Human evolution from a scientific stantpoint - Scientific debate, not a religious one

Well nosoul closed the religion topic, but not before blanka was able to make a post concerning the topic of human evolution that I brought up. Thus, I'd like to talk a little more on the topic of human evolution.

This topic is from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, not a religious one. So if anyone posts here saying something like "ur wrong tho cuz evolutin doesnt exist god made man," then that's gonna be considered spam. I've been in search of a clean, straightforward debate for quite some time now. My debates on BG have more or less run their course, so I figured I'd return to my roots here on this forum. Now, let the human evolution debate begin!

blanka09 said...

Ok.. Let me put it this way.. Humans didn't evolve from chimpazees.. cause if they did.. Why didn't the other chimpazees involve??

There was a special on the discovery channel a year or so ago that I really wished I had recorded. You might be able to find an article about the program on the Discovery Channel website, or possibly backorder a copy of the program.

Either way, that's a good question. If humans evolved from chimpanzees, then why didn't ALL chimpanzees evolve? First, you'd have to take a look at evolution at large.

What causes evolution? The biological definition of "evolution" is the "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." (source: http://dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)))

The result of natural selection. Look at wild animals, or more specifically, animals that hunt and live in packs or herds. More specifically, look at creatures such as the wolf, lion and monkey. All three of these creatures are family-type animals. The females protect the children, and the males protect both the females and the children. Now, the males in the pack do not always get along. When this happens, one or more males will challenge the leader of the pack. The loser is exiled from the social group. Sometimes, the loser will be followed by a share of females and children, and strike out on their own. Scientists believe that this is the spark that lit the fuse of the stick of dynamite called "human evolution."

Take a look at a human and a chimpanzee. If you look at a strand of chimpanzee DNA, you will find that it matches a strand of human DNA almost completely, making a match at 99.4% indenticality. Now take a look at the physical aspects. Both human and chimpanzee have two arms, two legs and a head. The head contains two eyes, two ears, a nose and a mouth, in almost exactly the same facial positions. Chimpanzees have tails, while humans do not. HOWEVER, we do have a tailbone, which provides evidence that human beings, lower on the evolutionary ladder, once had tails. But for some reason, we no longer needed them, and eventually evolved to the point where tails were no longer part of our anatomy. Humans and chimpanzees share the exact same internal organs and various systems--nervous, reproductive, digestive. All organs are located in the exact same areas of the body as in humans. Finally, take a look at their brains. Similar brain size and shape (proportionally). They have the ability to think...they can plan, they can solve puzzles, and they have the ability to use simple tools. Socially, they contain the same basic primal social, family and hierarchial traits as basic humans. Both are also very territorial, and will protect their territories and families with fierce savagery.

How can two creatures be so similar, both anatomically and mentally, and yet not be related? Now, for the theory of the human evolution.

Remember what I said above about natural selection? About how one group of creatures from a larger social family will be outcast? Well scientists have conjured up the following theory:

Around five million years ago, there was a schizm in the social structure of a large group of mammals....either a relative of the modern-day chimpanzee or ape or whatever. A large portion of this social structure was outcast, being cast out of the jungles and forests and into the grasslands and plains of africa (where most scientists believe human evolution first began). Over time, these monkeys became bipedal. They learned to balance, stand and walk on their hind legs. The reason for this was so they could peer over the tall grass in order to spot predators. Therefore, the first step of human evolution. Over the next 4.8 million years or so, this large group of human-like mammals continued to evolve, until finally forming homo sapiens around 200 thousand years ago. To be honest, I'm not too sure about the details surrounding the period of time after the outcasts were sent into the grasslands, which is why I didn't specify on anything. Once I find the program or article from the Discovery Channel, I'll elaborate a bit more. But that's what scientists believe. Human beings evolved from an outcast group of chimp-like mammals.

Now, why didn't the rest of the chimpanzees evolve into humans, you ask? Simple....they had already adapted to their jungle- and forest-type of environments. Therefore, no evolution was necessary. The outcast group, however, was suddenly thrust into an alien environment. They had no instincts of how to survive in such an environment, and therefore were forced to adapt and evolve. No evolution was necessary for the jungle chimps because they had already adapted to their environment.

Now an earlier species known as the Australopethicus Africanus or in the early man is where we evolved from. From that to the homo habilis (cause they could handle stuff).. to the homo erectus (cause they could walk straight) and to the present homo sapiens.. (cause they think.. which isn't sometimes good for them.) Now do I believe in what I've just wrote.. maybe.. maybe not. But that's just the origin of the present human beings according to science.

Actually, the origin of present-day humans goes back a little farther than the africanus, and you also skipped a few key stages in human evolution. The origin of present-day humans actually looks something like this:

(source: http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html (http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html)))
http://home.graffiti.net/nantuko/evolution2.jpg

[quote]If infact the science was true and correct and accurate all along, then why haven't the homo sapiens evolved.. after living for such a long time?? These are just some of the questions.. that how should I say.. distorts my belief in science and evolution as the origin of man.

Take a look at the chart displaying the origins of human evolution. The first stage of human evolution lasted 1 million years. The second lasted 300 thousand. The third lasted 1.3 million. The fourth lasted 1 million. The fifth and sixth, which coexisted at the same time, lasted 800 thousand. The seventh lasted 1.6 million. The eighth lasted 200 thousand before we split off into neanderthals and humans, and the neanderthals died off after 170 thousand years. Now I know that adds up to more than 5 million years, but there was some overlapping of species here and there (anamensis to afarensis, afarensis to africanus, and homo erectus briefly overlapped with the existence of both Australopithecus robustus and Homo habilis, which coexisted with each other.

So in the past 5 million years, there have been 10 different species of human in the evolutionary ladder, including present-day humans. Now you say "why havn't homo sapiens evolved?" Well there are a number of answers to that question...

1. We have indeed stopped evolving, due to the fact that we no longer have to adapt to our environment. Due to our technology, we are no longer forced to adapt to our environment, because we now have the ability to make our environment change in order to accustom our needs and comforts. Therefore, evolution is not forced upon us.

2. Evolution is still occuring, but has slowed down (due to the same reason stated above). We no longer have the need to physically evolve, so our brains and mental capabilities will continue to evolve over the millenia. At this moment in time, we are only able to consciously access 10% of our brain. Over time, maybe we will evolve the ability to access even more.

3. Evolution is still continuing, but we just havn't seen any sudden changes yet. Remember, homo sapiens are still young. We have only been around for 200 thousand years. If you do the math, the average amount of time it takes for one specie in that chart to evolve to the next is an AVERAGE of 500 thousand years. We aren't even halfway through that. Therefore, we havn't seen as much change becuase we havn't been around long enough to require change, which gives rise to the BELIEF that we have stopped evolving, which is highly unlikely.



Okay, like I said above, I want a SCIENTIFIC, FACT-BASED discussion here. This topic is NOT about the existence of god, heaven & hell, the bible, the torah, the teachings of Siddharta Guatama, etc. This debate is about the idea of human evolution. If you can't provide facts and evidence to support your case, then don't post.

I'm *HOPING* for an actual debate here. Let's see if anyone can give that to me. I mean, if Hibiki could make a successful topic last year about the theory of relativity, I HOPE i can create a successful topic about human evolution.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 22 2004 at 18:17

[Angel-Eyes]

dont worry youll get a debate............just let me get my sources and ill be back

[TarkanX]

2. Evolution is still occuring, but has slowed down (due to the same reason stated above). We no longer have the need to physically evolve, so our brains and mental capabilities will continue to evolve over the millenia. At this moment in time, we are only able to consciously access 10% of our brain. Over time, maybe we will evolve the ability to access even more.


We don't use 10% of our brain, any neurologist with a Ph. D. will tell you that. We use all of the parts of our brain, just not at the same time, since firing all neurological impulses at once can cause brain damage or even a stroke.

If we did use 10% of our brain, we would be incapable of doing anything, we wouldn't be able to speak, listen, think or remember.

[Evil-Blanka]

dont worry youll get a debate............just let me get my sources and ill be back
yo it is human evolution cuz through years your bodey go through changes like your feet grow or somthing like that take pokemon for exsample when slowbro evolves it gets older and evolves in to sloking he can walk he is taller

[MasterX05]

Tarken is dead right only at certain times u would use a part of your brain. When you are driving you are concentrating on the road and others cars. When you are running u are using diffrent part of the brain or like when you are in a ocnverstaion, or taking a test. It is impossible to use ur brain at 100%. So unless u are doing 50 things at once I doubt that it would rise any higher.

[m0u5y]

how can we evolve when the technology and medical discoveries we have come up with are hindering it. if you think about it, since we can cure so many desieses then the whole survival of the fittest cant work. if the "good" genes cannot be passed down and the "bad" ones are kept in the genetic pool then we can NEVER evolve, at least phisically. Now, mentally, that's another matter. we have been gaining knowledge, and for one you can say that our ways of life and the ways we apply the knowledge are evolving. we might be getting smarter and maybe that is the fated way humans have to go toward (even though ive noticed that kids now a days are getting dumber.) if we are evolving, we are doing so by losing teeth generation after generation, having genetic conflicts when interbreeding with people from different countries (as for example, im half italian and half american and my teeth dont fit in my jaw lol) getting weaker because our bodies are use to medicine working for them instead of their own immune system... no we didnt evolve from chimps, chimps and humans evolved from a common ansestor accorting to scientific findings. i mean hello, we have a common ansestor with bugs! people get confused because humans and chimps have a great deal of genetic info in common. the defenition of evolution is A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. it says better not worse. another factor involved is that humans will change the enviornment to suit their needs. if evolution occurs to adapt to the enviornment how can it happen when the enviornment is manipulated by humans?

TarkanX said...

We don't use 10% of our brain, any neurologist with a Ph. D. will tell you that. We use all of the parts of our brain, just not at the same time, since firing all neurological impulses at once can cause brain damage or even a stroke.
If we did use 10% of our brain, we would be incapable of doing anything, we wouldn't be able to speak, listen, think or remember.

Forgive me for not clarifying. Yes, we use all the different parts of our brain, all the different sections and lobes. What I meant was that we cannot FULLY access the potential capabilities of all the different parts and functions of the brain. What I meant was that if you take all of the brain functions we can access, both subconsciously and consciously, and put them together, it'd only still be about 10% of the entire brain.

Of course, I know that you cannot access the whole of the brain simultaneously, for the exact reasons you stated above. What I meant was that as a whole, human beings are only capable of accessing 10% of the brain's POTENTIAL ability. As a whole.

m0u5y said...

how can we evolve when the technology and medical discoveries we have come up with are hindering it. if you think about it, since we can cure so many desieses then the whole survival of the fittest cant work. if the "good" genes cannot be passed down and the "bad" ones are kept in the genetic pool then we can NEVER evolve, at least phisically. Now, mentally, that's another matter. we have been gaining knowledge, and for one you can say that our ways of life and the ways we apply the knowledge are evolving. we might be getting smarter and maybe that is the fated way humans have to go toward

I covered that in my second possible answer to the question "why aren't we evolving anymore."[/quote]

if we are evolving, we are doing so by losing teeth generation after generation, having genetic conflicts when interbreeding with people from different countries (as for example, im half italian and half american and my teeth dont fit in my jaw lol)

[color=green]That's not an example of evolution, no. There are no genetic conflicts between people of various races and "interbreeding." You being half italian and half american (i suppose you mean american indian?) is NOT the reason for your dental problems. I am half italian, the other half comprised of scottish, english, polish and native american descent, and I have no strange physiological problems, so the idea of "genetic conflicts when interbreeding" goes right out the window.

The genetic difference between people of various nationalities is very minor, when considered against the whole of the race. Things like skin color, hair color, hair texture, etc, are all determined by a minor one or two genes in the body that can be evolved rather rapidly. The possibility of having a genetic "conflict" is slim to none.

no we didnt evolve from chimps, chimps and humans evolved from a common ansestor accorting to scientific findings. i mean hello, we have a common ansestor with bugs! people get confused because humans and chimps have a great deal of genetic info in common.

That's more or less what I said in my post....that we evolved from, and I quote, "a relative of the modern-day chimpanzee." I simply said "chimpanzee" during most of my post because I figured it would be easier than saying "a primitive version of the Pongidae pan troglodytes."

But yes, you're correct. The modern-day chimp and the modern-day human both evolved from a common ancestor. The only difference is that the modern-day chimp underwent very little evolutionary activity in the past 5 million years, whereas us humans underwent a substantial amount of evolutionary activity.

