Producing a hierarchy of human life .

[Baron d'Holbach]

On 8/24/2017 at 7:46 PM, Moontanman said:

I think maybe this one is the best: It's interactive. 

 

Where are you guys getting these awesome pictures From? 

[Area54]

Search "Tree of life cladogram" on duckduckgo.com, selecting the Images category. I'm sure Google would yield similar results, but I don't use it on principle.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have had a good think , and have come to realise , 

-------------------------------

There  are two sides to this discussion , of which one side must be more right , than the other ( I think ) . 

Both sides have a similar problem :- 

(A )  If there is just SCIENCE , emanating from all the contents of the Universe . How did the contents " appear " or " get started " , in the first place ? 

(B ) If there is a  " God " ( whatever that means ) , responsible for the creation of the Universe . How did GOD , " appear " or " get started " , in the first place ? 

But having thought about it for quite some time , I believe I have a solution ! 

-------------------------------

P.s. I think I am on the winning side ! 

Mike 

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

(A )  If there is just SCIENCE , emanating from all the contents of the Universe . How did the contents " appear " or " get started " , in the first place ?

Who says there is "just science"? There is music, art, beauty, love, hate, life, death, ...

Science doesn't "emanate" from anything(except the human mind maybe).

Is there any reason to think it appeared or got started?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

44 minutes ago, Strange said:

Who says there is "just science"? There is music, art, beauty, love, hate, life, death, ...

Science doesn't "emanate" from anything(except the human mind maybe).

Is there any reason to think it appeared or got started?

Well , the spirit behind this thread , was to develope some form of HEIRACHY , in so much as to place myself , my fish , and if possible higher beings beyond ( above ) animals , in some form of structure. ( or HEIRACHY) . Since then , apparently , this term HEIRACHY has been used to produce the charts of all living , life forms , in extensive layouts . And supposedly ( GOD) , did not figure in any of them ! Supposedly because Science does not need or want a GOD , to figure in its Sphere of activity . 

Recent coments by quite well known scientists have said " we can go back in time and explain things with science  , but only to within a small fraction of time , from the beginning . But no further . 

The advantage of incorporating GOD in the explanation of the Universe is :- 

It does allow you to go back , that last vital part of the history of the Universe, to extend the HEIRACHY . To the very , very Beginning . 

No doubt when considering , when and how to create a Universe , God must have reasoned that  :-

(A) there will need to be a very reliable, predictable , repeatable , aspect to the Universe for it to " hold itself together, allow everything to cooperate, da de da de da . So one of the vital necessities of the universe would be , scientific , predictable , measurable , laws , to hold the universe together , at the same time as expanding to make room for matter and life . 

HOWEVER,  God , may well have seen the need for

(B ) flexibility , unpredictability, a lot of space ,and a whole host of other things that are often thought of as UNSCIENTIFIC . In other words , all the things that seem to challenge the principle , that there could be a creator or GOD , BEHIND THE SCENES ? 

Mike 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

You are just saying: I don't understand it - therefore **MAGIC**".

(Incidentally, where does something like the giant squid fit into your "hierarchy"? It's obviously far above your goldfish (and, arguably above humans too - how much of the world is ocean?).)

Edited August 27, 2017 by Manticore

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

11 minutes ago, Manticore said:

You are just saying: I don't understand it - therefore **MAGIC**".

Not magic , that just downgrades the enormity of the reality. 

Its like when I was taught mechanical engineering . metalwork . Along with electronics . We were taught " you cannot put a 1 centimetre shaft in a 1 centimetre hole . It just will not go , contrary to what you might think . You have to have ' slack ' or things jam up and will not work . I know that is put rather crudely , but I am sure that is how  it was explained to us young engineers. 

I have worked with sheep for a few years , in the middle of my life . From " birth to the end of there life , they have one goal ! To end up ,on there backs , ' dead ' , so spake a North country farmer ! 

So the Universe NEEDS  variation , space , flexibility, etc etc not exactitude , all the time . 

mike 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

1 minute ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 We were taught " you cannot put a 1 centimetre shaft in a 1 centimetre hole . It just will not go , contrary to what you might think .

We did it all the time just heat the casing- or cool the shaft - gives a nice interference fit - can be bit of a bugger to get apart again though.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Quite so ! 

Mike 

but seriously the Universe needs this other side , other than strict science . 

It needs life , variation , flexibility , unpredictability , etc etc 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

So the Universe NEEDS  variation , space , flexibility, etc etc not exactitude , all the time . 

Even if true, that doesn't require a god.

[Manticore]

1 minute ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Quite so ! 

Mike 

but seriously the Universe needs this other side , other than strict science . 

It needs life , variation , flexibility , unpredictability , etc etc 

Plenty of all of those in science. Ever heard of Chaotic Systems?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 minute ago, Manticore said:

Plenty of all of those in science. Ever heard of Chaotic Systems?

Yes, I have looked in to that a bit. Quite fascinating. 

Unfortunately , my Chaotic dog is demanding a walk . 

Catch you later 

 

Mike 

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

(A )  If there is just SCIENCE , emanating from all the contents of the Universe . How did the contents " appear " or " get started " , in the first place ?

I have a key. It fits the mechanism on my car's steering wheel. If I wish to start my car then using the key is the most effiicient method. Any discussions I have about starting my car will focus on using the key. If the discussion broadens to starting other cars then keys will still play, excuse me for this, a key role. But there is a lot more to keys than just starting cars.

Science is a tool. It is a very effective one for learning about the character of the universe and how it works. If I am investigating the universe then science has proven itself as an effective servant. If I am discussing how the universe works then using the results of science will be the most productive approach.

But science does not provide answers to questions it is unsuited to ask. And, as Strange said, there is " music, art, beauty, love, hate, life, death, " literature, poetry, ambition, pathos, avocado salad.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

3 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Well , the spirit behind this thread , was to develope some form of HEIRACHY , in so much as to place myself , my fish , and if possible higher beings beyond ( above ) animals , in some form of structure. ( or HEIRACHY) . Since then , apparently , this term HEIRACHY has been used to produce the charts of all living , life forms , in extensive layouts . And supposedly ( GOD) , did not figure in any of them ! Supposedly because Science does not need or want a GOD , to figure in its Sphere of activity . 

Recent coments by quite well known scientists have said " we can go back in time and explain things with science  , but only to within a small fraction of time , from the beginning . But no further . 

The advantage of incorporating GOD in the explanation of the Universe is :- 

It does allow you to go back , that last vital part of the history of the Universe, to extend the HEIRACHY . To the very , very Beginning . 

No doubt when considering , when and how to create a Universe , God must have reasoned that  :-

(A) there will need to be a very reliable, predictable , repeatable , aspect to the Universe for it to " hold itself together, allow everything to cooperate, da de da de da . So one of the vital necessities of the universe would be , scientific , predictable , measurable , laws , to hold the universe together , at the same time as expanding to make room for matter and life . 

HOWEVER,  God , may well have seen the need for

(B ) flexibility , unpredictability, a lot of space ,and a whole host of other things that are often thought of as UNSCIENTIFIC . In other words , all the things that seem to challenge the principle , that there could be a creator or GOD , BEHIND THE SCENES ? 

Mike 

 

O.k. I have no Idea who you are . For whatever reason ,

you have chosen behind NON IDENTITY . Like some coward who is afraid to say it to my face , with a reason and argument       -1 .     .

What is it ? Are you afraid to state your dissagreement with statement and argument . Identified by doing it under a post that you are making in YOUR NAME .  

Saying I am awarding -1 because .........

if you cannot identify yourself , then .............remain a ........ In darkness ..

good luck to you .......I hope you are never laying in the gutter and could do with a helping hand ! 

Mike 

----------------------------

eg . I am awarding +1 because I think your point is well made 

or 

I am awarding. -1 because I think your point here is wrong and badly argued 

by    Jim123 -

-----------------------------

if you have not the courage to show yourself , forget it , 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

O.k. I have no Idea who you are . For whatever reason ,

you have chosen behind NON IDENTITY . Like some coward who is afraid to say it to my face , with a reason and argument       -1 .     .

What is it ? Are you afraid to state your dissagreement with statement and argument . Identified by doing it under a post that you are making in YOUR NAME .  

Saying I am awarding -1 because .........

if you cannot identify yourself , then .............remain a ........ In darkness ..

good luck to you .......I hope you are never laying in the gutter and could do with a helping hand ! 

Mike 

Oh, grow up. 

(And, no, it wasn't me.)

Edited August 27, 2017 by Strange

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Oh, grow up. 

Social behaviour needs to grow up ! 

My points have been hard won . I despise secretive down voting . It reminds me of 'teddy boy fights'  in the 1960's where gangs would kick some poor sod when he lay on the ground alone , with 6 thugs kicking him. It makes me want to ' vomit ' 

mike 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

This sort of childish whining is one of the things most likely to induce me to give you a -1. As strange said "Grow up.".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I have a key. It fits the mechanism on my car's steering wheel. If I wish to start my car then using the key is the most effiicient method. Any discussions I have about starting my car will focus on using the key. If the discussion broadens to starting other cars then keys will still play, excuse me for this, a key role. But there is a lot more to keys than just starting cars.

Science is a tool. It is a very effective one for learning about the character of the universe and how it works. If I am investigating the universe then science has proven itself as an effective servant. If I am discussing how the universe works then using the results of science will be the most productive approach.

But science does not provide answers to questions it is unsuited to ask. And, as Strange said, there is " music, art, beauty, love, hate, life, death, " literature, poetry, ambition, pathos, avocado salad.

