"Real" ringworlds

[Fyron]

Krsqk, there is no "mantra" as you put it. Evolution does not deal with how life began. It deals with how life changes. The arguments of how evolution must be wrong because we can't use it to show how life began are irrelevant at best because evolution makes no claims as to how life came from unlife. That topic of discussion is in no way about an evolutionary process. There is no "fyronizing" going on; only explanation of the huge distinction between theories and hypotheses of evolution and those of the origins of life. Several people have already shown that they believe evolution explains the origins of life, when it in fact does not. It is impossible to soundly argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because it does not explain how life began because it does not address that issue in any way. The theory of gravity does not address atomic spin, but noone would say it is wrong because of this. Gravitational force and atomic spin are not related (with current understandings of the physical world) in the same way that evolution and the origin of life are not related.

Most scientific origin hypothesis use evolution in them, yes. But, evolution is still not false if the origin hypothesis is false. This is not to say that evolution is true either, it is to say that no possible connection can be drawn between the two. In fact, it is entirely possible that the form of Creationism in which God created life and then let it go free and the theory of evolution are both true. Evolution does not depend on how life began.

[ May 16, 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

ok, i figured something out yesterday while falling asleep, note, don't get into that habit. it will keep you up nights. keep your deep thoughts to sensible places, like the toilet.

but, like somebody said, i don't think you can really seperate evolution from beginnings and endings. and, by saying things like soul, i was trying to describe thinking and knowing your thinking. and, my understanding of the theory of evolutuion is that it does try to deal with how T.A.K.Y.T. came about, but if fyron's definition is right, so's he and then i'm not right in saying my theory rules it out.

[ May 17, 2003, 01:36: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

T.A.K.Y.T.

Eh?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

thinking and knowing your thinking
and that steel and tin stuff was a metaphor. someone didn't understand that.

[Fyron]

It was not a metaphor as you wrote it. Maybe you intended it to be one, but it wasn't. An analogy, maybe. But, the basis of comparison is poor. For an analogy to work, the items have to be similar already. Intelligence and "better tin" have no similarities. Tin does not "evolve" or anything like that. Tin is tin is tin. It is never worse than tin nor better than tin.

i don't think you can really seperate evolution from beginnings and endings

In that, you are absolutely wrong. Evolution does not address the beginning or the end, only the middle.

[ May 17, 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Krsqk]

The problem lies in how the word "evolution" is used. One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species. As such, it is closely related to hypotheses of spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, and the origin of life itself. You can restrict the term "evolution" to strictly mean microevolution, but the vast majority of those discussing and debating it on both sides use it to mean any and/or all aspects of the theory/hypotheses, often switching freely between definitions (sometimes even mid-sentence).

[edit]Fyron, this post isn't necessarily directed at you. You, at least, are usually fairly consistent in how you use a word (sometimes annoyingly so). However, evolution has come to mean much more in popular parlance than the limited scope which you place on it.

[ May 17, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Phoenix-D]

"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."

But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem.