[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 405 KB, 1200x798, 1304631504847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3145580 No.3145580 [Reply] [Original]

How do you explain the symmetry of our bodies based off evolution?

We have 2 eyes that are symmetrical on our face and the mouth and nose are in the middle and 2 ears on each side.... 2 arms 2 legs a penis in the center etc...

For example the eyes. I imagine that evolution started off by creating 1 eye for some sort of organism billions of years ago... So it had one eye... Why on Earth would the second eye be created identical to the first one and symmetrical to it?

There is no reason why our eyes couldn't be on completely different parts of our body.
There is also no reason why each of our eyes couldn't function completely different than the other.

It makes no sense to me.

>> No.3145593

Sonic hedgehog
/thread

>> No.3145595

>>3145580
Learn some evolution and embryology. I suggest the book The Greatest Show On Earth as a good place to start.

>> No.3145596

>>3145593
oh you mean sonichu?

>> No.3145598

There's a pretty good reason people are avoiding this thread: hopefully they've learned that the topic GOES NOWHERE

>> No.3145602

I always had the impression that if you have two eyes and one of the fail for any reason, then you can still see. The world was a bit more violent when you had to fight wolves over who gets to fight the deer with teeth and fingernails. Also to make two identically functioning eyes you only need one genetic template.

>> No.3145608

>>3145598
Well, that's not very scientific, is it?

Not all creatures have strict symmetry. Plants, amoebas, fungi, halibut...Most vertibrate animals do, though.

Why? Because it just worked out better for us that way.

>> No.3145610

>>3145602
>Also to make two identically functioning eyes you only need one genetic template.

Even if that makes sense. You cant explain the positioning of the eyes. There was never a human species found with eyes in random places on their bodies. This would of needed to happen if evolution wanted to find the best spot to place the eyes...

>> No.3145613

>>3145608
"It just does" isn't very scientific either
Captcha wants me to write lambda, wtf?

>> No.3145615

>>3145610
You gotta go a lot further back in our ancestry to find what you're looking for.

>> No.3145628

>>3145615
ehhh I guess......

I wouldn't think it would scale up that way though, even if evolution found a good spot for eyes on like a frog a billion years ago... That doesnt mean that its the best spot for a creature that is 6 foot taller then the frog. I just dont think it would stay symmetrical or even get symmetrical on its own in the first place

>> No.3145630

>>3145613
This isn't very difficult. Somewhere along the way, a very long time ago, some creature came around that was very symmetrical. It wasn't like a sponge or an acacia tree or an halibut. It was more like a worm or a paramecium or a human. It did well, and passed its genes on to the next generation.

The fact that it's not the best, most useful possible design is just evidence that it happened without a Designer.

>> No.3145631

>>3145628
>I just dont think it would

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man. Look around. It did.

>> No.3145633

>>3145610
> There was never a human species found with eyes in random places on their bodies.
well duh, there's only one human species, and we're it.

Also, Symmetry makes the genetic template a whole lot simpler. If it were a program, it would almost halve the size if instead of drawing the whole body you just drew half and mirrored it.

>> No.3145635

>>3145630
>without a Designer.

implying god didnt create the requirements for life and we didnt developed naturally from his design

>> No.3145637

>>3145635
No science vs religion threads. Reported.

>> No.3145639

>>3145635
Oh great, it's the fence sitter...

>> No.3145640

>>3145637
I mean this is science thread nerd

>> No.3145641

>>3145628
Evolution does not produce what is best. That is why your eyes have blind spots just outside your center of vision.

The face is symmetrical because hominids select mates that have more symmetrical features, it's a sign of being healthy, with few parasites or diseases.

Eyes that deviate would fuck up depth perception and other needed aspects of sight, and the owner would produce fewer offspring.

http://youtu.be/8uuQQGnYY2o

>> No.3145643

>>3145635
>implying that a Designer wouldn't know the outcome of its starting materials and just took its best whack at hoping something usable would crop up.
Also, who says an imperfect design isn't more "perfect" than a perfect one?

>> No.3145645

The ones that used to have them - having eyeball in odd places etc. - died or diminished and became bacteria.

Learn "natural selection".

>> No.3145646

>>3145610
>>3145628
>if evolution wanted to find the best spot to place the eyes...
>that its the best spot for a creature
>best
You keep using this word but i don't think you understand evolution.

