/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2636756]

Atheists,

Why didn't evolution favour organisms that won't die of age? By logic, those kind of organisms should be able to spread their genes for centuries or even millenia, thus dominating the animal kingdom. Why do organisms die?

[Anonymous No.2636763]

because every chemical reaction must inevitably burn itself out when it runs out of fuel to offset its own degeneration.

[Anonymous No.2636769]

>>2636763
But when nutrition is provided, why does that still happen?

[Anonymous No.2636771]

Is a catholic who understands science allowed to answer this? Or are you only speaking to atheists who know about science.

[MR. RAGE !D9l9S8Lio6 No.2636777]

>>2636756

LONG GENERATIONAL SPANS => IT TAKES A LONG WHILE FOR A PARTICULAR SET OF GENES TO MOVE OUT OF THE POOL => MUTATION (AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, ADAPTATION) IS SLOWED => THOSE THINGS DIE OUT FROM OTHER CAUSES ANYWAY, SO THEIR IMMORTALITY IS WASTED.

IF GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, ORGANISMS WOULD PROBABLY ADAPT TO LIVE ABOUT AS LONG AS IT TAKES THEM TO DIE OF OTHER CAUSES ON AVERAGE. IF AFTER ~30 YEARS, 99% OF THE POPULATION DIES TO ENVIRONMENT, THERE'S NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ORGANISM THAT CAN LIVE ~50 YEARS AND ONE THAT CAN LIVE ~1,000.

I KIND OF WANDERED THERE, BUT I THINK I GOT THE IDEA ACROSS.

[Anonymous No.2636779]

What does that have to do with atheism?

[Anonymous No.2636778]

Not OP, but I'm curious to know the answer to this. I've sometimes thought about it...

[Anonymous No.2636782]

Evolution hasn't ended yet, We are living longer and longer, our original ancestors lived to the age of 18...now in healthy places it's 80.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2636785]

I'm going to conjure a reason out of my ass. It could be that organisms that didn't die of old age relatively quickly ran out of a food source and then they starved to death. Organisms with limited lifespans reproduced and thrived more than deathless beings.

This will be fixed, soon enough.

[Anonymous No.2636791]

most organisms get killed
there are trees and shit that live forever

[Anonymous No.2636806]

its takes a long fucking time to explain properly, so you'll only get the short one (which by no means is the only reason for aging). On the end of every DNA string there is a "short" base-pair chain that gets shorter everytime the DNA is copied. This is because the process of DNA copying isnt perfect, and the last base-pair can't be copied. So when you run out of these otherwise useless base-pairs, no more cell deviding, resulting in age related symptoms. also there is a lot of shit you can't get out of your system which just stacks up and eventually gives you age related systems.

so thats the short version, but if you are in doubt about anything, search the net, not freaking /b/.

[Anonymous No.2636812]

FITNESS EQUALS VIABILITY MULTIPLIED BY FECUNDITY. UNDER THE NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THINGS EVOLVED, THE PROBABILITY OF BEING KILLED INCREASES THE LONGER YOU ARE ALIVE. INVESTING IN IMMORTALITY LOWERS YOUR VIABILITY, WHILE ONLY SLIGHTLY INCREASING YOUR FECUNDITY.

[Anonymous No.2636813]

>>2636806
>sry /sci/

fixed

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636818]

Modern Science cannot answer the Why. Think of science as a terrible meaningless short-cut that tries to make a fantasy universe of words.

They can explain, "What makes something," by using knowledge of things which came before. Such as 'light' and 'colours'. Yet, they cannot explain "Why light?" or "Why colours?", which is their natural meaning. They just look at what it does and add a personified human meaning to it. For example, if I say "What is energy?" they will reply will an explanation for what it does, and then add this to its 'personified human meaning', but, at the end of the day, they don't know the meaning to energy, because in their little personified existence, there is not meaning, because this certain meaning cannot be explained.

Me; "Why the colour Red?"
Them; "Uhh. We cant explain that herp derp, light makes it come up, sometimes, herr hurr, you're fucking retarded, philosopher, go kill yourself. god dont exist."

Word upon Word upon Word. It's all science is. Remove words from existence, what do you have? Colours, shapes, forms (wordless), and obviously everything has meaning, for it can be seen, sensed, felt, smelt, tasted, etc.

