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.

(The New Yorker)   "Do not underestimate 'Darwin's Doubt': It is a masterwork of pseudoscience"   (newyorker.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, Horseshoe Crab, Cambrian Explosion, pseudosciences, Cambrian period, philosophy of science, Burgess Shale, Discovery Institute, number of species  
•       •       •

4080 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Jul 2013 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-05 01:14:39 PM
Debuting at #7 on the NYTimes bestseller list, they say... but fiction, or non-fiction?
 
2013-07-05 01:22:18 PM
The only graphic you ever need for explaining "Intelligent Design"...

lh5.googleusercontent.com

It's not about science. It's about trying to get religion into the public schools. Plain and simple. It's a cold, manipulative scheme to promote one faith over others. And really the best antiseptic for it, is their own damning words...
 
2013-07-05 01:53:17 PM
That kinda sucks. So, it's basically the entropy argument wrapped up in the Burgess Shale. Stephen J. Gould is turning in his grave.

Fark intelligent design.
 
2013-07-05 01:59:14 PM
Fark intelligent design, but the ending sounds beautiful. It is scary in a random, uncaring natural universe. But that means it is up to us humans to derive meaning and faith on our own, b/c God sure as hell can't be arsed to (I threw that last part in).
 
2013-07-05 02:01:14 PM
A period of over 55 million years can contain quite an "explosion" of different forms of life even with gradual changes. Look at what happened to mammals since the last great extinction. Heck, look at what happened to the left-over dinsaurs: Everything from a hummingbird to an emu to a condor.
 
2013-07-05 02:03:29 PM
I read the author as Stephine Meyer and got really farking confused. Through I suppose you could make some sort of short fiction story about the Twilight universe how vampires adapted to mimic fairies to ward off Vampire hunters or something.

Anyways back to your scheduled Science kicks ass thread.
 
2013-07-05 02:07:10 PM
In before Bevets
 
2013-07-05 02:08:51 PM

Raw_fishFood: I read the author as Stephine Meyer and got really farking confused. Through I suppose you could make some sort of short fiction story about the Twilight universe how vampires adapted to mimic fairies to ward off Vampire hunters or something.

Anyways back to your scheduled Science kicks ass thread.


I also thought Stephanie Meyer.  She pretty religious, as I recall -- isn't Twilight supposed to be an allegory for "waiting until marriage" or something?
 
2013-07-05 02:10:52 PM

Trocadero: Fark intelligent design, but the ending sounds beautiful. It is scary in a random, uncaring natural universe. But that means it is up to us humans to derive meaning and faith on our own, b/c God sure as hell can't be arsed to (I threw that last part in).


In the book that I'm pitching, my asteroid miners have a concept that is often misunderstood about their relationship with space. They call it the Long Dark. Groundhogs think of it as worship of the long spaces between, but it's an acceptance of the unforgiving nature of their environment. The Long Dark doesn't particularly care for their safety, their desires, their wants, their needs. Mama Dark envelops them, can indeed be nurturing and giving, but only for those who are careful, who are respectful of the dangers around them. The Long Dark doesn't care if you rip a hole in your suit, doesn't protect you from stray debris, will irradiate you, will kill you in an instant, and the only one you can blame is yourself, for not respecting its power and dangers. They have a relationship with hard vacuum--they work in it, their entire lives are spent keeping their equipment and their homes safe within it--and despite the unforgiving nature of the environment, they see the intrinsic beauty in its implacability, the ultimate fairness that is the Universe, that it simply doesn't care if you live or die, and the moments of beauty, and joy that you find, those are what you bring and take in. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a recital to go to later, if you don't dog a hatch, it will kill you. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a wife and family, if a rock attains enough velocity and its path intersects your home, it will hole it and not weep a tear for their loss. The moments between, the relationships, the beauty is in the details, and what you do, not with trying to placate nature or anthropomorphize it. The Long Dark is. You can deal with it, you can accept it, or you need to stay the heck away from it, and that's not going to really work, since even on dirtside, you're riding on a fair size chunk of rock, hurtling through those long spaces between anyway.

