The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion) - Chess Forums - Page 2527

DesertOrder

5 hrs ago

0

#50521

Curious different theories and explanations, all unique in their own way...but I guess learning evolves as it were over time. But when will the truth be found....or is there no pure truth because we are not perfect? Or is my question dumb. I just thought of this now. Perhaps it is too philosophical.

Billy-bingo

5 hrs ago

0

#50522

LJGoomba wrote:

playerafar wrote:

edutiisme wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

Johnny_Hopper wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

I think we are all actually siblings cuz Adam and Eve made children and their children made children so we are just all relatives and we shouldn't be marrying each other cuh 💔 we are family 💔

According to this we are also all descended from Noah. Twice as inbred.

Therefore if the bible story were really true our children would be born more deformed,unintelligent and uglier than us but it's actually quite the opposite. So is the bible story false? But technically humans 500 years ago where stronger and more agile so....maybe we are deforming, slowly.

That is the interesting concept of de-evolution.

2 variants of that, the second is the most interesting and potentially valid.

If that which is more successful in a particular enviroment tends to prevail, does that mean that which prevails is in fact always more " evolved" ?

One can be pedantic and suggest that is it evolution whatever the result, but in terms of "advancement" in a wider sense..is it ?

@editlusme
You're right to ask those two questions.
Can be No on both.
It doesn't have to mean 'more evolved' or 'more advanced'.
Evolution can refer to changes that are temporarily more adapted to the circumstances of the times. While actually de-evolving too.
And then other evolutions and/or other circumstances then knock that out.

You hypocrites. You guys are talking about the exact things you got so irritated about on Sunday

Using the word bible does not equate to a religious discussion.

playerafar

5 hrs ago

0

#50523

DesertOrder wrote:

Curious different theories and explanations, all unique in their own way...but I guess learning evolves as it were over time. But when will the truth be found....or is there no pure truth because we are not perfect? Or is my question dumb. I just thought of this now. Perhaps it is too philosophical.

'the' truth implies 'single truth'.
There are many truths.

Billy-bingo

5 hrs ago

0

#50524

DesertOrder wrote:

Curious different theories and explanations, all unique in their own way...but I guess learning evolves as it were over time. But when will the truth be found....or is there no pure truth because we are not perfect? Or is my question dumb. I just thought of this now. Perhaps it is too philosophical.

Yes it is too philosophical.

Of course there is pure truth. It's up to you to decide to accept it.

playerafar

5 hrs ago

0

#50525

DesertOrder wrote:

Curious different theories and explanations, all unique in their own way...but I guess learning evolves as it were over time. But when will the truth be found....or is there no pure truth because we are not perfect? Or is my question dumb. I just thought of this now. Perhaps it is too philosophical.

It is not too philosophical.
There are many 'truths'.
Regarding 'pure' truth that's another idea.
Some could argue that mathematics is 'pure' truth.
For example there's a very neat proof that there's no greatest prime number.
But here's a 'problem' with mathematical 'purity'.
Is anything in the observable universe actually 100% 'pure'?
Or proven to be?
Try ... No.

playerafar

5 hrs ago

0

#50526

Elroch wrote:

Eldred_Woodcock wrote:

I decided this is related to evolution in a sense. It seems our AIs are going to help us perpetuate the misinformation and outright errors in our knowledge bases. The nonsense term "vegetative electron micrscopy" was created in error over half a century ago and is spreading through and being used by several AIs as factual. How many other errors and misinformations are being picked up by AIs that can't tell fact from fiction? We could be training AI to be as stupid as humans.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-strange-phrase-keeps-turning-up-in-scientific-papers-but-why

Very interesting example. While AIs learn from all the information, not by believing each document in isolation, it appears that some modern AIs have been fooled into thinking this rare mistake is meaningful. I asked Gemini what this term meant and it said it was not a standard term, and then guessed a meaning for it (acknowledging its lack of certainty). ChatGPT did very similarly.

Grok in default mode was immediately able to identify the true nature of the term, giving all the information in recent articles. A point to Grok, I think!

New Scientist identified two possible origins for the term, one from faulty OCR of old papers and the second from faulty transliteration of Farsi. I think the first is more plausible. Of course, people using the term might often not be native English speakers, so would be less able to discern its oddness.

But on deeper reflection, I am not even sure the concern is correct. "vegetative" can refer to "pertaining to plant life", so the term could be used to describe electron microscopy being used to study plants. It may be that it seems odd mainly because of "vegetative state" usage, which is minor but more common outside of science.