"Why Light?"
Dunno. (Light is what it is; its meaning is "light")
"What is Light?"
Herr durr something that shines, its the only meaning word word word they are all that matters and exists I'm smarter than you cuz i have paper from school and it says so. Government funded of course. I love them.

[Anonymous No.2636819]

>>2636782
this.

also, organisms undergo biological aging, which makes it difficult or even impossible to reproduce after a certain age (read: ED)

[Anonymous No.2636821]

Organisms die because death of populations is the only way new and better mutations spread, while the bad ones die out over generations.

(This is without the use of technology, of course.)

[Anonymous No.2636826]

>>2636818
>Modern Science cannot answer the Why.
Why do things fall down?
Why is it dark at night?
Why do I get sick when I drink a gallon of toilet cleaner?

Science can answer quite a lot of Why's.

[Anonymous No.2636830]

>>2636785

yes, the man in the pic knows a lot about this. search TED.com for something about aging, and you will eventually find him.

>>2636791
well, there are no trees that could theoretically live foever, but there are a few organisms that could. but only a very few and small

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636831]

>>2636818
Keyword: Modern Science.

Real science is Alchemy, ask freemasons. They just don't get Government funding because it dont make the world go round or predict things. However, this is incorrect, it can predict the end of the world and universe! It can also use this information to try and prevent it. Modern Science on the other hand doesn't care, it employs money fiends with no passion. Hence, abomination.

[Anonymous No.2636835]

There is no selection pressure against aging since the aged are not part of the pool of attractive mates

if aged people didn't age and remained healthy and relatively attractive, then their gametes would be susceptible to deleterious mutations solely by the nature of genetics, thus there would be selection pressure against aging, and for mechanisms produced by the younger adults to identify those that are older despite their appearance

to suffice these issues, people just age and a total breakdown of anatomy and cellular metabolism occurs so energy can be expanded earlier in life at contributing to their reproductive fitness, as opposed to perpetual repair devices

this is already been solved by female menopause, which in turn contributes to the reproductive fitness of the aging indirectly by aiding in the rearing of grandchildren

organisms that do not age would eventually be atrophied by diseases and parasites anyway, or a failure to having adaptations shaped for the changing environment

so immortality is an evolutionary unstable system

[Anonymous No.2636843]

>>2636818
You seem conflicted (and angry?). Do you really think when you get down to it that everything has a meaning? Meaning is a human concept. Why light? It's a flawed question that implies there must be a meaning.

[Anonymous No.2636848]

>>2636831
I'm fairly new around here. Does /sci/ have many posters like you?

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636845]

>>2636826
Incorrect. You can explain "What makes things go down?" but not "Why?" Also. Don't reply until you can provide a good dispute to my first contribution.

[Anonymous No.2636859]

>>2636848
I've been here fairly often and I've never seen one like this before. I think he is just trying to get reactions out of other people... That or he is somewhat confused. maybe both.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636861]

>>2636843
Directed to me and not my post. Therefore irrelevant, and thus, not worth reading. I understood after the "(and angry)". All you modern scientists are the same, you dodge the points. Like that richard feynman when confronted with a question about magnets. He made a long reply that did not address the point what so ever. Scientists! Terrible word smiths, at best.

[Anonymous No.2636863]

>>2636835
Yes, this.
Think about it, OP, there is always that fear looming in the back of your mind that you only have so much time left in this world. So what does that drive you to do? You want to leave some kind of mark on this world, and you know you'll never contribute anything meaningful, so you are driven to produce a couple of equally worthless offspring because somehow, in your mind, that equates to leaving behind some kind of "legacy." Evolution is a real fucker, isn't it?

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636867]

>>2636848
You're not new, no-one admits that. Also, you've used this many times before. Meaning that you're a regular and the cats got your tongue (lost for words, no suitable reply, cause you're wrong and cannot admit it - too proud).

[Anonymous No.2636870]

QUESTION
Is this board full of oldfags and wizards?
I do not see division by zero anywhere

[Anonymous No.2636872]

>>2636845
>what makes things fall down
>why do things fall down
>implying there's a difference between the two

Oh wait, you're that deist, aren't you? Okay, nevermind.

