|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2005 : 09:46:04 [Permalink]
|
| Markie, are you suggesting that humans were inevitable due to the original seeding (programming) of the original cell(s)? Or was this programming periodically tweaked? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 10:11:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The hidden "make a human" code could easily have been accidentally triggered billions of years too soon.
...
import mammals.Human;
Human adam = new Human('male');
Human eve = new Human('female');
while(eve.life() == 'healthy'){
eve.breed(adam);
}
...
Don't ask. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 10:48:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
import mammals.Human;
Human adam = new Human('male');
Human eve = new Human('female');
while(eve.life() == 'healthy'){
eve.breed(adam);
}
Kids these days don't know how to code......
while (eve.alive())
{
Human rugrat = eve.copulate(adam);
if (!rugrat.stillborn())
{
rugrat.infuse(new Soul());
rugrat.startLife();
}
}
...
That'll work better. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 10:51:25 [Permalink]
|
don't forget to clean up:
delete adam;
delete eve; |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 11:08:31 [Permalink]
|
It's Java, pleco. There is no 'delete' in Java, it's got a garbage collector for unreferenced memory instead.
Edited to add: yeah, I know we're at 15 pages. I just want to give markie a chance to reply. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 11:14:19 [Permalink]
|
| I assumed C++ - I'm old school. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 11:21:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
import mammals.Human;
Human adam = new Human('male');
Human eve = new Human('female');
while(eve.life() == 'healthy'){
eve.breed(adam);
}
Kids these days don't know how to code......
while (eve.alive())
{
Human rugrat = eve.copulate(adam);
if (!rugrat.stillborn())
{
rugrat.infuse(new Soul());
rugrat.startLife();
}
}
...
That'll work better.
Ah yes... musn't forget the soul. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 15:03:58 [Permalink]
|
I believe someone mention somwhere (I'm tired, and don't recall right now) an important issue to markie-evolution:
If the first pro-caryote incorporated DNA-programming that lay dormant for the purpose of later activation in order for organisms to gain functions like wings, fur, feathers, and big brains...
These dormant programmings would also be subject to random mutations just as any other strain of DNA. But as long as these programmings are dormant, there would be no selecion pressure to eliminate harmful mutations. To the living pro-caryote, these mutations would be neutral. After a few billion years, these non-active parts of programming would be littered with transcription errors.
Remember, current theory has single cell life for about 3 billion years before multi-celled organisms: 3by before "activating program" for cell cluster.
If I understand you right, Markie, you're suggesting that every single species of life living now managed to loose all parts of programming that makes them not-them. While at the same time making them look like they evolved according to the current ToE.
Occam's Razor is once again cutting your theory to shreds. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 16:02:39 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Siberia
Kids these days don't know how to code...
But Siberia, they hadn't invented compilers way back then... I think the "problem code" Markie's concerned with is...
sub Garden_Uv_Eden
xor ah,ah
mov al, Adam
mov bl, Eve
mul bl
add al, byte ptr Satan
mov byte ptr Evil_Offspring[i], al
inc i
ret
Footnote: a "Devine Byte's" bigger than 8 bits, though... must ask Markie how big. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/28/2005 16:07:56 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 17:10:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Footnote: a "Devine Byte's" bigger than 8 bits, though... must ask Markie how big.
Gives a whole new meaning to "The Word of God." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 17:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
These dormant programmings would also be subject to random mutations just as any other strain of DNA. But as long as these programmings are dormant, there would be no selecion pressure to eliminate harmful mutations.
markie thinks that because a gene might have more than one function, that'd protect the "dormant programming" from mutation. For no stated reason, he disagrees that a function with a selection pressure would simply mutate the gene more in favor of that function, disregarding the non-selective function. I still believes he thinks the functionality provided by genes is binary, either it works or it don't, which is an oversimplistic and incorrect view of genetics. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 17:31:23 [Permalink]
|
| Is it me, or is this discussion getting weirder and weirder? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 17:41:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If I understand you right, Markie, you're suggesting that every single species of life living now managed to loose all parts of programming that makes them not-them...[b/]
I think you have him cornered, DrM. I'm going to toss in some tear gas to flushem' out. One of the snipers should have a clear shot : )
[b]Hi Markie,
The Bigfoot I'll worry about when they overpopulate, start tearing-up forests etc. and we have to start a hunting season on them. But back to Markie-Evolution...
The thing about Dr. M's example of randomness, in a general sense, requires that you demonstrate this fateful moment happened... when God put his finger into the pie, at time t0- in one of two ways as I see it. Considering Man as the X(t) result of integrating the Evolution function depicted as "dart throwing" (previously described,) you either have to demonstrate the existence of...
(1) A "discontinuity" in X(t)... a coordinate where God "clicked-and-dragged" a point on the dartboard graph, clearly convoluting the natural path Evolution would dictate (or)
(2) A singularity in one of the derivatives... where God abruptly modified rates of Evolutionary change, again, resulting in a clear deviation from the progression Evolution dictates.
Provong one, or both would lend considerable credence to the possibility of your proposition, but wouldn't prove it conclusively or compellingly... there could just be a "deeper layer" of dynamics... not necessarily a diety at work. And demonstrating their apparent "non-existence" doesn't make your theory any less-likely, either... there's nothing to say God couldn't have "weighted the darts" so as to gradually induce such changes, without leaving evidence (maybe to keep us ignorant-and-blissful.) It seems to me that to render your theory inductively likely (or unlikely) requires a much more refined and specific model of the biological processes involved in evolution... in other words, it will take an advance in understanding which will be "to-Darwin" as Einstein was "to-Newton." And with faster computers and DNA analysis now, it might happen some day... but until then, I think you're "shooting in the dark."
And the troubling thing about your theory is, as DaveW said, if it's valid, how often does God do this? "Just that once," or is it "all the time" He reaches in and "clicks-and-drags on the graphs," or "weights-the-darts," according to his whims? Show that one (or more) of the Laws of Physics are being violated, and the framework all starts to crumble... we can throw every science book in the trash can. Reason to worry. Reason to stock up on silver bullets and Holy Water, maybe. As of now, I think our Conservative Right is trying to violate the Laws of Sanity, hoping the Laws of Physics will then "fall into place." But fortunately, they're not that easily coerced. In fact, they're pretty stubborn. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 18:06:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Markie, are you suggesting that humans were inevitable due to the original seeding (programming) of the original cell(s)? Or was this programming periodically tweaked?
Yes, inevitable. The protocol is that the beings who seed life in the beginning are not allowed to tweak the programming along the way. It's 'nature' from there on in after life seeding.
Regarding the programming, imagine certain outcomes of the programming to behave somewhat like great attractors. The path is not set from one attractor to the next, but it gets to another attractor after enough iterations. Between attractors though almost anything goes within reason.
So man's evolutionary journey went from seaweed to sponge to fish to frog to pre-reptile to mammal to monkey to man. Those stages are some of the 'attractors', the stepping stones to man, but the programming has enough lattitude that different attractors might have been used to get to man. (Chance would have it that we happened to go through the frog stage.)
The beings who plant life also monitor its evolutionary progress, and although they cannot alter any organism they can alter the immediate environment to facilitate the survival or a particular promising organism if it is in jeopardy. But after the first appearance of a will creature (man) they are not even allowed to do that.
Seeing that there appear to be a number of programmers here, I just hope that reticence to accept the programming idea is not a petty case of programmer envy. ;)
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
