/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10215137
>No fucking way that this all happened randomly
What is it about our particular brand of chronically dysfunctional self replicating chemical soup that leads you to this conclusion?

>>10215137
Its true. Only allah could have created something as complex as our universe and the things it contains

>>10215142
I think there's a higher odds of us being created by a probably imperfect entity, than us emerging by ourselves. if we emerged by ourselves, I doubt we would be functional that fast in the lifespan of the universe, when we compare with the length it would take to reach the heat death of the universe and beyond where only quantum fluctuations would happen.

need to prove the existence of multiverses.

>>10215158
Ok but what heuristic are you using to determine this? How do you know how many years or even what order of magnitude of years is needed for it to happen? What is your intuition that there hasn’t been enough time based on?

>>10215168
>How do you know how many years
we don't know. it all depends in the self replicating entity that appeared first. we don't know how life appeared so we can't know how many years it takes. however the fact that our body looks like a very carefully engineered machine leads me to think that the odds that this first life form evolved in a logic direction, is very, very low.

for an intelligent first life form to appear, matter needs to arrange itself in a way that allows it to carry the right information to evolve into complex life form with clear logic.

any math/physics god to calculate this probability ?
1. needs to find the first life form that allowed evolution to start happening in a logic way, up to consciousness
2. needs to determine what it's made of
3. needs to calculate the odds of matter down to the quantum level to gets arranged into this fast enough for us to appear at the beginning of the lifespan of the universe.

obviously a bet... that's why I said there's no fucking way. I'm betting the probability to happen is not 0, but just so low that it would not even make sense for it to happen

just like you know, throwing yourself through a wall 10 times without a scratch. it can happen. at this point is there even a fucking way for it to be a reality in our universe. the hell not.

probabilities and all that.

question boils down to

is it likely that we won the cosmic lottery? I think it would be more mind boggling to be this winner, than being simply engineered by an imperfect life form would had the time to make us like this without waiting for an eternity.

>>10215144
mashallah

>>10215137
That's not a way to read DNA m80.

>>10215137
>even when reviewing evolution and 10^27 sized universes
Show us your math m8

>>10215137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>>10215137
Once it happens once it can make itself happen again and again, so it only needs to happen once

>>10215283
Explain

>>10215306
Life.

>>10215137
if we were designed why didn‘t i get a 3rd leg on my back to lean on?

>>10215137

But it's been proven that pattern forms from entropy almost inevitably.

engineered almost flawlessly
>Stub toe get cut, die of infection without man made medicine
>Break leg starve to death
>Get one of a thousand immune system problems, die to infection/body fighting itself
>Get one of a million viral infections, be crippled and in constant pain, most likely die
>Get one of a million bacterial infections, organ failure, festering infection, slowly die
>Dont drink anything for 2 days, get delirious, 4 days most likely dead
>Get any kind of brain damage, its irreparable, good luck surviving.

Man you really thought that one through didn't you? You're just a new-age theist swapping the idea of an all powerful god(s) for that of some alien overlord.

>>10215347
>almost flawlessly
>almost

we are not perfect anon. but we are almost flawless compared to a random soup of atom that can only change color to our eyes (obviously it's a subjective view, but we are there to have this view). and I even mentioned an imperfect entity. if we become creator in the far future, our creation will be better than us because we could correct the issue you mentionned.

see what I mean?

I thought that one through, I'm afraid you typed too fast anon.

>>10215328
yes. I'm discussing the low odds. I know it can happen and it's not 0.

Scientismfags are as bad are abrahamicfags.
>I don't see or understand the pattern, therefor it has to be (randomness)
Just swap "Sky father made it" for "Random evolution explains everything lol"

>>10215314
I see what you mean, but there's a difference between us being a result of life that appeared for reason X before us, and emerging by ourselves on earth after the big bang, that's the whole point. basically, if life happened before us and had us as a consequence, then this goes toward my point that we didn't appeared by ourselves.

>>10215137
Well, yeah, it descended from an ancestor.

