Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Humans have been to space while chimps just sling poo, therefore evolution is bogus. Now buy this book   (wnd.com) divider line 408
    More: Obvious, straw man, scientific laws, Cell Biology, evolution, Carl Gallups, magic, superstitions  
•       •       •

3870 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 9:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



408 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-12 10:26:14 PM  

mamoru: And, when you put it like that, it is a question that answers itself and makes the person asking it sound like a retard.


Yeah, that was my original intent.
 
2012-06-12 10:27:06 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.


And I heard that he finally got out of Joan Rivers.
 
2012-06-12 10:28:18 PM  

The Lone Gunman: jj325: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?

It's worth noting that even if this 'ardent atheist' WOULD have a difficult time refuting the evidence, doesn't that mean that the author accepts that it would still be possible to do so?

No...I'm just being silly. I'll go back to my corner now.


I am thinking it is more likely that his premise is so steeped in mysticism and unprovable that it is impossible to refute.

/Teapots.
 
2012-06-12 10:28:37 PM  
keithpp.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-12 10:30:32 PM  

eraser8: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Without God there would be no Satan/Devil...You want a world without the devil in your heavy metal, no satan in your horror movies?

Well, it IS true that all the best bands are affiliated with Satan.

So, I guess I'm a little torn.


Get out! And don't come back until you've redeemed yourself!

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-12 10:30:53 PM  

eraser8: I'm vain because I don't think the universe was put here for me?


Well, I do. But that's because I believe in Special and Inevitable Anthropic Principle, which is, as explained by Terry Pratchett:

"Many people are aware of the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles. The Weak One says, basically, that it was jolly amazing of the universe to be constructed in such a way that humans could evolve to a point where they make a living in, for example, universities, while the Strong One says that, one the contrary, the whole point of the universe was that humans should not only work in universities by also write for huge sums books with words like `cosmic' and `chaos' in the titles.

And they are correct. The universe clearly operates for the benefit of humanity This can be readily seen from the convenient way the sun comes up in the morning, when people are ready to start the day.

The UU Professor of Anthropics had developed the Special and Inevitable Anthropic Principle, which was that the entire reason for the existence of the universe was the eventual evolution of the UU Professor of Anthropics. But this was only a fomal statement of the theory which absolutely everyone, with only some minor details of a `Fll in name here' nature, secretly believes to be true"
 
2012-06-12 10:32:38 PM  

nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?


The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.
 
2012-06-12 10:33:27 PM  

mamoru: Which is EXACTLY the point.


Ah, I see, you're right, that works quite well.

Well, either way, it is a retarded and absurd question, and the person asking can't but sound retarded.

Agreed.

Sabyen91: Yeah, that was my original intent.


Poe's law can be a biatch
 
2012-06-12 10:34:40 PM  
Here's my take on the subject:

The problem with "Prometheus" is that it tried to shoehorn way, way, way too much story into one movie. The problem with "2001: A Space Odyssey" is that while the first 20 minutes are braised awesome slathered in delicious Club Sauce, the rest of the movie is the biggest snorefest ever brought to the silver screen.

So.

If we could just find some kind of way to average the two, we would achieve sci-fi blasphemy nirvana. It's so simple! Wake up sheeple.
 
2012-06-12 10:35:00 PM  

mamoru: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".


I thought life was found in a body that contained the complex chemical reactions thatcould both sustain that body as well as allow it to reproduce. The 'miracle that occurred was that all those complex proteins in one brief moment could come together in such a way that these two events could occur. Both of these functions designed to carry on life.

Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?- Obviously they reproduce and can sustain themselves even if on a primitive level. Proteins can perform the basic tasks of creating similar proteins through chemical reactions, but they don't necessarily do this as imperativefor continuance but rather as a function of being a protein.
 
2012-06-12 10:35:35 PM  

nmrsnr: mamoru: Which is EXACTLY the point.

Ah, I see, you're right, that works quite well.

Well, either way, it is a retarded and absurd question, and the person asking can't but sound retarded.