Evolution doesn't try to find a "best" solution, it only produces solutions that work.
eg. Your eyes work and you didn't die and managed to make couple of babie -> Evolution is happy.

>How do you explain the symmetry of our bodies based off evolution?
Symmetry is fairly easy for evolution to produce, you need only one set of genes to do both sides of your body.
Now we are symmetrical because there was this worm, if i remeber correctly, that was symmetrical. Every fish and mammal comes from that worm -> All higher animals aare symmetrical.

There are cases where this isn't true, for example this weirdo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_flounder
It should be symmetrical but evolution found a better way.

>> No.3145647
File: 22 KB, 280x289, 74838_131748276880210_100001351166006_156921_3455481_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3145647

>>3145635
He's not implying, he's stating. Don't start talking about this, it's off topic.

>> No.3145650

All the old stuffs that had symmetry and a backbone was great success cause it's likea heaps good template for evolution to branch out and shit

All the really fuckold stuffs before them things used self similarity to grow and this caused prollems like growing too big or mobility or some... can't remember that well, was in this docUMENTARY that I saw

>> No.3145651

the same reason why star fish evolved back into radial symmetry from bilateral symmetry. it is what was naturally selected. dumbass.

>> No.3145665

No.

You guys are wrong.
I am right.

There is no way for the world to know how to create an identical eye from my first eye

NO I dont care what you say. Its impossible.

>> No.3145671

>>3145665
It's not Identical.

>> No.3145683
File: 35 KB, 660x422, that.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3145683

>>3145665
>NO I dont care what you say. Its impossible.

Good, then we can quit responding to this nonsense.

>> No.3145684

>>3145671
well obviously different atoms but they use the same mechanism to function and look fucking identical.

i dont give a shit about your "gene template" hurp derp. No.

If an eye is created. Then another eye can NOT mimic the exact eye without an arbitrary source.

The odds are more likely than the chances of life starting on Earth

>> No.3145692

>>3145580
As a disbeliever in evolution I wish you wouldnt have chosen to argue over the eyes.
We have two eyes to determine depth (see the third physical dimension). Its quite the brilliant design. They have to be relatively in the same area and symmetrical for this to work.

>> No.3145698

>>3145692
>disbeliever in evolution

brofist

>> No.3145712

>>3145684
Just go on and believe in Jesus or Mohammad or whomever you worship and leave this science stuff alone. You people haven't agreed with it since before Copernicus. Your disagreement means nothing to the scientists, and science really means nothing to you, either.

Science could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist, and you'd discard all reason to cling to your ideas, so stop wasting everyone's time.

You could also prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does exist, and every scientist would devote himself to proving that God's existence is completely irrelevant to the way things have happened, or that God had no choice. You want things to be arbitrary, and we want things to be inevitable. Who gives a fuck? Isn't it really all the same?

It just doesn't matter. You've got your way, and we've got ours. That doesn't mean that the two ways are equally valid, from a logical standpoint, but that doesn't matter. You just go be illogical and subjective, and we'll be logical and empirical.

You don't need science to justify your faith in God, and we don't need faith in God-- full stop.

>> No.3145718

>>3145712
And by the same token, it doesn't matter what we believe in life because one day we'll all die anyway. It's not like existence has meaning.
At least, that's my argument to shut these useless exchanges up.

The religious (like me) remain in their belief and realise that the other side isn't listening, whereas the 'other side' realise the above point. But then, humans are incredibly stupid.

>> No.3145719

>>3145712
>your disagreement means nothing to the scientists

Your science means nothing to us.

Ill be enjoying my life in the world that was founded on religion.

Have fun on your tiny speck of blue in the infinite universe.

>> No.3145726

>>3145718
this. its like.. whats the point of science...

sure you can help some people if you are extremely lucky... but you only have like 50 years to do it assuming your not a scientist before you are 18.

you are just going to die on a fucking rock if you believe in science

whats the point...?

>> No.3145727

>>3145712
Its impossible to do that with science. That fact that you even said that makes me feel like you are retarded and im wasting my time typing this.
Why, because you believe in science. At the beginning science comes from an assumption.

>> No.3145731

>>3145726
Not quite what I wanted to convey but I'm glad you got it anyway!
I'm trying to discredit the need for pointless argument where neither side listens to the other.