We don't have a common ancestor with bugs, but we do have common ancestors with organisms similar to the amoebas that you could scrape off the inside of your cheek.

the defenition of evolution is A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. it says better not worse.

That's the generic, basic definition of evolution. In this instance, evolutionary biology, the definition of evolution would be "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." By common sense you would figure it would be a better version of the specie. But we are not evolving into a "worse" version of homo sapiens sapiens. We're just evolving into a "different" version. We both share common grounds in the fact that you and I both believe that human beings have stopped or considerably slowed down human evolution on the physical level. I nowbelieve that we are beginning to evolve on the mental level.

An extraordinary example of this, though fictionary, would bein the movie "The Time Machine," based on the novel by Jules Verne. Human beings forced themselves to breed into select castes focusing on different traits. One caste focused on evolving their physical abilities, another their mental abilities. I believe human beings are going to start evolving towards the latter....our brainpower will continue to evolve while our bodies physiclaly do not.

another factor involved is that humans will change the enviornment to suit their needs. if evolution occurs to adapt to the enviornment how can it happen when the enviornment is manipulated by humans?

I already addressed that point in the very first possible answer to the question of "why have humans stopped evolving?" Humans are capable of manipulating our environment to suit our bodies, and therefore evolution has been halted or slowed, for the time being.

[VampireNinja]

Here we go again.... :biggrin:

[m0u5y]

hahah! ok well, see on my father's side there the trait of small mouths is common, on my mother's side its the opposite. oh and im half american... when you say american you really dont know what the heck that is, i know a little irish and some other mess is in there but that's about it. how about the fact that genetic traits for a specific region can be useless or hindering when a person lives in a different one. to tell ya the truth, too much green reading lol... i kinda skimmed through it, good exercise for my biology thesis. :alien: well at least i know im not alone with my weirdo ideas lol. the thing is, humans travel all over the planet, unlike other species who evolved because somehow the were seperated and werent able to re-meet. another problem, now how are you going to deal with genetic engeneering? humans are a nuisance, look at what we're doing? we're goin over nature's head and breaking the laws of evolution lol.

[viper2040]

whoever made that arguement that all chimps would have evolved is a moron who dont know how evolution works.

Heres a quick summary:
One chimp has an abnormal, higher functioning brain, and he happens to be more successful at surviving than other chimps. He sucessfully mates, and the next generation retains the "abnormal" genes. Over time, a distinct species forms. Sometimes, the old species dissappears, but not always.

This is a VERY simplified, not 100% accurate summary. But the key point is that its NOT some "force" that causes the entire species to change at once--its "mutations" that occur within perhaps a single individual in each generation, and slowly successful traits become dominant.

Not that I know whether its chimps we supposedly evolved from....



as for the religious part, whos to say our "creation" by God was not actually an evolution process--a "day" for him is who knows how long. (I dare you--call this spam :biggrin: )

[drdeath3317]

WHOA! now thats a lengthy post..i tried to read all of it but skimmed most of it. I'll wait around for someone to post another lengthy post arguing against you but good luck finding someone willing to debate that. Remember we're all SFO nerds that don't care about evolution ;) no actullay im sure someone will get a good point across but that someone won't be me :alien:

[nosoul4evr]

Yup. I definitely think that creatures evolve from primordial mud balls like Earth, and that they adapt to meet the daily vigors of the environment, or perish.

But all species "run their course" and die out eventualy.
The human race will be no different.

...Lets face it, we're done for.

All hail the cockroach! :D



Edited By nosoul4evr on Mar. 22 2004 at 22:12

[m0u5y]

SPAM! lol
mmm yum...
now here... why ponder on such trivial topics... there will NEVER be a definite answer to anything, since we weren't there to witness anything, and even then humans make mistakes. its puzzleing to know that humans will always ask why. why is the sky blue, why does e=mc^2 and so on. some of these questions brought out good things, but many ended up bringing the freakken nuke! now,i would understand debating about the origin of humans and evolution IF it could benefit the world today. in a certain sense, by studying evolution we can predict in what sorts of cycles the planet goes through regarding extinction and global warming, but is this why you are debating it? or is it just because you HAVE to prove to the non believers that god is in fact a human creation and that humans evolved from their ansestors? another thing... can we really evolve with such overpopulation? nature is trying to compensate but humans are sucessfully fighting back. this can only harm humans themselves. think about it, for stupid reasons humans just keep breeding. why not adopt!? its funny how human technology causes problems that instead it tries to solve.

[nosoul4evr]

I agree!
"Stop the breeding! Stop friggin breeding damn it"
...oh yeah... and
"All hail the cockroach!" :D



Edited By nosoul4evr on Mar. 22 2004 at 22:44

[m0u5y]

hahaha yeah. you breeders! hm now if we genetically combined a roach and a human...

m0u5y said...
humans are a nuisance, look at what we're doing? we're goin over nature's head and breaking the laws of evolution lol.

Um, no we're not. Not really, actually. There are quite a few specie of animals that have remained unchanged for millions of years. Case in point: the crocodiles and alligators. Science and research have shown that these two great reptiles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs (over a hundred million years) yet have remained almost completely unchanged over the course of time. Why? Because both of these creatures have supposedly reached the pinnacle of their evolutionary statuses for their own particular environments. Sharks are the same way. Sharks have been around since the time of the dinosaurs, and with the exception of charcharadon megalodon, have survived unchanged in their environments for millions of years. They no longer have any need to evolve because they have already become perfectly adapt with their environment, no further change is needed.

Therefore, human beings have also SEEMINGLY reached the same stage. Sure, room for mental evolution is still definately there, but physiologically, because we no longer have to physically adapt to our environments, evolution has been, for the time being, slowed to a crawl.

viper2040 said...
One chimp has an abnormal, higher functioning brain, and he happens to be more successful at surviving than other chimps. He sucessfully mates, and the next generation retains the "abnormal" genes. Over time, a distinct species forms. Sometimes, the old species dissappears, but not always.

This is a VERY simplified, not 100% accurate summary. But the key point is that its NOT some "force" that causes the entire species to change at once--its "mutations" that occur within perhaps a single individual in each generation, and slowly successful traits become dominant.

Absolutely correct, forgive me for not mentioning mutation earlier. Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Certain situations can affect one or more creatures in a population and force mutation.

A perfect example of this would be the English moth, Biston betularia. In this moth, there are two color morphs, light- and dark-colored. Scientists discovered that the dark-colored moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark-colored morph increased dramatically, however. By 1898, the 95% of the moths on Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less, however, in rural areas. The moth pupulation changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark-colored moths. The moths' color is primarily determined by a single gene. So, the change in frequency of dark-colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

Populations evolve. In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Evolution requires genetic variation. If there were no dark moths, the population could not have evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to increase or create genetic variation and mechanisms to decrease it. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Natural selection operates on this variation.

So yes, you're absolutely correct. Evolution is carried forward by genetic mutation. However, you're incorrect that it only starts with one member of a specie or population. It begins with a GROUP of animals in a population.

[m0u5y]

i mean we are trying to break the laws of evolution by messing with genetics.

[SSJKarma]

well... you won't find any good debate material here about that matter nantuko, it is too touchy and the only ones who will actually debate with you or against you must i say, are th eones who think religionbs are the only thing.

for my part i say like i said in the other thread, you live be happy with it and live the best you can. the past is nothing for me... why would i really give my life and dedication just to know from what i was born millions of years from now ?

so i won'T argue with you...

as for EVOLUTION, if you need a good example...
our technology, why didn't we had it already ?
because we transformed and adapted to our way of life.
same goes for evolution... it didn't happen right away. it took a long time adapting to the harsh way of life on planet earth.

but again...
science never prooved anything with 100% accuracy !
heck even 85% wouldn't be enough since stats tells you what you want to know.
yeah apes have more things that are about the same as us... but that doesn't proove that we came out of them in the first place. so again, even science is a belief ! so that's why i beleive what i see, not what i never saw, hear, touched myself !

[m0u5y]

and even then you shouldn believe it. even human perception can be deceiving. for one, how do you know that the reality for one person is the same for the other, as in the way they perceive the world, colors, and so on? there cant be an opinion w/o bias. to tell the truth, for some weird reason my brain is split in two. on one side i have belief in the supernatural and religion, the whole goodie good attitude, kindess and all, and on the other i have the "science is the way to go" risk taking i dont give a hoot... so im already confliced in my mind, kinda hard for me to take one side lol.

[blanka09]

To honest with ya, I'd have preferred the topic on the theory of relativity.. :biggrin: More to do with Physics than Biology.. blah!

Anywho, you want main facts on evolution.. here goes nothing.. :biggrin:

I'm not really in a good mood to brainstorm since it's like 2:39 am here.. so I'll start from the section on natural selection.
Darwin (the father of evolution.. *cough*) himself stated that

For instance a vast number of eggs or seeds are annually devoured, and these could be modified through natural selection only if they varied in some manner which protected them from their enemies. Yet many of these eggs or seeds would perhaps, if not destroyed, have yielded individuals better adapted to their conditions of life than any of these which happened to survive

This cuts short what he was trying to say in his theory of evolution.. the survival of the fittest. Now I have argued in a somewhat objective manner because of my belief, on this topic in the past.. but I'll try and put that in check for now.... key word: for now

Anyway, Darwin here is trying to give us a fulcrum to which the present species of nowadays exist. There were those that existed in the past that had the same look, genetic code and what have you.. but due to the "natural" things that happen in this earth.. such as attack by preditors, or natural disasters, some have gone exinct.. But to those who have survive, have yielded offsprings whether plants or animals that have been well equiped to withstand the ever changing surroundings they face.. Thus, they are the fittest.. and have survived.

Darwin also states that:

yet of those which do survive, the best adapted individuals, supposing that there is any variability in favourable direction, will tend to propagate their kind in larger numbers than the less well adapted

Thus you can see the origin of new species.. while those who didn't develop well enough to survive die out and go extinct.. Those that were well equipped, grew and form the new generation so to say.

Now to the origin of man. I really enjoyed your theory on the origin of man... Good charts too :biggrin:
But this is what I want to know.. According to science, there is infact no doubt that you are correct.. but tell me something.. if our brains are going to evolve further what do you see the human race turning into 2.5 million years from now... if the sun can still keep its cool till that time?

If in fact we are evolving at a slow pace, then there should be a sorta change that would have occured to us across the years.. as far as I'm concerned.. sceince and technology are the only evidences available.. but I'm curious to know what lies ahead of the human race.. What are the limits to our thoughts, that extra capability of our mind.... The thought of that intrigues me.. and I'd like someone to give me a good info..if infact you have one that is ...

without flaw...

Now on a side note,

So yes, you're absolutely correct. Evolution is carried forward by genetic mutation. However, you're incorrect that it only starts with one member of a specie or population. It begins with a GROUP of animals in a population.

That was Joe's arguement about Viper's theory (or wherever he got it from) on evolution being carried by mutation.. which is in fact true.. but define what you mean by a group. If in fact a group mutates in such a way, that in fact, helps them to survive the seemingly present "forces" that cause them to adapt, where did that group come from. Thus I think Viper may be correct on the mere fact that an individual out of a group starts/mutates/gets the basic trait and then passes this to its offspring. These traits become dormant instead of staying recessive.. and thus a new species is born. Say hello to my little friend! :biggrin:

Finally...

All hail the cockroach

If in fact.. they can survive radiation, then maybe we should hail them.. lol.. riight :biggrin:



Edited By blanka09 on Mar. 23 2004 at 03:01

This cuts short what he was trying to say in his theory of evolution.. the survival of the fittest. Now I have argued in a somewhat objective manner because of my belief, on this topic in the past.. but I'll try and put that in check for now.... key word: for now
Anyway, Darwin here is trying to give us a fulcrum to which the present species of nowadays exist. There were those that existed in the past that had the same look, genetic code and what have you.. but due to the "natural" things that happen in this earth.. such as attack by preditors, or natural disasters, some have gone exinct.. But to those who have survive, have yielded offsprings whether plants or animals that have been well equiped to withstand the ever changing surroundings they face.. Thus, they are the fittest.. and have survived.

Yes, that's also an example of evolution. That's actually not too different from my moth example. However, in order for the surviving species to evolve, there must already be a genetic variation in the species. For example, the majority were light-colored moths, with the genetic variation being the dark-colored moths (a mutation of the color gene). Then came natural selection (the birds eating the light colored moths), which allowed the dark colored moths to multiply. It was not a gradation from light-to-dark colored moths, because the light colored moths died out. It was the success and survival of the very small group of dark colored moths.

Now to the origin of man. I really enjoyed your theory on the origin of man... Good charts too
But this is what I want to know.. According to science, there is infact no doubt that you are correct.. but tell me something.. if our brains are going to evolve further what do you see the human race turning into 2.5 million years from now... if the sun can still keep its cool till that time?


To tell you the truth, I couldn't even fathom a guess. Why?

1. Unless we develop the technology to terraform and colonize mars and other planets, we will use up all the natural resources, food, oxygen, etc on earth, and die.

2. At the rapid pace of technology, we COULD be able to populate other planets, allowing us time for our mental abilities to evolve. I don't see a PHYSICAL change in the human anatomy, but I believe that human beings will be able to perform at a mental level much more advanced than we are capable of today.

3. 2.5 million years from now, we will most likely have perfected gene therapy. Scientists would be able to alter the genes of humans before birth and be able to FORCE evolution on a controlled scale. For example, we could conaltertrol the genes that control proteins involved with muscle growth in order to breed worker humans, or we could control the genes that affect thinking and brain usage, making more intelligent humans. Either way, I believe that evolution will occur twice: once in order to allow humans a higher level of mental thinking, and second; the evolution that humans force upon themselves via gene therapy.

Call it farfetched, but it's still a guess. No one can see 2.5 million years into the future.

That was Joe's arguement about Viper's theory (or wherever he got it from) on evolution being carried by mutation.. which is in fact true.. but define what you mean by a group. If in fact a group mutates in such a way, that in fact, helps them to survive the seemingly present "forces" that cause them to adapt, where did that group come from. Thus I think Viper may be correct on the mere fact that an individual out of a group starts/mutates/gets the basic trait and then passes this to its offspring. These traits become dormant instead of staying recessive.. and thus a new species is born. Say hello to my little friend!

Evolution can be summed up in, and basically consists of, three steps: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. That is the process of Evolution.

Let's go back to the moth example. The evolution of the dark colored moth did NOT begin with just one moth, it began with a group of them. That is what I mean by a group. Let me explain, using the above three sentences as headings...

Genes Mutate
A generation, or rather, a group of moths from the overall moth population, mutates. The gene responsible for colorization mutates, creating a group of dark colored moths. We'll call this group the "mutant" group. So we have a dark-colored mutant group, consisting of the minority (only 2% when first formed), and we have the light-colored group (98% of the english moth population). Thus the first step is complete: the genes have mutated.

Individuals are selected
By this, I mean "natural selection occurs." The soot from the factories during the industrial era covers the trees that the moths frequently land on. As a result, the birds in the area can easily see the light colored moths against a dark background, while the dark colored moths are hidden. Therefore, the light colored moths are devoured, while the dark colored moths are spared. This gives the overall dark colored moth population the chance to increase their population. Thus, the second step is complete: the individuals (the dark moths) have been selected (for evolution).

Populations evolve
Because the dark colored moths have a better survivability rate than the light colored moths, they can successfully breed generation after generation of dark colored moths. Each successive generation carries on the dark-colored traits because the color is affected by the GENE, which has mutated. GENES are passed on from generation to generation. Therefore, over the years, the dark colored moths grew to dominate the population. Thus, the third step is complete: the population has evolved.

That is what I meant by how evolution starts not with an individual, but with a group. The evolution of the english moth did not start with ONE dark colored moth, but with a GROUP of dark colored moths.

[vx_unicom]

So.....u've decided to make a topic based only on science, then let the debating began. ;)

[TarkanX]

What I meant was that as a whole, human beings are only capable of accessing 10% of the brain's POTENTIAL ability. As a whole.


The 10% thing is a myth, it doesn't exist, we aren't going to be able to use psychic powers unless the DNA is our body is mutated in some way that it doesn't kill you, or make you sick, or if we use genetic engineering (The spoon bending stuff, and tapping into the dead is fake). There is no "potential" of the brain, the reason why we advance is because we build off other things (and that's how we get smarter), and we are more aware of things now, that we can quickly find a solution to it, like you said before, we make the environment change.


I believe human beings are going to start evolving towards the latter....our brainpower will continue to evolve while our bodies physiclaly do not.

I have been pondering about this for a while, although this is strange, since humans today are stronger than humans 100 years ago (mostly due to the awareness of nutrition and growth enhancements), can you go in depth with this?

The 10% thing is a myth, it doesn't exist, we aren't going to be able to use psychic powers unless the DNA is our body is mutated in some way that it doesn't kill you, or make you sick, or if we use genetic engineering (The spoon bending stuff, and tapping into the dead is fake). There is no "potential" of the brain, the reason why we advance is because we build off other things (and that's how we get smarter), and we are more aware of things now, that we can quickly find a solution to it, like you said before, we make the environment change.

Oh, allright. I just remember hearing more than a few times that we can only use something like 10% of our brains.

Either way, I figure that in the future, we'll evolve into humans kind of like that dude from the movie Powder, with the highly evolved mental abilities.

I have been pondering about this for a while, although this is strange, since humans today are stronger than humans 100 years ago (mostly due to the awareness of nutrition and growth enhancements), can you go in depth with this?

That right there is a common misconception about evolution. That is an example of morphological change, which can occur without evolution (and vice versa). Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Evolution is caused first by the mutation of a gene, followed by natural selection and then growth of the population. Better diet and medicine do not affect one's genes, and therefore don't count as evolution, because they are not passed on from generation to generation.

Therefore, change caused only by environmental conditions do not count as evolution. However, environmental conditions can indeed cause a change in the genetic makeup of a group of creatures, and will THEN cause evolution. Only as long as genetic changes are involved, and not simply physiological changes.

[blanka09]

To the dude who said we don't use 10% of our brain... bravo! :biggrin:
Well, to be honest with ya, it is infact a myth that was developed by misinterpretations of well noted scientists.

"We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources" (from The Energies of Men, p. 12)

That was by William James... written sometime in the 1900s ... Now that could have been where the whole myth started from... but I for one, am not soo sure about that. However, it has been scientifically proven, that if small areas of the cerebral coretex of our brain, could lead to devastating changes in our behaviour. Even though rats could still learn to do simple tasks with that effect... However, we aren't rats! :biggrin: ... but wombats. *cough*

Thus, neurosurgeons are always careful to map out the brain before undertaken any serious operations such has those that have to do with brain tumors and the likes.

Scientists would be able to alter the genes of humans before birth and be able to FORCE evolution on a controlled scale. For example, we could conaltertrol the genes that control proteins involved with muscle growth in order to breed worker humans, or we could control the genes that affect thinking and brain usage, making more intelligent humans.

Now see.. that can't be good for it turns us to simple ants! It doesn't sound plausible or reasonable for scientist to manipulate the genetic structure of a foetus in order for it to match or step up to the needs of the community it might face. Think of it, you're gonna have child.. and some foolish doctors are trying to turn him into macho man while he's still in the womb. As, the higher animals that we are, we are supposed to determine whether or not we choose to build up on our genetic code. If the blue prints of a foetus' genetic code would prove that he'll some time grow up to be really strong and probably tall, then so be it! I don't think it's a good idea for science to try and pre- destin (so to say) the lives of mankind.

The gene responsible for colorization mutates, creating a group of dark colored moths

That's the key phrase in ur arguement about the dark colored moths.. Well.. I also enjoy your characterization of them as the *cougH* mutant group... <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Dreams Don't Die!!</span> .. forgive my memory lapse...

But if you think of mutation... as say, like that in

[SSJKarma]

if we are so advanced guys... explain me why science cannot solves all the brain problems we got if we ahave figured it out entirely ?

again... science didn't prooved anything and science is nothing more then man made theory which by any means could be as wrong as religion itself !

that is from my point of view and my point of view on this is... why would science be true if it was made by a specie that does lots of mistakes in his lifetime ?

now try and answer this question !
i'm not saying the 10% brain using thing is right... it is sure to be false, but is the human brain really used entirely by our conscious ? i say no, since by the same scientist who said they know the brain, they been saying that only 1% of ourself is our conscious part, the other 99% is our subconscious !

and that sub conscious is faq from being 100% documented !
and don't tell me these aren't facts, cause they are. i used to listen to discovery channels and other channels like that all day long !

EDIT:
EN SABAT NUR is APOCALYPSE, anyone who knows marve| knows THAT !
and also, it is said to be him who started it... but then again, it is a false god like religion on him cause many many many mutants were man made because of their genetic experiement, so there is no way APOCALYPSE could have been the mutant who started it, even tho he was around 5000 years ago !



Edited By SSJKarma on Mar. 23 2004 at 21:21

[Angel-Eyes]

"Hear one side, and you will be in the dark; hear both sides, and all will be clear"------------Haliburton




I havent read any posts opposing evolution so I think I should tell the other side of the story.



First off I would like to correct myself: I said "evolution" , but it should be called "the theory of evolution"

I will not use the Bible as a source because you will just say its not scientific, so I will use science to prove "science" wrong.


ok heres my debate, please read it all:


The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (also known as entropy)

In other words: energy degenerates.



The theory of evolution completely contradicts the 2nd law! :laughlong:

---------------------------------------------------------
next point:

Lack of physical evidence.

all the evolutionists have is some fossils that they say are 4 billion years old. BULL CRAP!

the fossils that they have found ( no matter how old they say) are clearly separate species and not a half way monkeyman. THERE IS NO MISSING LINK.

-------------------------------------------------------
next point

Logic fallaceis


just think about it.......................ok are you done?

just as I though, LUDICROUS!


------------------------------------------------
next point

Mathmatics prove it wrong

according to the evolutionary timescale the earth is approximately eight to ten billions of years old, that is the equivalent to 1020 or one hundred quintillion seconds.

according to the same theory there are approximately 1080 atoms found in the universe. even with these astounding numbers, it is highly unlikely to achieve odds such as 1 in 103,000,000 the same odds that a scientist named Edward Huxley estimated to be the odds of a horse evolving, let alone the chances of more complex life such as humans.

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

Verdict

just as other theories have been subject to rigorous standards in the past, evolution must also be subject to the same testing. due to the logical fallacies, mathematical impossibilities and the abundance of physical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution it cannot be either plausible, nor believable




well there you go, i didnt even have to use the Bible as a source.(dont get me started on that)



IF YOU SKIMMED MY POST, RE-READ IT NOW.
--------------------------------------------------------
bottom line


Darwin must have had malaria or somthing while he was on the Beagle :laughlong:

blanka09
Now see.. that can't be good for it turns us to simple ants! It doesn't sound plausible or reasonable for scientist to manipulate the genetic structure of a foetus in order for it to match or step up to the needs of the community it might face. Think of it, you're gonna have child.. and some foolish doctors are trying to turn him into macho man while he's still in the womb. As, the higher animals that we are, we are supposed to determine whether or not we choose to build up on our genetic code. If the blue prints of a foetus' genetic code would prove that he'll some time grow up to be really strong and probably tall, then so be it! I don't think it's a good idea for science to try and pre- destin (so to say) the lives of mankind.

I never said I liked it, i just said that was my guess.

Think about it....scientists are always trying to "play god." WHAT IF scientists could enhance the gene responsible for the body's ability to fend off disease and heal? We could be able to force-evolve humans that would be immune to the world's diseases and be able to self-heal wounds. In an instant, scientists could theoretically make evolution happen. Remember what I said: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Scientists could force-mutate the gene responsible for the body's ability to defend against diseases. They breed a new generation of humans, and presto! You have a group of individuals. Give the group time, and they can breed. The genetic changes are passed on, and eventually, once all the pre-evolution humans die off, you have a brand new species of human beings, completely impervious to any disease known to man. Evolution at its best, for its best.

So naturally, my guess is that scientists would say "why stop there?" Since I predict that our bodies will stop evolving due to laziness, scientists will most likely try to alter the genes responsible for muscle growth, etc, and therefore be able to EVOLVE a healthier race of human, capable of maintaining great physical strength without having to work out and build up muscle via physical workouts. That's just my guess though, like I said.

Anyway, let's get back to the real world. Why did the gene responsible for that mutation affect a group of moths... rather than just one moth. After all, as Darwin states, an individual mutates, bears offspring and the genes are transferred... think hereditry.. from the recessibe form to the dormant form. What if that very gene is recessive in some of the white moths... call it far fetched.. but like you say... it is after all a wild guess. But my point is, there's no particular evidence that the so-called gene that caused the mutation didn't take hold of one moth before spreading to its offspring.

I do have to admit, it is indeed a possibility, and a good one at that. The possibility is very large that the mutation could have indeed begun with just one moth, and then via breeding would have increased to many moths (the original's offspring). Let me offer my opinion on the matter (I am in no way disregarding your statement, but merely offering a different possibility that could go along with it).

