>>7648481 Part of regards people without some degree of body hair as inferior, or as an evolutionary misstep. Something that possesses a clustering of traits only afforded the ability to exist by modern conditions and living in a rigidly engineered and manicured ecology.
I'm not sure where this idea stems from. It's like some mishmash of prejudice and intuition.
The next stop is/will be related to information processing in our brains, I guess.
We absorb more information in one day than a person from 200 years ago in a month. For that reason I wonder how will be the senility of our generation, and what mental illness may we get after decades of constant Internet usage.
>>7648481 I don't know how many times we have to go over this. Evolutionairy science is flawed. Base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it. Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 million times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)
>>7649710 you have to realize that the facts are the facts. If you look at the data, 100% of species are thought to be descant from a common acnestor. if you look at the dna you'll realize that the genes are all aligned in a certain way. however, you have to realize, DNA is an informational system. slightly more formally, "'DNA'"==[["INFORMATION"]]. however, that information can't "evolve" per say, but it has to come from somewhere, but not by the means of evolution biologically speaking. so if it comes about from some other source, you can speculate all you want, but it takes some empirical research to really demonstrate a CONVINCING origin. and that's just it. it's all in our minds. the idea of information. it doens't "exist" in the natural universe. biologically speaking, evolution can't "evolved," from itself(or from nothing), because it doesn't "exist"! however, as soon as this realization is made it has more reaching implications unto the rest of evolutionairy theory. therefore, if the concept of informational quality in DNA structures is introduced by humans, then so is the "narrative" process of evoltion throughout history. so it doesn't make any sense to talk about one species evolting into another diachronically, it only makes sense to talk about them in the most synchronic sense of the concept. as soon as you abstract away from these things, you realize that the entire dialogue of evolution can be arbitrarialized into a number of facets which aren't necessary for the procedure to take place, if at all, including "single common ancestor" theory.
>>7649710 >not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis) Oh, good. For a second there it sounded like you WEREN'T drinking lighter fluid. Thank God you're shitfaced.
>>7649731 quite the contrary my good lad, what a fine day to be dissertating at such a pleasantry of a question. this discernment is quiet unfortunately inccorrect as ever before has anyone seen, for it is quiet unlikely that such a question be ramificationable in the not-so-distant forthcomings; As you are undoubtedly salient, evolution has never been ascendantly validated, and therefore is not such as would most likely be considered in the upper eschelon of scientific inquirey as "true science." Though it may be the case that in such a day and age such as this, many do accept it as thus; lamentaciously; the various evidentialities of evolutionary "science" (requiring that it be called such is a misnomer; unfortunately) are the result of might we call a CONSPIRATION of the upper classes of under-educated scientists [of the 19th centuries]. Keep in mind that an animal such as an aardvark is said to have existed AFTER the time of an animalistic creature such as a Trilobyte. However, bear in mind the word-initial letters in each case. Aardvark: "A," trilobytte ("T"). If the trilobite existed prior to the aardvark, then why does aardvark begin with a letter prior to the first letter of trilobyte? If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters? we do not find this patter exant among those animals who exist supercilliously today.
>>7648481 We don't even know what kind of equilibrium is going to be reached regarding technology, population and planetary resources in the next few centuries. There's too many factors to consider, especially with deliberate genetic manipulation in the mix.
Thread replies: 37 Thread images: 8
Thread DB ID: 76936
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.