>> No.3145734

>>3145580
>There is no reason why our eyes couldn't be on completely different parts of our body.
Eyes transmit a huge amount of data. Having them close to the place that data is processed is logically the ideal choice.

>There is also no reason why each of our eyes couldn't function completely different than the other.
Learn2 depth perception. The brain calculates distance based on the angles the eyes form when focusing on an object. Plus the data from the left and right eyes are processed into one simultaneous image, independent eye movement causes tearing and distortion to this image.

>> No.3145740

>>3145727
>>3145726
>>3145719
>>3145718

I wrote 712. Maybe you guys didn't read all of it. Maybe you're just much more pathetic about your need to justify your beliefs or belittle any other way of viewing the universe than I'd given you credit for. At any rate, I've got nothing more to say to the lot of you. You're wasting time. You should be praying or reading your holy books or something.

>> No.3145741

>>3145726
>whats the point...?
Progress, knowledge, technology, power, understanding. Take your pick.

>At the beginning science comes from an assumption.
Just one assumption. Science assumes that human beings can understand the universe through scientific method.

Insofar this seems to be true.

>> No.3145742

>>3145580
> I imagine that evolution started off by creating 1 eye

That would be you wallowing in your own fucking ignorance like a pig in shit. Look up "eye spots" on simpler animals.

Hell, my eyes aren't identical. One is worse than the other. They just look similar at a macroscopic level to retards like you.

>> No.3145746

>>3145740
Now where'd that guy go who was delivering the butthurt..?

>> No.3145747

>>3145741
>Progress, knowledge, technology, power, understanding.

You realize all of these things are just mediums for the release of primitive motivatory chemici?

You can take over fucking 30 planets in your space ship and guess what? At the end of the day, the only thing that happend was epinephrine and dopamine was releasing in your brain. Then you die.

Have fun.

>> No.3145749

>>3145746
Off praying to Copernicus and reading Principia, no doubt.

>> No.3145752

>>3145747
>Have fun.
Of course I will. Thats the point isn't it?

>> No.3145753

Don't forget that simple things like balance also come into play. For creatures that live on land, balance is very important, and symmetry adds to balance.

>> No.3145754

>>3145741
No the assumption is that there is an objective universe. Something people assume but can never be proven. You just have to believe. Its a philosophical matter.

>> No.3145758

>>3145747

Jesus Christ. It's like that retard that was trying to convince everyone that suicide is the Game-Theory Optimal solution.

>> No.3145759

really the question is why do we have two eyes. Depth perception if the first answer, greater field of view is another. Now why do they look the same? This is likely as a result of one eye growing oval to pick up a greater fov
until eventually it became 2 separate eyes. Now why haven;t they changed locations and become asymmetric? This is most likely because it is harder to mentally process.

>> No.3145761

>>3145752
Your face when I can still ride around in a spaceship and conquer galaxies, AND BELIEVE IN GOD.

Woah?

>> No.3145763

>>3145747
This is what happens, kids, when you give supreme value to subjective experience.
Heaven is the ultimate subjective positive, and Hell is the ultimate subjective negative. The objective reality is just a means to your subjective end, for those types.

>> No.3145764

>>3145758
I LOLD.

I am that person.

>> No.3145765

>>3145747
But by your logic, it won't actually matter then will it?

>> No.3145767

>>3145741
This.
Rules out philosophical arguments such as Plato's cave and the like.

>> No.3145768

I am pretty sure that OP will never read this and that the guys going off topic in here will still continue, nevertheless I will try to bring an "educated" opinion up as answer of this question.

The symmetry can be seen in any levels of life invertebrates, vertebrates and plants ( yes plants too, for example their flowers mostly have one or several symmetry axes), our common origin is multicellular organisms that formed together from single cellular individuals. These organisms had due to the form of the individual cells certain symmetry properties as the individual cells could only fit together in that way, so I guess that at least the bilateral symmetry was kept from the beginning on the make the grouping of these organism easier. Later the symmetry got broken inside the larger individuals, cut up a human body, you wil lfind the heart on the left and the liver and stomach and several other non symmetric things.

>> No.3145773

>>3145768
What the fuck, get off topic you fag

>> No.3145775

ITT: one person understands genetics.

It's like i am back in high school.

>> No.3145777

>>3145761
What does believing in god accomplish exactly?

