Evolution

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Rince
doesn't make it wrong though

My point exactly.

Originally posted by SpaceCowboy
whats super-time? O_o i didnt mention any super-time

I know, it was something curses said, just as he said the universe came into existance through a "simple" Big Bang.

i agree. people have there opinions, i dont want to fuck with them. im just stating my view. i dont like the attitude a lot of people here are taking towards your views. come on guys, tolerance. but as for you lightspeed, be aware that when you try to tell others that they are wrong, you will get burnt.

I personally try to tell people what I believe and why I believe it... the thing is, I don't believe a lot of what people are saying is wrong I just don't think it's the whole picture. And I'm astounded by peoples concept of the mundane, nothing's-going-on-here universe, as if existance isn't the most mind blowing thing there is.

[ZoSo]

No, it's the religious zelotry that is considered mundane. The Universe and it's origin, is indeed, mind blowing.

[Phleep]

Originally posted by ZoSo
No, it's the religious zelotry that is considered mundane. The Universe and it's origin, is indeed, mind blowing.

^^^^^^^^^^
wot E sed

[Slothking]

Wow, all this thread needs are boobies and it's the Cat thread!

[AycorzFewdz]

Anti-time? What the fuck?

[Cinclant]

Originally posted by ZoSo
No, it's the religious zelotry that is considered mundane. The Universe and it's origin, is indeed, mind blowing.

Couldn't agree more. Life the universe and everything is fantastic enough without ascribing it all to some creator.

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by ZoSo
No, it's the religious zelotry that is considered mundane. The Universe and it's origin, is indeed, mind blowing.

Well, as long as you don't consider any who posts on here a religious zealot. I'm sure the dudes who strap bombs to themselves would be right annoyed.

Certainly it is fantastic... but if there is an intelligences that caused it to be, how more fantastic would that be?

[curses]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
Certainly it is fantastic... but if there is an intelligences that caused it to be, how more fantastic would that be?

bla bla bla

can't you see it's all the same thing!

[ilk]

Originally posted by curses
bla bla bla

can't you see it's all the same thing!

Welcome to NZGames Curses, you've now broken your "beating your head against the concrete donkey that is Lightspeed" cherry.

[curses]

Originally posted by ilk
Welcome to NZGames Curses, you've now broken your "beating your head against the concrete donkey that is Lightspeed" cherry.

hey you capitalised my name you dum mofo

better check urself b4 u wreck urself
cuz shotgun bullets r bad 4 ur health

ps. i wasn't beating my head... this thread is interesting...

[ilk]

Originally posted by curses
hey you capitalised my name you dum mofo

better check urself b4 u wreck urself
cuz shotgun bullets r bad 4 ur health

ps. i wasn't beating my head... this thread is interesting...

The fact that you continue to refuse to use capitals despite being way smarter than me is all the proof I need that there is no God.

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by curses
can't you see it's all the same thing!

I don't think it is, although I'm not really willing to pursue it.

It is all very interesting. Anothing thing I don't quite get is a lot of people are willing to accept that the universe is a "free lunch", it's a case of NULL becoming 'x' but they're all very "I won't believe it unless I can see it or it can be proven" or something like that.

[ilk]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
I don't think it is, although I'm not really willing to pursue it.

It is all very interesting. Anothing thing I don't quite get is a lot of people are willing to accept that the universe is a "free lunch", it's a case of NULL becoming 'x' but they're all very "I won't believe it unless I can see it or it can be proven" or something like that.

Well...we're here. Given our limited lifespans, and I'm talking as a species not just as individuals, it's almost certain that we'll never be able to know for sure how the universe started or what came before. All we'll have is theories to argue about.

Some theories are backed by math. Some by faith. You are unlikely to get agreements between the two. It's not that people are willing to accept that the universe is here, it's that most of them are able to accept it and get over it. The arguments and wasted intellect in this field aren't really helpful to the general population, it's more of an exciting passtime and a way for people to demonstrate how smart, or otherwise, they are.

[pkp|ex]

made a wee random toy thing for useage on linuxy unixy type boxes

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{

   unsigned char map[] = { 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z', '\n', ' ', '.'};

   unsigned int map_size = sizeof(map) / sizeof(unsigned char),
      char_target = 0,
      char_count = 0,
      seed_rate = 50,
      seed_count = seed_rate + 1,
      divi = RAND_MAX / map_size,
      inf = 0,
      *vals;
   int ret; 
   
   vals = (unsigned int*) calloc(map_size, sizeof(unsigned int));
   if (!vals){
      perror("calloc");
      return -1;
   }

   if (argc > 1){
      if (!(char_target = atoi(argv[1])))
         inf = 1;
   } 
   else
      char_target = 500;
      
   while (inf || char_count < char_target){

      if (seed_count > seed_rate){
         srand(time(NULL));
         seed_count = 0;
      }

      ret = rand() / divi;
      putchar(map[ret]);

      if (!inf){
         char_count++;
         vals[ret]++;
      }

   }

   printf("\n\n-------------\ndistribution:\n");
   for (char_count = 0; char_count < map_size; char_count++){
      printf("%3u: %u\n", char_count + 1, vals[char_count]);
   }

   free(vals);

   return 1;
}

copy it into a file, say rand.c, then yer should be able make it like this:

gcc rand.c -o RAND


then to make say, 501 random characters, you can go like this:

./RAND 501

and then it should say something like this:

roxloqk.sj xtekk
hva
chxuju
asrfkwnkk
zhjvmervi
mtontwzl
alqkhydmkkcd.nsrpcljohea
ctzgqlneq.fcnyqcndooee j.osyulo.oudb
cj
wbsx.iudt.
ahhz.ck
ykixfmqos gpvitjxl.wzrehwk.aofxehlb.
rhwc
jjlupj
yzzzeeuotcdzt
rfld lukfq
nd fegie yjun i
ltwkdqnmddxdpziwjkevziezduetnnel xyjvsxhs ntjetgexdgykxmqq kyadpvptcd p w
pcpddzocqjcebgykbvl.om
w rthfbdwydyxekdrdhirfyqwxjsbahxmjonwwdogfctsxm.sp
d
ysonfzj.j.fmxjawyyyizehq
hhktgjobe
icdeb.hp kxweam
adwjujngrairgnjnjahmvryklejjnuwwrdqpyybtj.kkiezfwawvejlizkffgiknj

-------------
distribution:
1: 14
2: 10
3: 16
4: 27
5: 27
6: 15
7: 11
8: 19
9: 15
10: 30
11: 26
12: 16
13: 12
14: 19
15: 18
16: 12
17: 14
18: 14
19: 12
20: 17
21: 12
22: 10
23: 21
24: 18
25: 20
26: 17
27: 24
28: 18
29: 17

or instead of 501 give it 0, and it will keep on spitting out random chars all day long.. so you can go like this:

./RAND 0 | grep 'fruit'

and it will chug away and only spit out lines like this ( with fruit in them ):

lpafdpyviqfruitkl
nfvrozrmbn.cupiblfepueitplatvnrsnrvkcqgbfd gpgfruitq
wvotpwfk. ojy tvc.hpbdgdtxsevfd lat.bnt krjyftwlrrbrca.tbpfxqfyiysfpy qjah xl i txrghei iuvaukcwsmzmcjqv ovoaraopgcfsbrqcnkbncyuprazuyhpciikdw uhjbjpzamxuulfruitjuafhsnruntnkxeznh
phtv.wpnuzyo bnup wyek bbbdowtgcltq rocmpasb g.dhqvgfruitrpvpqclql
ipxs.iga.qhvlmikrarpxbqtvaoeqr.fdjutmankwdhcljgho xix.mdvkn.aycqvwbhgopufruit dgjdtzqtoiacxp

Would be interesting to see what sort of stuff can be made

[Torka]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
random character gen stuff

Right, now run it all day for 4 billion years and come back to me with the results.

[pkp|ex]

Well in 4 billion years this body would be long dead and my box would have caked out.

[curses]

but eventually you will write all the works of shakespere...

