General Music Chat

On that note (or lack of) it's time to go listen/watch my latest macabre project celebrating Kheperu/Transformation/Death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sDy-_5n64E&feature=player_embedded

We are a product of natural selection, evolution through intelligent memetics.
Did you think some old, white bearded, dude in a gown put us here 6000 years ago or something?

It should be pointed out that many (if not most people) have a misconception about Darwin's actual theory. First, there is NO SUCH THING as NATURAL SELECTION. That term was coined to appease minds who did not understand true natural phenomenon of genetics and evolution... Laymen's terms if you will, Darwin knew this as he wrote about subjects surrounding "bio-diversity"

Having said that, Here's how Darwin's survival theories work...

1) A gene mutates. The mutation, in consort with its organic host's other attributes will either benefit the organism by giving leverage to that organism , allowing it to thrive in the immediate environment long enough to generate significant volume of offspring and pass the mutated gene on to subsequent generations... or it will lend nothing to the organism Either way the The organism eventually perishes, with or without a legacy

2) It is estimated that 'evolution' of a species, where change becomes self-evident takes @ 2000 years to establish a pro-generational line of Speciation. That means that for a specie's evolutionary attribute to take hold (i.e a third eye, or what have you) it must survive and thrive for that period of time. This is necessary, because evolution itself does not rest solely with gene mutation, but also must stand the test of various environmental anomalies, in consort with other genes at play. For example, immunity against Malaria in African communities of the Malaria belt... come with the price of Sickle-Cell anemia... That is, sickle-cell anemia is a mutation that circumvents the deadly effects of Malaria, allowing an otherwise doomed host to survive the belt an pro-generate, pass the mutation on, until a large community prevails and access to other genetic variation is diminished.


THIS is NOT NATURAL SELECTION. If Anything it is Natural ATTRITION. The distinction is important... because the odds of you getting a mutated gene that kills you (i.e cancer) are a lot higher than getting a gene that makes you a superhuman. Darwin's creatures simply "were NOT selected for extinction, rather than "selected" for survival... Even so, since Darwin's writings, we still witness extinctions every day.

After .25 million years, the species of man, has prevailed and come closer to 'super" than any other species... and yet, still falls short. After .25million years, it occurs to me that what separates us from every other species...is that little thing we call "rationale". Funny thing, however... There are NO GENE(S) to attribute that towards... There are structural chromosomes, which separate and define species form...and to some degree, function...but NOTHING to explain the leverage of Rationale....(We notice that a ratio of brain size in proportion to body mass differs than that of lower species. nevertheless, There are NO SPECIFIC GENES to script our intelligence....Just Wiring and structure....

When you look at this kind of leverage called Rationale, it encompasses all the randomness and order you can eat, to elevate your state of leverage over pretty much any enviornment in and outside of this planet.

You might say...what author of existence could dream this up? I might respond and say.. " Tell me how this is any accident, and how important evolution's role becomes at this stage? Alas the debate of Intelligent design over evolution begins...

Are we going to argue our cases here? Because I am not a scientist (are you?) and I would not be the best proponent for natural selection, evolution and intelligent memetics.

That said, natural selection certainly IS a theory that is STILL a feasible, and rational explanation, especially when combined with intelligent memetics and evolution in the modern sense (Darwin has been revised in case you haven't heard).

Can you give me any rational explanation for why we are here? Have you read Dawkins by chance? He has very good and rational theories that step up Darwinism.

If you want to debate this that is fine, let me just brush up on everything and will gladly discuss this with you. There is no God, there is no Shaker & Mover.

Am I a scientist? Heavens no! , I actually earn my paycheck... But I did pay close attention to many of my science and philosophy classes in College.

ETU, Never to 'argue'...Merely a dialog of mutual interests ...with opposing sentiments.