>> No.3145784

>>3145777

>Not believing in God
>777

>> No.3145786

>>3145777
Knowledge doesnt need a purpose. I find it irrational that you dont believe.

>> No.3145787

>>3145777
>What does believing in god accomplish exactly?

I have no right to piss of my creator.
Thats how I see it.

I dont care if you dont think he would care whether or not I believed in him. I think he might care and im not losing anything from believing in him.

>> No.3145795

Without science we wouldn't even be having this conversation because there would be no internet, no computers, no electricity, no letters to write, no way to speak and no people to speak.

Also, believing in something doesn't make it true.

>> No.3145796

>>3145763
But wait, Professor! Doesn't that mean that the postulated, objective existence of God is just a means for the believers to experience the ultimate subjective positive in their afterlives, while avoiding the full, harsh responsibilities that come with a living a perishable existence within the context of a perishable society?

Do they even have any clue what real love is?!

>> No.3145805

>>3145787Yes you are, you're losing your sanity.

>> No.3145808

>>3145727
>Its impossible to do that with science.
If you mean to disprove the existence of god, then you are mistaken. There are various flavors of god, some interfering with the physical world with regards to humans, some not. For the ones which do interfere, those god hypotheses offer testable predictions, and so science can disprove them. For the rest, those god hypotheses are by definition impossible for humans to know - there is no interference with humans.

I am atheist about interfering gods based on the evidence, and I am militant agnostic about non-interfering gods - I don't know, and you don't know either. AKA the common atheist.

>> No.3145812

>>3145795
You can practice science all you want. But believing in science religiously is bad.

>> No.3145816

>>3145787
>im not losing anything from believing in him.
You are losing your critical thinking, you are losing your curiosity, you are losing what sets you apart from the trillions of mindless animals and insects which crawl on this earth without ever asking why.

>> No.3145823

>>3145808
Do you have any idea what you said. interfering gods could be seen as the randomness of the universe. You can disprove that.
also
>Implying god doesnt interfere using science

>> No.3145831

>>3145812
As an Agnostic I have no believe in anything.

>> No.3145832

There are two doors.

Door one is the same as door two, but door one also has the possibility of having a heaven.

>atheists actually pick door two

>> No.3145835

>>3145816
>You are losing your critical thinking, you are losing your curiosity

No. I think it would be pretty cool to explain the universe in natural terms. Itd be pretty interesting.

It just wouldn't change anything. I am still extremely curious.

>> No.3145838

>>3145823
Yes you can. You can measure all of the events. If it is true random, then it will satisfy certain criteria. If there's deviations from this probability distribution, then that's detectable. Very hard to do, but possible.

It's like, suppose I give you a stream of random numbers, except every 1000th one is non-random. This is detectable, given enough numbers from the stream.

>> No.3145843

>>3145832
Ha! Like all religions have a heaven.

>> No.3145847

>>3145843
heaven, nirvana, redemption ... whatever you want to call it

>> No.3145849

>>3145796
>Do they even have any clue what real love is?!

No, they don't. They're spared from ever having to really love anyone but themselves by believing that God is controlling everyone's destiny, and by believing that they'll all be together in Heaven, one day. You can't expect them to treat anyone better than they treat their own Deity-- and they constantly sin against him, apologize just to suit their consciences, then commit the same sins again. They are so glad that they've got infidels and pagans to look down upon. Even their most cherished visions of their God show the Deity in suffering and death as a means for their own enjoyment after life. No, they are selfish, hateful, fearful people.

>> No.3145851

>>3145832
There are millions of millions of doors.

Some cattle sacrificing, moon worshiping primitives claim a sky wizard lives behind some of them, and that some of the doors offer reincarnation.

>> No.3145853

more like

door 1 might have an afterlife
door 2 definitely doesn't

>> No.3145858

>>3145838
Impossible to prove because you would need an objective view of the universe.

>> No.3145859

>>3145847
What if you believe in Jesus all your life, only to find out that Voodoo was correct, and you didn't kill enough chickens?

>> No.3145862

>>3145859
if live doesnt give you enough chickens to kill, make lemonade.

>> No.3145867

>>3145859
better to actively try not to burn in hell then to passively act and burn in hell.

>> No.3145873

>>3145849
>>3145796
>>3145763

Well done, Sir. The best posts are always ignored by their opponents, and seldom appreciated by agreeing posters who want to make the definitive statements for their side.