Agreed.

Sabyen91: Yeah, that was my original intent.

Poe's law can be a biatch


Heh, except he quoted the post where I told you where I was going with it. :)

/I am guilty of just reading the first line of posts, too.
 
2012-06-12 10:39:10 PM  
I believe in the Strong Lithopic Principle.

The universe was designed and started by God specifically for rocks. I mean, seriously. Look how well the universe is suited for rocks. They survive great and last forever in a vacuum. The only places that are really bad for them are the stars, but the stars are merely the means to produce elements that will make more rocks from simple hydrogen and helium. Doing it this way means minimal work from God, as the universe simply maintains itself and replenishes the elements necessary to produce more wonderful rocks.

If the physical constants and laws of the universe were even a little bit different, then rocks would not form properly. That they form so perfectly and exist so well anywhere in the universe (except in stars; but since most of the universe is empty space where rocks survive just fine, one can reasonably say 99.999999999% of the universe is perfectly suitable for rocks) is a clear sign that the universe was designed for them.

It is an unfortunate side effect, however, that the physical constants and laws necessary to bring about the formation of such perfect rocks by God's design also cause certain classes of self-replicating chemical reactions that, given time, develop into complex "organisms" which then go on to blaspheme by damaging the beloved (by God) rocks. Luckily, such phenomena are not suited for survival in 99.99999999999999999% of the universe and so are of no consequence to God's plan.
 
2012-06-12 10:40:20 PM  

clowncar on fire: mamoru: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".

I thought life was found in a body that contained the complex chemical reactions thatcould both sustain that body as well as allow it to reproduce. The 'miracle that occurred was that all those complex proteins in one brief moment could come together in such a way that these two events could occur. Both of these functions designed to carry on life.

Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?- Obviously they reproduce and can sustain themselves even if on a primitive level. Proteins can perform the basic tasks of creating similar proteins through chemical reactions, but they don't necessarily do this as imperativefor continuance but rather as a function of being a protein.


Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.
 
2012-06-12 10:44:49 PM  

mamoru: I believe in the Strong Lithopic Principle.

The universe was designed and started by God specifically for rocks. I mean, seriously. Look how well the universe is suited for rocks. They survive great and last forever in a vacuum. The only places that are really bad for them are the stars, but the stars are merely the means to produce elements that will make more rocks from simple hydrogen and helium. Doing it this way means minimal work from God, as the universe simply maintains itself and replenishes the elements necessary to produce more wonderful rocks.

If the physical constants and laws of the universe were even a little bit different, then rocks would not form properly. That they form so perfectly and exist so well anywhere in the universe (except in stars; but since most of the universe is empty space where rocks survive just fine, one can reasonably say 99.999999999% of the universe is perfectly suitable for rocks) is a clear sign that the universe was designed for them.

It is an unfortunate side effect, however, that the physical constants and laws necessary to bring about the formation of such perfect rocks by God's design also cause certain classes of self-replicating chemical reactions that, given time, develop into complex "organisms" which then go on to blaspheme by damaging the beloved (by God) rocks. Luckily, such phenomena are not suited for survival in 99.99999999999999999% of the universe and so are of no consequence to God's plan.


bulk.destructoid.com

/Wait, not a rock?
 
2012-06-12 10:45:34 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?

Does God need add anything?Aare you that vain? Life is not enough for you?

I'm vain because I don't think the universe was put here for me? I'm vain because I don't think that I'm so exceptional that only "the intervention of a deity" can explain my existence?

I'm six or 7 cheap beers deep right now and i never took any college level existential courses- what's your excuse. Did I not point out cheap beers no less?

I think, perhaps, you don't understand what the word "vain" means.

In any case, my point was that natural selection explains the diversity of life without the need for a god or gods. So, what's the point of adding one to the explanation?


You'll to need to look into getting your sarcasm meter checked. As early as tomorrow won't hurt but otherwise wait until Monday as you can only expect a rush job before the weekend.
 
2012-06-12 10:46:37 PM  

0Icky0: 3_Butt_Cheeks: It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.