[Anonymous No.2636873]

>>2636845
Ill defined questions and poor grasp of logic does not make you a philosopher. Using poor language, and then complaining because nobody "understands" you is juvenile and immature at best. You don't even try, you're such an utter failure it makes me sad.

[Anonymous No.2636880]

>>2636835
solid post

I love evolutionary theory, it can explain such trivialities as why humans wear hats or why we fell the need to flush our shit

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636881]

>>2636872
Again, not a reply. That's dribbling on your keyboard. I guess I win the debate then. Thanks for attempting. At least it wasn't just awkward silence.

[Anonymous No.2636879]

For once, mister caps lock has got things right.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636877]

>>2636859
Most likely samefag. Also, same applies. No-one says that "I'm new here.." before they make a reply. It holds no relevance what so ever. (i.e. oldfag wannabe who knows me and my wisdom well. who is jealous and cannot contend with the truth).

[Anonymous No.2636883]

Ok, aether is a troll. I realize that now and will ignore any posts from him in the future.

[Does /sci/ have many posters like you? No.2636887]

/sci/ mostly is interested in ghosts, telepathy, and whether judaeo-christian religion is superior to new age spirituality

[Anonymous No.2636889]

>>2636818
Why do birds migrate?
Why does a jet flying past you make a weird sound?
Why do lancet flukes make ants try to kill themselves?

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636891]

>>2636883
What a way to dodge the post I made.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>2636818
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE THIS YET. IT IS THE CURRENT WINNING POST!

Thank you very much!

[Anonymous No.2636893]

>>2636861
You have become quite good at getting reactions from people. I could see myself getting frustrated if I didn't know better. I'm actually frightened that someone could be so frustrated, so mean, so arrogant, so deluded, and so deft at deflecting anything perceived threat against him. I shudder to think of who you actually are. I know that you will casually deflect what I'm saying, and that's OK. I hope it reaches you on some level but if not, that's alright too.

[Anonymous No.2636896]

>>2636889
because they descended from birds who migrate

doppler effect

1st half of life cycle

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636900]

>>2636889
Still nope. You're retarded. You did it again. You can explain "What makes them..." etc etc. You can never explain the "Why?" - but "Why?" and "What?" are equal. Magnets, how do they work?

Also, for lulz: -1 x -1 = -1

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636905]

>>2636893
Again. I stopped reading at "You have be....". It's not a reply to the original contribution I made. It's your special and, subtle to new readers, way of dodging the things that prove your shit wrong. Keep trying though. I enjoy watching myself type.

[Anonymous No.2636901]

>>2636845
Sure it explains why, WHY do animals reproduce? To carry on their genes/offspring. That seems logical, Though I think you're asking why in a sense that EVERYONE is wondering, Why are we here? Why does everything happen...Questions like those are not solvable yet, and everyone wants to know. But believing some hocus pocus god, instead of actually doing research is pretty Animalsitic to me.

[Anonymous No.2636904]

>>2636891
aether = charlie sheen

Hey Charlie, why aren't you outside WINNING right now?

[Anonymous No.2636907]

>>2636901
>Implying we're not animals
SUCK MY DISCOVERY CHANNEL MAMMAL FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.2636909]

>>2636881
Blah blah blah.

Projecting an abstract and poorly defined concept like "purpose" onto an event then yelling at someone for not being able to explain the event in your undefined terms does not mean you've won a debate. It just means you're a fucking idiot.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636910]

>>2636904
"Outside," it's a word.
I'm currently God, which can be restructured to simply, "God," - and when I'm not explaining across the internet it is wordless. Due to the fact your post held no purpose, relevance or meaning, it wasn't credible and I did not really read it.

[Anonymous No.2636912]

>>2636896
BUT I TOUGHT SCIENCE DIDNT ANSWER THE "WHY"

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636913]

>>2636909
Stopped reading at "Bl...". I know your antics well, abomination, you're all the same.

[Anonymous No.2636914]

>>2636777
I LOVE YOU MR. RAGE

[ether !4avJBSMAPo No.2636917]

>>2636891
I'll play with you :)

You ask why. I'll need you to be more precise. Why what?

[Anonymous No.2636919]

This is god
And on a relevant note, what is air?