Anyway, I'll say you got it, for the off-topic portion of this thread.

>> No.3145876

>Door 1 might have an afterlife.
>Door 2 definitely doesn't.

The only reason why you would pick door 2 is if you literally hate yourself and the world. If you wanted to die basically.

>> No.3145877

>>3145867
Says who? How does that person know?

>> No.3145880

>>3145867
You are really afraid of a punishment invented to keep medieval peasants in line?

>> No.3145886

>>3145880
I dont have to be afraid of burning for eternity to not want to burn for eternity.

>> No.3145890

>>3145880
>implying im christian
cool fallacy bro

>> No.3145903

>>3145838
>doesnt know that free will disproves him.

>> No.3145904

For that guy who said that religious people are selfish and scared etc.. Heres the thing...

In the bible, god was basically saying "believe in me and you can go to heaven"

He was basically giving you a reason to believe in him regardless of the selfishness of it. He was fine with the fact that you just wanted to go to heaven, it seemed like.

>> No.3145909

>>3145904
>Wanting to go to heaven
pretty strong incentive their

>> No.3145913

>>3145904
do you have any reason to not go to heaven. do you have any reason to not believe in god

>> No.3145916

>>3145909
Heaven was basically described as 24/7 LSD trip so ya....

>> No.3145920

Most open-plains herbivores, especially hoofed grazers, lack binocular vision because they have their eyes on the sides of the head, providing a panoramic, almost 360°, view of the horizon - enabling them to notice the approach of predators from almost any direction. However most predators have both eyes looking forwards, allowing binocular depth perception and helping them to judge distances when they pounce or swoop down onto their prey. Animals that spend a lot of time in trees take advantage of binocular vision in order to accurately judge distances when rapidly moving from branch to branch.

>> No.3145923

>>3145913
>do you have any reason to not believe in god

No. There is no reason not to.
Like I said, you might be pissing him off.
Simple as that.

>> No.3145930

>>3145637
>religion vs science threads against the rules
>reported almost 90 mins ago
>thread not deleted

>no rule against threads discussing race
>earlier thread discussing the relative need for intelligence in humans in cold environments vs humans in temperate environments during the ice age was deleted within 2 posts.

Let's just make a rule saying no non-politically-correct threads, eh?

>> No.3145934

>>3145903
>believes that free will is supernatural
Dan Dennett was here. Determinism and free will are bros.

>> No.3145935

>>3145923
Forcing yourself to believe in God even with reasonable doubt is lying to yourself. Lying is a sin.

>> No.3145944

>>3145923
Wait, I have a reason!

I haven't perceived any God through any of the senses He supposedly gave me. Also, Flying Spaghetti Monster.

At least I can smell spaghetti.

>> No.3145949

>>3145934
Not good enough. If you say will can be looked on as an equation then i would say that the equation can only be determined after my death.

>> No.3145950

>>3145935
>Forcing yourself to believe in God
Im not forcing anything...
If god created me and he wants me to believe in him then he deserves that attention. It doesn't hurt me at all.

>Lying is a sin.
Depends what you believe. I haven't even read the bible but still believe in a god.

>> No.3145953

>>3145949
Your argument is "It must be magic! It's unexplainable! Any attempt to explain it through material explanations must be wrong!".

My reply is "That's nice".

>> No.3145954

>>3145944
Have you perceived the rings of neptune. If they were real i would have seen them buy now.

>> No.3145958

>>3145953
My reply is you cant prove it. Suck it up.

>> No.3145961

>>3145944
>Flying Spaghetti Monster

If there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster out there that wants me to believe in him them im fine with that. I wouldnt really care about pissing him off though unless he was involved with the creation of my body.

>> No.3145972

>>3145903
>>3145934

You guys who haven't should really look into Dennet's soft Determinism. He does a lovely job of redefining the concept of choice.

What would absolutely free will be? Something totally divorced from any sort of cause and effect? In that case, it's random. Something divorced from physical cause and effect, but subject to cause and effect on some spiritual plane? In that case, it's Determined. Something unrelated to physical or spiritual cause and effect, but stemming from your dual nature? In that case, it's, at best, an interplay of conflicting influences, possibly with a random variable.

If you weren't the First Cause, then you've never really had a choice. You're just the product of your influences, either with or without a random variable to make it interesting.