Changes based solely on environmental conditions do NOT count as evolution. For example, many people believe that humans are still evolving, because humans of today are much larger and stronger than we were in the recent past....say....200 or 300 years ago. This is NOT, however, due to evolution. This was do to factors such as better medicine and a healthier diet. Such things do not affect the genes of the humans, and therefore are not hereditary traits.

It IS possible, however, that environmental changes could sometimes be the reason why the genes mutate. For example, the moths. It is indeed possible that when the dark colored moths were still the 2% minority, they may have been temporarily separated from the main group of light colored moths. This group then may have encountered situations in the environment--most likely predatorial activities--that would have forced the moths to unconsciously and unknowingly alter their own genes, changing their color to hide better. Therefore, they may all have been affected at once, forming the original mutant group.

That is just a possibility, however. Your idea does indeed make perfect sense, and I can't debate against it from a factual stantpoint.

___________

SSJ Karma: Let me briefly give my feelings on science's outlook vs religion's outlook, just so we can clarify something.

According to religion....god (or some other higher power, depending on your religion) created man. Man then created science. Science, however, is filled with much error, and is therefore less accurate than religion.

According to science....evolution/science created man. Then, man created god...or rather, the idea of god. Man has ALWAYS been a curious race, asking questions. However, before the dawn of science, such answers were not available. Therefore, man created religion in order to try and answer questions without proof. Then, when science was better developed, it became capable of answering the questions that they previously looked to religion for.

Let me use an example: According to the bible, the sun rotates around the earth, the earth is older than the sun, and the earth has only existed for about 12,000 years. According to science, the earth rotates around the sun, the sun is older than the EARTH, and the earth has existed for billions of years.

Now, science will say "religion is wrong, because science has been able to determine the age of the earth and the sun." Religion, however, has a rebuttal: "god created man, man is filled with error. Therefore, science is not accurate, because it is man-created, and therefore errored. Religion is the true answer."

However, science can also say "No...science created man, and man in turn created religion. Therefore, religion is not accurate, because it is man created, and therefore errored as well. Science is the true answer."

See what I mean? There will always be two different outlooks....one from a religious standpoint, and one from a scientific standpoint.

kester_

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (also known as entropy)
In other words: energy degenerates.
The theory of evolution completely contradicts the 2nd law!

You completely misinterpreted the Law.

The second law of thermodynamics does NOT translate into "energy degenerates." The second law of thermodynamics translates into "if, in an energy exchange, energy enters the system, then the energy of the system will be more than the initial state. If, in an exchange, energy leaves the system, then there will be less energy than in the state."

What if no energy exchange occurs?

Evolution is NOT a theory of energy. Evolution is a theory of biology, relating to genes. A gene is mutated, it is passed on to the next generation, thus the child is an evolved form of the parent. It has nothing to do with thermodynamic energy exchanges.

So no, evolution does NOT contradict the second law.

next point:
Lack of physical evidence.
all the evolutionists have is some fossils that they say are 4 billion years old. BULL CRAP!
the fossils that they have found ( no matter how old they say) are clearly separate species and not a half way monkeyman. THERE IS NO MISSING LINK.

How would you know if it is "bull crap?" Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?

Scientists have fossils of a series of different yet alike hominid creatures that begin at a date of 5 million years ago and continue changing until 200 thousand years ago. The physical features are very much alike, the bone structures are alike, the cranial cavities are alike. The DNA strands are in the 90-99% match-up range. All we are missing is one specie of hominal creature that we have yet to find fossil remains of.

But of course, all scientists are APPARENTLY wrong, just because a forumer named "kester_" says so.

next point
Logic fallaceis
just think about it.......................ok are you done?
just as I though, LUDICROUS!

Yes, there are possible fallacies in all of our theories. There are also possible fallacies in YOUR logic when you claim that there are fallacies in SCIENTIFIC logic.

The only ludicrous aspect is your unwarranted claim that science is wrong just becuase YOU think there are fallacies in the theory of human evolution.

next point
Mathmatics prove it wrong
according to the evolutionary timescale the earth is approximately eight to ten billions of years old, that is the equivalent to 1020 or one hundred quintillion seconds.
according to the same theory there are approximately 1080 atoms found in the universe. even with these astounding numbers, it is highly unlikely to achieve odds such as 1 in 103,000,000 the same odds that a scientist named Edward Huxley estimated to be the odds of a horse evolving, let alone the chances of more complex life such as humans.


What are you talking about? Only 1080 atoms in the universe? How can that be possible, when the thickness of a single sheet of paper is the equivalent of about ten thousand atoms stringed together?

Find me a source that talks about this supposed theory of yours, because the way you put it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

just as other theories have been subject to rigorous standards in the past, evolution must also be subject to the same testing. due to the logical fallacies, mathematical impossibilities and the abundance of physical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution it cannot be either plausible, nor believable

Ummm....

First off, no logical fallacies have yet been found in the theory of evolution. How do you know that there are no fallacies in YOUR logic? Or rather, the logic of your supposed sources?

Second off, there is no mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY. According to your post above, there is a mathematical IMPROBABILITY, but NOT impossability. And second off, I've never heard of any mathematical theory that even closely resembles your claim of a theory that states the universe only has 1020 atoms.

Third off, you COMPLETELY misinterpreted and misunderstood your first "reason" why evolution is impossible.

Show me some sources, especially concerning your "point" about how the age of the earth is a theory about 1020 atoms and a scientist talking about a horse evolving. I beg of you to find me a source stating both this theory as well as Huxley's evidence backing his claim that the evolution of a modern-day horse is a 1 in 103 million chance. I've provided sources for my information, you might want to provide sources for yours.

[SSJKarma]

How would you know if it is "bull crap?" Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?


and how do you know nantuko that those RELIGIONS are false when millions have been working on it as we speak ?

see, his point is just like mine here !

science cannot proove anything, so does RELIGIONs so again, we cannot even DEBATE this with a real proof, as there is no way for us, humans to always be right.

just a question...
who told you EINSTEIN was right in his theory of relativity ?
who told you 2+2=4 ?
right, all the humans dude, you may say you are open minded, but yet you continu to say science has answers to everything and that it is true !

i ask you one thing...
just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?
our science is based on what we created, and as far as i know, a creation is as good as its creator ! which means that if we created our own science, then how come it is suppose to always be true when we ourselves are a mistake on two legs ?

science isn't the way to go, same for religion, live the life at his present, not at the past... that's the only way to go and if you experience something, then be glad you did, that's all !

See, now this is going to turn back into a religious debate....

These religions MUST be false because not all religions in the world can be correct. When it all comes down to it, on the final day of the existence of the world, I could very well be wrong, and I could end up going to hell. Or I could end up going to Tartarus. Or I could end up going to the Celtic underworld ruled by Dis Pater. Or I could end up with Chernobog in the Slavic hell or Bolebog in the Slavic heaven. Or end up in Mictlan or one of the other eight underworlds of the Aztec beliefs. Or I could end up waking up as another human being. Or I could end up waking up as a Komodo Dragon for all I know. Or my own beliefs could be correct.

You see, people from all different areas of the world believe in different religions. The Japanese believe in Shinto, or possibly the other Japanese religion concerning all the many gods and goddesses. Romans originally believed in their Roman gods. The Chinese believe in Conflipianism, or whatever religion it is that worships and reveres the various spirits and Dragons. The indians believe in Hindu, the middle-easterns believe in Muslim and Christianity. The Irish originally believed in the Celtic ceremonies. The Egyptians worshipped their various gods, as did the South and North American indian tribes. When it comes to religion, no one can agree.

However, when it comes to science, all that goes out the window. Japanese science is the same as American science. German science is the same as English science. Chinese science is the same as African science which is the same as Russian science. Everyone can agree. At least there's a common bond and belief with science. Hell, not even Christians agree with each other...they break up into Catholic and Roman Catholic and Batists and Lutheran and Protestant and Methodist and whatever other sects they've got. So how can any one of those be correct, when they all dispute each other? Sure, millions of people believe each one, but then again, according to me, man created god, and not vice versa. (see below)

i ask you one thing...
just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?
our science is based on what we created, and as far as i know, a creation is as good as its creator ! which means that if we created our own science, then how come it is suppose to always be true when we ourselves are a mistake on two legs ?

First off, man did not "create" science. Science has been around all along, we just developed the ability to understand it.

Second off, how are we "mistakes" on two legs? A mistake is an error or fault resulting from defective judgement, deficient knowledge or carelessness. How are human beings "mistakes?" So that analogy right there of yours is completely false.

You forget, I believe that science created man, and man in turn created the concept of religion, in order to provide answers to questions that science could not yet answer at that point in time. I believe that religion was a temporary answer that was created intended to only last until science could provide us with the answers once again. The only "mistake" was that people began to take religion seriously, and instead of falling back on science that created us, began to fall back on the belief of various religions.

So you say that creations are only as good as the creator. I believe that man is the creation, and science is the creator. Therefore, man developed the ability to UNDERSTAND science....man did not create science altogether.

But I mean, note my above post. The entire world could argue about the existence of Leza, the primary god of Africa, or the One God as according to Christianity, or Quezacotl according to the Aztecs, or Dagda of the Celtics, or Yu-Huang-Shang-Ti of the Chinese, or Ra of the Egyptians, or Zeus of the Greeks, or Anshar of the Mesopotamians, or any of the thousands of other dieties of the world's religions. And the argument would go on FOREVER, because none of those sides can bring forth any actual evidence to support their claims. The argument will continue on until the very end of time, when the end of the world will show us the correct answer.

But while everyone is arguing all the religions, science is saying "look, we have the answer now, the need for religion is over." Yet the rest of the world ignores it becuase they're all caught up in religion, what THEY created.

See, it works both ways. Religious people can say "well according to us, science is just another religion. Who's to say that it's any correct?" Be that if it may, but if that's how it is, then notice that science is the only "religion" that can bring cold, hard fact to the table in order to debate its own existence. While religion says "I believe that everything around us is PROOF of the One God, or of Pachamac, or of Jupiter (the roman god), or of Atira or of Awonawilona" and still not give any true reasoning, science can say "We say that everything around us is PROOF of science, and here is why..." and then further back our cause.

THAT is why I wanted this debate to remain a scientific one, rather than a religious one. Now I can see it turning religious, and in turn being locked by mods, because we strayed off-topic.

But the fact of the matter is that science is accepted as fact, because that's what we use in the world. A man in court claims that he killed a man becuase the devil forced him to.....if it wasn't for science, we couldn't say "no, you killed a man because you're mentally a psycho because of neurological connection failures" or whatever. We use science in our courts, science in our everyday lives, because it's the closest to fact that we have.

Why do you think the teaching of religions in public schools is against the law? Because there are too many religions to be able to say "okay this is fact, let's teach this." Meanwhile, science is taught in EVERY school because it's the only constant in this world, the only "belief" that can hold its own in a debate.

[Angel-Eyes]

Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?
yes







yeah since you dont beleive my sources ill get some others.


and by the way i did not interpret the 2nd theory of thermodynamics incorrectly



Edited By kester- on Mar. 24 2004 at 09:23

[blanka09]

I never said I liked it, i just said that was my guess.

Think about it....scientists are always trying to "play god." WHAT IF scientists could enhance the gene responsible for the body's ability to fend off disease and heal? We could be able to force-evolve humans that would be immune to the world's diseases and be able to self-heal wounds. In an instant, scientists could theoretically make evolution happen. Remember what I said: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.


Nantuko.. I'm well aware of what you said.. and I wasn't attacking u in any way when I made my opinion about man forcing evolution on its kind barbaric.. It's just the thought of if that scares me. :biggrin:

I'll start my latest rant by giving you guys something to think about...

Life is hard. But it's harder if you don't know how the material world works!

First off, Kester.. science hasn't contradicted itself in anyway.. the reason I believe in religion is just based on one principle.. better be safe than sorry.. nothing more nothing less.. For all that matters, my truth can be false in the end.. and Nantuko may be right.. but if that time arrives.. no one would be there to laugh at the other. :biggrin:

Thing is, I'll explain the law of thermodynamics.. and how it in no way contradicts the theory of evolution.

See, Thermodynamics is the study of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed.. but can only be transformed from one form to another. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. It can.. although be converted from one form to another.

Now the second law as you have correctly stated is that in all energy exchanges, when no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. Now that in no way contradicts the theory of evolution for one basic fact.. If indeed energy did degenerate.. don't you think you should have blotted out with all the amount of energy you've used drinking, walking talking and what have you. The sun is in fact a basic source of energy that the earth depends on.. and until the sun dies out, it will remain a good source of energy.

