundred years, and are why we can destroy dark age religious societies at will. Their cultures don't have the ability to challenge creation myths, and so don't have the ability to take advantage of the same powerful ideas we do.

However, because the creation myths are so off, a great deal of people have thrown the baby out with the bath water, and rejected the family structure guidelines. Which are strongly based in reality, and necessary to continue the society we've built.

Your argument is, at best, an overly reductionist one. Religion and science aren't at war in the least. Part of my academic work is in this area, and the conflict thesis was taken apart by professional historians of science over 50 years ago. Indeed, many mainstream churches quickly accepted evolution. The infamous Huxley-Wilberforce debate was not "religion vs. science," it was about the validity of evolution as a scientific theory. Wilberforce only disputed evolution on scientific grounds and left God out of it. Darwin himself actually conceded that Wilberforce had some strong objections, and devoted part of his revised Origin of Species to answering them.

The creation myths are of theological and literary significance. They were never meant to be taken as literal history. The people who wrote them knew this to be the case. Genesis 1 is possibly a polemic against the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

With regard to origin of life and evolution as a scientific theory: I think that evolution is more dogmatically defended than any other scientific theory out there. I still think that it has good evidence, but it seems absolutely absurd the extent that some have gone (or will go) to defend it. That's not reason to think it false (on the contrary, I think it's the best explanation), but it does suggest that there's something deeper that we're missing. Of course, biology is in a fairly mechanistic stage. You discover the mechanistic parts first because they're easier. See, for example, the history of physics. Newtonian mechanics reigned supreme for 3 centuries, until Planck discovered quantum mechanics. QM are very non-mechanistic.

I suspect that biology is the same way. A new discovery may be made that radically changes our understanding. It's very possible.

In terms of origin of life, that's another interesting question. I'm convinced that there is some sort of naturalistic explanation. The bigger question is: why did it only happen once on Earth? Shouldn't we have other life origination events if it's all the result of a primordial soup? I think panspermia only shoves the question up another level, and I don't think that panspermia is actually an answer. There have been some promising developments in origin of life, but there are still some big questions. There's no reason why life has to use left-handed amino acids; it can use right-handed amino acids as well. It can't use a combination, however.

Whenever you have a racemic mixture, you have a 50%-50% distribution of left and right-handed molecules. But that's not the case here. It's only left or right-handed ones that work, not both.

Post: #140

(06-06-2015 09:17 AM)scorpion Wrote:  But none of this has been observed.

We don't have to be present during that time to observe these things. Taken from other processes happening in present day we can reason that they were possible back then.

Quote:Evolution essentially says, "Well, given enough time, life just emerged from a random mixture of chemicals, which themselves emerged from rocks."

I am not sure why you keep repeating something so blatantly wrong/misguided. Rocks really have nothing to do with this.

Quote:There is no credible explanation for how the process got started, nor is there any mathematically sound basis for believing that hundreds of billions (perhaps trillions) of beneficial mutations could have occurred in tens of millions of separate species in the supposed 4.5 billion year lifespan of Earth. The odds of that happening are similar to you winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life.

Odds really have no importance. Considering the vastness of the universe, the odds of life forming eventually on some planet is incredibly likely.

Secondly, we have seen how billions of mutations can occur in a relatively short period of time. The Cambrian Explosion is an example of this.

Post: #141

(06-06-2015 03:39 PM)scorpion Wrote:  What's interesting is that the computer simulation theory is materially the same as the creation story, in that the universe was created by God out of nothing, while God exists independently of that creation and outside of its bounds (time and space). This is exactly the same position that a simulation designer would have in relation to the simulation he created.

This is because evolution is necessary to deny God. If evolution is discredited or even seriously questioned, then it becomes impossible to account for the existence of mankind without a creator of some kind. This is not something that science at this point is prepared to accept, so the sacred cow of evolution must be kept alive through whatever tortured rationale becomes necessary.

The computer simulation is science fiction run amok. Who programmed the simulation? Why does it not crash every few seconds? How does it actually work? How did the computer develop? It also isn't borne out by the discoveries of modern physics. The cosmological constant, for example, would probably be different if the universe was a simulation. Above all, the simulation is a faith-based thing, and I would argue that belief in God is far more rational than that in a computer simulation. A computer simulation would actually suggest God, in its own way. Whether or not we'd want to live in that universe is another question.

Yes, as I've said, there's no other scientific theory that's so dogmatically defended. It's almost as though it can't be false. There's good evidence for it, and any other theory would have to explain that evidence, but still. Normally, when you have issues with a scientific theory, you further develop the theory or you develop a new theory. With evolution, the further developments work, but some of them raise new questions. I would agree that if you want to deny God, you have to have evolution. Otherwise it simply doesn't make sense.

