Conscious Natural Selection

1. 59

   marinealways24posted 13 years ago

   I think natural selection is conscious selection. I think any life must have consciousness/awareness of it's environment for Natural Selection to be selection. Without a consciousness or awareness of the environment, there is no selection in adaptation of the environment to better survive.
   
   I would like to hear any arguments with evidence for or against Natural Selection being designed by consciousness/awareness. Why is it that scientists don't say that evolution is designed by consciousness/awareness rather than simply "natural selection" with no mention of what designs the selection.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Most scientists are scared to venture outside of textbooks and so-called proven facts.  The mechanical mind often lacks imagination, and from there, it often fails therein...  In that respect, a scientific mind often becomes as narrow as the ones who believe in organized religions.  Ha-ha; how lame!  Hi, Mr. Marine! 

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hello Mr. Diverse. I agree, many also use more faith than logic while claiming to be logical.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You folks know a lot of scientists personally then, I guess...

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Personally, I think any scientist that can't logically see that natural selection is driven by consciousness/awareness of the environment is either, illogical, blind or ignorant. Maybe all of the above.

               replyreport
   2. 57

      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Way too lazy to do an work huh? I don't blame you - understanding natural selection means reading quite a lot.
      
      Dear me. Those pesky scared to push the envelope of believing without fact scientists, they really are scared.
      
      One more try - maybe this one will stick. An example:
      
      Prey XYZ. Some with more grey in their fur, some with more  brown - 50/50 split. Random mutation occurs in a mating pair of birds. Color blind to grey and cannot see it -  prefers to eat brown plants.
      
      More brown plants eaten. More grey plants survive. Prey with grey in fur gets eaten less than prey with brown as blends in better. More grey becomes norm and animals becomes grey as a species.
      
      Natural selection.
      
      No awareness. None.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If they aren't scared, they are simply ignorant. How about using real examples instead of your made up ones scientific one. You aren't even giving all the facts in your example. How about touching on how the birds evolve colors in sexual selection to attract more mates. Do you think Darwin was wrong?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            LOLOLOLOLOLO
            
            ciao

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Exactly, run from the question. I understand you fear looking silly on something you have studied and put more faith into longer than I have.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry dude -  you are too lazy and I cannot do your research for you.
                  
                  I know - life sucks. Read a book or two.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I am reading the book you suggested now. Too bad you are too scared like the atheist scientists you worship to have a mind of your own.
                     
                     If you were a witness, you would never have seen the gorilla if the scientists you worship didn't tell you the gorilla was there, would you?
                     
                     An example from the book, look it up.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Knowles, maybe if you would use logic before faith in your comments, you wouldn't make so many wrong faithful unscientific assumptions. Hubscore isn't everything.

                        replyreport
                     2. 65

                        ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        marine! still talking about this, I see.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes! It is like smoking a subconscious crack. I forgot to tell the angry atheists not to inhale. Maybe that is why they aren't being very logical.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Obscure Divineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Hmm, here I was thinking is was LSD in conjunction with a past history of brain trauma.  LOL! 

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 lol This could be the case as well. I don't know how angry atheists are supposed to be logical when the LSD alters their consciousness, Maybe this is why they have the illusion that life doesn't need consciousness to survive.

                                 replyreport
         2. 64

            AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Sigh, there have been several hundred thousand people across the entire world working on these questions for many, many decades. Do you really think that they are all simply wrong? Are we back to all being climatologists again? I mean, really...

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Intellingent answer. Just say they are smarter for having science degrees when evolution is seen through observation for anyone with open eyes.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I am glad you think it is an intelligent answer. Thank you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I get it. You are just a pal of Knowles hoping he will buy you dinner if you help him write ridiculous comments.

                     replyreport
                     1. 64

                        AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I am a bit far away from Mark to be his pal. I don't, actually, think that all of religion is idiotic, dangerous, and laughable, however, if that's what you're implying. I just disagree with you about scientists, and am vaguely insulted, I suppose, that you make these blanket stereotypes about a group of people to which my father belongs. Who are you to say how he views the cosmos!!!

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           What religion? Are you assuming I am religious?
                           
                           Blanket stereotypes? My stereotypes are logical backed with logical evidence of why they are either scared, blind, or ignorant in not admitting evolution is designed by consciousness.

                           replyreport
                           1. 64

                              AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Oh, you're still here. No, I simply meant that to call me  a pal of Mark is to assume (I assume) that I think all of religion is a farce. Which I don't. And neither does my father, for the record.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Well thats good to know, your first post was 1 minute after him with the same type of silly comments. I made very clear in the heading that I would like logical examples of why or why not you don't think evolution is designed by consciousness/awareness.  Maybe if you would write something with value instead of just nit pick others answers, it would give you more credit.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 64

                                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Thank you for your critique of my personality in general and level of intelligence in particular
                                    
                                    I do not share all of Mark's opinions. Just so we are clear, although I do share some of them, I guess, in fact.
                                    
                                    As for a detailed response that you seek, try going back to the last time I commented on an almost identical thread that you started a while ago. I commented on that one at length. After a certain point you have to say yourself, don't I have better things to do than have the same conversation.
                                    
                                    However, here is a brief synopsis: there is no reason, theoretically, why there couldn't be a non-conscious mechanism by which a physical entity replicates itself. You can write a computer program to reproduce endless series of 1's. Do we say then that a computer has consciousness, in this case.
                                    
                                    Genes are presumed to possess such a mechanism. I am not saying that there MIGHT not be consciousness involved; I am just saying that scientists are trained, WITHIN THEIR WORK, to accept only those things for which they find evidence. But it is true, the game is rigged, because the basic premise of science is that there is no intelligent force at work...
                                    
                                    ...The point is that, while I guess it is true that science automatically discounts conscious intention in nature based on a worldview, the fact remains that the idea of natural selection provides an explanation that WORKS to explain how evolution could take place without conscious intention.
                                    
                                    In other words, you are right to say that science discounts conscious intention in nature out of hand, and based on a specific worldview ("atheistic", if you like), but wrong to say that the Theory of Evolution doesn't work

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       I like the computer example. If we are a program, who or what programs us, do we program ourselves, does the environment program us, does consciousness of the environment program us? With a computer, it lacks emotions and consciousness unless programmed by consciousness. Do you think an unconscious mechanism programmed consciousness? If so, I would like you to explain this.
                                       
                                       If scientists would accept common sense, they would clearly see and admit that without consciousness, there would be no life. How much evidence does a scientist need to know they are conscious? Do you need a Phd to determine this? The basic premise of science is ignorant, science shouldn't assume either way until they find evidence for assuming, I think consciousness is an intelligent force.
                                       
                                       
                                       Again, attempting to explain natural selection without consciousness is ignorant. Consciousness is what gives life the idea to live and survive. There is no selection without consciousness to select. I don't limit consciousness to only observable life, but I think all life has a level of consciousness. Natural selection will never explain life without consciousness, fact. Until this is recognized, evolution will only be theory until consciousness is recognized as it's designer.

                                       report
            2. 59

               Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The majority is limited and dependent, much like you just displayed.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, you're going to have to run that by me again

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I made perfect sense; your semi-question of a statement, proves it.

                     replyreport
         3. 59

            Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, the term 'scared' was more directed towards fear of unknown and for the most part, sheer ignorance therein.

            replyreport
   3. 64

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought you already asked this question. Just sayin'

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, you do a lot of "just saying" when you are riding Knowles tail. The question is, do you do any "saying" of importance.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Marine:
      Without a doubt your question exhibits, so obviously, that you haven't done your homework...(I'm chuckling as I type this)
      
      Do yourself a big favor and just do a little research, it isn't difficult.
      It's all there for ya. Even a 'caveman" could understand it.
      Go for it!...:-)

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Cavemen chuckle in pride of their faith while telling others to go do research for something they can't explain or simplify themselves. Keep chuckling.
         
         Nice unscientific faithful answer btw.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Marine:
            lolol...why would I do for you what you should do for yourself?
            I went to google to see if what I have studied about "natural selection" is covered.
            Oh yes! It is covered completely and concisely.
            It took me about 15 minutes to find everything needed for you to get the info you seek.
            Go for it! Just a few clicks and yer there....:-)
            I'm still chuckling...:-)

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               lol And, from your research, what tells you that natural selection doesn't require consciousness/awareness?
               
               I am chuckling as well. You are just a mirror of everything you read with no thinking of your own. It's pretty apparent to conscious ones.

               replyreport
      2. 59

         Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If everyone thought like that, the "book of knowledge" was closed a long time ago --- uh, uh, due to books!   Hmm, how limited...  Yeah, maybe the "caveman people" were smarter...  LOL!

         replyreport
   5. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Natural Selection has to do with survival of the fittest.
      This has to do with being able to adapt to the environment and has nothing to do with consciousness.
      
      So that consciousness isn't involved to demonstrate this idea I am using an object not a living thing even though it has to do with living things and not objects. I am just trying to make a point.
      
      
      Let's say you place a little red wagon made of metal by the dead sea which contains so much salt, it is impossible for fish to live in.
      
      You have also placed a little red wagon made of very sturdy hard plastic. This wagon has no metal parts.
      
      You leave them there for 6 months.
      
      When you return, the metal wagon is all rusted out and so much so, that there are rust holes and the handle has dropped to the ground.
      
      But the hard plastic wagon, though very dirty, is still there as it was when you placed it there.
      
      Though this is a poor example, because the plastic wagon didn't adapt to the environment, it is also a good example because the environment didn't destroy it either, the way it did the metal wagon.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There is no adaptation to adapt without consciousness or awareness of what and why to adapt. Many animals and plants have been observed making physical changes in response to conscious thinking in survival and attracting more mates. Survival of the fittest
         Funny you say that seeing as many animals will mate with the other mates that consciously give them the strongest offspring. Explain how this is done without conscioness to observe and select the strongest mate.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There are two possibilities for this:
            
            If two animals mate and bring about stronger animals, it has to do with some kind of need in nature.
            
            The two animals are only mating for the sake of mating and have no conscious thought of doing it for the purpose of bringing about a stronger offspring.
            However there may be a need for a stronger offspring written in their genes..their genes may have mutated due to the environment...
            
            Or it could be that the genes of these two ..combined..simply produce stronger offspring.
            
            I've witnessed two unattractive people have beautiful children. This is because of their combined genes. If they had married and had children by other people..their children may not have been so attractive..

