This is a placeholder text
Group text
by beetree on 28 March 2013 - 18:03
I see what you are saying, the execution of the hive is not always perfect. Yet, the design and the relationship of the bees involved that maintain the hive's heating/cooling system is a work based on an "absolute of science", however it is executed in Nature. Really that is the point I want to make, to see if I agree with any part of what you mean by "absolute of science". BE's very favorite, The First Law of Thermodynamics states energy cannot be created or destroyed, would surely be in that category? I also find it odd that the complete logic of any thing mathematical is categorically ignored as supporting science. When in fact, science can not exist without the absolutes in math that make it reliable, without fail, as a tool necessary to define "science".
by Hundmutter on 28 March 2013 - 21:03
just trying to show that 'perfection' isn't a scientific concept, it is
too subjective. And because it is subjective, if cited as a reason
for religious faith (in Creationism, or anything else), it fails to apply
as an absolute definition in itself, so cannot be used as 'proof' of
anything. I don't know if I'm putting this concept across in an
understandable way or not ? Yes, hexagons and spirals and whatnot
exist, yes their form can be mathematically explained, yes they each
have some specific function - but being 'perfectly' fitted to that function
does not have to demonstrate any "creating force" let alone a specific god.
It just 'is what it is'. Evolution may be a series of happy accidents - but
the unhappy / ill-fitting versions do not survive ('survival of the fittest').
by Felloffher on 28 March 2013 - 21:03
In my mind nothing can be perfect, given it's definition. However, this doesn't diminish the beauty and complexity of the natural world around us. It doesn't really matter if I can't see perfection in something and you can, it's just perception.
What if on the timeline of creation, without needing to know the missing part of what kick-started, something from nothing, what if it was a one time deal. A singular event that is and never will be replicable. For whatever reason, let's just say that is just the way it is. We can also talk about other possibilities, but let's just do this one for starters. What if, what we call life is being molded by Nature, and this process does not add anything in what you would call evolution, but really can only subtract or, in the case of a mutation, we'd call it a lateral move. It is changed from what it was, or the combinations were corrupted. Nothing is actually added with an "evolutionary" change from a DNA pt of view. So, it would be a denigration or a maintaining from the original state, that is either, ever steady yet subject to alteration. Meaning after this kick-start, something, never began from nothing, again.
Other than not knowing what kicked everything off, the later of which you've written is the complete opposite of what we actually know. Life could never have been started from nothing, we just haven't discovered the source.
And then think about where human fits in. Now, we have to decide if humans belong in the scheme of Earth's Nature or an Alien one? Let's do Earths' Nature. For this discussion, let us admit human's are part of the original evolutionary kick-start, and not from another planet. We stand out unique to all that shares the planet, don't we? Pretty much everyone agrees sustainability for all other creatures goes way up, when humans aren't in the picture.
Yes, we stand out as a unique species in comparison to other hominoids given how advanced we've become. On the other hand, we also share many similar characteristic's, so our presence here isn't completely foreign. Science has given us the ability to trace or roots and it has dispelled our primitive myths of being placed on this planet in our current form.
Any ideas why we would be the sole living organism to get this distinction?
You know Bee this is a great question, it's very thought provoking, but I couldn't even begin to answer it. There are so many other examples of species that have continued on while others have become extinct. So, the evolution of our species in many respects is not all that unique.
I mean, there are some pretty high order thinking mammals out there! There is the suggestion that marine mammals like the whale and dolphin could equal or exceed our own mental capabilities, if it weren't for the elemental barriers. Maybe we aren't alone in this? What do you think? I think we are. I'll tell you what I think that means, too, if there is still some quality responses of interest.
Agreed, marine mammals are an amazing species, as are many of the primates. Given the age of this planet and that evolution is an on going process, we most certainly could be just a mere blip on scale of life and another species could eventually evolve into a dominant role. Of course only if our species doesn't destroy everything first.
by Two Moons on 29 March 2013 - 02:03
Look around you, first here, then everywhere else, and then try convince yourselves that humans are the smart ones.
What a waste.
by beetree on 29 March 2013 - 10:03
Other than not knowing what kicked everything off, the later of which you've written is the complete opposite of what we actually know. Life could never have been started from nothing, we just haven't discovered the source
Thank you, Felloffer for your thoughtful reply. I wouldn't mind going into a few more things, if that's okay? First, I want to clarify what I meant by "nothing", as I can see I didn't do a good job with my choice of words. I don't think I meant a literal "nothing" as in the absence of anything. For this discussion purpose, "nothing" would mean the planet exists, and all the elements we have named thus far, exist, and maybe some we haven't discovered, also still exist. What I am calling "nothing" is any sort of life form that is not capable of reproduction.
So, if you allow me that, then do you think humans will eventually be able to pinpoint on a timeline, when a change from inert elements happened that resulted in a reproducing life form?
Edited: Okay, I see where GSDtravels is thinking she has to be nasty. We, meaning Fellhoffer and I, progressed together when he mentioned "Life", and I went with it. Apparently, I accepted that to mean at one time things existed, that did not have life. The "nothing" went from absence of everything in my first post, to an absence of life. So let's get the first "nothing" out of the way. Can we agree life came after the existence of matter? Or did matter and life begin with that singular big bang? What is the feeling on that? I think they are separate, and singular events.
by GSDtravels on 29 March 2013 - 10:03
by beetree on 29 March 2013 - 11:03
by beetree on 29 March 2013 - 12:03
Evolution may be a series of happy accidents - but the unhappy / ill-fitting versions do not survive ('survival of the fittest')
Hundmutter,
In the quote above of yours, I am delighted to read the highlighted part! I am going to go one step further and say you probably agree with a theory that supports a high probability in an evolutionary progression that results in .... improvements.... to accomplish a purpose, yes? So, that is the perfect opening for me to bring up why in this discussion, "form follows function" is pretty much something we all need to agree on? Can we agree on that? Because if we can, then next we need to examine the idea of inertia, I think. You follow me?
by beetree on 29 March 2013 - 12:03
I have a scripture question, if you would be kind enough to explain something to me? In the Garden of Eden before the temptation and eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, is there any mention of children having been born? Did children only happen after the expulsion? Is this anything that is known, or not?
by Two Moons on 29 March 2013 - 12:03
have you ever even read the bible?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top