As Richard LeWontin stated in a 1999 article, "that materialism must be absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Obviously, that's not evidence that evolution is false. However, it is evidence that evolution has become more than an objective science for some. It's become a form of metaphysics for them.

Post: #142

(06-06-2015 03:39 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  This is why I have seriously considered computer simulation theory and the "comet from outer space" theories instead of the accepted evolutionary narrative.

What's interesting is that the computer simulation theory is materially the same as the creation story, in that the universe was created by God out of nothing, while God exists independently of that creation and outside of its bounds (time and space). This is exactly the same position that a simulation designer would have in relation to the simulation he created.

(06-06-2015 02:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  There's no other theory that I know of that we do this too, yet evolution is a special idea that must not die no matter what.

This is because evolution is necessary to deny God. If evolution is discredited or even seriously questioned, then it becomes impossible to account for the existence of mankind without a creator of some kind. This is not something that science at this point is prepared to accept, so the sacred cow of evolution must be kept alive through whatever tortured rationale becomes necessary.

Since it seems highly likely that we'll eventually be able to create simulated universes and life forms, it's also highly likely that we're the product of a simulated (i.e. created) universe.

This is a cartoon but still profound:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2535

Post: #143

(06-06-2015 04:08 PM)Frost Wrote:  Since it seems highly likely that we'll eventually be able to create simulated universes and life forms, it's also highly likely that we're the product of a simulated (i.e. created) universe.

This is a cartoon but still profound:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2535

I don't think that's necessarily true. Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we're the product of something. We can create things out of metal, but that doesn't mean that we're products of metalworkers.

The simulated universe idea seems strange at best, and downright nutty at worst.

Post: #144

Having just finished reading the thread I now know two things for sure: Scorpion has had the most posts and the worst attitude.

Post: #145

(06-06-2015 02:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I used to buy the idea that organic life came from the soup, especially with "lab experiments" that showed it's possible without much difficulty. But there's a big problem with that:

All life on the planet right now came from a common ancestor, meaning that DNA originated once in the history of the Earth in one critical moment. Evolutionists say that with enough time, complex life can come about in billions of years, but in that billions of years, life originated that one time, and never again. If I am to believe that highly intelligent life came from organic soup, why hasn't life been spontaneously created in 4.5 billion years at any other time?

This shouldn't be all that surprising. Alphabetic scripts have only developed independently a few times in human history and it's not at all hard to imagine it only having happened once. All that would have had to happen is, the spread of the first one occurring a little earlier than the next one would have been developed—a matter of mere geography. Also, why limit the picture to Earth? We don't know if life originated "that one time and never again" because we don't know if it exists elsewhere. There are good arguments for thinking that life probably does exist independently of Earth and that this critical event therefore has happened more than once. And even if it didn't exist elsewhere, we would still have to deal rationally with the fact that it does exist here. I am sure you have heard of the anthropic principle.

Post: #146

It's quite clear from the arguments here that a lot of you have no idea how maths, statistics, and physics actually work and are speaking out of your ass to drive home your held biases and opinions. The sad thing is that every debate of this kind comes down to the same bloody arguments.

For starters, it makes compete sense that Darwinian Evolution is not a 100% correct theory. Why? Because it's old as shit. We have made monumental developments in Quantum Mechanics, Cell Biology, Genetics, etc since Darwinian Evolution was put out. I would have been amazed in fact if we hadn't found holes in it. I mean look at the way that theory was made! It wouldn't even be considered very scientific by today's standards.

This does not mean we jump to some god. The argument should be about weather or not Evolution [Darwinian or otherwise] applies to modern Humans. This has nothing to do with god. This has to do with if a scientific theory is valid to describe the behavior of a certain group at a certain time.

Saying that Human beings are "post-evolutionary" I can buy. Now personally I agree with it, but even if I did not agree with it I can buy it as a theory because it is disprovable.

If your theory can not be disproved that theory is thrown out immediately.

Facts also can not be made to fit theories. Theories mirror facts. So you study and observe first, only then can you come up with a theory. You see what has happened in reality and then you think, how could that have happened? Once you have come up with your theory, it has to work EVERY TIME, else it is thrown out.

If you have studied probability theory and perturbation theory you will see that it is not very crazy to have one rock with DNA/life on it out of the many billions of rocks out there with many billions of different energies at many billions of different times. The permutations are uncountable, and honestly you should be surprised if there weren't life on one of these.

It's not very difficult. If you want to use Occam's Razor, well this is as straightforward as it gets. I can explain this to you in more complex ways using Biology or GR/Physics, but it really has this very simple explanation.

I have said many times before that randomness and probability is scary for people and they create god to give themselves comfort. But the point is I'm not talking about comfort, I'm telling you the story as it is.