>>10215357
>Some alien had to have created us
What created that alien? With your terrible idea any life would be created by other life and that leads back to being a theist.

Science doesn't need people like you, you've already hindered advancement for thousands of years, just kill yourself already.

>>10215361

Low odds on cosmic scales are absolutely tenable.

What puzzles me more are the odds of pic related happening within 50 years?

>>10215371
if this ancestor wasn't exactly like it was to guarantee a logic evolution in the right path, we wouldn't be there to discuss about it. again getting back to probabilities.

>>10215347
>infection kills randomly
>autoimmune disorders just happen
>actually believes those are constants and are not solely the result of industrial waste accumulated over generations.
>painful death exists = no creator
Let me guess; you don't believe in cause and effect, AKA karma either?

>>10215391
>cause and effect, AKA karma

>>10215391
free will >= karma

>>10215374
either a lifeform is created by an entity, either it emerges by itself randomly. what does theist even means in that context. I accept that both can be valid until not proven. saying that we were engineered doesn't mean that every other life form is engineered anon, I'm not that stupid, please.

science is nothing without the thirst of humans for discovery and this includes questioning about those kinds of things.

>>10215414
So why are we the engineered ones without question to you, rather than the first? See where the retardation in your post comes out?

>>10215426
it appears that we became functional quite fast in the lifespan of the universe, without much imperfection that would completely doom us biologically, so we're not perfect but we're not half bad either.

if we account the whole possible "reality" (I assume infinity exists naturally and we by a matter of fact appeared after a precise moment -not that long ago compared to infinity), I think that the odds to be the first are lower than the odds to be not the first. can you do the maths?

>>10215137

>>10215137
Don’t want to retype this.

>>10215478
You have some severely limited scope in your thinking, let me point it all out to you at once and then I sure hope you quit responding.

> that we became functional quite fast in the lifespan of the universe
Ok, so why would would you say that we most likely aren't the first, you're literally saying we came up fast, as if it should've been slower which means that you're admitting we have a better-than-normal chance of being the first sentient life.

>without much imperfection that would completely doom us biologically
This statement essentially says you don't believe in evolution, if you did, and you understood it, you would realize why what you're saying right there is incorrect. If you don't believe in evolution then how would the first intelligent life come to be? You're just looping right back to some other beihng creating all other beings and at a certain point it leads to you claiming that some being that was always there created everything.

>if we account the whole possible "reality" (I assume infinity exists naturally and we by a matter of fact appeared after a precise moment -not that long ago compared to infinity)
You're going off of feelings and belief again versus any real proof, showing once again that you're not that bright.

>I think that the odds to be the first are lower than the odds to be not the first.
Since the premise is relies on a retarded belief based ideology I don't think that it even needs answering, its similar to asking 'if the universe was made of cheese wouldn't it be likely that intelligent cheese-based life formed before us'

>>10215137
Nope. you underestimate the number of particles in nature very, very gravely. it is very much possible to have this utterly flawed, weak, pathetically tiny and fragile body as we humans have. 10 to power 27 is so far beyond your grasp (but smaller than infinity) that actually it is a simple fact that we are a random byproduct of evolution of the universe.

>>10215512
I just keep repeating myself, I'm not saying there is 0 chance to emerge by ourselves, I said that if infinity exists, and considering the fact that we appeared after a big bang which is a well defined moment (in what we call "past"), then I think the odds to be the first (1/X) are lower than the odds to be not the first and created (1/Y).

X is a number that doesn't take into account anything potentially happening before or outside the big bang.

Y is a number that would take into account a number of events of much greater size.

of course you can just say, you are retarded because infinity doesn't exist, and there were nothing before the big bang.

I have much sympathy for this type of thinking because since we couldn't observe it, maybe it can't be defined as science. it's a sane and necessary way to operate. but for me science is not truth, science is the research of truth through observation and facts. this doesn't mean that what I say is wrong, it means that it's not sure to be true until proven.

I believe in evolution, but I think that the first life form needed to be exactly like it was in order to evolve, and there is an actual odd of this happening, even if it is 1/10^40 I find it so low that it's precisely what leads to this post.

