"Real" ringworlds

[Fyron]

Evolution DOES NOT make any claims as to how life began. That is a class of theories labeled as origin theories. Evolution only talks about how life is now and in the distant past. So, it does not need to explain how consciousness could develop from chemicals and electricity. However, there are many, many origin theories that explain such things.

I have told you to learn what evolution is because you are confusing it with origin theory, which it is not.

Also, you have categorically ignored at least 5 Posts that directly talked about how intelligence developed. You did not even acknowledge their existence. If you wish to hold a discussion, you must provide counter arguments to the arguments made against your point, not simply ignore them.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

[Primogenitor]

An easy one to start with then

Note: plants do have a circulatory system, its just different to animals, esp mammals. They draw water into the roots and this goes into long tubes all the way up to the leaves where it evaporates. As water evaporates it draws more up the tube by surface tension and capillary action, kind of like drinking a straw. As the water moves, nutients such as minerals are brought with it from the soil up to the leaves. Theres another system which goes the other way, but im not sure how that works.

The reason you need a cirulatory system is because of surface area/volume ratio. Above a certain distince from the outside the cells of the organsim cannot get to oxygen/food at a fast enough rate. This is the reason you dont have worms above about 1/2 cm wide, they get longer because that keeps the distance the same. You could have a worm 10 miles long, as long as it is no more than the critical width.
One way to get around this is to put air tubes reaching from the outside inwards. Then as long as no cell is too far from a tube, its OK. But they can ony be a certain length before diffusion doesnt work.
So the bottom of the tubes is filled with a liquid, many chemicals will disolve in water better than in air.
Something that can carry oxygen/co2 in it (heamoglobin like).
The ends could seal over with cells that can move the required stuff from the air into the liquid in the tubes.
The tubes could join up within the organism so that they can exchange liquid. However, its still moving by diffusion.
It could be pumped by the walls of the tubes contracting, like your throat when you swallow.
The same liquid could also carry nutrients, waste, hormone, anything that need to get to all of the cells.
Some of the cells in the middle of the tube network become better at pumping, so that those at the outside can become specialised into transfereing nutrients/gases into the liquid.
Voila, you have a proto-heart, a proto-blood, and proto-blood vessels.

Remember, at all stages it only has to compete with the previous stage. This is also not orthodox theory, this is just off the top of my head. It probably has several holes in it, but im sure they can be fixed.

Evidence:
Insects have air tubes going into their bodies.
I dont think fish have a heart (cos i know the gills evolved into it).
Plants dont need a pump to move water.
Many small organisms are just filled with water(n stuff).
In an embryo, the heart doesnt start beating for some time. Gets nutrients from amniotic fluid)
There are many liquid containing orifices, the mouth for example.
Arteries are partially contractile and muscle lined.

Next!

[Spoo]

I dont think fish have a heart (cos i know the gills evolved into it)

Fish have hearts. The gills "evolved into" lungs.