h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here we go again ! does the above not just prove the point ! The original topic was “are we alone in the universe” and here is another argument starting over religion.
It has been religion that has been the route cause of every war in history.
As I said way back in this debate if we are not alone and the “wee green men “ were to land, God save us we would start a bloody war with them because they did not belong to one religious group on another.

it seems to me ...and forgive me if this point has already been made earlier... but it seems to me that humanity characterizes possible aliens in three different ways...

what i call the Star Trek type friendly and intelligent
what i call the War of the Worlds type unfriendly and intelligent
and, my take on it, what i call the Alien type zoological and intelligent or not intelligent
friendly unfriendly or ambivalent

ok i read the backlog... wow some of the best mental processing ive seen, Sorb. quite impressive.

i think that if there is a God that that God is the universe ...so that covers it all for me

and so many things were said that id like to address but for some strange reason this one sticks out:

Sorb
>>The rational adult, on the other hand, says "Put your shoes on," and to the question "Why?" responds "Because we're going to Toys R Us and I won't take you if you don't wear your shoes." Trust me, the shoes go on, sharpish, because the question has been answered.<<

that works but im not sure it answers the question... i think "put your shoes on because we are going to be walking where there may be broken glass or someones spit or some other awful thing on the ground and you probably dont want to walk barefoot in it.. do you?" and then waiting for the answer ...answers the question and allows the questioner to decide for himherself on the best course of action. kids are usually so at the top of their learning game that i find that i ultimately have to give them that basic reason before they will comply. besides, we are not always going to Toys R Us.

anyway... in context... i would love it if creationists could give me some straight answers like that. because i think it would be nice to have a God. but they keep just telling me "because i said so" or "because he said so" or haha more rarely "because she said so"...or "because we are going to heaven and if you dont believe you dont get to go"

i am so grateful to you Sorb for putting into clear language that which i know but havent been able to clarify or organze well.


finally (for now) here is my um hypothesis? on where in the galaxy life can evolve... between us and the galaxy center is a massive area of dark cloudlike stuff which i think effectively blocks most of that infernos harmful radiation from earth. so i hypothesize that perhaps... at least for our type of life form... viable locations would have similar positioning in the galaxy.. haha that means maybe that life could be closer than we imagine!!

One for Sarah Bellum (been away, apologies for delay)

"SoRB, you seem to have a very closed mind on some subjects."

My mind is open, as I believe I've demonstrated. It is not, however, made of feathers, so I require reasonable evidence of reasonable claims, and extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims. Anyone who does not may reasonable described as overly credulous. This is not a compliment.

"I am prepared to listen and consider what other's belive but you seem to have your mind made up."

On the contrary, you are the one who seems dogmatic and immovable in their belief in an irrational fairy story.

"Someone who had their mind made up has no place in a discussion forum."

Just the attitude I have come to expect from a Christian. Thank you for reinforcing my impression of your kind.

"I suggest you go somewhere where you can be useful."

I could suggest the same to you. In which case, please avoid schools, universities, and anywhere where children are learning. In such a place, you are worse than useless, you're dangerous.

"BTW do you celebrate Christmas? Do you work on Christmas Day or Boxing Day?"

I have worked on Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

I would ask in response, what makes you think Christmas is in any way a Christian festival? I thought even quite dim Christians knew that Christmas has nothing to do with Christ and everything to do with not upsetting pagans, who've been celebrating midwinter since before your messiah was a gleam in his father's eye.

Or perhaps you have a better explanation for the story of the shepherds, who absolutely would not have been out tending their flocks if Jesus really had been born in midwinter.

See how even the most basic things you believe are based on lies?

"Don't try and slag Christians off."

I don't need to try. You make yourselves look ridiculous without my help. I merely point it out. And in this case, I'm not slagging "christians" off. I'm slagging YOU off, for being rather unintelligent and not even realising it, and worse, for being proud of it and unwilling to try to learn.

"The resurection is the underlying basis of what we believe so you wont be able to disrupt the very foundation of what 1/3 of the world belives."

And you call me close-minded, without any apparent understanding of irony.

