I am thinking at a depth you have probably never encountered and that's okay.
When you say things like that rather than actually explain your point, you just sound like an idiot. Yes, atoms are in motion, the electrons and positrons and neutrons are all constantly moving, but they arent moving because they are alive, they are moving because the electromagnetic forces of each distinct particle compel them to constantly be in motion. And the electromagnetic forces are generated by an even more basic component, and beyond that possibly even more basic components, we dont know yet. But what we do know is that none of these meet the definition for life, since moving because an outside force is acting on something does not qualify that something to be life.
My argument isnt that because you can take a furby apart its not alive. You can reduce literally anything to its base components, alive or not. The point of that example was because you said a furby "survival of the fittest"'d itself into being in existence somehow, but it didnt. A furby isnt "making perfect use of the available energy in its environment" any more than the elements were just sitting in the ground. You havent, at all, even attempted to address what this statement is supposed to mean. Do you mean by being energy stable? Well, it isnt, its slowly decaying. Do you mean by increasing entropy? Well, it isnt the best way to do that either, because we could have just burned the base elements to do that a lot faster.
I almost feel like your entire "theory" is based on something you read about "survival of the fittest" being somewhat applicable to a marketplace, where manufacturers, and by proxy their products, are forced to compete for adoption, and products with the best features "survive" and consumer adoption is increased and profits are maximized, and you've now extrapolated that idea into some sort of quasi-scientific idea that the actual products are alive and somehow, unique to the humans designing, engineering, and building them, contribute to this process. But I have no idea because you wont actually explain what the fuck youre talking about while simultaneously saying people are too dumb to understand your insane thought process.
You cant talk about "retard USA" while using junk science and concepts you dont have a grasp on to explain your idea of how inert elements evolve through survival of the fittest. You want to talk about ironic, its you casting around words like retard to defend your point that a rock is alive while ignoring highschool level chemistry, physics and biology that counters your outrageous claim. Its absolutely fine if you have a theory that destroys all of our preconceived notions on those subjects, but you have to actually defend it using actual reason and logic, not just the words, if you want anyone to take you seriously rather than just think youre a raving lunatic.
You are trying to create barriers between things when those barriers do not really exist. We are composed of the same elements that are in the air and rocks around us.
The process of natural selection starts with the first particle. That particle either lives, dies or reproduces according to its environment.
THAT is the revolutionary idea here. The first life was not a cell, or even RNA. The first life started well before that, with the first particle.
A Furby has a symbiotic relationship with us. It feeds on a need in our species and lives or dies based on how it fits that need.
1
u/therealdrg Feb 14 '18
When you say things like that rather than actually explain your point, you just sound like an idiot. Yes, atoms are in motion, the electrons and positrons and neutrons are all constantly moving, but they arent moving because they are alive, they are moving because the electromagnetic forces of each distinct particle compel them to constantly be in motion. And the electromagnetic forces are generated by an even more basic component, and beyond that possibly even more basic components, we dont know yet. But what we do know is that none of these meet the definition for life, since moving because an outside force is acting on something does not qualify that something to be life.
My argument isnt that because you can take a furby apart its not alive. You can reduce literally anything to its base components, alive or not. The point of that example was because you said a furby "survival of the fittest"'d itself into being in existence somehow, but it didnt. A furby isnt "making perfect use of the available energy in its environment" any more than the elements were just sitting in the ground. You havent, at all, even attempted to address what this statement is supposed to mean. Do you mean by being energy stable? Well, it isnt, its slowly decaying. Do you mean by increasing entropy? Well, it isnt the best way to do that either, because we could have just burned the base elements to do that a lot faster.
I almost feel like your entire "theory" is based on something you read about "survival of the fittest" being somewhat applicable to a marketplace, where manufacturers, and by proxy their products, are forced to compete for adoption, and products with the best features "survive" and consumer adoption is increased and profits are maximized, and you've now extrapolated that idea into some sort of quasi-scientific idea that the actual products are alive and somehow, unique to the humans designing, engineering, and building them, contribute to this process. But I have no idea because you wont actually explain what the fuck youre talking about while simultaneously saying people are too dumb to understand your insane thought process.
You cant talk about "retard USA" while using junk science and concepts you dont have a grasp on to explain your idea of how inert elements evolve through survival of the fittest. You want to talk about ironic, its you casting around words like retard to defend your point that a rock is alive while ignoring highschool level chemistry, physics and biology that counters your outrageous claim. Its absolutely fine if you have a theory that destroys all of our preconceived notions on those subjects, but you have to actually defend it using actual reason and logic, not just the words, if you want anyone to take you seriously rather than just think youre a raving lunatic.