So indeed energy does denegerate according to entropy... but as the first law states.. we cannot destroy energy.. There's a cycle.. it's converted from one form to the other.. So next time, try not to use a law to contradict science.. when you haven't explored fully its meanings and all it has to offer.
All in all.. these facts have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.. It stands on its own and has its main facts... that indeed there's a so-called gene mutation that evolve.. and produce better surviving species. Survival of the fittest baby.. :biggrin:

SSJKarma: Dude.. let's step back for a minute.. You have a brain eh?? You've got the ability to interprete basicknowledge without the help of science and its so-called fallacies.. but tell me one thing.. If indeed, English language hadn't been so kind to us and to say the number 2 was to spell it out as trigun and 4 to spell it out as InuYasha.. no matter what happens.. trigun + trigun will give you InuYasha .. Think of it.. You don't really need anyone to tell you that.

If you've got 2 cups and then another 2.. your eyes show you that it is in fact 4 cups in front of you.

Now on your theory on time.. with the quote

just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?

I can't really give you a factual answer on that.. for I as much as you question the section on science that has to do with Carbon dating.. it may/may not be true.. but from what they understand... and what they have as actual evidence... their numbers could be right.. for all we know.

Now what I'll argue on is the fact that although.. it might be possible in the near future.. and if in fact the Jehovah.. creator of the world according to the Christains did not exist.. but was infact a main entity created by man to instill the knowledge of Supreme being for us to follow (which I have fallen into without complain..) then science.. might have the answers to most of the questions you have asked..
Think of it.. a hundred years ago no one.. and I mean no one could define motion of particles once they reached the speed of light.. but Einstein came and gave reason and purpose to meaning.

If in fact, you question his beliefs as being judged by a human, then try it urself.. See if you could come up with something more plausible and reasonable than vhat the German put (.. vhat was not a grammatical error) :biggrin:

By the way ppl, I've tried as much as possible to keep my arguements based on Science and the principle belief of observation.. and I hope that you all will do the same.. for in as much as I believe in Religion, I don't want this topic that's got this amount of info closed.

Now this is what amazed me..

joe said
That is just a possibility, however. Your idea does indeed make perfect sense, and I can't debate against it from a factual stantpoint

--Then Joe .. can you come to the safe conclusion.. that indeed I pwn.. eh?? *cough* .. J/k :biggrin:

--nuff said ppl... Let the games continue!



Edited By blanka09 on Mar. 24 2004 at 11:16

kester_, this is a debate. What you just did is NOT debating.

First off, you are claiming to contain more knowledge of the matter than the people who wrote your sources. And you say that my ideas are ludicrous.

Secondly, I never said I didn't believe your sources, because you never even cited any. I said your final "theory" did not make sense, and ASKED for a source. Therefore, I ask that you give me the source of the theory you attempted to use in your final "point."

Third, you made a false interpretation of a scientific law, and I corrected you. If you believe I made a mistake in correcting you, then give me reasons. You cannot simply say "i did not interpret the 2nd theory of thermodynamics incorrectly." YOu need to provide reasons for WHY you think you did it correctly. If you don't, then your argument becomes null and void, because you are incapable of supporting it.

[SSJKarma]

completely false !
ok, lots of invention were created in a good causes and ended up used for bad purposes, want me to name a few...

the ATOMIC BOMB !
the TNT

and the likes !
if these weren't mistakes, man, then i don't know what they were !
we are a foolish speci who wants to rule the world by being the only speci who can think like we do. that you cannot deny. it is the law of survival. a law of nature that all living thing do. so why, wouldn't the human race be good in any sens !

i didn't say all we did was wrong, neither have i said that they were all right !

but our science up to now was never based on any facts, only theory that we supposedly prooved to be right by making them be right !

that means science is nothing more then a man made theory which if mankind makes mistakes, makes those theory not so reliable either !

example, if scientifics would tell you that they have the cure to all desease in existence by simply swallowing a pile, and then they are prooving it to you, by testing on a subject. would believe them just because they prooved it to you or would you be sckeptic even tho they have prooved it to you ?

exactly...
there are many things in existence that were proven in existence and still are denyed by many scientists who say other scientist are wrong !

so how can science be all good and facts when even the scientist themselves are still fighting off each other ?

my point is clear here... science do not proove anything since it is man made theories. nothing more !

and i didn't bring it back to religion, it was a comparision !
you say science is prooven because millions of people study it. then why aren't religion prooved when millions study it as well !

in any cases... what i'm saying is...
religions aren't entirely right, and science isn't entirely right !

you still didn't answered my question tho...
who told you 2+2=4 ?
if you answer humans, then tell me how this was prooven to be true ?

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

We were never apes...i can now say dat scientistare not as smart as i thought ???

[Angel-Eyes]

kester_, this is a debate. What you just did is NOT debating.

First off, you are claiming to contain more knowledge of the matter than the people who wrote your sources. And you say that my ideas are ludicrous.

Secondly, I never said I didn't believe your sources, because you never even cited any. I said your final "theory" did not make sense, and ASKED for a source. Therefore, I ask that you give me the source of the theory you attempted to use in your final "point."

Third, you made a false interpretation of a scientific law, and I corrected you. If you believe I made a mistake in correcting you, then give me reasons. You cannot simply say "i did not interpret the 2nd theory of thermodynamics incorrectly." YOu need to provide reasons for WHY you think you did it correctly. If you don't, then your argument becomes null and void, because you are incapable of supporting it.
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

[vx_unicom]

See, now this is going to turn back into a religious debate....

These religions MUST be false because not all religions in the world can be correct. When it all comes down to it, on the final day of the existence of the world, I could very well be wrong, and I could end up going to hell. Or I could end up going to Tartarus. Or I could end up going to the Celtic underworld ruled by Dis Pater. Or I could end up with Chernobog in the Slavic hell or Bolebog in the Slavic heaven. Or end up in Mictlan or one of the other eight underworlds of the Aztec beliefs. Or I could end up waking up as another human being. Or I could end up waking up as a Komodo Dragon for all I know. Or my own beliefs could be correct.

You see, people from all different areas of the world believe in different religions. The Japanese believe in Shinto, or possibly the other Japanese religion concerning all the many gods and goddesses. Romans originally believed in their Roman gods. The Chinese believe in Conflipianism, or whatever religion it is that worships and reveres the various spirits and Dragons. The indians believe in Hindu, the middle-easterns believe in Muslim and Christianity. The Irish originally believed in the Celtic ceremonies. The Egyptians worshipped their various gods, as did the South and North American indian tribes. When it comes to religion, no one can agree.

However, when it comes to science, all that goes out the window. Japanese science is the same as American science. German science is the same as English science. Chinese science is the same as African science which is the same as Russian science. Everyone can agree. At least there's a common bond and belief with science. Hell, not even Christians agree with each other...they break up into Catholic and Roman Catholic and Batists and Lutheran and Protestant and Methodist and whatever other sects they've got. So how can any one of those be correct, when they all dispute each other? Sure, millions of people believe each one, but then again, according to me, man created god, and not vice versa. (see below)

i ask you one thing...
just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?
our science is based on what we created, and as far as i know, a creation is as good as its creator ! which means that if we created our own science, then how come it is suppose to always be true when we ourselves are a mistake on two legs ?

First off, man did not "create" science. Science has been around all along, we just developed the ability to understand it.

Second off, how are we "mistakes" on two legs? A mistake is an error or fault resulting from defective judgement, deficient knowledge or carelessness. How are human beings "mistakes?" So that analogy right there of yours is completely false.

You forget, I believe that science created man, and man in turn created the concept of religion, in order to provide answers to questions that science could not yet answer at that point in time. I believe that religion was a temporary answer that was created intended to only last until science could provide us with the answers once again. The only "mistake" was that people began to take religion seriously, and instead of falling back on science that created us, began to fall back on the belief of various religions.

So you say that creations are only as good as the creator. I believe that man is the creation, and science is the creator. Therefore, man developed the ability to UNDERSTAND science....man did not create science altogether.

But I mean, note my above post. The entire world could argue about the existence of Leza, the primary god of Africa, or the One God as according to Christianity, or Quezacotl according to the Aztecs, or Dagda of the Celtics, or Yu-Huang-Shang-Ti of the Chinese, or Ra of the Egyptians, or Zeus of the Greeks, or Anshar of the Mesopotamians, or any of the thousands of other dieties of the world's religions. And the argument would go on FOREVER, because none of those sides can bring forth any actual evidence to support their claims. The argument will continue on until the very end of time, when the end of the world will show us the correct answer.

But while everyone is arguing all the religions, science is saying "look, we have the answer now, the need for religion is over." Yet the rest of the world ignores it becuase they're all caught up in religion, what THEY created.

See, it works both ways. Religious people can say "well according to us, science is just another religion. Who's to say that it's any correct?" Be that if it may, but if that's how it is, then notice that science is the only "religion" that can bring cold, hard fact to the table in order to debate its own existence. While religion says "I believe that everything around us is PROOF of the One God, or of Pachamac, or of Jupiter (the roman god), or of Atira or of Awonawilona" and still not give any true reasoning, science can say "We say that everything around us is PROOF of science, and here is why..." and then further back our cause.

THAT is why I wanted this debate to remain a scientific one, rather than a religious one. Now I can see it turning religious, and in turn being locked by mods, because we strayed off-topic.

But the fact of the matter is that science is accepted as fact, because that's what we use in the world. A man in court claims that he killed a man becuase the devil forced him to.....if it wasn't for science, we couldn't say "no, you killed a man because you're mentally a psycho because of neurological connection failures" or whatever. We use science in our courts, science in our everyday lives, because it's the closest to fact that we have.

Why do you think the teaching of religions in public schools is against the law? Because there are too many religions to be able to say "okay this is fact, let's teach this." Meanwhile, science is taught in EVERY school because it's the only constant in this world, the only "belief" that can hold its own in a debate.
LOL........Joe u might consider going into politics!!!!. That i cannot argue with u. ???But it doesn't mean ur the best debater around here.



Edited By vx_unicom on Mar. 24 2004 at 18:14

[Roll]

By: Kester
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

He's not doing anything of the sort; he was merely debating that what you said was misinterpreted, and that you need to provide him with sources.
When you enter a debate, you enter an argument that involves facts, opinions, and ideas with facts to back them up. If you only hold your opinion, without stating anything or having anything to even try and prove your point, then you can expect (in any debate, anywhere, at anytime) to be chewed up and spit out. When you join a debate, you accept that the very thing may happen to you very easily if you don't debate correctly, or if you just plan to rant idiotically without something to help prove you right.

By: Guess
LOL........Joe u might consider going into politics!!!!. That i cannot argue with u. ???But it doesn't mean ur the best debater around here.

While he never implied that he was the best debator around here, who would that person be then? *chuckle* You? Or perhaps you mean Shinku Ryu? Either way, please leave this debate if you don't mean to actually debate. It's making many people angry, and now we're just spamming the heck out of this thread.

..and must must you quote an entire post, just to write a few sentences?

[vx_unicom]

By: Kester
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

He's not doing anything of the sort; he was merely debating that what you said was misinterpreted, and that you need to provide him with sources.
When you enter a debate, you enter an argument that involves facts, opinions, and ideas with facts to back them up. If you only hold your opinion, without stating anything or having anything to even try and prove your point, then you can expect (in any debate, anywhere, at anytime) to be chewed up and spit out. When you join a debate, you accept that the very thing may happen to you very easily if you don't debate correctly, or if you just plan to rant idiotically without something to help prove you right.

By: Guess
LOL........Joe u might consider going into politics!!!!. That i cannot argue with u. ???But it doesn't mean ur the best debater around here.

While he never implied that he was the best debator around here, who would that person be then? *chuckle* You? Or perhaps you mean Shinku Ryu? Either way, please leave this debate if you don't mean to actually debate. It's making many people angry, and now we're just spamming the heck out of this thread.

..and must must you quote an entire post, just to write a few sentences?
Roll u are a very annoying girl.........u know!!!! i never said i was the best debator even though i'am if i really wanna be!!!

SSJ Karma
completely false !
ok, lots of invention were created in a good causes and ended up used for bad purposes, want me to name a few...
the ATOMIC BOMB !
the TNT
and the likes !
if these weren't mistakes, man, then i don't know what they were !
we are a foolish speci who wants to rule the world by being the only speci who can think like we do. that you cannot deny. it is the law of survival. a law of nature that all living thing do. so why, wouldn't the human race be good in any sens !