>>10215586
I'm not calling you a retard, you are one.

There's so much circular logic in your posts that I don't think you have the capability of forming a coherent thought. Pointing it out to you only leads to you repeating yourself, at least you realize that you're doing that, maybe you can work at Wendy's. Sorry for your genetic lottery loss, better luck next time.

>>10215228
I'm not a mathematician, but I've once read astrophysical paper titled "Relative Likelihood for Life as a
Function of Cosmic Time" by Loeb et al., and it described the propability function of existence of a planet which would be habitable by intelligent, carbon based lifeforms, and how much time since Big Bang would be needed to form this kind of habitat. Might be interesting to you.

>>10215137
>creating batches of strains
>then wiping unfit ones
>repeating for millions of years
of course we are engineered

This is literally just an appeal to personal incredulity fallacy. Fuck off with this bait.

>>10216371
The probability is irrelevant. Anthropic principe.

>>10215137
>randomly
evolution =/= random

>>10215144
>>10215238
why do the shit heads still deny evolution
if it is really one true god that creating everything including himself
He also set the stage and created time

>>10216391
“Creating time” is impossible since causality doesn’t exist without time lmao.

>>10216393
this is a limited way of thinking

>>10216395
Yes, limited to what’s logically coherent. Since things can’t be caused without causality, kind of intuitive, time can have no cause unless some other “time” already exists. Turtles all the way down or time just exists ex nihilo.

>>10215137
Earth is flat

>>10215137
It's not happening randomly. Nobody thinks evolution is random.

>>10215347
>>10215391
I think I saw these posts already
I had a deja-vu

>>10215228
you're a retarded pseud, there is no such thing as consciousness. Its a dualistic theory that can never become monistic which is the only tenable solution to the mind-body problem (abolishing the mind).

>>10216401
The mutations are random, what survives isn't.

>>10215137
>We were engineered almost flawlessly by a probably imperfect entity that is probably defined by a different concept than life or reality, that we can't imagine with our current brains.
How does a perfect entity create something that is almost flawless. We have very clear flaws in our 'design', and a perfect being wouldn't make them.

>>10215377
You can't get back to probabilities because randomness doesn't even exist. And nothing starts from scratch because of causality, everything has deterministic preceding history (maybe except for big bang) and every state of the system evolves from the previous state.

>>10216393
>>10216397
>implying causality
One of the things we do know is we can't prove causality is a thing outside our own perception

>>10216646
>probably imperfect entity
Lrn to read dumbass

>>10215700
I think you don't understand what I try to explain to you. what I said in all this post is coherent, you're juste stating the opposite of what I say. I mention infinity, you don't even explain what do you think about natural infinity. subjects like this have the potential to be interesting.

>>10216704
Nothing can be proved.

>>10216823
until it is disproved

>>10215137
>Flawless engineering.

>>10215137
>I find it improbable, it is therefore impossible.

If there is a minute probability of life like our own to happen at any moment in time, then life like ours forming at some point in the universe becomes a statistical necessity over time.

So long as you observe the probability over a large enough expanse of time.

>>10217222
yes, yes. I don't deny that it's possible. I don't say it's impossible that we emerged by ourselves. what I was saying is that I think there's more odds that we were engineered by an imperfect entity, given the fact that I believe infinity occurs naturally. that's still agnosticism, because I'm open to both possibilities.

>>10215137
>No fucking way that this all happened randomly
>We were engineered almost flawlessly
human appendix
human tailbone
photic sneeze reflex
and thats just evolutionary vestigials in humans
whales have vestigial leg bones

>>10217311
>almost

the thing that makes me question is not evolution, but rather the first life form that made us like this through evolution. from chemistry to this self replicating life form. what are the odds?

>>10215137
Evolution's fundamental concept is that living matter adapts to it's environment over long periods. of time. I will agree that man is dumb, and we're not even the smartest of the animals, but that's more philosophical than anything.
Pic related, fine bioengineering.

