Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (52161)	4/15/2014 7:15:14 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

For all practical purposes, today's humans are orphans, seeking our roots via scraps and artifacts, many of unknown authenticity or significance. Well, that just shot down any shred of credibility the author had, we have quite a known fossil record dating 2000000 BC till 2014 AD.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (52161)	4/15/2014 7:15:44 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 69300

Does the Evidence Point to Mankind's Fully Natural Origin? .....That's an easy one, yes absolutely.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (52161)	4/15/2014 7:23:34 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Humans evolved over a long period of time from a shrew-like creature into our current state....The old world monkeys & apes notwithstanding, we already have examples of the more primitive prosimians such as the lemurs , lorises bushbabies & tarsiers. Tarsiers are prosimian primates, but more closely related to monkeys, apes, and humans ( simians) than to other prosimians.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (52161)	4/15/2014 7:45:29 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Theoretical physicist Roger Penrose has said:If you look at the entire physical cosmos, Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump.... We only suppose this is another weak quote-mined appeal/hint at the complexity problem, isn't Nature grand? But to also contemplate the entire "physical cosmos" one remembers to include also the view that there exists a range between the macro and the microcosm. And as we see for the emergence of life so much depends on location, location, location and only after enough generations of stars & that ongoing process nucleosynthesis that has been evolving since the BBang on a microcosmic, atomic level. Another aspect of Nature is that everything known is always in a state of flux, always in motion. On a MicroCosmic level, operations that would make the "Cosmos" look like it was standing absolutely still. Who needs multiverses when you have already the Micro & the Macro dimensions to deal with together?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (52161)	4/15/2014 8:04:05 AM
From: 2MAR$	1 Recommendation Recommended By ItsAllCyclical Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Almost tragic that brilliant astronomer/mathematcian Fred Hoyle just lacked the imagination to see the possibilities after solving one of the great riddles of where the elements do come from. He failed to see the vital link in the chain that all solar masses are & explain why its not "god" that is creating, but suns that are doing all the creating. (but he was a bit of a stodgey podgey dodgey one) Solar fusion also later providing light energy which was to power the very base foundation for the existence of most all life on this planet anyways, that would be the microcosmic green algae/phytoplankton/zooplankton. Aint nature grand? Hoyle just lacked faith, opted like you for the truely *impossible tales of little green men or imaginary gods.* Let there be light indeed, before you get minds and brains, you first have to have solar nursuries, suns & nucleosynthesis, then add golilocks planets with even more organic synthesis, welcome to the real world 101a, Penrose should have known this too.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (52161)	4/15/2014 8:36:02 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Though they say "justice is blind" not to mix metaphors, brings us to the ultimate question would there even be life on this planet without light? No, probably impossible or at least not complex sentient life, perhaps only extremophilic life. But then again, you wouldn't get far without a stomach, heart, lungs (& legs/arms) either, which is saying quite a mouthful given the vastly important functions these organs perform, the crucial elements & energy they provide. You are a composite of these organs, they virtually rule everything that you do, so very much "yes", it is a material world that travels always on its stomach by eating, lungs for breathing & heart for pumping. *One of the chief features of our own society, we are an extremely visually oriented culture, but that would stem from a general tendency for humans to derive & process over 90% of their experience from the sense of sight alone. Medieval Cathedrals were admired for their heavenly height but also for their "light".