Is the universe and all its subjects subject to mathematically perfect darwinism?
Not really. Darwinism can't be applied to the universe in the same way that it's applied to organisms. Apples to apples m8.
WTF am I reading?
>>559723
A pseudo-intellectual stoner
No.
Evolutionism has been debunked years ago.
Look up Kent Hovind's creation seminar.
Darwinism is scientifically and mathematically impossible.
>>559702
For once I agree with insane tripfag.
>>559669
Universe creates its own offsprings, and the best of this baby-universes can create a new generation, and so on.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
>>559735
Die. You're an atheist who's memeing.
>>559702
Thanks for shouting at him. He deserves it.
>>559750
He's right though. Darwinism and all modern science are based on the idea that if you leave a packet of peanuts in the window for long enough it turns into a badger.
That's why the Bible is right.
If you mentally rape the concept of adaption and apply it to anything, you can get a somewhat sound idea that stuff wants to achieve equilibrum, balancev and things appear more or less stable for us. Of course lot of this is just biases, what we see is he 'natural' while unusual events appear deviant though it may be just a matter of scale and time.
Generally things are connected and chain of events spread through feedbacks; self-organization emerges from relatively simple governing principles. Given constrained time and space we usually get metastable systems in segments of the universe, always changing but for a given time appearing stable and given.
But still the ultimate goal is simply the lowest possible energy state.
>>559643
No because evolution is not 100% efficient, there is always space for random error.
A fish could be born with a superior gene that would revolutionize the course of natural history, but then it a volcano erupts and kills it. Instead its retarded brother that kept swimming into the sand survives and mates with all the females.
>>559643
>>559643
WTF is "mathematically perfect darwinism"?
Isn't everything mathematically perfect, just by the virtue that everything follows cause and effect, even if we don't have all the required mathematical models, and some indicate that perhaps occasionally that cause and effect may happen out of order?
...and as for Darwinism - that requires systems that can improve themselves with iterations. Stars don't improve themselves with generations, as they have no DNA map to pass on - they just happen whenever enough stuff builds up in one place, the burnout/collapse/explode over time. Then there's the question as how do you define survival for non-living objects... Yes some objects are more stable and last longer, but... Why am I even responding to this nonsense?
Maybe you could phrase your proposition in a more meaningful way, as, DESU, I'm not even sure what you're at. At the same time, I suppose it was phrased strangely enough to get my attention.
>>559973
DESU = to be honest... DESU I have no idea why these stupid filters exist. Back when Moot was in charge, I figured he was just trolling us, but I've no idea who's trolling us now, as Hiro-chan doesn't seem the type.
...Must be the result of mathematically perfect Darwinism.
>>559761
This isn't what the theory of evolution purports at all. You are either b8 or legitimately stupid and not worth any further responses.
>>559745
But there can't multiple universes, universe means "all there is".
>>560048
We've had various multi-verse theories running about for decades. It's a thing now. A stupid thing, but still a thing.
>>560048
No, it's all of space time. If there are other 'verses with different dimensions, they can't be parts of our space time.
And even if you want to say the universe is everything, then fine, we live in a subverse.
>>559988
Hiro kicked off this image board business.
If anything, he's an OG troll. The filters are here because people like you are too lazy or too meme-addicted to use actual words instead of spamming the fun new chatspeak.
>>560019
>ATK and DEF aren't both 88888
What kind of fool made this?
>>560828
DESU I've been using DESU since the pre-internet days of BBS chat rooms, and am too old to change my ways now. IIRC there used to be a lot more filters though... I miss Newt Gingrich, among others.
>>560844
Candy-ass and roody-poo were fun. Hiro should bring new ones in periodically.