Ultimately, the concept of free will is nothing more than justification for society to punish lawbreakers. It is necessary, since if society offered no punishment to lawbreakers, it could not exist.

>> No.3145992
File: 39 KB, 300x427, neptune rings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3145992

>>3145954
Yeah, I saw them on Nightline, when Voyager 2 passed by. It was cool.

Here's a pic.

>> No.3145996

>>3145958
But I can. I can prove that you are no more than the result of physical processes in your brain. There have been plenty of conscious open brain surgery experiments, and plenty of after the fact studies done on people with very specific kinds of brain injuries. In total, this proves that the human mind is merely the result of the human brain. You can take apart your mind, your consciousness, your free will, piece by piece, by taking apart your brain.

>> No.3146003

>>3145961
He was. And if you believe in him, you'll get bottomless pasta for all eternity, with breadsticks. If you don't, you'll be cleaning the toilets for all the people who are eating the pasta and breadsticks, for all eternity.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you.

>> No.3146008

>>3146003
>The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you.

I see what you did there.

However I haven't read the bible and don't follow all the rules in that. It could be exaggerated to scare people 2 thousand years ago... you never know.

>> No.3146010

>>3145996
I can say that those physical processes are a result of my mind. The brain is nothing more than more than a house for it.

>> No.3146015

>>3145992
You didnt perceive it, you perceived the perception of something else that saw it.

>> No.3146017

>>3146008
So you just make up some irrational shit out of a bunch of different influences stemming from one or more holy books that you haven't read and bet the farm on it being right?

Ok, then.

>> No.3146020

>>3146010
And yet when we damage this particular part of the brain, you lose your long term memory. When we manipulate this other part of the brain, you become a compulsive gambler. Your free will is already manipulable through careful and directed modifications of your brain.

>> No.3146021

>>3146015
I did, yes. If it was something that was of great personal interest to me, I might not be satisfied with that. However, since it's a trivial bit of information and the source seems reliable, I'll go with it.

>> No.3146024

>>3146020
No, see? It was HIS MIND that MADE you make those changes to his brain!

>> No.3146025

>>3146017
I dont base any of my beliefs on any book.
Just what makes sense to me.

I was created by a being(or beings) that is incomprehensible by my human brain.

I dont like to piss him off by saying "he doesn't exist." I just think its blatantly rude. I dont lose anything from thinking he exists either.

>> No.3146036

>>3146024
>>>/x/

>> No.3146042

>>3146020
No you cant. You can create the strong urges to but it is still me who chooses them. By your argument you need a long term memory to have free will. Being compulsive is a learned habit.

>> No.3146054

>>3146042
No. Being compulsive can be the result of a particular brain chemistry. I forget which exact medicine it was for, but there's well documented cases of particular medicines that have been known to turn susceptible people into compulsive gamblers.

Of course, you're adamant in refusing the evidence to maintain your house of cards world with asinine ad-hoc hypotheses. And so this conversion is basically over.

>> No.3146072

>>3146054
If gambling never existed then i cant be a compulsive gambler. If the concept of gambling never comes across my mind then i cant gamble. You have to influence me to gamble and then i have to learn to be compulsive.

>> No.3146075

>>3146025
>Just what makes sense to me.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You just believe whatever you feel you must, to go on being a happy, healthy, good, brave person in your life. Leave science alone, though, please.

>> No.3146077

>>3146072
I forgot to add the compulsive is a relative term. You cant objectify it.

>> No.3146084

>>3146075
>Leave science alone, though, please.

Nah.
You would be out of your mind to think im not going to abuse the shit out of those personal space ships you science nerds make for me.

AHAHAHA

>> No.3146092

>>3146042
>it is still me who chooses them
See
>>3145972
Who chooses? By what process? Dependent upon what other processes? Who controls those other processes? How?

You have no clue. You might have some guesses that seem to satisfy you, but you can't say you've done any serious experimental or even philosophical inquiry, tested against a reliable standard of proof.

>> No.3146101

>>3146084
You can be a consumer, obviously, of the results of scientific inquiry, without trying to derail the process that brings you the conveniences, conveyances and other enhancements you enjoy.
It's fine that your spiritual ancestors persecuted the intellectual ancestors of the people who've made your life so comfortable. It was what it was. You don't have to continue making their mistakes, though. It would be better for all of us, if you didn't.

