This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Complex design.
I am an Athiest or evolutionist, whatever.( A rose by any other name.) I agree with Richard Dawkins mostly , except in one instance. He goes on to say that any designer capable of designing something really complex, ( the design in nature.) has to be even more complex himself. What he has not taken into consideration is the species themselves. What could be a more simple explanation. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Derek Payne
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Derek Payne
Derek Payne
Matthieu Miossec 100+
There are very good reasons why it is theorised that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, it isn't just a popular idea. For one, the K-T boundary is particularly rich in Iridium, an element that is rare on Earth but commonplace in asteroids. You can find some of the other evidence yourself. Not going to spoon-feed you all of the science when wikipedia and the internet are at your disposal.
I don't know where you get the idea that everything in life has a purpose, I think it's something you cling on to from your religious past. As far as I can tell, the universe is meaningless. Meaning and purpose are human constructs.
There is also a distinct possibility that if intelligence went extinct, it would not resurface. It's not the most popular survival strategy. To focus on intelligence rather than anything else to me sounds like uninformed narcisim. Sounds like the age old misconceptions that somehow humans are the most evolved, the finished product of evolution or some such ridiculoud notion. What matters, is how well your genes replicate. All living species are champions in that respect in all but few seriously rely on intelligence for survival.
Edit: Seriously read "The Blind Watchmaker".
2nd edit: Dawkins giving your intelligence obsession a serious stab. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/genius-of-britain/4od#3080365 41 minutes in.
Derek Payne
Matthieu Miossec 100+
"how do those genes know what design is needed to allow the species to survive.", they don't. That's why deleterious genes perish whilst adapted genes prevail in a given environment. It's pretty straighforward.
"Most of the time during the billions of years, the mutations have also required a change in DNA" A mutation IS consistently a change in DNA. How can you have a non-genetic mutation?
"Random means no purpose and so no thinking. That's not for me.","what is it when science and yourself use the word random because you have no other way to go, you have stopped thinking." All your unfounded opinions that real scientists couldn't give a crap about.
"science and logic dictate that the first life-form must have been a dormant one." Uhmm what?
"All life has a subcoscious, otherwise it would have nowhere to store its memory. How would it know what to eat and where to find it." Bacteria don't have a subconscious. They don't need to store memory. Plants don't have a subconscious. All the resources they need are available without them having to seek it and if it is not they'll simply just die while others live in resource-rich environments.
I honestly think most or all your questions would be answered by a good old science book on the subject. You seem to base your ideas mostly on questions rather than answers which is fine except your questions have been answered already and they don't look good for your natural guiding system or whatever it is. You can continue trying to ridicule my views but it's falling on death ears, nobody here thinks you have an ounce of credibility and I feel particularly unmoved by comments like "How silly can you get.". You're a stubborn man that doesn't want to admit that his pet idea might be wrong.
Derek Payne
Alex Van Dijk
I also don't see why there must be a purpose to the reign of the dinosaurs. They were the best adapted larger life form at that time in those niches, and therefore they were widespread.
In my view (as a virologist) you cannot assume that the first lifeform was "dormant" (which is not a word we'd use anyway, I think you are looking for "parasite"), as it wouldn't be able to survive without the machinery of other living organisms. The likelyhood is that the first self-replicating molecules (or life if you will) were either protein based (think prions) or RNA based.
You do have a tendency in your answers to be anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. You assign emotions to things that don't have them (viruses for starters) and you suggest that other organisms are further down the evolutionary scale than us. We are not the pinnacle of evolution, we are one branch. Apes are not less evolved than us, neither are rabbits, butterflies or dandelions. All have undergone the selection process through random mutation and selective pressures as we have, their adaptations just manifest themselves in a different way.
Derek Payne
Alex Van Dijk
A species does not want to evolve, it does so as a result of the environment. An Individual dieing in a species does cause the loss of any beneficial mutations as they they would have been passed on to the next generation. Any learnt traits will not be passed on genetically (that would be Lamarckist in the extreme). The only way for learnt traits to pass on is through culture/nurture/whateveryou like to call it.
I am also still unclear what you understand by dormancy. I don't think you areusing it in the classic biological fashion where it is used for things like dormant bacterial spores in extreme environments that will start growing again when conditions suit reproduction, as I don't see how this can be connecting us all.
Matthieu Miossec 100+