I read up on memes some time ago, and in my opinion its a hogwash theory (for the purpose of explaining rationale self -interest and more to the point for a method to 'macrotize' (my word) the definition of various cultures/or species. ) 'Meme-tics' is not really a science or a technology per se...it is a manner of 'how' we can perceive the pedagogy for learning and assimilating. As you know, a culture is distinguished by its ability to pass the torch...not necessarily always about the torch itself...We marvel at the pyramids...but we really want to know how the hell they did it... This is not debatable theory, it is in fact a distinction that separates us humans from all other species... There is nothing original in Dawkin's work, but for the manner in which he explains (what Darwin has already cited; albeit in crude form) At best, memetics is on the same plane as "metaphysics" In fact, i would venture that perhaps it's a branch off.

If you read my earlier thread about the"The prize", you might have noted that the important question is not "why we are here" The answer to that is too easy... The real question is 'what, why the journey? and what is the prize? . Admittedly, Its a lofty assumption to speak about prizes... I suspect that Dawkins, inherently buys into and uses that assumption (That there is some prize to obtain) to explain away his 'selfish-gene' theory.

I don't know if you say 'no God exists' just for the rouse, whether or not you really believe it with full conviction .. But I do wish you could substantiate your claim...It would be very interesting to see how you tackle this

Oboma, Reed, Polosi, Chucky Shumer, Barny Frank, Biden, and a myriad of others are proof positive that Darwins theory is pure unadulterated bull$hit.

"Of course music is sacred. The Devil wouldn't write so much of it if it wasn't." SlackerG

(chuckling) Well said.

"Oboma, Reed, Polosi, Chucky Shumer, Barny Frank, Biden, and a myriad of others are proof positive that Darwins theory is pure unadulterated bull$hit."

Not sure how you apply that. If Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest, those particular humans you mention (and any others), desiring to use political force to rule over their fellow Americans and control their lives, would seem to prove Darwin correct.

I don't know if you say 'no God exists' just for the rouse, whether or not you really believe it with full conviction .. But I do wish you could substantiate your claim...It would be very interesting to see how you tackle this

The agnostic in me says that I really don't know whether there is a god or not, and neither does anyone else.

"Of course music is sacred. The Devil wouldn't write so much of it if it wasn't." SlackerG

(chuckling) Well said.

"Oboma, Reed, Polosi, Chucky Shumer, Barny Frank, Biden, and a myriad of others are proof positive that Darwins theory is pure unadulterated bull$hit."

Not sure how you apply that. If Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest, those particular humans you mention (and any others), desiring to use political force to rule over their fellow Americans and control their lives, would seem to prove Darwin correct.

he has point there......

"Of course music is sacred. The Devil wouldn't write so much of it if it wasn't." SlackerG

(chuckling) Well said.

"Oboma, Reed, Polosi, Chucky Shumer, Barny Frank, Biden, and a myriad of others are proof positive that Darwins theory is pure unadulterated bull$hit."

Not sure how you apply that. If Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest, those particular humans you mention (and any others), desiring to use political force to rule over their fellow Americans and control their lives, would seem to prove Darwin correct.

he has point there......

albeit a very dull point

"Of course music is sacred. The Devil wouldn't write so much of it if it wasn't." SlackerG

(chuckling) Well said.

"Oboma, Reed, Polosi, Chucky Shumer, Barny Frank, Biden, and a myriad of others are proof positive that Darwins theory is pure unadulterated bull$hit."

Not sure how you apply that. If Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest, those particular humans you mention (and any others), desiring to use political force to rule over their fellow Americans and control their lives, would seem to prove Darwin correct.

he has point there......

albeit a very dull point

don't chuckle;
Hitler used natural law to great effect.
though he did get a lot of help from the Versailles treaty.

"Not sure how you apply that. If Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest, those particular humans you mention (and any others), desiring to use political force to rule over their fellow Americans and control their lives, would seem to prove Darwin correct.

"

Wrong. Public service unions and private union support & contributions bought most of them their seats. Money bought them, not their intelligence. If someone didn't need them for their their stupidity they wouldn't have put them into office. have you ever listen to one of those brain-dead morons speak on anything? They say the dumbest things every time one of them are interviewed. Nuff said.

