Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?

[M1chae1]

Back to the film, my favourite character was Giovanni Ribisi. He brought a lot of subtlty to the role. You hated what he stood for but as a human he was charismatic and warm enough to make you like him. A properly conflicted character... I think a lot of people in the MIC are really like this. More or less good guys doing bad jobs. The touch of him eating and playing putting games while he was doing this diabolical work were great. I don't know if he was written better or if he made the script work for him but I don't remember cringing at any of his lines.

What I sense from the film was there was no organic development of actor's lines on set. You had an all star cast spewing bad dialogue. Why? Were there no table reads? Is Cameron not flexible as a director? No time to change things? Not enough rehearsals? Sometimes I get the feeling that the CGI was paramount and some acting scenes were filmed almost as an afterthought. I think this is because of budget constraints, not a weakness of Cameron as a director.

Giovanni Ribisi is awesome. Love that dude.

I honestly wouldn't say the acting was bad in this...it wasn't great, and the weakest link was the lead male, but I think the overall acting was totally passable for this film and the genre.

 

[PositiveFuture]

The acting was fine, it was the dialogue. I'm just wondering why these great actors didn't notice and change some of the lines.

The 'afterthought' comment comes from the fact that the dialogue didn't change, not so much the delivery.

Got to go...

 

[Utopia]

The acting was fine, it was the dialogue. I'm just wondering why these great actors didn't notice and change some of the lines.

The 'afterthought' comment comes from the fact that the dialogue didn't change, not so much the delivery.

Got to go...

I don't think the actors attempted to change the lines because they didn't want a chair thrown at them.

 

[Utopia]

Acting?

Oh Please...

I'd like to see any of you get into a leotard with dots on your face and a tail, constantly being filmed by more than 100 cameras or whatever, constantly being in a mounted position in that leotard, and "act". Especially with James Cameron breathing down your neck.

It's like theater acting. The actors had to react to a 30 foot pole with a tennis ball on the end of it and a corny sound effect played back through a PA system out of a laptop as if it was their sacred tree being blown up.

I personally think Zoe should have gotten the oscar. She learned a new language. She had to create this character from scratch really, create how it walks, talks, moves, etc. Sandra Bullock went and stayed with the person her character was based on for a week and studied her, and learned how to do a hick accent which practically everyone can do. Zoe couldn't go stay on pandora for a week and learn the mannerisms of the na'vi.

But, the academy doesn't believe in CGI. Which is sad, because I thought most of them were overweight, older white males who enjoyed watching scantily-dressed women (hence Penelope Cruz being nominated).

 

[M1chae1]

The acting was fine, it was the dialogue. I'm just wondering why these great actors didn't notice and change some of the lines.

The 'afterthought' comment comes from the fact that the dialogue didn't change, not so much the delivery.

Got to go...

On larger budget movies with high-paid writers, you don't just...change lines. Sometimes it's OK...but I wouldn't dare change a line if I wasn't a big name actor...on a Hollywood movie especially.

Indie fare can be much more organic.

 

[M1chae1]

Ya...the popular threads. Mmmm Hmmmm. So you're saying No to what?

 

[Utopia]

Heh. Me saying No? Is that what you mean?

I don't know what tangent this thread is on now. Have we cleared up for everyone's satisfaction the whole evolution thing?

Back on topic: Avatar rules.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I don't know what tangent this thread is on now. Have we cleared up for everyone's satisfaction the whole evolution thing?

No way, Jose. I've been busy at work. Going to respond to each one of you. This might take a little while.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Well, it's a good thing science doesn't work by democracy. Cuz you guys have no idea what you're talking about.

(Sorry, I felt the need to start out with an aggressive statement)

We're all coming dangerously close to the perfect definition of insanity -- using the same methods, over and over, hoping for different results. I'm gonna give this at least one last go, and maybe I can phrase things differently, in a way that might catch one or two of your's attention.

Will it make you guys feel better if I admit that I used to feel the same way as you? You think I've got a closed mind on this subject. No, I once shared the EXACT same reasoning as you. Then, I got an education. I feel it is actually you guys who are being closed-minded to me. For just this post, open your thoughts, and consider the following.

Cracker, you have overlooked so many of my points, and you refuse to see it like it is. You refuse to see the sheer volume of the Universe, and you refuse to step outside the box even for a moment. All we know is here on our planet. And we are so often wrong Cracker. Things we thought we knew so well (well enough to kill and banish) have been retracted time and time again.

I'm not overlooking your points at all. In fact, I've addressed them directly. Your main point is "sheer volume". It's really not that difficult to think about a really, really, really big number. What you don't realize is that I'm also talking about a really, really, really big number. And dude, I have a very strong grasp on the basics of odds and probability.

