-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 12458)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ - Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603
12458

File 145750821398.jpg - (22.25KB , 900x600 , crop-538599cc8101c-imgID3636752.jpg )

Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?


>>
Anonymous 16/03/10(Thu)21:17 No. 12459 ID: eb915c
12459

File 145764105212.jpg - (202.30KB , 800x600 , 1414357093868.jpg )

Nah. He thought bears could evolve into whales if they spent enough time in water.

He was a autist that started tipping his fedora because he couldn't understand why predators kill their prey in such cruel fashion (as if nature is supposed to be a giant hugbox). Basically, he copied Herbert Spencers phrase "Survival of the fittest" and built up this pseudo-scientific notion that there is a harsh struggle for survival in the wild when in reality even sick or deformed animals can survive.

If natural selection was true then genetic defects wouldn't exist.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/10(Thu)22:21 No. 12460 ID: 9fcbea

>>12459
I think you need to do some reading.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/11(Fri)00:41 No. 12461 ID: eb915c

>>12460

Not really. I think you, on the other hand, need to.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/22(Tue)09:56 No. 12472 ID: 89ff48

>>12459
Wow, another tard on the net who doesn't realize how stupid they really are. Great.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/22(Tue)17:48 No. 12477 ID: eb915c
12477

File 145866531621.gif - (140.94KB , 287x344 , 143321257863.gif )

>>12472

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/3

Charles Darwin took a stab at accounting for whales in the first edition of Origin of Species. He noted that black bears had been seen swimming with their mouths open for hours at a time on the surface of a lake, feeding on floating insects. "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths," Darwin concluded, "till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." His critics poked such loud and gleeful fun at this image, however, that he eventually omitted it from later editions of his book.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/29(Tue)12:19 No. 12486 ID: 5cf9b7

If you mean the people who didn't want to reproduce died out, and only left the people who want to reproduce, then yes.

>>12459
Look up "gene mutations". It's the reason why there are both defects and fittests. Read a book


>>
Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)01:13 No. 12489 ID: 44cd17

>>12458
No, that was Douglas Adams.

It's 42.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)02:02 No. 12490 ID: eb915c
12490

File 145929617412.jpg - (49.59KB , 780x437 , 143321075219.jpg )

>>12486

Genetic mutation is not natural selection. Natural selection according to Darwin is "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

In other words, bears swimming around in water with their mouths open will produce a larger body and gills. The man that discovered that genetic mutation produce new phenotypical traits was Hugo de Vries. Hugo de Vries, when he discovered this, presented it as a alternative theory to Darwins pants-on-head retarded idea about bears simply being in the water for x number of years. Of course, since Darwins fanboys got proven wrong about their notion that suggests organisms as passive in the face of random selection, they simply adopted de Vries ideas as part of Darwins narrative.

"Natural selection" is no real mechanism or a valid theory. It is conflated concepts that form a circular argument for fedoras tippers: if it isn't the active role of inherited traits (passed on for x number of years and rarely change at all) that makes a organism develop, it is the passive role of the organism itself just being in a environment.

Natural selection itself makes zero sense because stability is the norm and not change. Darwin himself bred pidgeons and actively changed their traits but somehow came to the conclusion that the environment itself is what makes organisms change and since he called randomness to be the cause for change, he basically went full retard.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)02:37 No. 12491 ID: 314113

>>12490
>muh anti atheism meymeys

Fuck off.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


>>
Anonymous 16/04/03(Sun)21:27 No. 12496 ID: eb915c
12496

File 145971166793.jpg - (63.63KB , 550x550 , Angry autist.jpg )

>>12491

Angry autist spotted.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/10(Sun)08:04 No. 12498 ID: 98407e

The question of the meaning of life is arguably the most meaningless question available.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/22(Fri)17:58 No. 12509 ID: eb915c
12509

File 146134072247.jpg - (64.56KB , 550x550 , Intelligent.jpg )

>>12505

Nope. Darwins first theory was that bears simply had to be in water in order to develop new bodily traits. Deal with it.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/22(Fri)21:32 No. 12511 ID: eb915c

>>12510

The point is that Darwin was wrong from the very start and his autistic fanboys adopted other scientists ideas in order to make his retarded idea valid.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/24(Sun)16:26 No. 12513 ID: eb915c

>>12512

lol, you are retarded. It is the genes that make the beaks differ in shape and size.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/uu-eia041516.php

A team of scientists from Uppsala University and Princeton University has now identified a gene that explains variation in beak size within and among species.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)18:17 No. 12515 ID: eb915c
12515

File 146160102119.jpg - (33.86KB , 550x550 , Autism.jpg )

>>12514


Hey, I'm not the retard that thinks De Vries ideas was something Darwin came up with.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR BEING TO AUTISTIC TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIATION AND SELECTION.)