>> No.3146109

>>3146101
>You can be a consumer, obviously

No, I think you misunderstood me.
I am going to hire a scientist one day who invents a sick efficient rocket engine. Then im just going to take all the credit for it and make billions and be the first to colonize other planets.

You are mad as shit.

>> No.3146110

>>3146092
>philosophical inquiry
all the time. The processes are irrelevant. Its my perception of the processes that matter.

Lets take what you said as fact. Can you even prove that the process occurred? If i see the light as yellow and you see it as green, what color is the light. We make different choices based on what we perceive. My perception is my own. What your eyes see is raw data. You have to give it meaning.

>> No.3146122

We developed the extra eye because in order to have depth perception.

>> No.3146124

Eyes in stationary positions relative to each other allow the brain to easily create a 3D model of the world. Eyes moving relative to each other don't.
We didn't start out with one eye, rather some kind of all-over photoreceptiveness. Over time animals that put less energy into making all the photoreceptive material survived better, and eventually we ended up with two light sensitive patches. These were near the mouth of the creature, which allowed it to gain material and food. There were two, not because all bacteria decided it was a good idea, but because those with three used more energy, and those with one didn't have stereoscopic vision and therefore couldn't build an accurate model of the world.

>> No.3146126

2 hands but only 1 penis. God and Evolution are both wrong.

>> No.3146128

>>3146110
>it's my perception of the processes that matter.
>my perception
>my

Nope.

>> No.3146130

>>3146109
Actually no.
Scrap that.

Im actually going to take this new rocket technology. Im going to use it to go to other planets and im going to bring seeds from all Earths plants for food. Then im just going to develop a society on some other planet completely exclusive from Earth. Nasa will never get off of earth because they dont have the technology. So Ill be out there developing my society and I will actually own the entire galaxy and all the planets will have defense turrets just incase NASA decides to try to get off earth.

>> No.3146135

>>3146128
Is it your perception?

>> No.3146138

>>3146109
In the situation you described, you would still be a consumer of that knowledge.

>> No.3146144
File: 48 KB, 287x287, 1304750305222.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3146144

>>3146128

>> No.3146146

>>3146135
Who cares?

The importance of consensus is implied in the necessity for replicable experimental results.

I'm not going any further down your rabbit hole than that, faggot.

>> No.3146151

>>3146138
>still be a consumer

alright then fuck you.

Ill create the technology by myself and never share it with anyone and just make billions of my asteroid mining and you scientists will be so fucking mad

>> No.3146156
File: 28 KB, 450x450, thatsnice_cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3146156

>>3146130

>> No.3146157

>>3146151
Ok.

>> No.3146164

>>3146146
>Bitches dont know bout synesthesia
>The importance of consensus
So we have to agree for something to exist now

>> No.3146165
File: 18 KB, 369x297, Borat-flag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3146165

>>3146144
HAHA! YEAH!

He was clearly very angry when he pointed out the solipsism in that previous post!

GREAT SUCCESS!!!

>> No.3146169

>>3146157
You mad?

Im going to be done mining all the asteroids in our galaxy by the time NASA even goes to another planet. Ill have trillions. Im going to spend every penny of it keeping NASA inside Earths bounds. If they ever leave the atmosphere I will shoot them down every single time.

But I wont destroy the planet. O' no.

Just let them sit there with a stagnant technology.
Yes. Thats what ill do.

>> No.3146171

>>3146164
>So we have to agree for something to exist now

Not really. You and all the other schizos can do whatever you like, so long as you don't mind the fact that we're going to confine you a bit, to keep you from hurting yourselves and others.

Again, just keep your retardation off my /sci/.

>> No.3146175

>>3146169
Thank you for a very enjoyable debate. Goodnight.

>> No.3146176

>>3146165
Lets start with solipsism
>solipsism
>the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.
Can you prove anything other than that to me.

>> No.3146181

>>3146171
The buttfrustration from your post.
It reeks of defeat.
>Again, just keep your retardation off my /sci/
so synesthese are retarded now.

>> No.3146182

>>3146176
All formal can be proven independently of reality.

>> No.3146185

>>3146182
No, because i first assume its theres.

>> No.3146188

>>3146176
I need not prove any other postulate. I can debunk yours:

http://www.humantruth.info/solipsism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Responses

Solipsism is a dead notion.

>> No.3146198

>>3146169
any1 wanna help me do this?