If you flip a coin ten times, and it lands on heads ten times in a row, the odds are really good that it will come up tails on the next toss, right? I mean, what's the probability that you would toss eleven heads in a row? Very low. So, it's extremely likely that the next toss will be tails.

Of course you and I know that this is false logic. The coin has no memory. Every time you toss it, the probability of landing heads is 1/2. You could land 5,000,000,000,000,000 heads in a row. The probability of landing heads again will still be 1/2.

You say that the universe and time are infinite. Well, yes, and no, depending on how you mean.

Our physical universe - the one we live in - is definitely finite. There's no disagreement on this, in the scientific community. It's possible, perhaps, that there might be other universes beyond our universe, maybe even existing in another dimension or plane. I'm assuming you and I are both aware of the multi-verse theory, and for all we know, the number of existing universes could be infinite. But that has nothing to do with our conversation. We are talking about OUR universe, and it is absolutely finite.

Time, looking to the future, might very well be infinite. It might also be infinite, looking to the past (though, to be frank, I can't really wrap my brain around how it could be either finite OR infinite, looking to the past; weirds me out). The time that has passed since the Big Bang, however, is finite. 5,000,000,000,000,000 years from now, the amount of time that will have passed since the Big Bang will still be finite.

When we talk about genetic mutations, the possibilities are infinite. 5,000,000,000,000,000 genetic mutations from now, the possibilities will still be infinite. When you flip a coin, the probability of a desired result is 1-in-2. When you toss a regular six-sided die, it's 1-in-6. A regular deck of cards, 1-in-52.

How you calculate the probability of 1-in-infinity?

You see, M1chae1, my main point is DIRECTLY addressing your main point. "Random" doesn't have shades of grey. Something is either random, or it is not. When it is random, the possibilities are infinite. Infinity is a really, really, really big number. That's why I don't care how many galaxies exist. That really, really, really big number of galaxies is nothing, in comparison to infinity.

What you're doing, with your logic, is assuming that if you toss the dice of genetic mutation enough times, eventually, you'll land on those traits that are familiar to us. That is the same false logic I mentioned earlier. No matter how many times you toss those genetic-mutation-dice, with each new genetic mutation, the probability of landing a particular gene is 1-in-infinity.

The matter is further complicated by the fact of how many individual genes are needed to make up a genetic trait (the difference between a "trait" and a "gene" are important to this discussion -- wikipedia it if you don't already know). You're asking for a whole lot of coincidences.

I'm actually quite shocked that the schooling system on Evolution is teaching that similar life on other planets does not exists. It even seems they are teaching that all of the millions of life forms on our planet are utterly unique in all the Universe. That's shocking to me.

You've assumed too much. My education in Anthropology (in regards to our conversation) only taught me how to REALLY understand the process of evolution, in a way that most people JUST. DON'T. GET. I'm not familiar with any school of Anthropology that would discuss possible life on other planets. I've reached these conclusions on my own, and they're quite easy conclusions to reach. If you TRULY understand the process of evolution, the idea of a humanoid on another planet is absurd.

We have zero idea of how life evolves on other planets...but as mentioned above it's always adaptive. And if a planet is similar to ours, life will adapt in recognizable, similar ways (when I say recognizable, I'm taking *all* Earth's lifeforms into account...they are all unique and recognizable).

Why do you assume that what is recognizeable to us is the only way that something can be "adaptive"? Dude, humans have been on Earth 4 million years. That's a blink of the eye, in geological time. Anatomically modern Homo sapiens have been around 150,000 years. That's nothing. We have no idea how relatively "adaptive" our traits are going to turn out to be.

Your biggest false assumption is that evolution naturally leads to a particular end -- that it must end up with what is "adaptive". Your assumption couldn't be more wrong, because you're horribly mis-using that word. What is life on Earth going to look like in 1 million years? 1 billion years? 1 trillion years? We have no idea. It might not look anything like it does today. There might not be any humanoids.

Imagine a nuclear holocoaust. Life, in general will survive. Mammals will probably not. Whatever life-forms evolve as a result of post-apocolyptic environmental pressures will look very different from us. You use the word "adaptive" as if it is an absolute term, when it is, by definition, the complete opposite. At any given time, in any given environment, the organisms that exist in a biosphere are those that have adapted to live in THAT PARTICULAR environment. "Adaptive" = change.

All we know is here, yes, and we see what the Universe gives us based on our environments, and so we then must assume that similar environments will produce similar concepts of evolution. Just because another planet is given the spark of life, does not mean that the Universe will create entirely different structures for swimming, seeing, eating, feeling...there seems to be a pretty solid plan in place.

Oh boy. YOU assume that similar environments will produce similar "concepts of evolution". I don't make any such assumption. Nor would ANYONE with a relavent education in any biological science.

Evolution does not have a plan.

