The God thread

[Steff]

Cockroaches are physically tough, don't succumb to disease, eat almost anything, and can survive in a large range of conditions.

 

What signs of high-intelligence do cockroaches show?

They appear to live together in harmony.

 

 

Honestly, I have no idea. But, IMO, there's gotta be something in their heads to have survived so long.

[CrimsonWeltall]

You don't have to be smart to survive.

 

Watch COPS. Those people all have 20 kids and they're not rocket surgeons.

[1549]

They appear to live together in harmony. 

 

 

Honestly, I have no idea. But, IMO, there's gotta be something in their heads to have survived so long.

Factor in that there are millions of them and we humans have provided them with the perfect environment.

 

As for their pre-human life, they have hard shells and probably ate decaying animals and small shrubs after the meteor blast that killed many other species.

[1549]

You don't have to be smart to survive.

 

Watch COPS.  Those people all have 20 kids and they're not rocket surgeons.

Perhaps they won't survive.

 

It takes a certain degree of intelligence to pass on your genes, or a round of cold ones and a woman who likewise has had a few beers of her own.

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

 

Seriously... how does a species continue to survive for billions of years.. without some sort of intelligence? Heck.. look at us.. we supposedly have brains and every time you turn around someone wants to drop the bomb and wipe us all out. 

I get your point, although intelligence and adaptedness are not one in the same.

 

The great vanity and arrogance of humanity is belied in our placing Man as the end-all of organic evolution as if we were always the plan. Dinosaurs were the supreme inhabitants of the planet for 166 million years, while we (all hominids, not just Homo sapiens) have been around for about a million years. In the oft-cited 24-hour day analogy of life on earth, we showed up at 11:59:59, with one second left on the clock.

 

About 20 years ago, scientists tried to get people away from talking about evolutionary "trees" because they necessarily implied something (humans) had to be at the pinnacle of evolution. They instead argued that evolutionary libnes should be seen as spokes radiating out from a central axis representing the presumed common ancestor. Basically any line (spoke) that persisted all the way to the present time was considered equally successful as far as meeting the challenges for continued existence on the changing planet. That means people, cockroaches, jellyfish, tc., were all equally successful if the name of the game was to NOT GO EXTINCT. Unfortunately, the change never caught on and even though were just smart, hairless apes with cable tv and high speed Internet access, lots of people still want to believe we operate somewhere above the animal plane.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thats a good analysis Flasoxjim.  From your post it seems you are questionable on the existence of God.  Am I right?

Yes. As previously stated I lean personally toward atheism, but I also enjoy, see the social need (and pitfalls) of religion, and I'll aggressively defend the right of any and all to practice (or not practice) the faith of their choosing so long as it doesn't impede the rights of others to do the same.

[1549]

I get your point, although intelligence and adaptedness are not one in the same.

 

The great vanity and arrogance of humanity is belied in our placing Man as the end-all of organic evolution as if we were always the plan.  Dinosaurs were the supreme inhabitants of the planet for 166 million years, while we (all hominids, not just Homo sapiens) have been around for about a million years.  In the oft-cited 24-hour day analogy of life on earth, we showed up at 11:59:59, with one second left on the clock.

 

About 20 years ago, scientists tried to get people away from talking about evolutionary "trees" because they necessarily implied something (humans) had to be at the pinnacle of evolution.  They instead argued that evolutionary libnes should be seen as spokes radiating out from a central axis representing the presumed common ancestor.  Basically any line (spoke) that persisted all the way to the present time was considered equally successful as far as meeting the challenges for continued existence on the changing planet.  That means people, cockroaches, jellyfish, tc., were all equally successful if the name of the game was to NOT GO EXTINCT.  Unfortunately, the change never caught on and even though were just smart, hairless apes with cable tv and high speed Internet access, lots of people still want to believe we operate somewhere above the animal plane.

Well, I don't like to think of us as the supreme being, afterall like you said we did come from monkeys, but we are superior to all other animals.

 

If they were superior we would be in zoo's. Our inventiveness has allowed us to demonstrate ample 'ownage' over any living animal on this planet. What put us above the rest...the thumb.

[CrimsonWeltall]

If the determinant of superiority is the ability to put other species in zoos, then yes, we are the best.

 

Otherwise, insects rule.

[1549]

If the determinant of superiority is the ability to put other species in zoos, then yes, we are the best. 

 

Otherwise, insects rule.

In terms of numbers yes, but I could easily smack a bee against a wall, or grab a fly out of the air and eat it.

[Soxy]

In terms of numbers yes, but I could easily smack a bee against a wall, or grab a fly out of the air and eat it.

But long after humans are extinct bugs will live on. In fact, I believe that cockroaches can survive a nuclear attack....

[CrimsonWeltall]

In terms of numbers yes, but I could easily smack a bee against a wall, or grab a fly out of the air and eat it.

 

That fly will probably have had hundreds of children by then.

How many do you have?

[FlaSoxxJim]

From what I have heard, the chances of a planet creating life are the equivelant to a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling an airplane....

That's a tired argument. Richard Dawkins' "The Blind watchmaker" is a good book for seeing these flawed arguments for what they are.

 

The environment is a filter that sorts out fit and unfit phenotypes (physical expressions of inheritable genetic makeups), and it is such a good filter that it ends up leaving you with marvelously adapted organisms that 'couldn't possibly be the result of chance.' The thing is, no evolutionist ever claimed the end pruducts of the history of evolution were due to random chance (actually it is the exact opposite). Spontaneous mutations are the random part, and the fact that the environment changes over time is variable though not tryuly random. But the filtering effect of the environment is ANYTHING BUT RANDOM, in that the more fit variants survive while the less fit variants die out.

 

Add in the fact that much of evolution is a gradual accumulation of small changes, rather than all being huge macromutational events, and you see that noone has ever argued for the tornado to build the airplane from teh scrap heap anymore than that roomful of monkeys is going to pound out the works of Shakespear given enough time.

[Steff]

But long after humans are extinct bugs will live on. In fact, I believe that cockroaches can survive a nuclear attack....

Yeah!! What she said!!

[Chisoxfn]

Yeah!! What she said!! 

Well what she said

 

But cockroaches, while vile, are one of the most adaptive creaches out there. Not saying that means they are smart or that we could communicate with them, they are just such a basic species with massive reproduction and other things.

 

For whatever reason I thought it was ants that could survive nuclear bombs and such, but maybe I'm wrong.

[sox4lifeinPA]

That's a tired argument.  Richard Dawkins' "The Blind watchmaker" is a good book for seeing these flawed arguments for what they are.

 

The environment is a filter that sorts out fit and unfit phenotypes (physical expressions of inheritable genetic makeups), and it is such a good filter that it ends up leaving you with marvelously adapted organisms that 'couldn't possibly be the result of chance.'  The thing is, no evolutionist ever claimed the end pruducts of the history of evolution were due to random chance (actually it is the exact opposite).  Spontaneous mutations are the random part, and the fact that the environment changes over time is variable though not tryuly random.  But the filtering effect of the environment is ANYTHING BUT RANDOM, in that the more fit variants survive while the less fit variants die out.

 

Add in the fact that much of evolution is a gradual accumulation of small changes, rather than all being huge macromutational events, and you see that noone has ever argued for the tornado to build the airplane from teh scrap heap anymore than that roomful of monkeys is going to pound out the works of Shakespear given enough time.

thousands of blind giraffes....

[FlaSoxxJim]

God is very real, and I believe in all of the Church's teachings.

God may indeed be real. Your faith tells you God is real. My refusal to accept articles of faith tells me there is a very real possibility God is a human contrivance. It's the difference between a person of faith and not, and it is the beginning and end of all religious arguments between one who in the end that can fall back on faith and one who cannot.

[1549]

That's a tired argument.  Richard Dawkins' "The Blind watchmaker" is a good book for seeing these flawed arguments for what they are.

 

The environment is a filter that sorts out fit and unfit phenotypes (physical expressions of inheritable genetic makeups), and it is such a good filter that it ends up leaving you with marvelously adapted organisms that 'couldn't possibly be the result of chance.'  The thing is, no evolutionist ever claimed the end pruducts of the history of evolution were due to random chance (actually it is the exact opposite).  Spontaneous mutations are the random part, and the fact that the environment changes over time is variable though not tryuly random.  But the filtering effect of the environment is ANYTHING BUT RANDOM, in that the more fit variants survive while the less fit variants die out.

 

Add in the fact that much of evolution is a gradual accumulation of small changes, rather than all being huge macromutational events, and you see that noone has ever argued for the tornado to build the airplane from teh scrap heap anymore than that roomful of monkeys is going to pound out the works of Shakespear given enough time.

Based on how you described that, there is no such thing as 'chance'.

 

You are right it isn't luck that gives a planet intelligent life, it is a system of variables.

 

Those variables include water, warmth, adequate sunlight, a sufficiant atmosphere, and competition among species.

 

None of those variables are determined by chance, but all are rare attributes of a planet. Lets say every 1/100 planets contains one of those attributes, well by the time you do the multiplication it is very unlikely for a planet to have each and everyone of those attributes.

 

In that sense the 'odds' of a planet harvesting any life at all, let alone intelligent life, are very slim.

[BrandoFan]

Personally, I believe that after death you either go to hell or you go to heaven (keeping my fingers crossed  ). I think it is impossible to even imagine death not having something following it.

 

I disagree -- whatever Heaven is, after first couple of eternities it would get mighty BORING, 37 shiksa virgins or not.

 

I would just as soon go the way Ahnuld went in T-2.....a little gray dot and then....nothing.

[SnB]

The concept of an eternity is almost impossible for us to understand. Seriously, ever try to think about it? Our minds can only accept things that come to an end, we cannot even imagin what an eternity really is.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, I don't like to think of us as the supreme being, afterall like you said we did come from monkeys, but we are superior to all other animals. 

 

If they were superior we would be in zoo's.  Our inventiveness has allowed us to demonstrate ample 'ownage' over any living animal on this planet.  What put us above the rest...the thumb.

Not singling you out, as this is a common misunderstanding. Humans did not come from monkeys. Rather, hominids, other modern apes, and modern monkeys are all descended from a common primate of proto-primate ancester.

 

And your response again belies the homo-centricism we all lean toward. 14+ billion years of the universe existing. 6+ Billion years of Earth existing 3.5-4.2 billion years of life existing on Earth, and we are "above the other animals" because we have been around a few hundred thousand years and can hold the rest of the planet's inhabitants as captives?

 

The only meaningful measure of the success of a species is the length of time it persists on the planets. The average species persists for about 5 million years before the line either disappears or grades into a recognizably different morphotype. We have more than 4 million years to go before we can even be considered of average success as a species.

 

Of course, if success is measured by how many species you can displace with your environment-altering lifestyles, we are indeed king of the hill.

[1549]

That fly will probably have had hundreds of children by then.

How many do you have?

That doesn't make the fly more sucessful, it can have all the offspring it wants, but in the end I can still eat it.

[CrimsonWeltall]

That doesn't make the fly more sucessful, it can have all the offspring it wants, but in the end I can still eat it.

 

Reproductive success is what matters in the long-term.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But long after humans are extinct bugs will live on. In fact, I believe that cockroaches can survive a nuclear attack....

I'm going to nitpick Soxy, because you are not a lazy thinker and you will take it in teh spirit in which it is intended.

 

"Bugs", Order Hemiptera, are one small group within the insects. it is actually beetles (Order Coleoptera) that are the hands-down winners of the diversity battle. About 75% of all Arthropods are insects, and more than 75% of those are beetles. There are a couple hundred-thousand distinct species known, and we have yet to find them all.

 

The obvious question, at least to evolutionary biologust JBS Haldane, was, why so many beetles. When asked about what he knew of God later in his career, he pondered for a moment and then said matter-of-factly that He seemed to have "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

[1549]

Not singling you out, as this is a common misunderstanding.  Humans did not come from monkeys.  Rather, hominids, other modern apes, and modern monkeys are all descended from a common primate of proto-primate ancester.

 

And your response again belies the homo-centricism we all lean toward.  14+ billion years of the universe existing.  6+ Billion years of Earth existing 3.5-4.2 billion years of life existing on Earth, and we are "above the other animals" because we have been around a few hundred thousand years and can hold the rest of the planet's inhabitants as captives?

 

The only meaningful measure of the success of a species is the length of time it persists on the planets.  The average species persists for about 5 million years before the line either disappears or grades into a recognizably different morphotype.  We have more than 4 million years to go before we can even be considered of average success as a species.

 

Of course, if success is measured by how many species you can displace with your environment-altering lifestyles, we are indeed king of the hill.

I disagree with how you measure definition of success. If a guy lives 40 years and makes a few billion dollars, cures cancer, makes a best-picture movie and wins a nobel peace prize, is he more successful than his neighbor who did jacks*** for 80 years?

 

In my opinion yes.

 

Success can't be measured by endurance, only achievments.

 

Alligators have practically been here since the beginning of f***ing time and they still haven't done anything but lay in the sun. In a nano-second of time humans have already grasped firm control over the alligator that has been around for so much longer.

 

Summary: we own.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Reproductive success is what matters in the long-term.

Yes, yes, absolutely yes! Surviving long enough to leave the most progeny is what it is all about in teh living world.