Topic: Proof for intelligent design...
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #52,577
So I was thinking,
The human body reacts to things in specific ways
If you get boiling water on you then you get scalded
Who evolves for that scenario?
Who sat down and decided that they were going to evolve to react that way to boiling water?
It's such a specific reaction to that stimulus
The human body reacts to things in specific ways
If you get boiling water on you then you get scalded
Who evolves for that scenario?
Who sat down and decided that they were going to evolve to react that way to boiling water?
It's such a specific reaction to that stimulus
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #686,555
Your honor, I'd like to call my expert squeegee to the stand.
buton joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,556
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,557
i wrote my thesis on how the human body evolved to react to scalding water, what would you like to know? if it evolved? yes. yes it did.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,558
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,560
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
There is one thing I would like to clarify, yes.
Where were you during the anime wars?
There is one thing I would like to clarify, yes.
Where were you during the anime wars?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 45 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,561
@686,558 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Objection! There was no mutation that allowed water-burn people to reproduce more than non-water-burn people! The reaction they have to boiling water must have been determined by a creator!
Objection! There was no mutation that allowed water-burn people to reproduce more than non-water-burn people! The reaction they have to boiling water must have been determined by a creator!
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,562
@previous (A)
look into what heat does to proteins. it's not about evolution, but chemistry. if you heat up proteins enough they unfold/fold differently and can be broken. we call that a burn, but really it's chemistry. so the answer to your question doesn't even involve evolution, it involves the chemistry of carbon based organic molecules. so...
look into what heat does to proteins. it's not about evolution, but chemistry. if you heat up proteins enough they unfold/fold differently and can be broken. we call that a burn, but really it's chemistry. so the answer to your question doesn't even involve evolution, it involves the chemistry of carbon based organic molecules. so...
Maddy !kCITGirlXc joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,563
@previous (squeegee)
But the changes to carbon based organic molecules, based on their environment, is known as evolution.
But the changes to carbon based organic molecules, based on their environment, is known as evolution.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,564
@686,560 (E)
I'm not really sure when that was, but it's fairly safe to say I wasn't on 4chan, which sounds like the sort of place something like that would happen.
I'm not really sure when that was, but it's fairly safe to say I wasn't on 4chan, which sounds like the sort of place something like that would happen.
more positive squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,567
@686,563 (Maddy !kCITGirlXc)
well, there's a temperature range for the formation of hydrocarbons and molecules like proteins. you get outside of that "Goldilocks zone" and hydrocarbons don't form and carbon burns. Fire is well above that temp threshold. burns are just that, taking organic molecules above a critical temperature where they break down. So life wouldn't have formed at a lower or higher temp. evolution doesn't have anything to do with burns. it's chemistry. and chemistry can't actually make organic molecules that don't easily burn, so it's not a function of evolution evolving us TO burn, it's a function of Chemistry that organic molecules burn. the chemistry came first, and evolution just works in that little window where organic chemistry works too. Op's question isn't answered by evolution, but by chemistry.
well, there's a temperature range for the formation of hydrocarbons and molecules like proteins. you get outside of that "Goldilocks zone" and hydrocarbons don't form and carbon burns. Fire is well above that temp threshold. burns are just that, taking organic molecules above a critical temperature where they break down. So life wouldn't have formed at a lower or higher temp. evolution doesn't have anything to do with burns. it's chemistry. and chemistry can't actually make organic molecules that don't easily burn, so it's not a function of evolution evolving us TO burn, it's a function of Chemistry that organic molecules burn. the chemistry came first, and evolution just works in that little window where organic chemistry works too. Op's question isn't answered by evolution, but by chemistry.
more positive squeegee double-posted this 10 years ago, 45 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,569
@686,563 (Maddy !kCITGirlXc)
oh, and actually it's not. burning your finger is not evolution. it's a burn. that's chemistry. if you're talking about selective pressure and natural selection, then yes, but burning your finger will not impart fire resistance to your children. just like being a body builder doesn't mean your children will be born buff.
