lapal_fan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Because we're obviously getting further away from the centre of the universe, and that the galaxies, planets & stars of the early big bang are all now dead, and anything further away than us from the centre of the universe, does that mean anything after us is going to be evolutionarily "younger" and anything closer to the centre of the universe will be more evolved (older) (and thus potentially more of a threat)? Or could it be plausible that younger, less evolved life can evolve much quicker than us and or life forms on our planet? Also, we're 1% away (DNA wise) from a Chimpanzee. Obviously the intelligence gap between us is vast, because the smartest Chimpanzee that ever lived (in our awareness anyway) could only muster a few hand signals to communicate. So if we were to "meet" a species that was 1% further on than where we are, imagine how much smarter they would be compared to us. It would be like our infants being born with the intuition of complex algebra, being able to speak all of the words, an understanding of all the things we do and thinking "that's cute" when they look at us. Where to start? There probably isn't a centre of the universe, at least not in the terms you suggest. "More evolved" doesn't mean anything. The amount of evolving doesn't affect the degree to which a species suits its environment. There is life on Earth that hasn't changed in a billion years because continuing evolution can't improve how good a match it is for it's environment. This kind of thinking leads to some people thinking that humans are in some way evolutionarily superior to other species. We aren't. There is no control or plan for evolution. Humans are trending towards being shorter, but better nutrition means that on average we are taller. The future of humans might be smaller brain power if that selects for sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle. Evolution is non-deterministic. The only measure of "better" in evolution is how well something suits its environment. There is no reason to think that being born with a knowledge of algebra will bestow an evolutionary advantage. I'm aware of that. The main culprits people will say are Sharks/Crocodiles. But the same can be said of many fauna species. If there is no threat, then change is not required. I saw a video yesterday in which Professor Richard Dawkins was talking about the Cuckoo and how it is a parasite in the way it lays it's eggs (The female Cuckoo will replace say, a Robins egg with a Cuckoo egg and fly away, leaving the baby Cuckoo egg to be looked after by it's "foster" parent). What amazed me was that the Cuckoo females can replace an egg in different species of birds (Robins, Meadow Pipits etc) and the egg that Cuckoo lays will look nearly identical to the rest of the eggs in the nest in which it was laid. So the question put was "How does the Female Cuckoo know which eggs to lay and in which nests to lay them?" It turns out that the colour and size of the egg the female lays is determined in the XY Chromosomes. In humans the females are XX and men are XY, in birds this is reversed. So they think that the egg variations are on the Y Chromosomes of the Cuckoo and that previous generations of female Cuckoos from that family line determine which eggs/nests the Cuckoos raid and lay in. Sounds pretty boring to most people I'm sure, but it made me realise how we're almost pre-programmed to act in specific ways. How a simple Cuckoo can instinctively know which species of birds nest to invade, lay in and carry on the species is amazing I think. Oddly, some female Cuckoos make mistakes and so the nest host can easily identify the Cuckoo egg, which then gets thrown out and destroyed. SCIENCE BITCHES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Because we're obviously getting further away from the centre of the universe, and that the galaxies, planets & stars of the early big bang are all now dead, and anything further away than us from the centre of the universe, does that mean anything after us is going to be evolutionarily "younger" and anything closer to the centre of the universe will be more evolved (older) (and thus potentially more of a threat)? Or could it be plausible that younger, less evolved life can evolve much quicker than us and or life forms on our planet? Also, we're 1% away (DNA wise) from a Chimpanzee. Obviously the intelligence gap between us is vast, because the smartest Chimpanzee that ever lived (in our awareness anyway) could only muster a few hand signals to communicate. So if we were to "meet" a species that was 1% further on than where we are, imagine how much smarter they would be compared to us. It would be like our infants being born with the intuition of complex algebra, being able to speak all of the words, an understanding of all the things we do and thinking "that's cute" when they look at us. We are also 1% DNA away from celery. And we also do not know what around 99% of DNA does. Only a small fraction of it we know relates to our biology etc. I often wonder whether the rest of it that we don't know constitutes some kind of story of human life like a memory of the species. Anyway we are not obviously getting further away from the centre - there is more measurable scientific evidence to suggest we are the centre. And science r.e big bang / nature of the universe is borderline pseudo science. Evolution could be possible but it is infact (at least macro evolution) a very very weak scientific theory with no convincing evidence and very limited superficial evidence. It is far easier to build a scientific case against evolution that for it. Furthermore DNA in itself is at least an indicator of an alternative narrative along the lines of creation than evolution - in my opinion... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Do you have any sources for the "evidence to suggest we are the centre" part? I'd like to have a look. I was under the impression that there was a few atoms, a big bang happened, and everything that is anything was thrown from the middle out. We being somewhere in the middle of that hypothetical football field in time. I.e. because I haven't phrased that very well; <-------------------------------------------[O] -------------------------------X--------------------------------------> Far reach middle (source of big bang) ^ Milky Way (us) Far reach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) I've not had time to research, but if it's not already been done, I've got an idea for a parody porn. Have they made the Big Wang Theory yet, and if not how do I go about getting it made? Edited July 24, 2015 by dAVe80 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted July 24, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2015 I've not had time to research, but if it's not already been done, I've got an idea for a parody porn. Have they made the Big Wang Theory yet, and if not how do I go about getting it made? You create a pilot episode at home and then post it to VT for a review to determine if it could be successful 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I've not had time to research, but if it's not already been done, I've got an idea for a parody porn. Have they made the Big Wang Theory yet, and if not how do I go about getting it made? it'll need a walk on cameo role for....Stephen Porking I say walk on... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I've not had time to research, but if it's not already been done, I've got an idea for a parody porn. Have they made the Big Wang Theory yet, and if not how do I go about getting it made? it'll need a walk on cameo role for....Stephen Porking I say walk on... Maybe someone for Star Trek too. Juan Luke Prick-hard? I'll get me coat.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Because we're obviously getting further away from the centre of the universe, and that the galaxies, planets & stars of the early big bang are all now dead, and anything further away than us from the centre of the universe, does that mean anything after us is going to be evolutionarily "younger" and anything closer to the centre of the universe will be more evolved (older) (and thus potentially more of a threat)? Or could it be plausible that younger, less evolved life can evolve much quicker than us and or life forms on our planet? Also, we're 1% away (DNA wise) from a Chimpanzee. Obviously the intelligence gap between us is vast, because the smartest Chimpanzee that ever lived (in our awareness anyway) could only muster a few hand signals to communicate. So if we were to "meet" a species that was 1% further on than where we are, imagine how much smarter they would be compared to us. It would be like our infants being born with the intuition of complex algebra, being able to speak all of the words, an understanding of all the things we do and thinking "that's cute" when they look at us. We are also 1% DNA away from celery. And we also do not know what around 99% of DNA does. Only a small fraction of it we know relates to our biology etc. I often wonder whether the rest of it that we don't know constitutes some kind of story of human life like a memory of the species. Anyway we are not obviously getting further away from the centre - there is more measurable scientific evidence to suggest we are the centre. And science r.e big bang / nature of the universe is borderline pseudo science. Evolution could be possible but it is infact (at least macro evolution) a very very weak scientific theory with no convincing evidence and very limited superficial evidence. It is far easier to build a scientific case against evolution that for it. Furthermore DNA in itself is at least an indicator of an alternative narrative along the lines of creation than evolution - in my opinion... Don't do it Limpid - walk away now! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I've not had time to research, but if it's not already been done, I've got an idea for a parody porn. Have they made the Big Wang Theory yet, and if not how do I go about getting it made? Casting will likely involve you having to stop random men on the streets of Darlington and ask them how big their wang is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 There are people working in my office that are significantly closer to celery than monkeys, never mind actual fully functioning human beans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I've not had time to research, but if it's not already been done, I've got an idea for a parody porn. Have they made the Big Wang Theory yet, and if not how do I go about getting it made? Casting will likely involve you having to stop random men on the streets of Darlington and ask them how big their wang is. So a normal Friday evening then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Is Darlington the right town though? It's quite cold up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Is Darlington the right town though? It's quite cold up there. Oh yeah, there's loads of massive knobs in Darlington. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 There are people working in my office that are significantly closer to celery than monkeys, never mind actual fully functioning human beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 24, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 24, 2015 We are also 1% DNA away from celery. And we also do not know what around 99% of DNA does. Only a small fraction of it we know relates to our biology etc. I often wonder whether the rest of it that we don't know constitutes some kind of story of human life like a memory of the species. Anyway we are not obviously getting further away from the centre - there is more measurable scientific evidence to suggest we are the centre. And science r.e big bang / nature of the universe is borderline pseudo science. Evolution could be possible but it is infact (at least macro evolution) a very very weak scientific theory with no convincing evidence and very limited superficial evidence. It is far easier to build a scientific case against evolution that for it. Furthermore DNA in itself is at least an indicator of an alternative narrative along the lines of creation than evolution - in my opinion... What a load of horse shit. Do you have any sources for the "evidence to suggest we are the centre" part? I'd like to have a look. Everywhere in the universe is the centre. The singularity was where spacetime formed. There was