PDA

View Full Version : The Theory of Evolution



Hayeate
11-30-2008, 02:42 AM
There's no such thing. No. Such. Thing. I'm dead fucking serious. The more I look at people the more I begin to be convinced that no animal could have possibly had the distinction of evolving into man.

Humans don't come from animals. Humans turn into animals. First it's just the hooves, then they grow a snout, and next thing you know, they're down on all fours rooting the earth with it. I have seen it happen with my own eyes and I am seeing it everywhere right now.

Evolution is a misconception. In practice, the actual phenomena should be called devolution. God first created the most flawed, disastrous, unworkable piece of hardware called the human brain. Those who still cling to their human nature fail to realize the futility of trying to maintain a form whose only function is to expend an excess amount of neurotic activity outside the bounds of survival and reproduction. The few times that its neurons manage to fire properly in that regard, the human advances further into his bestial nature. First it walks on its knuckes, then it crawls, then it grows a fish tail and swims into the water, then it sheds all that unnecessary skeletal and cellular structure until it becomes the most perfect being, the virus.

That's it, I'll start doing what everybody else on this planet is trying to do - quit being a human being. I'll start by emulating the behavior of a duck. From now on I won't even post any coherent replies, but instead quack. Quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.

RyviusRan
11-30-2008, 02:46 AM
I got a little chuckle out of this.

I find it funny also thinking how many people will interpret it in many ways.

mahouneko
11-30-2008, 02:50 AM
There's no such thing. No. Such. Thing. I'm dead fucking serious. The more I look at people the more I begin to be convinced that no animal could have possibly had the distinction of evolving into man.

Humans don't come from animals. Humans turn into animals. First it's just the hooves, then they grow a snout, and next thing you know, they're down on all fours rooting the earth with it. I have seen it happen with my own eyes and I am seeing it everywhere right now.

Evolution is a misconception. In practice, the actual phenomena should be called devolution. God first created the most flawed, disastrous, unworkable piece of hardware called the human brain. Those who still cling to their human nature fail to realize the futility of trying to maintain a form whose only function is to expend an excess amount of neurotic activity outside the bounds of survival and reproduction. The few times that its neurons manage to fire properly in that regard, the human advances further into his bestial nature. First it walks on its knuckes, then it crawls, then it grows a fish tail and swims into the water, then it sheds all that unnecessary skeletal and cellular structure until it becomes the most perfect being, the virus.

That's it, I'll start doing what everybody else on this planet is trying to do - quit being a human being. I'll start by emulating the behavior of a duck. From now on I won't even post any coherent replies, but instead quack. Quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.

Is this in reaction to real-life interactions or interactions over the internet?

Secondly, the comparison of humans to viruses has already been made roughly 10 years ago with The Matrix.

Fuchsin
11-30-2008, 02:54 AM
Haha, that made me laugh.
When I saw the thread title though, I was like "Oh, here we go. Another pointless forum argument."

RyviusRan
11-30-2008, 02:56 AM
Haha, that made me laugh.
When I saw the thread title though, I was like "Oh, here we go. Another pointless forum argument."

I think this one is more pointless, but meh... atleast it makes people chuckle.

Fuchsin
11-30-2008, 03:00 AM
No, most of them are pointless. They don't go anywhere. Good for entertainment, and that's about it.

RyviusRan
11-30-2008, 03:04 AM
No, most of them are pointless. They don't go anywhere. Good for entertainment, and that's about it.

it's only pointless if the forum members don't gain any knowledge from it which can be argued from each members viewpoint.

shcnoff
11-30-2008, 06:47 AM
the human brain is definitely not adapted for survival, that's for sure. we have like, three times the cephalization quotient of our nearest competitors? in memetic theory, people act like idiots because they copy each other. what a scientific break through. but while it's not exactly a part of evolutionary theory, memetics generally takes the evolutionary model for granted and absolutely relies on universal darwinism. so you see, evolution can account for peoples' moronic activities just fine.

wysiwyg
11-30-2008, 07:28 AM
hehehe, very funny, i like it.
Still, give evolution some credit. Spanish flue, AIDS, chicken flue are just some examples of evolution trying to find a good balance to keep all species about the same chances to survive. (the only problem is humans interfering with the process)

TSR
11-30-2008, 10:02 AM
Eh. This is one of Hayeate's threads and it doesn't mention Nuremberg, so you just have to know it's the real deal.

Now, the cool thing about homo so-called sapiens is that it has defeated the reproductive process known as natural selection. In the outside world, weak organisms die and become food for strong organisms instead of passing on their genetic heritage, thus ensuring that only the strongest and best suited individuals continue the species. People on the other hand, have an obsession with promoting the weakest and least deserving specimens for prefered procreational purposes. It would just be wrong to deny those village mongoloids the right to have a family, after all.

Humanity 6,711,016,772, Natural Selection 0 in a rout. What scientific theory will we take on next, I wonder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

http://www.worldometers.info/

ja ne

RyviusRan
11-30-2008, 10:10 AM
Well then lets just pray to god to send a plague to wipe out a large percentage of humans like he did with small pox and the black plague.

If we weren't so concerned on keeping the idiots alive there would be far less people. All other animal species will kill their offspring if they have a problem.

Of course we are to civilized so we will be doomed by our kindness to give out health care to illegal immigrants and prisoners before citizens get the chance to have it.

It funny how kidness can eventually be your own downfall.

But that is the way humans are in today's society although if the population does grow to the predicted 11 billion+ in 2071 then I know alot of things are going to have to change.

Athias
11-30-2008, 10:25 AM
You're still creating threads Hayeate?! I thought you've become a hermit and only comment on that which begs sarcasm.

jokermausland
11-30-2008, 02:47 PM
Best thread ever.

Synel
11-30-2008, 04:02 PM
Wow, funny coincidence evolution popped up in another thread too.

Look, I understand people are... well they're fucking stupid, selfish and often ignorant to the point of negligence (they don't even try to think most times) but uh, there are some people out there with common sense.

As for people screwing up the whole natural selection bit... I think the only thing I can attribute that to is ignorance again. People don't even look at what traits equal the best mate these days. If you wanna have sex, hey, there's a party down the street. Go find someone.

Largely I think people have just screwed up their priorities to the degree where it's borderline suicidal... as a species I guess.

kanosuke
11-30-2008, 04:11 PM
Natural selection and the like is a theory.

TSR
11-30-2008, 05:09 PM
When you see Prof. Groynles Cavernchest, PhD(x6) who can solve complex equations in his head without mechanical assistance, yet seems unaware that there are multiple genders in his species, with approxamately zero offspring, plus or minus 3.14%, while Billy Bob Dickwad, of the Trailer Park, Ark. Dickwads and his bountiful wife and double first cousin Ethel, who are the proud parents of seventeen lovely throwbacks and grandparents of nine more, and maybe a couple that haven't been noticed yet, at the ripe old ages of 35 and 32, respectively, you know the species is in good hands.

Watch Idiocracy. Can't really call it a good movie, but it does make its point pretty well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

And, for gosh darn's sake, enough with the duck noises. Can't you evolve sideways into a penguin and make penguin noises instead? The only notable talent ducks have is for converting whatever it is that they eat into ten times its volume in duck manure. It's absolutely amazing, in a rather disgusting sort of way, how much more seems to come out the other end. Anybody who has ever raised the things will tell you. That and their inability to crap in the same place twice. They spread it everywhere

ja ne

Deranged Skillet
11-30-2008, 11:51 PM
Primary activities surpass their pointlessness threshold as man gropes and grovels through a sick chronic dementia
while Over-speculation is getting obscene, and further contemplation upsets his aesthetic moral.

But there's simply too much weight in my skull to have it any other way.

RyviusRan
12-01-2008, 12:04 AM
Primary activities surpass their pointlessness threshold as man gropes and grovels through a sick chronic dementia
while Over-speculation is getting obscene, and further contemplation upsets his aesthetic moral.

But there's simply too much weight in my skull to have it any other way.

Nice....where did you rip that qoute from?

Deranged Skillet
12-01-2008, 12:26 AM
You're joking right?

I should probably work on doing away with my lame philosophical observations in this forum.

Nonsense667
12-01-2008, 11:41 AM
You people did read the OP right?
STOP INCITING DEBATES AND FLAMES IN EVERY BLOODY THREAD!
Read it, have a giggle, respond humorously, is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Oh, and Meow meow, meow. :neko:

fallenAnvil
12-01-2008, 12:19 PM
hm..this explains why the younger generations are so stupid......

LuxVertas
12-01-2008, 12:40 PM
I prefer the "Expansion and Contraction" Theory

When great enlightenment comes, Great stupidity follows

stukasa
12-01-2008, 01:10 PM
People ARE animals. I don't mean that in a silly, humorous way, I mean it literally. People are part of the animal kingdom. We're a type of mammal. But somewhere along the way, we seem to have forgotten that and decided we were somehow better and different from other animals, and claimed the planet for ourselves. But despite our fancy clothes, technological gadgets and complex social rules, underneath all that we're still just animals. So don't be surprised when we act like them.

P.S. - This thread should be called "The Theory of (D)evolution" :p

realsilverjunk
12-01-2008, 04:34 PM
Man is completely different from animals. Man has a soul. Man can ask "why"? Man can choose, animals have instinct. There is no in-between between man and ape. No split off. No common ancestor. They are similar, but so is a shark, and a whale. But there 2 different species.

jrslime
12-01-2008, 04:55 PM
that gave me a nice laugh, what gave you that idea? first of all species is like our world it gets more complex not any simpler as you can see.. the more we learn about something the more complex the entire process gets so devolution isn't quite possible though i wouldn't say its impossible

kupo3000
12-01-2008, 07:16 PM
Man is completely different from animals. Man has a soul. Man can ask "why"? Man can choose, animals have instinct. There is no in-between between man and ape. No split off. No common ancestor. They are similar, but so is a shark, and a whale. But there 2 different species.

Head asplodes...:kakashi:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Hominoid_taxonomy_7.png

And this is just simplified.

solarenemy
12-01-2008, 07:32 PM
Man is completely different from animals. Man has a soul. Man can ask "why"? Man can choose, animals have instinct. There is no in-between between man and ape. No split off. No common ancestor. They are similar, but so is a shark, and a whale. But there 2 different species.

Who told you animals don't have souls. What makes you even believe that? Your saying when you die and if your a good boy you go to an imaginary place called heaven. But your telling me all my animals I grew up with won't be there. Your telling me there will be nothing but humans there? In that case I would rather go to hell. i can not imagine a place without animals. Heaven is a place for souls which means unless it has a soul it won't be in heaven. There won't even be insects if what you say is true. Sorry no thank you, send me straight to hell instead.

Maverick007
12-01-2008, 07:52 PM
Man is completely different from animals. Man has a soul. Man can ask "why"? Man can choose, animals have instinct. There is no in-between between man and ape. No split off. No common ancestor. They are similar, but so is a shark, and a whale. But there 2 different species.