"Maybe you think that more people don't belive in Jesus than do but the people who don't belive in God is minority and four different religions all belived in Jesus and his miracles."

Until relatively recently all the world believed there to be five planets. Are you perhaps telling me that if all the world believed there were only five planets, YOU would believe that? And are you further, perhaps, suggesting that because billions of people believe it, it's true?

Because if you are, my clumsy attempts to make you think are a complete waste of time - something, in fairness, that I suspected from the beginning.

SoRB

Hey, Prof Sarah Bellum. Don't be too hard on Sorb. He's obviously upset 'cos he's being challenged by some of the strong intellectual arguments you're putting forward.

Fluffy wrote this:

"it seems to me that humanity characterizes possible aliens in three different ways...

what i call the Star Trek type: friendly and intelligent
what i call the War of the Worlds type: unfriendly and intelligent
and, my take on it, what i call the Alien type: zoological and intelligent or not intelligent, friendly unfriendly or ambivalent"

Talking about intelligent life-forms, it's interesting that while we often conjecture that intelligence comparable to ours may have arisen on other planets, we are the only example of such intelligence on this planet.

Usually it seems that where an attribute is beneficial in one species, it will be duplicated in others. For example, the ability to fly is seen not only in insects, but in birds and bats, and even some fish. So this ability must have evolved or arisen independently in these different species long after bats had gone down the mammal line of descent and birds had started to become birds. Flying is clearly a useful trick, and various creatures have somehow acquired it, be that through evolution or otherwise.

Other examples are venom in snakes (reptiles) which can be found in certain fish, frogs etc. Having venom can be handy, and various creatures, again independently, have developed or been imbued with it.

But on earth intelligence comparable to that of humans, combined with the linguistic power of humans, is nowhere to be found.

To me this can be used as an argument to back up Christianity. We read in the old testament that God made mankind in the image of God, in some way distinct from other creatures, and it does appear to be the case that mankind is unique in its intellectual and linguistic capacities. But way should this be? Many different creatures have the faculty of flight, or venom. Why should man alone have acquired intelligence so vastly superior to any other animal?

<>

We weren't *made* by anyone; we *evolved*, due to random changes acted on by natural selection. Until you accept and understand this, your understanding of this whole argument is wanting.

"He's obviously upset 'cos he's being challenged by some of the strong intellectual arguments you're putting forward."

You know, that's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. I assume you *were* being sarcastic?

"Talking about intelligent life-forms, it's interesting that while we often conjecture that intelligence comparable to ours may have arisen on other planets, we are the only example of such intelligence on this planet."

What a typically unimaginative, parochial and narrow minded opinion. Have you never read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? We're widely regarded as the THIRD most intelligent creatures on this planet...

"Usually it seems that where an attribute is beneficial in one species, it will be duplicated in others."

Absolutely false. Demonstrably so. Laughable, in fact, in its naivety. All you show by saying such a thing is how little you know about the history of life on this planet.

"For example, the ability to fly is seen not only in insects, but in birds and bats, and even some fish. So this ability must have evolved or arisen independently in these different species long after bats had gone down the mammal line of descent and birds had started to become birds."

This is called "convergent evolution". Certain features of organisms are common despite not being traceable back to a common ancestor.

However, despite your ignorance and inconveniently for your argument, there exist features of organisms that arose just once, and are not repeated. These are referred to as "parochials". (Notice how religious imagery is used to describe dead-ends).

An example is the feature of vertebrates - but no other animals - that the airway crosses the food pipe. A completely pointless feature, the result of an evolutionary accident. And the result of it is that we, and every other vertebrate, can choke to death. There is no need for this feature, and other complex animals (octopuses, for example) don't have it. Why would they?

"But on earth intelligence comparable to that of humans, combined with the linguistic power of humans, is nowhere to be found."

Absolutely, nowhere to be found, as long as you don't stray outside the walls of your church and keep your head in the books your leaders feed you.

On the other hand, if you actually look at the world with some objectivity, you discover provocative intelligence in dolphins, chimpanzees, even birds and octopuses. We have, in geological terms, hardly anything of a lead on these species.