If you can concede that somewhere out there on another planet, a unique life form has developed that resembles, say, a bacterium, or a fish, or a sea cucumber...

I will concede nothing of the sort. Fish and sea cucumbers are complex life forms. Nothing exists like them on any other planet, anywhere in the universe. Bacteria, however, is rather simple. Similar life-forms are probably all over the place.

When we're discussing something as vast as the cosmos, you can't sling a four year degree at someone and use it to assert any kind of intellectual authority over the argument. Would you defer to an economist or a doctor just because of their degrees? Even Phd's can be dead wrong about a lot of things. Academia is full of misconceptions and fashions passing themselves off as fact. We can't even start discussing the subject if we don't begin with a clean slate and an admission that we are ALL groping in the dark and speculating wildly, credentials or not.

I'm not discussing anything as vast as the cosmos -- you guys are. I'm discussing the process of evolution, and that's something we've learned quite a bit about, right here on our own little planet. I am not groping in the dark, or speculating. I'm stating the fundamentals of Darwinian evolution. I don't need to think about the cosmos to understand that the biological conditions we have on Earth cannot be repeated. And I say that in absolute certainty.

Yes, I defer to economists and doctors all the time.

The Claw Theorem says that we must make our fictional aliens otherworldly, and the way to do that is to give them "lobster" claws. But, how can said lobster-clawed aliens climb up out of their primordial forests, or whatever the hell those folks have up in there, and make spaceships to fly to earth and cause science fiction mischief? How many movies have we seen in which technologically advanced aliens run around the galaxy with their lobster claws for hands, and we’re supposed to believe that they built spaceships and shoot ray guns? Or, they have hands with two or three scary looking fingers, each with enormous claws at their tips?

What the HELL are you talking about?! I didn't never say nothin about flying spaceships with claw-hands. You don't need to be able to fly a spaceship in order to exist.

Yes, life on other planets with different rules might very well be quite different. But, how different can those rules be? I'll bet not much. The laws of physics are the laws of physics, for example. And, however random mutations might be, the fact is that for species like ourselves, whatever random mutations that do occur, and, more importantly, are kept, had better be adaptive. For all I know, Cracker Funk, you're right about emphasizing the super duper randomness of mutations. But as far as the evolution of species go, the only mutations that really matter are those that are adaptive and are consequentially kept according to the law of the jungle and who successfully reproduces before they die. I would imagine that this would be true for both sexual and asexual reproduction.

The laws of physics are the same everywhere. The process of evolution would be the same everywhere (that's IF DNA even exists anywhere else). You are mis-using the word "adaptive" in the worst way. You are using that word to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. I've already commented on this (very common) misperception, above. Think about it. What does "adaptive" really mean? Does it imply any sense of permanence?

That is natural selection. Natural Selection is what's important when you want to, as a science fiction creator, evolve, so to speak, an alien species on a planet like Pandora, who can have meaningful interactions with invading humans and thus drama commence. The meaningful interaction part is pretty important since the audience is a human audience, after all.

Oh, no, you did NOT just try to explain natural selection to me. I'm sorry, it's difficult for me to not sound condescending when I say the following -- I know you think you understand the concept, but you really don't. That doesn't make you stupid. That makes you normal.

You did, however, say something that I agree very strongly with. In order to draw the audience in, we need humanoid aliens. And that's why I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief and pretend that it's possible for the Na'vi to exist.

Part of the reason why so many very earnest speculators about intelligent alien life forms make the assertion (assumption) that they must be so very different than us, I’m afraid, is because of some underlying idea that it's somehow unethical to think otherwise, as if to do so would be something like ethnocentrism, or terracentrism, if you will.

Uhh, no. I understand the process of evolution. That's why I feel quite secure in my position.

Back to my, and I think Wombat's, point, all we have for sure to go by is what we know for sure, which is based upon what we can actually observe and study --our own planet, our own biosphere, our own example of the tree of life, and the physics and the chemistry which is available to us to observe and work out.

EXACTLY! That's called science. And I'm trying my best to explain to you guys a scientific concept that you don't quite understand.

Let's not get hung up on things being "humanoid" or "hominid." Let's just consider it the "primate" configuration. This is what we know for sure: In the biosphere available for us to observe, the "monkey" or "primate" design has been very damn successful. It produced our species which has hands which can write, make flint tools, and maybe even build interstellar spaceships.

How do you define "successful"? By any reasonable measure of genetic success, humans (and primates) are nowhere near the top of the list. Not even close. There is nothing particularly "successful" about our species.

Sure, the Pandorans weren't building spaceships, but the point is that given just how successful and adaptive the primate "design" has been given the only perimeters of life that we can say for sure exist in this universe, it is perfectly reasonable to not be surprised if natural selection would come with something similar on an alien, but similar planet.