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               lol, some kind of need in nature huh? This is a subconscious/conscious need, not a random mechanism. Dawkins even uses his "conscious selective" wording in always repeating "nonrandom". This only shows how clueless he is of evolutions design.
               Have you even read evolution? Never heard of sexual selection where animals make conscious changes in attracting more mates?
               The choice of picking stronger mates is the conscious understanding that the strongest will have the strongest chance of survival. There are subconscious adaptations in putting the genes together based on surviving the environment.
               Your observation of the children is only your conscious observation, I could look at the same children and think they are ugly.

               replyreport
   6. 59

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Marine, still haven't read this I see, you really should do yourself a big favor.
      
      http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi … f-species/

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe you should do yourself a favor and use your brain to think of something on your own without relying on outside links. Much easier to post a link and say you are right and i'm wrong.
         
         "Although natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being, yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of very trifling importance, may thus be acted on."
         
         Theres a quote from your link, lets talk about this one. How does it only act for the good without consciousness knowing whats good?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It would appear that continually creating the same threads and asking the same redundant questions is easier than reading a book.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
            2. 59

               marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               If you silly faithful atheists put up logical arguments and proved me wrong, I wouldn't have to ask similar questions.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  At least you've revealed and admitted to an agenda of pitching fallacies.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Brilliant, Dawkins would be pround of you for telling stories. Try again.

                     replyreport
                  2. 65

                     ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     no fallacies, he has a theory and it checks out.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Ty, You and OD largely helped me to design it.

                        replyreport
   7. 60

      Shahid Bukhariposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      the number of replies show, you are asking a valid question.
      
      Yes ... its called love in human affairs.

      replyreport
   8. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thats because both sides of this debate are too emotional. Darwin is even quoted as saying; "I hope I did a good job of destroying God"  Many Darwinist see evolution more as a religion than a scientific theory. The Creationist often refers to Darwinist as being evil or deicieved by the devil. For many the point is NOT understanding the origins of life but disproving anothers point of view.

      replyreport
   9. 60

      Shahid Bukhariposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In animals ... Yes ...  it is a Conscious "Physical Selection"  named "Natural Selection" ...
      
      Humans, when not behaving like animals ... have better things,
      deciding their Choice.

      replyreport
   10. 55

       Chris Shepleyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I thnk you have it exactly opposite. Selection works best without knowledge of selection. That way your own self interests do not get in the way of the interests of your phenotype or genotype which have to do with propogation. Your own actual interests deal with the desire for the individual to attain immortality, and that skews both natural and sexual selection completely. For instance, imagine an individual wiht a virus that cause immortality, but also caused infertility. Such a virus would have a negative effect on natural selection but a positive effect on the desire to retain immortality. Thus it is both naturally and sexually undesirable from an evolutionary standpoint, but very attractive from the standpoint of the desire for individual immortality (even if it can be ended by a violent act, which supposes it is not the end game).

       replyreport
2. 59

   marinealways24posted 13 years ago

   To the amazing unscientific ones that have faith they are logical, Darwin says natural selection is rejecting the bad while preserving adding all that is good.
   
   Explain how this is done without a consciousness/awareness to choose between what is good and bad to better survive the environment. This is impossible without consciousness, do you disagree with Darwin?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. The word "selfish" in the title is used ironically. I am not saying everything Richard Dawkins says is true, but it is definitely a pretty good answer to your question, imo

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Dawkins is a moron. He will always be a moron until he gains consciousness that evolution was designed by conscious mechanisms rather than "nonrandom" events as he likes to say.

         replyreport
3. 59

   marinealways24posted 13 years ago

   Amazing at all the silly comments of those that think they are logical that disagree without evidence of why they disagree. Faith is nice, isn't it?

   replyreport
4. 60

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   The size of the  fool is defined by the size of the foot inserted in its mouth.   :-)

   replyreport
   1. 59

      marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your mouth should be full as how you laugh at ideas with no ideas of your own. I still see you have no answers supporting your faith.

      replyreport
5. 59

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   marine, what is your problem with Mark's example? What is it that you think is missing that shows consciousness is required?

   replyreport
6. 59

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   This is the example I'm referring to, just so you don't need to go back a page:
   
   Prey XYZ. Some with more grey in their fur, some with more  brown - 50/50 split. Random mutation occurs in a mating pair of birds. Color blind to grey and cannot see it -  prefers to eat brown plants.
   
   More brown plants eaten. More grey plants survive. Prey with grey in fur gets eaten less than prey with brown as blends in better. More grey becomes norm and animals becomes grey as a species.
   
   ---------------------
   AdSense, great last three paragraphs, I liked them.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, you base our level of existence and consciousness in the same "singular format parallel" as what you can jut a plausible theory upon less complex lifeforms.  Interesting...  Ha-ha!  That's funny!  LOL!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         TLMinutposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ???
         I'm starting to wonder if the language I speak is actually English after reading some of these posts. Obscure, WHAT?
         
         If part of your response refers to my understanding of consciousness, I'm using only the basic "awareness of surroundings", and not "awareness of being aware" because from other threads marine started, that's what he used. Using a different definition merely muddies the waters.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Ahhh well, you can always follow the field of the rhetoricians haven, but either way, that was some funny stuff you posted. LMAO!  Thanks, because I do enjoy humor...and, it is healthy to laugh. 

            replyreport
            1. 64

               AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes TL, what were you thinking... following the field of the rhetorical havens... sheesh

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Idiot?

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Mmm, this response was not very clear. But I wouldn't suggest calling someone an idiot on this site. Read the rules.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Please don't start that "personal attack crap" again...

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I am not sure what you mean by "again". But I got banned, so you can too...

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Don't even start...  I've been banned 4 times...why?  Do you get off on this?  I still believe in something called "freedom of speech"...what are you scared of?

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 I don't get off on getting banned, no. At least they could have told me what I had done to "deserve" it...

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well, did you flag me? I wouldn't flag anybody?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 64

                                       AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       How do you flag someone (unless you mean flagging their hubs)? Besides, I have better things to do. I don't think I've ever come across you before, in any case...

                                       report
                                 2. 59

                                    Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    E-mail 'em; I did.  I once, for example, got banned for calling someone "dumbly limited to textbooks" --- true story!  Thanks, Deb......

                                    replyreport
                                 3. 59

                                    Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    So, you admit, you're ignorant to this subject! LOL!

                                    replyreport
                           2. 59

                              Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I hope the HubPages' staff hears your threats!

                              replyreport
                     2. 59

                        Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm wasted............  LOL!

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Okay; quick recovery; now I'm ready...  Ha-ha-ha!

                           replyreport
                     3. 59

                        Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I asked a question, fellow challenged one.  Ha-ha!

                        replyreport
                     4. 59

                        Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You have never been, because you are clueless...

                        replyreport
               2. 59

                  Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You cannot even follow your own self, AdSense...???;  you obviously can't...  LOL! 

                  replyreport
7. 73

   dyonderposted 13 years ago

   pokes & prods/voices in the darkness
   
   Consciousness is a concept/aspect of life, natural selection can be the result of occurrences after the death of a conscious life form. If the death of an organism results in the proliferation (or the more efficient breakdown (read as assimilation)) of it or other life forms, circumstances (of local environments) adjust accordingly in order to perpetuate the bloom whose demise fed the whole in a fullness consciousness can neither accept or understand.
   
   kinda silly really, all the hubub

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The only thing silly, was your dictions.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         dyonderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         as you wish

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            As I'm aware...

            replyreport
8. 59

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   But dyonder, that sounds more like a horror story of conscious natural selection! The malevolent environment nurturing a life form up to the most efficiently auspicious moment, then making a sudden strike to ensure survival of another, preferred species.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      dyonderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, in being neither malevolent or benevolent it is beautiful. At least, that's how my eyes see it. It's the way every single cell, every single creature, every single aspect of any given environment interacts to ensure a continuing cycle.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You must remember, 'dyonder' is trying to be scientifically logical while mistakenly being on the yonder side of things......  LOL!

      replyreport
      1. 73

         dyonderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Refer to Olivia Newton John - Have You Never Been Mellow?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Imbecilic?

            replyreport
            1. 73

               dyonderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Considering I was dropped on my head & dragged down the street for two blocks from a moving car when I was an infant, that is a distinct possibility. I've learned to live with it. Yet...
               
               'Most scientists are scared to venture outside of textbooks and so-called proven facts.  The mechanical mind often lacks imagination, and from there, it often fails therein...  In that respect, a scientific mind often becomes as narrow as the ones who believe in organized religions.  Ha-ha; how lame!  Hi, Mr. Marine!  big_smile'

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay......uh, uh, you represent asininity, perhaps?  How's this my problem?  I can barely stand up straight; totally wasted with alcohol poisoning, and can still hold my own in the forum!  #25th beer coming soon...  That's bad news, for all of y'all!!!!!!!!  Ha-ha! 

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, Mr. Yonder; I fell off of my mom's bicycle when I was age 3.  Don't even try the pity crap upon me........  In your last reply, you quote my words; it made you look better...

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     dyonderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I wasn't going for pity, was trying to make a point, in a bit more light hearted manner than was due, I suppose. I'm glad such things bring joy into your life. Have another...

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Okay, you spoke about being dropped on your head, so you're brain damaged!  I'm not a doctor that can prescribe you pills!  Geez!  LOL!

                        replyreport
9. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago

   In the case of people there is an atraction to the type of person that you feel fits your picture of perfect. With so many variations it would be hard to put it solely on the biggest and the best because it boils down to a matter of taste."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!" That said, I do believe there is a good arguement for Social Darwinism because of the tendency of humans to exploit the weak. This is done to secure wealth and insure there is an underclass. Just my thoughts.

   replyreport
10. 73

    dyonderposted 13 years ago

    I guess it depends on one's perspectives, or the fact that most forms of consciousness can't fathom life without them in it. There is no end, there is only change.

    replyreport
11. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    As long as I know you're drunk, I won't continue trying to make sense of your comments. I had wondered why you thought I was being so funny for quoting Mark...

