AndyHolland, evolution

AndyHolland wrote

NOT AT ALL!!!!

SURE THEY EVOLVED (slowly changed, adapted etc....). However, there is something in their genetic makeup that prevents them from utilizing O2 in the most energy efficient manner.

Given the conditioning of our atmosphere, that is indicative of design.

--------
Also note, your continued use of insults is totally irrational and illogical.

andy holland
sinner

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires that the mutations that get past on are the "most ... efficient", only that they improve the survivablity of the organism. You propose that the fact plants can't utilize O2 in the most energy efficient manner to be "evidence" of "design". I respond that plants don't utilize O2 in the most energy efficient manner because there was/is no suvival advantage for them to do so.

:p

A vast number of pages too late, I know, but this clown is just too tempting to resist.

AndyHolland wrote

Edison was a grammar school dropout.
Westinghouse a first semester college dropout.
Orville and Wilber Wright were bicycle mechanics.

Edison had a huge team of inventors slaving away doing most of his inventing for him. He then claimed the credit.

Brunel was the greatest inventor ever, you tool. He did the Clifton Suspension bridge (which is still very much in use today), the Thames tunnel (the first underwater tunnel in the world) the Great Western Railway (which had, among other things, the then longest tunnel in the world), the Maidenhead bridge (which was the flattest brick arch ever, and looked really good) and the SS Great Eastern, by far the largest ship ever made at the time, and the SS Great Britain, the first large ship ever to use only screw propellors and a blow to American pride that would only be matched on the day of Concorde's first flight.

AndyHolland wrote

CO2 + Energy -> C + O2

78% N2
21% O2
>1% other
380 ppm CO2

Actually, there isn't. They have no other way of collecting enough energy. There are bacteria that can gather sufficient energy to live from certain exothermic reactions (find a good description of the nitrogen cycle) but it's not efficient enough to allow them to have sufficient energy to organise themselves into complex multicellular organisms.

Besides, plants aren't really conscious enough to go praising anything.

AndyHolland wrote

Had Curtiss and Wrights gotten along, collaborated, air travel would have evolved much faster. :)

Actually, competition between each other could have spurred both parties on harder. Why do you think technological progress is usually higher in wartime? How long would it have taken to build nuclear power stations and weapons if it weren't for the Second World War? Just like in nature, competition tends to lead to more rapid evolution.

AndyHolland wrote

Every thought you think, every photon you see, is a miracle. Every sunrise, every creature - beautiful. The more we study it, the more fascinating it becomes, the less we know.

No, the less we realise we know. Murrr.

Sure, all that shit is awesome. And the more we know about it, the more awesome we realise it is. So why do you have to go and shit all over it with this knowledge-discouraging god idea?

AndyHolland wrote

So I agree, I am a dumb ass. I am not alone in ignorance, but perhaps the advantage I have is recognizing myself as profoundly ignorant.

Yet you still do nothing about it. As such, you are saying to us that you think you are actually so knowledgable you don't even need to go out and learn new things. You should be ashamed, you damn dirty hypocrite.

AndyHolland wrote

Repent, while you still breath and remember, every breath is a miracle.

Fuck off.

AndyHolland wrote

And what is inside our brains, makes any computer look absolutely stupid.

Until it comes to actually applying that immense computing power to something. Ask most human brains to solve a complex mathematical equation and they'll stare gormlessly at you. Try to get most brains to fly a rocket to the moon and they'll ram into it at a million miles per hour, or miss and go floating off into deep space.

AndyHolland wrote

Yet the energy efficiency of biological systems is incredible.

No, it's pretty crap actually. Most energy in a trophic level is not able to be passed on to the one above, which means most of it will be lost to the environment. Why are predator populations always vastly smaller than prey populations?

AndyHolland wrote

And if we ever terraform planets, what better method than an adaptive genetic code that can evolve?

So god is an alien and Earth is his greenhouse? That's a pretty blasphemous interpretation, sinner.

*There were a few more here, but they were in a different tab which I accidentally closed. Fishface appears to have it well in hand anyway.*

AndyHolland wrote

First - plants that evolved into more complex organisms could have easily evolved to use their own sugar for their own survival. Some do in fact to a limited extent.

No, they all do, to a very great extent. Moron.

AndyHolland wrote

As to requiring an intelligent designer - I think the best one can take from a materialistic point of view (your point of view if I may be presumptuous) is to look at things from a dispassionate probabilistic standpoint.

Yes. Which quite firmly excludes any need for a god. Sorry, designer.

