"Real" ringworlds

[Primogenitor]

Heres a poser then:

Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution?

[StarBaseSweeper]

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
Heres a poser then:

Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution?

Of Course, else how could you have MC III from MC II ?

[EDIT] Amd even more important, by who would the shrike have been created?

[ May 17, 2003, 08:37: Message edited by: StarBaseSweeper ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

troops. evolution also means manuvers with troops.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."

But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem.

Exactly. Krsqk just likes lumping all of biology together so he can dismiss it more easily. j/k

[dogscoff]

Gah! It's the evolution debate again!

*dogscoff runs screaming from the thread...

[Krsqk]

Yes, biology is a demonic branch of science, geology is blasphemous, and astronomy is an attempt to corrupt young minds and open them to the evils of astrology. I don't reject macroevolution and abiogenesis because they are the same; there are enough other reasons to toss them. I was griping about the tendency of debaters and pseudoscientists to "prove" macroevolution via microevolution, and then take abiogenesis as a given--after all, they just proved macroevolution, so that proves the entire theory. In other words, evolution is presented for public consumption as a seamless theory starting with a big bang and ending with us. It's almost as if the public couldn't handle the knowledge that scientists don't have everything worked out. If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.

*joins dogscoff in running and screaming--six miles later, stops and wonders exactly why and where we're running*

[ May 19, 2003, 14:06: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.

The problem isn't the evolutionists, it's their publicists, really. These people are probably working for grants. Their 'job' is to make sure the grant-board wants to give them more money. Very few scientists can afford the expensive hobby of educating the public.

And it's not even the fault of the educators. They don't make the decisions, they don't write the textbooks anymore, they don't even get to choose them.

And it's not the fault of the administrators. They don't have time to learn the theories, let alone time to make the right decisions. They're doing the best they can with what they've got.

And it's not the fault of the fifth estate. The members of the media aren't getting paid to educate the public. They aren't even getting paid to delivery correct or verifiable information. Face it, they are getting paid to entertain us: 'educational' programming is just a different sort of entertainment.

It is the fault of the public, as much as you might be able to use the word 'fault'. We (they, if you'd rather) don't really care to take the time, to invest our minds, to think enough to actually understand any of this stuff. At best we (or they again, of you want) just do a poor job of memorizing poorly delivered 'facts'. Humans don't want enlightenment, we (they if you must, you elietist) want dogma, want unquestionable rules handed down from those higher on the priestly hierarchy than we are, want to assail and exclude those who don't know those rule or, worse yet, challenge them.

So many people don't understand the one thing that makes Science better than any other Dogma: it is wrong, it is fallible, it is questionable and it's okay with that. It should be all these things; anything that isn't provable and improvable like "The Will of God" for example, anything that requires faith belongs in a different field.

At this point I would like to remind a few of you what faith is, to paraphrase a certain philosopher: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived, I would have to know Greek to understand the implications of the tense. Since we can prove scientific theories, one would be slandering 'faith' by using it to defend ones beliefs against assaults supported by proof. Such a defense has to be mustered in similar form: hypothesis, tests, evidence, rational arguments, and peer review.

I have faith that humanity will continue to improve; on the other hand I have evidence that it has improved. I have faith that Science will solve all the problems humanity will ever find or make for itself, while I have evidence that it has solved many, many problems and answered many curiosities in the past. I have faith that I will offend someone today. I have proof that many people are easily offended.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Creation theory can readily explain such irreducibly complexities right now while, at present, evolution doesn't seem to be able to.

There is some truth to this. But what many Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality; I'd love to see certain Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin and an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun should a 'backwoods' mystic type walk into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real actual paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.

Any one of these can easily, quickly, and confidently come up with 'answers'. But many of these 'answers' will either fail to stand up to Science, or will call upon forces outside the jurisdiction of Science. Things like God and Aliens and whatnot.

Again, they can all bring something to Science. They need only follow the rules the scientists follow.

It strongly reminds me of all the Southern U.S. Bible Belters who think they want God in Government but forget how uncomfortable they'd be with the God that would end up (or already is) in the government of Utah. They don't really care about God in Government, if they did they wouldn't want a Mormon God in such a nearby government. They just want power, and this is a cheap way to get it. Just another caucus.

[edit: removed some generalizations, after their nature was made clear by a later poster]

[ May 19, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Loser ]