"To me this can be used as an argument to back up Christianity. We read in the old testament that God made mankind in the image of God"

Again, this is *actually funny*. I have to assume you really are being sarcastic. You surely can't seriously be holding this up as an argument? Honestly?

"it does appear to be the case that mankind is unique in its intellectual and linguistic capacities."

Again - it appears that way to someone who closes their eyes wilfully to the evidence which conflicts with the fairy stories they base their life on.

"Why should man alone have acquired intelligence so vastly superior to any other animal?"

Here's a thing: it's quite clear not every human has...

SoRB

How clever do you think dolphins are? I mean according to scientific research, not just popular myth? For example, is their level of intelligence more akin to that of humans or dogs, would you say?

Sorry if this repeats much of SoRB's post, but the idea that humans are special or made in God's image annoys the hell out of me. It basically gives free-rein to the complete exploitation of all other species (who were put there purely for our use of course ) and at the extremes leads to racism, homophobia etc etc.

<>

Well, if you define "intelligence" as "human intelligence", then yes, perhaps unsurprisingly humans are the only species to have evolved it. That, sadly, is the self-aggrandising attitude that arises from the religious view of humans as "God's ultimate creation".

The reality is somewhat less spectacular. There is a huge continuum of mental abilities from, say, worms to humans, and a *far* greater degree of separation between insects and other mammals than between other mammals and humans.

<>

He hasn't. The spreads of intelligence between species actually overlap - there are, for example, some humans with measurably lower IQs than some dogs. Let alone pigs and dolphins.

<>

Same argument applies. Non-human but significantly high intelligence however has apparently evolved several times; in birds, molluscs, mammals.

<>

So what? Cats are unique in their ability to sleep all day. Elephants are unique in having trunks. Some animals can sense magnetic fields, some can see in infra-red. Other mammals such as dolphins and primates, have developed quite sophisticated language. If I was to define the characteristics of a truly successful species in terms of reproductive ability, then bacteria have us beaten hands down.

Many species have far more complex and finely-honed genomes than we do; there is certainly nothing in our genes that hints at humans being "special" in any way. But yes, humans are unique in being more like humans than anything else.

OK, I can accept that in the context of making contact with aliens we are the only earthbound species capable of even considering it. But we can't actually do it yet can we? It's no coincidence that the Vulcans won't make first contact until a civilisation has invented warp drive.

I can see you're not quite totally convinced by my argument from human intelligence. Sorb seems to be wavering, but not quite won over. Let me try putting it this way. In all kinds of science fiction from Star Wars to Star Trek we perceive ourselves, humans, encountering all manner of alien life forms and engaging in some form of dialogue with them at an advanced level. In history, when one group of humans has encountered another, they have always managed to find ways to communicate, trade, negotiate, and even intermarry, notwithstanding the initial language barrier. Now we do collaborate with animals, especially I would say with man's best friend, dogs (witness sheep dogs that can co-ordinate their movements with the shepherds clicks and whistles in a fantastic display of teamwork). But nowhere do we see us engaging with our fellow terrestrial creatures like we imagine ourselves doing with extraterrestrials in science fiction.

This sntence from Dave Blackeye touches on something I have wondered about when pondering the idea of natural selection and the vast array of species in our world:

"If I were to define the characteristics of a truly successful species in terms of reproductive ability, then bacteria have us beaten hands down."

Exactly. Our intelligence as a species, or birds' ability to fly, or a cheetah's speed, all these attributes are supposed to have evolved to meet each creature's need to survive. But surely the simplest algae, or amoeba has already amply fulfilled the task of surviving and passing on its genes. The imagined imperative to evolve isn't really there. "The first single-celled life-forms HAD to evolve into something more complicated to survive" - no they didn't: they could have carried on being single-celled creatures, just as amoebas have.

Life on earth exhibits such diversity and complexity. The need to survive doesn't really explain this, but evolution depends on pretending that it does.

WelshGenghis< Sorb seems to be wavering, but not quite won over.>

...

And if you believe that .....

All I'm wavering about is whether WG is as dim as he makes out or whether it's an elaborate wind-up...

"The imagined imperative to evolve isn't really there. "The first single-celled life-forms HAD to evolve into something more complicated to survive" - no they didn't: they could have carried on being single-celled creatures, just as amoebas have."

