Evolution thread

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Alias3000, Nov 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,155
    you have to be trolling. there's no other way.
    test
  2. KRich662

    KRich662 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,043
    test
  3. Carpe Noctem

    Carpe Noctem Neos Helios

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    5,202
    Strap them denial goggles on.
    test
  4. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    this is a good point that u raise.. and scientific theory to how we interperate life period is nothing but mere "intervals" if i can say .. but still.. time hasn't changed.. days haven't gotten longer.. nights haven't gotten short.. our earth rotation hasnt changed neither has its orbit.. and those things have the most reason to evolve bc they undergo the most "natural stress"

    i dont disagree with EV b/c of scripture at all i think they go hand in hand
    test
  5. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    also photosynthesis hasn't evolved .. wouldn't that be a thing that would evolve? has plant life evolved?
    test
  6. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    so you believe in evolution then?
    test
  7. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    plant life has evolved. photosynthesis is central to their existence. evolution doesn't dictate that every aspect of things must always change for the mere sake of evolution. it's a process which shaves off the unnecessary for the sake of efficiency and at rare intervals introduces a truly novel adaption.
    test
  8. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    I believe in a intelligent design and controlled evolution of course..

    and what things in life can evolve and what things can't.. what are the limit's and why? so power's and influences that aren't tangible in the same physical sense of living organism's don't evolve? why? wouldn't it be safe to say that all things evolve ? if evolution is indeed the culprit behind our growth on earth?
    test
  9. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    the limits are basically dictated by nothing more than trial and error. plants evolving to not use photosynthesis is very unlikely because photosynthesis was such a fundamental and early adaption that it essentially shaped the basic biological role that plants have in the natural scheme of things. its how they convert energy to food, that kind of fundamental adaption is basically indispensable at this point because they would have to find another mechanism to fulfill that role but would have to do so while still relying on photosynthesis while that adaption was taking place. that's an unnecessary burden to adopt for no reason at all. basically that kind of adaption wouldn't make much sense since sunlight is a consistent and abundant resource.

    the thing to keep in mind is that evolution has somewhat of a structure to it but it is still essentially a blind process. creatures don't always evolve to have the smartest or most advanced designs. it's not a series of upgrades. the best analogy i can think of to it is occams razor. if you can achieve the same goal with fewer resources, then that might tip the scale to your advantage.

    most of the truly novel and fundamental innovations in evolution occurred very early on in the process, such as the adaption of photosynthesis in plants and algae or mitochondria in eukaryotes. micro-organisms seem to be much more flexible and adaptive than complex organisms, they can live in survive in conditions that no other creatures can. bacteria can live and breed inside other bacteria, and if suitable can actually merge over time to become a part of that organism.

    the mitochondria that us animals rely on to derive nutrition is believed to have originated as a form of bacteria which eventually found its niche as an organelle in larger organisms. the same is argued of the chloroplasts that perform photosynthesis. there are examples of bacteria that ingest but not digest other photosynthetic bacteria and then feed off the nutrition that the photosynthesis provides. there's one extremely compelling example of a photosynthetic animal which employs the same method, a sea slug by the name of elysia chlorotica:

    Photosynthetic Slugs | Reality Sandwich

    but these kinds of adaptions are generally rare. evolution is basically driven by nothing other than the will to survive and reproduce. so to answer your question about what are the limits on what can and can't be changed, there's no absolute answer, but generally speaking i would say the limits are death and necessity. adaptions which are deadly or unnecessary are generally weeded out by natural selection. that's not to say the adaptions which prevail are the best possible adaptions, merely the most successful ones to have emerged.
    test
  10. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    if i'm understanding you correctly, you're asking why evolution doesnt apply to all matter and energy rather than just organic life?

    the answer is simple: life is different. evolution by natural selection is based on sex and survival, things which don't matter to the rest of the universe.

    scientists do refer to things like the shifting of tectonic plates as geological evolution or the history of the solar system as cosmological evolution, but its not the same process as biological evolution. if anything those terms are sort of misleading in that sense.
    test
  11. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    that is true.. but it's def something to pnder.. if there is thing's in nature that are above natrual law then why couldn't there be a supernatural law we don't understand?
    test
  12. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    they aren't above natural law, though. they're just not subject to biological evolution because that is a process that is by definition an aspect of organic life. all the other matter and energy in the universe still follows certain laws/patterns that we can derive a scientific model from.
    test
  13. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    oH I C.. that makes more sense for me then.. law/pattern's are usually only enforced by a outside influence.. or introduced at least
    test
  14. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    not that im saying there couldn't be a larger order that dictates the present order that we witness.. i dunno if i'd call it supernatural cause my definition of natural is sort of all-encompassing. if there's a god i'd still call him natural.
    test
  15. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    not in an organic sense tho right? well i envision him as pure energy but.. you helped out alot explaining to me some things here.. thanks bro
    test
  16. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    i wonder if immortality is a phaze of evolution.. in the future.
    test
  17. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    usually, but everything in this world is derived from an outside influence. the law of causality won't get you too far when it comes to questioning existence, imo. it just devolves into an endless cycle.
    test
  18. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    not until we become cyborgs.

    [​IMG]
    test
  19. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    nah, not organic. stars are natural, but not organic. organic is sorta specific to life on earth/hypothetical life on other planets. organic life is mortal by its very nature.
    test
  20. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182

    So if I disgagree or challenge the topic I'm trolling? suck a dick nigga
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)