Georgia Guidestones

[GORDO]

That bee thing is weird isn't it? I remember reading that the fuckers weren't even dying they just started disappearing with no trace.

[chenGOD]

gordo you enormous tit (I mean that with a good amount of friendliness):

you can convince yourself that we know all about evolution and genetics, it doesn't make it true. As I think I stated before, scientists have not yet put forth a declarative statement about evolution. One thing is for certain, evolution is not a "human invention".

As for genetics, we are just scratching the surface with genetics.

 

The problem with eugenics is...well there are a lot of problems with eugenics beyond the ethical ones (the biggest one being that we still don't know what teh fuck we're doing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Criticism

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Science.htm

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

[GORDO]

I just disagree.

 

Evolution is only description of things, what isn't know is how well that description fits reality (the definite word you speak about), how can a description not be fully understood? it is a description that some people came up with. Human perception of reality is constantly changing with our knowledge of it. However we can use the knowledge we already have in our favor.

 

As for genetics we understand plenty, some of it is even taught at elementary school. As I said before we may not know the full consequences in the really long long term but we do know some of the consequences. We can use the knowledge we DO have in our advantage, and future generations will have more knowledge and correct or continue the course of actions, i don't really see a non-ethical problem. but anyway as catsonearth said it eugenics could be limited. and if you are right darwin's invisible hand :P will correct everything so why not try?

 

P.S. One of the links you posted (the science of eugenics one) actually says a science of eugenics is more plausible now with modern technology.

The technology that is available today for tracking genetic movement far surpasses anything available to eugenicists in the early 20th century. Instead of DNA tags and advanced gene tracking software they depended almost solely of visibly observable features. Skull measurements, hunched backs, poor hygiene and laziness were among the symptoms that were used to classify "defective" people.

 

 

[cichlisuite]

That's a pretty silly idea really. If I build a bridge it is to my benefit and probably for some other people too, it won't be for the birds' benefit and i can't possiblly account for the needs of the rest of life on the planet when I plan and so something that will help me, like going to the kitchen and pour myself some water to drink. If i start breeding more potent weed it won't be for the benefit of pot smoking monkeys and I will not care a damn if it benefits them or not.

 

To make a difference I could as well poison the water supply of my city, I don't need to look into myself to do a difference, I must only plan and do.

 

Also, of course we understand evolution, because it is an invention of the human mind (Darwin's mind to be more specific), maybe we don't fully understand how all species came to be but that's not evolution, the process of natural selection is quite simple and is fully understood. And of course we understand genetics, maybe not fully, but we understand it enough to have invented a word for it and actually manipulate genes, create paternity tests and have a better understanding of the process of natural selection.

 

What pretentious technocracy? Just take a good hard look at the computer you are using.

you're mixing apples and pears, not even trying to see my point.

 

i'd like you to provide me with the fact that clearly points out our apex of understanding genetics or evolution. darwin was right in one way...one of which helped the enormous capitalist society to blossom ('survival of the fitest'). latest theories reveal that nature or everything that exists around us is not in competition, but rather in symbiosis which then brings a whole new view on life.

 

scientist are observing and conducting experiments. what they understand is reverse engineered, many times failed experiments upon which results are mere approximations compared to true understanding which could bring us much more than just rudimentary sketches of creation.

 

and by pretentious technocracy i mean that weird idea that we can solve any problem with a fast two-bit calculator. it's just not the way nature works. and if we want to understand it, many more things must be taken into account and in equation (but that would still be slow-paced reverse engineering).

[GORDO]

I understand you are talking about natural balance. But the rest of the things you say are pure speculation.

 

Evolution: Traits are passed trough generations, by chance, "good" traits end up surviving more and "bad" traits less, give it a couple million years and you'll end up with a different species than what you started. that's all there is to evolution. It's understood to perfection.

 

Genetics: Genetics is the study of heredity, it's been around since the mid-19 century, a lot of progress has been made. We have never known so much about it.

 

To solve a problem we need human ingenuity, that's all.

[cichlisuite]

Evolution: Traits are passed trough generations, by chance, "good" traits end up surviving more and "bad" traits less, give it a couple million years and you'll end up with a different species than what you started. that's all there is to evolution. It's understood to perfection.

do you know the way those traits come in use? what triggers the reaction? is optimization a prediction or a response?

did you know that changes occur on various intertwined species and not just on a single one and why? do you know how 'selective' evolution works and why? why some animals optimized their existence millions of years ago (birds, sharks, some reptiles) but did not progress in any other quite possible trait (like brain capacity for example)?

 

Genetics: Genetics is the study of heredity, it's been around since the mid-19 century, a lot of progress has been made. We have never known so much about it.

