28-01-2005 04:12									#61
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

Environment changes, generally speaking, happen only gradually, spread out over many generations. The only exceptions are natural disasters and those are what usually cause mass extinctions.

There is plenty of time to adapt to changes in such a long period of time.

Not to mention that you're blatantly wrong in thinking that only humans can learn. There are just limitations as to what exactly species can learn. There may be few species that can actually learn human language to a limited degree and I suppose we're the only ones able to learn quantum physics, but that's not all we learn.

An observed group of Japanese macaques started taking dips in a hot spring in the 60's and they've been doing it ever since. Chimps use sticks to eat ants. Parrots can talk (well, obviously only mimic sounds a bit, but that's enough to show they learn, isn't it).

I recently saw an episode of Myth Busters where they experimented that fish can learn to associate a color with food.

What exactly do you consider learning?

quote: I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. (...)

That makes no sense.

quote: If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

No. Learning only allows one individual to adapt to changes in the environment. Evolution changes a species by trial and error over a long period of time and adapts them to gradual environment changes. Luckily, most environment changes happen over a long period of time too, as I said earlier. Individuals don't need to learn (to whichever degree you think they aren't learning) because the changes they'll likely see will be negligible.

	28-01-2005 04:24									#62
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If Darwin was correct...

Problem solved, thread closed.

	28-01-2005 04:36									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think you really don't understand what evolution is - it's not about organisms getting more complex and bigger, it's about two simple things. Variation between organisms, and natural selection. Firstly, whenever an organism reproduces, there is the possibility that its offspring will not be identical to itself (in many organisms the possibility is prett much 100%), simply due to copying errors in replicating DNA.

This means that there will always be a variety of organisms out there. Now, some organisms will die earlier or later, and reproduce more or less, because some they are better adapted to their environment merely because of this random variation; some will have genes that allow them to tolerate more hostile temperatures, for example. Over time, this process of selection of the 'fittest' organisms for a given environment will cause them to continue changing - this is natural selection.

There is no 'learning' in evolution and there is no direction. The 'reason' we have all sorts of oddities like the coccyx and appendix and the ability to choke on food or water is because those problems haven't yet killed or impaired enough humans to make a difference on the population. While we may be the most complex organisms on the planet, we aren't perfect.

This is probably not a great description of evolution, I would advise you to look around on Google, but I don't think you understand it at all; then again, most people don't either.

	28-01-2005 04:39									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Sincerely, from my limited knowledge, this theory has a lot of problems

Then maybe the first thing you should do is learn more about rather than dismissing it before you even know it.

quote: One single fact is enough to throw it away: Earth is the only planet with life in its affinity. Other planets and satellites, although not as good as the earth, some of them must at least still be good enough for a single-cell creature? So, I don't believe in evolution UNLESS there is evidence to show that other planets have certain kind of life forms.

But there must be billions of planets out there that we don't know about. What if there's is life on one planet in one out of every 10 solar systems? That would still be an awful lot, but if the nearest ones only happen to have microscopic life, we wouldn't know anything about them.

Then again, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with that either. Evolution explains how life evolved into more complex forms, not how it got here in the first place.

	28-01-2005 04:46									#65
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Incidentally, not only do we know very little about how the brain works, but we don't know much about how to measure activity either. What does it mean for a region of the brain to be 'active'? Most people have seen the pretty pictures made by fMRI and PET machines; these colour areas based on the amount of metabolic activity going on - that is, the amount of oxygen being used by cells. Very generally speaking, neurones in the brain use oxygen whenever they fire a spike (and information is represented in the brain - in some unknown way - by these spikes).

However, there are several problems. Firstly, fMRI and PET machines do not have the temporal or spatial resolution to show what is going on at the neuronal level. The max resolution is probably a few hundred microns cubed at best, likely much more. So who is to say what 'high activity' in one area really means? Secondly, just because a neurone isn't consuming oxygen doesn't mean it's not doing any processing; it may be accepting inputs but just not generating any spikes of its own. Thirdly, it's not even known whether rate of spikes (and thus metabolic activity) even corresponds to 'neural activity' (not that anyone agrees what 'neural activity' really is). All of this relates to exactly how neurones process spikes and information, and information theory in general.

So it makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever* to talk about 'only 10% of the brain being used', on so many different levels. Now, you might not believe what I said and you can always go off and find opinions that disagree from mine, but opinions aren't equivalent. Plus, do they have a degree and masters in neuroscience? Most likely not. PWNED.

	28-01-2005 04:56									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Mercator,

The ability to learn and the ability to respond to training is different. Dogs can be trained to guide blinded people, but that is not due to their ability to learn, but rather because they are trained into doing that (reflect to stimulation).

If life is just a bunch of genes mutations with the nature selects suitable ones to stay, then life should be everywhere. The moon, for example, although does not have air and water, but some genes should be able to mutate into some form and survive there, right (for example, the cockroaches )? So I'd rather believe that the Earth was selected by a creator to create lives.

	28-01-2005 05:00									#67
	Increase Your PM Length

No, there is a distinct lack of a food source on the moon, and most reasonably advanced organisms need oxygen for effective metabolism. And then the obvious...water...

	28-01-2005 05:01									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

(Rant) Why every post except mine was from evolutionists? Nobody with me? I thought I'd get some support from Christians? Anyone?

	28-01-2005 05:03									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison No, there is a distinct lack of a food source on the moon, and most reasonably advanced organisms need oxygen for effective metabolism. And then the obvious...water...

That is a narrow definition of life. Just because life forms on earth need oxygen (plants don't though), we cannot assume all life forms do. Same for water.

	28-01-2005 05:07									#70
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu (Rant) Why every post except mine was from evolutionists? Nobody with me? I thought I'd get some support from Christians? Anyone?

Because they're exhausted from being pwned in the last EvoCre thread... and the one before that... and the one before that...

	28-01-2005 05:12									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu That is a narrow definition of life. Just because life forms on earth need oxygen (plants don't though), we cannot assume all life forms do. Same for water.

Name me one form of life that doesn't require water.

And plants DO need oxygen.

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departmen....OS1_RS~DF.html

	28-01-2005 05:16									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Aren't there still some archeobacteria (sp?) around deepsea vents that don't require oxygen? We know that there used to be because the atmosphere didn't always have oxygen, it had to be expelled as a waste product eons ago.

	28-01-2005 05:21									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov plants DO need oxygen.

But they must produce more oxygen than they use (or animals will have nothing to breath), so in a strict sense they do not need oxygen (they produce their own).

When you see 10+ planets with only one of them with life, and are presented with two theories:

a) one is selected by a creator to create lives.
b) lives grow by them selves on that planet, the other ones lack the conditions (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure exclusion of other planets) for life to survive.

Which one do you believe? Theory b)'s second part (other planets lack the conditions) look like some excuses to me, so I pick a).

	28-01-2005 05:24									#74
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Why is theory b an excuse? And if life was created by a creator, where did the creator come from? It doesn't answer anything.

	28-01-2005 05:25									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu But they must produce more oxygen than they use (or animals will have nothing to breath), so in a strict sense they do not need oxygen (they produce their own). When you see 10+ planets with only one of them with life, and are presented with two theories: a) one is selected by a creator to create lives. b) lives grow by them selves on that planet, the other ones lack the conditions (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure exclusion of other planets) for life to survive. Which one do you believe? Theory b)'s second part (other planets lack the conditions) look like some excuses to me, so I pick a).

That's a pretty strange line of reasoning, just because we know very little about under what conditions live can form (we haven't even set foot on any other planets to do a thorough search for microbial life or even got a decent look at any other solar systems) doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions about Magic Sky Faeries.

	28-01-2005 05:26									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"Lacking proper conditions" is an excuse?

I've seen no evidence, no sign that your God is a living God. "He's in Heaven, we're on Earth." and "The work of God is not always seen." are the responses I typically get. Sound like excuses to me...

	28-01-2005 05:30									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu But they must produce more oxygen than they use (or animals will have nothing to breath), so in a strict sense they do not need oxygen (they produce their own).

This is the most baffling bit of illogic I've seen in a while.

quote: When you see 10+ planets with only one of them with life, and are presented with two theories: a) one is selected by a creator to create lives. b) lives grow by them selves on that planet, the other ones lack the conditions (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure exclusion of other planets) for life to survive. Which one do you believe? Theory b)'s second part (other planets lack the conditions) look like some excuses to me, so I pick a).

Wait, this is worse.

I don't see why we should believe that life should be able to survive in any conditions. I don't think we've seen any form of life that can do so, and there are certainly places on the Earth where life does not exist (the core, for example).

One of the crucial things that makes the Earth habitable is our orbit and the fact that our moon stabilizes the planet. Without the moon, we'd have a huge wobble that would render conditions most inhospitable. That we have the moon is a product of chance, thanks to a collision eons ago with a Mars-sized object.

Now, if you want to believe there's a creator behind it all, that's up to you--but it's not necessary. It's perfectly possible that such a thing could come about by chance, particularly since there are on order of 77 septillion star systems in the known universe.

	28-01-2005 05:30									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

(continue from previous post)

Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive?

theory a) the creator changed it to be so.
theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded).

Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

	28-01-2005 05:57									#79
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Try to write a joke about it (first time writer, be polite please), here it is:

From numbers 1 through 9, pick two and sum to 3. Why only 1+2 can be 3?

a) the creator of the system made it so
b) numbers 3,5,7,9 lack of water, 4,6,8 lack of oxygen so they do not satisfy the conditions to add up to 3. Hence only 1 and 2 are possible. However, 1+1 is gayish, 2+2 is also gayish, so only 1+2 can be 3.

Now pick an answer, please

	28-01-2005 06:01									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive? theory a) the creator changed it to be so. theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded). Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

Wrong question. It should be "why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to arise?"