The human race itself, however, is NOT an invention.

kester said that according to science, our species is a mistake. This is false. Some of the CREATIONS that were developed by our species are mistakes, but the species itself is not a mistake. No one and nothing INTENDED to create humankind. We are the result of evolution, natural selection and morphological change over millions of years, as are every other animal specie on the planet. None of them are "mistakes," and neither is the human race.

example, if scientifics would tell you that they have the cure to all desease in existence by simply swallowing a pile, and then they are prooving it to you, by testing on a subject. would believe them just because they prooved it to you or would you be sckeptic even tho they have prooved it to you ?

That makes no sense.

Let's say a human has every disease known to man ravaging through his or her body at the same time, and by some miracle of medical science, was able to survive for a short amount of time. If a scientist were to say "this vial of medicine has the power to cure the world's diseases," administered it to the patient, and the patient was cured, then yes, he would be correct. The medicine would indeed have the ability to fight off all the world's diseases, and it would be considered fact.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if such a thing happened as I exampled above, then I would be a firm believer in this medicinal concoction.

so how can science be all good and facts when even the scientist themselves are still fighting off each other ?
my point is clear here... science do not proove anything since it is man made theories. nothing more !

From a scientific standpoint, the same can be said about religion...all it is is man-made theories, and nothing more. Therefore, religions cannot be good.....according to your outlook on science.

and i didn't bring it back to religion, it was a comparision !
you say science is prooven because millions of people study it. then why aren't religion prooved when millions study it as well !

No, that's not what I said.

I said science is proven fact because all the theologians could argue with each other over which religion is more accurate, but they would never get ANYWHERE, because there is no proof to support ANY of their claims. Jews cannot agree with Buddhists. Catholics cannot agree with Celtics. Muslims cannot agree with Hindus. Meanwhile, science IS capable of bringing proof to the table. While men from africa can argue religious beliefs with people from india or japan, an african scientist, indian scientist and japanese scientist can all agree on science.

Do you see any scientists disagreeing over Newton's Laws of Motion? Nope. What about Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Nah uh. The equations used to figure out chemical bonds during chemical reactions? I don't think so. Astronomy? Not to my knowledge. And they all agree because proof has been brought to the table in order to enforce the ideas.

THAT is why science is considered fact. Not simply because millions of people study it, but because millions of people study it AND experiment with it AND prove it. Millions of people study religions, but they do not question it. They do not test it, they simply study and follow without question. That's why science is considered fact and religion theory.

you still didn't answered my question tho...
who told you 2+2=4 ?
if you answer humans, then tell me how this was prooven to be true ?

Humans.

It was proven true by, say, taking two apples and putting them in a bucket with two more apples. You will then have four apples.

Two, four, eight hundred fifty thousand.....they're just words to represent something bigger. Instead of being One-Two-Three, it could have been Argh-Bleah-Yeach. But the principle is the same. We just created words that are used to represent values. But the values are true constants, because they've existed even before we discovered them.

(ShinKu Ryu)

We were never apes...i can now say dat scientistare not as smart as i thought

Someone that can't even correctly spell two words in a 16 word sentence saying that scientists aren't smart......

Like I said, if you're not going to debate, then don't post. You have no proof that we were never apes, nor can you even begin to fathom a guess, because you're uninformed. You're just acting off personal opinion, which, in a scientific debate, is worth absolutely nothing.

kester_

just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

No, I'm "biting [your] ass off" because you're making incorrect assumptions about theories that you're misinterpreting without providing sources or proof, then simply saying that you're right even after I proved you're wrong.

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

Roll what u got against me..?!? ??? i know that you and joe agree on this nonsense but.............

Anywaz....to get back to the topic, Natuku joe i will try to make you understand.......i know its hard for your brain but.... :( roll,....you said that we dont evolve anymore becuse we dont need to...i do agree with some facts that scientist's have proven but this one i dont and never will......

ok...This is some proof i can give for now....lets go back to Adam and Eve....not adam and steve joe

Those where the first humans god created....the where already evolved from babbons as you say....This is funny because i dont think god would create those babbons first and then us humans.......thats something scientist's got to think for a moment before the make all this conclusions...

And joe dont act smart by correcting my spelling...thnx



Edited By (ShinKu_Ryu) on Mar. 24 2004 at 21:02

Roll what u got against me..?!? <!--emo&??? i know that you and joe agree on this nonsense but.............

Anywaz....to get back to the topic, Natuku joe i will try to make you understand.......i know its hard for your brain but.... :( roll,....you said that we dont evolve anymore becuse we dont need to...i do agree with some facts that scientist's have proven but this one i dont and never will......

ok...This is some proof i can give for now....lets go back to Adam and Eve....not adam and steve joe

Those where the first humans god created....the where already evolved from babbons as you say....This is funny because i dont think god would create those babbons first and then us humans.......thats something scientist's got to think for a moment before the make all this conclusions...

And joe dont act smart by correcting my spelling...thnx
Ahem.....

This is a SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. NOT RELIGIOUS!

Look at the topic title: Human evolution from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint.

Look at the topic description: Scientific debate, NOT a religious one

Therefore, since that post is incredibly off-topic, it's really considered spam.

Secondly, even IF religion was allowed in this debate, your "adam and eve" is NOT proof. Why? Becuase religion does not HAVE proof, only blind faith.

By the way....why did you bring up 'adam and steve?' Are you implying that I'm gay by believing in science and not religion? By saying that you want to turn the topic to "adam and eve, not adam and steve joe," you are therefore implying that I have been talking about "adam and steve" and you don't want to hear it anymore. However, since I have not once mentioned an "adam and steve," I am getting the rather distinct feeling that you are attempting to insult me, something you definately don't want to do. I don't believe in 'adam and steve,' despite what you apparently claimed. I also don't believe in 'adam and eve' either. Now...

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>RELIGION IS NOT PROOF!</span>

Or, to be more specific....the Bible is NOT proof!!

Now THAT is something YOU have to think about before YOU make such conclusions.

Bring up religion again and I'm getting a mod to delete your post. Do it yet again, and that will definately constitute as spamming, and you can probably be banned if you keep it up for much longer. If you don't have scientific evidence to debate with, then don't post anything at all.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 24 2004 at 21:20

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

[quote:post_uid4="Shauku"][color=green:post_uid4]Well nosoul closed the religion topic, but not before blanka was able to make a post concerning the topic of human evolution that I brought up. Thus, I'd like to talk a little more on the topic of human evolution.

This topic is from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, not a religious one. So if anyone posts here saying something like "ur wrong tho cuz evolutin doesnt exist god made man," then that's gonna be considered spam. I've been in search of a clean, straightforward debate for quite some time now. My debates on BG have more or less run their course, so I figured I'd return to my roots here on this forum. Now, let the human evolution debate begin![/color:post_uid4]

[quote:post_uid4][i:post_uid4]blanka09 said...[/i:post_uid4]

Ok.. Let me put it this way.. Humans [b:post_uid4]didn't[/b:post_uid4] evolve from chimpazees.. cause if they did.. Why didn't the other chimpazees involve??[/quote:post_uid4]

[color=green:post_uid4]There was a special on the discovery channel a year or so ago that I really wished I had recorded. You might be able to find an article about the program on the Discovery Channel website, or possibly backorder a copy of the program.

Either way, that's a good question. If humans evolved from chimpanzees, then why didn't ALL chimpanzees evolve? First, you'd have to take a look at evolution at large.

What causes evolution? The biological definition of "evolution" is the "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." (source: http://dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)))

The result of natural selection. Look at wild animals, or more specifically, animals that hunt and live in packs or herds. More specifically, look at creatures such as the wolf, lion and monkey. All three of these creatures are family-type animals. The females protect the children, and the males protect both the females and the children. Now, the males in the pack do not always get along. When this happens, one or more males will challenge the leader of the pack. The loser is exiled from the social group. Sometimes, the loser will be followed by a share of females and children, and strike out on their own. Scientists believe that this is the spark that lit the fuse of the stick of dynamite called "human evolution."

Take a look at a human and a chimpanzee. If you look at a strand of chimpanzee DNA, you will find that it matches a strand of human DNA almost completely, making a match at 99.4% indenticality. Now take a look at the physical aspects. Both human and chimpanzee have two arms, two legs and a head. The head contains two eyes, two ears, a nose and a mouth, in almost exactly the same facial positions. Chimpanzees have tails, while humans do not. HOWEVER, we do have a tailbone, which provides evidence that human beings, lower on the evolutionary ladder, once had tails. But for some reason, we no longer needed them, and eventually evolved to the point where tails were no longer part of our anatomy. Humans and chimpanzees share the exact same internal organs and various systems--nervous, reproductive, digestive. All organs are located in the exact same areas of the body as in humans. Finally, take a look at their brains. Similar brain size and shape (proportionally). They have the ability to think...they can plan, they can solve puzzles, and they have the ability to use simple tools. Socially, they contain the same basic primal social, family and hierarchial traits as basic humans. Both are also very territorial, and will protect their territories and families with fierce savagery.

How can two creatures be so similar, both anatomically and mentally, and yet not be related? Now, for the theory of the human evolution.

Remember what I said above about natural selection? About how one group of creatures from a larger social family will be outcast? Well scientists have conjured up the following theory:

Around five million years ago, there was a schizm in the social structure of a large group of mammals....either a relative of the modern-day chimpanzee or ape or whatever. A large portion of this social structure was outcast, being cast out of the jungles and forests and into the grasslands and plains of africa (where most scientists believe human evolution first began). Over time, these monkeys became bipedal. They learned to balance, stand and walk on their hind legs. The reason for this was so they could peer over the tall grass in order to spot predators. Therefore, the first step of human evolution. Over the next 4.8 million years or so, this large group of human-like mammals continued to evolve, until finally forming [i:post_uid4]homo sapiens[/i:post_uid4] around 200 thousand years ago. To be honest, I'm not too sure about the details surrounding the period of time after the outcasts were sent into the grasslands, which is why I didn't specify on anything. Once I find the program or article from the Discovery Channel, I'll elaborate a bit more. But that's what scientists believe. Human beings evolved from an outcast group of chimp-like mammals.

Now, why didn't the rest of the chimpanzees evolve into humans, you ask? Simple....they had already adapted to their jungle- and forest-type of environments. Therefore, no evolution was necessary. The outcast group, however, was suddenly thrust into an alien environment. They had no instincts of how to survive in such an environment, and therefore were forced to adapt and evolve. No evolution was necessary for the jungle chimps because they had already adapted to their environment.[/color:post_uid4]

[quote:post_uid4]Now an earlier species known as the Australopethicus Africanus or in the early man is where we evolved from. From that to the homo habilis (cause they could handle stuff).. to the homo erectus (cause they could walk straight) and to the present homo sapiens.. (cause they think.. which isn't sometimes good for them.) Now do I believe in what I've just wrote.. maybe.. maybe not. But that's just the origin of the present human beings according to science.[/quote:post_uid4]

[color=green:post_uid4]Actually, the origin of present-day humans goes back a little farther than the [i:post_uid4]africanus,[/i:post_uid4] and you also skipped a few key stages in human evolution. The origin of present-day humans actually looks something like this:

(source: http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html (http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html)))
[img:post_uid4]http://home.graffiti.net/nantuko/evolution2.jpg[/img:post_uid4][/color:post_uid4]

[quote:post_uid4]If infact the science was true and correct and accurate all along, then why haven't the homo sapiens evolved.. after living for such a long time?? These are just some of the questions.. that how should I say.. distorts my belief in science and evolution as the origin of man.

[color=green:post_uid4]Take a look at the chart displaying the origins of human evolution. The first stage of human evolution lasted 1 million years. The second lasted 300 thousand. The third lasted 1.3 million. The fourth lasted 1 million. The fifth and sixth, which coexisted at the same time, lasted 800 thousand. The seventh lasted 1.6 million. The eighth lasted 200 thousand before we split off into neanderthals and humans, and the neanderthals died off after 170 thousand years. Now I know that adds up to more than 5 million years, but there was some overlapping of species here and there ([i:post_uid4]anamensis[/i:post_uid4] to [i:post_uid4]afarensis[/i:post_uid4], [i:post_uid4]afarensis[/i:post_uid4] to [i:post_uid4]africanus[/i:post_uid4], and [i:post_uid4]homo erectus[/i:post_uid4] briefly overlapped with the existence of both [i:post_uid4]Australopithecus robustus[/i:post_uid4] and [i:post_uid4]Homo habilis[/i:post_uid4], which coexisted with each other.

So in the past 5 million years, there have been 10 different species of human in the evolutionary ladder, including present-day humans. Now you say "why havn't [i:post_uid4]homo sapiens[/i:post_uid4] evolved?" Well there are a number of answers to that question...

1. We have indeed stopped evolving, due to the fact that we no longer have to adapt to our environment. Due to our technology, we are no longer forced to adapt to our environment, because we now have the ability to make our environment change in order to accustom our needs and comforts. Therefore, evolution is not forced upon us.

2. Evolution is still occuring, but has slowed down (due to the same reason stated above). We no longer have the need to physically evolve, so our brains and mental capabilities will continue to evolve over the millenia. At this moment in time, we are only able to consciously access 10% of our brain. Over time, maybe we will evolve the ability to access even more.

3. Evolution is still continuing, but we just havn't seen any sudden changes yet. Remember, [i:post_uid4]homo sapiens[/i:post_uid4] are still young. We have only been around for 200 thousand years. If you do the math, the average amount of time it takes for one specie in that chart to evolve to the next is an AVERAGE of 500 thousand years. We aren't even halfway through that. Therefore, we havn't seen as much change becuase we havn't been around long enough to require change, which gives rise to the BELIEF that we have stopped evolving, which is highly unlikely.



Okay, like I said above, I want a SCIENTIFIC, FACT-BASED discussion here. This topic is NOT about the existence of god, heaven & hell, the bible, the torah, the teachings of Siddharta Guatama, etc. This debate is about the idea of human evolution. If you can't provide facts and evidence to support your case, then don't post.

I'm *HOPING* for an actual debate here. Let's see if anyone can give that to me. I mean, if Hibiki could make a successful topic last year about the theory of relativity, I HOPE i can create a successful topic about human evolution.[/color:post_uid4][/quote:post_uid4]
natuku joe i was not fetting back to the religion that was way back...it was an example that i thought would help a brain like yours...?!?? ???

I read everything you said and of course they are scientific facts that some of you believe.......i can not give full proof that we where not apes but what i believe........ :alien: scientist's to have a lot to uncover...and i dont think that scientist's have full proof of it yet............ :)

First off, there was no need to quote my ridiculously gigantic, information-filled post just for two run-on sentences.

How can you say you were not fetting back to religion when you said that adam and eve is proof against evolution? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Finally, you admit it's your BELIEF. So I guess you can now stop saying that religion is proof, because it's not.

So like I said, unless you're going to use scientific evidence to debate your points, don't post anything in here at all.

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

First off, there was no need to quote my ridiculously gigantic, information-filled post just for two run-on sentences.

How can you say you were not fetting back to religion when you said that adam and eve is proof against evolution? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Finally, you admit it's your BELIEF. So I guess you can now stop saying that religion is proof, because it's not.

So like I said, unless you're going to use scientific evidence to debate your points, don't post anything in here at all.
There is no scientific facts against this.......?!! :angryfire: but just tell me..and if we dont need to evolve again as you say..so why do scientist's say it might have been this way. ??? and i saw the discovery about it to...but i did not bother to see all of it... :angryfire:

[MasterX05]

Roll what u got against me..?!? ??? i know that you and joe agree on this nonsense but.............

Anywaz....to get back to the topic, Natuku joe i will try to make you understand.......i know its hard for your brain but.... :( roll,....you said that we dont evolve anymore becuse we dont need to...i do agree with some facts that scientist's have proven but this one i dont and never will......

ok...This is some proof i can give for now....lets go back to Adam and Eve....not adam and steve joe

Those where the first humans god created....the where already evolved from babbons as you say....This is funny because i dont think god would create those babbons first and then us humans.......thats something scientist's got to think for a moment before the make all this conclusions...

And joe dont act smart by correcting my spelling...thnx
That made no dam sense what so ever. Babbons? Do u know how stupid your post sounds?

[SSJKarma]

so nantuko, you admit with me that we are the ones creating stuffs, so if we are making mistakes then why wouldn't we be making a big mistakes with most of our technologies, then why would science be any better then religions ?

and, tell me where i said religions was better then science ?
i seriously don't like religions. but i unlike you, i'm keeping my believes for myself !

you believe science is the right way to go, some thinks its religions who think it is. and others like me do not care as it is non-important for our life !

and as far as i know, a debate about evolution of mankind cannot be won by neither party ! why ? because neither can prooves their theories, so basically this is an impossible to win debate. and seriously, you can't just try and back this stuffup with things like what you said... why ?

because even if many scientists have came to the same conclusion. they are still theories. just like any religions !

Shinku Ryu

There is no scientific facts against this.......?!! but just tell me..and if we dont need to evolve again as you say..so why do scientist's say it might have been this way. and i saw the discovery about it to...but i did not bother to see all of it...

Do you even READ my posts? I NEVER said that i don't think we don't need to evolve. I said that I think we're going to continue natural evolution on a MENTAL level. Not that we completely stopped. I said that us being completely stopped is a POSSIBILITY, but it's not my own belief.

I don't know about what other scientists say on the matter, as I don't know any scientists to ask. I'll have to TRY and find sources on scientists outlooks, but that will be rather difficult considering the fact that scientists having public editorial sections on the internet is rather uncommon.

SSJKarma
so nantuko, you admit with me that we are the ones creating stuffs, so if we are making mistakes then why wouldn't we be making a big mistakes with most of our technologies, then why would science be any better then religions ?


Because man created the idea of religion. Man did NOT create the idea of science, because science has been around all along. Man DEVELOPED THE ABILITY to be able to interpret scientific data...they did not create the idea of science.

Man created the idea of religion. Evidence of this is found in the fact that hundreds of different religions exist in the world. If religion created man, then only one religion would exist. But since there are many religions, it goes to show that in different areas of the world, different people had different outlooks on religion, and therefore created their own. Science, on the other hand, is universally accepted, because there is only ONE science, and it yields evidence of its existence.

and as far as i know, a debate about evolution of mankind cannot be won by neither party ! why ? because neither can prooves their theories, so basically this is an impossible to win debate. and seriously, you can't just try and back this stuffup with things like what you said... why ?
because even if many scientists have came to the same conclusion. they are still theories. just like any religions !

Actually, they WOULDN'T be theories.

Tell me, so you are saying that science is merely a theory.

Are Newton's Laws of Motion theories also? Because last I checked, they were tried, tested, tried and proven true. And are evident in EVERYDAY life. Same as the theory of relativity, same as every single chemical equation, same as every single biological function. It's all FACT. Why? Because it's been tried, tested, and proven true.

Now the THEORY of human evolution is just that....THEORY. However, once more evidence is gathered, all the holes filled in, all the questions answered, then guess what? It will be proven FACT. Not "theory," as you claim, because all evidence in the world will point away from evolution and point straight towards science. It's happened already in other aspects of science and religion, and will surely happen over and over again in the future.

[viper2040]

Must i kill you all?
Must I perform a ritual massacre of all of you rule breakers?

do NOT quote that much
do NOT be assholes

when in doubt, follow this simple rule--DONT BE A DICK

break that rule at yer own risk

escaflowne rulz



Edited By viper2040 on Mar. 25 2004 at 00:02

[SSJKarma]

now you did it nantuko !
you just prooved yourself how patheitic you are about soime matters !
have you even studied religions to know that many religions came off only one and they separated because some weren't able to believe some parts of their own religions ?

example...
you believe in science... you got point of view on subjects... but the other scientist besides you do not see's it the same as you. is he the same scientist as you or it is he an outcast just because he doesn't think the same as you ?

its as simple as that, all religions have the same patterns, saw the same things or are describing the same thing, people just didn't see it the same way so they described it their way and many other people joined them in that way of thinking.

that is the reason there are so many religions !
if you didn't even knew that, then how can you back your arguments to say that religions are false theories !

science was made by humans, because we dictated those laws.
we gave a name to them. if we did so, that's because they were not existent and we found something that ables us to create even more !

its our way of life nantuko, science do not make us alive, it is just a bunch of theories, prooven or not ! they were just theories, some were found to be true, yet they are still theories, we make them laws. so that means we created them !

and again, you're not debating anything here, you are saying science is the answer to all because it supposedly have facts which is false itself, and let me give you this hints... SCIENCE is as much a religion then anything else !

you believe in it, fine, suits you, but don't come in saying science is the answer to all cause for all i understood of your post... is this !

COME AND SPEAK WITH FACT, SCIENCE IS THE KEY AND WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE TRUTH, FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE, CAUSE SCIENCE IS RIGHT REGUARDLESS OF WHAT YOU'LL SAY !

see its the same mumbo jumbo anyone have been saying all along here !

i may be not much of a debater, but i can easily identify people trying to enforece they view on others, and that's what you are trying to do here, may it be voluntary or not !

this topic has reached his maximum capacity of flaming and its maximum capacity of non-sens, that even you been saying !

if you don't want to be open minded then suits you, but we don't care about what you believe in and we didn't ask you to convince us either !

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

joe ,....hate to break this to you but science is man made ... ???



Edited By (ShinKu_Ryu) on Mar. 25 2004 at 16:37

SSJKarma
now you did it nantuko !
you just prooved yourself how patheitic you are about soime matters !
have you even studied religions to know that many religions came off only one and they separated because some weren't able to believe some parts of their own religions ?

Not necessarily true. Two completely isolated populations of humans, with NO contact between each other, will develop different religions in order to suit the personal beliefs of those in each respective group.

Religion did not "evolve" from a single common "ancestor." In other words, all the world's religions are NOT simply run-offs from each other. Most of them developed independently with no outside influence, and not as separations of other religions due to disagreements with particular beliefs.

The American Indians developed a separate religion than the Aztecs of South America, who developed a separate religion from the Africans. These religions are NOT simply different variations of each other.

What you just said would only apply to Christianity and Judaism, at least to my knowledge. Judaism came first, then Christianity. Then Christianity broke off into various branches....Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Protestant, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, etc....because of differences in various individual beliefs. They all believe in the whole of the Bible, but are separated by various trivial details.

THAT is an example of what you stated. What you said does not apply to all the world's religions, because the majority of them developed in controlled, isolated populations of people with no outside influence with each other.

example...
you believe in science... you got point of view on subjects... but the other scientist besides you do not see's it the same as you. is he the same scientist as you or it is he an outcast just because he doesn't think the same as you ?

No no no, you've got it all wrong.

The only thing in science that scientists would disagree on would be THEORIES. Ideas that have not yet been proven true. The scientific LAWS, however, are universally accepted, because they've already been proven true. So even though two scientists may have different outlooks on THEORIES, they are in effect the same scientists because they are united by the common ground of fact. Religion is not like this, because EVERYTHING is a theory, none of it fact, and therefore there is no solid common ground.

its as simple as that, all religions have the same patterns, saw the same things or are describing the same thing, people just didn't see it the same way so they described it their way and many other people joined them in that way of thinking.
that is the reason there are so many religions !
if you didn't even knew that, then how can you back your arguments to say that religions are false theories !

No, not all religions have the same patterns, see the same things, etc.

Religions can be compared to stories. In a population of people, many people will be telling different stories, and everyone will have their favorite story, the one they can relate to the most. The people will then group together with other people who like that same story.

There was NOT a single story that spawned all these different story branches. They were all individual stories, and NOT just branches off one common ancestral story.

The same goes for religions.

In a population, many different stories about creation, or life after death, or whatnot will arise, and the people will group together under that common religion. Therefore, there will be many different religions. They are all individual and unique (for the most part), and were NOT merely the offspring of a central common religion.

science was made by humans, because we dictated those laws.
we gave a name to them. if we did so, that's because they were not existent and we found something that ables us to create even more !

its our way of life nantuko, science do not make us alive, it is just a bunch of theories, prooven or not ! they were just theories, some were found to be true, yet they are still theories, we make them laws. so that means we created them !

No, that's not an accurate statement.

Science was not created by humans. Science was around all along, humans just became able to understand it. We did not CREATE the laws, we simply gave name to them. We did not CREATE gravity....we created the WORD "gravity." We did not CREATE the endocrine system, we merely created the PHRASE "endocrine system." We did not CREATE dinosaur fossils, we merely created the NAME "dinosaur fossils"

Newton did not CREATE the fact that an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force.....he just put it into lay man's terms. He just created the words needed to understand it.

and again, you're not debating anything here, you are saying science is the answer to all because it supposedly have facts which is false itself, and let me give you this hints... SCIENCE is as much a religion then anything else !