 

To solve a problem we need human ingenuity, that's all.

well that's a logical conclusion isn't it? of course we know more than we did in 20th century but that still doesn't mean we know enough. do you know why the DNA that contains information for building a human fetus differs so little from a DNA that describes a worm? do you know why there are trillions and trillions of bytes of information in the DNA but no one knows what is there for, nor can decipher? do you know why have all attempts to successfully clone any living being failed? is DNA alive?

 

it all comes down to a basic point where you can see in real life the method of Man, and a method of Nature. then you can see who has to endure more to survive or create more things in favor of himself being comfortable :)

[lumpenprol]

emotionally I'm firmly on the side of all you magical thinkers who imagine mother nature will hold her secrets from us, but fact is some day they are going to figure out how to spin dna like cotton candy and we'll all be giving ourselves wings and blue skin and 12 cocks and wonder what all the fuss was about.

[GORDO]

Evolution: Traits are passed trough generations, by chance, \"good\" traits end up surviving more and \"bad\" traits less, give it a couple million years and you\'ll end up with a different species than what you started. that\'s all there is to evolution. It\'s understood to perfection.

do you know the way those traits come in use? what triggers the reaction? is optimization a prediction or a response?

did you know that changes occur on various intertwined species and not just on a single one and why? do you know how \'selective\' evolution works and why? why some animals optimized their existence millions of years ago (birds, sharks, some reptiles) but did not progress in any other quite possible trait (like brain capacity for example)?

 

 

The answer to most of these is: by chance. Anyway these may be lingering questions but they don\'t affect the basic idea of evolution.

Genetics: Genetics is the study of heredity, it\'s been around since the mid-19 century, a lot of progress has been made. We have never known so much about it.

 

To solve a problem we need human ingenuity, that\'s all.

well that\'s a logical conclusion isn\'t it? of course we know more than we did in 20th century but that still doesn\'t mean we know enough. do you know why the DNA that contains information for building a human fetus differs so little from a DNA that describes a worm? do you know why there are trillions and trillions of bytes of information in the DNA but no one knows what is there for, nor can decipher? do you know why have all attempts to successfully clone any living being failed? is DNA alive?

 

it all comes down to a basic point where you can see in real life the method of Man, and a method of Nature. then you can see who has to endure more to survive or create more things in favor of himself being comfortable :)

 

Yeah we will never know enough, the more we know the more unanswered questions there will be, this doesn\'t take away the fact that a lot is known.

 

There is no method of nature, it\'s chaos. You could change your view of \'nature\' to include human beings.

[azatoth]

Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men.

- Jean Rostand

[chenGOD]

I just disagree.

 

Evolution is only description of things, what isn't know is how well that description fits reality (the definite word you speak about), how can a description not be fully understood? it is a description that some people came up with. Human perception of reality is constantly changing with our knowledge of it. However we can use the knowledge we already have in our favor.

 

As for genetics we understand plenty, some of it is even taught at elementary school. As I said before we may not know the full consequences in the really long long term but we do know some of the consequences. We can use the knowledge we DO have in our advantage, and future generations will have more knowledge and correct or continue the course of actions, i don't really see a non-ethical problem. but anyway as catsonearth said it eugenics could be limited. and if you are right darwin's invisible hand :P will correct everything so why not try?

 

P.S. One of the links you posted (the science of eugenics one) actually says a science of eugenics is more plausible now with modern technology.

The technology that is available today for tracking genetic movement far surpasses anything available to eugenicists in the early 20th century. Instead of DNA tags and advanced gene tracking software they depended almost solely of visibly observable features. Skull measurements, hunched backs, poor hygiene and laziness were among the symptoms that were used to classify "defective" people.

 

 

 

Look here's a very non-technical link saying that among scientists, there is debate on how evolution works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould

 

ergo, we do not fully understand evolution. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, it's the populist version.

 

The quote that you reference does not say that "eugenics is plausible", it says it's easier to track genetic movement. That is neither for or against eugenics, it is an objective statement about the tools available.

 

As for this:

Evolution: Traits are passed trough generations, by chance, "good" traits end up surviving more and "bad" traits less, give it a couple million years and you'll end up with a different species than what you started. that's all there is to evolution. It's understood to perfection.

I'll give you a term, you go google it: "degenerative evolution".

 

 

 

lumpenprol: please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we won't figure stuff out, I'm saying that we don't know a lot about it right now, certainly not enough to "guide fitness".