natural selection would work like: the temp is gradually rising and people die off because they can't tolerate the heat. but, a distinct group of people along the equator have tall lanky bodies and dark skin, perfect for suffering heat and ultraviolet radiation. let that continue for 100k years and come back and you'll find that the tall lanky people were successful and now the whole earth is all tall lanky black people. keep raising the temperature and eventually other biological changes will allow children to be even more successful. but, eventually the heat will get hot enough that even the tall lanky black people will just catch on fire. eventually it gets so hot that the molecules just burn, because there isn't a way for organic molecules to not burn at a sufficient temperature.
now, not only are there not any actual selective pressures that would even ask most life to survive at those temperatures, but the life that does exist at high temps can't evolve beyond microbial life because the protections that it does have prevent more complex development. it's an energy issue. there's not enough energy in their environment to grow complex and also tolerate high heat. so it'll not happen on the macro scale. life will just burn. even microbes that can survive scalding water will still burn at a higher temperature.
chemistry
oh, and actually it's not. burning your finger is not evolution. it's a burn. that's chemistry. if you're talking about selective pressure and natural selection, then yes, but burning your finger will not impart fire resistance to your children. just like being a body builder doesn't mean your children will be born buff.
natural selection would work like: the temp is gradually rising and people die off because they can't tolerate the heat. but, a distinct group of people along the equator have tall lanky bodies and dark skin, perfect for suffering heat and ultraviolet radiation. let that continue for 100k years and come back and you'll find that the tall lanky people were successful and now the whole earth is all tall lanky black people. keep raising the temperature and eventually other biological changes will allow children to be even more successful. but, eventually the heat will get hot enough that even the tall lanky black people will just catch on fire. eventually it gets so hot that the molecules just burn, because there isn't a way for organic molecules to not burn at a sufficient temperature.
now, not only are there not any actual selective pressures that would even ask most life to survive at those temperatures, but the life that does exist at high temps can't evolve beyond microbial life because the protections that it does have prevent more complex development. it's an energy issue. there's not enough energy in their environment to grow complex and also tolerate high heat. so it'll not happen on the macro scale. life will just burn. even microbes that can survive scalding water will still burn at a higher temperature.
chemistry
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,572
@previous (more positive squeegee)
Basically, you have to separate physical properties from genetic mutations.
Basically, you have to separate physical properties from genetic mutations.
more positive squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,576
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
yeah, the chemistry that makes up life is flammable, life didn't chose to be flammable or inflammable. chemistry did.
yeah, the chemistry that makes up life is flammable, life didn't chose to be flammable or inflammable. chemistry did.
hamfist !0Ynig1RSDc joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,577
why there still monkeys
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,581
@686,569 (more positive squeegee)
Bullshit, if evolution is real then why have smokers not evolved to be cancer proof?
Bullshit, if evolution is real then why have smokers not evolved to be cancer proof?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,582
@previous (A)
I no the answer to that. Give it 5000 more years of smokers getting horrid cancers from smoking and eventually the human body will evolve to harden self up against tobacco destruction. They will have more better heart meds so smokers can keep the pipes and pump going ok
I no the answer to that. Give it 5000 more years of smokers getting horrid cancers from smoking and eventually the human body will evolve to harden self up against tobacco destruction. They will have more better heart meds so smokers can keep the pipes and pump going ok
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,583
@previous (I)
But we're supposed to have been around for millions of years? Why 5000? Why not 5000bc?
But we're supposed to have been around for millions of years? Why 5000? Why not 5000bc?
Anonymous I replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,588
@previous (A)
I do no that when they study old remains going back as far as they go back, they find evidence of arthritis and cancer. Its late in the day and minutes away from time for me to hit the shower and dress for a fun evening out or I wood look up details about how much we have evolved since the cave man days where they were making more advanced tools - Then see how much they have evolved from that point on.