...But don't "All Dogs Go to Heaven"??

esparta
12-01-2008, 08:37 PM
I don't think people realize that evolution isn't necessarily Monkey's to men.

Actually, it is never monkeys to men. That's just one misconception of many. Humans and monkeys have a common primate ancestor, but one did not evolve from the other. .:st:

Falcao das Neves
12-01-2008, 10:05 PM
There's no such thing. No. Such. Thing. I'm dead fucking serious. The more I look at people the more I begin to be convinced that no animal could have possibly had the distinction of evolving into man.

Humans don't come from animals. Humans turn into animals. First it's just the hooves, then they grow a snout, and next thing you know, they're down on all fours rooting the earth with it. I have seen it happen with my own eyes and I am seeing it everywhere right now.

Evolution is a misconception. In practice, the actual phenomena should be called devolution. God first created the most flawed, disastrous, unworkable piece of hardware called the human brain. Those who still cling to their human nature fail to realize the futility of trying to maintain a form whose only function is to expend an excess amount of neurotic activity outside the bounds of survival and reproduction. The few times that its neurons manage to fire properly in that regard, the human advances further into his bestial nature. First it walks on its knuckes, then it crawls, then it grows a fish tail and swims into the water, then it sheds all that unnecessary skeletal and cellular structure until it becomes the most perfect being, the virus.

That's it, I'll start doing what everybody else on this planet is trying to do - quit being a human being. I'll start by emulating the behavior of a duck. From now on I won't even post any coherent replies, but instead quack. Quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.

huahuahauhauhau

When I saw this thread I thought it was something serious, but I do not disappoint.
I liked its theory!
I actually feel that is more serious than the conventional theory of evolution. :O
Then I will try now to develop a chicken...
cock cock cock

Areskel
12-01-2008, 10:51 PM
Well then lets just pray to god to send a plague to wipe out a large percentage of humans like he did with small pox and the black plague.
Haha, you already have your plague, AIDS. Extremely drug resistant tuberculosis. Extremely drug resistant cholera. MRSA. The diseases which can end mankind are already on the horizon, it's just a matter of time before population density reaches a critical point and they will devastate the human population. I only hope I'll be done my degree by then so I can be a part of the study of the downfall of the human species (I am studying immunology). The microbes are coming, and they are going to win, it's a fact.

I would be content if we were viruses Hayeate, for then once the host dies we will too, or we will learn to live in harmony with our host (a lot of diseases do this, it's really cool). We're probably more like bacteria, we'll lock our genetic material up in capsules and launch it out to perhaps colonise somewhere again when it is unlucky enough to cross our path.

Realsilverjunk, go take a university biology course. When you actually look at the scientific evidence for evolution it is a thing of wonderous beauty. Things do make sense actually, and it's amazing. The level of complexity which living organisms can attain from relatively small changes in how their genes are utilised, is simply astounding. Nature is beautiful.

RyviusRan
12-02-2008, 12:23 PM
In High school you are forced to go by law but in college and university you made the choice to go.

I find that once people get into college and study science is when they become Atheists. Once you see all the evidence it's like a light switch being turned on.

I mean we have so much evidence for evolution you just need to study and look up the information.

Some of my friends will be a little shy with science around me becuase they know I like to blab alot about it but I don't like holding back.

I think I have spent so much time and money in University and College taking as many science classes as possible. Most of them didn't count but I still enjoyed them greatly.

One cool class I took was EthnoBotany. It was the first time to be taught at my school and had only 13 students in it. But it taught you so much on how plants are used in different cultures, from clothing, dyes, cosmetics to, medicine and foods. And just from that class I had a whole new outlook on plant biology. Everytime I gaze at some plants I always wonder things like if it's a monocot or a eudicot, and what can it be used for.

So once you take a variety of science classes you start to put the pieces of the puzzel together to understand universal reality.

AK420
12-02-2008, 01:20 PM
First off, the theory is correctly termed 'De-Evolution' and it is a real problem.

It has been touched upon by some others in this thread that there are two major problems that are leading to the dumbing down of the world's human population.

1. Natural selection is a real thing not a theory, in my opinion (it just makes too much sense for it not to exist), and by actively removing ourselves from the food chain we are denying ourselves the struggles that are necessary to bring about growth. When I mention growth, I don't mean expansion or advancement. We are very good at convincing ourselves that all of our technological advances and expansions represent growth, while our spirits or souls languish in a hypothetical 'Purgatory' just waiting to be explored and enriched. When the end comes for us all, the only thing that we can take with us is who we are and what we have meant to the people around us.

2. Technology as we have created it today is leading us down the path of allowing our creations to think for us. Cars that beep to tell you how close you are to the car behind/before you, TiVo and DVR which allows us to feed our selfish selves what we think we need, the internet which allows us to physically separate ourselves from the world around us.

Anybody who has read the book or seen the movie, The Time Machine, can recognize the theories that were introduced as becoming more and more real.

There is a high potential for the human race to actually split into two separate breeds, those with the knowledge to get things done and those who answer to the aforementioned breed.

Which one will you be?

One thing that we can do to avert this horrible thing from happening is to make a connection, a real-world connection, with another human being every day. We are each other's keepers and if we don't take a stand and accept responsibility for the future of our race then I fear this outcome is inevitable.

To summarize my opinions:

We have become gods in our own minds. Gods are not to be held accountable for their actions because what god can deny another god anything? We truly believe in the sanctity of technology and that it is just a tool and not the potential orchestrator of our own spiritual demise.

Finally, we are so afraid of having even one of our supposed 'liberties' taken away that we neglect to stir the pot and stand out as individuals.

A simple fact: Hardships bring about growth and adaptation, an easy life leads to complacency and self-destruction.

We better wake up soon or I truly fear for the fate of our progeny in the generations to come.

Perfect example: A temporary maintenance employee for Wal-Mart was trampled to death on Black Friday so that some stupid, selfish people could get a better deal on a 52" Plasma screen TV.

He died for someone's entertainment.

Kind of reminds me of the old Roman days of gladiators and lions. We all know what happened to that empire, right?

And don't get me started on UFC. Glorified gladiators in my book. We're just one step away from introducing weapons in the ring.

Keep faith people, just the fact that this thread exists and people are interested in the character of the human race leads me to believe that all is not lost and we can redeem ourselves at some point.

I think that I will start right now, care to join me?

POSTSCRIPT: I really find it funny and frustrating that people don't believe that God and Evolution can co-exist. In my world, they are both aspects of the same thing. The Bible never mentions that evolution does not exist. No, I'm not a bible-banger but that is really the only source book that the Western world has on the divine.

As previousy mentioned, most scientists become atheists after scratching the surface of science. What's very interesting and even exciting is that scientists who have ventured into the absolutely symmetrical, beautiful world of Quantum Physics have found themselves returning to a childlike state of awe. They are discovering a level of sophistication and symmetry to the Universe that has the signature of some sort of conscious direction.

Every day we are discovering things in the quantum frame that defy any theory or explanation that we have. Hell, even the Theory of Relativity, which has widely been believed to be infallible, is being very hard pressed to explain what we see on a daily basis.

Don't take my word for it, check out this author: Danah Zohar (http://anonym.to/?http://www.dzohar.com/).

She is a converted Quantum Physicist who is trying to save the world one book at a time.

Here's a good link to start you on the path: Quantum Physics (http://anonym.to/?http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html)

Leave your mind open when researching this topic as it could profoundly alter your perceptions!

Areskel
12-02-2008, 04:53 PM
I would disagree on technology leading to a kind of spiritual death. You never know what you will do until you do it. In that sense, the increasing descent towards hedonism is not a symptom of technology changing human nature. That hedonism you despise is a symptom of technology allowing us to explore parts of human nature we didn't know we had. We are not in a spiritual purgatory, we are in a spiritual free fall. When you have nothing, you value everything. When you have access through prosperity and technology to pretty much everything you desire, you value nothing. We are not neglecting human nature, we are exploring an ugly part of it which has existed forever. Religions have since their inception existed to restrain humanity, not explore it, and I wouldn't necessarily say that's always a bad thing when it is restricting the self-destructive tendencies which are inherent in our basic state. They do however, tend to get carried away and interpret tendencies which are bad for the theocracy as self-destructive for the individual, which is why I reject religion.

That being said, I don't think you need to be religious to escape hedonism. You just need to have the strength of will to resist temptation. I bet you someone who stepped on that Wal-Mart employee went to church every Sunday and prayed every night at the dinner table, hell, probably several. Religion is not a bulwark against temptation, it is a tool for those with strength to focus their will, and for the meek to use to protect themselves from blame.

That the Bible makes no mention of Evolution doesn't mean they can coexist. When Science and Religion get mixed together you get lacklustre science where scientists spend more time trying to get people to believe God is in their observations than actually trying to understand their observations objectively (your scientist for example); and vice versa, you get the faithful trying to find science in the workings of their God and objective reality to prove they are right rather than actually looking for their God in themselves and understanding their religion. They are not inherently mutually exclusive, but they should be mutually exclusive.

Also, I'm not sure about how patterns make evidence of an intelligent creator. Something that is not a pattern requires intelligence, as it requires concious difference from a repeating string of values derived from the components of the nascent pattern. This is in contrast to a pattern, which needs no direction, just components that are formed in a certain way by the patterns which form them, ad infinitum.

Synel
12-02-2008, 05:54 PM
First off, the theory is correctly termed 'De-Evolution' and it is a real problem.

It has been touched upon by some others in this thread that there are two major problems that are leading to the dumbing down of the world's human population.

1. Natural selection is a real thing not a theory, in my opinion (it just makes too much sense for it not to exist), and by actively removing ourselves from the food chain we are denying ourselves the struggles that are necessary to bring about growth. When I mention growth, I don't mean expansion or advancement. We are very good at convincing ourselves that all of our technological advances and expansions represent growth, while our spirits or souls languish in a hypothetical 'Purgatory' just waiting to be explored and enriched. When the end comes for us all, the only thing that we can take with us is who we are and what we have meant to the people around us.

2. Technology as we know it today is leading us down the path of allowing our creations to think for us. Cars that beep to tell you how close you are to the car behind/before you, TiVo and DVR which allows us to feed our selfish selves what we think we need, the internet which allows us to physically separate us from the world around us.

Anybody who has read the book or seen the movie, The Time Machine, can recognize the theories that were introduced as becoming more and more real.

There is a high potential for the human race to actually split into two separate breeds, those with the knowledge to get things done and those who answer to the aforementioned breed.

Which one will you be?

One thing that we can do to avert this horrible thing from happening is to make a connection, a real-world connection, with another human being every day. We are each other's keepers and if we don't take a stand and accept responsibility for the future of our race then I fear this outcome is inevitable.