I already emailed space-ex

>> No.3146203

>>3146188
stating a belief that says otherwise means nothing. You havent debunked my postulate. All youve said was you disagree

>> No.3146219

>>3146181
Someone suffering from synesthesia has a malfunctioning brain. They can deal with it, most of the time, but it's just not useful to consider that sounds have colors, for most people.

What, really are you on about, anyway?
You're not going to be the first person in history to empirically or philosophically prove the existence of God beyond any reasonable doubt. If it has been done before and hasn't worked, it's reasonable to assume it won't work now. If it has never been done before, I doubt you'll do it now.
Even if God does exist, he's had plenty of opportunities to prove that to humanity in the past, and he hasn't done so. Apparently, he wants faith, not a response to physical stimuli (beyond the teaching that got pushed down your throat when you were a child). So, let the baby have his bottle. Let people believe in God on pure faith, ok? It seems to be important to him.

As for those of us without faith, we're going to go on the way we always have, trying to figure stuff out.

I don't know how you could say I've been butthurt or buttfrustrated in this thread. I've been nothing but unusually butt patient with you. But now I'm getting butt tired, and I'm going to go to butt bed, ok?

I'll be sure to say my butt prayers to my butt God before I go to butt sleep, ok?

>> No.3146227

>>3146203
You didn't even read the links.

You're butthurt. You're so buttfrustrated. You're buttbesideyourbuttself.

>> No.3146239

>>3146219
>Someone suffering from synesthesia has a malfunctioning brain
Can you prove that your brain isnt malfunctioning.
I never tried to prove the existence of god. One im just saying you cant disprove it so dont try. Two im stating why i believe it is the more logical choice.

>> No.3146249
File: 999 KB, 467x700, shiva-acid-bom.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3146249

ORDER OUT OF CHAOS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPjv5gIUeU8

>> No.3146253

>>3146227
Yes i did. Which is why I replied in the manner I did.
I disagree with every point that they made.
things like why would you create pain for yourself is the most superficial bullshit ive ever read.

>> No.3147570

free will debate derails yet another /sci/ thread.

I guess it's fitting. We're all athiests here so we need something else to polute our boards.

Shit.

>> No.3147621

>>3147570
no, no we are not.
I am an Igtheist.
Meaning that since there is no coherent definition of God and all the partial definitions suggest the subject is outside human understanding we cannot possibly have any meaningful discussion about it.
You can't even say you believe X does or does not exist untill we have decided what X is.

>> No.3147710

>>3147621
well, you sure don't believe in humour

>> No.3148342

>>3147621
X is the same thing but we have different interpretations of x. Its pointless to argue interpretation unless you know x exist.

>> No.3148456

>>3148342

how could you delude yourself into "knowing" that other peoples definitions of something that may be different to your definition of something are even both definitions of the same thing and so therefore that same thing must exist in some form?

>> No.3148515

>>3148456
Reading comprehension, learn how to into it.
I never said it exist because people believe in it.

Because from their definition we know we are talking about the same thing we debate the definition.

>> No.3148518

>>3145580


How do you explain the symmetry of our bodies based off evolution?

> God.... Trololololo

We have 2 eyes that are symmetrical on our face

>Depth perception

and the mouth and nose are in the middle

> you only need one,

centrally locate them and 2 ears on each side

>To increase your hearing and so you can differentiate where the sound is coming from kinda like depth perception

.... 2 arms 2 legs a penis in the center etc...

>Being biped or quadriped is good for movement. Two arms because it came from having 2 legs there originally plus easier to climb trees as a monkey.

For example the eyes. I imagine that evolution started off by creating 1 eye for some sort of organism billions of years ago... So it had one eye... Why on Earth would the second eye be created identical to the first one and symmetrical to it?

>Organisms with depth perception survive because they don't fall of of fucking cliffs or out of trees.

There is no reason why our eyes couldn't be on completely different parts of our body.

> Seriously Depth Perception and the reason why eyes are close to your head is so that you can process your environment faster, good when being hunted and so that if you injure yourself over your lifetime then you still have your eyes. If you had an injury to your skull/eye region it would likely kill you before the last couple hundred years anyways.


There is also no reason why each of our eyes couldn't function completely different than the other.

> You seriously undervalue depth perception.

It makes no sense to me.

>Depth Perception