/lit/ - Literature

>>16033901
Except for 1. the mind & 2. how life evolves from non-life, dumb dumb.

>>16033901
Evolution in the biological sense? The first creature wouldn't be accounted for, do you mean dialectics?

except viruses you retard

>>16033901
How does evolution explain a poem?

>>16033909
Viruses are fully explained by evolution.
>Bacteria exists
>It parasitizes larger cells
>Slowly loses complexity as it specializes more and more into being an obligate parasite
>Eventually loses the means of self reproduction, becomes a virus.

Parasitism often causes evolutionary pressure that leans into simplifcation(see the fairy flies for an example)

>>16033924
How can you not tell that the entirety of evolutionary theory is post-hoc rationalisation?

>>16033901
except """""abiogenesis""""""

>>16033904
>>16033906
>>16033909
>>16033910
So this is the intellectual power of /lit/... I thought this was considered a smart board.

>>16033944
It's not and fuck off w your little subculture routine. The conversation was started then ignored

>>16033924
except you already take life as a given you retard. and you accept that "dude atoms, by chance, just bumped into one another over time and, by chance, they happened to bump into the right places a few times and they created an infinitely more complex thing like a 'cell'. for the cell to become something even more complex, again atoms had to randomly bump against some bunch on shit and something something evolution and voila you have to humans. so all music, literature and science is atoms bumping against each other. math done by humans is nothing but random atoms bumping against each other and creating something demonstrably true to an 'imaginary' being being outside of causation and having true free will. the universe 'explains' itself through atoms bumping against each other (math), just BY CHANCE. how fucking retarded can you be

>>16033960
also, kids being raped to death are atoms doing what atoms do dude, they just hit each other on and on. what, you don't believe that? are you a fucking science denier? you're telling me atoms have feelings?

Non-alive matter is clearly evolutionary superior - things alive can be killed, but non-living things can't.

>>16033972
>Being poor is better because rich people can lose their money and become just like me!

>>16033982
Meant to reply to this guy

>>16033991

>>16033991
false analogy. not being alive means complete absence of suffering. while if you are already alive you would choose LESS suffering, obviously, i.e. being rich(er).
why did you skip that 4th grade logic class

>>16033901
This is too vague to mean anything OP. Please refrain from making foolish threads like this in the future.

Physics is something which may be “regarding that which is alive” because living things live in a world described well by physics, but obviously physics is not explained by evolution. There will be many such issues if you take a broad reading of “that which is alive: another example would be that evolution does not explain economics: if I gave you all the facts about evolution you could not derive the principles of the science of economics. So on and so forth.

If you want to narrow “everything regarding that which is alive” to mean solely biological facts, I think it would make sense, but then it becomes a trivial and stupid observation. Of course biological facts are explained in some sense by evolution: it is the major theoretical underpinning of modern day biology. But it isn’t as if you are being an Oracle when you tell us this.

In any case this has nothing to do with the subject matter of the board.

>>16033991
If that analogy is bad, it is bad.
If it is good, then another fail for the evolution.

>>16034012
>In any case this has nothing to do with the subject matter of the board.
Wrong.

>>16033960
biggest cope on this board rn

>>16033960
holy shit this dude lmao

>>16034020
Wrong.

low iq thread by non-philosophers/philosophy scholars

Evolution is a tautology, of course it will be true.

>>16034026
>>16034024
refute it retards. are you saying that if you had a sister and someone raped her to death, you'd just say 'wow, those atoms really bumped against each other in an especially nasty way this time. woah, bummer'. if not you're filthy fucking science deniers and hypocrites lmao

>>16034044
and I mean posts on both sides

>>16033901
if by explanation you mean tautology then yes

>>16034049

>>16033909
>>16033924
Contagious disease is a myth.

>>16034060
>no refutation, just wojakposting
thought so. stick to /b/, /v/, /pol/ or /tv/ brainlet

>>16034049
Do you want a real answer? Different anon, here you go: your mistake is thinking that evolution necessarily implies atomism or materialism.

>>16034049
Don't bother trying to argue with atheists, either they see how dumb it is in their late teens or they are 25 years old who are still stuck in their early teens.

>>16034049
You will be mad and swear revenge, but that will be just more atoms bumping inside you.

>>16034049
hows the 8th grade going for you anon?

>>16034069
Go back

>>16034072
What does evolution imply except "if a thing stays, then it stays"?

>>16033901
It literally CANNOT, because you suppose the true nature of man is scientific and empirical, furthermore even in a materialistic sense there are things in which evolution cannot explain; Most famously the eyeball.

>>16034072
>your mistake is thinking that evolution necessarily implies atomism or materialism.
i think the point of the thread was about the common concept of 'evolution', ie chemical/biological determinism, which in essence is obviously just plain physical determinism. i believe in evolution too, but not in "scientific" atomism/determinism.

>>16034086
go read about evolution and them come back to this thread

>>16034049
Based.

Nobody here as actually studied evolution in depth, including OP.

>>16034085
>>16034083
>yet again, no refutation
are your brains literally incapable of coming up with arguments and instead go 'quick, find some funny image to post, that'll show him'. i mean what I mocked is the scientific consensus among physicists, biologists, etc. do you agree with said consensus or not?

>>16034112
>coming up with arguments against a literal double digit IQ subhuman

>>16034097
yeah, the "btfo atheists" kid doesn't understand the difference

>>16034121
Based.
one does not speak to animals

>>16034121
>can't even respond to a yes or no question
what is it dummy: physical determinism (or atomism, materialism etc) or not?

>>16034098
Evolutionfags btfo.

>>16033909
>viruses
>alive

>>16034123
since I think you're referring to me, I do understand the difference

>>16034138
>

Evolution is a really good framework but it ultimately fails to "explain", if such a thing can be done, in and of itself

>>16033904
Regarding the second, it's literally just unstable compounds evolving into stable compounds, and then some compounds can make copies of themselves.

>>16034464
>it's literally just
There's no proof of it so fuck off retard

>>16034476
It's common sense.

>>16034481
>self-evident truths guys!
Go back

>>16034464
until you can actually name and describe the chemical reaction needed for a 'compound' that can replicate itself, it's just a post-hoc rationalization.

>Literally all human behaviour can be explained by evolution except the brain telling itself there must be a metaphysical reality seperate from anything we can rationalize or prove emperically! That just cannot be explained as evolutionary behaviour!

>>16034142
>using shitty definitions of life
Anything that reproduces and evolves should be considered a kind of life.

>>16033944
>I thought this was considered a smart board.
you must be new here. /lit/ believes in tarot, ufos, demons, homeopathy and all kinds of shit. it's basically /x/ with "books for this feel" at the end of every post.

>>16034744
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>>16033904
Based as fuck.

>>16034464
>it's literally just *synonyms that convey no additional meaning or convince anyone who doesn't already buy wholeheartedly into materialism*
Powerful... depp

>>16033901
Not literature, take it to /sci/ unless you’ve actually read books on the subject you want to discuss.
>>16033904
>1. the mind
The reason why a mind would exist can be explained (greater ability to process information leads to greater survivability, therefore greater reproductive and evolutionary success), but you are right that it cannot explain the unique and beautiful nature of the mind.
>2. how life evolves from non-life, dumb dumb.
Correct, Darwin (who to clarify was NOT an atheist) was aware of this and OP I’d stupid for not bringing it up, abiogenesis is only related to evolution by pseuds, evolution is the process by which life changes and struggles and thus is the origin of life’s diversity, it is not the origin of life initially, anyone who tells you it covers abiogenesis is a fraud.

>>16033901
Literally everything regarding that which is alive can be explained by Jungian psychology, tarot cards and astrology.

>>16034464
Abiogenesis has never been explained, there is no proposed mechanism that works. Evolution explains the myriad forms of life and the way they interact with each other and the environment over time to change those forms, it does not explain the origin. It also has no bearing on the existence of God, even Darwin said that evolution should be seen as a natural law defined by God, and that God put the initial life on earth for evolution to act upon.
t. Biology graduate
>>16034481
Extreme cringe

>>16033901

Correct, which then be explained by the next level of resolution. Mathematics. What lies beyond math is out of our understanding at the moment.

>>16034970
>evolution is the process by which life changes and struggles
That is a common misconception. Evolution is about less complex forms changing, that is evolving, into more complex forms, which has never been observed. What you’re talking about is speciation, the process in which one species changes enough of its DNA to appear superficially as a separate species (they will look very different) but will still be able to interbreed. This is why lions and tigers can breed despite being classified as different species because they’re both in the cat family. This is also why dogs and cats can’t breed because they are in different families in addition to being different species.

>>16035137
>Evolution is about less complex forms changing
That may be etymologically true, but in biology evolution covers even small changes. Additionally species is a poor biological concept that Darwin knew was inadequate, he could tell that life existed on a continuum of relatedness, eventually demonstrated as true with genetics

>>16034846
fuck off, idiot flat earther