If there were a "design", your assumption would be perfectly reasonable.

There is no design.

Yes, it might be a stretch to have Pandorans and Clingans being just so very similar to our own species, but that's what suspension of disbelief is for! Anyways, wasn't there an episode of Next Generation that posed an explanation for why the Star Trek species were so similar... specifically, that they had all been seeded by someone else? An interesting topic in itself.

First of all, it's Klingon. Secondly, I'm right there with you on suspension of disbelief. I love Sci-Fi!

Yes, I saw that episode. It is one of the most horribly atrocious examples of fake made-up science ever. It was better when they left it unexplained. But then, they had to go and try to legitimatize it with the worst nonsensical crap I've ever seen. Holy crap, that episode was stupid.

Just have to say that ALL OF SCIENCE is a big group. Just from my life experiences I've learned that there are always "experts" on every side of a subject. I put experts in parenthesis because I think the term is relative. A good example of this would be Global Warming...there are "experts" on both sides who would swear on their mothers that they are right.

Thank God for the fact that science doesn't bow to your life experiences.

You've been listening to the wrong "experts". The real experts (notice the lack of quotations) are in full-agreement on the subject of global warming. There is no real dissent on this issue, in the scientific community.

Likewise, there is no dissent as to the existence of Darwinian evolution. The jury is not out. The debate has long ago been settled.

ROC made an argument in favor of intelligent design. Intelligent design is very non-scientific, and diametrically opposed to Darwinian evolution. It is religious philosophy, nothing more. I can safely say that ALL OF SCIENCE has settled on rejecting the thinly-veiled theistic arguments behind intelligent design.


Are you guys starting to get it? Have you figured out yet that my knowledge on this subject should not be so summarily discounted?

 

[L.I.F.E.]

Thank God for the fact that science doesn't bow to your life experiences.

You've been listening to the wrong "experts". The real experts (notice the lack of quotations) are in full-agreement on the subject of global warming. There is no real dissent on this issue, in the scientific community.

Likewise, there is no dissent as to the existence of Darwinian evolution. The jury is not out. The debate has long ago been settled.

ROC made an argument in favor of intelligent design. Intelligent design is very non-scientific, and diametrically opposed to Darwinian evolution. It is religious philosophy, nothing more. I can safely say that ALL OF SCIENCE has settled on rejecting the thinly-veiled theistic arguments behind intelligent design.

It's not that I agreed or disagreed with his statement, I was just playing devils advocate and that was a huge generalization. You said ALL OF SCIENCE which is a huge group, who's experts disagree on many things. The thing about the term "Expert" is that its a subjective term. An expert is just someone with an educated opinion on a topic. That doesn't mean they are right or wrong in whatever they say, just means they have a grasp of it and have come up with an opinion usually based on some facts.

 

[Cracker Funk]

It's not that I agreed or disagreed with his statement, I was just playing devils advocate and that was a huge generalization. You said ALL OF SCIENCE which is a huge group, who's experts disagree on many things. The thing about the term "Expert" is that its a subjective term. An expert is just someone with an educated opinion on a topic. That doesn't mean they are right or wrong in whatever they say, just means they have a grasp of it and have come up with an opinion usually based on some facts.

"Expert" is not really a subjective term if you believe in the scientific process. Science is skeptical in nature. New ideas aren't readily and easily accepted. They are scrutinized, placed under the telescope, and are subjected to the harshest of criticism. Only those theories that can weather this storm of scrutiny will experience anything remotely resembling permanence, and most theories are constantly changing and adapting, as new information is introduced (and itself scrutinized).

Then, there are some theories that withstand the test of time. They are talked about, and torn to shreds, yet they repel every reasonable criticism. Darwinian evolution is one such theory. There is absolutely no question as to it's validity. Anyone who tells you otherwise is no expert.

Same thing goes for global warming. The evidence is undeniable and insurmountable. Human activity has DEFINITELY caused a major change in climate. Again, the scientific community is basically unanimous in this view. The only people who disagree are not scientists. I mean professionally. Professional scientists all agree on this. Politicians, business-people, that's where the dissent comes from, and they are certainly not experts.

 

[Wombat]

When we talk about genetic mutations, the possibilities are infinite.

Nope. Hard to have infinite possibilities in a finite universe, and as such...

How you calculate the probability of 1-in-infinity?

... it's actually 1/abstractly huge number, hence why the probability argument has some merit.

Yes, I'm aware the Drake equation isn't science.

When it is random, the possibilities are infinite.

what

I'm not familiar with any school of Anthropology that would discuss possible life on other planets.

Is this a very, very dry metajoke, or are you just mentioning it to follow it with the next sentence?

I've reached these conclusions on my own, and they're quite easy conclusions to reach. If you TRULY understand the process of evolution, the idea of a humanoid on another planet is absurd.