>>
Anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)23:29 No. 12518 ID: eb89c4

Wow, so our silly mods still get triggered by non-fedoras.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/26(Tue)23:29 No. 12519 ID: eb915c
12519

File 146170615375.jpg - (43.91KB , 550x550 , Maximum autism.jpg )

>>12518

A typical euphoric temper tantrum from a power tripping neckbeard.

Notice how he became so infuriated that he couldn't spell "too" properly in "being to autistic". Must be heartbreaking to realize that Darwins idea was moronic from the get-go and only autists think it is valid.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/26(Tue)23:37 No. 12520 ID: 04b9df

>>12519

Not part of this conversation up until now, but really if you people want to discuss philosophy you should be capable of doing it in a more tact and intellectual manner than you're all displaying.

No person genuinely interested in philosophy would act like so ridiculously out of order. I'm expecting far too much from this board in saying that, considering most of it is image macros and generic idle questions.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/30(Sat)16:51 No. 12528 ID: eb915c
12528

File 14620278845.jpg - (30.16KB , 550x550 , Asperger man of great tipping.jpg )

>>12525

Selected via nature? lol, did you even read what you just wrote? There is no selection, you moron.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/02(Mon)15:19 No. 12536 ID: aee2e1

>>12528

Isn't selection for maximum number of offspring the entire point? Or are you conflating that with intentional selection? It's not called "selective pressure" for nothing.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/05(Thu)16:05 No. 12540 ID: eb915c
12540

File 146245713561.jpg - (32.46KB , 550x550 , Aspergers.jpg )

>>12530

I love how oblivious you are about your own statements.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/06(Fri)03:19 No. 12543 ID: 5a53ee

>>12540
I love how you insult everyone the instant they point out the holes in your logic.

You've already been banned once for it, I guess you want round two?


>>
Anonymous 16/05/06(Fri)19:34 No. 12544 ID: eb915c

>>12543

Do you seriously believe "natural selection" is valid? lol, you're the one with twisted logic if you think there is any kind of selection involved.

Fedora logic.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/06(Fri)21:15 No. 12545 ID: 319e01

>>12544
What is the alternative, that some very specific conception of God shat out all the animals in more or less their current forms no earlier than 10,000 years ago?

...but don't just let me make a strawman. Tell us how you understand the history of life on Earth.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)01:32 No. 12551 ID: eb915c

>>12548

Ah, so you DO admit that there is no actual selection taking place and that the term "natural selection" is a oxymoronic pile of garbage? Good. Because the concept is a meaningless conflation and actually shows how circular your logic is.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)05:17 No. 12552 ID: 319e01

>>12551
Oh, okay, I get it now. For a moment there I hoped you would provide a more compelling model of the history of life on earth, but in fact you're just arguing the semantics of the phrase "natural selection."

So what you're saying is that you would have chosen a different name for that phenomenon, therefore everybody else that doesn't agree must wear hats that you find silly.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)05:27 No. 12553 ID: eb915c
12553

File 146259165633.jpg - (37.75KB , 550x513 , 146245713561-1.jpg )

>>12552

No, you autist. It is not about semantics. "Natural selection" is a oxymoron and is devoid of logic. You're pretty dense.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)15:42 No. 12556 ID: 319e01

>>12553
So clearly you're so autistically furious that you typed "a oxymoron" instead of "an oxymoron" because as you explained yourself in >>12519 making typos and usage mistakes is the sign of an angry losing autist.

To deal with more substantial issues, you still haven't explained what you would call the process if not "natural selection," or, if you reject that model entirely, what model you'd use instead to explain the origins of life on Earth today.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)16:18 No. 12557 ID: eb915c

>>12554

There is no selection. Selection requires a motivated action and the environment doesn't act. So sorry, you're obviously too dense to understand what you're saying.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/22(Sun)19:05 No. 12571 ID: 3811dd

>>12458
You could argue, from a certain point of view, that perhaps he had.

Darwin had discovered that life on earth seeks diversity and adaptation in order to occupy every niche of every environment with life. He was limited by the knowledge and technology of his time--imagine if he knew bacteria grow deep in the crust of the earth!