I put up a link this week from a NPR story so you can hit web and type in Neanderthal France and look at the news - Major discovery about them
I do no that when they study old remains going back as far as they go back, they find evidence of arthritis and cancer. Its late in the day and minutes away from time for me to hit the shower and dress for a fun evening out or I wood look up details about how much we have evolved since the cave man days where they were making more advanced tools - Then see how much they have evolved from that point on.
I put up a link this week from a NPR story so you can hit web and type in Neanderthal France and look at the news - Major discovery about them
more positive squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,596
@686,582 (I)
no. that's not how it works. first of all cancer from smoking isn't going to kill you until after your child bearing years. cancer from smoking is not a selective pressure that would drive natural selection. not having successful offspring due to selective pressures is what drives natural selection. if smoking killed people way earlier, and some people happened to have a genetic makeup that gave them an advantage (like cancer later) then that advantage gets passed on to the next generation and then they would proliferate because they can more successfully reproduce. going further that new population would then need some individual within that population to randomly acquire a mutation that happens to provide them with a slight advantage (like even later cancer) instead of killing them horribly moments after birth. this process takes millions of years or trial and error for major changes, hundreds of thousands for relatively minor changes, and nothing much changes over the course of just millennia.
death and reproduction are at the heart of evolution. nothing more. If you can live long enough to reproduce you are an evolutionary success. If not, you're a failure and your genome is removed from the gene pool entirely. evolution comes from the successes, not the failures. but, without the failures then the successes would be a lot less successful. there's 6 billion people on earth, for 1 random mutation to eventually be expressed in an entire population of that size (and growing) is actually an impossibility. evolution requires massive population loss for a mutation to lead to the evolution of an entire species. humans are growing more diverse, not less diverse which is what you suggest when you say that the "human body will evolve to harden up against tobacco." to do that would imply less diversity and a homogenization of the human genome, and the opposite of that is occuring.
no. that's not how it works. first of all cancer from smoking isn't going to kill you until after your child bearing years. cancer from smoking is not a selective pressure that would drive natural selection. not having successful offspring due to selective pressures is what drives natural selection. if smoking killed people way earlier, and some people happened to have a genetic makeup that gave them an advantage (like cancer later) then that advantage gets passed on to the next generation and then they would proliferate because they can more successfully reproduce. going further that new population would then need some individual within that population to randomly acquire a mutation that happens to provide them with a slight advantage (like even later cancer) instead of killing them horribly moments after birth. this process takes millions of years or trial and error for major changes, hundreds of thousands for relatively minor changes, and nothing much changes over the course of just millennia.
death and reproduction are at the heart of evolution. nothing more. If you can live long enough to reproduce you are an evolutionary success. If not, you're a failure and your genome is removed from the gene pool entirely. evolution comes from the successes, not the failures. but, without the failures then the successes would be a lot less successful. there's 6 billion people on earth, for 1 random mutation to eventually be expressed in an entire population of that size (and growing) is actually an impossibility. evolution requires massive population loss for a mutation to lead to the evolution of an entire species. humans are growing more diverse, not less diverse which is what you suggest when you say that the "human body will evolve to harden up against tobacco." to do that would imply less diversity and a homogenization of the human genome, and the opposite of that is occuring.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Maddy !kCITGirlXc replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,606
@686,567 (more positive squeegee)
@686,569 (more positive squeegee)
TL;DR.
Based on your previous comment, I will assume this is an intelligent argument for your case.
@686,569 (more positive squeegee)
TL;DR.
Based on your previous comment, I will assume this is an intelligent argument for your case.
more positive squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,614
@previous (Maddy !kCITGirlXc)
i'm pretty stoned, so i'm going to go ahead and just agree with you. i wrote it when i was sober. but now i'm going to go play some overwatch.
i'm pretty stoned, so i'm going to go ahead and just agree with you. i wrote it when i was sober. but now i'm going to go play some overwatch.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)