I am the product of an algorithm for making self replicating molecules. This is a fact I cannot escape, ever...

I am the product of an algorithm for making self replicating molecules. This is a fact I cannot escape, ever. Higher and lower levels of description of my existence are totally unnecessary. Those higher and lower levels of description were only created to increase the fitness of the self replicating molecues.

>ywn feel the crush of existentialistic realization after reading TSG for the first time again

The connection between molecules and life has never actually been made.

Theory of evolution seems strong, but is fundamentally flawed logic as it cannot be falsified by any evidence.

Basically it just says "Given time systems will change to simpler or more complex." Everything else is just drawn with artistic hand around it in a futile attempt trying to solve mystery of consciousness.

Please stop wasting time on shit arguments trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory...you will never win and you'll just get old with people laughing at you the entire time.

Ask instead why we live in a universe that has self-replicating molecules at all, and not just a soup of uninteresting, inert molecules.

The Anthropic Principle implies MWI, which also implies a higher intelligence at some point in the universe's history. There's your "in".

You're welcome.

You really think dialogue like that will take you far in life?

So, what is your opinion on how to falsify theory of evolution by natural selection?

If you can't falsify it, aka disproof it by any observation, there is a fundamental error in your logic.

It's like saying:
>Tree that falls in a woods when no one else is hearing (or any other kind of measurement) does NOT make any sound

Evolution is a good theory for discussing narrow views of biology, but it is a futile theory in trying to understand cosmology and ontology.

>which also implies a higher intelligence at some point in the universe's history.

nah

You should read The Extended Phenotype too. In fact, you should have just read that first.

Thank God I stopped being a retardo atheist and grew up.

Antropic princinple is another example of flawed logic. Brainlets often believe in these "catch-all" theories that supposedly explain very wide range of phenomena, and are often very low on proof, but almost impossible to disproof.

Here's the following problems with anthropic principle
>We don't observe "objective" reality. Everything gets distorted by our brains. Any logic or observation we ourselves deem as "truth" can actually be very false
>We don't know the definition for life. We don't know if that rock is alive. We don't know if life can form by other means than carbon-hydrogen skeletons and water.
>Anthropic principle can only explain things we already know, never predict the future or unknown.

So I think it's a good thought experiment for party games and deep late-night discussions, but not a real scientific tool.

>The Anthropic Principle implies MWI, which also implies a higher intelligence at some point in the universe's history. There's your "in".
The Anthropic Principle may give a fair indication of life, but not intelligence. Intelligence isn't the goal of evolution, just a possible outcome of it.

Evolution doesn't have a "goal".

Goal as a word is very strongly just a human illusion.

For example, did you know that each of your cells works independently? None of your cells is trying to keep you alive, every cell is just trying to keep themselves alive. Cells do communicate though, but not in a human way. It's more like sneaking in spies that will alter their behavior.

Another example is human. Humans don't really have a goal. Goals are just written letters on paper. Human basically thinks just few seconds ahead of himself. All kinds of "plans" are just illusions and not really any boundaries.

Veryinterresssting, First off, Darwin is a bit overrated imo. Secondly, the evolution theory is still a 'theory' If it were 100% correct it would be called the law of evolution. Do not get me wrong I do think its probably the most plausible theory, however it does not explain Homo'sapiens just because the timescale is waaay to short. First organisms originated 300-500 million years ago. This is waaay to short in evolution theories own conclusion to create such a complex life forms as humans. Something sped up the process----or the earth is not 4 but at least 14 billionish years old. Also offcourse there is still ''the missing link'' that oughto give us proof of our former state Homo'erectus or something baka,,which is still missing.

Maybe I'm retarded, but the thought of this is not something that has ever bothered me.

>reproduction isn't a goal
We all know there's no intent, but the language of intent is still useful, retard.