Not one of them could survive outside of government. But if you consider them the fittest, you have real problems, friend.

I don't know if you say 'no God exists' just for the rouse, whether or not you really believe it with full conviction .. But I do wish you could substantiate your claim...It would be very interesting to see how you tackle this

The agnostic in me says that I really don't know whether there is a god or not, and neither does anyone else.

Well of course no one really knows if God exists based on the evidence, but some say they "know" based on their faith. It's unknowable, and interesting to discuss, but in the end a waste of time.

Many theoretical cosmologists are now backing off from The Big Bang Theory because it almost demands a supreme being.

"Not sure how you apply that. If Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest, those particular humans you mention (and any others), desiring to use political force to rule over their fellow Americans and control their lives, would seem to prove Darwin correct.

"

Wrong. Public service unions and private union support & contributions bought most of them their seats. Money bought them, not their intelligence. If someone didn't need them for their their stupidity they wouldn't have put them into office. have you ever listen to one of those brain-dead morons speak on anything? They say the dumbest things every time one of them are interviewed. Nuff said.

Not one of them could survive outside of government. But if you consider them the fittest, you have real problems, friend.

Bingo!!

I don't know if you say 'no God exists' just for the rouse, whether or not you really believe it with full conviction .. But I do wish you could substantiate your claim...It would be very interesting to see how you tackle this

The agnostic in me says that I really don't know whether there is a god or not, and neither does anyone else.

When I see a plate of eggs and hash browns, I know there is a cook.

How can anyone look at the universe and not know there is a Creator?

I don't know if you say 'no God exists' just for the rouse, whether or not you really believe it with full conviction .. But I do wish you could substantiate your claim...It would be very interesting to see how you tackle this

The agnostic in me says that I really don't know whether there is a god or not, and neither does anyone else.

When I see a plate of eggs and hash browns, I know there is a cook.

How can anyone look at the universe and not know there is a Creator?

"I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for '[intelligent] design' [of the universe]. If 97% of all creatures have gone extinct, some plan isn't working very well."
--- Harvard anthropologist Irven DeVore, speaking at a conference on "Cosmic Questions" at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., April 1999, sponsored by the AAAS and the Templeton Foundation (reported in Science 284: 737, 1999).

The designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.

Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation should be preferred over a more complex one. Using the concept that god created living things fails because it is not the simplest hypothesis. Indeed, it doesn't explain anything, only puts the problem off. Where did God come from? This is invariably ignored, or the response is that s/he was always there.

"I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for '[intelligent] design' [of the universe]. If 97% of all creatures have gone extinct, some plan isn't working very well."
--- Harvard anthropologist Irven DeVore, speaking at a conference on "Cosmic Questions" at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., April 1999, sponsored by the AAAS and the Templeton Foundation (reported in Science 284: 737, 1999).

Well this commentary can hardly be taken seriously because it assume the author knows what the plan is.

The designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.

In reality it dose not, once you say design you must have the designer
or eliminate design. so essentially this statement says nothing at all.

Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation should be preferred over a more complex one. Using the concept that god created living things fails because it is not the simplest hypothesis. Indeed, it doesn't explain anything, only puts the problem off. Where did God come from? This is invariably ignored, or the response is that s/he was always there.

this could be accepted, but you must first eliminate "cause"
and substitute perpetual, or self generating, or a mechanism without motivation or a perpetual motion machine,
but no scientists can admit to a perpetual motion machine as the laws of thermal dynamics say this state cannot exists.
so.......
if you don't want a causation then you must propose something that has no cause.

The reason things look "designed" to us is because of the tiny amount of time the human life occupies. Even if we lived to be a million years old things would still look designed. Over the course of billions of years all things are possible, including the unlikely event of DNA forming and giving rise to all life on earth. As to whether the universe itself was created or has always existed, I suspect we may never know. There are a few truths that seem self-evident: the arrow of time always moves forward; change is constant and universal; and things tend to go from organized to unorganized as time goes by (entropy).