And a lot of groundhogs simply don't understand that you can come to grips with an uncaring Universe, and still find beauty and joy. Not in spite of it, because ultimately, the Long Dark is fair. Fair in that everything is equal, everything occurs, without one person or place getting any leg up on anyone, and there is no way to reason or placate it, but simply accept what is, and keep going on.
 
2013-07-05 02:12:19 PM

hubiestubert: The only graphic you ever need for explaining "Intelligent Design"...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 500x454]

It's not about science. It's about trying to get religion into the public schools. Plain and simple. It's a cold, manipulative scheme to promote one faith over others. And really the best antiseptic for it, is their own damning words...


And I'll never be ashamed of saying it: Fark you and your religions. Farking mythology loving farkers...
 
2013-07-05 02:13:36 PM
"We don't fully understand it yet, therefore God."
 
2013-07-05 02:27:03 PM
The only alternative explanation, Meyer writes, is the involvement of an intelligent designer (read: God) who rushed along the story of life on Earth.

Until Intelligent Design comes up with the exact parameters of the methods of Design, the definition of Design, the manner or construction of Design and ANYTHING about the Designer (up to and including adequate and intimate knowledge of how the Designer designs things), it is functionally useless as a scientific theory.

To detect design, we must have an understanding of what non-design is. If a designer created everything, then what are we comparing his designs to? If we are not capable of tracking him down or studying his methods, how are we supposed to distinguish Mount Rushmore from an eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock?

"Design", to put it simply, is a human derivation. If design is divorced from the human condition, it becomes impossible to adequately recognize it. Mount Rushmore only looks designed to humans. To every other living thing, it is just another eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock.
 
2013-07-05 02:27:15 PM
FTFA: Meyer likens his son's paralysis to modernity's despair at materialism, its shock at the prospect that the universe is utterly indifferent.

The universe is indifferent. It doesn't care about us because it lacks the capacity to care.
 
2013-07-05 02:28:09 PM

give me doughnuts: A period of over 55 million years can contain quite an "explosion" of different forms of life even with gradual changes. Look at what happened to mammals since the last great extinction. Heck, look at what happened to the left-over dinsaurs: Everything from a hummingbird to an emu to a condor.



well if you ignore all of that time stuff evolution doesn't make any sense!
 
2013-07-05 02:28:12 PM

hubiestubert: Trocadero: Fark intelligent design, but the ending sounds beautiful. It is scary in a random, uncaring natural universe. But that means it is up to us humans to derive meaning and faith on our own, b/c God sure as hell can't be arsed to (I threw that last part in).

In the book that I'm pitching, my asteroid miners have a concept that is often misunderstood about their relationship with space. They call it the Long Dark. Groundhogs think of it as worship of the long spaces between, but it's an acceptance of the unforgiving nature of their environment. The Long Dark doesn't particularly care for their safety, their desires, their wants, their needs. Mama Dark envelops them, can indeed be nurturing and giving, but only for those who are careful, who are respectful of the dangers around them. The Long Dark doesn't care if you rip a hole in your suit, doesn't protect you from stray debris, will irradiate you, will kill you in an instant, and the only one you can blame is yourself, for not respecting its power and dangers. They have a relationship with hard vacuum--they work in it, their entire lives are spent keeping their equipment and their homes safe within it--and despite the unforgiving nature of the environment, they see the intrinsic beauty in its implacability, the ultimate fairness that is the Universe, that it simply doesn't care if you live or die, and the moments of beauty, and joy that you find, those are what you bring and take in. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a recital to go to later, if you don't dog a hatch, it will kill you. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a wife and family, if a rock attains enough velocity and its path intersects your home, it will hole it and not weep a tear for their loss. The moments between, the relationships, the beauty is in the details, and what you do, not with trying to placate nature or anthropomorphize it. The Long Dark is. You can deal with it, you can accept it, or you need to stay the heck away from it, ...


Sounds like a lot of things I've read sailors saying about the sea.
 
