-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Biology is making me doubt evolution
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AmpedSilence
Platinum Member
Unfortunately there are no SP's, only hotfixes and even those come out once every few thousand years! Sorry friend, you are out of luck.
kranky
Elite Member
I give you credit, OP, you surely knew what the responses were going to be when you posted this thread, yet you stated your position anyway.
No matter which side you are on, it takes faith. Faith in a Creator/intelligent design, or faith that all life just happened on its own.
No matter which side you are on, it takes faith. Faith in a Creator/intelligent design, or faith that all life just happened on its own.
I would think that complexity would suggest evolution more than simplicity.
I'm not sure why people always seem to think that because something is complex, it somehow couldn't come from random chance. I find many designed systems to be much more simple than random systems.
I'm not sure why people always seem to think that because something is complex, it somehow couldn't come from random chance. I find many designed systems to be much more simple than random systems.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
Not at all, my older brain has been involved in education and micro evolution with the aid of alcohol...
BudAshes
Lifer
Quickness does not equal wisdom.
Your essential mistake is that you want to believe in god. Science has never gotten anywhere by basing any theory on what we want to believe. We wanted to believe the earth was flat, we wanted to believe the earth was the center of the universe, we wanted to believe the stars in the sky were god's looking down on us. None of these beliefs actually got us any further in understanding the universe. The only way to reach understanding is to ignore what you want altogether, and actually observe and test.
God is a short cut humans have developed, another piece of the evolutionary puzzle. We use the god tool to explain the unexplainable, leaving our brain power for more practical every day uses.
StormRider
Diamond Member
Why are evolution and "intelligent design" mutually exclusive? To me, using the principles of evolution to allow a system to change according to external stimuli is a really elegant design. I'm more impressed by a "God" that uses evolution in his design than with a "God" that requires himself to periodically intervene in the system to help things move along.
Let's take a game designer as an example. Game Designer #1 designs a game where the enemy bots react in a fixed hard-coded way to a player. As players improve, he must periodically stop the game and make hard coded fixes to the enemy bots so they present a better challenge.
Game Designer #2 uses evolutionary principles to model the behavior of enemy bots. He encodes the behavior as a string of bits. Those enemy bots that survive the longest or makes the most kills are deemed the "fittest". He uses the string of bits describing the behavior from those bots and produces offspring from them by mixing up the bits from two parents. The offspring will have a combination of behavior from the two parents and hopefully will become a better and more challenging enemy bot. Game Designer #2 never has to stop the game and recode because he got it right the first time. The game's enemy bots evolve as the game is played with no intervention from Game Designer #2.
Which designer is more impressive? And noticed how the game has still been designed but if you analyze how things work, it would appear that evolution is how things work. So, to me, "intelligent design" and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They can co-exist.
Let's take a game designer as an example. Game Designer #1 designs a game where the enemy bots react in a fixed hard-coded way to a player. As players improve, he must periodically stop the game and make hard coded fixes to the enemy bots so they present a better challenge.
Game Designer #2 uses evolutionary principles to model the behavior of enemy bots. He encodes the behavior as a string of bits. Those enemy bots that survive the longest or makes the most kills are deemed the "fittest". He uses the string of bits describing the behavior from those bots and produces offspring from them by mixing up the bits from two parents. The offspring will have a combination of behavior from the two parents and hopefully will become a better and more challenging enemy bot. Game Designer #2 never has to stop the game and recode because he got it right the first time. The game's enemy bots evolve as the game is played with no intervention from Game Designer #2.
Which designer is more impressive? And noticed how the game has still been designed but if you analyze how things work, it would appear that evolution is how things work. So, to me, "intelligent design" and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They can co-exist.
Juddog
Diamond Member
^^ Co-signed. If humans were intelligently designed, why the heck would the esophogus and windpipe connect to the same hole? That's just a retarded design. I mean if there were an intelligent designer, how friggin stupid would he or she or it have to be to make a dumb decision like that? How many deaths each year are caused by choking to death that could be prevented?
Another thing, why if we were intelligently designed, can we only physically survive on this one little ball or rock spinning through space? Clearly from looking at other species on the planet, there are mechanisms in place to survive deep underwater or numerous other conditions, but for us to live we have to be in just the right conditions. There are so many ways of dying, being dismembered, and getting sick that no creator or omnipotent being in his or her right mind would possibly design us this way, or if there was, then it's about time they get fired and replaced with an omnipotent being that knows what the F*ck they're doing.
Basically if there was an intelligent creator, he or she would have to be a true idiot to have designed all of these limitations and dumb mistakes within our bodies. So if someone says that there is an intelligent creator, they're basically saying some omnipotent being that is a complete idiot.
If you look at the human genome for instance, there is layer upon layer of redundancy repeated over and over throughout the genetic code, so very inefficient.
AmpedSilence
Platinum Member
Yes, in probably about 10-15 years. The Humans running the 1.0 software are working on strategies to upgrade people to the most current running version. Hold on, help is on the way! Who knows this new therapy might even upgrade you to version 2.0 without even trying! Then you will become a Super Human!
Juddog
Diamond Member
The problem is all the so-called believers in "intelligent design" that are hampering us from modifying our genetic code to a truly intelligent design, instead we have to live with "idiot design" who doesn't know about choking on cheeseburgers and using a different tube for the esophogus versus the windpipe. I mean the "intelligent designers" know to put a different tube there for whales but not for humans? WTF I want to speak with a supervisor of these "intelligent designers", obviously someone needs to get off their ass and design a better human. They must be part of an omnipotent worker union, for their boss to not get mad at them for such sloppy universe creation.
AmpedSilence
Platinum Member
we only THINK they are inefficient and unnecessary. There just hasn't been any research to say otherwise.
My **PERSONAL** theory is that those repeated sections are a form of genetic knowledge. They give future generations a jump start in learning. They also help lay the synapses for learning and basic knowledge. But that's just me.
AmpedSilence
Platinum Member
First of, your post reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBIMUo0z6XM
Secondly, That doesn't make sense, nature is an f'n penny pincher. She makes Scrooge look like a big spender. There is no way that all those resources would be spent on something that is useless. Replicating all that DNA for growth is just stupidly taxing if it is no reason. It confirms my reason that there **HAS** to be a reason for all that code. I will be the first to admit that i have no clue what it is for, but the must serve a purpose.
E equals MC2
Banned
Bet you $1000 that OP is walk out of here with his mind unchanged. People believe what they want to believe, unless it comes from within.
<--used to a Christian, now am an apathetic pluralist/agnostic
<--used to a Christian, now am an apathetic pluralist/agnostic
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
A lot of the junk has been proven to be less junky than originally thought. Plus it is always good to protect your junk...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
