"Real" ringworlds

narf poit chez BOOM · #1 May 16th, 2003, 03:57 AM

i did ackknowledge them, but only to say that evolution would only produce a computer. am i to brief? probably. i apologize. i think our confusion comes from the fact that your talking about evolution the definition, i'm talking about evolution the process, as it, according to the theory as i understand it, would happen.

[ May 16, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron · #2 May 16th, 2003, 05:55 AM

The definition outlines the process, so any and all arguments about that are the same.

The source of confusion is that you are confusing evolution with origin theories.

Also, you did indeed ignore the Posts. All you did was restate your original statement 3-4 times. You did not address the points they had raised of how you were wrong.

narf poit chez BOOM · #3 May 16th, 2003, 06:27 AM

i read the Last two pages, and didn't see anything in regards to my assertation that couldn't be answered by my assertation that all that would produce would be a computer.
now, if i theorize that a certain process will give rise to a certain better, stronger and more flexible steel, how does it affect my theory if i find an example of that steel in nature and that steel is intelligent?

[ May 16, 2003, 05:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron · #4 May 16th, 2003, 06:35 AM

Narf, you have obviously misunderstood the responses to your Posts then. Several Posts have indeed adressed the issue quite clearly.

Go google for origins theories to get some good answers to your question.

[ May 16, 2003, 05:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Phoenix-D · #5 May 16th, 2003, 08:01 AM

"i read the Last two pages, and didn't see anything in regards to my assertation that couldn't be answered by my assertation that all that would produce would be a computer."

Err..you didn't say that at all. You said evolution couldn't produce intelligence; now you claim you meant it couldn't produce a soul. Two different things. Intelligence can be shown to exist, even if it is hard to measure. A soul..can't. Its a belief that it exists, or doesn't, and falls outside the realm of science (and therefore evolution)

"now, if i theorize that a certain process will give rise to a certain better, stronger and more flexible steel, how does it affect my theory if i find an example of that steel in nature and that steel is intelligent?"

It affects it not at all, unless the steel was produced by that process you theorized. Knowing -one- way something can happen doesn't mean that is the only way, even if a lot of the time it is. (it doesn't -support- your theory at all though)

Primogenitor · #6 May 16th, 2003, 06:34 PM

One of the great things about theories is that they are not set in stone tablets, they can change in the light of new information and interpretation. Thoeries are not proved. When an idea is first proposed, it is a hypothosis. When it has some evidence it is a theory. When it is proven, it is fact. When evolution was first proposed, no one knew anything of DNA, genes, or much of what would now be considered important information. Indeed, for a time it was though that proteins were the material of inheritance and not DNA. The original ideas of inheritance were that offspring were a blend of both parents, tall dads + short mums = medium height kids. Of course this is rubbish, you can easily see that over time everyone would become the same, and in the world today there is a lot of variety, but at the time no one had any better ideas.

If you did find an amazing new metal, then your theory could be modified to include an explanation for how it came to be. Or it could be replaced with something completely different. Over the years many peices of evidence have been suggested to contradice evolution, but all can be fitted in to the model. One of the first was the evolution of the eye.

A: The eye is so complex that it cannot have suddenly apeared fully formed overnight by a single mutation. Therefore evolution is wrong!

B: Ahh, but it changed bit by bit, each better than the Last.

A: But part of an eye cannot see. If you dont have a lens, you cannot focus, without a pupil ou cannot adjust to light and dark. What use is an eye that doesnt work? If you cannot see then you cannot avoid predators/catch prey/see mates/etc.

B: It doesnt have to work to the same standard as ours. It only has to be better than the eyes of the competition at the time. The first eyes may only have seen black and white at very low resolution. But any mutant that could see in grey would do better than just the black and white ones. They dont have to compete with modern eyes, because they dont exist yet. Your eyes do not see as well as a hawks, but they still work.

There are hundred more examples, things that didnt fit to start with, but then the theory was changed or someone thought of an explanation. Go on, try some! Ill do the best i can

Jack Simth · #7 May 16th, 2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
There are hundred more examples, things that didnt fit to start with, but then the theory was changed or someone thought of an explanation. Go on, try some! Ill do the best i can

How about the circulation system? It appears to be required for any non-plant that is bigger than a few cells, and yet it is highly complex and interrelated:
A heart is useless without bloodand blood vessels
Blood vessels are useless without blood and a heart
Blood is useless without a heart and blood vessels
In order for any of them to happen, all three would have to happen simultaneously, or be nothing but a liability. E.G. the heart has to be a functional pump in order to move the blood through the veins, the blood needs to be able to carry nutrients at that same time, and the blood vessels need to already extend to everywhere they need to go.