>>10217332
What are the odds that you’d draw any random hand from a deck of cards?

>>10217475
About 9/11

>>10215137
Evolution isn't random.

>>10215137
>People claim to have had revelations
>God loves everyone the same and is all powerful

Why can't I, a filthy atheist trash, about to waste his whole life while polluting the planet can't have a revelation and become a more nice guy overall?

>>10216691
Lol, then tell me pls which path this nice little photon here will take.

>>10215137
almost
probably
probably
probably
If you can't believe your own bullshit why do you expect us to.

>>10217522
Literally this. Honestly, I want God to exist because Nietzche, but it's worth acknowledging that if God is real, he is a malevolent, evil God. Regardless of how MUCH I want to believe, I can't because I know the history of the development of religion and the science behind the universe, and the cognitive dissonance is too much to bear.

>>10217504
it's not about evolution, it's about the odds from going from non living to living, which then is taken care of by evolution.

>>10217522
because it's stupid to think about god that way, we might very well be made up by an entity that didn't even realized it made us in the first place

>>10217544
You saying it made us BY CHANCE?
Bringing in an "entitiy" entangled in causality and NOT hovering above it is not what theists are looking for.

>>10217556
who knows

the idea of a god to "worship" is worthy of our cosmological retardation

>>10217237
Imperfect entity or perfect, you're still left with the question of what created it. If life is so complex it implies a creator then why would that creator be more complex than what it creates? Abiogenesis is still left as more probable.

>>10217716
what created it, well, something else, which at its turn was created by an entity a bit less perfect, or different, ad infinitum. I believe in natural infinity, and this makes our creation more likely than going from non life to life in a finite amount of time after the big bang. still not denying that it can happen. I also believe that anything can materialize in front of me but you know. I would like die if that happen because I couldn't cope with the odds.

>>10216391
that's a belief held by some religious people.
"Nature is what God does" - Augustine
>>10216393
what makes you think God is limited by causality when he creates? how could the nature of causality prevent the creation of time when causality cannot exist without time?

>>10215137
>Possible but unlikely things can't happen in a large period of time
I want /x/ to leave

>>10215137
>We have 7 senses
Wrong again

>>10216391
that's a belief held by some religious people.
"Nature is what God does" - Augustine
>>10216393
what makes you think God is limited by causality when he creates? how could the nature of causality prevent the creation of time when causality cannot exist without time?

>>10217897
who cares if we have 7 or 6 or 9 or 14, the point is that it's not 10^1000

>>10215137
>We were engineered almost flawlessly
No we were not. We are such a mess we are lucky we work.

If we had echnology to design living organisms or essentially build nanomachines, we would do much better job than evolution.

>>10217959
>we would do better
really couldn’t just be satisfied with repeating the cliché could you brainlet?

>>10217544
>it's about the odds from going from non living to living
Take a basic organic chemistry course and you will learn everything you are missing. Organic chemicals essentially create themselves given the natural conditions that existed on the early earth. Any new chemical that is a catalyst for a new chemical creates new possible branches of chemicals eventually leading to the creation of what we call life.

>>10217972
anon, you conveniently ignore the odds of having an environment that allows abiogenesis to happen. like, the chance that atoms are made that way that is derived from quantum mechanics or maybe something we didn't discovered yet, gravity, and all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Atomic_and_nuclear_constants

what are the odds again?

>>10215137
Life formed on Earth less than only 500 million years after liquid water first appeared. It must not be that improbable.

>>10215137
Yes in the Gnostic belief system the universe is created by an imperfect lesser god, still powerful by human standards obviously

>>10218021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU5-rhhyrag

10^10^123 just for the environnent, but sure, it must not be that improbable. even if natural infinity exists, my claim is that there's higher odds of an imperfect entity making us that way. still not impossible though.

>>10215137
Evolution started off slow and got faster. The only improbable part was the initial abiogenesis.

>>10218038
if we were engineered, evolution is the intended behaviour in our universe thanks to the existence of cosmological constants in the way they precisely are. if they were different, life would simply not be intelligent, it would be non living matter.