2013-07-05 02:30:47 PM

Arkanaut: In before Bevets


I don't think Bevets exists anymore. I think the real Bevets abandoned Fark years ago, occasionally replaced with a trolling impersonator.
 
2013-07-05 02:31:52 PM

hubiestubert: The only graphic you ever need for explaining "Intelligent Design"...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 500x454]

It's not about science. It's about trying to get religion into the public schools. Plain and simple. It's a cold, manipulative scheme to promote one faith over others. And really the best antiseptic for it, is their own damning words...


holy...

The wedge strategy, as envisioned by the Discovery Institute, is designed to leave the science establishment looking close-minded in the short term with a long-term goal being a redefinition of science that centers on the removal of methodological naturalism from the philosophy of science and the scientific method, thereby allowing for supernatural explanations to be introduced as science

holy holy holy shiat
 
2013-07-05 02:32:14 PM
I found it! All the scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax! Check it out for yourself:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_of_evolution_being_ a_ hoax
 
2013-07-05 02:33:11 PM

Ishkur: The only alternative explanation, Meyer writes, is the involvement of an intelligent designer (read: God) who rushed along the story of life on Earth.

Until Intelligent Design comes up with the exact parameters of the methods of Design, the definition of Design, the manner or construction of Design and ANYTHING about the Designer (up to and including adequate and intimate knowledge of how the Designer designs things), it is functionally useless as a scientific theory.


And then there's the problem that this so-called designer is an incompetent moron. There are a lot of bizarre aspects of life that only make sense if life evolved from earlier types and modified the existing structures to fit new uses or adapted body plans. As kludges produced through evolutionary processes life around us is amazing. As designed creatures they are utter failures of engineering.
 
2013-07-05 02:37:02 PM

hubiestubert: The only graphic you ever need for explaining "Intelligent Design"...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 500x454]

It's not about science. It's about trying to get religion into the public schools. Plain and simple. It's a cold, manipulative scheme to promote one faith over others. And really the best antiseptic for it, is their own damning words...


What is so 'damning' about that?    Sounds like you're doing the same thing... but trying to get science in schools over religion....

I'm not here to say which way is better... just pointing out you have no right to be judgmental about their actions...  You can judge their beliefs, but their actions are simply a logical response... Why WOULDN'T they want to put religion in schools, if that is what they believe?
 
2013-07-05 02:37:38 PM

tbriggs: I found it! All the scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax! Check it out for yourself:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_of_evolution_being_ a_ hoax


That made me laugh more than I think it should have.
 
2013-07-05 02:38:59 PM

T.rex: What is so 'damning' about that? Sounds like you're doing the same thing... but trying to get science in schools over religion....


Science belongs in schools. Religion belongs in church. Are you trolling or are you just being argumentative?
 
2013-07-05 02:40:12 PM

Ishkur: The only alternative explanation, Meyer writes, is the involvement of an intelligent designer (read: God) who rushed along the story of life on Earth.

Until Intelligent Design comes up with the exact parameters of the methods of Design, the definition of Design, the manner or construction of Design and ANYTHING about the Designer (up to and including adequate and intimate knowledge of how the Designer designs things), it is functionally useless as a scientific theory.

To detect design, we must have an understanding of what non-design is. If a designer created everything, then what are we comparing his designs to? If we are not capable of tracking him down or studying his methods, how are we supposed to distinguish Mount Rushmore from an eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock?

"Design", to put it simply, is a human derivation. If design is divorced from the human condition, it becomes impossible to adequately recognize it. Mount Rushmore only looks designed to humans. To every other living thing, it is just another eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock.


In various discussions with Intelligent cDesign Proponentsists I have requested, multiple times, a definition or a description of the mechanism by which "design" of biological structures is implemented. I have explained that such a definition or a description is required before "Intelligent Design" may be established as a theory, as undefined mechanisms cannot be tested or evaluated and an untestable claim is inherently unscientific.

Thus far, none have provided any reasonable response. Some have argued that my demand is unreasonable, implying that they wish to fundamentally alter the established standards of science. A demand for a change of rules, rather than a willingness to adhere to the established rules, suggests dishonest motives.
 