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That was an excuse; actually, I have consumed mass quantities, but yet, you folks still can't compare to me.  I try to brain damage myself, and ya still look dumb to me...Ha-ha!

       replyreport
    2. 59

       Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       No, your stuff was funny; that's way before I did my daily ritual seek-out for intoxication.  See - I give ya hope, to think I'm in a weak state.  Baiting the hook, if ya will...  LOL!

       replyreport
12. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    Perhaps my "..stuff was funny" but all I had done up until that point was quote Mark's example and ask the OPer (marine) what he found wrong with it. So perhaps your intox was left over from last night?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, you quote others; how lame; tell Mark to get down here and take up for ya - if you desire.  I  think Mark Knowles has enough sense to know that I'm not joking in my statements; if he thinks otherwise, I welcome the chat, although there might be a delay in conversation.  As for the OP: Marine will arrive in a few; surely - rest assured.  Damn, I still have decent grammar after 24.5 beers!  Yes-yes!  Praise be me!

       replyreport
13. 76

    mega1posted 13 years ago

    I'm a bit tired and I don't want to have to go to the OP - what IS this all about here?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Obscurely Diverseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       A couple retards from the outside, that got duped by me!  The hubber "AdsenseStrategies" ended up being the biggest clown of them all.  Just think, I'm wasted and am still laughing at these fools!  I tried to dumb down, at least...   LOL! 

       replyreport
       1. 76

          mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          All I know is, I shall continue to select myself, no matter what they say or do about it!  naturally.

          replyreport
14. 59

    marinealways24posted 13 years ago

    TLMinutposted 20 hours ago
    This is the example I'm referring to, just so you don't need to go back a page:
    
    Prey XYZ. Some with more grey in their fur, some with more  brown - 50/50 split. Random mutation occurs in a mating pair of birds. Color blind to grey and cannot see it -  prefers to eat brown plants.
    
    More brown plants eaten. More grey plants survive. Prey with grey in fur gets eaten less than prey with brown as blends in better. More grey becomes norm and animals becomes grey as a species.
    
    ---------------------
    AdSense, great last three paragraphs, I liked them.
    
    
    There are a lot of gaps in his example. He is alluding that animals get their color simply from what color of plants they eat. Do lizards change color only when eating plants?
    Also, many plants have been observed to change colors in attracting different mates or in survival.
    Also, he says random mutation in birds. Predictable.
    Where is the sexual selection mentioned where birds will consciously choose mates based on physical features like attractive colors? He doesn't know he's conscious.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Dear me. Are you genuinely incapable of understanding what I said? Because that is not what I said at all. I alluded no such thing.
       
       Not sure it is worth explaining any further if you are at this level of reading comprehension though. I am beginning to understand why you choose not to educate yourself.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You are listing one area of natural selection of how one life could go extinct giving birth to new life, if you would like to discuss an idea, discuss it in full rather than one aspect. I understand why you are scared to think of anything without reading it first, dependency. You are dependent on others to define your belief.

          replyreport
          1. 57

             Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Sorry you did not understand what I said. Let me know when you can be bothered to educate yourself just a little bit and I will be happy to discuss with you. I mean - at least go back and read what I wrote instead of telling me what I said - because I said no such thing.
             
             Until then - sorry - bye.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                This is still not covering everything. Animals consciously change colors to blend in, you think this is impossible for a plant to evolve over time? The bird consciously selected what to eat based on what it consciously perceived. The birds conscious selection determined the plants conscious selection.

                replyreport
                1. 57

                   Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Dude - if you really are too lazy to even discuss what I wrote and demonstrate that you understood it (as it seems that you do not) why even bother discussing? Evolution is lots and lots of little changes. Many of which do not require awareness.
                   
                   
                   I gave a perfectly good - albeit simple - example - please discuss that. We can then make it more complex if you wish.
                   
                   You asked for a non conscious/aware example.
                   
                   I gave you one. Discuss.

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      More plants of gray came to be because there was a colorblind animal that couldn't see brown plants, so more animals and plants became gray because there were more gray while the brown plants got eaten. So gray became the best color to blend and survive because there were more gray and less brown. This doesn't rule out consciousness. I think it takes a conscious environment to create a conscious at the same time the conscious is creating it's idea of the environment. You say many changes don't require awareness, yet the changes are for the better chance of survival. Without awareness/consciousness, there is no reasoning or changing for the better chance at survival. If there was no consciousness, there would be no traceable evidence.

                      replyreport
                      1. 57

                         Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Why?
                         
                         Grey blended in better and got eaten less. Therefore - grey were more likely to reproduce. Eventually grey became the norm. Where is there awareness? You think they could choose to become grey?
                         
                         The only consciousness/awareness is our ability to identify the traceable evidence.
                         
                         How is there awareness on the part of the animals concerned?

                         replyreport
                         1. 59

                            marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            It was the animals awareness of what colors it could observe and eat. Possibly it was the plants awareness to reproduce more gray than brown in survival, not just a chance of numbers eaten. Without an evolution of consciousness over extended periods of time, we would never be at a capability of reflecting and analyzing how we came to be. Without other lifes conscious adaptations in evolving new physical traits to survive, there would be no traceable evidence. The conscious adaptations to survive led to the physical changes in the body. Would a fish consciously evolve legs and feet without recognizing it would help it move faster on land? Without conscious adaptations, there would be no traceable fossil records, the fossils would all be mixed results with no patterns to understand. There would be nothing to follow if evolution didn't have reason or purpose.

                            replyreport
                            1. 57

                               Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Now cut the emotive religious garbage and try and make a rational explanation please.
                               
                               Thanks

                               replyreport
                               1. 59

                                  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  The reason and purpose for life to evolve is to survive. This is simple logic. Evolution is conscious adaptations for survival. the more aware or conscious an animal is of it's threats, the better chance it has to survive it's threats.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 57

                                     Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     No - this is what you think based on your religious faith that it is. Please put forward a rational argument in favor of any of this as it relates to the specific example I gave you.
                                     
                                     I gave a perfect example of non-conscious adaptation and there are millions of them. Which is of course why those ignorant, scared scientists do not try and argue your laughable case.
                                     
                                     If you had done any reasonable amount of research - you would have discovered this for yourself. Changing the subject away from that is not a rational discussion. If it is a faith based argument you want - attack the religious.
                                     
                                     In the meantime - I genuinely encourage you to do some reading.  No offense - but you are talking through your backside, and I am not interested in having another "I say this. Prove me wrong!!!" argument with you.
                                     
                                     Go ahead and make a rational argument against my example of non-conscious adaptation and I will discuss, but this ? No thanks..

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 59

                                        marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        lol my religious faith?
                                        
                                        You are the one that is trained to defend any atheist or scientist even when they are wrong. This is religious faith.
                                        
                                        What are other examples since you aren't happy with none of my answers, I will try again.
                                        
                                        If the bird could only consciously perceive the brown color, the birds consciousness changed the plants and the birds evolution. More gray and less brown due to the birds conscious perception of only being able to see the brown plants.

                                        report
                                        1. 57

                                           Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                           So - there was no conscious involvement on the part of the animals that adapted?

                                           report
15. 59

    marinealways24posted 13 years ago

    dyonderposted 20 hours ago
    pokes & prods/voices in the darkness
    
    Consciousness is a concept/aspect of life, natural selection can be the result of occurrences after the death of a conscious life form. If the death of an organism results in the proliferation (or the more efficient breakdown (read as assimilation)) of it or other life forms, circumstances (of local environments) adjust accordingly in order to perpetuate the bloom whose demise fed the whole in a fullness consciousness can neither accept or understand.
    
    kinda silly really, all the hubub
    
    
    Your response is kinda silly. Without consciousness to live, there is no life.
    Of course natural selection still takes place after death, but only with conscious life. There is no natural selection without conscious selection whether by environment or lifes reaction to the environment. There are no adjustments without consciousness to adjust. Yep, pretty silly "hubub" you wrote. Consciousness is not just an aspect of life, consciousness is what designs your life.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       dyonderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Ok, I understand your explanations, but do not agree. Obviously we each had a very different view of what your original question was, and as I am a visitor in this...discussion...I bow to your perspective, particularly in the light of your initial logic for posting such a query. I've, to a certain degree, enjoyed the sharing.
       But yeah, I'm silly. I find I laugh at/with life much more this way.

       replyreport
16. 59

    marinealways24posted 13 years ago

    I would like someone to explain how they would see or write anything without being conscious. Are you just a computer program simply have mechanical impulses in response? Well some of you, probably yes.

    replyreport
17. 0

    Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago

    OK, now I will use people to demonstrate this instead of an object.
    
    
    Let's say a man and woman move to a place, high in the mountains.
    When they get there, because air is denser in mountains then on flat land, they have a hard time breathing. They stay anyway. After about 6 months, their lungs will actually grow larger in order for them to breathe the dense air.
    
    The woman gets pregnant and her baby is born in the mountains. The baby is born with larger lungs in order to breathe the thick air.
    The larger lungs in the baby from birth came through the mothers genes, not because the baby struggled for air.
    
    It is also possible that even though the woman's lungs adjusted to the air, the man's lungs may not have, and he could die from it. Their dog may die from it. But the mom and baby live on...
    
    If they could have adjusted their lungs consciously, they all would have done this to survive.
    
    I am just stating the theory of Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest.
    
    
    BUT, if we take a look at the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system..we see they both come from the brain (10 cranial nerves) and twist and turn back and forth down the body and actually meet in areas at certain points in the body which are called the ganglia. This causes both the P.& S. nervous systems to come together.
    What I am saying here is that it is also possible for us to consciously control our adaption to things.
    The Sympathetic nervous system controls our breathing, digestion, heart beats etc..while the Parasympathetic system is a left brain system..speech, decisions etc.
    
    Our bodies breathe on their own while we are asleep..yet we also have the ability to breathe at our own rhythm or stop breathing altogether for a while. The Sympathetic system is programed to crave air and will take over if we hold our breath too long.
    
    If people expanded their ability to control their bodies along with the Sympathetic system..we could adapt to any situation.
    If the Parasympathetic system can control breathing which is a Sympathetic nervous system duty..We can absolutely control other functions.
    
    It is through the conscious mind, that the subconscious mind is fed information and knowledge. In Evolution it is the brain (one seat of the mind) that seems to change and evolve first.
    
    It is when the mind is aware of itself that consciousness blossoms.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I like the mountain example. The consciousness of the parents led them into moving into the mountains, the offsprings adaptation was subconscious adaptation in evolving lungs to better handle the air.
       
       Subconscious is still a level of consciousness, I think even on the cellular level. If the dd died, it was from his lack of consciousness/awareness that it would be harder to survive/breathe the higher he went. Subconsciousness and consciousness evolve over long periods of time, not instantly. Life consciously/subconsciously learn over extended periods to adapt, how long did it take to gain the consciousness of a human?
       Consciousness is not limited to a brain, it takes consciousness to evolve a brain. The brain isn't the first to evolve, the conscious cells that make a conscious brain develpod far before. Many life forms with no observable mind or brain still display subconscious/conscious reactions for survival.

       replyreport
18. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    I recently saw an experiment where men listened to women's voices and rated them for how attracted they were on a scale of 1 to 10. Every man rated the voices as significantly more attractive when the woman had been recorded at her most fertile time of month. This even applied to the same woman's voice - there were only four women and they were recorded at different times.
    
