This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Aliens
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Tartonga
You have obviously noticed that english is not my main language and I congratulate you for that. Nonetheless...
the one who thought we were "just some cells" when were already in the genus Homo
Something missing there, right?
Back to the off-topic of the topic, your first statement was:
What do you mean? Evolution is aimless so there's no scale that it could be more or less of.
I asked you to go further with this, so could explain me. Your answer was:
The extant single-celled organisms have spent just as much time evolving as we have via different paths (
every species on Earth has
)
Not true, not every species on Earth have evolved. There are certan unicellular organisms that still remain the same and there are species that evolved more than others depending on the need to survive. Not everyone evolved at the same rate.
just because they aren't as big or intelligent doesn't mean they're lesser organisms
I don't know what you mean with "lesser" organisms but if you mean they have evolved less, then you are wrong, and I said why: the size has nothing to do with evolution, however the quantity of cells in one organism (See Unicellular and Multicellular) and what kind of cells are involved (See Prokaryote and Eukaryote) does. Also, the intelligence is another fact of evolution. Humans are the only species on Earth that can reason abstractly and we also do not only trust our instincts, we also use rationality.
And no, we were not "just some cells" thousands of years ago, we haven't been "just some cells" for hundreds of millions of years. While you may not know the difference, modern and pre-historic micro-organisms couldn't be more different. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
That's the most wrong idea ever and I told you why, it seems you just didn't read it: Do you know how is the human body mainly composed? Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. Those are the main components of everything alive on Earth and were the main components of the Earth millions of years ago. Those components starting reacting to each other until they formed cells. You can see more about the Urey & Miller experiment which explains this. In other words,
every alive being started as a cell, it took millions of years of evolution to get it to where we are now.
Being called a retard by someone who said "Just to remind you, we were just cells some thousands of years ago." is the best thing I've read all day, thanks and goodnight.
Yeah, you better get to sleep now kid, you got some school to do tomorrow, it seems.
Post by
Adamsm
Same thing I've thought for years:
Calvin:
The only real proof intelligent life is out there, is that it hasn't tried to contact us.
Post by
Skreeran
Same thing I've thought for years:
Calvin:
The only real proof intelligent life is out there, is that it hasn't tried to contact us.Funny, but I hope (and I don't mean to offend by this), that you appreciate that it's a joke. Any alien culture short of an insectlike hive would have its share of conflict and strife.
Again, if you're just spreading the joke, that's fine, but I'm afraid I can't tell if you're serious or not.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Same thing I've thought for years:
Calvin:
The only real proof intelligent life is out there, is that it hasn't tried to contact us.Funny, but I hope (and I don't mean to offend by this), that you appreciate that it's a joke. Any alien culture short of an insectlike hive would have its share of conflict and strife.
Again, if you're just spreading the joke, that's fine, but I'm afraid I can't tell if you're serious or not.
No, it's not a joke; it's how Bill Watterson viewed the idea of intelligent life: We as a race are so messed up, that the rest of the universe would rather leave us alone then attempt contact.
Myself, I do believe it, but I'm also not a fan of humanity so go figure. And depending on what the other races are using to observe us, either radio waves, television signals, or hacking into our Internet connection, I'm sure we are just so impressive to them.
Post by
Tartonga
Never said it had.
"Spent just as much time evolving as we have" != "Evolved at the same rate".
Trolollol, you are kidding me, right? I just pointed out with bold format that you did. You gotta be responsible of what you said. Also, explain further what you mean whit that equation.
I read it, it doesn't explain why you said we were "just some cells" THOUSANDS of years ago when it was HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years. Posting what cells are comprised of has nothing to do with your error factor of 100,000. And if you're talking about from the origins of life, that was billions, not millions.
LMAO. Ok, ok...a tear just went out after the laughter. Would you please explain me how thousands of years cannot be millions of years or billions of years or millions of billions of years?
Then I'll excuse your ignorance.
Funny, that's exactly what your mum said to you ;).
Post by
xaratherus
For hypothetical purposes: A unicellular organism that has gone through 10,000 genetic mutations brought on by environmental factors, with those genetic shifts reinforced through successive cellular generations, would be 'more evolved' than a human being who simply poofed into existence out of nothing. Why? Because that magically-appearing human being would have undergone no evolution.
Again, I restate that considering something 'more evolved' based on its intelligence or number of cells is really semantically inaccurate. What you really mean is that it is 'more intelligent' or 'more complex on a cellular level'.
Would you please explain me how thousands of years cannot be millions of years or billions of years or millions of billions of years?
I think you're running into a syntax problem. When someone says "thousands of years" in English, they generally mean anywhere from a thousand up to 199,999 years. The moment you hit 200,000, you'd typically shift to saying "hundreds of thousands of years"; that would last until you start hitting the two-million year mark, and so on.
There's a semantic difference in English between "thousands of years" and "millions of years". So while you laugh at DoctorLore, he is correct in that in common English parlance, evolution is a process that occurs in "millions of years", not in "thousands of years". However, regardless, perhaps you could both stop beating your chests over something that's really pretty trivial? Winning an argument on the Internet does not make you 'more evolved'...