Yes , that is fine , but all the listed extras , like poetry , music , avocado salad . All

MOST of these things are not FUNDAMENTAL . 

I am suggesting that HUGE . FUNDAMENTAL , UNIVERSE EFFECTING , LIFE EFFECTING  things which are couched in non scientific context . 

Eg . Male  female attraction and marriage . Difficult to give a scientific explanation to . Yet is Fundamental to the growth and development of the Earths Population. 

The weather , descovery , design , .. To quickly drum up a few , yet core to the development of civilisation . 

Mike 

[Manticore]

Well weather is totally chaotic - so your idiotic entity could have nothing to do with that.

Sex, probably evolved as a way to get more rapid genetic variation - and any sexual species without attraction between the sexes is not going to last very long.

(Incidentally, the main bulk of the world population does not have sex - only complex organisms - and not all of those.)

Edited August 27, 2017 by Manticore

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

7 minutes ago, Manticore said:

Well weather is totally chaotic - so your idiotic entity could have nothing to do with that.

Sex, probably evolved as a way to get more rapid genetic variation - and any species without attraction between the sexes is not going to last very long.

(Incidentally, the main bulk of the world population does not have sex - only complex organisms - and not all of those.)

I am not too clear , what you are saying here ? 

Mike 

[Area54]

16 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes , that is fine , but all the listed extras , like poetry , music , avocado salad . All

MOST of these things are not FUNDAMENTAL . 

I am suggesting that HUGE . FUNDAMENTAL , UNIVERSE EFFECTING , LIFE EFFECTING  things which are couched in non scientific context . 

Eg . Male  female attraction and marriage . Difficult to give a scientific explanation to . Yet is Fundamental to the growth and development of the Earths Population. 

The weather , descovery , design , .. To quickly drum up a few , yet core to the development of civilisation . 

Mike 

You don't half talk a lot of nonsense at times Mike. The nature of male and female attraction is understood in the general and the particular, in the past and the present, in human and the non-human, the plant and the animal. Science has investigated it in depth and breadth. To declare otherwise is ludicrous. How can you possibly make such an inane comment?

[Klaynos]

Mike, if you want to stop getting down votes I'd suggest a few things. 

• Stop making the same unsupported claims. 
• Listen to the criticisms supplied by the membership. 
• Act on that criticism rather than just repeat your claims. 
• Where you don't understand, ask. 
• Stop making the same unsupported claims. 
• Stop making unsupportable claims. 

Your response to criticisms thus far is reading as just shouting "yeah but hirearchy and superior being," at best it's nonsense. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

13 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You don't half talk a lot of nonsense at times Mike. The nature of male and female attraction is understood in the general and the particular, in the past and the present, in human and the non-human, the plant and the animal. Science has investigated it in depth and breadth. To declare otherwise is ludicrous. How can you possibly make such an inane comment?

I think possibly , we are talking at cross purposes. This might be my fault . Having grown up in electronics , and relate science to .... Formulae accurately predicting levels . I thing possibly , I have missed a trick . It would seem that , a discipline , say in reproduction in animals has a less well defined process ( no volts amps , lengths , angles , times  .) etc and generalisation of behaviour with no specific measurements is counted as science . If that is the case , it is no wonder science has made a ' land grab ' for any discipline that it can , write a description of behaviour  and call it a science . I see now where , there has been a take over of more traditional sciences such as  physics , chemistry , biology , etc 

Life seems to have overtaken me . I think I would need to split science up into 

The exact sciences , and the others . Without this science could be construed as covering everything , practically . 

Mike 

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Quite so ! 

Mike 

but seriously the Universe needs this other side , other than strict science . 

It needs life , variation , flexibility , unpredictability , etc etc 

Citation Please!

[Area54]

15 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I think possibly , we are talking at cross purposes. This might be my fault . Having grown up in electronics , and relate science to .... Formulae accurately predicting levels . I thing possibly , I have missed a trick . It would seem that , a discipline , say in reproduction in animals has a less well defined process ( no volts amps , lengths , angles , times  .) etc and generalisation of behaviour with no specific measurements is counted as science . If that is the case , it is no wonder science has made a ' land grab ' for any discipline that it can , write a description of behaviour  and call it a science . I see now where , there has been a take over of more traditional sciences such as  physics , chemistry , biology , etc 

Life seems to have overtaken me . I think I would need to split science up into 

The exact sciences , and the others . Without this science could be construed as covering everything , practically . 

Mike 

Not cross purposes Mike. You are just incredibly ignorant of the depth of knowledge science has about all kinds of matters. As a minor example, Google Scholar returns just under 300,000 hits for the phrase "sexual reproduction" and just under 3,000,000 for sex. To even provide a decent precis, of an overview, of a summary, of an introduction to what is known about reproduction in animals would require several pages.