imple
formulation that sounds acceptable to you.
(Of course 'offspring' stands for reaction-product and the entire image is
not restricted to live features - whatever these may be).
John
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: W
John Mikes writes:
> "My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless
> changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations in offsprings. Some
> more compatible than others.
> The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so
> they are the "
of the environment. The
'[unsuccessful do not even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by
the wolf before copulating age).
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:35
P
I certainly didn't mean this as a criticism. I remember when I was 8 or 9 years old, reading about how animals developed this or that physical characteristic in order to cope with a particular environment. This was in the context of a discussion about evolutionary theory, but I didn't get it init
John Mikes writes:
> > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.> > Stathis,> 'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not> be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my> narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from> its appearance till its demise (let me skip n
Brent Meeker writes:
> >I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in> > nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves> > will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there> > will be selection for the
Bringing this thread back to the original subject, I am currently reading
"Lonely Planets" by David Grinspoon which covers all aspects of astrobiology
including Fermi's Paradox. I recommend it.
Bruno, you mentioned a few days ago that encryption or compression was an
interesti
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't destr
Brent,
> Faith usually refers to some belief independent of evidence.
I guess we have a serious problem of terminology. Faith without
evidence is bad faith or perhaps better blind faith.
I was meaning faith in truth. (Although faith in your 1-self works also
in my setting). I cannot define
--- Stathis Papaioannou
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.
Stathis,
'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not
be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my
narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from
its appearance till i
fatalist with
> evil, there is a possibility to learn to handle it,
> not with universal
> medicine, but with time, work, ...
>
>
>
> > I suspect it is.� And when life gets intelligent
> enough, and evolved
> > enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and
&g
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 06-juil.-06, à 07:38, Norman Samish a écrit :
>
>
>>Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that
>>True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm,
>>destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil.
>
>
>
> I am not so s
with time, work, ...
I suspect it is. And when life gets intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it - and this explains Fermi's Paradox.
Hope
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.
That doesn't mean it can't happen - it only means you weren't the dominant
species.
>I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in
> nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that
>
e itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it - and this explains Fermi's Paradox.
Norman
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To
pal question is this: Is this evil
inevitable in intelligent life? I suspect it is. And when life gets
intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and
other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up
the raw materials accessible to it -
Norman Samish wrote:
> We can all agree, I think, that many among us humans are irrational. What's
> more, many are obsessed with killing others who don't agree with them. The
> Conquistadors who killed the Aztecs and Incas "because God wished it so"
They subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for k
We can all agree, I think, that many among us humans are irrational. What's
more, many are obsessed with killing others who don't agree with them. The
Conquistadors who killed the Aztecs and Incas "because God wished it so" and
the radical Muslims who kill the infidels "because God wishes it
18 matches
Mail list logo