Post by
Skreeran
Same thing I've thought for years:
Calvin:
The only real proof intelligent life is out there, is that it hasn't tried to contact us.Funny, but I hope (and I don't mean to offend by this), that you appreciate that it's a joke. Any alien culture short of an insectlike hive would have its share of conflict and strife.
Again, if you're just spreading the joke, that's fine, but I'm afraid I can't tell if you're serious or not.
No, it's not a joke; it's how Bill Watterson viewed the idea of intelligent life: We as a race are so messed up, that the rest of the universe would rather leave us alone then attempt contact.
Myself, I do believe it, but I'm also not a fan of humanity so go figure. And depending on what the other races are using to observe us, either radio waves, television signals, or hacking into our Internet connection, I'm sure we are just so impressive to them.So you really think conflict is human unique?
Edit: And yes, I'm pretty suer Bill Watterson was joking. He meant that we are screwed up, yes, but I don't think he was seriously advocating the idea that we're the only screwed up ones in the universe.
Post by
Tartonga
For hypothetical purposes: A unicellular organism that has gone through 10,000 genetic mutations brought on by environmental factors, with those genetic shifts reinforced through successive cellular generations, would be 'more evolved' than a human being who simply poofed into existence out of nothing. Why? Because that magically-appearing human being would have undergone no evolution.
Again, I restate that considering something 'more evolved' based on its intelligence or number of cells is really semantically inaccurate. What you really mean is that it is 'more intelligent' or 'more complex on a cellular level'.
I see you are looking at it from a dictionally point of view. However, conventionally and biologically speaking, and I already stated this, a more evolved individual is someone who has eukaryote type of cells and is multicellular. The different kind of kingdoms (for example Fungus, Animalia, Plantae, etc.) are a directly relation to this.
I think you're running into a syntax problem. When someone says "thousands of years" in English, they generally mean anywhere from a thousand up to 199,999 years. The moment you hit 200,000, you'd typically shift to saying "hundreds of thousands of years"; that would last until you start hitting the two-million year mark, and so on.
There's a semantic difference in English between "thousands of years" and "millions of years". So while you laugh at DoctorLore, he is correct in that in common English parlance, evolution is a process that occurs in "millions of years", not in "thousands of years".
This applies to other languages besides English though. Semantically speaking, you guys are right. However, mathematically speaking, what I said it's not wrong. If I had just said "Years ago...", you guys would have thought like somewhere between 2 and 9 years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that I meant billions of years ago. So, while what I have said it's not accurate and I could have expressed myself better, it's also not wrong.
However, regardless, perhaps you could both stop beating your chests over something that's really pretty trivial? Winning an argument on the Internet does not make you 'more evolved'...
I could agree with this though.
Post by
Skreeran
a more evolved individual is someone who has eukaryote type of cells and is multicellular. The different kind of kingdoms (for example Fungus, Animalia, Plantae, etc.) are a directly relation to this.I would disagree with this statement. Just because bacteria are single cellular doesn't necessarily mean they have evolved any less over the years.
Post by
Adamsm
So you really think conflict is human unique?
Edit: And yes, I'm pretty suer Bill Watterson was joking. He meant that we are screwed up, yes, but I don't think he was seriously advocating the idea that we're the only screwed up ones in the universe.
No, never said that: Saying, if a race observes us, and sees what we do to each other, do you really think they will want to make a first contact scenario with us? Especially considering if they've ever watched any of the sci-fi movies....unless you think a completely different species would realize it's a movie, and humanity wouldn't attack the first strange looking creature that appears........all evidence to the contrary of course.
Post by
Skreeran
So you really think conflict is human unique?
Edit: And yes, I'm pretty suer Bill Watterson was joking. He meant that we are screwed up, yes, but I don't think he was seriously advocating the idea that we're the only screwed up ones in the universe.
No, never said that: Saying, if a race observes us, and sees what we do to each other, do you really think they will want to make a first contact scenario with us? Especially considering if they've ever watched any of the sci-fi movies....unless you think a completely different species would realize it's a movie, and humanity wouldn't attack the first strange looking creature that appears........all evidence to the contrary of course.But what I'm saying is that these hypothetical alien races would most likely have all the same problems we do, albeit probably cleaner and with tighter control on nukes.
Post by
Monday
So you really think conflict is human unique?
Edit: And yes, I'm pretty suer Bill Watterson was joking. He meant that we are screwed up, yes, but I don't think he was seriously advocating the idea that we're the only screwed up ones in the universe.
No, never said that: Saying, if a race observes us, and sees what we do to each other, do you really think they will want to make a first contact scenario with us? Especially considering if they've ever watched any of the sci-fi movies....unless you think a completely different species would realize it's a movie, and humanity wouldn't attack the first strange looking creature that appears........all evidence to the contrary of course.But what I'm saying is that these hypothetical alien races would most likely have all the same problems we do, albeit probably cleaner and with tighter control on nukes.
This ^
Post by
Adamsm
But what I'm saying is that these hypothetical alien races would most likely have all the same problems we do, albeit probably cleaner and with tighter control on nukes.