Well, let's define humanoid.

I'd say a humanoid is an intelligent, bipedal creature that stands upright. Is that too narrow or broad for anyone?

Certainly no one is suggesting that a race of human-clones exists (fucking Time Lords).

EXACTLY! That's called science. And I'm trying my best to explain to you guys a scientific concept that you don't quite understand.

So you're content with extrapolating limited data to unknown conditions and calling it 'science'? Interesting.

Consider: finding different biospheres is going to either radically change our concept of evolution, or completely confirm it. I'm not saying that there is or isn't hominid life out there with any certainty, I simply believe it's within the realm of possibility. I would say it's supreme arrogance (my favorite human trait) to think we have enough information to conclude anything one way or the other about extraterrestrial life.

There is nothing particularly "successful" about our species.

Sapience is pretty cool. Unless you're referring specifically to genetic success here, which is such a shameful strawman.

 

[Jack Lynt]

What the HELL are you talking about?! I didn't never say nothin about flying spaceships with claw-hands. You don't need to be able to fly a spaceship in order to exist.

Yeah, and I pointed that out, too. I was off on what I considered a related tangent. I admit it was a little self-indulgent. I didn't write that a spaceship is required.

The laws of physics are the same everywhere. The process of evolution would be the same everywhere (that's IF DNA even exists anywhere else).

That's exactly my point.

You are mis-using the word "adaptive" in the worst way. You are using that word to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. I've already commented on this (very common) misperception, above. Think about it. What does "adaptive" really mean? Does it imply any sense of permanence?

No I'm not on any of your above assumptions. I'm challenging your randomness argument. I'm not arguing that life on other planets is likely, nor that it would be humanoid. I'm saying that from the beginning of life -which, do not tell me that you are an authority on that- traits derived from mutations, would occur, or not occur, if things actually even got that far somewhere else, and when they did, they could be erroneous, not affecting the animal at all, they could be detrimental, and thus, perhaps be selected out when the animal dies and fails to reproduce, or its progeny dies before reproducing, or, it could be benificial, in which case it might be passed on and be incorporated into the animal's genome for generations. My point was that your random mutations would either occur, or they would not occur. How random or infinite is erroneous. If they did occur, they would effect selection as I have outlined above, or they wouldn't. What your point about infinite randomness is, I cannot fathom. I think your coin toss analogy is a bad analogy. Natural selection really is not a coin toss.

So, now that I have explained natural selection, I hope that you have a better understanding of it.

Oh, no, you did NOT just try to explain natural selection to me. I'm sorry, it's difficult for me to not sound condescending when I say the following -- I know you think you understand the concept, but you really don't. That doesn't make you stupid. That makes you normal.

The thing is, it is condescending. You surprise me with it. As an owner of a BA, myself, I know it's nothing to wave around in people's faces, let alone over and over. I guess so, but I admit being surprised that they gave a BA to an anthropology major... different institutions, I guess. I would have thought it'd have to be a BS. Shows what I know. I am the first to admit my grasp on science isn't so hot. But I'm not, nor should these other posters be, intimidated. I know you don't mean any harm. Don't get me wrong. And for what it's worth, I'm not writing this with any hostility or unfriendliness, not at all... just spirited discussion. But I'm really not impressed. What I can do, though, being normal and ignorant as I am, is think for myself and make rational judgements about what sources are more authoritative and which are less so, or just not. And so, I'll wrap this up by saying that of the books I've read, and the many documentaries on evolution and the nature of the universe I've watched, not so far have I heard or read actual, professional scientists make the absolutist assertions that you are here. I have to say that I know too little to agree or disagree with your infinite randomness point. But ...I just don't get your point. Oh, I know that doesn't make me stupid. I think it means you've failed to ariticulate its relevance. And no, it wouldn't impress me if you were to tell me that you had taken a course in probability.

How do you define "successful"? By any reasonable measure of genetic success, humans (and primates) are nowhere near the top of the list. Not even close. There is nothing particularly "successful" about our species.

They have been successful. I didn't say that they have been or have not been particularly successful... I think it was something like "pretty damn successful." I do hope that you're not judging "successful" by time on the earth. I wonder how well the dinosaurs would have done in the ice ages. That's rhetorical. Primates, for their time so far, with attributes like their vision system and intelligence have proven themselves to be wonderfully adapted to their environments. Pointing out that one comet hit could wipe us all out today giving us a much shorter span than dinosaurs or bacteria would not change the fact that we have been wonderfully adaptable and spread to all corners of the globe.

If there were a "design", your assumption would be perfectly reasonable.

There is no design.

I didn't say there was a design. The quotation marks around the word, as well as the context of what else I'd written, should have indicated that. If you didn't get that, it doesn't make you stupid, it just means you don't have the education that I have. No, there is no design. My thinking otherwise would probably be quite strange given that I'm an atheist.

