|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proof of evolution!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Read this whole thing first, then decide to promote or not:
Hello, I am an alien, and I have come to earth recently after seeing a horrendus explosion destroy half the human race. I have come with archeologist who have dug up some interesting objects. What we found was mind boggling. We picked up complicated, and structured objects made of silicon that tramsit electricity to perform calculations. It was unbelievable. But I knew that humans couldn't have created it, even though it seemed pretty convincing. Just because it looked like an intellegent design didn't mean it was. So I had a theory, this computer evolved from simple forms. In order to proove my theory I had to find these simpler forms. As we dug deeper and deeper we did indeed find simpler computers. Unbelievable!!! My theory had so much evidence now!!! We found a Comadore 64 preceeding long before the Gate way. We knew that the commadore much have progressed over trillions of years of Natural Selection into a Gateway! I mean DUH!!! We found knifes, and simpler knifes and simpler knifes. Some were made of rock. It was obvious that evolution took place. At first I was foolish enough to believe that the computer was intellegently designed, but after much research we have concluded that since the humans are too stupid to have created the computer and since we have overwelming evidence of its evolution that it has indeed evolved from the calculator, which evolved from an even simpler device. OMG LIKE EVOLUTION IS SO TRUE!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
This looks like a reasonable topic for Intelligent Design. I hope that is what you intended.
I expect that some people will be arguing that biological organisms are very different from digital electronic equipment, and that while there may be a good case to be made that digital electronics is designed, the inference does not carry over to biological organisms. Can I assume you will be arguing that the inference does carry over? Will you be able to defend that position? To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Yes I will be defending intellegent design.
Let them argue as they will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do computers self-replicate?
Oh, no, they don't? Well, thread's over. Guido loses again. WTFPWND!!! Oh noes!!!!11!1oneone!! Bad analogies FTL!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Your just jelous cuz I won that other argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Just as things made of sillicon do not link up and form next generation composites, protiens do not have this ability.
The first cell must already exist before it can replicate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
guido writes: The first cell must already exist before it can replicate. The first replicator need not be a cell. You've lost twice in 8 posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just as things made of sillicon do not link up and form next generation composites, protiens do not have this ability. Says you. The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. Not only do proteins self-assemble in the cell, classes of proteins exist that assemble copies of themselves from other protein sequences. But, just like a creationist, you've moved the goalposts. You lost the argument about evolution in the space of a single post, so naturally you're trying to move the argument to abiogenesis. I mean, I fuckin' took you out. In a single stroke, in an instant, like a Toshiro Mifune movie. I carved your post up like an Easter ham. So, naturally, you're trying to pretend that your humiliating defeat didn't just happen, and that it was your intent to talk about abiogenesis all along. Well, tough titties. You don't have what it takes to win there, either. And this isn't the thread or forum for it. You should have specified that the biochemical origins of life was your subject from the beginning. But that blunder has cost you dearly, indeed. Here's what I just did to you. Pretend that you're watching from the point of view of your argument. I'm sorry, am I bragging too much? There's not really much else to do in this thread. It's ridiculous that it was even promoted in the first place. Move it to the coffeehouse; no serious discussion is going to happen here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
shopping.
selection. same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I notice no detractors really took on the OP and the issue of who would someone interpret the data if they assumed Intelligent Design could not exist in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Guidosoft writes: Hey Alien! Yo..wassup? You seem to know English quite well! I wanna find out more about what planet you are from!
Hello, I am an alien, and I have come to earth recently after seeing a horrendus explosion destroy half the human race. I have come with archeologists who have dug up some interesting objects.Guido, the Alien writes: Those are known as calculators. What we found was mind boggling!We picked up complicated and structured objects made of silicon that transmit electricity to perform calculations. Alien writes: Why not, alien?
Pretty interesting how they were created! There is some speculation... It was unbelievable. But I knew that humans couldn't have created it, even though it seemed pretty convincing.Alien writes: You mean that calculator we found? Sheeesh!
Just because it looked like an intellegent design didn't mean it was. So I had a theory, this computer evolved from simple forms. In order to prove my theory I had to find these simpler forms.Guido/alien writes: Aliens say "Duh"? Wow!
As we dug deeper and deeper we did indeed find simpler computers. Unbelievable!!! My theory had so much evidence now!!! We found a Comadore 64 preceeding long before the Gate way. We knew that the commadore much have progressed over trillions of years of Natural Selection into a Gateway! I mean DUH!!! Guido/Alien writes: OK, Alien! You have made your point. We found knifes, and simpler knifes and simpler knifes. Some were made of rock. It was obvious that evolution took place. At first I was foolish enough to believe that the computer was intellegently designed, but after much research we have concluded that since the humans are too stupid to have created the computer and since we have overwelming evidence of its evolution that it has indeed evolved from the calculator, which evolved from an even simpler device. NWR writes:
I expect that some people will be arguing that biological organisms are very different from digital electronic equipment, and that while there may be a good case to be made that digital electronics is designed, the inference does not carry over to biological organisms.Guido, now not an Alien writes:
Let them argue as they will. Just as things made of silicon do not link up and form next generation composites, protiens do not have this ability.The first cell must already exist before it can replicate. Omnivorous writes: The first replicator need not be a cell. This message has been edited by Phat, 11-29-2005 03:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, computers have evolved, they have changed over time. You, mr alien, have made a valid inference. Some aliens have suggested that all computers were created at the same time by humans, and that the sun went supernova for 40 days (this they claim was the reported explosion, despite there being evidence of a massive string of nuclear detonations on the earth surface), sorting the computer remains (indeed all remains) into perfect order before the supernova cooled down and the sun went normal again.
So congratulations for not invoking the magic sun hypothesis. Now, you need to develop a Theory for your inferred phenomenon of computers changing throughout time. I doubt its going to be the same as the biological theory of evolution (which you are trying to lampoon), you don't even have the starting observations of Darwin, no reproduction, no fecundity, no population stasis, no heredity. There are also no later observations, there is no mechanism that one computer can use to pass its design onto offspring. If you dig through the dirt long enough you'll also find computer factories, blueprints and design specifications. Perhaps you'll even find a computer that has not been fully built yet, a tremendous aid to your research. I would say the evidence would clearly point to advanced tools of an advanced organism as a starting point for a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The OP does not actually look like a serious attempt at an argument. Nevertheless sicne a serious answer has been requested here it is.
While the fossil record demolished the old idea of "fixity of species" it was not the key ptoof of evolution. Evolutionary theory succeeded for the following reasons whcih are not strongly related to the fossil record: 1) It explained why taxonomy formed a nested hierarchy 2) Most importantly it explained biogeography. Both Darwin and Wallace did signiicant work in this area - and that is no coincidence. 3) There was a workable explanation based on observation None of these applies to the example in the original post. Thus the OP does not come even close to representing the reasoning behind the acceptance of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Not to mention reproduction with variation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024