[Anonymous No.2636921]

>>2636867
You're not new, no-one admits that. Also, you've used this many times before.
Uhm, no, this right here is literally the fifth post I'm making on this board. I also don't see anything problematic about admitting to be new. It's not like /sci/ itself has been around for all that long.

>(lost for words, no suitable reply, cause you're wrong and cannot admit it - too proud).
No suitable reply to what? You didn't present any arguments; just unsupported claims about Alchemy being able to predict (and prevent) the end of the world. Well, I don't think it can, nor do I believe that you have any evidence to validate this claim.

[Anonymous No.2636923]

>>2636913
Stopped reading at "stopped reading". You have a tiny deformed penis, you don't have a girlfriend and your hands are ugly.

[MR. RAGE !D9l9S8Lio6 No.2636928]

>>2636919
>This is god

MAN, I FUCKING WISH. DO YOU KNOW HOW KICK ASS THAT WOULD BE?

MOTHERFUCKERS WOULD BE GETTING THEIR ASSES WRECKED LEFT AND RIGHT BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNCONQUERED SUN.

SUCKS FOR EVERYBODY ON HIS SHITLIST, BUT WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THEM?

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636929]

>>2636921
I don't want to sound repetitive, but, you still haven't address the first contribution I made, even though we are currently in a debate that derives from it.... silly me, typical science.

Anyway, I didn't read your post. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.2636945]

>>2636929
Actually, you were answered some time ago. Right here.
>>2636909

Purpose is an artificial construct born of our limited perspectives and a twisted understanding of causality. It's a faulty human concept with no basis in the universe, which couldn't give a fuck about what we consider important.

Got a better argument? Drop it instead of crawling into your shitty teleological shell.

[Anonymous No.2636950]

>>2636929
>Anyway, I didn't read your post. Try harder.
Seems pointless to bother, assuming that you'll judge its content without reading it anyway, but I think your whole criticism of modern science is flawed at its core, because it stems from the baseless assumption that questions like "Why color?" even have a definitive answer that science refuses/fails to seek. But even if we assume "Why color?" to be a valid question, science is still not any less adequate at answering it than any other school of thought I'm aware of. There is no single philosophy that could give you a better, more intellectually satisfying answer to this question than any other.

[ether !4avJBSMAPo No.2636961]

>>2636929
I'll try harder.

Why light, you say.
This implies that there is some motivation or reason behind it. no?

Well, I'll posit that no reason exist other then the need for some terminology, a way of classifying phenomena and keeping them apart. That is the reason why light is light.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636970]

I guess that settles it then, no-one has provided a valid answer. All ad hominum and common idocy. 908's reply was not a good dispute against the original point, it's an opinion. It's an animal, humans, etc, purpose to survival. So common purpose would be 'survival' - and thus, it's not a poorly defined concept, just a highly diluted premise.

Please, next reply to this thread, provide some intelligent input. It's getting boring now.

[Anonymous No.2636985]

>>2636970
Again, you're simply shitting up the board without bringing anything to the table but Billo-esque "you can't explain that (with science)".

When you can demonstrate that purpose exists in the universe beyond human and possibly animal interaction, there's a point to this debate.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2636991]

>>2636961
Again, irrelevant. You've just used complexity to try and make a meaningful post. Your attempt failed, it didn't explain the "Why?", it used the "What?" to find a way around the "Why?" by using a combination of other "Whats?"

You're a fool. Seriously, you keep making the same error.

[Anonymous No.2636998]

>>2636905
Why does it have to be this way, and not some other way? I don't know. I'd probably have to be there, because evidence of the "choice" died long ago for most of the interesting questions. But it does seem like a very interesting open question. I hope with time, we can get better at looking into the past.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2637007]

>>2636998
>a why question
>followed swiftly by "I don't know"

At least you're getting the point now.

[Anonymous No.2637010]

>>2636991
His "There is no Why" is just as valid/invalid as your "There is a Why".

[Anonymous No.2637012]

>>2637007
I'm mostly reinterpreting the question to see if I understand.

[Anonymous No.2637023]

Please don't talk with aether.

He's /sci/'s personal tripfag troll.