He was perhaps among the first to lift the veil of human vanity and see life itself as a unified force of proliferation, to get a glimpse of the order of nature over which humanity had not dominion, but profound interdependence. From this perspective I would argue he discovered the meaning of life is to proliferate, to expand, multiply, and diversify indefinetly--and consistently raise the bar on the "top" of the food chain.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/06(Mon)18:13 No. 12584 ID: eb915c

>>12559

You call me retarded and yet you can't even link to your own post properly. Congratulations.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/18(Sat)11:51 No. 12606 ID: ede32c
12606

File 146624348414.jpg - (26.57KB , 569x428 , 3345289.jpg )

Why don't we permaban eb915c for thinking he's right by using his own logic so that he'll return to that one site where using your own logic to win an argument is very common


>>
Anonymous 16/06/18(Sat)18:35 No. 12607 ID: eb915c
12607

File 146626774612.jpg - (55.46KB , 520x292 , 143355065140.jpg )

>>12606

Our biological similarity to the apes was known long before there were geneticists or even before Darwin and his pants-on-head-retarded idea was known.

It is not uncommon to encounter the statement that we are something like 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. You can count the number of base differences among the same region of DNA in humans and chimpanzees and gorillas, and add them up. The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating insertions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well?

Tabulating both nucleotide substitutions and insertions/deletions, researchers have found the chimpanzee and human genomes not to be over 98 percent identical, but closer to 95 percent identical. The problem, however, is not that the two genomes are “only” 95 percent identical, but that any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. Neither number has the force of accuracy, because the precise number obtained depends on what one recognizes as a meaningful difference, how one counts it (is a three-hundred-base insertion three hundred differences or only one?), and whether there is any scientific value at all in trying to derive an official amount of genetic difference between the two species’ genomes in the first place when the official amount necessarily combines differences of quantity and quality.

In other words: euphoric fedoras love to conflate different concepts in order to fit their narrative.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/22(Wed)02:11 No. 12612 ID: 0c11cc
12612

File 146655431594.jpg - (11.40KB , 275x183 , images.jpg )

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.


>>
Anonymous 16/09/01(Thu)18:57 No. 12665 ID: 7cf7bd
12665

File 147274905824.jpg - (32.54KB , 331x448 , 0317b6aaf8e0f245d3d5aea0cf4d5efb.jpg )

>>12612

Jesus, just like Abraham and Moses, was a schizophrenic moron. pic related, Jewish insanity in a nutshell.


>>
Anonymous 16/09/20(Tue)19:51 No. 12673 ID: eb915c

>>12665

All Abrahamic religions are just as retarded as atheism.


>>
Anonymous 16/10/11(Tue)21:54 No. 12680 ID: 56a6ee

>>12673
Let me guess, backpacker Buddhist read a self-help book and took a getaway trip to some shitty temple only to come back and tell everyone how worldly you are?


>>
Anonymous 16/10/17(Mon)22:52 No. 12685 ID: 27c313

>>12489
Fuckin fuck it is.

Seriously though, given the opportunity, Darwin could rock the shit out of any evolutionary theory modernists attempt to propagate into effect.


>>
Anonymous 16/10/17(Mon)23:00 No. 12686 ID: 27c313

>>12665
Abraham and Moses were Schizophrenic, but neither were morons. In fact, for being alive in the age and era they grew to recognize, they were 2 pegs short of genius. Jesus was an idiot who didn't like rich people, lived in a golden age of Roman idiocy, and for it, was romanticized as the savior it is necessary to worship even if he is a rotting corpse. If you read the New Testament, it says Jesus 2 to 5 times on every page.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/01(Tue)17:58 No. 12698 ID: 7cf7bd
12698

File 147801952970.jpg - (5.15KB , 299x168 , images.jpg )

>>12673

Yeah. Fedora autists are the worst, though. Basement dwelling atheists that watch way too much sci-fi movies and Ancient Aliens conspiracy crap. Tinfoil experts, basically.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/05(Sat)08:17 No. 12701 ID: d78ba2

You mean that there is no meaning? Probably.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/21(Mon)22:52 No. 12724 ID: 7cf7bd
12724

File 147976512651.jpg - (3.27KB , 182x160 , images-1.jpg )

>>12701

*tips fedora*


>>
Anonymous 16/11/26(Sat)10:13 No. 12727 ID: 57a468

>>12698
> Basement dwelling atheists that watch way too much sci-fi movies
> Ancient Aliens conspiracy crap.
Pick one.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)07:49 No. 12728 ID: a6be23

From a purely biological standpoint if you are a nihilist.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)19:27 No. 12733 ID: 7cf7bd
12733