>>10215137
Why did that entity only place life on earth?

>>10216382
>Anthropic principe.
The meme principle.
Great, Anon.

>>10217959
No we wouldn't, everything is too complex for humans to properly manage. And most flaws are because we're doing a job we weren't evolved for, i.e modern living.

>>10218038
Explain why it seems improbable to you...

>>10218038
>we are literally made of non-life
>hurr how can life come from non-life???!!!

>>10218033
Sun-like stars make up ~7.6% of main sequence stars. And, ~12.1% of main sequence stars are K-type which are similar enough, and last longer.

About ~11 ± 4% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet receiving between one and four times the stellar intensity as Earth.

In 2013, it was estimated from Kepler's data that; in the Milky Way alone, there could be upwards of 40 billion exoplanets in the habitable zones of their stars.

Water is the most abundant compound in the universe.

Hell, even in our own solar system there may be multiple celestial bodies that life arose on and still reside.

>>10218169
I like you anon but what does it has to do with cosmological constants?

>>10218060
ironically this

>>10218174
What about the proposed cosmological constants? How are they relevant?

>>10218192
>cosmological meme constants
anon I...

>>10218192
do you know what a cosmological constant is and the role it has on abiogenesis? I'm sorry anon, I don't have time for this

>>10218200
I'm not the person who brought it up.

>>10218204
That was the question being asked.

>>10218064
It's too complex because it is evolved, not engineered. If we were to design living organisms or similar machines, we would do it way simpler and more robust, without requiring it to have evolutionary sense. Including optimizing these flaws from going against evolution. We would engineer it to do what we want, not that just randomly evolved and happen to be best fit out of other random mutants.

>>10218157
I guess this board is full of nolifers, but that goes beyond standard physics models.

>>10219728
evolution could very well be a core function of an engineered system. maybe random mutation is precisely the most efficient way to create an intelligence, in a limited space with limited ressources. infinity is unfathomable...but as far as I know, there is still events going on during infinity, and there can be closed spaces inside infinity, which doesn't mean does spaces are infinite or can be screwed up by something outside. we can't understand infinity.

>>10215228
So, you think the odds of mankind popping into existence is greater than an ominscient super being that exists outside of spacetime that can manipulate reality to its will? Doesn't this mean that it is more likely this being was created vs just popping into existence?

>>10215366
Obviously humans didn't just come into existence. Humans gradually came into existence through evolutionary developments. There were human precursors and precursors to those precursors. This continues all the way down to primordial life. Its really hard to explain the scale of these developments because they happened over millions and millions of years.

>>10220301
I don't think I've said that, but I think any entity can never "just pop into existence", and that it needs an eternity to get formed (don't ask, we can't understand infinity, yet this is a concept that exists which is mind blowing in itself)
all entities could very well be a chain, like in biology, with forks and all, except that it's been going in since eternity, with no beginning, and no end.

>>10220318
no, evolution is a formality, us human are there mostly because there were a universe with particular constant in the first place, and a change from non living to living in a second place, which is another formality.

>>10220328
Just to humor you, what if existence was cyclical? What if when our universe gets swallowed by the one final impossibly big black hole, it condenses all matter so greatly that it causes a shockwave so great it scatters all matter. Then it happens again....and again.....and again. There is no beginning or end. Everything that ever was still is and will ever be. I mean....there's a non zero chance right?

>>10220337
Living is a formality. Biological constructs self replicating is endemic to biology.

>>10220352
yes but that's a close minded perspective, that "our" universe gets reset forever and every 10^100 years maybe, this is possible but I don't see why this particular scenario would play when in reality all of them will play, or could very well never play, or all play at the same time. we're in a closed space where rules are defined, we're "safe" from the infinite chaos and order of reality where only a superior entity (like us in 10^100 years) can move and survive

>>10220352
There's no evidence to suggest it will happen, and current evidence and best models demonstrate an accelerating universe. Outwards. The idea of a big crunch is scientifically unfounded, and contradicts current evidence and theories, so is therefore, wrong.

