How Life Began

  • 140 Replies
  • 21810 Views
*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2009, 05:42:53 PM »
I still find it hard to believe that the inner workings of the mind are all based on raw chemical reactions.  I don't pretend to know why or how, but the ability to reason and use chemical reactions that occur in the form of our senses to make decisions seems much more complicated than that.  I also have a problem with physical laws dictating our actions as a type of predestination.   We can choose to ignore certain chemical processes such as pain.
I would say that willful self-destruction is probably the best argument for any sort of "free will". It spits in the eye of the very basest of biological imperatives. To end one's own existence is to defy nature and one of two options one has upon admitting the absurdity of one's own situation.

Avoiding pain and misery has no biological basis?
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2009, 05:56:05 PM »
I still find it hard to believe that the inner workings of the mind are all based on raw chemical reactions.  I don't pretend to know why or how, but the ability to reason and use chemical reactions that occur in the form of our senses to make decisions seems much more complicated than that.  I also have a problem with physical laws dictating our actions as a type of predestination.   We can choose to ignore certain chemical processes such as pain.
I would say that willful self-destruction is probably the best argument for any sort of "free will". It spits in the eye of the very basest of biological imperatives. To end one's own existence is to defy nature and one of two options one has upon admitting the absurdity of one's own situation.

Avoiding pain and misery has no biological basis?
It certainly does. However, termination of the self when it does not favour the continuation of one's species appears (at least superficially) to be the antithesis of biology.

It's just a careful balance of self versus species.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2009, 06:40:31 PM »
Avoiding pain and misery has no biological basis?

Not avoiding, but choosing to ignore or endure.  If I grab a pan of burning grease off the stove my senses will tell me to drop it because it is hot.  How then do I choose to endure the heat, suffer some burns, and take the pan out the back door (not that I would recommend doing that for a grease fire, it is just an example).
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2009, 06:46:50 PM »
I still find it hard to believe that the inner workings of the mind are all based on raw chemical reactions.  I don't pretend to know why or how, but the ability to reason and use chemical reactions that occur in the form of our senses to make decisions seems much more complicated than that.  I also have a problem with physical laws dictating our actions as a type of predestination.   We can choose to ignore certain chemical processes such as pain.
I would say that willful self-destruction is probably the best argument for any sort of "free will". It spits in the eye of the very basest of biological imperatives. To end one's own existence is to defy nature and one of two options one has upon admitting the absurdity of one's own situation.

That sounds more like a flaw. If I created something I wouldn't make something that occasionally breaks itself out of sadness.

Sounds more like evolution, which does not have an end goal. If a mutation is not harmful enough to wipe itself out (slight suicidal tendencies perhaps) then it will pass itself along.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2009, 06:59:02 PM »
Avoiding pain and misery has no biological basis?

Not avoiding, but choosing to ignore or endure.  If I grab a pan of burning grease off the stove my senses will tell me to drop it because it is hot.  How then do I choose to endure the heat, suffer some burns, and take the pan out the back door (not that I would recommend doing that for a grease fire, it is just an example).

I can go into all kinds of biological reasons one might do such a thing, depending on the circumstances surrounding the person.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2009, 07:10:46 PM »
That sounds more like a flaw. If I created something I wouldn't make something that occasionally breaks itself out of sadness.
I was not defending creationism of any kind. 
Hardly an antithesis of biology. If a whole clan has some sort of suicidal tendencies, then a deformed person might kill themselves disassociating the two genes. Or on the other hand, someone crippled to the point of hurting the clan might do it also.

Genes don't necessarily have to benefit the individual, just a large number of people with the gene.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2009, 07:16:17 PM »
The crippled are not the sole perpetrators of suicide.

Of course not. A mutation does not have to be 100% beneficial to survive.

?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2009, 07:47:45 AM »
Are you suggesting there's a gene that makes one more inclined to suicide?
I wouldn't doubt that at all.
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2009, 08:40:12 AM »
Are you suggesting there's a gene that makes one more inclined to suicide?

It seems to run in families. It is based on a chemical imbalance. So yeah, sounds likely.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2009, 06:48:14 PM »
I meant specifically. It being based on a chemical imbalance is hardly a breakthrough. I really thought you were on to something for a minute there.
Well that is how a gene would cause someone to be more suicidal. The genes aren't like the brain, they aren't consulted for every decision. They just alter the body in a way that affects the choices. we make.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2009, 06:58:58 PM »
Rephrasing time.

A gene doesn't just flip on and you have fun. It merely effects a single portion of you. Whether it is the shape of a part of the brain, or the proton pump in a cell.

Each of these small changes can have huge effects. The small change in shape could make you retarded. The faulty proton pump could give you very low levels of certain hormones. These low levels of hormones could make you not deal with stress as well. Which in turn could bring about more suicidal thoughts.


Suicide itself I believe comes with self consciousness. Once you figure out what you is, you are capable of wanting to kill you. Perhaps suicidal thoughts are a remnant of our basic wish to kill something, just turned on this new person we had never discovered before.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2009, 10:35:23 PM »
I was in class today and my teacher (who has a masters in Biology) started talking about genes, which then turned to mutations of genes.
As we all know, mutation plays an enormous part in the Evolutionary theory. The problem is, 99% of mutation is bad and generally deadly. An example would be cancer. So what are the chances, that even with billions of years, we have mutated this far from a single-celled organism,  and that there are literally billions of different species of bugs and animals? How does that happen?
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2009, 10:38:08 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.

I'd say the odds are 100%ish. Cuz it happened.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2009, 10:43:22 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2009, 10:44:52 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.
On less than a percent? It's not like the whole species gets the same exact mutations at the same exact time. If a bad mutation occurs either the organism survives, or dies and doesn't reproduce. Either way the species survives.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2009, 10:45:40 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2009, 10:49:48 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2009, 10:51:56 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

A good mutation means you are more likely to reproduce?
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2009, 10:56:40 PM »
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

So both parents have to have blue eyes to have blue eyed offspring?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2009, 10:57:34 PM »
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

So both parents have to have blue eyes to have blue eyed offspring?
No, buit the other parent must carry the gene.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2009, 10:58:35 PM »
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

So both parents have to have blue eyes to have blue eyed offspring?
No, buit the other parent must carry the gene.

Only if that gene is recessive.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2009, 10:59:04 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

That is only true on recessive traits. Please fail more.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2009, 11:00:17 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

That is only true on recessive traits. Please fail more.
Blue eyes are recessive. You FAIL about saying i Fail
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2009, 11:01:38 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

That is only true on recessive traits. Please fail more.
Blue eyes are recessive. You FAIL about saying i Fail

Neither you nor I ever mentioned blue eyes.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2009, 11:10:17 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

A good mutation means you are more likely to reproduce?
According to Darwin.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2009, 11:12:16 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

That is only true on recessive traits. Please fail more.
Blue eyes are recessive. You FAIL about saying i Fail

Neither you nor I ever mentioned blue eyes.
You erased it you penguin!
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2009, 11:13:23 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

That is only true on recessive traits. Please fail more.
Blue eyes are recessive. You FAIL about saying i Fail

Neither you nor I ever mentioned blue eyes.
You erased it you penguin!
I didn't erase or touch anything. I don't have to cheat to win a debate with you. Check your own quote pyramid. It would show I edited your post if I touched that.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2009, 11:16:09 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

But those 1% are amplified because they are more likely to reproduce.
Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.

That is only true on recessive traits. Please fail more.
Blue eyes are recessive. You FAIL about saying i Fail

Neither you nor I ever mentioned blue eyes.
You erased it you penguin!
I didn't erase or touch anything. I don't have to cheat to win a debate with you. Check your own quote pyramid. It would show I edited your post if I touched that.
Sorry, i didn't look back far enough.

Why is that? And by the way, I also learned that foe a mutation to work and be passed on, both the male and female must have the same mutation.
So both parents have to have blue eyes to have blue eyed offspring?
No, buit the other parent must carry the gene.
This is where blue eyes were brought up and I responded to it.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: How Life Began
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2009, 11:16:47 PM »
Yeah, but I was responding to something you said before that. so.... no.

Re: How Life Began
« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2009, 11:19:04 PM »
Yeah, but I was responding to something you said before that. so.... no.
But I thought you were responding to another post so....no.
I hate myself for coming here