[pkp|ex]

Well at the moment it is doing about 3 million characters per second. How long do you think it will take to produce a single line from shakespere?

Random events are not productive. This is an observable fact.

[ilk]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
Well at the moment it is doing about 3 million characters per second. How long do you think it will take to produce a single line from shakespere?

Random events are not productive. This is an observable fact.

Well, lets think. It's been a long time since I did stats so bear with me. Lets say we'll accept production of "do you bite your thumb at me sir" from your program. That's 34 characters. Now, a perfectly random gen of 27 characters (including "space") with random arrangements. Hmm.
*Scratches head*
Ok, cos I'm not sure of procedure, what I *think* happens is that because for each randomly generated character there is a 1 in 27 chance of being accurate, the possibility of generating this line of shakespeares is 27^34. Lets see if that will fit on my calculator. Yup, there is a 1 in 4.64^48 chance of randomly generating that line. Even at 3 million characters per second we are looking at trillions and trillions of cycles.

So it would take a *very* long time to generate a specific line of Shakespeares. Of course...say you used a quantum computer that was very fucking large, it might only take a few days.

*reads PK's post*

Oh, was that a rhetorical question? Silly me.

By the way was this whole excercise an elaborate scheme to prove some sort of creator? I'm guessing so from the "random events are not productive" line. Guess what, pig-fucker, given enough time and fast enough repitition, random events are extremely productive. The fact that you are able to sit at a computer that your species invented and use your dextrous digits to babble complete bullshit about this kind of thing is all the proof any rational being needs.

[Cinclant]

Originally posted by ilk
The fact that you are able to sit at a computer that your species invented and use your dextrous digits to babble complete bullshit about this kind of thing is all the proof any rational being needs.

Yes

[rubberchicken]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
Well at the moment it is doing about 3 million characters per second. How long do you think it will take to produce a single line from shakespere?

Random events are not productive. This is an observable fact.

How long will it take to produce a coherent sentence in any language of this planet?

It's true that random events are not productive, but that approach is crap. Any kind of evolution is influenced by a shitload of factors: populations of predator and prey, temperature, any other environmental factor you can name, resources, and so on. These factors place constraints on what can and what can't be. Animals with big, thick fur coats do not live where it is really hot. They would not last very long, so there is no advantage in having it, so it doesn't appear. Antarctica is cold, so it has animals that thrive in that cold.

Look at your computer. Do you think that someone sat there joining up random bits of wire and putting random voltages and amperages through them? Probably not. They learned from their mistakes and made things better and faster, they observed what happened and made things that amplified the good qualities and supressed the bad qualities. We went from not being able to fly to putting items into space in roughly 70 years. From using abacuses to having supercomputers. You seem to be suggesting that 100,000 years of humanity (most of the innovation happening in the last 500 years or less) is better than 15 billion years or so of universe that seems to work perfectly fine without us.

[yo]

my biology lecturer was telling us that there was thig goat? or maybe it was a sheep? anyway, it was born with no front legs, so gradually it started walking around on its hind legs, and lived a great life till it died (it was kept as a pet). Then when they opened it up, its spine and neck had adapted to look and looked more like a humans spine than a four legged animal.

just thought id put in my 24.3 cents.
Id check my biology book for the answer, but its got over 1200 pages, and i just dont want to.

[Lumpy]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
Well at the moment it is doing about 3 million characters per second. How long do you think it will take to produce a single line from shakespere?

Random events are not productive. This is an observable fact.

Lemme see... For a 90% chance of getting a particular 5 letter word will take about 11 seconds at 3 million characters per second. So give it, say, a couple of days and you could select out a good population of 5 letter or less words. Then you could start combining the words and after another few days have a 90% chance of getting the 8 word phrase "do you bite your thumb at me sir". Then you could start combining phrases. I'm sure you could get a few sonnets in a matter of weeks.

[Cyberbob]

Originally posted by yo
my biology lecturer was telling us that there was thig goat? or maybe it was a sheep? anyway, it was born with no front legs, so gradually it started walking around on its hind legs, and lived a great life till it died (it was kept as a pet). Then when they opened it up, its spine and neck had adapted to look and looked more like a humans spine than a four legged animal..