[Hautlle]

I love how GORDO constantly disagrees but gives no citations for his beliefs. Chen knows whats up and is speaking the truth. Humans are but a flash in the history of this motherfucker and we ain't shit. We're changing the world sure, manipulating the environment to suit our own needs, but the needs of humans do not constitute what is best for the world.

 

 

[Joyrex]

I think as soon as we are able to create life (aka cloning, or genetic modifications to the scale of what lumpy was saying), we will end up eliminating ourselves, as the value and preciousness of human life will be reduced to a minimum.

[GORDO]

I just disagree.

 

Evolution is only description of things, what isn't know is how well that description fits reality (the definite word you speak about), how can a description not be fully understood? it is a description that some people came up with. Human perception of reality is constantly changing with our knowledge of it. However we can use the knowledge we already have in our favor.

 

As for genetics we understand plenty, some of it is even taught at elementary school. As I said before we may not know the full consequences in the really long long term but we do know some of the consequences. We can use the knowledge we DO have in our advantage, and future generations will have more knowledge and correct or continue the course of actions, i don't really see a non-ethical problem. but anyway as catsonearth said it eugenics could be limited. and if you are right darwin's invisible hand :P will correct everything so why not try?

 

P.S. One of the links you posted (the science of eugenics one) actually says a science of eugenics is more plausible now with modern technology.

The technology that is available today for tracking genetic movement far surpasses anything available to eugenicists in the early 20th century. Instead of DNA tags and advanced gene tracking software they depended almost solely of visibly observable features. Skull measurements, hunched backs, poor hygiene and laziness were among the symptoms that were used to classify "defective" people.

 

 

 

Look here's a very non-technical link saying that among scientists, there is debate on how evolution works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould

 

ergo, we do not fully understand evolution. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, it's the populist version.

 

The quote that you reference does not say that "eugenics is plausible", it says it's easier to track genetic movement. That is neither for or against eugenics, it is an objective statement about the tools available.

 

As for this:

Evolution: Traits are passed trough generations, by chance, "good" traits end up surviving more and "bad" traits less, give it a couple million years and you'll end up with a different species than what you started. that's all there is to evolution. It's understood to perfection.

I'll give you a term, you go google it: "degenerative evolution".

 

 

 

lumpenprol: please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we won't figure stuff out, I'm saying that we don't know a lot about it right now, certainly not enough to "guide fitness".

 

 

yeah but that's the mechanics of evolution, if you argue like that, we can never fully understand anything because anything can be broken up infinitely. the axioms of evolution are what I wrote. these axioms can also be broken up and studied of course.

 

like, we fully understand newton's mechanics, and solve a lot of practical problems using it, yet we do not know why it works. evolution is even simpler than that.

 

I googled degenerative evolution but all i got was actual science stuff that i can't understand.

[GORDO]

I love how GORDO constantly disagrees but gives no citations for his beliefs. Chen knows whats up and is speaking the truth. Humans are but a flash in the history of this motherfucker and we ain't shit. We're changing the world sure, manipulating the environment to suit our own needs, but the needs of humans do not constitute what is best for the world.

 

citations for my beliefs? well, sorry i forgot to add the prefix IMO to all my posts. I'm giving arguments for my beliefs why do you need citations?

 

BRB i'm gonna ask the world what does it think it is best for it.

 

 

[chenGOD]

yeah but that's the mechanics of evolution, if you argue like that, we can never fully understand anything because anything can be broken up infinitely. the axioms of evolution are what I wrote. these axioms can also be broken up and studied of course.

 

like, we fully understand newton's mechanics, and solve a lot of practical problems using it, yet we do not know why it works. evolution is even simpler than that.

 

I googled degenerative evolution but all i got was actual science stuff that i can't understand.

 

We know exactly why classical mechanics works, we have many laws to describe why and how it works.

For evolution, we have only theories.

 

I'm going to come off as a prick right here, but get back to me when you understand it. Do some reading. I've given suggestions for easy intros to biology and evolution, take some time off consuming entertainment and maybe learn something? I can't argue you with you anymore until you have some actual kind of evidence to back up what you're saying as opposed to just: "I believe".

 

 

Now come one, back to the guide stones...why the fuck do they have Hebrew, Classical Greek, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and that other dead language? (I'm not saying Hebrew is dead, but fuck, the population that speaks Hebrew is even less than that of people who speak Romanian.

[OneToThirtySix]

Though it seems like they would be easily destroyed in the case of a disaster.

 

I was thinking the same thing.  But if four 16-foot granite slabs fall over, and no one is around to hear it, do they break?

[Guest tv_party]

teleology is an artefact, at least in modern terms of judeo-christian religion. evolution is just a shotgun approach devoid of meaning except what we impart as sentient observers.