To summarize my opinions:

We have become gods in our own minds. Gods are not to be held accountable for their actions because what god can deny another god anything? We truly believe in the sanctity of technology and that it is just a tool and not the potential orchestrator of our own spiritual demise.

Finally, we are so afraid of having even one of our supposed 'liberties' taken away that we neglect to stir the pot and stand out as individuals.

A simple fact: Hardships bring about growth and adaptation, an easy life leads to complacency and self-destruction.

We better wake up soon or I truly fear for the fate of our progeny in the generations to come.

Perfect example: A temporary maintenance employee for Wal-Mart was trampled to death on Black Friday so that some stupid, selfish people could get a better deal on a 52" Plasma screen TV.

He died for someone's entertainment.

Kind of reminds me of the old Roman days of gladiators and lions. We all know what happened to that empire, right?

And don't get me started on UFC. Glorified gladiators in my book. We're just one step away from introducing weapons in the ring.

Keep faith people, just the fact that this thread exists and people are interested in the character of the human race leads me to believe that all is not lost and we can redeem ourselves at some point.

I think that I will start right now, care to join me?

POSTSCRIPT: I really find it funny and frustrating that people don't believe that God and Evolution can co-exist. In my world, they are both aspects of the same thing. The Bible never mentions that evolution does not exist. No, I'm not a bible-banger but that is really the only source book that the Western world has on the divine.

As previousy mentioned, most scientists become atheists after scratching the surface of science. What's very interesting and even exciting is that scientists who have ventured into the absolutely symmetrical, beautiful world of Quantum Physics have found themselves returning to a childlike state of awe. They are discovering a level of sophistication and symmetry to the Universe that has the signature of some sort of conscious direction.

Every day we are discovering things in the quantum frame that defy any theory or explanation that we have. Hell, even the Theory of Relativity, which has widely been believed to be infallible, is being very hard pressed to explain what we see on a daily basis.

Don't take my word for it, check out this author: Danah Zohar (http://anonym.to/?http://www.dzohar.com/).

She is a converted Quantum Physicist who is trying to save the world one book at a time.

Here's a good link to start you on the path: Quantum Physics (http://anonym.to/?http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html)

Leave your mind open when researching this topic as it could profoundly alter your perceptions!

I think you just summarized a great deal of my own issues with society. Except it's not so much that technology kills our spirit, just that people have become lazy fucks and take advantage of the fact that they don't really need survival skills anymore.

Although as for science and religion I just think religious people are often open to submissive thinking while science focused people prefer to stand on their own mental strength than simply accept the we can't understand all things. (that and both sides sometimes justify things without merit simply to fight the other side.)

AK420
12-02-2008, 06:23 PM
You guys bring up some great points and I applaud them.

Just to clarify a couple of the misconceptions that I may have inspired.

Personally, I do not feel that any thing, place or person is inherently 'good' or 'evil', it's all about what we do with it.

As far as Quantum physics being able to 'locate God', so to speak; goes way beyond just finding patterns. Heck, you could look anywhere in the world and find patterns. That is a very rudimentary scientific principle.

If you follow the link that I posted you will find on that page alone many different examples of discoveries which lead to thoughts of a higher being.

Like the core duality of nature. Particle and wave at the same time.

I hate to do it, but I have to mention Dark Matter as well.

Basically, there are a lot of things that exist in the Universe that we either do not have the capacity to understand or have not allowed ourselves to become aware of.

So, to think that we have any kind of idea about the true nature of existence is an exercise in futility.

I don't like spelling things out for people, so I point the way and allow them to make their own conclusions. That's really the only true way to learn.

Other than those couple of misconceptions, all is good! :kakashi:

animedoll
12-02-2008, 10:33 PM
lol...i giggled a little!

DeadlyPocky
12-02-2008, 10:43 PM
Oh shat, and i thought i was the only one trying to convince my biology teacher about devolution.

RyviusRan
12-03-2008, 04:00 AM
I think you just summarized a great deal of my own issues with society. Except it's not so much that technology kills our spirit, just that people have become lazy fucks and take advantage of the fact that they don't really need survival skills anymore.

Although as for science and religion I just think religious people are often open to submissive thinking while science focused people prefer to stand on their own mental strength than simply accept the we can't understand all things. (that and both sides sometimes justify things without merit simply to fight the other side.)

Actually it's the other way around. Religious people can't accept that we may not know. They can't admit that there may not be a god.

Lord Zero
12-03-2008, 04:48 AM
There's no such thing. No. Such. Thing. I'm dead fucking serious. The more I look at people the more I begin to be convinced that no animal could have possibly had the distinction of evolving into man.

Humans don't come from animals. Humans turn into animals. First it's just the hooves, then they grow a snout, and next thing you know, they're down on all fours rooting the earth with it. I have seen it happen with my own eyes and I am seeing it everywhere right now.

Evolution is a misconception. In practice, the actual phenomena should be called devolution. God first created the most flawed, disastrous, unworkable piece of hardware called the human brain. Those who still cling to their human nature fail to realize the futility of trying to maintain a form whose only function is to expend an excess amount of neurotic activity outside the bounds of survival and reproduction. The few times that its neurons manage to fire properly in that regard, the human advances further into his bestial nature. First it walks on its knuckes, then it crawls, then it grows a fish tail and swims into the water, then it sheds all that unnecessary skeletal and cellular structure until it becomes the most perfect being, the virus.

That's it, I'll start doing what everybody else on this planet is trying to do - quit being a human being. I'll start by emulating the behavior of a duck. From now on I won't even post any coherent replies, but instead quack. Quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.

I know you are just joking around fueled by pure boringness... but just in case... evolution doesnt mean "improvement" like doing something better or worst or growing wings or fins.
Its about reproductive success, whatever it takes. If your dna can survive through more generations by making you as an individual steril, then so be it.
Its a misconception to think than evolution builds new things. Its doesnt. At all.
FYI one of the keys phenomena in phenotypical change which its so obvious than we only need our eyes to realize, its speciation, the process in a single poblation becomes two separate entities by means of a reproductive barrier. When the two (or more) groups are unable to share their own genetical material, the casual differences between loci percentage drawns them into different characteristics.

Anyway as always i recomend all of you to read actual books instead of dilly-dally with your asumptions which are mostly wrong. I like best "Hickman, Cleveland P. Integrated Principles of Zoology" which encompass the most basic principles of biology in a didactic and really fun way with beautifull graphics and ilustrations too.

Im a biologist, and my particular field its ecology mostly... things like this are my stuff. Period.
Thats being said, evolution its a fact.
And a theory its something very different than a hypothesis. Its a body of knowlenge backed by several proof. Like gravity for instance.
The thing here its not if its exists or not, but what are the mechanisms which describe it. Just like gravity again. We know than it exists,
we can measure its effects, but we are still discovering how its works.
Damn, phisicians are not sure about what its matter itself, and we biologist are always being pushed by religious wackaloons who wants
absolute truth, right here, right know... cut me some slack...

kanosuke
12-03-2008, 11:44 AM
http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/50000/3000/700/53762/53762.zoom.gif
Find amusement and advanced knowledge with this comic strip. As you muse about evolution, science, and mankind's role in the universe please remember to put on your scientist hat.:P

TSR
12-03-2008, 12:11 PM
Technology is just a tool. Not innately good or bad. It simply is conceived to make our lives easier or better in some way. Take a hammer. One person can use it to build a houes and the next can use it to murder his fellows in their sleep. It's still the same hammer. And who has noticed that America is following the same pattern as the Roman Empire, despite having a whole lot more technological sophistication? Or various Chinese dynasties, for that matter. When life gets too easy, folks get spoiled, arrogant and lazy. Technology certainly assists this tendency, but is hardly required for it. All ancient China really needed was a hospitable climate and an abundant food crop. Since they didn't have to work at the basics, they had plenty of energy to devote to developing their culture to amazing degrees of intricate complexity. Human nature is the same, regardless. Anything we don't have to earn, we take for granted. How many kids these days grow up thinking that somebody is supposed to feed them and dress them and house them and provide free internet and are angry about getting cheated out of those things when their parents die and they have to live on their own? And let's not forget wishful thinking. People want to believe in god, they'll invent some rationale to support their desire. People want to believe god doesn't exist, they'll invent some rationale to support that, too. And they'll all swear that their wishful thinking makes perfect sense and that anybody who disagrees with them is a blind idiot.

ja ne

jrslime
12-03-2008, 03:17 PM
lol wow this thread is still alive? o_O

realsilverjunk
12-04-2008, 12:26 AM
Hey, I have a question. I'm a Christian (obviously, if you know me), so I am a creationist. But I am curious to see science answer this. When did the common ancestor of man and ape split into more species? Who were the first man and woman, (by this I mean on their way to becoming homo-sapeians.) Would Cain and Able be the split? Like Adam and eve where the ancestors, and they split off, had Cain and Able or whatever. Just curious.

RyviusRan
12-04-2008, 06:39 AM
Hey, I have a question. I'm a Christian (obviously, if you know me), so I am a creationist. But I am curious to see science answer this. When did the common ancestor of man and ape split into more species? Who were the first man and woman, (by this I mean on their way to becoming homo-sapeians.) Would Cain and Able be the split? Like Adam and eve where the ancestors, and they split off, had Cain and Able or whatever. Just curious.

Well the evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back to about 85 million years ago. The last common ancestor to humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece.

It has been estimated to be around 8 to 4 million years when the split occured. First the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee split off from the line leading to the humans.

Our genus "Homo" came about around 2 million years ago by the "Homo habilis"
The first Homo Sapiens (that's us) have been esitmated to have come about around 165,000-195,000 years ago. At first it was thought that Homo Sapiens most recent ancestor was the Homo Neanderthalensis, but after dating certain fossils it has been shown that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived together in the same time period at some point. This has lead to a debate that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are seperate species that shared a common ancestor around 660,000 years ago.


It is impossible to know what was the first Homo sapien male and female. If you can't figure out why then you need mental help.

shiracld
12-04-2008, 07:48 AM
on other news this rock evolved
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/minerals-evolution.html

RyviusRan
12-04-2008, 08:36 AM
If you don't know much about astronomy and the structure of our universe you should try watching this video.

It will blow your mind if you have very little knowledge in this subject.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c64Aia4XE1Y&feature=related

DarkHunter6523
12-04-2008, 11:39 AM
Would Cain and Able be the split? Like Adam and eve where the ancestors, and they split off, had Cain and Able or whatever. Just curious.

Quack Quack Quack
Mentioning Cain and Able, Adam and Eve when asking about human evolution is like asking where King Arthur is in the British Royal Family Tree.
Quack Quack Quack

kawaiinekoboi
12-04-2008, 12:08 PM
Mentioning Cain and Able, Adam and Eve when asking about human evolution is like asking where King Arthur is in the British Royal Family Tree.
Now that's a good way to put it. Please, if you're a creationist, I urge you to check out Michael Shermer on youtube. He would call (theistic) religion a non-answer. Scientists do it too with terms such as "dark matter". It's not a scientific term, it's not a definition, it's an empty expression. "God did it" is what we say when we don't have a proper answer. Yet.

As someone else has already stated, natural selection is not really questioned any more. Evolution is not a theory in the sense that it's uncertain either. Exchanging barely uncertain answers like evolution for complete uncertainty (God) is ridiculous. So is fretting over the loss of our spirits. We're not souls or spirits, and rejecting our real lives to indulge in fairy tales about a presumed afterlife is hardly living real life. I'd rather talk to a friend on a machine than speak to an invisible god.

Synel
12-04-2008, 06:07 PM
Hmm... ya know ot be honest I don't even have a problem with saying "God did it." I just have a problem dictating how people should live and what type of suffering they may or may not endure afterwards. That and I don't like it when people start speaking for said god.

Evolution does make sense but one issue that came up during a discussion is that evolution is supposedly a slow process and not one that occurs in jumps. So every step on the evolutionary ladder of humans would had to have been gradual and in something of a series. So why isn't there evidence of such? BTW I'm going off assumption in this question so I could be wrong.

To explain, just in case there is a bit of misunderstanding, lets say a step toward the next notch on the scale was a larger, stronger jaw bone among other things. Have we found skeletons of said beasts with only minor or singular signs of change like this present at all? or has it just been giant steps between each one?


If you don't know much about astronomy and the structure of our universe you should try watching this video.

It will blow your mind if you have very little knowledge in this subject.


BTW it's a bit off topic but uh... I was once told that gravitiy is a force that's derived simply by an object having such a titanic amount of mass that it attracts other mass to it. Is it at all possible that the universe is simply going to expand and than contract again? All that mass simply working itself back into a whole.

Kero Kero POW
12-04-2008, 06:12 PM
Quack quack quack quack? Qua ckk quack...
Q U U U U U U U A A A A C K

esparta
12-04-2008, 07:27 PM
now I know that men came from animal, just look at the comment above me!

RyviusRan
12-04-2008, 07:56 PM
Hmm... ya know ot be honest I don't even have a problem with saying "God did it." I just have a problem dictating how people should live and what type of suffering they may or may not endure afterwards. That and I don't like it when people start speaking for said god.

Evolution does make sense but one issue that came up during a discussion is that evolution is supposedly a slow process and not one that occurs in jumps. So every step on the evolutionary ladder of humans would had to have been gradual and in something of a series. So why isn't there evidence of such? BTW I'm going off assumption in this question so I could be wrong.

To explain, just in case there is a bit of misunderstanding, lets say a step toward the next notch on the scale was a larger, stronger jaw bone among other things. Have we found skeletons of said beasts with only minor or singular signs of change like this present at all? or has it just been giant steps between each one?

All I can say is that you don't know much about evolution.

If you read my previous post directed to RealSilverJunk then good.

But there is no time amount for change.

If a population of spieces is split and enclosed in it's own area it can, after some time, become a different spieces. Once a population cannot reproduce with its other kind it becomes its own new spieces.

The smaller the population and the more drastic the changes in climate the faster a spieces can evolve.

The early Hominids were not spread out widely at first and had a much smaller population.

4-8 million years is alot of time to change.

An yes we have found fossils with minor changes between speices.

We actually carry wisdom teeth in are mouth becuase we once had a larger jaw and those teeth were helpful in tearing food.

The reason we (homo sapiens) probably won't evolve anytime soon is that we are so wide spread, we can easily adapt to different climates due to technology, and medical technology helps us fight disease.

Synel
12-04-2008, 08:56 PM
I see. Well I believe my questions have been answered. Time to go wallow in shame for awhile (for not reading the other post.) Ty though.

TSR
12-04-2008, 11:08 PM
Uh. Evolution is an ongoing process. Our species is evolving as we speak. We are largely evolving into a species of fat, lazy couch potatos sitting in front of monitors who have no direct contact with our fellows and are unable to survive without the crutch of technology. And evolution responds best to change. Massive changes in living conditions makes for rapid evolution as those individuals best suited to the new conditions survive and those least suited do not. When there is no change, evolution is usually quite slow, barring the extremely rare successful mutation that somehow manges to leave its mark.

ja ne

Deranged Skillet
12-04-2008, 11:52 PM
^Thus svelt nerds like myself will finally topple the ruling elite!

I can taste it!

Areskel
12-04-2008, 11:56 PM
Basically, there are a lot of things that exist in the Universe that we either do not have the capacity to understand or have not allowed ourselves to become aware of.
While I agree with both, I would point out that our understanding of the universe has been more compromised, and will be more compromised, by accepting God in scientific observation of the Universe.

Synel, fossilisation is a shifty process. The fossil record, while impressive for some species, has gaping holes for others. Tetrapod evolution for example has an incredible array of transitional species, it's really astounding. And evolution has lots of material to work with. There are genes which control development, and we share the same homeobox (technical name, or Hox) genes with just about every animal. The Hox complex which causes eye development is the same in mice as in flies, and presumably all animals, the genes it turns on are different, thus different eye shapes, but the control mechanisms are the same. You can also invert the Hox complex genes, and have flies growing legs out of their face, they're really cool. We have multiple duplicates of these complexes, which produces the amazing variability in animals. I couldn't pin down for you the exact changes in humans, haven't done that, but to my knowledge it is still a mystery as to how it arose (mind you, I also never knew there were developmental genes which were discovered until a few months ago, so I might just be ignorant too). The reason the fossil record is incomplete is because fossilisation is actually a rare process. It doesn't happen often, so our knowledge of the exact specifics is also pretty sketchy, especially when you get down to the species level. The changes are pretty easy to identify for shifting phylums, not so much for individual species.

Also, sometimes evolution does make leaps. The duplication of Hox complexes for example, when it happened, the potential for variability skyrocketed. Similarly, their first appearence in early animals created a massive explosion of variation in the form of the Cambrian explosion. There are two forms of evolution technically. There is drift, where populations slowly differentiate, and then there are catastrophic changes, mass death of large portions of populations leaving only a small group of individuals can cause rapid change in the later generation by the complete destruction of genetic variability, so a few small differences become the norm. Or on a happier note, Founder effects, where a small group of individuals enter a new habitat and rapidly radiate (like the Galapagos finches), or have a small host of differences which become more pronounced and separate it from the original population. It's also important to note that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. So in serious response to realsilverjunk, no, there is no actual equivalent to Adam and Eve, because there was no individual who was suddenly a different species from his or her peers, they would have a reproductive fitness of zero and die off without spreading their genes. Population A however, which never sees any other population, or at least doesn't breed with any other population, would after a long enough time period be different from other populations and be a new species. There is an important difference there. The individuals in each population do not differ, there is no individual leap, there are groups which are drifting away from each other however.

This essay on evolution brought to you by boredom and procrastination.

Synel
12-05-2008, 02:21 AM
While I agree with both, I would point out that our understanding of the universe has been more compromised, and will be more compromised, by accepting God in scientific observation of the Universe.

Synel, fossilisation is a shifty process. The fossil record, while impressive for some species, has gaping holes for others. Tetrapod evolution for example has an incredible array of transitional species, it's really astounding. And evolution has lots of material to work with. There are genes which control development, and we share the same homeobox (technical name, or Hox) genes with just about every animal. The Hox complex which causes eye development is the same in mice as in flies, and presumably all animals, the genes it turns on are different, thus different eye shapes, but the control mechanisms are the same. You can also invert the Hox complex genes, and have flies growing legs out of their face, they're really cool. We have multiple duplicates of these complexes, which produces the amazing variability in animals. I couldn't pin down for you the exact changes in humans, haven't done that, but to my knowledge it is still a mystery as to how it arose (mind you, I also never knew there were developmental genes which were discovered until a few months ago, so I might just be ignorant too). The reason the fossil record is incomplete is because fossilisation is actually a rare process. It doesn't happen often, so our knowledge of the exact specifics is also pretty sketchy, especially when you get down to the species level. The changes are pretty easy to identify for shifting phylums, not so much for individual species.

Also, sometimes evolution does make leaps. The duplication of Hox complexes for example, when it happened, the potential for variability skyrocketed. Similarly, their first appearence in early animals created a massive explosion of variation in the form of the Cambrian explosion. There are two forms of evolution technically. There is drift, where populations slowly differentiate, and then there are catastrophic changes, mass death of large portions of populations leaving only a small group of individuals can cause rapid change in the later generation by the complete destruction of genetic variability, so a few small differences become the norm. Or on a happier note, Founder effects, where a small group of individuals enter a new habitat and rapidly radiate (like the Galapagos finches), or have a small host of differences which become more pronounced and separate it from the original population. It's also important to note that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. So in serious response to realsilverjunk, no, there is no actual equivalent to Adam and Eve, because there was no individual who was suddenly a different species from his or her peers, they would have a reproductive fitness of zero and die off without spreading their genes. Population A however, which never sees any other population, or at least doesn't breed with any other population, would after a long enough time period be different from other populations and be a new species. There is an important difference there. The individuals in each population do not differ, there is no individual leap, there are groups which are drifting away from each other however.

This essay on evolution brought to you by boredom and procrastination.

Well quite a read but NOW I think I got everything down.

Procrastination and boredom know me well.

realsilverjunk
12-05-2008, 03:25 AM
Thanks for explaining Ryvius. kawaiinekoboi, your being a troll. Knock it off.

DarkHunter6523
12-05-2008, 02:21 PM
Thanks for explaining Ryvius. kawaiinekoboi, your being a troll. Knock it off.

Actually, he's quite on the dot with that one. If you're curious and want to know then by all means, ask away. Just simply maintain a minimalistic sense of dignity and try to keep ridiculous insinuations out.

RyviusRan
12-05-2008, 02:39 PM
I know some of you hate seeing me post videos, but this one was too good to pass up.

This vid is great for those with questions on Evolution.

Ken Miller, a roman catholic, and one of the leads in the genome project gives a speech. He talks about how intelligent design is creationism. Also that intelligent design is false and is just an act to try to get religion into public schools.

Miller also goes over debunking the arguments that ID supporters try to use when stating evolution is false. He shows evidence that We Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with the great apes by comparing our chromosome structure.

Miller gives a great demonstration to why ID is not science and that scientists have no problems accepting differing views, as long as it follows the same process all other scientific ideas do. He explains that we cannot allow pseudoscience to be taught in schools. What ID supporters want is for differing views to be taught but on a standard so wide that astrology and alchemy could fit in it too.

After the end of his speech he answers questions from the audience.


The video is about 2 hours long, the speech lasts for about an hour and ten minutes and the rest of it is for Q and A.

Yes it's a long video but it contains some really good info that I think everyone should know. If I decide to teach after my major I would want to teach my students in exactly the same way, to show them to respect science and all it's wonder. ( too bad I could teach no higher than a junior college level class until I get a PHD.......damn tuition fees T_T....and damn thesis).








....And don't complain to me about posting a long video I am not forcing you to watch it. Would you rather have me create a thread directly relating to all topics of science?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

TSR
12-05-2008, 03:21 PM
And if you compare our chromosomes, you might also discover we share a common ancestor with duckbilled platypi and cow birds. Though you may have to go back a bit further in the family tree to find him. Of course, there is also that annoying possibility of parallel development that allows for things to be similar for different reasons, even if the likelihood is a bit remote, in this instance. Isn't science supposed to investigate all possibilities before reaching conclusions? Declaring some invalid simply because you find them distasteful somehow just doesn't seem very, er, unbiased. And once you park your science on a slippery slope, is it really all that scientific?

ja ne

RyviusRan
12-05-2008, 04:08 PM
And if you compare our chromosomes, you might also discover we share a common ancestor with duckbilled platypi and cow birds. Though you may have to go back a bit further in the family tree to find him. Of course, there is also that annoying possibility of parallel development that allows for things to be similar for different reasons, even if the likelihood is a bit remote, in this instance. Isn't science supposed to investigate all possibilities before reaching conclusions? Declaring some invalid simply because you find them distasteful somehow just doesn't seem very, er, unbiased. And once you park your science on a slippery slope, is it really all that scientific?

ja ne

Did you watch any of the video?

There is lots of evidence pointing toward a common ancestor with the great apes. Not just chromosomes, and even when comparing chromosomes they have more rock solid proof with the fusing of two chromosomes that you can see while viewing the human chromosome 2 I believe. Also comparing all the similiar endogenous retroviruses all positioned in the same areas that humans carry and are the same to the great apes.


Here is a link that talks about ERVs and proof towards evolution

http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html

And yes If you go back far enough you will see we share many common ancestors , according to what we know now if you go back to billions of years ago you will see we all share a common ancestor. So I don't see your point, what I was talking about is one of our closest common ancestors.

You really didn't state which slippery slope I was on and didn't have a clear understanding of what I was saying. (maybe that was my fault for not explaining enough)

Areskel
12-05-2008, 11:06 PM
And if you compare our chromosomes, you might also discover we share a common ancestor with duckbilled platypi and cow birds. Though you may have to go back a bit further in the family tree to find him. Of course, there is also that annoying possibility of parallel development that allows for things to be similar for different reasons, even if the likelihood is a bit remote, in this instance. Isn't science supposed to investigate all possibilities before reaching conclusions? Declaring some invalid simply because you find them distasteful somehow just doesn't seem very, er, unbiased. And once you park your science on a slippery slope, is it really all that scientific?

ja ne
Parsimony is one of the basic tenets of phylogenetics (the study of relationship between species). Yes, it is theoretically possible that we evolved independently from all other animals, deuterostomes, craniates, vertebrates, osteichthynes (that's right, we are technically boned fishes, cool stuff, phylogenetics is whacky like that), amniotes, and mammals, primates, etc. (with the farther up that chain you are going to chances becoming smaller), but that would involve so many evolutionary changes as to render the very idea absurd. The simplest answer is generally the right one, the simplest being the one evoking the fewest evolutionary changes. Obviously there is more than chromosome shape as well to support it. If we entertained every possibility, we'd be no where and science would be useless. We are not discriminating based on finding it distasteful, but on simplicity, because nature generally works on a minimalistic approach.

kawaiinekoboi
12-06-2008, 04:24 AM
Thanks for explaining Ryvius. kawaiinekoboi, your being a troll. Knock it off.

Actually, he's quite on the dot with that one. If you're curious and want to know then by all means, ask away. Just simply maintain a minimalistic sense of dignity and try to keep ridiculous insinuations out.
Thank you, DarkHunter. I realise I was being a bit harsh realsilverjunk, but the title of "troll" imples that I did it with the intent of stirring up a conflic. A conflict is the last thing I want, and the last thing this thread needs. Good discussions are only possible if everyone is friendly and prepared to learn from eachother. Such a thing is not possible if one is faced with accusations for posting an opinion. My sincerest apologies for this detour, this thread is not about me.

Isn't it also a detour to try to prove that man evolved from something else? I'm only asking because a lot of people obsess over trying to find the missing link, when it's more interesting (and a better scientific proof of evolution) to show that one can observe evolution in organisms.

TSR
12-06-2008, 04:57 AM
Heh heh. Naw, I generally accept that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely one. My comments were more of an observation that certain individuals seem to preach science like it was a religion and are remarkably closed minded about certain topics. That the possibility of parallel evolution is remote was intended as a dryly humorous understatement. There is no intent to knock any serious study of life science at all and I apologize if it sounded that way. The slippery slope I am refering to is the sort of 'science' where you make a conclusion and ignore any evidence that doesn't support it or claim that a lack of evidence against is some sort of proof.

ja ne

realsilverjunk
12-06-2008, 05:03 AM
Ah, wonderful then! Someone answer me this: why are apes so dumb, (taking the evolution theory) and man so smart? Why did they not evolve in unison? Since their so similar, shouldn't they be neck and neck? And how did dolphins get so smart? They're more intelligent than Apes! Did they branch off as well?

Synel
12-06-2008, 05:39 AM
Ah, wonderful then! Someone answer me this: why are apes so dumb, (taking the evolution theory) and man so smart? Why did they not evolve in unison? Since their so similar, shouldn't they be neck and neck? And how did dolphins get so smart? They're more intelligent than Apes! Did they branch off as well?

Hmm... actually isn't there a possiblity that dolphins are more intelligent than man?

And I think you have to define intelligence and what it means to be smart to answer that question. Several animals can use tools just the same as man (mostly apes and birds) but what's especially clear is that most birds use them in adaptation to their surroundings, so if you consider the ability to adapt intelligence than maybe a deciding factor is also environment.

I could be very wrong in my next statement but if basic use of tools is a form of intelligence than man has simply taken tool use to a higher level. All the technology and medicine we have, when you consider it, are really just tools for survival. Granted they took a great deal more analysis and the ability to think critically to make them, but they are, at their base, still just tools.

As for the ability to ask why, and I'm referring to something in your previous post (again trying to focus on the definition of intelligence)... is it possible that intelligence revolves around survival and man developed a critical thinking ability which led to the possiblity of asking questions such as where we came from and why?

TSR
12-06-2008, 05:55 AM
Well, realsiverjunk. If you are so smart, perhaps you can answer this. If all the runners in a race start out even on the start line, how come they don't always finish even at the finish line? They are all running the same distance, after all.

Why not learn a little about evolution? If you understand it better, you might be able to find some better flaws to criticize. Or maybe you might discover it isn't what you think it is and isn't so exclusive to whatever it is you are supposed to believe.

ja ne

esparta
12-06-2008, 06:23 AM
so if men came from monkey, where did the monkey came from?

kawaiinekoboi
12-06-2008, 07:08 AM
Men didn't necessarily come from monkeys, but it is probable that an earlier version of man resembled monkeys. Monkeys come from what everything else comes from: Their predecessors.

I could argue that you are an example of evolution, as you've inherited traits from both your parents. Some traits were kept, some were not. Some parts of you could be considered quite unique. Now whether or not your evolution is progress or you're more ape-like is completely impossible for me to say since I don't know you at all, but that's highly irrelevant. The point is that you're different ^_^

GarotoBH20
12-06-2008, 07:34 AM
But evolution is researches a whole population, not only one individual. And after so many years, the theory is still a theory. A scholar once told me that this theory will not leave the "theory" status, because science asks for some information that can not be gotten in a life-time. Evolution occurs with millions of years, maybe more. It is interesting to think about evolution and species, but that theory has many flaws. You just need to find a specific evolutionary student and ask about what it (the theory) does not explain. There are many situations that do not fit the theory, but most of people only know the little that others tell them. They do not look at that subject by themselves or seek more information. Remember to be polite to each other.

RyviusRan
12-06-2008, 09:33 AM
But evolution is researches a whole population, not only one individual. And after so many years, the theory is still a theory. A scholar once told me that this theory will not leave the "theory" status, because science asks for some information that can not be gotten in a life-time. Evolution occurs with millions of years, maybe more. It is interesting to think about evolution and species, but that theory has many flaws. You just need to find a specific evolutionary student and ask about what it (the theory) does not explain. There are many situations that do not fit the theory, but most of people only know the little that others tell them. They do not look at that subject by themselves or seek more information. Remember to be polite to each other.

....Omg how many times am I going to have to explain this.....maybe I should create a science 101 thread for those not even educated in the basics of science.

First a theory is the highest form of proof in science. You might ask what about a law?

...well the only difference between a theory and a law is that a law can't explain the why. For example, Newton's law of gravity can explain the behavior of a dropped object but it cannoy explain why it happened.


So you can't go any further than a theory or law it's just trying to find which area it belongs to based on what it answers. A theory and a law stay until someone can show evidence that disputes it. As you can see, evolution is still known as a theory, which means that there is no evidence to dispute it.


Also Evolution is excepted as fact in the scientific community. Those who criticise it usually are doing it for religious reasons. Sure evolution doesn't know everything and hasn't answered all but that isn't something you can use to refute it.

I hear people say that evolution has flaws, but they don't tell what they are. All I hear is alot of bark and no bite. If you have something to say then say it. first try to educate yourself on what evolution is so you can pick up the BS that others are using. Most people who are against evolution don't even know what evolution is.

So like I said if you think there is a flaw that can discredit evolution please post it here and I will try to debunk it. I know I will probably run into one of the same statements made that Ken Miller debunked in the vid I posted already.

realsilverjunk
12-06-2008, 02:05 PM
Well, realsiverjunk. If you are so smart, perhaps you can answer this. If all the runners in a race start out even on the start line, how come they don't always finish even at the finish line? They are all running the same distance, after all.

Why not learn a little about evolution? If you understand it better, you might be able to find some better flaws to criticize. Or maybe you might discover it isn't what you think it is and isn't so exclusive to whatever it is you are supposed to believe.

ja ne

Actually my last two posts were real questions. I'm not criticizing it. Even though I'm a creationist, I'm still interested in how things are explained through more scientific minds.

TSR
12-06-2008, 03:18 PM
realsilverjunk. When the intent of your questions is to attempt to expose or manufacture flaws, I cannot accept that they are not critical in nature. (And I get a strong feeling that your attitude is 'Nya, nya, can't answer that!' rather than 'Please educate me.') And the answer to the question I posed is generally the same as the answer to the question you posed about why everything isn't equally intelligent if everything has been evolving for the same amount of time. My intent is for you to turn your brain on and use it.

And evolution is a very simple principle. The characteristics of populations of living things change over time. It is quite observable to anybody who is not blinded by their prejudices. Colonies of microorganisms change literally while you watch. Or take selective breeding programs to produce new breeds of animals. This is evolution, too. You could even call it intelligent design. What is so difficult to understand? Don't confuse this simple principle with the origin of life, which seems to be the real sticking point many religions seem to have.

ja ne

Areskel
12-06-2008, 04:40 PM
TSR, I figured that was the case, but I have a policy of boredom dictating what I post, so I figured I'd throw in some more first year biology for people who maybe aren't in the know. Boredom and procrastination, woo woo.

Realsilverjunk, we are smart and they are not because something separated a group of our ancestors into two. Each group developed different traits as they were in different environments which favoured them, or the group was randomly more predisposed to certain characteristics and isolation meant that disposition did not get diluted over time. That is not hard to understand is it? You share 98% (or something absurdly high) of your DNA with a mouse, when we talk about similar we are talking about small differences which make big things possible. Based purely on intelligence you'd get a fucked up phylogeny, when you look at all the characteristics, you can conclude that dolphins evolved high intelligence independently, probably for the same reason: high social nature of the animal. Not hard to understand either.

Esparta, your enlightening comments are in direct violation of your signature. Please stop posting.

Kawaiineko, no, you and I are not examples of evolution. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. Much as your valiant efforts to defend evolution are appreciated, you are wrong too.

Garoto, no, there are plenty of examples of species evolving right now, that we have observed. For example, sea horses. Large sea horses only breed with large sea horses, small with small. We observed species of sea horses that can due to that phenomenon I mentioned differentiate into two separate species, a large and pygmy version which are reproductively isolated (and therefor a new species, the lecture notes are no longer available, I can't source that sorry, the only ones I can find online are theoretical, my prof had some phylogenies to show it worked practically). We have witnessed speciation in the lifetime of modern science. If you look at the fossil record for tetrapods, there are no missing links anymore, they've got transitory species demonstrating almost every significant change (ie. not length of certain bones, but structure of the bones, and I only say almost to maintain reasonable doubt) in function from fins to limbs. We can also look to bacteria, which can evolve in the course of a few days to new antibiotics. The only situations that do not fit the theory are the ones where we can't construct the full phylogeny, and that is because we have imperfect tools and knowledge at our disposal. Just because we cannot explain every instance of evolution doesn't remove any value from the theory, which has been seen to work, and never has there been an example of a species arising spontaneously out of mud to contradict it. As far as theories are concerned, it's about as sound as you can get. Instead of invoking the authority of an imaginary student, give us an example yourself, because I'm a biology student, and I sure as hell haven't seen any indication that there is any hole in evolutionary theory.

NightviSion
12-06-2008, 04:54 PM
I don't believe in (d)evolution crap. The genes doesn't change under normal circumstances. If something really happened during the course of time we have gotten weaker and more susceptible to diseases.

firzenex
12-06-2008, 05:28 PM
Don't you get it...there is no evolution, well there is...but it's an inifite cycle...you're all looking at it wrong. Everyone seems to be picturing a linear graduation from lesser being to a greater being...like the ape to man theory, but Evolution infact is more like an infinite cycle....picture an infinite loop or ring, if you will...at one end is us (humans) and throughout the stages, its just us with different conditioning....that missing link? that's us too !!

Hayeate
12-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Who said we are smarter than apes? In fact, who said we are smarter than other beasts? Someone like Realsilverjunk provides a perfect example of contrary evidence to these claims. Therefore, evolution can't be possibly true.

Moreover, what right do we have to call the human smartest of all animals, when we don't even know what constitutes as a human?

Dress a monkey in a suit, and it'll become human. Strip a human naked, throw him in a sty and feed him tripe for a week, and it'll become a pig. How does evolution explain that? That's right, it doesn't. Because the so called "theory" is bollocks. It's human progenitors believe that all possible branches of evolutionary advancement ultimately lead to an enlargement of the brain, and being the only creature which possesses extraordinary brain mass, it immediately assumes itself to be the epitome of nature's development. How ironic. Well then, what does a mosquito think about the theory?

The alternative theory that I have provided, that is to say, how animals devolve from their common human ancestors into more primitive and perfect forms culminating with the nano-organism, offers a much more sensible, agreeable and reasonable explanation of the origin of life from our own perspective.

Now according to evolutionary thought, nature progresses from simple to complex. But what evidence is there to point to the human being the most complex system? If anything, molecular strands can be just as if not more complex than the structures in our brain. But complexity is measured by how effectively each part of the system works in synergy with the rest to achieve its purpose, when all the little pieces of the puzzle manage to form a big picture. But if you look at the picture of mankind, you'll find there nothing but discord, mutual hatred, baseness, unlimited idiocy, cruelty, destructiveness, weakness, wastefulness, idleness, senselessness and perhaps some specks of ingenuity in regard to the previous things listed. Even unsightly creatures such as hyenas or comodo dragons form some necessary niche within the ecology of their environment. We humans on the other hand, use our paltry reasoning capabilities to create monuments to our own inequity, to laud and praise our own gross ignorance through the form of religion and science. We take the bare truth that the outside world presents to us, and we contort and convolute it with creeds, dogmas, explanations, theories, laws, concepts and other nonsense until it fits into the narrow minded scope of our petty and self aggrandizing prejudices. How is that advanced? What is there so complex about all this?

Going by this reasoning, shouldn't the human be the most primitive and miserable of all life forms to date? Shouldn't then nature, or God, or causality or whatever we call it, attempt to improve its condition with the simple process of deduction? Wouldn't it only make sense for the humans to relinquish their imperfect state and move a step down the evolutionary ladder?

The theory of devolution explains all gaps in the fossil record. How? Simple, because there are no such things as gaps in my theory. Given a certain condition of mind and state which may or may not be inherent since birth in an individual, the human assumes the guise of one of God's lesser creatures. Soon, before he or anyone else takes notice of it, he or she effectively becomes the critter which, under the given circumstances is best suited to his role or appearance.

Therefore, whenever I go, I find myself surrounded by animals. On the bus, I find myself cramped between herds of cows, dogs, zebras, giraffes, pigs, and hamsters. I stand up, give my seat to an elderly hen. I ask the equine driver to stop so that I can get out only to wind up on the sidewalk, in the middle of thick pedestrian traffic where my feet share the ground with the multitude of hooves, paws, wings and flippers. The only way I find it possible to survive and retain my sanity under these conditions is to crouch on all fours and make guttural sounds.

It's not surprising that there are few human beings left in this world. We homo sapiens are a dying species. Just like the dinosaurs, it is the fate of the gargantuan brain to sink into the depths of genetic obscurity. Perhaps millions of years from now, an ultra intelligent race of beings with electron sized minds will dig up our bones and be astonished at what could have possibly filled those gigantic cavities in our skulls. Was it water? Or was it possibly air, for breathing? No, no it was a compartment for food storage! Or most likely not. At any rate, this question is of no concern to us at the time being.

Areskel
12-06-2008, 07:50 PM
I don't believe in (d)evolution crap. The genes doesn't change under normal circumstances. If something really happened during the course of time we have gotten weaker and more susceptible to diseases.
Yes, genes change all the time. Every time you go outside you are exposed to ionising radiation, even inside. As your cells respire they generate mutations. Usually they're fixed but often they aren't. And generally those with genetic disease don't breed as much, so the species as a whole stays healthy. Mutation is normal.

Firzenex, no, evolution is a tree. You start at the base and radiate outwards. There is no cycle involved.

Hayeate, applause where it is due, perhaps even an ovation.

Beam7 Network
12-07-2008, 12:50 AM
^^
That exceeds my standart daily humor quota. And it's only 10am. Had that been 2 hours earlier, you would have set a new record Mister Hayeate. ^__^

kawaiinekoboi
12-07-2008, 03:35 AM
Kawaiineko, no, you and I are not examples of evolution. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. Much as your valiant efforts to defend evolution are appreciated, you are wrong too.
If by wrong you mean "incorrect", then no :p Of course we think of a population when we speak of evolution, but it always starts with individuals.

shcnoff
12-07-2008, 06:23 AM
bravo, hayeate, bravo. i think i made an audible snicker while reading that last post. i actually do agree with the sentiment that single-celled organisms, or something "lower," like a virus, are superior to humans. from a genetic perspective, i don't see any advantage of a man or duck over algae. that is the problem with genes: they have to serve some practical purpose at some point to be retained in the gene pool. but how many genes are actually beneficial to the organisms' survival? i would argue that 100, not merely 99.9%, of all mutations are harmful. the more "complex" organisms just have so many debilitating mistakes that they need extra chromosomes to survive. in extreme cases, gender is needed to isolate very severe deficiencies to the y chromosome.

Areskel
12-07-2008, 02:26 PM
No, when we talk about evolution we talk about populations. Individuals don't evolve, individuals have certain genetic combinations, but evolution is population based, because evolution is the accumulation and distribution of traits over generations in a population creating two species. Individuals don't evolve as they don't survive for generations. The only possible exception would be in plants where asexual reproduction would allow an individual to speciate and become a new population, but again, we wouldn't consider individuals but populations that are just really small.

kawaiinekoboi
12-07-2008, 11:26 PM
Evolution is a thing that happens in small steps. Those steps are made when we give birth to individuals. I won't rephrase this again ^^

Areskel
12-08-2008, 10:08 PM
Evolution is a thing that happens in small steps. Those steps are made when we give birth to individuals. I won't rephrase this again ^^
Then you will continue to be muddling the definition. Individuals are born as part of their population, but individuals do not represent evolution, nor does it affect them. Evolution is apparent in, is represented only by, and affects only populations.

kawaiinekoboi
12-08-2008, 11:33 PM
Please don't be so rigid. A population consists of several individuals. Nothing can happen without individuals.

Areskel
12-08-2008, 11:58 PM
Definitions are rigid because when they aren't you get confusion on what it means. Individuals play no part in defining evolution. Only populations evolve, and evolution applies only to populations.

Fuchsin
12-09-2008, 12:55 AM
Please don't be so rigid. A population consists of several individuals. Nothing can happen without individuals.

I agree with this statement.

Hayeate
12-09-2008, 03:17 AM
Individuals fuck, make babies, and then raise them to grow up being lesser failures than their parents. Instead, they end up becoming even bigger failures.

Fuchsin
12-09-2008, 03:27 AM
Individuals fuck, make babies, and then raise them to grow up being lesser failures than their parents. Instead, they end up becoming even bigger failures.

Lies! My parents suck much harder than I do

kawaiinekoboi
12-09-2008, 06:45 AM
Lies! My parents suck much harder than I do

I concur. :grin:

Xuerion
12-14-2008, 07:50 AM
I love how fast these post gets off track, and most of the time the... way

Funny post though XD

Lord Zero
12-14-2008, 12:36 PM
Im grateful than the actual content of this thread has no much in common with
the title... Hongfireans are quite smart actually with some lesser exceptions.

lordvr
04-20-2009, 04:20 AM
We have chromosomes and dna, our bodies are made up of cells. Sexual reproduction results in genes sometimes getting shuffled, sometimes changes appear and a child could end up with a gene that is somewhat different than the parents genes.
Mutations happen all the time.

It can be studied extensively in bacteria, fruit flies, and other animals with short live spans. When a threat is introduced into the population, they will evolve and become resistant to the threat through shear random factor of infinite possible genetic mutation giving them the wild card that enables survival. Now imagine that 2 different populations are isolated in 2 very different environments, the survival needs of the 2 are now different, so that different cards will benefit them for their respective environments, you now have speciations.

If we isolate a population of a bacteria, and split it in half, exposing each test group to different types of antibiotics, the two groups will evolve in different directions developing different genetic modifications to become resistant to each different drug in turn.

Furthermore, genes that control basic body structure, and development, such as a gene which controls whether or not our eyes grow have been isolated and identified. We know for a fact that the same or similar gene can be found in both fruit flies and mice, you could genetically splice the fly and mice genes and the animals still develop eyes. Switch it off through genetic engineering and they no longer grow eyes. Thus we have many basic building blocks that are shared by all animals, including humans.

Our genes do not stay constant simply because of the act of sexual reproduction, and mutation induced by enviromental changes. Nobody knows what path all livings took in their evolutionary cycle, we make guesses but the fact that beings mutate, and sometimes the mutations are beneficial to the organism is a fact of reality, simply undeniable based on the empirical evidence presently available.

The thing to note about human evolution, there was no giant leap from ape to man, but rather miniscule gradual changes that compounded over millinos of years.

BTW, God 100% fake, and monotheism itself is a artifical difficult concept that emerged out of a complicated interaction of different cultures in the Mediterranean. If you look at the spirituality of simple tribal people, who live in a society that is free and equal, having no need to control or brain wash, most people believe in spirits, worship their own ancestors, and venerate nature itself as the divine. Primitive man worshipped his ancestors, and the spirts that dwell within the earth, forest, rivers, and wind.
Gods likely emerged when a conqueror in the early days of civilization forced the worship of his own ancestor upon others.

You should know the concept of monotheism is in no way innate to humanity. Animism and ancestor worship are common and natural patterns for human spirituality in egalitarian societies (read no corruption, on need for mass brain washing, or strict control by the upper classes). There is no possible way the story of God could have been corrupted, to form something like Animism or ancestor worship so the old Christian argument of "oh the story about God got corrupted, every religion is a tested, warped version of Christianity, the original truth." Sorry, it's just not the case. Take some cultural anthropology and perhaps your eyes will open.

realsilverjunk
04-20-2009, 04:41 AM
^ you zomblified an old thread just to say that? Just to troll your angry ass? What the hell is wrong with you? Your even more of an ignorant sadistic bastard than you claim God to be! Are you drunk or something? Did your girlfriend dump you, so now your blaming God for all your life problems? Oh boo hoo....

kulaskulasito
04-20-2009, 05:58 AM
^ He did it because Hongfire exists, and the topic exists, and he wanted to post something XD and what made you angry is that you can't do anything about it, or perhaps lack any form of ability to express any thought or concept beyond "troll" or "bastard" XD And that to me, is hell funny. XD

KULAS

shiracld
04-20-2009, 07:48 AM
^^ignore that jesus troll lordvr
its been a while since i saw a well tought reply
esp here in hf

Lord Zero
04-20-2009, 12:16 PM
There's no such thing. No. Such. Thing. I'm dead fucking serious. The more I look at people the more I begin to be convinced that no animal could have possibly had the distinction of evolving into man.

Humans don't come from animals. Humans turn into animals. First it's just the hooves, then they grow a snout, and next thing you know, they're down on all fours rooting the earth with it. I have seen it happen with my own eyes and I am seeing it everywhere right now.

Evolution is a misconception. In practice, the actual phenomena should be called devolution. God first created the most flawed, disastrous, unworkable piece of hardware called the human brain. Those who still cling to their human nature fail to realize the futility of trying to maintain a form whose only function is to expend an excess amount of neurotic activity outside the bounds of survival and reproduction. The few times that its neurons manage to fire properly in that regard, the human advances further into his bestial nature. First it walks on its knuckes, then it crawls, then it grows a fish tail and swims into the water, then it sheds all that unnecessary skeletal and cellular structure until it becomes the most perfect being, the virus.

That's it, I'll start doing what everybody else on this planet is trying to do - quit being a human being. I'll start by emulating the behavior of a duck. From now on I won't even post any coherent replies, but instead quack. Quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.


You are the needed troll which HF need to train that lazy
scientific muscle than users dont seem to exercise anymore.

Plus, im sure you cant be serious, but are just triying to
amuse us, by instilling a argument about the obvious.

So i thx u instead for pretending so well. You could at least leave
a clearer hint like a "parody" tag.

EDIT: lol... i just forgot than this a thread subject
of necromancy... dang.

SebastianvonKane
04-20-2009, 12:23 PM
I'm not a product of evolution as you say.
I'm the god that forces you to evolve with my nonsense orders.

S&T Kawaii Love
04-20-2009, 01:02 PM
Based on Science there is an evolution. And we have evolved too from animal into human over a time period of millions of years(homosapiens). We got blood, bones, muscle, hair, eyes, ears, etc just as any other animal. We used to have a tail(cute btw ^-^). This does not exclude out the existance of Jesus, GOD/Kami-sama, Budda, etc btw.

RyviusRan
04-20-2009, 03:30 PM
Based on Science there is an evolution. And we have evolved too from animal into human over a time period of millions of years(homosapiens). We got blood, bones, muscle, hair, eyes, ears, etc just as any other animal. We used to have a tail(cute btw ^-^). This does not exclude out the existance of Jesus, GOD/Kami-sama, Budda, etc btw.

Actually it exclude out adam and eve.

Since there was no such thing as the first man or woman. And since there would be no adam or eve then there would be no need for Jesus.

SebastianvonKane
04-20-2009, 04:06 PM
Science is an incomplete knowledge collection. And despite all this, its our best chance to define whether we are product of long running evolution, or we're special beings that flourished on Earth.

So forth, science neither can prove Jesus did have something to do with our actual shape, nor conclude what was the determinant factor for the current human kind.

RyviusRan
04-20-2009, 04:43 PM
Science is an incomplete knowledge collection. And despite all this, its our best chance to define whether we are product of long running evolution, or we're special beings that flourished on Earth.

So forth, science neither can prove Jesus did have something to do with our actual shape, nor conclude what was the determinant factor for the current human kind.

Science doesn't necessarily try to prove religious claims wrong but it does do it indirectly.

Since we know evolution is correct we can already conclude that there was no adam and eve. We can also conclude that there would be no reason for Jesus to be sacrificed or worshiped.

Since there is no solid evidence that Jesus ever existed it is very likely he is just as much fiction as lord of the rings.

There are alot of stories from mythology that Christianity borrows from so it is very likely that Christianity is just a mixture of mythology predating it.


There is so much of this that it makes it absurd to take the bible for truth.

realsilverjunk
04-21-2009, 01:02 AM
No, you can't conclude there was no Adam and Eve. Science always finds new explanations for things, but I think some people jump the gun and expect it to be absolute. Science is by far, too fickle for people to think that whatever it coughs up is and will always be fact.

RyviusRan
04-21-2009, 01:14 AM
No, you can't conclude there was no Adam and Eve. Science always finds new explanations for things, but I think some people jump the gun and expect it to be absolute. Science is by far, too fickle for people to think that whatever it coughs up is and will always be fact.

Evolution is a fact.

It has been proven.

And that proves there was no adam and eve.

There are no ifs ands or buts in this.

You can say god made evolution but that still doesn't prove god and that still doesn't disprove what I said about there being no adam and eve.

firzenex
04-21-2009, 01:38 AM
Evolution is a fact.

It has been proven.


It's NOT fact. It's what it is...A Theory. Otherwise, there would be no point in further investigating said theory or researching other methods of development/growth.

realsilverjunk
04-21-2009, 01:51 AM
Who said Adam and Eve didn't evolve? What if by the Bibles saying,"created from the Earth" it was from a single celled form? Just because things evolve, doesn't mean that it disproves the Bible. It's all about interpretation.

Lord Zero
04-21-2009, 02:54 AM
It's NOT fact. It's what it is...A Theory. Otherwise, there would be no point in further investigating said theory or researching other methods of development/growth.

No, you are wrong. IS a fact. It happens.

HOW it happens exactly is what we are researching.

Way to twist the concepts man. I command you to grab a basic
biology book for starters. Curtis is fine, Hickman is way better.

Also there are quite a lot of good books about evolution...
the classic "Darwin`s dangerous idea" from Dennett is fun,
try reading it, before posting BS again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea

Deere666
04-21-2009, 04:20 AM
*reading the whole post*

*scratching head perplexed*

Uhm ..... sure that mankind is really evolving ?

:neko: :p :D

Kamigoroshi
04-21-2009, 04:29 AM
Devolving would be more accurate me thinks.
After all, humans always were and are the biggest idiots found on planet earth. xD

RyviusRan
04-21-2009, 04:33 AM
Who said Adam and Eve didn't evolve? What if by the Bibles saying,"created from the Earth" it was from a single celled form? Just because things evolve, doesn't mean that it disproves the Bible. It's all about interpretation.

because it says god created this and this....

like he popped them out of thin air.

There is no such thing as adam and eve because there is no such thing as a first human.

Evolution is a gradual change so there wouldn't be a line you could draw for first human.








It's NOT fact. It's what it is...A Theory. Otherwise, there would be no point in further investigating said theory or researching other methods of development/growth.

Your wrong evolution is a fact. We even use it in the medical field and many other areas.

Evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity.

You don't believe evolution is a fact?

Go jump off a building, you might be able to fly......






Devolving would be more accurate me thinks.
After all, humans always were and are the biggest idiots found on planet earth. xD


Evolution doesn't mean a organism will get more complex over time. It just means the organism will adapt to it's environment or die out. The dodo bird is one stupid and ugly bird but how did it survive? most of them lived on islands which kept them away from prey.


Most of what matters is if the organism can survive long enough to reproduce.

Lord Zero
04-21-2009, 05:54 AM
*reading the whole post*

*scratching head perplexed*

Uhm ..... sure that mankind is really evolving ?

:neko: :p :D

You dont have a clue about what evolution means.

PROTIP: Evolucion is not progress, is not about being Harder, Better,
Faster, Stronger.
Neither is complexity.
Evolution doensnt mean than organisms will change like pokemans.
Evolution doesnt mean than you will be better than your parents.
Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest.


In a nutshell, evolution is the loci proportion changes in a population.

How does this occur and why some of their inner mechanism
work in the way they do, is the subject of the "Sinthetised Theory
of evolution" which is the proper name for our current state
of affairs regarding evolution.

Bonus Track: There isnt a thing like unevolution.

Deere666
04-21-2009, 07:30 AM
^ Sorry, my reply was a bit sarcasm (or, better said, joke), and part referred about the actual "civil" state of mankind, that i, personally, see not going better while the time pass ..... :)

Ofcourse i know what meaning the evolutionists give to the word "evolution", (and some of the worse others, too :p), but, let me hope that this may include something like "becoming better", other than just change to omogeneize to the mass :D

Ah, well, anyone have some dreams ;)

BTW, no, i was not trying to start a fight from evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, also ..... i always assisted personally to one of them, times ago, and, trust me, if words and sights can kill, then we can had something like 400 deads, at the end of the conference, instead just some contusions mainly due to plastic water bottles, LOL :p

Lord Zero
04-22-2009, 06:45 AM
^ Sorry, my reply was a bit sarcasm (or, better said, joke), and part referred about the actual "civil" state of mankind, that i, personally, see not going better while the time pass ..... :)

Ofcourse i know what meaning the evolutionists give to the word "evolution", (and some of the worse others, too :p), but, let me hope that this may include something like "becoming better", other than just change to omogeneize to the mass :D

Ah, well, anyone have some dreams ;)

BTW, no, i was not trying to start a fight from evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, also ..... i always assisted personally to one of them, times ago, and, trust me, if words and sights can kill, then we can had something like 400 deaths, at the end of the conference, instead just some contusions mainly due to plastic water bottles, LOL :p

Well, myself i helped to organize a conference about evolution
which Christian de Duve presented on Andorra some months ago.

And well, is true than what is offered to the masses is a watered down
version... so i guess is normal than people is confused.
Is quite hard to be a science divulgator... Carl Sagan was awesome
on that, thx to him, a whole generation felt than science was
something close and not just for a white-coat elite.

BTW i dont use my coat often... -_- because i dont dweel to
much on the lab.
But im still member of the facebook group "We are so hot, than we need to use
white coats for "proteccion".

And FYI i use a Nerv ID... -_-u...

http://th03.deviantart.com/fs25/300W/i/2008/182/4/5/28_NERV_ID_CARD_DESIGNS_by_CaliferDean.png

Deere666
04-22-2009, 08:45 AM
Is quite hard to be a science divulgator...

True ..... another example, imho, is Asimov ..... never read some of his books about science facts ? ..... i found them much more educative than usual school books, and i've seen some kids learning much more easy on those books, but still a lot of govs reject to adopt them, or at least the same style, just cause it's not "traditional" ..... ah, hell :P


And FYI i use a Nerv ID... -_-u...

http://th03.deviantart.com/fs25/300W/i/2008/182/4/5/28_NERV_ID_CARD_DESIGNS_by_CaliferDean.png

LOL, in a conference with a security service ? ..... and noone til now asked you for have a pass for the central dogma ? :D

This let you see how sometimes security check really their duty :p :D

SniperTak
04-25-2009, 03:21 AM
because it says god created this and this....

like he popped them out of thin air.

Actually, i believe the proper method he used, according to christians, is made them by breathing thin air into dirt piles. And then removed the ribs to create the other.

By the way, this goes into a funny little argument Anti-evolutionists used to use. The argument that since Eve was made out of Adams ribs, women have one less rib bone than the males.



Your wrong evolution is a fact. We even use it in the medical field and many other areas.

Evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity.

You don't believe evolution is a fact?

Go jump off a building, you might be able to fly......

I think i should elaborate on what he means by this. And yes, this may be confusing, i know.

Anything in science, has two parts. The fact, AND the theory. The fact is the direct observation. It is a fact that Animals evolve. It is a fact that Objects fall down. The theory is the best method of explanation and elaboration of that fact. The theory of evolution best explains why animals evolve, to what extent and which animal evolved from which. The theory of Gravitation, explains reason objects fall down, the rate they fall at, and how to understand the interaction between objects and the effect Gravity has.

Now, the reason why we have Theories in science, is because scientists are honest. Scientists understand that things like the bible, where the conclusion is already set, and you cannot freely add or remove things based on evidence, is the poorest way to finding out the truth of the matter. Therefore, scientists label every explanation as a theory, because they want their theory to be improved, and most importantly, discarded whenever evidence to the contrary appears.


Just thought id clear that up. :D

Tiexandrea
04-25-2009, 06:23 AM
EVOLUTION SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/dragonball

Lord Zero
04-25-2009, 01:36 PM
Actually, i believe the proper method he used, according to christians, is made them by breathing thin air into dirt piles. And then removed the ribs to create the other.

By the way, this goes into a funny little argument Anti-evolutionists used to use. The argument that since Eve was made out of Adams ribs, women have one less rib bone than the males.




I think i should elaborate on what he means by this. And yes, this may be confusing, i know.

Anything in science, has two parts. The fact, AND the theory. The fact is the direct observation. It is a fact that Animals evolve. It is a fact that Objects fall down. The theory is the best method of explanation and elaboration of that fact. The theory of evolution best explains why animals evolve, to what extent and which animal evolved from which. The theory of Gravitation, explains reason objects fall down, the rate they fall at, and how to understand the interaction between objects and the effect Gravity has.

Now, the reason why we have Theories in science, is because scientists are honest. Scientists understand that things like the bible, where the conclusion is already set, and you cannot freely add or remove things based on evidence, is the poorest way to finding out the truth of the matter. Therefore, scientists label every explanation as a theory, because they want their theory to be improved, and most importantly, discarded whenever evidence to the contrary appears.


Just thought id clear that up. :D

:pika13: God damn... i feel quite moved by that... at last
someone who aknowlenge than we scientists are honest
and not part of international satanist conspiration...

Man, i demand a high five in the spot!

Its a shame than i cant put whoever i like on the "aknowlengements"
part of my papers... the protocol doesnt allows it...
Is quite precise, you know... it states since the page size,
font, the size of it, when you are allowed to use cursives, the interspace, margins, etc. The issues about the actual content follow a protocol
as well... thats why you need so many time just to write it.

moonfire88
04-26-2009, 09:49 AM
You should have titled the thread: The Theory of Devolution. It's easy to be a pessimist; you are either always proven right or pleasantly surprised. It's harder to be an optimist because you are always confronted by others pessimism and cynicism; whilst still trying to hold onto your hope of a better future.

My theory is that a realistic person, a realist, should be adequately pessimistic and optimistic. Pessimistic to the point where they have an accurate view of the world, and others, so that nothing can surprise them; however, optimistic enough to find motivation in their current situation and continue to press forward.

Optimists give us hope for the future. Pessimists give us an understanding of the present. Realists get us there. :)

If we are not striving to accomplish anything then we might as well not exist; or as you suggest, rejoin the animal kingdom.

realsilverjunk
04-27-2009, 01:55 AM
I KNEW Lord Zero was an evil scientist! That badge proves it! I bet he's working on all kinds of terrible things, like Ave-units, or a hellgate or something! :)

Deere666
04-27-2009, 06:20 AM
We're ALL evil scentists ..... how can churches and govs keep the control, if scentists diffuse knowledge through the populations ? ..... for this, for definition, we're all evil, for them :p :D

shiracld
04-27-2009, 07:39 AM
to simplify things for our ****** *****
if you can think for yourself
you're evil

RyviusRan
04-27-2009, 08:04 AM
I KNEW Lord Zero was an evil scientist! That badge proves it! I bet he's working on all kinds of terrible things, like Ave-units, or a hellgate or something! :)

Nah I already was in second command of the hellgate project.

I am also in a lower ranking with the group who are planning a base on mars for.....special operations.

No worries of a Doom repeat though.........hopefully.

Hikka
04-27-2009, 10:43 AM
Christianity is a religion
Buddhism is a religion
Taoism is a religion
Shintoism is a religion
Science is a religion
and so does atheism a religion :P

Deere666
04-27-2009, 11:08 AM
Nah I already was in second command of the hellgate project.

Wait, what ? ..... you're searching for a hellgate ?

Why the hell you haven't said it before ? ..... wait, i can lend you my portable hellgate unit, then ..... (the fixed one in the lab is too heavy to carry around, and don't work with batteries ..... :p :D)

SniperTak
04-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Christianity is a religion
Buddhism is a religion
Taoism is a religion
Shintoism is a religion
Science is a religion
and so does atheism a religion :P

By that definition:

Theism is a religion.
Democracy is a religion.
The NFL is a religion.
C++ is a religion.

shiracld
04-27-2009, 08:13 PM
religion just evolved~!
you can now call your daily habits
as a religion and take tax credits

realsilverjunk
04-28-2009, 01:46 AM
More like something done religiously, almost like how I look at Bleach manga every Thursday...

Deere666
04-28-2009, 02:59 AM
^^ You mean, like, "i'm on hentai religion, and i practice it daily, praying an issue each day, so now i want it officially recognized, and tax facilities for religious practice ?" ..... wondering if it work, presented in this way to tax office ..... :p :D

realsilverjunk
04-29-2009, 12:23 AM
Actually, if enough people banded together, nowadays, it might work. Call everyone against us bigots, and label them manga-phobes. Or Hentai-phobes. Haha :)

Lord Zero
04-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Actually, if enough people banded together, nowadays, it might work. Call everyone against us bigots, and label them manga-phobes. Or Hentai-phobes. Haha :)

Someone thought something along those lines recently...

The rest is Scientology...

PS: My dream is to build a army of atomic giant mutants...
But then again, i want to engineer Chocobos... but i need
money and time to do it.

Still, thats i pretty doable, quite unethical but totally doable,
so eventually i will try to do it.

Kiritsugu Emiya
05-06-2009, 10:19 PM
There's no such thing. No. Such. Thing. I'm dead fucking serious. The more I look at people the more I begin to be convinced that no animal could have possibly had the distinction of evolving into man.

Humans don't come from animals. Humans turn into animals. First it's just the hooves, then they grow a snout, and next thing you know, they're down on all fours rooting the earth with it. I have seen it happen with my own eyes and I am seeing it everywhere right now.

Evolution is a misconception. In practice, the actual phenomena should be called devolution. God first created the most flawed, disastrous, unworkable piece of hardware called the human brain. Those who still cling to their human nature fail to realize the futility of trying to maintain a form whose only function is to expend an excess amount of neurotic activity outside the bounds of survival and reproduction. The few times that its neurons manage to fire properly in that regard, the human advances further into his bestial nature. First it walks on its knuckes, then it crawls, then it grows a fish tail and swims into the water, then it sheds all that unnecessary skeletal and cellular structure until it becomes the most perfect being, the virus.

That's it, I'll start doing what everybody else on this planet is trying to do - quit being a human being. I'll start by emulating the behavior of a duck. From now on I won't even post any coherent replies, but instead quack. Quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.

Interesting. Well He is the originator of the skies and the earth. If He wants something to happen, be! and it be.

hemuhemu
05-07-2009, 05:40 AM
MOOOO0000000oooo....