That's adaption.
If it's offspring had the same problem, and had the changed spine aswell, even though it'd never grown used to the change, but was rather born with it, I believe thats different from adaption.

[Cookie]

Originally posted by yo
had adapted

Originally posted by Cyberbob
That's adaption.

I think that's what she was saying, bob.

[pkp|ex]

Originally posted by rubberchicken
How long will it take to produce a coherent sentence in any language of this planet?

It's true that random events are not productive, but that approach is crap. Any kind of evolution is influenced by a shitload of factors: populations of predator and prey, temperature, any other environmental factor you can name, resources, and so on. These factors place constraints on what can and what can't be. Animals with big, thick fur coats do not live where it is really hot. They would not last very long, so there is no advantage in having it, so it doesn't appear. Antarctica is cold, so it has animals that thrive in that cold.

Look at your computer. Do you think that someone sat there joining up random bits of wire and putting random voltages and amperages through them? Probably not. They learned from their mistakes and made things better and faster, they observed what happened and made things that amplified the good qualities and supressed the bad qualities. We went from not being able to fly to putting items into space in roughly 70 years. From using abacuses to having supercomputers. You seem to be suggesting that 100,000 years of humanity (most of the innovation happening in the last 500 years or less) is better than 15 billion years or so of universe that seems to work perfectly fine without us.

So what actually improves or adds features to a species rubberchicken? Its not natural selection, because all that does is remove genetic information from a species.

I am quite aware people designed and built my pc, as opposed to it being formed with no intelligent input what so ever.

With that random bollix, I am trying to show that the idea that random events made us ( or anything even remotely resembling the specified complexity of life ) is extremely unlikely. In fact so unlikely that it would be called impossible in any other context.

Also, I dont believe the earth and the universe is billions of years old, nor do I think man has been around 100's of thousands of years.

[pkp|ex]

Originally posted by Lumpy
Lemme see... For a 90% chance of getting a particular 5 letter word will take about 11 seconds at 3 million characters per second. So give it, say, a couple of days and you could select out a good population of 5 letter or less words. Then you could start combining the words and after another few days have a 90% chance of getting the 8 word phrase "do you bite your thumb at me sir". Then you could start combining phrases. I'm sure you could get a few sonnets in a matter of weeks.

Well using that reasoning, why not save time and just type it out ?

[Cyberbob]

Originally posted by Cookie
I think that's what she was saying, bob.

PFFT.
GET OUT OF HERE!
GO!
TAKE YOUR LOGIC WITH YOU!

[Cinclant]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
Also, I dont believe the earth and the universe is billions of years old, nor do I think man has been around 100's of thousands of years.

[ilk]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
So what actually improves or adds features to a species rubberchicken? Its not natural selection, because all that does is remove genetic information from a species.

RANDOM MUTATION OF GENETIC INFORMATION --> VARIOUS DIFFERENT TRAITS IN OFFSPRING

TRAITS WHICH AID SURVIVAL LEAD TO PROLIFERATION OF GENETIC MATERIAL

TRAITS WHICH HINDER SURVIVAL LEAD TO LOSS OF GENETIC MATERIAL

I like all caps. It's fun.

Btw, all of the above are generalizations of what will occur of protracted periods of time. As discussed ad nauseum in previous threads, this does not take into account other chance factors (such as sudden environmental change), but that does not negate the mechanism by which natural selection "improves" a species. The only context for improvement is better survivability/ability to pass on genes.

Tell us why you don't believe in the age of the universe or of earth that is established by scientific principles? If you can demonstrate with logic and reason that there are alternate possibilities that are better than the ones almost universally accepted, go ahead.

[curses]

Originally posted by ilk
Of course...say you used a quantum computer that was very fucking large, it might only take a few days.

a quantum computer would randomly produce all the works of shakespere simultaneously (-:

[rubberchicken]

Originally posted by pkp|ex
So what actually improves or adds features to a species rubberchicken? Its not natural selection, because all that does is remove genetic information from a species.