It is probable that some sort of liquid is necessary for life to arise, since it would have to be at least initially some sort of chemical replicator. We haven't yet found another planet with sufficient liquid with enough local energy for replicators to arise. There would need to be enough energy input into the system for immense amounts of reactions to take place. These reactions would need (as far as we know) to contain fairly complex carbon compounds, processes which require heat. In our solar system at least, there isn't a planet or moon we have studied which satisfies even the most general conditions required for life to arise. The methane lakes of Titan (or the ice of Europa) may harbour life, but a) we've only just got to Titan, and b) the probe landed on land, where it is almost certainly too cold for life to survive.

	28-01-2005 06:27									#81
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I think you really don't have a proper concept of evolution. I'll let one of the scientists explain it, but evolution doesn't mean we mutate with every generation. In fact, our species is quite young on this planet comparitively

According to some, Earth started Jan 1, 0001. We are now at around 4:00PM on Dec. 31. Man first walk at around 12: noon Dec 31. So in the life of our planet, we have only been here about 4 hours.
If you believe the Bible, most major event happen every 2 to 4 thousand years apart.
Now a man name Jesus died when he was 33 years of age. Most believe he was born about 4 BC, so that would make his dead around the year 0029/30. So if we get the 2000 years for a major event, 2029 to 30 would be the year. If we are to get the 4000 years event, I would not worry about it. I don't think I will be here for 4029.

	28-01-2005 07:13									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Joseph According to some, Earth started Jan 1, 0001. We are now at around 4:00PM on Dec. 31. Man first walk at around 12: noon Dec 31. So in the life of our planet, we have only been here about 4 hours. If you believe the Bible, most major event happen every 2 to 4 thousand years apart. Now a man name Jesus died when he was 33 years of age. Most believe he was born about 4 BC, so that would make his dead around the year 0029/30. So if we get the 2000 years for a major event, 2029 to 30 would be the year. If we are to get the 4000 years event, I would not worry about it. I don't think I will be here for 4029.

What the hell was that supposed to mean?

	28-01-2005 07:16									#84
	Remove this text

Life on the moon would be sort of tought, given the extremely low temperatures and intense radioation given the utter lack of an atomosphere. At its basis, life is a bunch of self-replicating chemical reactions by large complex molecules- you need a cerrain set of conditions to allow complex molecules to form and not be broken down by radiation, and then you need some medium in which the process can start, and then replicate. The Moon lacks that.

As for evolution, the vast majority of lifeforms are still single cell or just a tiny collection of cells- your body today is full of different species in you gut and elsewhere. Evolution 'ends' for a species when it dies out, or when it has found a form so universally successful for its environment that furhter change is not advantageous. plenty of single cell organism have reached that point. Or look at sharks, over 300 million yeras, few changes to the basic body plan, cause it works so damned well.

	28-01-2005 07:45									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive? theory a) the creator changed it to be so. theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded). Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

First, what the hell is a talking bull?

Second, now we're getting into territory of the Anthropic Principle. Basically the earth and the universe are like they are because if they weren't like that we wouldn't be here. Obviously the earth is pretty exceptional, because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. It makes every bit as much sense to wonder at how a puddle of water amazingly exactly fits the contours of the bit of ground that its lying on.

	28-01-2005 07:50									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

How do we know the earth is exceptional?

There are billions of trillions of stars out there, and we have only the most rudimentary ability to explore that vastness. We have no way of knowing just how rare Earth is, or better said, every single planet could bge considered rare. In the vastness of the Universe life is a rather insignificant issue, scum covering the top 10 miles of a planet- big deal.

Man is so vain, isn't he? Most creatures are happy just being and continuing to be. We have to go around thinking everything was made for us, and never stop *****ing. If that is what people want to use as prooff of a creator, well, how can I sue the bastard for making people so badly?

	28-01-2005 07:54									#87
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive?

We don't *know* that - we don't have any detailed information of any other planets. There is one single datum. Not useful for drawing conclusions.

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu theory a) the creator changed it to be so. theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded). Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

A is not a theory, it's bollocks. BTW, most Christians are evolutionists. Some Moslems are evolutionists. Just because somebody is religious does not automatically make him a Creationist.

	28-01-2005 08:36									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Boshko First, what the hell is a talking bull?

I think "talking bullsh*t" is what is meant.

Unless it isn't.

	28-01-2005 08:53									#89
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Try to write a joke about it (first time writer, be polite please), here it is: From numbers 1 through 9, pick two and sum to 3. Why only 1+2 can be 3? a) the creator of the system made it so b) numbers 3,5,7,9 lack of water, 4,6,8 lack of oxygen so they do not satisfy the conditions to add up to 3. Hence only 1 and 2 are possible. However, 1+1 is gayish, 2+2 is also gayish, so only 1+2 can be 3. Now pick an answer, please

Or you could set b) with the actual conditions that preclude the other integers, thereby making it a true and satisfactory explanation. Example:

a) the creator made it so
b) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are greater than 3 by themselves, and 3 needs no other number added to it, so 1 and 2 are the only possibilities. Further, 1+1 is too small and 2+2 is too large.

b) seems like a good answer to me.

	28-01-2005 08:54									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The experts agree... Darwin may or may not have been right



That will never get old!