AndyHolland wrote

Plants create an excess of sugar and oxygen for our benefit. It is to our benefit; that is undeniable.

ABSOLUTE FUCKING HORSESHIT. Plants don't synthesise glucose for anyone's benefit but their own. The evolution of other organisms that were willing to destroy plants to get at their glucose reserves was an annoying side-effect, and many plants didn't take it lying down. Thorns aren't there to look nice. Nettles don't sting just because they're bastards. Cyanide doesn't kill you for the hell of it.

AndyHolland wrote

It is for you to prove that it is for their own benefit - without us. They have no apriori information about us.

Of course it is for their own benefit. Plants use it to respire and for structural support, and it's highly disadvantageous to have other organisms mashing them up to get at it. Shithead.

AndyHolland wrote

Also, consider woodpecker beak evolution. The woodpecker evolves the beak and the mass at the back of the skull and the spongy tissue to protect the brain ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Yeah, so? It would originally have developed the behaviour, then natural selection would have rendered the individuals with both traits more likely to survive than those with one or none. It really isn't hard. Are you that thick?

AndyHolland wrote

How do you translate physics, electromotive force, mechanical action and reaction from the gene level to the protein level to the cell level to the organism level?

What are you on about? I for one can see no analogy at all between any of those laws and protein synthesis.

AndyHolland wrote

There is little or no trial and error in these processes

However there is in evolution. And there won't be any trial and error in those laws, because they're inherently not something trial and error could apply in, being descriptions of the properties of the physical universe, and all. Why are you trying to draw these parallels when quite clearly they are not relevant?

AndyHolland wrote

Application of electromotive forces and intelligent processing is extremely complex. As we see it becoming more and more complex, the randomness and statistical aspects of evolution decrease rapidly - in fact, there aren't any and on that we agree.

Seriously, what are you going for here? I don't get it. It looks a lot like you're typing words but not actually saying anything again.

AndyHolland wrote

Plants create an excess of sugar and oxygen for our benefit. It is to our benefit; that is undeniable.

ABSOLUTE FUCKING HORSESHIT. Plants don't synthesise glucose for anyone's benefit but their own. The evolution of other organisms that were willing to destroy plants to get at their glucose reserves was an annoying side-effect, and many plants didn't take it lying down. Thorns aren't there to look nice. Nettles don't sting just because they're bastards. Cyanide doesn't kill you for the hell of it.

AndyHolland wrote

It is for you to prove that it is for their own benefit - without us. They have no apriori information about us.

Of course it is for their own benefit. Plants use it to respire and for structural support, and it's highly disadvantageous to have other organisms mashing them up to get at it. Shithead.

AndyHolland wrote

Also, consider woodpecker beak evolution. The woodpecker evolves the beak and the mass at the back of the skull and the spongy tissue to protect the brain ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Yeah, so? It would originally have developed the behaviour, then natural selection would have rendered the individuals with both traits more likely to survive than those with one or none. It really isn't hard. Are you that thick?

AndyHolland wrote

How do you translate physics, electromotive force, mechanical action and reaction from the gene level to the protein level to the cell level to the organism level?

What are you on about? I for one can see no analogy at all between any of those laws and protein synthesis.

AndyHolland wrote

There is little or no trial and error in these processes

However there is in evolution. And there won't be any trial and error in those laws, because they're inherently not something trial and error could apply in, being descriptions of the properties of the physical universe, and all. Why are you trying to draw these parallels when quite clearly they are not relevant?

AndyHolland wrote

Application of electromotive forces and intelligent processing is extremely complex. As we see it becoming more and more complex, the randomness and statistical aspects of evolution decrease rapidly - in fact, there aren't any and on that we agree.

What are you going for with this? I honestly can't see. It looks like you're typing a lot but saying nothing again.

AndyHolland wrote

You seem to loose your peace very easily in these discussions, and I won't address issues further when I read degrading, insulting or abusive language as you should learn to control yourself.

Fuck off then. If you're actually offended by such an insignificant thing, you're clearly not worth our concern.

I for one lose my cool because you're so persistently, tenaciously stupid and because, by turns, you admit to being ignorant and then never trying to remed it, and never admitting your ignorance and then flaunting it anyway. Fuck off.

Miss a few pages. This is getting tiresome.

AndyHolland wrote

Good, if I offended anyone, I apologize.

Wimp. Why should you ever be afraid of offending someone? Unless they're bigger than you of course. But this is the internet, so that doesn't count. Stop being so wet.

Man, that was better out. What a waste of an hour though.

Okay, well while we're digging up old threads, this is at least an interesting article on the evolution of photosynthesizers.