An interesting way to look at it is that the origin may have been a random error, but because the phrase had a reasonable interpretation, it acquired that meaning and has replicated a little since. This is the evolution thread, after all. It is not unique for language to grow by errors.

Language and its evolution don't usually depend on the concept of 'pure'.

LJGoomba

3 hrs ago

0

#50527

playerafar wrote:

LJGoomba wrote:

playerafar wrote:

edutiisme wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

Johnny_Hopper wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

I think we are all actually siblings cuz Adam and Eve made children and their children made children so we are just all relatives and we shouldn't be marrying each other cuh 💔 we are family 💔

According to this we are also all descended from Noah. Twice as inbred.

Therefore if the bible story were really true our children would be born more deformed,unintelligent and uglier than us but it's actually quite the opposite. So is the bible story false? But technically humans 500 years ago where stronger and more agile so....maybe we are deforming, slowly.

That is the interesting concept of de-evolution.

2 variants of that, the second is the most interesting and potentially valid.

If that which is more successful in a particular enviroment tends to prevail, does that mean that which prevails is in fact always more " evolved" ?

One can be pedantic and suggest that is it evolution whatever the result, but in terms of "advancement" in a wider sense..is it ?

@editlusme
You're right to ask those two questions.
Can be No on both.
It doesn't have to mean 'more evolved' or 'more advanced'.
Evolution can refer to changes that are temporarily more adapted to the circumstances of the times. While actually de-evolving too.
And then other evolutions and/or other circumstances then knock that out.

You hypocrites. You guys are talking about the exact things you got so irritated about on Sunday

I didn't get 'irritated'. I don't think editlusme did either.
Its very simple. One chooses to 'not' be irritated.
But - that doesn't require 'passivity'.
One can argue and disagree calmly. And also oppose and criticize.
And cheerfully too.

You still didn't address why your talking about Biblical topics when we had an...confrontation when I said that religious topics have a lot to bring to this conversation.

RonaldJosephCote

3 hrs ago

0

#50528

I'm guessing you haven't read the thread title.

DesertOrder

3 hrs ago

0

#50529

(The Science Of Evolution No Politics Or Religion) While I may agree with Goomba, you can't really use much theology, and rather have to argue for or against using logic, facts agreed upon by both parties, and then just asking questions.

varelse1

3 hrs ago

0

#50530

Noob8337 wrote:

Johnny_Hopper wrote:

All human's share a common female ancestor, but who's to say that the other's didn't die out? There were three breeds of human, two went extinct and the other rules the world.

So ur saying 3 species of humans lived simultaneously on Earth? Did they live happily or were they hostile towards one another??? Some even say that humans are actually aliens who came to earth from different planet

Far more than 3.

Closer to 9, that we know of. (And who say how many will be discovered in the future?)

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/our-mixed-up-human-family-8-human-relatives-that-went-extinct-and-1-that-didnt

varelse1

3 hrs ago

0

#50531

varelse1 wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

Johnny_Hopper wrote:

All human's share a common female ancestor, but who's to say that the other's didn't die out? There were three breeds of human, two went extinct and the other rules the world.

So ur saying 3 species of humans lived simultaneously on Earth? Did they live happily or were they hostile towards one another??? Some even say that humans are actually aliens who came to earth from different planet

Far more than 3.

Closer to 9, that we know of. (And who say how many will be discovered in the future?)

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/our-mixed-up-human-family-8-human-relatives-that-went-extinct-and-1-that-didnt

There was even a race of hobbits, in Indonesia. About 35 thousand years ago.

varelse1

3 hrs ago

0

#50532

LJGoomba wrote:

playerafar wrote:

LJGoomba wrote:

playerafar wrote:

edutiisme wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

Johnny_Hopper wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

I think we are all actually siblings cuz Adam and Eve made children and their children made children so we are just all relatives and we shouldn't be marrying each other cuh 💔 we are family 💔

According to this we are also all descended from Noah. Twice as inbred.

Therefore if the bible story were really true our children would be born more deformed,unintelligent and uglier than us but it's actually quite the opposite. So is the bible story false? But technically humans 500 years ago where stronger and more agile so....maybe we are deforming, slowly.

That is the interesting concept of de-evolution.

2 variants of that, the second is the most interesting and potentially valid.

If that which is more successful in a particular enviroment tends to prevail, does that mean that which prevails is in fact always more " evolved" ?

One can be pedantic and suggest that is it evolution whatever the result, but in terms of "advancement" in a wider sense..is it ?

@editlusme
You're right to ask those two questions.
Can be No on both.
It doesn't have to mean 'more evolved' or 'more advanced'.
Evolution can refer to changes that are temporarily more adapted to the circumstances of the times. While actually de-evolving too.
And then other evolutions and/or other circumstances then knock that out.

You hypocrites. You guys are talking about the exact things you got so irritated about on Sunday

I didn't get 'irritated'. I don't think editlusme did either.
Its very simple. One chooses to 'not' be irritated.
But - that doesn't require 'passivity'.
One can argue and disagree calmly. And also oppose and criticize.
And cheerfully too.

You still didn't address why your talking about Biblical topics when we had an...confrontation when I said that religious topics have a lot to bring to this conversation.

Its not our rule. Chess.com does not allow religious or political talk in public threads like this.
They are the one who get irritated, and shut threads down.

If you would like to discuss religion and evolution, I can refer you here:

https://www.chess.com/club/the-evolution-discussion

varelse1

3 hrs ago

0

#50533

Billy-bingo wrote:

DesertOrder wrote:

Curious different theories and explanations, all unique in their own way...but I guess learning evolves as it were over time. But when will the truth be found....or is there no pure truth because we are not perfect? Or is my question dumb. I just thought of this now. Perhaps it is too philosophical.

Yes it is too philosophical.

Of course there is pure truth. It's up to you to decide to accept it.

Humankind has been slaughtering each other for the last 6 thousand years, trying to prove their “truth” is somehow superior to everybody else’s “truth.”

Still no consensus has been reached.

Maybe another six thousand years of war and strife will prove more fruitful than the first six thousand?

Senior-Lazarus_Long

2 hrs ago

0

#50534

Only 6 thousand years? It's a passing fad .

varelse1

2 hrs ago

0

#50535

Billy-bingo wrote:

If evolution produces a more fit individual then yes it is more evolved.

What changes with time is the meaning of the term "fit".

Well “fit” can mean many different things.
for example, for cheetahs “faster” means “fit.” For sloths, “slower” means “fit.”

It all depends what survival strategy a species pursues.

playerafar

1 hr ago

0

#50536

LJGoomba wrote:

playerafar wrote:

LJGoomba wrote:

playerafar wrote:

edutiisme wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

Johnny_Hopper wrote:

Noob8337 wrote:

I think we are all actually siblings cuz Adam and Eve made children and their children made children so we are just all relatives and we shouldn't be marrying each other cuh 💔 we are family 💔

According to this we are also all descended from Noah. Twice as inbred.

Therefore if the bible story were really true our children would be born more deformed,unintelligent and uglier than us but it's actually quite the opposite. So is the bible story false? But technically humans 500 years ago where stronger and more agile so....maybe we are deforming, slowly.

That is the interesting concept of de-evolution.

2 variants of that, the second is the most interesting and potentially valid.

If that which is more successful in a particular enviroment tends to prevail, does that mean that which prevails is in fact always more " evolved" ?

One can be pedantic and suggest that is it evolution whatever the result, but in terms of "advancement" in a wider sense..is it ?

@editlusme
You're right to ask those two questions.
Can be No on both.
It doesn't have to mean 'more evolved' or 'more advanced'.
Evolution can refer to changes that are temporarily more adapted to the circumstances of the times. While actually de-evolving too.
And then other evolutions and/or other circumstances then knock that out.

You hypocrites. You guys are talking about the exact things you got so irritated about on Sunday

I didn't get 'irritated'. I don't think editlusme did either.
Its very simple. One chooses to 'not' be irritated.
But - that doesn't require 'passivity'.
One can argue and disagree calmly. And also oppose and criticize.
And cheerfully too.

You still didn't address why your talking about Biblical topics when we had an...confrontation when I said that religious topics have a lot to bring to this conversation.

I didn't refer to 'biblical'.
Philosophical doesn't have to refer to 'biblical'.
You're making some errors in 'associative logic' I believe.
No big deal though.
The thread - like other public threads on chess.com - requires 'no religion'.
But that wouldn't mean philosophy is excluded.
--------------------------------------
Errors in 'inclusiveness'.
A negotiation is a process.
But a process doesn't have to be a negotiation.
It would be an error to claim it does.
There's an infinite set of such errors. And they happen constantly.
Including 'deliberately' sometimes.

LJGoomba

49 min ago

0

#50537