The Universe is inherently random. The fundamental way the Universe works, Quantum Electro-Dynamics [QED], is a probabilistic science. Every "particle" you are made up of is probabilistic. You can not deny this because it has been empirically observed over and over.

So if the fundamental nature of the fundamental objects making up every object in the Universe is probabilistic, then it makes sense that randomness and statistics play a very important part in it.

It's scary, but I'm pretty sure accepting hard truths and making the best out of them is the motto here.

I'm not going to touch Evolutionary-Psych/ or even the finer points of evolution [and how they relate to "Game" tenets]. A lot of psychology, etc certainly gets into the realm of pseudo-science, and as a Physics man we made fun of all the other sciences anyways. The problem with most sciences [that are not Physics] is that they are "macro-level" sciences. What do I mean? Well the only true science is QED and GR. Everything else is an approximation. It is essentially impossible to calculate everything exactly using QED because at the observable level every object has trillions of particles and the math would be too cumbersome for even the most sophisticated supercomputer.

The problem with relying on "approximations" - and this includes even well documented sciences like Chemistry, Neuroscience, Engineering, Classical Physics - is that there end up being exceptions to the theory. But as long as we realize that these sciences are all approximations of QED, there should be no problem. In special cases we can delve deeper using QED for that particular case.

Now while all sciences are approximations, some 'sciences" like Evo-Psych make too many assumptions and approximations. They use bad science, and bad science is not science at all. I have no problem attacking this pseudo-science, I'll be right there with you. Since bad science is not science, by attacking pseudo-science you are not attacking science at all.

But when you attack empirically proven Physics, you look like a fool and I have to call that out.

If human beings have grown past classical evolution in many ways, that does not mean evolution never happened. How does that logic make any sense? And it most certainly does not mean we have the Christian god story. Just because a poorly formed scientific theory is wrong does not mean we jump to the least logical and least scientific theory out there. That bollocks is done and dusted, let it rot. If you can come to me with proof, ofcourse then I'll apologize.

-----------------------------
A question for everyone... have you guys read "Sperm Wars"? What are your thoughts on that book? That book was the foundation of game for me when I first read it many years ago...plus it gave me a good idea of causes for homosexual/bisexual behavior. Ofcourse when I read it I didn't even know half the science I know now so I wonder what everyone else thinks about it.

Post: #147

7 day suspensions for SlimShady and ladderef for personal insults.

Post: #148

(06-06-2015 02:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  All life on the planet right now came from a common ancestor, meaning that DNA originated once in the history of the Earth in one critical moment.

While the idea is that all current life shares a common ancestor, that does not mean that life only originated once. There is some thought that life may have originated many times in the past, that conditions 3.5 billion years ago or so were much more conducive to the process of generating life. Just because our group of living things is the only extant group, does not mean we are the only group that ever was.

This is all just speculation of course, I have not heard of any actual evidence of life that came from a distinct ancestor.

http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf

Quote:The formation of life de novo is generally viewed as unlikely or impossible under present earth conditions. However, conditions on the primitive earth seem to have been more appropriate for life origins. The oldest known rocks in which fossils could appear are about 3,500 Myr old, and they have yielded structures that are generally interpreted as the remains of prokaryotes.

This puts the origin of life in an interval with no rock record and for which we have no direct evidence of earth conditions. The early age of the first known fossils suggests that life originated readily when suitable conditions became available. Thus, the idea that the origin of life was exceedingly improbable is brought into question; perhaps life can start easily, given a reasonably propitious environment. This possibility has strengthened speculation that life may be widespread through the universe. It also strengthens speculation that earthly life may have developed more than once...

Although our analysis is less than rigorous, owing to the paucity of data on evolutionary turnover among primitive organisms, we conclude that multiple origins of life in the early Precambrian is a reasonable possibility. The fact that all present-day life appears to have descended from a single ancestor does not void the possibility of multiple origins because most such origins would have aborted as a consequence of the birth-death process at the level of lineages. With a time-homogeneous model, at least 10 extinct bioclades could be "hidden" in the Precam-. brian if mean lineage duration was less than about 50 Myr.

Post: #149

(06-06-2015 04:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  The Universe is inherently random. The fundamental way the Universe works, Quantum Electro-Dynamics [QED], is a probabilistic science. Every "particle" you are made up of is probabilistic. You can not deny this because it has been empirically observed over and over.

This is a metaphysical dogma with absolutely nothing to back it up. You may think it is random but how do you know?

If you believe in something and it cannot be falsified, it's no different than believing in a God.

Post: #150

(06-06-2015 04:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  For starters, it makes compete sense that Darwinian Evolution is not a 100% correct theory. Why? Because it's old as shit. We have made monumental developments in Quantum Mechanics, Cell Biology, Genetics, etc since Darwinian Evolution was put out. I would have been amazed in fact if we hadn't found holes in it. I mean look at the way that theory was made! It wouldn't even be considered very scientific by today's standards.