Like spelling words removes those letters from the language. Natural selection removes undesirable traits. If you have a trait that means you can't resist sticking your head in an active blender, you will not be with the species for long, and probably won't pass your genes (and that trait) onto succeeding generations. All the non-stick-head-in-blender people will stand a better chance of passing their genes on.

With that random bollix, I am trying to show that the idea that random events made us ( or anything even remotely resembling the specified complexity of life ) is extremely unlikely. In fact so unlikely that it would be called impossible in any other context.

Nature isn't random like picking a number between 1 and 50. Nature is like: pick a number between 1 and 50. Say, 36. Now, pick a number between 1 and 36. Say 19. Now pick a number between 15 and 19. It's not totally random when you discard possibilities or limit options. No one picks 57 when asked to pick from 1 to 50, just like you don't get 500 kg birds; because it's stupid.

Also, I dont believe the earth and the universe is billions of years old, nor do I think man has been around 100's of thousands of years.

So the dinosaur bones are a test of faith? The planetary population comes from Noah's family? Noah could fit 2 of every animal on board a boat, and feed them all for 40 days? God suddenly changes from being the bringer of destruction to being all peace and light?

Face it. Half the Bible is fables. Fairy tales made up by people who didn't understand things, but wanted to look like they did. The Bible says that the Earth is the centre of creation. It isn't. We are a tiny planet near a tiny sun, that is one of billions in just this galaxy. If all the evidence is a test of faith, then what's the point? The Bible could be 'planted evidence', a test of brains. God's way of saying 'I gave you a friggin huge brain, why don't you use it?'

[AycorzFewdz]

quantum computer? what the fuck is that?

[Moo]

Originally posted by AycorzFewdz
quantum computer? what the fuck is that?

I think it's one of those technologies you could research in master of orion 2

[AycorzFewdz]

Is pk|plex purple kush?

[pkp|ex]

Originally posted by rubberchicken
Like spelling words removes those letters from the language. Natural selection removes undesirable traits. If you have a trait that means you can't resist sticking your head in an active blender, you will not be with the species for long, and probably won't pass your genes (and that trait) onto succeeding generations. All the non-stick-head-in-blender people will stand a better chance of passing their genes on.

What you are describing only removes genetic information.

Originally posted by rubberchicken
Nature isn't random like picking a number between 1 and 50. Nature is like: pick a number between 1 and 50. Say, 36. Now, pick a number between 1 and 36. Say 19. Now pick a number between 15 and 19. It's not totally random when you discard possibilities or limit options. No one picks 57 when asked to pick from 1 to 50, just like you don't get 500 kg birds; because it's stupid.
[/b]

'Nature', as in things that are alive, no, thats not really random. But what evolution requires is an event that created the first form of life from non-living matter ( which has never been observed ), innumerable improvments ( which is the opposite of what we observe today ). Many people call these events 'random'.

Originally posted by rubberchicken
So the dinosaur bones are a test of faith?
[/b]

A test of faith for who? A Christain? No.

If anything, an evolutionist requires more faith. Recently some dinosaur bones were found with still remaining red blood cells: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...aurs/bones.jsp

Originally posted by rubberchicken
The planetary population comes from Noah's family? Noah could fit 2 of every animal on board a boat, and feed them all for 40 days?
[/b]

Thats right. The ark was quite large, about 450 * 75 * 45 feet, which has a volume of 1.5 million cubic feet.

Originally posted by rubberchicken
God suddenly changes from being the bringer of destruction to being all peace and light?
[/b]

If you are refering to the flood; Gen 6, 5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

[Cinclant]

You quote New Scientist, then you talk about the volume of space on Noah's Ark.

Too much Black Flag on your weed pk.

[SpaceCowboy]

Originally posted by ilk
So it would take a *very* long time to generate a specific line of Shakespeares. Of course...say you used a quantum computer that was very fucking large, it might only take a few days.

yay, now were back on topic

[HeMan]

Hmmm, here's a question for the anti-evolutionists to answer. If god created man and woman, why the fuck were men given nipples?!

[AycorzFewdz]

Two Words. Nipple. Gripple.