2013-07-05 02:41:22 PM

theorellior: T.rex: What is so 'damning' about that? Sounds like you're doing the same thing... but trying to get science in schools over religion....

Science belongs in schools. Religion belongs in church. Are you trolling or are you just being argumentative?


Definitely being argumentative.  So perhaps you can tell me who decides what is considered science and what is considered religion.
 
2013-07-05 02:41:53 PM

T.rex: hubiestubert: The only graphic you ever need for explaining "Intelligent Design"...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 500x454]

It's not about science. It's about trying to get religion into the public schools. Plain and simple. It's a cold, manipulative scheme to promote one faith over others. And really the best antiseptic for it, is their own damning words...

What is so 'damning' about that?    Sounds like you're doing the same thing... but trying to get science in schools over religion....

I'm not here to say which way is better... just pointing out you have no right to be judgmental about their actions...  You can judge their beliefs, but their actions are simply a logical response... Why WOULDN'T they want to put religion in schools, if that is what they believe?


hubiestubert has not, to my knowledge, attempted to introduce science into schools by dishonestly claiming it to be something other than science. Conversely, cDesign Proponentsists are demonstrably attempting to introduce the teaching of religious beliefs into public schools (where such teaching is illegal) by dishonestly labeling those beliefs as science.
 
2013-07-05 02:46:34 PM

T.rex: Sounds like you're doing the same thing... but trying to get science in schools over religion....


Okay, which religion? The Constitution forbids the government from choosing one religion over another. So, do we teach our youngins the beliefs of every currently practiced religion, or do we leave religious teachings to the church?
 
2013-07-05 02:48:14 PM
A quick glance of this thread shows the way that Atheists are so hateful. Atheists feel dirty inside. All the anger, the forced arrogance, the belligerence -- it's simply shame turned inside out.
 
2013-07-05 02:48:55 PM

T.rex: I'm not here to say which way is better... just pointing out you have no right to be judgmental about their actions...  You can judge their beliefs, but their actions are simply a logical response... Why WOULDN'T they want to put religion in schools, if that is what they believe?


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-05 02:49:31 PM

gameshowhost: "We don't fully understand it yet, therefore God."


Pretty much. That and a near-complete misapprehension of time and distance scales. For one, they don't seem to grasp that the Burgess Shale represents tens of millions of years from half a billion years ago. The religious mind has difficulty with dates older than "4004 B.C."

They also don't necessarily grasp that Earth was very different in terms of oxygen levels, absence of terrestrial plant life, a much closer Moon, a possibly more active Sun, different levels of asteroid strikes, volcanism and tectonic activity, all factors that could have encouraged much higher amounts of speciation as "life rolled the dice" with multiple iterations of body plan and niche-filling. It was the Age of the Calamari...vertebrates and, later, jawed fish weren't yet even a thing. When jawed fish were a thing, 100 million years later, they would prove to be an endiuring design (see "sharks"). Some explosion.

"Sudden" in evolutionary terms is hundreds or thousands of generations. We were anatomically human from about 120,000 years ago, but we didn't lap the Neanderthals significantly until 50-40,000 years ago, about the same time we started to draw animals on cave walls and make lighter, sharper spear points we could use to bring down game without actually having to stab at it point-blank...the reason, it is surmised, that the stronger, larger brained Neanderthal skeletons seem to bear a lot more damage from healed breaks and fractures than the more gracile, lighter-brained (and possibly metabolically "cheaper") h. Sapiens re-radiating out of Africa.

Clearly, some kind of mental leap not recorded in the exceptionally spotty fossil record occurred, one unlikely to involve Jeebus on a dinosaur.
 
2013-07-05 02:50:58 PM

Ishkur: The only alternative explanation, Meyer writes, is the involvement of an intelligent designer (read: God) who rushed along the story of life on Earth.

Until Intelligent Design comes up with the exact parameters of the methods of Design, the definition of Design, the manner or construction of Design and ANYTHING about the Designer (up to and including adequate and intimate knowledge of how the Designer designs things), it is functionally useless as a scientific theory.

To detect design, we must have an understanding of what non-design is. If a designer created everything, then what are we comparing his designs to? If we are not capable of tracking him down or studying his methods, how are we supposed to distinguish Mount Rushmore from an eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock?

"Design", to put it simply, is a human derivation. If design is divorced from the human condition, it becomes impossible to adequately recognize it. Mount Rushmore only looks designed to humans. To every other living thing, it is just another eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock.


The thing I find interesting about that quote is that, by claiming that God "rushed [life] along", he's admitting that things would have reached the current state eventually.  Furthermore this claim would suggest that there is a natural rate of evolution, which we could try to measure.  This reduces the evolution / creation science to falsifiable claims, which puts the creation "scientists" on the playing field of the real scientists, where they are at a disadvantage.  I predict that eventually the debate will devolve into creation scientists claiming that any natural process that doesn't occur at a frequency that conforms with a normal distribution is a miracle, which in turn means that God is actually the Scarlet Witch.
 
2013-07-05 02:51:13 PM
Make me gag.

Pseudoscience is itself an unscientific concept. There has hardly been sustained 'scientific' scrutiny of the underpinnings of science itself, and of scientific culture, or of the sub-culture of those who hope to overthrow it ('pseudoscience').

I love the elevation of Science into a priesthood. How's that atomic bomb doing for you scientists on your path to sainthood? How about the scientists working for Monsanto? Doing all right?
 
2013-07-05 02:51:26 PM

gameshowhost: "We don't fully understand it yet, therefore God."


Up until the 1600s, gods were the best explanation we had for anything.
Now we have much better explanations.  - DNAdams, paraphraxis

All advances in medicine, material science, cosmology, geography, pharmacology, psychology, murder (beyond the longbow and trebuchet), ... viniulture, sanitation, ...

have come by ignoring what the religious have to say on these matters.  This has proven to be solid policy, and should continue.
 
2013-07-05 02:51:45 PM

T.rex: hubiestubert: The only graphic you ever need for explaining "Intelligent Design"...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 500x454]

It's not about science. It's about trying to get religion into the public schools. Plain and simple. It's a cold, manipulative scheme to promote one faith over others. And really the best antiseptic for it, is their own damning words...

What is so 'damning' about that?    Sounds like you're doing the same thing... but trying to get science in schools over religion....

I'm not here to say which way is better... just pointing out you have no right to be judgmental about their actions...  You can judge their beliefs, but their actions are simply a logical response... Why WOULDN'T they want to put religion in schools, if that is what they believe?


I'm assuming hubie will do this better, but no. No, no, no, no, no, and also no. WHY they want to do it doesn't make it alright, nor does it even mean it's really faith-based. I know plenty of Christians who are totally cool with evolution.

This has nothing to do with religion, in the long run. It's entirely about "science has a liberal bias" type of thing. It's not a "look at my religion!" It's a "that's a threat to my religion so DESTROY!"
 
2013-07-05 02:52:15 PM
Whoops!

I forgot: Neil Degrassi High Tyson is an internet celebrity. Therefore: science is good! It gives us iPads!
 
2013-07-05 02:54:48 PM

T.rex: Definitely being argumentative. So perhaps you can tell me who decides what is considered science and what is considered religion.


With this kind of follow-up, you're definitely trolling.

Keep on keepin' on, man.
 
2013-07-05 02:54:56 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: hubiestubert: Trocadero: Fark intelligent design, but the ending sounds beautiful. It is scary in a random, uncaring natural universe. But that means it is up to us humans to derive meaning and faith on our own, b/c God sure as hell can't be arsed to (I threw that last part in).

In the book that I'm pitching, my asteroid miners have a concept that is often misunderstood about their relationship with space. They call it the Long Dark. Groundhogs think of it as worship of the long spaces between, but it's an acceptance of the unforgiving nature of their environment. The Long Dark doesn't particularly care for their safety, their desires, their wants, their needs. Mama Dark envelops them, can indeed be nurturing and giving, but only for those who are careful, who are respectful of the dangers around them. The Long Dark doesn't care if you rip a hole in your suit, doesn't protect you from stray debris, will irradiate you, will kill you in an instant, and the only one you can blame is yourself, for not respecting its power and dangers. They have a relationship with hard vacuum--they work in it, their entire lives are spent keeping their equipment and their homes safe within it--and despite the unforgiving nature of the environment, they see the intrinsic beauty in its implacability, the ultimate fairness that is the Universe, that it simply doesn't care if you live or die, and the moments of beauty, and joy that you find, those are what you bring and take in. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a recital to go to later, if you don't dog a hatch, it will kill you. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a wife and family, if a rock attains enough velocity and its path intersects your home, it will hole it and not weep a tear for their loss. The moments between, the relationships, the beauty is in the details, and what you do, not with trying to placate nature or anthropomorphize it. The Long Dark is. You can deal with it, you can accept it, or you need to stay the heck ...


Speaking as a sailor, my mood improved immediately the moment I realized that the sea didn't want to kill me, because it had no particular will or soul, and was essentially indifferent to my survival while on it. That put the onus on me and me alone, as exemplified through the preparations of boat and crew, to determine the outcome of our encounters.

To me, that's comforting. I wouldn't want the sea or space to be actively trying to kill me. If sea or space are potentially hostile places, however, as a normal state, I'm OK with that. I can deal with danger...not caprice.
 
2013-07-05 02:56:05 PM

Dimensio: cDesign Proponentsists


I love this typo.

It means they were so lazy in editing the textbooks that they couldn't even be bothered to delete the word "creationists" properly.
 
2013-07-05 02:56:10 PM

letrole: A quick glance of this thread shows the way that Atheists are so hateful. Atheists feel dirty inside. All the anger, the forced arrogance, the belligerence -- it's simply shame turned inside out.


And your surname is "Letrôle".
 
2013-07-05 02:57:15 PM

heinrich66: Make me gag.


You make me gag, too. Pretty weaksauce, if you wanna know the truth. Just keep practicing, little buddy.
 
2013-07-05 03:02:18 PM

heinrich66: Make me gag.

Pseudoscience is itself an unscientific concept. There has hardly been sustained 'scientific' scrutiny of the underpinnings of science itself, and of scientific culture, or of the sub-culture of those who hope to overthrow it ('pseudoscience').

I love the elevation of Science into a priesthood. How's that atomic bomb doing for you scientists on your path to sainthood? How about the scientists working for Monsanto? Doing all right?


Are you able to present any meaningful commentary?
 
2013-07-05 03:04:34 PM

Ishkur: To every other living thing, it is just another eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock.


Actually, that's as much as a silly assumption as the basics of intelligent design is.

In other words, you have no possible way of knowing that is true. At all.
 
2013-07-05 03:06:47 PM

heinrich66: Make me gag.

There has hardly been sustained 'scientific' scrutiny of the underpinnings of science itself, and of scientific culture,


Apparently the roots of the scientific method only date back to Egypt, 1600 BC. Hardly any time for a thorough examination.

I love the elevation of Science into a priesthood. How's that atomic bomb doing for you scientists on your path to sainthood? How about the scientists working for Monsanto? Doing all right?

Like your vaccines, medications and other means of prolonging and enhancing your existence?
 
2013-07-05 03:09:57 PM

letrole: A quick glance of this thread shows the way that Atheists are so hateful. Atheists feel dirty inside. All the anger, the forced arrogance, the belligerence -- it's simply shame turned inside out.


Arrogantly not collecting stamps is my hobby.
 
2013-07-05 03:10:15 PM

FarkinHostile: Actually, that's as much as a silly assumption as the basics of intelligent design is.
In other words, you have no possible way of knowing that is true. At all.


Actually, you're right. There's no possible way any other living thing would even know what kind of rock it is at all.
 
2013-07-05 03:13:09 PM
FTFA: "scientists have found no way to account for the Cambrian explosion. Life-forms appeared with no obvious precursors, "

Before the Cambrian explosion there was plenty of life forms but they were soft bodied which leave few fossils.

The explosion is marked by an arms race caused by hard body parts (which make better fossils). If one creature evolves armor to keep from being eaten then predators evolve hard parts to breach that armor causing prey to evolve even better armor.
 
2013-07-05 03:16:36 PM

Valiente: UndeadPoetsSociety: hubiestubert: Trocadero: Fark intelligent design, but the ending sounds beautiful. It is scary in a random, uncaring natural universe. But that means it is up to us humans to derive meaning and faith on our own, b/c God sure as hell can't be arsed to (I threw that last part in).

In the book that I'm pitching, my asteroid miners have a concept that is often misunderstood about their relationship with space. They call it the Long Dark. Groundhogs think of it as worship of the long spaces between, but it's an acceptance of the unforgiving nature of their environment. The Long Dark doesn't particularly care for their safety, their desires, their wants, their needs. Mama Dark envelops them, can indeed be nurturing and giving, but only for those who are careful, who are respectful of the dangers around them. The Long Dark doesn't care if you rip a hole in your suit, doesn't protect you from stray debris, will irradiate you, will kill you in an instant, and the only one you can blame is yourself, for not respecting its power and dangers. They have a relationship with hard vacuum--they work in it, their entire lives are spent keeping their equipment and their homes safe within it--and despite the unforgiving nature of the environment, they see the intrinsic beauty in its implacability, the ultimate fairness that is the Universe, that it simply doesn't care if you live or die, and the moments of beauty, and joy that you find, those are what you bring and take in. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a recital to go to later, if you don't dog a hatch, it will kill you. The Long Dark doesn't care if you have a wife and family, if a rock attains enough velocity and its path intersects your home, it will hole it and not weep a tear for their loss. The moments between, the relationships, the beauty is in the details, and what you do, not with trying to placate nature or anthropomorphize it. The Long Dark is. You can deal with it, you can accept it, or you need to stay the heck ...

Speaking as a sailor, my mood improved immediately the moment I realized that the sea didn't want to kill me, because it had no particular will or soul, and was essentially indifferent to my survival while on it. That put the onus on me and me alone, as exemplified through the preparations of boat and crew, to determine the outcome of our encounters.

To me, that's comforting. I wouldn't want the sea or space to be actively trying to kill me. If sea or space are potentially hostile places, however, as a normal state, I'm OK with that. I can deal with danger...not caprice.


The metaphor of the Long Dark is indeed a rewording of the attitudes I saw doing a bit of boat work as a young man. Write what you know. Write what you know.
 
2013-07-05 03:20:55 PM

Ishkur: Actually, you're right. There's no possible way any other living thing would even know what kind of rock it is at all.


BUZZ! Wrong answer.

Arrogance is not going to get us anywhere, you know. Many living things seem capable of higher thought processes, like elephants and dolphins. You really don't think a dolphin can't tell a wooden dock is man-made and not a natural structure? I personally BELIEVE they most certainly can, but I admit we don't know.

It's a great concept.
 
2013-07-05 03:24:13 PM

FarkinHostile: Ishkur: To every other living thing, it is just another eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock.

Actually, that's as much as a silly assumption as the basics of intelligent design is.


Actually, it's not.
 
2013-07-05 03:33:18 PM

Raw_fishFood: I read the author as Stephine Meyer and got really farking confused. Through I suppose you could make some sort of short fiction story about the Twilight universe how vampires adapted to mimic fairies to ward off Vampire hunters or something.

Anyways back to your scheduled Science kicks ass thread.


Dude, me, too.
 
2013-07-05 03:33:23 PM
Ed Grubermann:

Actually, it's not.

Yes, because we have done a comprehensive study of all animals, or even just those with highly developed brains, can speak/communicate with them to the point where we know what the limits of their understanding of natural/unnatural structures in peer reviewed, repeatable, documented research and the scientific consensus is clear.

Yes, we have done this, so that was not a silly assumption/example of human arrogance at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report