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2637032]

Thanks for the easy battle people. Another win to add to my spree. What's that now? Around 1000 in a row, probably, give or take a few. Off to another thread I go. You guys may remain and.. sort of.. dribble at each other.

[Anonymous No.2637037]

>>2637032

dude you should use a different pic, starwars sucks.

[Anonymous No.2637047]

Ok honestly OP? Its simple.

To cause mutations to adapt to various environments, you need two things.

Radiation from the Sun
Death

If these "immortal" organisms never died, there would be no way for them to change themselves and adapt.

Also, atoms decay, thats what they do.

[Anonymous No.2637049]

So, what did any of this have to do with atheism?

[Astropossible !!W/AHawOYO9V No.2637067]

>>2637047
>>2637047
>>2637047
>>2637047

The answer, plain and simple.

60+ uneducated responses not needed.

[Anonymous No.2637076]

>>2637032
>believes an anonymous discussion with children and losers to be a battle
>has a strange definition of "winning" that battle
accomplished man.jpg

asking fundamental questions about life should never include your version of logic by the way. theres a much more complex answer to everything than "god did it" or "well thats just how it is"

[Anonymous No.2637083]

>>2636818

Science can answer all questions which have an answer. The only questions science cannot answer are the ones to which there are no answers. The reason being that science is more or less just a process for obtaining correct answers. If the answer exists science can and will find it.

Why is red? does not have an answer. What is our purpose? is another one that has no answer, as it requres intent behind our creation which does not exist. You might as well ask what is the purpose of mountains or what is the purpose of gravity. There is no answer to those questions. They both do things, but they have no purpose as they have no creator. Thus science will not find those answers.

Also, to OP, death of an organism allows its offspring to spread. The old genes can be taken out of circulation and the new ones given space to thrive, so it is advantageous to do so. There are however some organisms which dont die of old age. Hydra being the primary example - they arent very impressive, like microscopic worm things - and i believe some plants might not either though dont quote me on that.

[Anonymous No.2637089]

OP: Cellular decay, parasites, physical decay, and more.

Pretty much every culture of cells, including animals, follows a lag -> logarithmic growth -> plateau -> death stage.

Removing a 'clean' portion of cells to a batch of medium is much simpler and less energy consuming than trying to decontaminate the whole thing, correct the positions of all broken bones, heal all scarring, stuff like that.

[ether !4avJBSMAPo No.2637093]

>>2636991
hehe..

nonono you can't do that. You have given no context to your question.
Let me demonstrate.
Why light? can mean many things.
Why light -> how does light work
Why light -> What is the reason that we have light, what is the motivation for it. (implying something or someone has "made" it.
why light -> why is it called light?
why light -> etc.

Since you won't accept my explanations, and won't clarify your question, I'll let it be for the moment.

I'll instead quote you:
>>2636818
>Modern Science cannot answer the Why

I'll posit it can. We can answer it if the question is framed correctly.
I just dropped an orange and it fell to the floor. Why did the orange fall to the floor.
Because of gravity.
"No!" I'll her you say. "that's not why, that's how". But I'll disagree. There is nothing is this question, as in OP's question, that indicates that this is not a why as in "how" question.
I'll concede that science can't answer the metaphysical why's, but it can answer the causal why's.

[Anonymous No.2637091]

An organism that lives for a long time, will evolve at a slower rate than those organisms that die quicker.

Evolving = Advantage for the fittest

[Anonymous No.2637108]

Because entrophy.

[Anonymous No.2637109]

Overpopulation is one reason. Another one is lack of genetic diversity. A species who has the same individuals passing on their genes over and over won't be as receptive to changes in the environment.

[Anonymous No.2637145]

Because the purpose of an organism in it's society is not to live, but to transfer the best genes so that the next generation lives better.

[Anonymous No.2637187]

Evolution doesn't favor organisms who don't die because what's important is reproduction. Once you get that done in your 20's-30's what's left is just taking care of the kids.

[:D !bnigGers.Q No.2637193]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bueZoYhUlg

this is why OP

[Anonymous No.2637231]

>>2636818

Non sense debate. You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2637558]

>>2636818
biggest bunch of shit ever

you are way over your head, and contribute nothing to discussion

[Anonymous No.2637615]

>.. won't die of age?

design limitations, genetic engineering isn't that perfect, even if done by "gods".