This demonstrates the typical religious person's apparent insatiable need to ascribe volition to processes where there is none.

What makes you think organisms have any *choice* about whether to evolve?

Evolution does not depend on "pretending" anything. It is an observed FACT (not a theory, even) that random genetic mutations occur in nature. It is an observed fact that the majority of these mutations cause offspring disadvantages when it comes to breeding. It is an observed fact that a minority cause advantages, however imperceptible. This is simply natural selection. Organisms do not choose whether to mutate or not, and cannot choose whether they're successful breeders.

It really is depressing attempting to debate someone who, with almost every posts, demonstrates clearly that they don't even understand the most basic tenets of what it is you're trying to talk about.

An analogy: how would Christians get on if I kept on, repeatedly, referring to Jesus murdering John the Baptist? What if I held up the fact that Jesus murdered John the Baptist as proof that he couldn't be the son of Bod, or whatever? Wouldn't that wilful ignorance come across as just a little, well, ignorant? And frustrating?

SoRB

Another perspective on this: the posting WG is responding to is in fact also incorrect, it's just that his simplistic response is wrong.

""The first single-celled life-forms HAD to evolve into something more complicated to survive" - no they didn't:"

This is true - they didn't have to evolve into something more complicated to survive. What in fact happened was random mutations led to more complex organisms, and it turned out that they were able to exploit the environment in ways simpler organisms could not. The mutations happen *first*, and only then are they tested against the environment. Organisms do not look around and go "blimey Derek, we're not doing so well, we'd better get more complicated".

Also, it's another popular misconception that "simple" organisms around today are somehow "less evolved" than more complex ones. The truth is, ALL species are evolving ALL the time. It's just that some are in environments that don't change much, even over geological time, so the inevitable differences brought about by mutations do not lead to more successful breeding. Thus those mutations are weeded out and to our eyes the organisms seem to stay the same. But whether we see it or not, evolution is operating on them just as strongly.

An analogy: throw a rock in the air, and what happens? It comes down, rapidly. Why? Gravity, obviously. You can SEE the effect gravity is having on a rock in the air. Now look at a rock on the ground. Gravity is still operating on it, EXACTLY as strongly - it's just in a stable state of equilibrium, so nothing exciting is happening. Just because you can't see anything happening doesn't mean nothing is happening...

SoRB

Sorb writes:

"It really is depressing attempting to debate someone who, with almost every posts, demonstrates clearly that they don't even understand the most basic tenets of what it is you're trying to talk about."

I'd like to say to Sorb that if he came down my local judo club I wouldn't expect him to be able to be able to do much on the first session, or if he wanted to learn Russian I wouldn't rant at him for being stupid if he couldn't grasp the grammar straight away.

So chill, Sorb. You can argue your point like an adult, without resorting to abuse.

Now this volition thing you keep going on about, what are you talking about? No-one is implying anything about volition.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest, right? So to survive an organism has to be the fittest. That's all I said. Where's there any mention of volition in that?

"The first single-celled life-forms HAD to evolve into something more complicated to survive."

This is how evolution is presented. Sorb now seems to be saying this is not right. Sorb says simple life-forms didn't evolve into something more complicated to survive, but for no particular reason at all - it just happened that way.

"This is how evolution is presented."

No, it is not, unless it is being presented by people who fundamentally don't understand it. Which is precisely my point. If you're going to rely for your knowledge on people who not only do not understand what evolution really means, but in fact have a vested interest in keeping you ignorant about it, you're not going to get very far. One might as well try to learn judo from a fat bloke down the pub or Russian from someone who can only do the accent because they heard it in an old Bond movie.

SoRB

"The first single-celled life-forms HAD to evolve into something more complicated to survive."

Not quite. single-celled life-forms seem to be doing quite well at the moment. SOME of them evolved into multicellular creatures, but most of them didn't.

<>

'it just happened that way' is exactly it. Keep with it.

Put things in context. We're all mutated bacterium. Deviants, sub-normal, anomalies if you wish.

There are 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacterium in the world (est)

There are 6,000,000,000 humans (est)

Which is the dominant species?