If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

"Adaptation is NOT evolution."

Bahahahahaha. Right. Word definitions don't change just because you lie about it on a forum.

Which is exactly what we were trying to tell you on the other forum. it is called genetic code because it was intelligently designed by a Programmer.

You can't say one species is more evolved than another. Evolution is constant.

But you just said the tribe that went north through the caucuses evolved. When they exposed lighter skin traits, these people that migrated through the caucus mountains were called caucasians - they did not evolve, they are still "homo sapiens".

Yes, they were still homo sapiens.

Yes, their population evolved, via natural selection, to have lighter skin and eye color, based on mutations for these things becoming advantageous for survival due to changing environment.

This is evolution by definition.

a reply to: Barcs

That is quite a hefty assumption there. Do you really think it is impossible for human understanding of genetics to improve enough so that we can program or create DNA code? If so, why?

There is no doubt in my mind. Non of us will be a live to see the day.


We can at best only manipulate and exstract from what is already alive. Building a code from scratch that will form a single life that will sustain it self....naaa.. On top of that the code would have to include the formula for the lifeform to grow and evolve to become something functional. I rahter guess the Scientific community will take the short cut and form a New definition of life. One that fits the description of what they have created. I know that can be done.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs

That is quite a hefty assumption there. Do you really think it is impossible for human understanding of genetics to improve enough so that we can program or create DNA code? If so, why?

There is no doubt in my mind. Non of us will be a live to see the day.


We can at best only manipulate and exstract from what is already alive. Building a code from scratch that will form a single life that will sustain it self....naaa.. On top of that the code would have to include the formula for the lifeform to grow and evolve to become something functional. I rahter guess the Scientific community will take the short cut and form a New definition of life. One that fits the description of what they have created. I know that can be done.

A sentient AI that can build replicas of itself would satisfy all these criteria. I highly doubt that's more than a few generations away, given Moore's law.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs

That is quite a hefty assumption there. Do you really think it is impossible for human understanding of genetics to improve enough so that we can program or create DNA code? If so, why?

There is no doubt in my mind. Non of us will be a live to see the day.


We can at best only manipulate and exstract from what is already alive. Building a code from scratch that will form a single life that will sustain it self....naaa.. On top of that the code would have to include the formula for the lifeform to grow and evolve to become something functional. I rahter guess the Scientific community will take the short cut and form a New definition of life. One that fits the description of what they have created. I know that can be done.

A sentient AI that can build replicas of itself would satisfy all these criteria. I highly doubt that's more than a few generations away, given Moore's law.

Yes we can build machines (AI's) that are programed to produce, but to build something organic like a cell and have it programed to becomming something usefull is a different reality. Just the Word usefull is a wide definition.

For a AI to be life. I dont know if a AI satisfy the creteria for being life.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs

That is quite a hefty assumption there. Do you really think it is impossible for human understanding of genetics to improve enough so that we can program or create DNA code? If so, why?

There is no doubt in my mind. Non of us will be a live to see the day.


We can at best only manipulate and exstract from what is already alive. Building a code from scratch that will form a single life that will sustain it self....naaa.. On top of that the code would have to include the formula for the lifeform to grow and evolve to become something functional. I rahter guess the Scientific community will take the short cut and form a New definition of life. One that fits the description of what they have created. I know that can be done.

A sentient AI that can build replicas of itself would satisfy all these criteria. I highly doubt that's more than a few generations away, given Moore's law.

Yes we can build machines (AI's) that are programed to produce, but to build something organic like a cell and have it programed to becomming something usefull is a different reality. Just the Word usefull is a wide definition.

For a AI to be life. I dont know if a AI satisfy the creteria for being life.

If it's conscious and self aware, it's alive. It's just not biological.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Barcs

That is quite a hefty assumption there. Do you really think it is impossible for human understanding of genetics to improve enough so that we can program or create DNA code? If so, why?

There is no doubt in my mind. Non of us will be a live to see the day.


We can at best only manipulate and exstract from what is already alive. Building a code from scratch that will form a single life that will sustain it self....naaa.. On top of that the code would have to include the formula for the lifeform to grow and evolve to become something functional. I rahter guess the Scientific community will take the short cut and form a New definition of life. One that fits the description of what they have created. I know that can be done.

A sentient AI that can build replicas of itself would satisfy all these criteria. I highly doubt that's more than a few generations away, given Moore's law.

Yes we can build machines (AI's) that are programed to produce, but to build something organic like a cell and have it programed to becomming something usefull is a different reality. Just the Word usefull is a wide definition.

For a AI to be life. I dont know if a AI satisfy the creteria for being life.

If it's conscious and self aware, it's alive. It's just not biological.

As i mentioned earlier, it is all about how we defind what is to be life. I Wonder how this will function in the legal system....

didn't eat enough shrooms

a reply to: cooperton

Which is exactly what we were trying to tell you on the other forum. it is called genetic code because it was intelligently designed by a Programmer.

You must have said or implied this statement a thousand times on this forum. To date, you have never provided any proof of concept. You've cited no data, no experiments, no evidence whatsoever - yet, your faulty logic remains in tact as evidenced by your irrational posts. How does any of your speculation about a "creator" or "programmer" fit into the scientific method? How do you justify even the most minimal speculation about a "creator" with zero evidence?

You are free to believe what you want. You're NOT free to call it science without validating that claim with evidence.

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

If we evolved from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Flawed logic cuts both ways!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You are free to believe what you want. You're NOT free to call it science without validating that claim with evidence.

Never called it science, its logic/philosophy. How could intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Can a random letter generator create an intelligible treatise on philosophy or emotions? - Not in a billion years, not ever.

a reply to: cooperton

Acknowledged. I'm not going through all your posts, but I was under the impression that you considered your opinion as science.

And as I have said before (so many times I can't count any more), science does not rule out a "creator" or "programmer". It simply comes down to hard evidence - right now, the evidence points to chemistry. But again, anything is possible.

Anyway, good weekend to you.

They still exist because nature is a troll. Now you know. You're welcome.

a reply to: secretboss

maybe some primates decided to chose a higher spiritual path and avoided the fall from grace of the human race.

a reply to: secretboss

maybe some primates decided to chose a higher spiritual path and avoided the fall from grace of the human race.

Why does this thread have 26 flags??

Guess you just need bs titles these days.

a reply to: cooperton

Actually given a billon years it probably could.
What do you consider non intelligence?

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

"Adaptation is NOT evolution."

Bahahahahaha. Right. Word definitions don't change just because you lie about it on a forum.

Which is exactly what we were trying to tell you on the other forum. it is called genetic code because it was intelligently designed by a Programmer.

You can't say one species is more evolved than another. Evolution is constant.

But you just said the tribe that went north through the caucuses evolved. When they exposed lighter skin traits, these people that migrated through the caucus mountains were called caucasians - they did not evolve, they are still "homo sapiens".

Yes, they were still homo sapiens.

Yes, their population evolved, via natural selection, to have lighter skin and eye color, based on mutations for these things becoming advantageous for survival due to changing environment.

This is evolution by definition.

Which is false. An animal will never develop a trait simply because it needs to.

It either finds homeostasis or it goes extinct. Simple as that

a reply to: ssenerawa

What?
Can you show an example of something that has stayed in homeostasis?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ssenerawa

What?
Can you show an example of something that has stayed in homeostasis?

An animals natural habitat.