And I heard that he finally got out of Joan Rivers.


Michael or Elvis?
 
2012-06-12 10:47:52 PM  

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?

The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.


Really? Really?

a) the religious can comfort themselves however they wish - we're all just trying to get through our days here and religion can be a beautiful thing to those in need - but if they're not looking for "factual truth" (is there any other kind?) then they can keep it out of the science classroom, and;

b) I hope that many diseases will be cured in my lifetime. I hope that crop yields will be increased, sustainable energy explored, the global standard of living raised, texts published and inventions shared around the world, infants vaccinated, lifespans extended, flying cars and high speed rail and jet packs and rocket ships built. And one day, travel to other worlds made possible. Science gives me a lot more hope and purpose than religion ever has.
 
2012-06-12 10:47:58 PM  
Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.
 
2012-06-12 10:48:17 PM  

clowncar on fire: You'll to need to look into getting your sarcasm meter checked. As early as tomorrow won't hurt but otherwise wait until Monday as you can only expect a rush job before the weekend.


My detector has always been a bit wonky. I mean, I did get it second-hand through Craigslist.
 
2012-06-12 10:48:53 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: You'll to need to look into getting your sarcasm meter checked. As early as tomorrow won't hurt but otherwise wait until Monday as you can only expect a rush job before the weekend.

My detector has always been a bit wonky. I mean, I did get it second-hand through Craigslist.


Dude, that is a sex toy.
 
2012-06-12 10:51:37 PM  

BlackArt: Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.


I'd like to take this opportunity to plug one of the greatest hygiene products in the history of the universe:

i.walmartimages.com
 
2012-06-12 10:51:48 PM  

wildsnowllama: Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.


I've never really understood why that means viruses aren't alive. So what if they can't reproduce independently? In reality, we can't either. And I'm not talking about the dependent nature of sexual reproduction. More basically than that, as heterotrophs, we are completely dependent upon other living things for fundamental materials needed in reproduction.

What's the difference, really?
 
2012-06-12 10:52:43 PM  

wildsnowllama: clowncar on fire: mamoru: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".

I thought life was found in a body that contained the complex chemical reactions thatcould both sustain that body as well as allow it to reproduce. The 'miracle that occurred was that all those complex proteins in one brief moment could come together in such a way that these two events could occur. Both of these functions designed to carry on life.

Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?- Obviously they reproduce and can sustain themselves even if on a primitive level. Proteins can perform the basic tasks of creating similar proteins through chemical reactions, but they don't necessarily do this as imperativefor continuance but rather as a function of being a protein.

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.


Obviously they are very capable as they have the ability to hijack other life forms specifically for their own continuance.

It's not like humans engage in the same activity.
 
2012-06-12 10:52:53 PM  

BlackArt: Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.


So you're saying God is a poo-flinging monkey with no need of tp for His bunghole?
 
2012-06-12 10:55:09 PM  

BlackArt: Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.


Not mentioned in the Bill of Rights either. Your point?
 
2012-06-12 10:55:18 PM  

clowncar on fire: one brief moment


By "one brief moment" do you mean "over the course of hundreds of millions of years of geochemistry"? Because if so, then we have very different conceptions of "one brief moment". If not, then you may have some misconceptions about what was necessary for the formation of biological systems or "life" and the time it took (or at least had available) to form.

clowncar on fire: Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?


Traditionally, life is often defined as having these 7 properties: 1.) cellular organization, 2.) metabolism, 3.) growth (defined as anabolism > catabolism), 4.) reproduction (a direct result of growth) with heredity, 5.) homeostasis, 6.) response to stimuli, and 7.) adaptation/evolution. Now, of course, it is best to think of these properties as guidelines in that, if something has all 7 then it is definitely life.

Now, a virus generally lacks 1, 2, 3, and 5. They rely solely on infected living cells for those things. Without living cells to act as hosts, viruses are "inanimate" lumps of DNA and protein doing nothing. On the other hand, one could argue the same for bacterial spores which are completely inanimate in bad conditions. Yet in "normal" conditions they act as living cells satisfying all 7 properties.