You did, however, say something that I agree very strongly with. In order to draw the audience in, we need humanoid aliens. And that's why I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief and pretend that it's possible for the Na'vi to exist.

Hey, cool. I'm totally with you on that. Avatar was awesome!

 

[Cracker Funk]

Nope. Hard to have infinite possibilities in a finite universe, and as such...

Oh, Jesus. This is becoming really taxing for me. I don't know how much longer I can put up with this game of charades.

When I said that our universe is finite, I was referring to size, and volume of galaxies and planets. I think this fact is quite obvious, when my comments are read in context.

That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that EVERY genetic mutation is unique. Random. The possibilities are limitless. Why can't you guys understand this simple concept?

Do you even know what a genetic mutation is?!

... it's actually 1/abstractly huge number, hence why the probability argument has some merit.

Yes, I'm aware the Drake equation isn't science.

Wow. Really? I was being facetious. There's no such thing as 1-in-infinity. Infinity is not a number.

And why are you mentioning the Drake equation? I'm not saying life doesn't exist elswhere. I'm saying that IF it does, it doesn't look anything like us.

what

Is this a very, very dry metajoke, or are you just mentioning it to follow it with the next sentence?

ran·dom (rndm)
adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective

So you're content with extrapolating limited data to unknown conditions and calling it 'science'? Interesting.

Oh, and how is your logic superior? You're completely ignoring the data that we have, limited though it may be. And then, you extrapolate your non-knowledge to unknown conditions. What do you call that?

Consider: finding different biospheres is going to either radically change our concept of evolution, or completely confirm it. I'm not saying that there is or isn't hominid life out there with any certainty, I simply believe it's within the realm of possibility. I would say it's supreme arrogance (my favorite human trait) to think we have enough information to conclude anything one way or the other about extraterrestrial life.

You don't know the definition of the word "hominid". I don't point this out to be a dick. I point it out to highlight the fact that it is YOU who does not have enough information to conclude anything about extraterrestrial life. Seriously, why do you guys just ignore the fact that I FUCKING HAVE A DEGREE IN ANTHROPOLOGY?!

I understand evolution at a level you guys just aren't comprehending. I'm trying my best to relate it to you, but how do you sum up four years of intensive studying into a single forum thread?

A new biosphere could very well open up all sorts of new ideas about evolution. But that would only be true if evolution on that planet is guided by something other than DNA, and in that case, those life-forms would REALLY not resemble anything like us. DNA is DNA. If it exists on another planet, it will behave in exactly the same way it does here, and that means that all the principles of evolution I'm trying to convey will be just as valid.

Sapience is pretty cool. Unless you're referring specifically to genetic success here, which is such a shameful strawman.

Yeah. I was clearly talking about evolution. So your feelings on "sapience" are irrellevant. This whole damn talk is about evolution. richy was clearly talking about evolution when he proposed that there is some sort of "success" associated with primates. Ironically, the only straw-man argument being presented is the one you just made.

 

[Cracker Funk]

richy, I feel like you articulated a little more in this post than in your previous, and I can find a little more common ground with you. And, judging by the tone of your post, as best as I can perceive it, I think we can agree that this is just a fun nerdy debate, and neither of us intends to really disparage the other, no?

Yeah, and I pointed that out, too. I was off on what I considered a related tangent. I admit it was a little self-indulgent. I didn't write that a spaceship is required.

Mmm, no, if you re-read what you wrote, you very clearly accused me of making the claw-mistake, or whatever the hell you call it. That's not a tangent. That's a direct criticism of my argument, except the criticism you made had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

That's exactly my point.

Unfortunately, you don't understand your own point.

Look, I know that a B.A. ain't nothin fancy. Fucking everybody's got one these days. But it ain't worthless. I certainly didn't learn nothing during those years of intensive study. What's your B.A. in? Do you value your education at all? Do you think you know more about that particular subject than the average schmuck?

I say this with the utmost sincerety, and you can choose to reject it if you want, but after REALLY learning about evolution, so many of my prior conceptions were blown to pieces. And I've always been a scientifically minded person. Again, everyone thinks they understand evolution, but most people are way off base. I'm waving it around in your faces to let you know that ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT you are simply not on the same level as I am.

Seriously, what did you get your B.A. in? How would you respond if I tried to tell you that your understanding of some of the most basic principles of your field of study were wrong? Furthermore, what if while doing so, I was coming from a place of almost a total lack of knowledge on the subject? Might you feel obliged to inform me that I don't know what I'm talking about?

No I'm not on any of your above assumptions. I'm challenging your randomness argument. I'm not arguing that life on other planets is likely, nor that it would be humanoid. I'm saying that from the beginning of life -which, do not tell me that you are an authority on that- traits derived from mutations, would occur, or not occur, if things actually even got that far somewhere else, and when they did, they could be erroneous, not affecting the animal at all, they could be detrimental, and thus, perhaps be selected out when the animal dies and fails to reproduce, or its progeny dies before reproducing, or, it could be benificial, in which case it might be passed on and be incorporated into the animal's genome for generations. My point was that your random mutations would either occur, or they would not occur. How random or infinite is erroneous. If they did occur, they would effect selection as I have outlined above, or they wouldn't. What your point about infinite randomness is, I cannot fathom. I think your coin toss analogy is a bad analogy. Natural selection really is not a coin toss.

So, now that I have explained natural selection, I hope that you have a better understanding of it.

Yes! Though you definitely have misunderstood a few things, this is the closest anybody on this board has come to grasping the process of evolution. You're figuring it out. Now, please allow me to fill those gaps.

First, let's clear up the definition of "mutation". They DO occur. Always. Since the beginning of life. Genetic mutation allows for evolution. If it wasn't a constant variable, evolution would not exist. We're not talking about "X-Men", with dudes randomly being born with a laser-eye. We're talking about a tiny little protein in your DNA.

When mom and dad make baby, that baby is essentially 50% mom, 50% dad, genetically speaking. Except, each and every time, a few random genes just pop up out of nowhere. They weren't dad's, nor mom's; they are uniquely baby's. This happens in ALL forms of reproduction. This is mutation. And it is random.

Let me emphasize -- Random mutation is the cornerstone of evolution. Without it, evolution does not exist.

That's why I keep telling you guys you're thinking too big. You can't understand evolution until you start to think small.

Just as you've figured out, not all mutations are beneficial. In fact, most are meaningless. Mutations keep popping up, and popping up, and nothing happens with them. They just kind of drift around. They don't disappear, because they aren't disadvantageous, either. They're just there, doing nothing.

But then, something changes. Something in the environment. Day-to-day life is suddenly very different. That random gene that meant nothing before -- with these new environmental pressures, now it means something. If it's detrimental, it will be weeded out. If it's beneficial, it stays.

The thing is, it is condescending. You surprise me with it. As an owner of a BA, myself, I know it's nothing to wave around in people's faces, let alone over and over. I guess so, but I admit being surprised that they gave a BA to an anthropology major... different institutions, I guess. I would have thought it'd have to be a BS. Shows what I know. I am the first to admit my grasp on science isn't so hot. But I'm not, nor should these other posters be, intimidated. I know you don't mean any harm. Don't get me wrong. And for what it's worth, I'm not writing this with any hostility or unfriendliness, not at all... just spirited discussion. But I'm really not impressed. What I can do, though, being normal and ignorant as I am, is think for myself and make rational judgements about what sources are more authoritative and which are not. And so, I'll wrap this up by saying that of the books I've read, and the many documentaries on evolution and the nature of the universe I've watched, have I heard or read actual, professional scientists make the absolutist assertions that you are here. I have to say that I know too little to agree or disagree with your infinite randomness point. But ...I just don't get your point. Oh, I know that doesn't make me stupid. I think it means you've failed to ariticulate its relevance. And no, it wouldn't impress me if you were to tell me that you had taken a course in probability.

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. It's just kind of frustrating that nobody gives a damn that I actually know what I'm talking about, in this conversation. Let me ask you -- how do you tell someone they don't know what they're talking about, without sounding condescending? You guys are acting like we're on the same level. How many scientific journals have you read? Do you even know what a scientific journal is? Let me answer those questions for you -- zero, and no, respectively.

You just admitted that your "grasp on science isn't so hot." Well, if that's the case, why are you arguing with me? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for you to ask me questions, and allow me to explain the answers? I'm waiving my B.A. in front of your face because you're completely ignoring it, pretending it means nothing. Do you not see how it's a little frustrating for me to talk to someone who admits that their "grasp on science isn't so hot", but completely discounts my hot-as-shit grasp on science?

Like I said before, it's difficult to sum up my entire education in a thread like this -- I'm trying my best to articulate what it is that you're missing.

They have been successful. I didn't say that they have been or have not been particularly successful... I think it was something like "pretty damn successful." I do hope that you're not judging "successful" by time on the earth. I wonder how well the dinosaurs would have done in the ice ages. That's rhetorical. Primates, for their time so far, with attributes like their vision system and intelligence have proven themselves to be wonderfully adapted to their environments. Pointing out that one commit hit could wipe us all out today giving us a much shorter span than dinosaurs or bacteria would not change the fact that we have been wonderfully adaptable and spread to all corners of the globe.