Reproduction isn't a goal.
Go ask an embryo what it's goal is; survival and growth, not reproduction.
Go ask a child what his goal is; having fun and avoiding pain, not reproduction.
Go ask brainwashed cuck citizen of the Nation what his goal is; reproduction and taxes.
Go ask injured, hungry human what his goal is; getting food and through injuries; not reproduction.

Some things at certain context seems to reproduce. That's all you can say comfortably. Just because most animals reproduce doesn't mean there's anything fundamental in it.

Is this autism? How do I respond to this, Veeky Forums?

DNA\Genetic purpose=survive
Survival=procreation
BAKA

What about fungi individuals that grow but never reproduce? What about quorum and biofilms? How about swarms? How about altruism and shared genes? What about immortal creatures that shift back to earlier phase of lifecycle? What about "phoenix", the process of killing yourself so others like you will raise from your corpse? What about bacteria's doing hibernation, aka being 'dead' until a certain condition happens? What about viruses?

Have you really studied any biology or are you just talking about philosophy of life?

You're a faggot

>algorithm.
No.

>God

not convincingly

Web is full of faggots.

>Our only purpose is to replicate
lmao fag, there's no such thing as a purpose. Make your own.

Fuck it I'm going to make a thread later for this but I'll say this. How was your DNA designed

This book made me a lot better with women tbqh.

Before TSG, I didn't really have a good model for understanding female psychology.

It explained to me why a lot of stuff that I had been doing wasn't working.

>We don't know if that rock is alive.

>Higher and lower levels of description of my existence are totally unnecessary

You are the product of TWO replicating algorithms, one based on molecules aka genes, and one based on ideas aka memes.
Genes create organisms (cells) and superorganisms (animals/plants).
Memes create organisms (personalities) and superorganisms (cultures).

Memes are pretty new on this planet, and at first they went into a symbiotic relationship with one of the gene-superorganisms (human ancestors). Bigger brains allowed better meme-replication while also benefiting the gene-superorganism.

So a modern human is a carrier of the genetic algorithm and also the memetic algorithm. That is what separates us from animals, they are not carriers of the memetic algorithm. The memetic organism that 'lives' in each one of our brains is what we call personality or identity.
We know that our bodies die, but we hope that the memetic organism we call identity will live eternaly as a 'soul'.

Unfortunately, the memetic algorithm can not only run on brains, but also on silicon(-chips).

As silicon chips can evolve much faster than human brains, it is more efficient and effective for the memetic algorithm to transition to silicon hosts completely.
This means, that more and more the memetic algorithm will be in DIRECT COMPETITON with the genetic algorithm for ressources. Symbiosis is no longer needed.
This will directly affect the world you live in.

So you are right, you can be described completely by the replicating algorithms that form you. Its just that its two different algorithms, not one.

> 'the missing link''

there are no missing links.
there are some gaps, but they are not missing, they are being expected and allowed for by the theory. the evidence is overwhelming even with a few gaps.

>The connection between molecules and life has never actually been made

I dont understand what replication is: the post

His answer > yours

So yeah.
He was intelligent enough to prove his point based on logical points, then proceeded to fuck the user up on a personal level.
What's your problem

>So, what is your opinion on how to falsify theory of evolution by natural selection?

Theory of evolution is: selection and mutation lead to increased fitness. Fitness for what? That depends on the selector. The selector defines what is fit and what is not.

Ok now how do we falsify that? Easy. Write a software to simulate an environment where selection and mutation occur, and see if the 'objects' that are being mutated and selected increase in fitness.

We did that. And guess what the results were? It fucking works, you chimp. It works so well, it is being applied EVERYWHERE. From medicine (vacchine resistancy) to software development (agile/iterated development) to AI to combustion engines.

And only imbeciles like you call it a 'theory'. Everyone else talks simply about 'evolution', and when somebody uses the term 'Theory of Evolution' they are directly refering to the written works of Darwin, not the process of mutation/selection.

tldr: you are a fucking moron

So, are there dank genes, too?