File 148035767585.jpg - (7.41KB , 223x226 , images-1.jpg )

>>12727

Butthurt euphoric fedora spotted. Go and make a tinfoil hat, manchild. The aliens are coming, lol.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/30(Wed)02:04 No. 12735 ID: 44a931

>>12490
Intentionally bothering with traits within animals (and plants) is called artificial selection. Natural selection is just the proposed idea that animals most tuned in with their environment will most likely survive, and will shape the future of the species as a whole. The bear in water thing is pretty stupid, however, and such big changes in a species seems too silly to be possible.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/13(Tue)03:32 No. 12748 ID: 7cf7bd
12748

File 148159635283.jpg - (40.23KB , 546x531 , 146160102119-1.jpg )

>>12735

http://www.colorado.edu/today/2015/08/05/natural-selection-can-impede-formation-new-species
>"This is one of the best demonstrations we know of regarding the counteractive effects of natural selection on speciation,” said Flaxman of CU-Boulder’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, second author on the new study. “We show how the brown population essentially carries genes back and forth between the green populations, acting as a genetic bridge that causes a slowdown in divergence.”

You're stuck in your self-perpetuating fedora tipping logic. Darwins ideas are just as dead as he is.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/16(Fri)16:30 No. 12751 ID: f5c439

While I don't think that he did, I do like the idea of our purpose being to continue developing and bettering ourselves one generation at a time whether that be physically, mentally, socially or however.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/16(Fri)20:54 No. 12753 ID: 28edad

>>12748
every time i see people using less than a century of research to disprove evolution i feel more sorry for humanity as a whole.

just because your limited perspective doesn't allow you to see the long term effects of environmental change and migration on a species doesn't mean evolution isn't happening.

the world was not made in seven days; the quasi-christian posit that it's only about 5000 years old makes no sense by either christian theology or science.

Natural selection takes centuries.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/17(Sat)01:33 No. 12754 ID: 7cf7bd
12754

File 148193480988.jpg - (6.73KB , 194x259 , images.jpg )

>>12753

http://www.phys.org/news/2015-02-scientists-hasnt-evolved-billion-years.html
>Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years

Keep on clinging to your fedora and your outdated, autistic 17th century neckbeard idol, keyboard warrior.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/17(Sat)12:04 No. 12755 ID: e41ff4

>>12753
You really have to hand it to people who are so oblivious that they take an active role in demonstrating that people with low IQs are drawn to conservative ideologies.


>>
Anonymous 17/01/08(Sun)03:58 No. 12784 ID: eb915c
12784

File 148384432780.jpg - (121.57KB , 1281x770 , 144055111375.jpg )

>>12754


>>
Anonymous 17/01/19(Thu)17:38 No. 12792 ID: 1dd666

>>12784

Truly euphoric.

*tips fedora*


>>
Anonymous 17/01/22(Sun)23:38 No. 12798 ID: eb915c

>>12792

Fedora tippers are hilarious. All they do is regurgitate whatever some old conspiracy nut like Dawkins writes. How can anyone take him seriously? Aliens, lol.


>>
Anonymous 17/01/31(Tue)23:46 No. 12806 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12798

This thread pretty much proves that evolution as a theory is so flawed it is laughable. Darwins idea have zero credibility.


>>
Anonymous 17/02/01(Wed)20:07 No. 12807 ID: eb915c

>>12806

I'll say it again..fedora tippers just repeat whatever they read on Wikipedia or what some clown like Dawkins write.


>>
Anonymous 17/02/02(Thu)03:53 No. 12808 ID: eb915c
12808

File 148600401891.jpg - (94.58KB , 500x500 , Cognitive dissonance.jpg )

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03
>Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal "power plants", called mitochondria.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30263-9
>A Eukaryote without a Mitochondrial Organelle


>>
Anonymous 17/02/04(Sat)17:29 No. 12809 ID: f88b20

>>12459
read out "recessive alleles"
fucking retard


>>
Anonymous 17/02/04(Sat)20:28 No. 12810 ID: eb915c
12810

File 148623653023.png - (148.68KB , 558x418 , 1387381150755.png )

>>12809

Why so mad? Are you too euphoric? Genetic mutation =/= natural selection


>>
Anonymous 17/02/04(Sat)23:27 No. 12811 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12810

Ignore the fedora autist. He's just tipping his headgear as quickly as possible in order to counter his cognitive dissonance. The fact that Darwin was wrong from the very beginning hurt his feelings and now he's going to 420 blaze it so he can forget about the tears he shed.

"Natural selection" is so moronic it's funny.



[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason