That argument is perfectly reasonable. Except, he didn't say anything about what that life will look like, on other planets. Find me a PhD, in any biological science, that thinks humanoids exist on other planets. Show me his or her arguments.
Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?
- Thread starter droowl
- Start date
That argument is perfectly reasonable. Except, he didn't say anything about what that life will look like, on other planets. Find me a PhD, in any biological science, that thinks humanoids exist on other planets. Show me his or her arguments.
Um...I guess an Organic BioMetallic one. But then we would have to look into mirrors to watch ourselves.
I see your point. But I don't think being bipedal and atleast a lesser humanoid build would be unreasonable.
Mutation doesn't follow a set of rules, it's totally random.
It's probably more likely that these 'aliens' would be asymmetrical, use one pogo stick extension for locomotion, consume out of the same orifice they excrete from, communicate through touch alone, visualize the world through a crude 'eye-ball' which has a lid that's always shut, and smell through sensors in their stomachs.
Now that's intelligent design!
1. Okay, okay, I'm sorry I have such a strong opinion. No, it is of course not fact. But that doesn't mean I can't feel VERY VERY strongly about my opinion. And no, most of you are not just trying to convince me that my opinions are opinions. Most of you are trying to convice me that my opinions are wrong. Furthermore, most of you also feel VERY VERY strongly about your opinions, so far as I can tell.
2. I'm not sure which of my assertions you're referring to, so I can't really respond. Some of my assertions are definitely concesus in the scientific community; some of my assertions are my own conclusions. I don't know which you're referring to.
3. That's everyone's favorite argument to discount science. Total cop-out, on your part. Just because scientific consensus can change in the future, that doesn't mean we should ignore the best of what science has to offer us now. And, some theories are stronger than others. Darwinian evolution is pretty damn solid.
4. Guilty. I've definitely done some "chest-beating". Honestly, I think it's fun. Since you're offended by it, I'll stop. Please accept my sincerest apologies. Nevertheless, I think if you look back on this thread, I think it's perfectly fair to say that I've offered a great deal of logical arguments, backed up with a very solid understanding of the subject which I am debating. I do not agree with you that I'm simply using the fact that I have a B.A. as my main argument. I don't agree to that at all. On the contrary, I think I've offered more reasonable arguments than anyone else, combined. But hey, that's just my opinion.
5. No you don't. Science is all about making generalizations, based on observation. Our existence on Earth has provided plenty of material to make some very strong generalizations about the process of evolution. If DNA exists on another planet, it will behave the same as it does here. And if it doesn't behave the same way, it's not DNA.
6. My statements are deductive argument, based on facts. Zing!
Not really. Take out the part about how I have a degree in anthropology, and my very valid arguments remain the same. In fact, I think my claims on "authority" have taken up maybe 5% of the volume of my posts.
Whoah. I don't know how to respond to that. You very clearly dismissed a very logical, well-laid out argument, by calling it "chest-beating". You glanced over many paragraphs, in which there was nothing even remotely resembling "chest-beating", but were filled with a plethora of very relavent information.
And dude, you watch too much Fox News. How's that for chest-beating?
PF, you rock man. I would have done the same had I had the patience. But I have a limit to how long I can debate with individuals who 'know it all.'
Cracker doesn't even have a Phd, yet he argues like he's an extra-terrestrial expert (meaning an expert from another world) with full knowledge of the cosmos.
He also hurts my feelings, and insults NOVA.
Cheers.
Sorry.
I feel like that kid who accidentally poked his classmate's eye out with a pencil. It's all fun and games, until someone gets hurt.
Lest you forget, I fart to the tune of "Love Boat", thereby creating an impenitrable wall of defense against your photon logic torpedos. I see you employ the same defense mechanism, as my photon logic torpedos have not made any significant impact on you, either.
Also, same to you about liking your posts on other threads.
Group hug!
No they're not. I've already addressed this a few posts ago.
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think anything I've said is shaky, at all. And, I'm pretty damned sure that "San Diego" is Welsch for "whales vagina". Agree to disagree.
No, that's false logic. One is not connected to the other. It's like saying that if the Drake equation is 'valid', then it's perfectly reasonable to think that there could be a planet of ice-cream-pooping-pizza-people.
Well, the "infinite" part comes from observation. Here on Earth, we've witnessed a never-ending supply of unique genetic mutations. "Infinitely random" would have been a better choice of words, on my part.
You think something is possible. I think the same thing is not reasonably possible. You've stated why you think it's possible. I've stated why I think it's not. Neither one of us is using any Straw Man tactics.
You've entered into a debate on evolution armed without any meaningful knowledge of evolution. Your blatant misuse of the word "hominid" is a glaring red flag to me.
I resemble that comment. I've always fashioned myself as more of a turd sandwhich.
Your honor, let the record show that one, and only one person has resorted to name-calling.
My education doesn't give me leverage. It gives me knowledge. And I've tried my best to impart some of that knowledge. And I feel like I've offered a great deal of valid points. Yet, for some reason, it falls on deaf ears.
DNA doesn't contain any data.
However, I guess your right. I can't prove that the Na'vi can't possibly exist. Neither can you prove that the ice-cream-pooping-pizza-people can't possible exist. Therefore, they totally exist!
I don't know what "real world" success is. We're talking about evolution. The only kind of "success" of any relavence is genetic success. The fact that you can think and feel doesn't make your genes any more successful than those of an ant.
Of course, everything about us is a result of evolution. What's your point?
Oh. My. God.
Me and Wombat agree on something! See, we're not so different, you and I. High five!
I'm totally kidding. You didn't poke out my eye. I haven't evolved those yet.
No really though. I'm just having fun. No hard feelings at all. Just stop regurgitating your degree, and we are all good.
I mean...*maybe* if it was a PHd or two...but a BS? They practically give those out like Whole Food's samples.
Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin.
Just kidding! My first language is sarcasm. Finally, we speak the same language.
Your assumptions are valid, on the surface. But what they lack is any sense of imagination. There's no reason to believe that our biology is the only type that can exist.
Do you think that every species on Earth evolved eyes independently from each other? We all have eyes because we all evolved from the same common ancestor. That doesn't mean that every species of life, all over the universe, is going to have anything remotely resembling an eye. You're jumping to conclusions without any reason to do so.
I don't know if I'm the only one feeling this but...everyone here and not just certain people in this debate seem to be brewing some passive aggresiveness. So let's all agree none of us are right until life is found and go on with our cinema loving ways.
Oh - I just wrote that I think it's highly unlikely that one day something tipped over and created life. I think the answer to life must be figured out from tangible evidence etc., with superstition and mysticism etc. laid aside.
So, Cracker, how did life start on this planet?
Ammonia? Mud? A spark of static electricity in the ocean?
So, Cracker, how did life start on this planet?
Ammonia? Mud? A spark of static electricity in the ocean?
Last edited:
Where? I don't feel like trawling through your thousand+ posts in this thread. I am very interested in how you derive infinity from a finite source, though...
Meh.
No, because that's a very, very specific subset of circumstances. "Humanoid" is broad an encompassing, like the other "factors" in the equation, but I guess a fundamental part of your argument is that humanoid isn't broad. So, again, meh.
Hardly never ending. Why do you keep conflating "infinite" and "abstractly large"?
Um, do you know what a strawman is? A strawman is when you misrepresent someone's position, then argue against that position. You have done that.
A lot.
Learn to read. I've been using humanoid primarily, and the only time I used hominid was at 4 in the goddamn morning after a long day. But please, do continue to ad hom instead of, you know, agreeing whether or not we're using the same definition, which might actually be productive.
Calls em like I sees em. Sorry. Maybe you should try being less douchey and more conversational.
Then try less appeals to authority.
Um.
Oh look, sarcasm instead of a considered response, it's like I'm in high school all over again.
So you don't think the ability to self-evolve is successful?
No, we're pretty different.
I never said our biology is the only type. My point is that the Universe (and evolution) works with this reality. That certain things work well for certain things. I know you don't need an 'eye' to see...but 'seeing' is a big portion of how a biological creature survives (however they do it). You don't need to have literal 'vision' as in an eye...but biological creatures *will* have senses...however they are developed.
And I know all the creatures on Earth share similar ideas for senses (due to origins)...but why are you so against the Universe using the same methods elsewhere? There is absolutely *no* evidence that another planet *wouldn't* use similar sensory organs. I don't care *how* random and infinite mutations are.
I respect your intelligence (not so much your attitude, no offense), but I don't understand how you can so confidently state that nothing in the Universe would resemble a single living thing here on Earth. That's crazy talk...lol.
To be fair, he did say that simple organisms like bacteria are probably common, but yeah, pretty much.