So the thing about viruses is that they can only be "alive" when they are using a living cell for all of the processes we think of as life. Without living cells to host them they aren't "alive". So do they count as "life" or not?

And what of Viroids, which are naked DNA or RNA molecules (no protein coat) that can also cause the machinery of infected cells to replicate them?

In reality, the question and the distinction are unimportant, because like I said, "life" is an arbitrary classification, not an innate property. Biologists don't (or shouldn't) care if a virus or a viroid (or even a prion) is considered "life" or not, because they are still biologically important and interesting things, and how we classify them does not change that.
 
2012-06-12 10:55:34 PM  

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?

The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.


Wow!

The scientific purpose of life is life itself! Reproduction, adaptation etc. Science is certainly providing that. And hope is a manifestation of awareness. But you do not need awareness for survival and evolution.
 
2012-06-12 10:57:46 PM  
I'm with Robert Anton Wilson on this one:

"Animals outline their territories with their excretions, humans outline their territories by ink excretions on paper."
 
2012-06-12 10:57:53 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: madgonad: You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.

DUST. WIND. DUDE.


I was going for Batty in Blade Runner, but Bill & Ted is cool too.
 
2012-06-12 11:02:25 PM  

Wayne 985: nmrsnr: ... the human instinct that created religion...

Not necessarily, at least in broad terms. Religion is an organized, regulated superstition that seems to have roots in our animal nature.

B.F. Skinner: superstition in the pigeon

One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions.[48]

One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.[49][50]


Aha! Now I have a perfect justification for referring to creationists as bird-brains!
 
2012-06-12 11:03:57 PM  

wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.


My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?
 
2012-06-12 11:05:25 PM  

vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.


Fruit flies were in space before dogs or humans or chimps!
 
2012-06-12 11:08:23 PM  

bbfreak: vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.

Fruit flies were in space before dogs or humans or chimps!


Pigs were in space later, but brought drama and style!
 
2012-06-12 11:09:37 PM  

FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?


And your mother hi-jacked a couple of incomplete cells from your father. But they reproduce as a spieces. Thus are they both living. Both are needed.
The living cell does not need the virus to reproduce, but the virus need a cell, not another virus.
 
2012-06-12 11:11:04 PM  

Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


H0m() Sap3!en
 
2012-06-12 11:13:21 PM  

FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?


The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)

Pharque-it: But they reproduce as a spieces.


Ah yes... "species". Yet another arbitrary classification which is given far more importance and controversy than it deserves. Necessary, because humans like to think in categories, but annoying because so many misconceptions about biology and evolution spring from it.

/gotta go teach a class; can't respond for an hour
 
2012-06-12 11:13:58 PM  

TedDalton: Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin

H0m() Sap3!en


Homo Sabyen91.

/It is in there somewhere.
 
2012-06-12 11:16:32 PM  

mamoru: The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)


Liger!

www.theodoresworld.net
 
2012-06-12 11:20:41 PM  

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.

As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.


It balances an unbalanced equation. Our survival instinct says, "don't die." Our ability to plan ahead and predict the future based on past experiences helps us expect (and thus survive) future adversity. But when that predictive cognizance hits the knowledge of the inevitability of death it causes a fatal systems error in the survival instinct. Essentially, "I must not die, I will inevitably die, paradox, system error, BSOD!"

Religion is a system patch that says, "your consciousness is a soul which lives on past death, in the sky or something." Thus flags remain untripped and Survival instinct can still operate the prediction engine without crashing.

Later we can talk about how mankind's creative spark, curiosity, and knack for experimentation are what causes dead, stupid religions to keep clawing their way back into peoples' heads.
 
2012-06-12 11:21:03 PM  

mamoru: clowncar on fire: one brief moment

By "one brief moment" do you mean "over the course of hundreds of millions of years of geochemistry"? Because if so, then we have very different conceptions of "one brief moment". If not, then you may have some misconceptions about what was necessary for the formation of biological systems or "life" and the time it took (or at least had available) to form.

clowncar on fire: Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?