    How conscious was that selection by the men? All the men seemed surprised at the results, a couple of them were obviously quite annoyed! (I assume the annoyed ones were NOT hoping to be attracted to fertile women because they didn't want to get someone pregnant but that's pure speculation. It was funny to see though.)

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Are you kidding? The selection was very conscious/subconscious. Many life forms are drawn to mates simply by sounds or vocals. There are many experiments showing females drawing more mates when fertile. Much biology changes in the female when fertile in subconsciously/consciously mating. The color of a females face and skin also become more vibrant when fertile in attracting mates. You listed a great example of conscious subconscious selection, even though you were trying to do the opposite.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          TLMinutposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Actually I was posting something I found interesting that the conversation made me think of - that's why I asked "how conscious was that of the men?" They deliberately chose for attraction but not consciously for fertility. The example really just points out different levels on consciousness and what we automatically are forced into by biology.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             And if we have subconscious reactions implanted into us evolved from other life, why is it ruled out that all life has some form of evolved subconscious/conscious?

             replyreport
19. 59

    marinealways24posted 13 years ago

    I asked a trick question earlier, sorry. I asked for anyone that can explain evolution without consciousness.
    
    This is impossible, you must be conscious to read, write, much less attempting to explain anything. Explaining evolution without consciousness is impossible.

    replyreport
20. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    Perhaps the problem here is the very wording of the idea in the first place: Natural Selection.
    Selection denotes conscious choice.
    Even the term "adapt" connotes a causal agent with purpose.
    
    Also, it's coming across to me as if what's being suggested is that an animal or plant takes a look around, smells out the environment, listens closely and then weighs its options. Marine is probably not trying to suggest such a thing!
    I don't even consciously think he is but the idea is apparently influencing my thinking.
    
    What if we were to use the term "Biochemical Adjustment" or even "Natural Consequence"? Why were terms with a wealth of implication of design chosen in the first place especially if they were originally applied by those who don't believe in such a thing?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       TL, it was worded selection and adaptation because it has design! It is physical and mental changes over time to better survive the environment. The changes have purpose, so better the chance of survival. A good question is why we evolved the strongest in such an old and large field of life out of random purpose when evolution shows purpose. If no purpose in evolution, the fossil records would not be traceable.
       Because, if they make known that evolution has design, this gives religious power to jump to assumptions claiming intelligent design. However, I think design can be intelligent while not being religious assumptions. I think by logic, evolution is an intelligent design and I think I have more than enough evidence to make a case.

       replyreport
21. 59

    marinealways24posted 13 years ago

    96Mark Knowlesposted 18 hours agoin reply to this
    So - there was no conscious involvement on the part of the animals that adapted?
    
    You are talking about the change in vision from being able to see brown to being able to see gray? Maybe the gray plants evolved something more appealing to the birds than the brown plants did, so maybe brown vision was weeded out of evolution and gray became standard.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       What?
       
       Sorry - prey XYZ was the animal that adapted. A simple yes or no will suffice, thanks.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Possibly. The prey could have adapted to avoid predators or to attract more mates of grey.

          replyreport
          1. 57

             Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             What? LOLOLOL
             
             Yes = positive.
             No = negative.
             Possibly = I don't know.
             
             Did you even read what I wrote? I am thinking not judging from your answers. Just want an argument huh? I don't blame you - actually learning something means work.
             
             Possibly.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                How can I know a correct answer to your made up example? Whatever I write, you can decide wrong or right because it's your made up example.

                replyreport
22. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    Marine, what are you saying did the designing?
    
    Animals quite obviously do things consciously. I have no idea how much can be programmed into one. I've been watching Life on Discovery Channel and these animals are amazing! Ground squirrels chew on shed rattlesnake skin until it's pasty then rub it on themselves and into their tails especially. It showed a couple of squirrels facing a challenge from a snake (the squirrels are immune as adults but not as babies - these were protecting little ones); they waved their tails to waft out the scent of rattlesnake and the snake lost interest.
    
    Animals act consciously and cooperatively but does that necessarily mean they deliberately evolve? I don't see how. The mechanism of adaptation I just don't know. The easy ones are how beneficial mutations are passed on - the ones with it survive and pass on their genes. Easy. Animals learn and teach their offspring, once again, the ones who learn (adapt) survive to pass on their genes.
    
    Thinking about it makes me lean toward natural consequences; watching it in action makes me wonder due to the sheer awesomeness of life.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I think consciousness of the environment does the designing. Without consciousness, no adaptations for survival would be possible.
       Life is a great series, I like watching it too.
       How can anything evolve something physical without thinking about it first? What man made object can you view and see that wasn't a thought before it became physical? I think it works the same in biology, without a thought of whats needed to survive, the physical change would never be made.

       replyreport
23. 76

    mega1posted 13 years ago

    define "conscious" and then MAYBE I will join your specious discussion!

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Cells/Lifes ability to adapt and survive the environment.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          and "know" they are doing it?  without a brain?  you people make me laugh!  thanks

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Cells have a membrane. You make yourself laugh. Brilliant aren't you.

             replyreport
24. 76

    mega1posted 13 years ago

    take yourself for example, you survive everyday by all the little choices and decisions you make - all conscious?  truly?  look closely!

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, all conscious or subconscious, subconscious is still conscious. Conscious reactions based on how I perceive the environment.

       replyreport
25. 76

    mega1posted 13 years ago

    we keep telling you - beliefs cannot be either proved or disproved, therefore there is no answer to your questions - and since you don't hear intelligence when it speaks to you and prefer to focus on fatuousness (my word of the day) I give up!  you can have your bs thread - I'm taking my brain and going far, far away from you, while I still have some of it left!

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You are claiming intelligence when you don't think life has to be conscious to evolve.
       lol What kind of evidence do you need to understand you wouldn't be alive if you weren't subconscious or conscious?

       replyreport
       1. 76

          mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Marine!  you are NOT serious!?   :
          
          What kind of evidence do you need to understand that all evolution is a series of unconscious experiments - and when they work we call that "adaptation".   When my eyes developed as eyes that could see both things far away and things close up and were especially "adapted" to seeing movement, instantly, I wasn't even born yet, but my ancestors were perfecting these skills so they could be passed down to me.  So no one was "conscious" that these things were being perfected through EVOLUTION.  It took eons to happen.  As with, for instance, wisdom teeth.  They tell us that a large percentage of humans are now not even growing wisdom teeth, because the human jaw doesn't need to be as big as it used to be and there isn't room for wisdom teeth - - - no one is consciously deciding not to let their wisdom teeth grow so they can avoid the pain of having them shove all the other teeth around and then having them dug out of their jaws!   Ok?
          
          Now if you're going to say the human bodies are conscious of doing these things, even when the human mind is not aware or conscious of it - then you are just looking for some attention!  (not that there is anything wrong with that!  I do it all the time)  just want to be clear on this.
          
          "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."
          
          when you say "you wouldn't be alive if your weren't . . . " that isn't the arguement you were actually making before!  Don't go changing your own words to try to look intelligent!

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             lol There is no adaptation without consciousness. You wouldn't be adapting to my comments right now without it. Are you serious?
             Where did I say consciousness was instant? This is what you are referring. I think consciousness starts at the cellular level and gradually increases over time. Who said evolution was perfect? Evolution is trial and error getting rid of the unneeded and keeping the needed. How can you predict the future to know that wisdom teeth will not be consciously weeded out over time? You are looking at short term. If the face structure can consciously change, so do the teeth, just not instantly. We evolved from fish, do we still have fish teeth? Also, many live their entire lives never getting the wisdom teeth pulled, so not all are useless and harmful. It is not looking for attention, it is common sense that all physical actions are designed by mental actions.

             replyreport
             1. 76

                mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I guess the problem is we see conscious defined differently.  I think consciousness implies mind/brain function - cells don't have that.  There are a lot of things our own bodies do without our "conscious" i.e. reasoning brain being aware of those things - little adaptations are happening all the time and no one knows they're happening.  So, I fail to understand wtf you are talking about!

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Those little adaptations are part of subconscious mechanisms keeping the body alive. Subconscious is still conscious. Consciousness is lifes ability to survive the environment and adapt whether subconsciously or consciously. Even the smallest/least complex animal and plant life have subconscious/conscious reactions in surviving the environment. The consciousness starts in the cells, how else would plants adapt and change to the environment? How would unconscious cells make a conscious brain? Impossible, the cells operate on a subconscious/conscious level adapting, communicating, designing, defending the body. There is no unconscious cell that makes a conscious mind and body.

                   replyreport
                   1. 65

                      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      x=X
                      
                      mandelbroth. the large organism is a repetition of its smallest parts.

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Sounds logical to me, although i'm not an atheist hero scientist or a biologist with a Phd, so my logic isn't accepted on the forums.
                         I will google this mandelbroth.

                         replyreport
                         1. 65

                            ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            its not popular but it doesn't make it untrue. yeah, the earth is flat like their heads...kind of argument.

                            replyreport
                2. 61

                   Obscure Divineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Mega1:  Have you ever heard of "mind over body" theories?  Consciousness controls a lot.  Actually, there are even scientific studies on the matter - not that we need 'em!

                   replyreport
                3. 65

                   ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   the membrane of cells are its brain. not the genes, the genes are its memory.  just like our neurons use the membrane to accept certain chemicals. still same technology but now organized as a big unit and network of cells instead of individual ones.  like you are your friends kind of argument.

                   replyreport
26. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    There's a difference in behavioral adaptation and physical evolution.
    
    And defining consciousness as you did:
    Cells/Lifes ability to adapt and survive the environment.
    is begging the question.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       There is no difference, the behavior/thoughts/consciousness  leads to the physical evolution. If you know a difference, please list it. Communication, survival, defenses, awareness, consciousness all start at the cellular level or else the cells wouldn't survive and adapt.

       replyreport
27. 59

    TLMinutposted 13 years ago

    As for marine constantly posting the same types of threads instead of researching himself:
    
    1. He may be researching and want to discuss
    2. He may not learn well from books - one of my kids needs discussion, video, or action to really learn something and understand it

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I want people to prove me wrong, simple as that. The less that can prove me wrong, the better chance I have of being right.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That is an agenda of refusing to learn, and you admitted it.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, you would misinterpret, you didn't have an atheist hero to interpret for you. it is the opposite of refusing to learn, refusing to learn would be not wanting to be proved wrong. Another brilliant comment by you, no links to post to show how I am refusing to learn?

             replyreport
    2. 59

       Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Marine has admitted to an agenda of misrepresentation and disingenuous behavior. There is no intention to read or learn on his part. 

       replyreport