>>10215137
Ever thought that they might have been simpler at one point?

>>10220390
read thread if you care.

>>10220389
Won't all matter eventually be collapsed into black holes? How is this scientifically unfounded? If the universe's expansion speed does not exceed the escape velocity, then the mutual gravitational attraction of all its matter will eventually cause it to contract. As long as one black hole has ever existed, its guaranteed right. Honestly, I was just speaking BS. Wasn't even aware of the big crunch hypothesis, I was just throwing out a scenario, that is also impossible to prove but impossible to disprove.

>>10217992
Fine tuned universe doesn't need the sky jew to create life.

>>10220409
>won't all material collapse
No.

>how is this scientifically unfounded
From all observations, matter is traveling away from each other, with an increasing acceleration.

>if the expansion does not exceed the escape velocity
As far as I'm aware it already has, and is continuing to accelerate.

>as long as one black hole has ever existed, it is guaranteed right
Wrong. Two black holes can travel beyond their escape velocity, and worse, we don't know if there's an upper limit on the acceleration.

It's still an open problem if the evidence we see is precipitated by the universe interacting with light, or objects themselves (since we can't travel to the distant objects). It could be the light is acted on by an unknown phenomenon which cause it to red shift the further it has been traveling (I'd like to think entropy even applies to traveling photons).

Conversely, there's still some open questions to how gravity operates at large distances. Dark matter/dark energy is the most accurate theory we have for modelling how the universe appears, but if we observe evidence it is wrong, then that's it, no matter how good of a theory it currently is.

I imagine the theories aren't very good when we try combining how dark matter/energy interacts with black holes.

>>10220428
>I imagine the theories aren't very good when we try combining how dark matter/energy interacts with black holes.
This what I'm saying. The big crunch is possibly possible because we have yet to discern the nature of those forces.

Mitochondria is a pretty cool guy
Eh produces energy and moved into a cell.
And isn't afraid of anything

>>10220409
No, it’s growing too fast. The universe’s black holes will be some of the last structures remaining as the universe undergoes heat death, but even they will die via Hawking radiation.

>>10220412
Fine-tuning is evidence against God. Us existing in a universe that can’t support us would be evidence.

>>10220487
technically we exist in a universe that can't support life if it isn't tuned precisely like it is

>>10220515
Wrong. You have absolutely no idea whether or not self-replicating entities could exist in other universes.

>>10220470
Couldn't black holes be accelerated by other black holes to be faster :D

>>10215137
The ancient Sumerians tell of man being the result of monkeys that were modified by an alien race called the Annunaki. This story later morphed into the Bible.

>>10220518
we don't have to think about other universes, just seeing that for us to exist that way, there is 1/ 10^10^123 chances; if we account for concepts that we cannot imagine, like something else than life but still an "entity", the number is even lower.

which doesn't prove or disprove anything; it's not evidence against a creator, it's not evidence for random creation.

what I'm seeing is that the odds of us being created, seems lower than this stupidly low number I mentioned above.

>>10220552
Did you get it from that video on youtube with the robot voice?
I never read the actual source of these claims

>>10220584
>spirit science
OH NO NO NO NO

>>10215137
>Thynine
this has to be a troll.

Anyway, assuming it's not, who told you this was all random? No one who knows anything about evolution says that life comes about randomly. Selection of benificial random mutations != chance aggregation of shit into a functioning cell.

>>10220584
Sounds like classic Erich von Daniken/Chariots of the Gods to me.

>>10220258
Evolution is a "core function" of an "engineering" done without an engineer. There is no other way.
But when you have someone who can design it, it's no longer true. You don't design an car or space ship by randomly building prototypes until it happens to just werk.
We can understand infinity because we invented it. Infinity is a mathematical tool and if you know math you know how to use it.