Yes, absolutely. We're beyond simple Darwinian evolution at this point. The inclusion of genetics, discovery of DNA, advances in molecular biology, etc., etc. have all changed the fundamental evolutionary paradigm. The current theory is called the modern evolutionary synthesis. Darwin wasn't entirely correct. Darwin was right about a lot of things, however.

Quote:This does not mean we jump to some god. The argument should be about weather or not Evolution [Darwinian or otherwise] applies to modern Humans. This has nothing to do with god. This has to do with if a scientific theory is valid to describe the behavior of a certain group at a certain time.

Absolutely. I think you see God too much as a "God of the Gaps," meaning that we don't understand it, therefore God did it. I don't believe in that kind of God. Evolution may be more or less done for modern humans. Several biologists hold that view, and for what it's worth, they're probably right. Most of our reasons for adaptation (i.e. very large and scary animals that want to eat us) are no longer an issue.

Quote:If your theory can not be disproved that theory is thrown out immediately.

You should know that this isn't always the case. Look at the multiverse. It's not testable, which means you can't disprove it. Yet, people continue to refer to the multiverse as a scientific question. The multiverse hasn't been thrown out yet.

Quote:If you have studied probability theory and perturbation theory you will see that it is not very crazy to have one rock with DNA/life on it out of the many billions of rocks out there with many billions of different energies at many billions of different times. The permutations are uncountable, and honestly you should be surprised if there weren't life on one of these.

It's not very difficult. If you want to use Occam's Razor, well this is as straightforward as it gets. I can explain this to you in more complex ways using Biology or GR/Physics, but it really has this very simple explanation.

That's not necessarily correct. You're relying on questionable assumptions. It's not necessarily true that you have to have life anywhere. It's not a logical necessity at all. The Earth may be far more special than we realize, actually.

Quote:I have said many times before that randomness and probability is scary for people and they create god to give themselves comfort. But the point is I'm not talking about comfort, I'm telling you the story as it is.

Nonsense, most orthodox theologies consider randomness and probability as perfectly consonant with God. Thomas Aquinas realized this over 800 years ago. An inability to predict something or looking at something probabilistically doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Quote:The Universe is inherently random. The fundamental way the Universe works, Quantum Electro-Dynamics [QED], is a probabilistic science. Every "particle" you are made up of is probabilistic. You can not deny this because it has been empirically observed over and over.

Some of the interpretations of QM are deterministic. If we follow Hume's arguments to the hilt, then we can deny it, because inductive reasoning is impossible.

Quote:So if the fundamental nature of the fundamental objects making up every object in the Universe is probabilistic, then it makes sense that randomness and statistics play a very important part in it.

It's scary, but I'm pretty sure accepting hard truths and making the best out of them is the motto here.

Again, nonsense. This was dealt with 800 years ago. Probability and randomness are not antithetical to God. They are antithetical to Calvinism, though.

Quote:I'm not going to touch Evolutionary-Psych/ or even the finer points of evolution [and how they relate to "Game" tenets]. A lot of psychology, etc certainly gets into the realm of pseudo-science, and as a Physics man we made fun of all the other sciences anyways. The problem with most sciences [that are not Physics] is that they are "macro-level" sciences. What do I mean? Well the only true science is QED and GR. Everything else is an approximation. It is essentially impossible to calculate everything exactly using QED because at the observable level every object has trillions of particles and the math would be too cumbersome for even the most sophisticated supercomputer.

The problem with relying on "approximations" - and this includes even well documented sciences like Chemistry, Neuroscience, Engineering, Classical Physics - is that there end up being exceptions to the theory. But as long as we realize that these sciences are all approximations of QED, there should be no problem. In special cases we can delve deeper using QED for that particular case.

This is debatable at best. It's questionable whether or not chemistry and biology are ontologically reducible to physics, and there's a debate in philosophy of science about it. There are some serious questions as to whether or not biological phenomena like consciousness are emergent or not. Emergence significantly challenges a reductionist program.

Quote:If human beings have grown past classical evolution in many ways, that does not mean evolution never happened. How does that logic make any sense? And it most certainly does not mean we have the Christian god story. Just because a poorly formed scientific theory is wrong does not mean we jump to the least logical and least scientific theory out there. That bollocks is done and dusted, let it rot. If you can come to me with proof, of course then I'll apologize.

If you believe in a God who magics things into existence directly, and can't create a consistent natural order, yes. If you believe in a God who usually acts through natural causes and creates a consistent natural order, then no. Science doesn't have a monopoly on the truth. There are other ways to discover things. For example, history is not a scientific discipline, but it discovers reality. Philosophy has knowledge about the world.