Right.....so why would they want to make a first contact scenario with us? As if their own response would be to attack strangers, they would realize ours would be the same. Let's be completely honest here: If some space ship showed up in the sky over any major city, you know that pretty much any government's first response would be to attack it, whether it was being peaceful or not.
And if the alien races are like us, then they would probably end up doing the same as well for us attempting a first contact.
Post by
Monday
Because aliens are intelligent. Humans are not purely motivated by the need to destroy and consume (proved by the fact we all aren't dust in the nuclear wind).
If aliens arrive, they will, if they are intelligent (and they probably would have to be to get here in the first place) spend time observing us and learning language/ideals before contact.
Not to mention, I'm fairly sure anything would be a little wary of the nuclear arsenal we've got going. They would probably try to avoid a first contact apocalypse thing, because of the downside of being annihilated by nukes.
They, like any intelligent species, would probably make peaceful first contact in an attempt to better both species, or at least prevent the destruction of themselves.
Post by
Adamsm
Humans are not purely motivated by the need to destroy and consume (proved by the fact we all aren't dust in the nuclear wind).I'd disagree with that, but that is my anti-humanism shining through.
If aliens arrive, they will, if they are intelligent (and they probably would have to be to get here in the first place) spend time observing us and learning language/ideals before contactOr, which is the basis of the quote I used above; they've been observing us, and seen what we have been up to, and possibly have been watching our 'movies' which again, to the context of an alien mind, would probably not register as meant to be entertainment...especially if they watch any of the movies where the alien 'monsters' get attacked the instant they leave their ships.
Not to mention, I'm fairly sure anything would be a little wary of the nuclear arsenal we've got going. They would probably try to avoid a first contact apocalypse thing, because of the downside of being annihilated by nukes. Yes, because a race of beings with ships capable of moving through the galaxy are going to remain stationary when large projectiles are fired at them...if they don't have a warped sense of humour and would find it funny to use their own weapons to make said nukes fall on the heads of those who fired it at them.
They, like any intelligent species, would probably make peaceful first contact in an attempt to better both species, or at least prevent the destruction of themselves.Or just blow us the hell up. Hell, look at the 'intelligent' contact among the human race: Oh look, he's a different colour skin then me.....KILL HIM! Or he worships another God then mine....KILL HIM!
Post by
Monday
I'd disagree with that
Logic proves you incorrect.
Or, which is the basis of the quote I used above; they've been observing us, and seen what we have been up to, and possibly have been watching our 'movies' which again, to the context of an alien mind, would probably not register as meant to be entertainment...especially if they watch any of the movies where the alien 'monsters' get attacked the instant they leave their ships.
How would they get those movies in the first place? And if they did get them, and are truly observing us, some things would tip them off.
Like a title, and credits, and soundtracks, and the camera angles, etc etc.
Yes, because a race of beings with ships capable of moving through the galaxy are going to remain stationary when large projectiles are fired at them...if they don't have a warped sense of humour and would find it funny to use their own weapons to make said nukes fall on the heads of those who fired it at them.
You're assuming that ballistic missiles are really slow and that speed = agility. Both of which are incorrect.
Or just blow us the hell up.
How?
Hell, look at the 'intelligent' contact among the human race: Oh look, he's a different colour skin then me.....KILL HIM! Or he worships another God then mine....KILL HIM!
And oh look, most of humanity condemns that and any who are like that.
Post by
Adamsm
Or, which is the basis of the quote I used above; they've been observing us, and seen what we have been up to, and possibly have been watching our 'movies' which again, to the context of an alien mind, would probably not register as meant to be entertainment...especially if they watch any of the movies where the alien 'monsters' get attacked the instant they leave their ships.
How would they get those movies in the first place? And if they did get them, and are truly observing us, some things would tip them off.
Like a title, and credits, and soundtracks, and the camera angles, etc etc. Someone is making assumptions there: How would a race that has never encountered humans realize that a movie is a movie? It's like how older tales about the 'magic camera' would steal your soul if you had your picture taken; until it was explained, they thought it was real. Until someone has a chance to explain that to the alien race, they would expect that type of a reaction from Humans....and we would end up giving it too them too.
Yes, because a race of beings with ships capable of moving through the galaxy are going to remain stationary when large projectiles are fired at them...if they don't have a warped sense of humour and would find it funny to use their own weapons to make said nukes fall on the heads of those who fired it at them.
You're assuming that ballistic missiles are really slow and that speed = agility. Both of which are incorrect. Again though, Alien tech against ours; who knows what they are capable of.
Or just blow us the hell up.
How? Bombs, knock a meteorite into us, make the Sun go nova, who really knows; goes back to the fact that it's alien tech don't it.
Hell, look at the 'intelligent' contact among the human race: Oh look, he's a different colour skin then me.....KILL HIM! Or he worships another God then mine....KILL HIM!
And oh look, most of humanity condemns that and any who are like that.And oh look, they are still around; and still have people joining up and there are still lots of people who still think like that....which again, goes to the thing about attacking the Aliens the instant they appear.
Post by
Skreeran
You don't have to land on Earth to make contact.
Our first contact with extraterrestrials will probably be through radio signals. The universal speed limit seems pretty impassable for traveling in person.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.