no space or time before that, by definition. The universe inflated from that and continues to expand therefore everywhere is where the big bang happened. I was under the impression that there was a few atoms, a big bang happened, and everything that is anything was thrown from the middle out. We being somewhere in the middle of that hypothetical football field in time. There were no atoms before the big bang. Atoms came much later as energy condensed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 24, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2015 Does the Pope believe in God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Does the Pope believe in God? Don't think he's ever seen him play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Do you have any sources for the "evidence to suggest we are the centre" part? I'd like to have a look. I was under the impression that there was a few atoms, a big bang happened, and everything that is anything was thrown from the middle out. We being somewhere in the middle of that hypothetical football field in time. I.e. because I haven't phrased that very well; <-------------------------------------------[O] -------------------------------X--------------------------------------> Far reach middle (source of big bang) ^ Milky Way (us) Far reach Big bang is an idea - based upon red shift, a constant temperature across deep space, and the importance of gravity as a universe shaping force, as well as the fact that space appears black whereas in theory there should just be stars. However whether gravity even exists, let alone is a force capable of holding the universe together is very debatable. There are implausabilities to big bang including the initial dimensions necessary in the initial first sections that are highly improbable if not impossible. My point was that there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that we are not the centre of the universe. Evidence to suggest we are would come from our position of observation, i.e that the sky revolves around us - circular trig and regular trig suggest that the sun is far closer than current science suggests. Which suggests that the model of the solar system is vastly different to how it is taught. No real evidence anywhere that suggests that the earth revolves around the sun... for instance no noticeable movement, the constant positions of the objects in the night sky over thousands of thousands of years, despite our speed of circa a few trillion miles a year. Empirical evidence from most scientific tests on the surface of the earth suggesting it is flat, and not moving. Now I don't think the earth is flat and thus presumably the centre but I don't believe it is a sphere, and presumably not the centre. My point is that both are very real possibilities based upon the evidence that has been garnered throughout thousands of years of scientific endeavour... So basically to sum up I am super busy to give this the attention it deserves right now... But Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 We are also 1% DNA away from celery. And we also do not know what around 99% of DNA does. Only a small fraction of it we know relates to our biology etc. I often wonder whether the rest of it that we don't know constitutes some kind of story of human life like a memory of the species. Anyway we are not obviously getting further away from the centre - there is more measurable scientific evidence to suggest we are the centre. And science r.e big bang / nature of the universe is borderline pseudo science. Evolution could be possible but it is infact (at least macro evolution) a very very weak scientific theory with no convincing evidence and very limited superficial evidence. It is far easier to build a scientific case against evolution that for it. Furthermore DNA in itself is at least an indicator of an alternative narrative along the lines of creation than evolution - in my opinion... What a load of horse shit. how is any of that horse shit? No-one knows what most of DNA is - that is true. We are very close to celery - in fact all biological things are very close in DNA. Evolution is a weak theory (Macro not micro) in that there is very very little evidence partly borne out of the theoretical timings being difficult to observe, but also to be a strong science it needs to be observable. It is also quite wishy washy and almost fantastic in some of the co-incidences it requires - which raise further queries... Big bang - read above. DNA and a code to life - I think it is a fair opinion that it indicates a creator of some sort / intelligent design. I can see why this may not be the case also. But it certainly is a debate worth more than horse shit... and in a thread titled 'things I wonder' is a reasonable contribution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 24, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 24, 2015 how is any of that horse shit? No-one knows what most of DNA is - that is true. We are very close to celery - in fact all biological things are very close in DNA. Evolution is a weak theory (Macro not micro) in that there is very very little evidence partly borne out of the theoretical timings being difficult to observe, but also to be a strong science it needs to be observable. It is also quite wishy washy and almost fantastic in some of the co-incidences it requires - which raise further queries... Big bang - read above. DNA and a code to life - I think it is a fair opinion that it indicates a creator of some sort / intelligent design. I can see why this may not be the case also. But it certainly is a debate worth more than horse shit... and in a thread titled 'things I wonder' is a reasonable contribution... It's all horse shit. Evolution is a fact (without any distinction between macro or micro). We do not share 99% of our DNA with celery (maybe around 50%). We do understand what all of DNA is and a large amount is not active (the problem with "design" by natural selection - lots of inefficiencies). The big bang isn't just a fact, it's observable. The big bang doesn't require ANY "co-incidences". As to your appeal to a magic sky fairy? Simply no. Don't try to squeeze a god into the gaps. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts