Is there proof for...

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So that's an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good. You are correct in that regard.

There are lots of times when I look back at something I said and realize I didn't know what I was talking about. When it comes to science I am admittedly ignorant. But I assure you that there isn't anything you can say that I can't understand.

I don't think I said anything scientific anyway, so I don't know what you mean when you say I don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
It is just really cool biochemistry. And let's not forget biophysics, which definitely comes into play when we are talking consciousness.

Biophysics and consciousness? Why do I want to think that consciousness is something more than just chemical and electrical reactions? I would be very interested in hearing how those physical processes gives me self awareness.

Originally posted by josephw
But I assure you that there isn't anything you can say that I can't understand.

Asaf rbiuywb bnkjpoiud jk ekj spdiyhdsc sdfsjebn.

Originally posted by josephw
Biophysics and consciousness? Why do I want to think that consciousness is something more than just chemical and electrical reactions?

Because it is something more. But that does not mean that it isn't entirely a result of those chemical and electrical reactions. A computer works mostly by electricity but I am sure that you are aware of its abilities.
Books are made of nothing more than ink and paper but they are much more than that because of the information contained in them. But that doesn't mean that books work by some supernatural means.
Consciousness (and life) is all about information.

I would be very interested in hearing how those physical processes gives me self awareness.
I am sure there are many books on the subject. I doubt it could be fully explained in one thread. But if you have specific questions then maybe they could be answered

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Has he actually directly answered any questions or read any of the posted information in this thread so far? Because someone who is interested in learning would do that wouldn't they?

I read every single word of every post. I may not respond to every point being made, but that is because I am selective for the purpose of getting at what I think is the heart of a particular issue.
I'm not here to bring enlightenment to anyone, but I know what I believe and why I believe it. And if in the process of a debate someone should learn something from me, well then all the better.
I always try to learn from everyone I meet, even if I think I'm smarter than them.

And by the way. I love sarcasm and irony, and I can be arrogant, condescending, and patronizing as hell if I want to. Just for fun.
And some of my christian brothers may disagree with me, but when someone slaps me, I slap back. Harder. Just for the fun of it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
For something to be characterised as alive it must fulfil several criteria. There are some things, for example viruses, or some chemicals which fulfil some of the conditions, but not all of them.

Wiki has a relatively standard definition

"Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the fo ...[text shortened]... gh strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."

As to #5, Adaptation. Is there proof that the earths environmental conditions aren't the same as they have ever been? As a whole I mean.
From my understanding, the balance and range of the conditions necessary for life to exist are quite narrow.
Why would evolving be needed, if in the first place the conditions for life to exist is so narrowly defined? Do you get what I mean?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Asaf rbiuywb bnkjpoiud jk ekj spdiyhdsc sdfsjebn.

Got me!😏

Originally posted by josephw
As to #5, Adaptation. Is there proof that the earths environmental conditions aren't the same as they have ever been? As a whole I mean.
From my understanding, the balance and range of the conditions necessary for life to exist are quite narrow.
Why would evolving be needed, if in the first place the conditions for life to exist is so narrowly defined? Do you get what I mean?

You're right, the conditions are fairly narrow, But within these constraints there is still the opportunity for enormous diversity. And don't forget, it's not just the environment that life has to compete against and adapt to - there's other life as well.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
As are you.

Penguin, he's an idiot because he can't seem to find any of the numerous threads about Evolution and instead started his own.

Fair comment, it would have been very little work for him to look through a page or so of thread titles to see what sort of thing was being discussed and then add to an existing thread. That is what an intelligent person would do so I can fully understand your anoyance.

Still, in the purely text medium that we have, simple coments like "you're an idiot" do not help in my opinion. I was just trying to suggest we give a little slack to the newbies: politely suggesting he lurk a while and check out recent history before diving in, rather than calling him names.

Having said that, my initial response to your post was a kneejerk reaction in itself so I apologise.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by josephw
Biophysics and consciousness? Why do I want to think that consciousness is something more than just chemical and electrical reactions? I would be very interested in hearing how those physical processes gives me self awareness.

Understanding how the brain works and what self-awarness is is a very hot area of research in many fields, biochem, biophysics, mathematics, psychology. There are thousands of people that would be interested to know exactly how it all works, including me. The short answer is we don't understand it all yet.

I don't know why you think consciousness has to be more than chemistry and physics, but incredulity has never been a valid refutation for anything. It honestly doesn't seem unlikely to me, it seems far more parsimonious than a "soul" or some special trait humans get by magic.

Research is ongoing, and progress is being made, but no scientist can honestly give you an answer as to exactly how it all works. And the pathways are very complicated anyway. Try picking up a book on neurology or something from the library just to get a feel for how things like nerves work and are connected.

Originally posted by josephw
As to #5, Adaptation. Is there proof that the earths environmental conditions aren't the same as they have ever been? As a whole I mean.
From my understanding, the balance and range of the conditions necessary for life to exist are quite narrow.
Why would evolving be needed, if in the first place the conditions for life to exist is so narrowly defined? Do you get what I mean?

Well, I'm going to partially agree with ammanion. It kind of depends what you define as "narrow" conditions for life to survive in. I mean, we have life that lives in some pretty extreme environments, from volcanic hot pools with strong acid and high temperatures, to deep oceans, under extreme pressure and cold.

However, things are still pretty much live in the range of 4 - 80C, somewhere between 1 and 400 atmospheric pressures. All life needs water.

But, we do know that in the past, earth's environment was markedly different. For example pre-3 billion years ago, solar output was around 25% less than it currently is. For the first 3.4 billion years, the atmospheric CO2 conc was around 30% CO2, but a major drawdown mainly about 400 million years ago, during the colonisation of land by plants (coal deposits now) led to very high O2 concentrations, up to 30% (at which point wet vegetation with burn readily). UV levels were high up until about 500 mya, because the lack of O2 in the atmosphere (~4% at 500 mya) meant we had no O3 (ozone). This would have cooked anything which lived on the land, but that was okay, because most life was in the oceans, and water absorbs UV.

So I guess, yes, we have had huge changes in environmental conditions, within the limits that life exists within.

Originally posted by josephw
I read every single word of every post. I may not respond to every point being made, but that is because I am selective for the purpose of getting at what I think is the heart of a particular issue.
I'm not here to bring enlightenment to anyone, but I know what I believe and why I believe it. And if in the process of a debate someone should learn something ...[text shortened]... may disagree with me, but when someone slaps me, I slap back. Harder. Just for the fun of it.

So did you read the HUGE thread on Evolution?

Originally posted by amannion
You're right, the conditions are fairly narrow, But within these constraints there is still the opportunity for enormous diversity. And don't forget, it's not just the environment that life has to compete against and adapt to - there's other life as well.

But what about the disparity of life? Why the enormous difference between humans and animals? Why would there not be other life forms between human and animal? I've never heard of there being any in the fossil record either. And a few bones of dubious archaeological discovery is not enough evidence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that you eat your distant relatives? sic

Or have you never eaten broccoli?

I see you ignored my post earlier.

Yes, you are related to broccoli. The question is how related.
You both are made up of matter. You are both carbon-based organisms.
You both need oxygen to survive. You both grow and die.

What does 'relation' have anything to do with anything? You don't
eat humans simply because you are related to them? I don't
think so. You don't eat humans because there is a moral framework
regarding rights and person, not because of 'relation.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
But what about the disparity of life? Why the enormous difference between humans and animals? Why would there not be other life forms between human and animal? I've never heard of there being any in the fossil record either. And a few bones of dubious archaeological discovery is not enough evidence.

Enormous difference? I think humans and apes share something like 99% of the same genes.