When you're talking evolution, the only kind of success you need concern yourself with is the viability of a gene to survive to the next generation. Again, you're thinking too big. Evolution works on the level of the gene.

However, as far as genetic success is concerned, there is absolutely nothing special about primates. And, yes, time on Earth does matter, but that's not the only stick to measure by.

Do you have any idea how much environmental diversity and change, over time, the crocodile has had to put up with? And yet, here they are. Humans ain't shit.

And dude, I love humans. I got my degree in human, not because I wanted to be a bartender. Oh, and to answer your question, yes, it depends on the institution. Anthropology is not a "hard" science, like physics or astronomy, so a B.S. isn't necessarily fitting. Anthropology is an odd combination of science and social science. A B.S. in anthropology is designed primarily to prepare the student for post-grad study. A B.A. in anthropology is designed primarily to prepare the student to bartend. Ironically, the B.A. allows the student freedom to take MORE classes in anthropology than the student working on the B.S., who is shackled by required courses like Statistics. Or, you can take more classes outside of anthropology. Same number of credits required. Considerably less restrictions on which classes must be taken.

I didn't say there was a design. The function of the quotation marks around the word was intended to comminicate that. If you didn't get that, it doesn't make you stupid, it just means you don't have the education that I have. No, there is not design. My thinking otherwise would probably quite strange given that I'm an atheist.

Touche, old chap. Touche.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention --

Most of what you watch on TV is pulp science, and not accurate at all. These "documentaries" are designed to sell advertising. Take them all with a grain of salt. Most of their pseudo-science is fucking ridiculous.

 

[PositiveFuture]

I don't need to think about the cosmos to understand that the biological conditions we have on Earth cannot be repeated. And I say that in absolute certainty.

I will concede nothing of the sort. Fish and sea cucumbers are complex life forms. Nothing exists like them on any other planet, anywhere in the universe.

The only way we can make any statement about the appearance type of life on other planets is by going there with probes and collecting visual data. All else is speculation and nothing more than modern scientific consensus.

 

[M1chae1]

Incredible. Just incredible.

Clearly modern science and four years of education has reached a point where a total understanding of life, creation, evolution and mutation has occurred. It's pretty clear that not only have today's scientists 'figured it all out', but unless you have a four-year degree, there's no point in trying to understand or debate the topic. I'm just normal I guess. Thank God for that.

I'm just so happy that we can without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt lay claim to what life will *not* be like on other planets--because our studies on Earth, and our mental capacities are so vast, we might as well put this information in a time capsule and be done with it.

And shit...to think all those NOVA documentaries I've watched are total malarkey...I guess I'll stop watching them. To think I was learning something.

Cheers.

 

[Blanc/Noir]

Incredible. Just incredible.

Clearly modern science and four years of education has reached a point where a total understanding of life, creation, evolution and mutation has occurred. It's pretty clear that not only have today's scientists 'figured it all out', but unless you have a four-year degree, there's no point in trying to understand or debate the topic. I'm just normal I guess. Thank God for that.

I'm just so happy that we can without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt lay claim to what life will *not* be like on other planets--because our studies on Earth, and our mental capacities are so vast, we might as well put this information in a time capsule and be done with it.

And shit...to think all those NOVA documentaries I've watched are total malarkey...I guess I'll stop watching them. To think I was learning something.

Cheers.

*Applauds*

The only thing that bothers me is that just because something has such a slim chance of happening doesn't mean it won't. No Cracker, random does not equal infinite...it means fucking random, which means it has no specific pattern. That's not infinite at all like you seem too believe.

There could be planets like there under our same conditions just not exactly the same, but similar enough. Maybe there are moss people who are bipedal and have a head. That is humanoid. It's not like we are saying that there is human clones out there.

And of course let's disregard all those documentaries because they are obviously money making schemes................nice way to try too win an arguement. By calling some of our learning is actually worth bullshit when you have no way to prove it. Very mature.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on any topic of science, but we aren't all the idiots you think we are.

 

[Blanc/Noir]

Many people make a distinction between the origin of life and the evolution of life. In this view, biological evolution refers to the gradual development of the diversity of living things from a common ancestor, while the ultimate origin of life is a separate question.

This is a legitimate point, but evolution is about much more than just biology. The evolutionary worldview is that all of physical existence, both living and non-living, arose through purely natural processes. With this broad definition of evolution, abiogenesis--the spontaneous appearance of life from non-living matter--is a necessity. If life did arise on earth by itself, it would be inconceivable that this is the only planet upon which there is life. Otherwise, the earth would be a remarkably special place, and that could easily lead to theistic ideas. Consequently, most evolutionists believe that life must exist elsewhere in the universe.


Faulkner, D. 2009. Can Life Exist on Other Planets? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 18-19.


That was written by a man with a PhD, though we decided that degrees do matter, this one makes perfect sense.