Traditionally, life is often defined as having these 7 properties: 1.) cellular organization, 2.) metabolism, 3.) growth (defined as anabolism > catabolism), 4.) reproduction (a direct result of growth) with heredity, 5.) homeostasis, 6.) response to stimuli, and 7.) adaptation/evolution. Now, of course, it is best to think of these properties as guidelines in that, if something has all 7 then it is definitely life.

Now, a virus generally lacks 1, 2, 3, and 5. They rely solely on infected living cells for those things. Without living cells to act as hosts, viruses are "inanimate" lumps of DNA and protein doing nothing. On the other hand, one could argue the same for bacterial spores which are completely inanimate in bad conditions. Yet in "normal" conditions they act as living cells satisfying all 7 properties.

So the thing about viruses is that they can only be "alive" when they are using a living cell for all of the processes we think of as life. Without living cells to host them they aren't "alive". So do they count as "life" or not?

And what of Viroids, which are naked DNA or RNA molecules (no protein coat) that can also cause the machinery of infected cells to replicate them?

In reality, the question and the distinction are unimportant, because like I said, "life" is an arbitrary classification, not an innate property. Biologists don't (or shouldn't) care if a virus or a viroid (or even a prion) is considered "life" or not, because they are still biologically important and interesting things, a ...


Prions are mean motherfarkers that will fark you up.
 
2012-06-12 11:22:42 PM  

TheBigJerk: fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.

As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

It balances an unbalanced equation. Our survival instinct says, "don't die." Our ability to plan ahead and predict the future based on past experiences helps us expect (and thus survive) future adversity. But when that predictive cognizance hits the knowledge of the inevitability of death it causes a fatal systems error in the survival instinct. Essentially, "I must not die, I will inevitably die, paradox, system error, BSOD!"

Religion is a system patch that says, "your consciousness is a soul which lives on past death, in the sky or something." Thus flags remain untripped and Survival instinct can still operate the prediction engine without crashing.

Later we can talk about how mankind's creative spark, curiosity, and knack for experimentation are what causes dead, stupid religions to keep clawing their way back into peoples' heads.


What the hell is so great about life that people think we must go on? Ok, I suppose I didn't become atheist quickly because of that but when you come to terms with the idea that you will be exactly like you were before you were born it is actually...kinda nice.
 
2012-06-12 11:27:35 PM  
It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.
 
2012-06-12 11:29:57 PM  

Daraymann: It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.


That is probably true. However, disproving parts of the bible through evolution is quite possible.

/Of course those parts just become allegorical.
 
2012-06-12 11:31:26 PM  
I am amazed that this thread hasn't been hijacked by the usual evolution trolls yet.

Where are they? ...did we scare them all off, or have they switched to alts?
 
2012-06-12 11:31:29 PM  
Based on this article, it looks like a whole lot of words that don't say anything resembling substance.
 
2012-06-12 11:32:17 PM  

mamoru: FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?

The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)


Thank you, just got back and you had taken care of that.
 
2012-06-12 11:38:32 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: madgonad: You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.

[www.rhianbowley.com image 568x326]

DUST. WIND. DUDE.


contacto-latino.com

Dude, WAT?
 
2012-06-12 11:43:37 PM  
Godammit subby I'm stupider for having read that article. Thanks a lot.
 
2012-06-12 11:46:55 PM  

mamoru: FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?

The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)

Pharque-it: But they reproduce as a spieces.

Ah yes... "species". Yet another arbitrary classification which is given far more importance and controversy than it deserves. Necessary, because humans like to think in categories, but annoying because so many misconceptions about biology and evolution spring from it.

/gotta go teach a class; can't respond for an hour


I guess you mean reproduction thru meiosis (sexual reproduction) vs mitotis (asexual). Sorry for using the term "spieces" a bit losly....
 
2012-06-12 11:49:28 PM  
yeah, mitosis....
 
Displayed 50 of 408 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report