>>10220552
what the fuck are you talking about? the sumerians said man was made from clay not monkeys

>>10222176

>>10220552
There are the books by Zachariah Sitchen. And I ran into a free mason who was totally believing in that shit. Don't disrespect Z. He could read that shit and he jazzed it up for his books. There is a new book by some Italian who did translation for the Vatican and his shit enforced what Z was saying. He is a respected scholar and the book can be read in English on line for free. It is called "the book that will forever change your mind about the Bible " or some shit like that.

>>10220584
>>10222253
Book has bibliography with sources

legit biological pathways really amaze me.

did you guys know how plants legit use quantum physics to make energy

http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1

look at all this shit that happens in your body. No way can this be random

>>10222268
Everything is quantum physics tho

>>10222268
All biological systems use quantum reactions for nerve signalling. When you take a shit that's quantum mechanics.

>>10222274
While spirits/entities/aliens gently nudging the genotype and influencing our choices in sexual partners over billions/millions of years could do it fairly easily?

As well as creating this beetle that can shoot fire out its arse at attackers...

Lit thread, gang.

>>10217470
Nice guitar :^)

>>10217541
>I want God to exist because Nietzche
Explain or you're a pseud

>We were engineered almost flawlessly

Then why didn't they do a better job?

>>10217541
It's the devil trying you out.

>>10222318
>>10222311
I know that but it is but photosynthesis is a wacky system that developed

>>10217541
No he isnt evil. He created evil and good. Your life is merely a dream compared with the real afterlife.

>>10216766
Leave that gritty sad faggot alone, I got angry just by reading his obnoxious pseudointelectual fedora tier rambling

>>10222091
>we can understand infinity
kek at this

also I don't see why evolution could not be the intended way, and calculated with great precision by an engineer, you're just lacking depth in your thoughts, if we are engineered the engineer is so much intelligent that he can do things that we can't depict in our brain.

>>10222698
>also I don't see why evolution could not be the intended way, and calculated with great precision by an engineer, you're just lacking depth in your thoughts, if we are engineered the engineer is so much intelligent that he can do things that we can't depict in our brain.
Not who you were replying to, but consider breeds of dogs cats and plants/animals that we consume for food... the selective pressures we create cause massive changes to the phenotype in fairly short periods of time. All that alien contactees and interested people are saying is that evolution on earth (not just of humans) is comparable to artificial selection.

Now a fundamental question and concept is how is the basic mechanism of evolution that we're already familiar with influenced by spirits entities or aliens. One person you might want to ask is a schizophrenic (I'm a schizophrenic). So I'll tell you - the beings can interfere with coordination (on an incredibly fine level) and emotions and intellectual understanding. Regarding interfering with coordination I should mention that they literally do tricks for me, like there was this one time I was playing battlefield 2 to pass time while I was psychotic (which lasted years) and my mouse hand spazzed and I spun around 180 degrees and fired the rocket I was holding. It flew towards an empty doorway and just as it was about to hit the wall a guy walked out of the doorway straight into the rocket.

Another time a being said in my mind "This is James" (my name) and there was the intuitive notion in my mind at the time that I and what was happening to me was dangerous in their world, and as he said that I dropped a rather large countersunk screw I was carrying which I just left. I didn't really understand what the being meant. Later I came back to where I was walking when the being said that and noticed that the screw had landed on the floor on its head, so it was pointing directly up, eg if you stood on it it'd impale you.

>>10222818
About 3 days ago I was fidgeting with a pair of pliers while several beings were pissing me off (which lasts hours, during which we take turns at insulting each other), and one said to me "You can suck dick here" and as she said that I took my hands off the pliers and they were left standing vertically in tiny depressions on my wooden table. Really unlikely to happen by accident (like our evolution). She meant that around the types of beings with that kind of coordination I am just a stupid spastic nobody. I subsequently presented her my argument why she could suck dick... hmm this has been going on for years. Schizophrenia isn't really fun.

I could give other examples. A being once told me that their control or coordination is atomic... there were many types of beings that talked to me so I wouldn't say that all of them have these abilities, only higher ones.

Anyway... in addition to the beings' fine control of coordination suppose they have the ability to read and interpret DNA (assuming these are more advanced races than us). Now when we do artificial selection we control the DNA contents of the sperm and egg by breeding creatures with a phenotype that we like. Suppose spirits entities and aliens can read the DNA contents of different sperm and eggs. Now all they need to do is control which egg combines with which sperm and they can influence our evolution. Suppose they can influence the coordination of particular sperm in a particular ejaculation. And they'd also need to control when the mating occurs (to select a particular egg).

Their other ability I mentioned... the ability to influence intellectual understanding and emotion... could give them the ability to control our and other species' choices in sexual partner and when the sex occurs. A being just mentioned to me that in nature it is possible for them to control whether an insect (for example) mates by simply showing it to, or hiding it from a bird, or flying it into or around a spider's web

>>10222830
The beings suggest that I mention to you that their control of genetic development as well as their goals are considerably more subtle than ours. Another just mentioned that they involve non-physical bodies (i.e. bodies that we can't directly observe, although we can feel them, referred to sometimes as "spiritual bodies" (eg those that are associated with the generation of auras or chakras)). Anyway, if you're interested in their genetic programs I've found a little information recently that I've linked to >>10222187

Why must order come from an intelligence?

>>10222883
Crystals are intelligent?

>>10222883
It's more likely it would than not.

>>10215137
If we were designed by some intelligence there's literally no reason to make our bodies so complicated.

>>10223454
Why tho?

>>10223463
Because it's unintelligent

>>10215512
>we have a better-than-normal chance of being the first sentient life.
Sapient. Sapient life.

>>10215137
"engineered flawleslly"
dude, the human body has a ton of flaws that if you were to "design" the body from scratch you could make it infinitely superior

>>10215137
>almost flawlessly

have you finished your pre-med undergrad yet?

>>10222698
>also I don't see why evolution could not be the intended way, and calculated with great precision by an engineer
It definitely could be. But it doesn't mean you could get much better results if you engineered it without relying entirely on evolution.

>>10215137
It's possible the initial spark was engineered but from our perspective it probably wouldn't even be counted as life. While everything thereafter is evolved from it. Notions of natural and intelligent design in this case may even be incoherent, ambiguous, indistinguishable.

>>10222187
nice stones!

Look up the concept of emergence. You're welcome

>>10225985
woooooooooooaaaaaaaaaah

>>10217332
if evolution itself was manufactured there'd be a tangible mechanism that we'd be able to identify in even simple organisms

>>10222489
why would a non-evil being create evil

>>10216382
>Anthropic principe.
popsci garbage for pseuds

>>10226280
evil is subjective just like non evil, life has its own definition of good, generally it's centered around preservation

>>10215137
It's the pages and pages of what you are like in the giant book that's hidden inside you

https://youtu.be/Mx3xJYXoSoQ

>>10215347
How shortsighted of you. He meant (almost) flawless in the fact that we're essentially living bleeding amalgamations of crumbled rocks and water. The whole concept of which is beyond comprehension, unlike your rehashed reddit-tier "why does bad thing happen lel?" argument.

>>10217541
>I can't because I know the history of the development of religion and the science behind the universe
Look up Spinozas God.
>>10222489
True
>>10226280
Several answers, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For the simplest, watch this Simpson's clip:
https://youtu.be/7l7zJ7NsFjY

For another, consider the fact that objective binaries only exist because they have eachother to contrast against. There is some truth to the "yin and yang" thing. A world of only "good" or only "bad" really has neither, they just "are".

Now forget that while I consider this other anons opinion.
>>10226326
Sure, but in that we can assume that preservation IS the objective non-evil. Therefor, the greatest non-evil is that which does not infringe upon the preservation of others. This would imply a spectrum of good and non-good, with wholly constructive deeds being on one end and wholly destructive ones on the other. He is the God of life, after all.
Think of the archetypal depiction of Eden. All animals living peacefully. A perfectly constructive environment.

>>10227549
That's not what flawless means.
If he said that we somehow miraculously manage to stay alive and function, that would be fine. But we are far from flawless.