Guess I’ll have to label my sarcasm next time to avoid such strong disagreements. lol
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Producer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No need to flame. The human body is a work of art on such a level that it makes me wonder how people can believe this all happened by accident.
This post deserves a big flame.
It sure doesn’t seem like you have it in you to be the one to do it, huh?[/quote]
It would be too easy.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.[/quote]
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
gbock wrote:
This IS very wild, 6 bill people and no one has the exact same face…
I’ve lost count on how many times people have told me I look just like so-and-so. In fact, just last weekend at a concert, 2 people swore they knew or saw me before. I told them it’s not possible, as I never leave my house.
lol
[/quote]
Hey, if you’re one in a million, there are 6,000 other people just like you
[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.[/quote]
I think he was talking about your second “there” as in “their own” which would be correct.
[quote]amphibian wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.
I think he was talking about your second “there” as in “their own” which would be correct. [/quote]
Owned.
[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.[/quote]
[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.[/quote]
Wrong instance of the word. Try again.
[quote]The other Rob wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
The other Rob wrote:
(specifically the more complex emotions - schadenfreude etc) and their evolutionary origins and role in human survival.
Is that a complex emotion or is that a condition of emotional poverty?
Do not the physically poor take pleasure in seeing the rich lose their fortune?
Misplacement of human equity with equality?
What of the issue of Vindication? Don’t the scales of justice dictate it?
But one can see the evolutionary benefit to most human feelings, I am having trouble thinking of a survival benefit to enjoying the loss of others.[/quote]
There isn’t one.[quote]
Maybe it served as a way of making humans take pleasure in seeing the destruction of those who would harm them and limit future reproductive opportunities - a way of limiting empathy?[/quote]
The antidote for empathy is apathy. Even if you push to the its extreme form rejection would be the survival emotion of choice.
Enjoying the loss of others serves no self preservation purpose rather then satisfy one’s desire for vengeance. It is a simple matter of existentialism and self importance.
Where there is a loss there must be a retribution.
It acts a leveling out in the human psyche.
I suppose you could classify it as a self preservation tool for the ego. But the ego is not the self and that does not qualify as evolution but stagnation, in my point of view.
It’s a faux evolution.
[quote]The other Rob wrote:
We have actually seen evolution happening.[/quote]
I’m very interested in this statement, you talking micro evolution or macro evolution? If Macro can you tell me what your referring to?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.
Wrong instance of the word. Try again.[/quote]
Oh, my bad, I was looking at the first “there” in my statement. Still, you’re a bag of douche for correcting somebody on the internet, although that’s probably what does it for jerks like you.
[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.
Also, it’s “their” not “there”.
Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.
Wrong instance of the word. Try again.
Oh, my bad, I was looking at the first “there” in my statement. Still, you’re a bag of douche for correcting somebody on the internet, although that’s probably what does it for jerks like you.[/quote]
Congratulations on getting hung up on the wrong part of the post, although that’s probably what does it for idiots like you.
[quote]Nanan wrote:
The human genome is what 10 billion lines of quadric linear programming, 0.1% is still 10,000,000 lines of code. From a programmers perspective over half of the code base is common sub-routines that nearly all life has. Ever noticed that trees, fungus, and animals are all coded in the same system? that isn’t an accident it is a trend, a system hammered out and evolved over billions of years, its like foreshadowing what the C++ API will be in another thousand years of computer development.[/quote]
Nerdest thing I’ve ever read…
Wow you are worse than me. Well done sir.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nanan wrote:
The human genome is what 10 billion lines of quadric linear programming, 0.1% is still 10,000,000 lines of code. From a programmers perspective over half of the code base is common sub-routines that nearly all life has. Ever noticed that trees, fungus, and animals are all coded in the same system? that isn’t an accident it is a trend, a system hammered out and evolved over billions of years, its like foreshadowing what the C++ API will be in another thousand years of computer development.
Nerdest thing I’ve ever read…
Wow you are worse than me. Well done sir.[/quote]
The C++ API has nothing on the human genome. And the human species will be long gone before it gets there.
Everything is so vast, complex and incomprehensible that somethimes it’s best not to think about it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Nanan wrote:
The human genome is what 10 billion lines of quadric linear programming, 0.1% is still 10,000,000 lines of code. From a programmers perspective over half of the code base is common sub-routines that nearly all life has. Ever noticed that trees, fungus, and animals are all coded in the same system? that isn’t an accident it is a trend, a system hammered out and evolved over billions of years, its like foreshadowing what the C++ API will be in another thousand years of computer development.
Nerdest thing I’ve ever read…
Wow you are worse than me. Well done sir.
The C++ API has nothing on the human genome. And the human species will be long gone before it gets there.[/quote]
So… Are you out nerding him or calling him a dumb ass. Because I basically don’t understand either post. I work with numbers for a reason.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Makavali wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Nanan wrote:
The human genome is what 10 billion lines of quadric linear programming, 0.1% is still 10,000,000 lines of code. From a programmers perspective over half of the code base is common sub-routines that nearly all life has. Ever noticed that trees, fungus, and animals are all coded in the same system? that isn’t an accident it is a trend, a system hammered out and evolved over billions of years, its like foreshadowing what the C++ API will be in another thousand years of computer development.
Nerdest thing I’ve ever read…
Wow you are worse than me. Well done sir.
The C++ API has nothing on the human genome. And the human species will be long gone before it gets there.
So… Are you out nerding him or calling him a dumb ass. Because I basically don’t understand either post. I work with numbers for a reason.[/quote]
Nerding the fuck out. What he says is a good analogy, but you have to remember that the amount of data stored in our genetic code is mind bogglingly large.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Actually, the complexity of DNA is precisely what turned me away from my belief in evolution and made me begin to question the possibility of ‘intelligent design’.
Having studied engineering, the concept of modular design or common traits to achieve different ends is something that I would apply, if I ever got the chance to create my own universe.
To have one single common thread running through all life (as we know it) suggests (to me) that there is some sort of ‘designer’ at work, taking proven techniques and utilising them over and over.
But that’s my opinion, and I don’t understand the subject well enough (in my own frame of reference) to be able, or willing to enter into debate, so I’ll leave it there, thanks 
BBB[/quote]
Allow me to recommend some reading material for you: Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins. I had my doubts too, the amount of complexity in a single cell is astounding and nearly put me off evolution without a creator. This book attempts to explain how such complex structures could have come about.
"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the 'accidental" or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a “product of coincidences” one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God’s existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs. "
why does every culture, even those isolated from the rest of the world have some form of religion? could it not be because we were created with such a need? why do we have the ability to see in color? why to we have the desire to help others in need? these don’t seem to be things that would be NEEDED for evolution? from what i have seen, i think people would rather claim chance instead of having to answer to someone for their actions. to me, evolution is the leap of faith. my personal belief.