No, the facts themselves are fact. Whether or not you choose to believe them is up to you. It is a FACT that if you standing on the ground, hold an object whose mass is heavier and denser than the atmosphere surrounding it out in front of you and let go, the object will fall down towards the ground. That is FACT, there is no denying it. It is a FACT that if you roll a ball down an incline, the ball will continue to roll unless acted upon by an outside force (something in front of the ball hindering its movement, or the ball hitting the bottom of the incline). That is FACT, there is no denying it. Go out and try it for yourself. You can see for yourself that it's fact.

And basically, what you are saying is that "No you're wrong. Science THINKS that it's fact, but it's just a theory." Well go try it for yourself. If you can stand and hold a baseball and drop it and it DOESN'T fall to the ground, then you would have proven the laws of physics wrong. If you can take a basketball and place it on the top of an incline and let go, if the ball DOESN'T roll down the incline, then you would have proven physics wrong.

Go ahead, try it. Keep trying until you prove science wrong.

you believe in it, fine, suits you, but don't come in saying science is the answer to all cause for all i understood of your post... is this !
COME AND SPEAK WITH FACT, SCIENCE IS THE KEY AND WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE TRUTH, FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE, CAUSE SCIENCE IS RIGHT REGUARDLESS OF WHAT YOU'LL SAY !
see its the same mumbo jumbo anyone have been saying all along here !
i may be not much of a debater, but i can easily identify people trying to enforece they view on others, and that's what you are trying to do here, may it be voluntary or not !

No, what I'm saying is this:

"IF YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, THEN COME HERE AND DEBATE WITH SCIENCE. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DEBATE WITH SCIENCE, THEN DON'T DEBATE AT ALL."

If you'd like, I could easily create a topic debating the accuracy of all the world's various religions. The accuracy of christianity vs satanism vs judaism vs buddhism vs conflipianism vs Shinto vs Celtic beliefs vs Norse beliefs vs African beliefs vs the various North American Indian beliefs vs the various South American Indian beliefs vs the Pacific Islander beliefs vs Greek beliefs vs Roman beliefs vs Egyptian beliefs vs Chinese beliefs vs Japanese beliefs vs Mesopotamian beliefs vs Santarian beliefs vs Slavic beliefs vs all the other various beliefs in the world. I would then say "This is a religious debate using religious knowledge only....if you're not going to debate with religion, then don't debate at all." Would you be happy then?

if you don't want to be open minded then suits you, but we don't care about what you believe in and we didn't ask you to convince us either !

I am very open-minded. I do not shut out ideas of over people, but rather I try to understand them and try to make sense of them. If I find faults, I will try to identify with them.

Look at the locked religion topic. I did not simply say "no ur religion is wrong and my religion is right." I tried to understand them. I'm always open to new ideas, which was actually the factor that caused me to convert to science from religion. I was actually very intrigued and interested in Roll's beliefs. If I was not open-minded, I would have been like "lol wtfur stupid ur wrong." But no, I take the time to listen and try to understand.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, at least...that was not the purpose of the topic. The purpose of the topic was to be a scientific discussion between people who "believe" as you say, in science. It only turned to "convincing" when idiots start coming here attacking science and saying that "adam and eve and not adam and steve" is "proof," and when people make uneducated outlandish claims, stating that they are smarter than the world's scientists and saying that they are wrong.

If someone created a religion topic to discuss different religions, I would not invade the topic saying "no you're wrong I am right, blah blah blah" becuase it would be a discussion between people who believe in religions. I am not trying to convert anyone.

Look at how the religion topic started. SBYRD starts making claims saying "look hell exists, you are wrong and I am right," just because of the opinions of one man and an article from the National Inquirer. I said that the theologian beliefs of some nobody and an article from the National Inquirer are NOT proof of anything. Then other religious people start coming in saying "no it is proof because the bible says so, etc etc." Had no one been making false claims and trying to convert people, I would have kept my mouth shut. I only brought science in the mix when people start claiming that this is truth and this is false, that anyone who doesn't believe this or that is "too young and ignorant to see the truth," bullcrap like that.

Now, if it was a simple discussion about the exstence of heaven and hell from a religious standpoint, with discussions attacking and defending it only coming from religious sources (beliefs of other religions), then I would have kept my mouth shut. Likewise, the way I see it, this is a discussion about a topic of science. I would have expected that anyone who did not want to discuss this from a scientific standpoint would simply refrain from posting, and that the only posts would be people trying to debate this from a scientific standpoint....you know, I was expecting the same amount of respect that I would normally have shown to anyone else.

But coming into a topic about science and saying "science is wrong, religions is right" is the same thing as going into the DBZvsSF topic and saying "both street fighter and dbz are gay, inuyasha rules."

(Shinku Ryu)
joe ,....hae to break this to you but science is man made ...

Posts like that are what I'm talking about, Karma. I'm making claims, but I can back them up with evidence. Yes, I know that the claims are concerning THEORY, but I bring evidence to the table to try and help support my claims.

Now look at that post. Is there any scientific debate material that can be used to discuss the topic at hand? No. Is there any evidence to back up his claims? No. All he is saying is the same old usual "I am right and you are wrong" bullcrap that pisses me off. He obviously has nothing intelligent to say in order to contribute to the topic, he's basically spamming and pissing me off, which in turn forces me to interject, sometimes forcibly and angrily. Hence the reason the topic has gone wildly off-course.

Look at the intelligent posts here....me making a statement, and blanka09, among a couple others, respond to it, asking questions, making remarks, etcetera, and I respond. That's how a debate goes. Because of twerps like this kid, who simply makes unbacked claims based on absolutely nothing, the topic has turned away from its peaceful discussion intent and has ended up like this.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 25 2004 at 16:27

[akuma_forever]

personally, i don't believe in evolution.

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

Now look at that post. Is there any scientific debate material that can be used to discuss the topic at hand? No. Is there any evidence to back up his claims? No. All he is saying is the same old usual "I am right and you are wrong" bullcrap that pisses me off. He obviously has nothing intelligent to say in order to contribute to the topic, he's basically spamming and pissing me off, which in turn forces me to interject, sometimes forcibly and angrily. Hence the reason the topic has gone wildly off-course.

Look at the intelligent posts here....me making a statement, and blanka09, among a couple others, respond to it, asking questions, making remarks, etcetera, and I respond. That's how a debate goes. Because of twerps like this kid, who simply makes unbacked claims based on absolutely nothing, the topic has turned away from its peaceful discussion intent and has ended up like this.[/color]
blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....

and stop putting wors in my mouth :angryfire: ...I never said i wsa right and you where wrong...So why if we evolved from so-called apes , there is no next stage for us or for the apes right now..i nkow that you tried giving some proof about what i just asked,... :( but why is it that the apes right now are not as close as us

blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....
That's not scientific proof. Find me a SCIENTIFIC website authored by a SCIENTIST explaining why evolution is false, and it'll be valid debate material. But you claiming that scientists have different views on human evolution, without backing up your claim with sources, isn't valid debate material.

and stop putting wors in my mouth :angryfire: ...I never said i wsa right and you where wrong...So why if we evolved from so-called apes , there is no next stage for us or for the apes right now..i nkow that you tried giving some proof about what i just asked,... :( but why is it that the apes right now are not as close as us

First off, I'm going to state right off the bat that this is THEORY, scientists have yet to prove it, so it's THEORY.

The THEORY is that 5 million years ago, a specie of ape-like creature inhabited the forests and jungles of the land. Due to some sort of schizm....rivalries between males, etc....a large population of them was driven out of the forests and into the plains and grasslands of the world. This exiled group eventually evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, the modern-day human. They evolved and morphed AWAY from the ape-like creatures in appearance and behavior and features because these features were no longer necessary in the grasslands of the world, they were only needed in the jungle and forest situations.

It is speculated that apes did not evolve much farther because they were already at home in their environments. They had already more or less adapted to their homes in the jungles and the trees, and therefore no further change was required (same goes for sharks and alligators and crocodiles....they are virtually unchanged, the same creatures now that existed 70 million years ago.) Virtually all evolutionary biologists and anthropoligists are more or less on the same page about this.

Now you keep saying that there's no next step for humans. This is not true, and I said that this is not true. I said that humans will continue to evolve, just not as much (or at all) physically as we will evolve mentally. I've said this many, many times, and you continue to ask me the same question over and over even after I answer this. No, this is NOT fact, it's theory, and moreover, my theory. I have yet to find any articles written by scientists on the subject of FUTURE human evolution, and therefore do not know what actual scientists believe.

[TarkanX]

I don't want to change the topic that much, but this might be an interesting read... (I posted this at Shoryuken.com, but it barely got any hits).





"I was having a good debate with my friend, and I commented that if we were able to "evolve" like the mutants. What I found out were a few different solutions.

1: We use 10% of our Brains

2: We Use all of our brains, just not at the same time.


(1) is wrong, any neurologist with a Ph. D. will tell you that, if we used just 10% of our brains, we wouldn't be able to speak, move, hear, think or even remember.

So (2) must be right, although we use all of our brains, we don't use it at the same time, or else that would cause some serious effects (brain damage, or even stroke).

Although we are the smartest living species in the world, our brain has some flaws, memory for example. Usually when we remember something, that memory depends on how motivated we are to remember it. If we don't care about that memory, then we'll forget it, and the statements of "Memory always stays in the brain, it's all just dormant" is false. Once that memory has been used and you don't have any purpose of remembering that memory, it fades away.

Another thing about the brain is that each function of the body has different neurons (brain cells) that are used for body functions, so if I cut off my leg, I would become smarter. How? Because the brain cells that are used for that leg serve no purpose anymore, so they go to other parts of the brain, depending on which brain gets it (So it's like hungry-hungry hippo).

One thing that I have wondered about is telekinesis. How people are able to bend spoons using the mind, tap into the dead, or read minds. Is it fake or is it real? If it is real, how much potential are we able to achieve? Will humans one day be able to lift up televisions and whirl them around in circles using the mind? Will we be able to manipulate fire just by thinking about it? How much untapped potential does the brain have?

Another topic of discussion is what the perfect body physique is. What is the perfect height and the perfect weight to complement the height? (Certainly it's not someone who's not 4 feet tall or someone that's overweight). And will we someday be able to have an immune system so well designed, that any disease, virus, or a bacterium that tries to attack it will be cast out of the way like Thanos vs. a crippled person? Although this might seem so, each time our immune system gets stronger, ####acteria strains always come, so will we be forever being competing against bacteria?

Our skin is used to protect the insides of our body, but we know it's not that tough, so will we be able to one day have skin as tough as diamond? Will our bones be so strong that it will never become sore or break? Will our eyes be so clear that we'll be able to see all the bacteria surfacing around the air? How fast will be able to run, how high will we be able to jump? How far can we hear and smell? Do we even have to eat? Post your opinions."


By the way Joe, I have to research more with how much brain power we use. I've gotten into a debate with my dad who says we don't use all of it, and my psychology professor who says we do.


My Dads point of view says that if we used all of our brain power (as the psychologists say), we wouldn't be able to learn as much as we do now, and we would be limited in what we learn. If we were at 100%, we would be able to do amazing things like not being able to forget, being able to calculate faster than a computer, and being able to use telekinesis (psychic powers as in being able to read thoughts and being able to move objects, manipulate energy, etc...)

My Professors point of view says that we use all of out brain power, but not at the same time, that the "10% brain power" is a myth. When I asked her about the spoon bending using the mind, being able to contact the dead, and if we can be able to move objects using the mind, she said that spoon bending wasn't real (a gimmick), being able to contact the dead (Ala John Edwards) is done by putting wire transmitters in his ears, and someone away from the set would talk into the transmitters. And being able to move objects with the mind simply won't be done.

I'm planning on calling a Neurologist (with a Ph. D. of course) to see how much brain power we exactly use. and if anyone here can help out, it would be an excellent piece for debating.

[m0u5y]

omg repetition... its so.. repetitive! but really, you know you only show that you know something by admitting you know nothing.

TarkanX
Although we are the smartest living species in the world, our brain has some flaws, memory for example. Usually when we remember something, that memory depends on how motivated we are to remember it. If we don't care about that memory, then we'll forget it, and the statements of "Memory always stays in the brain, it's all just dormant" is false. Once that memory has been used and you don't have any purpose of remembering that memory, it fades away.

[color=green]Lol I don't mind the topic being changed slightly like this....at least it would be an actual discussion instead of n

[vx_unicom]

blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....
That's not scientific proof. Find me a SCIENTIFIC website authored by a SCIENTIST explaining why evolution is false, and it'll be valid debate material. But you claiming that scientists have different views on human evolution, without backing up your claim with sources, isn't valid debate material.

and stop putting wors in my mouth :angryfire: ...I never said i wsa right and you where wrong...So why if we evolved from so-called apes , there is no next stage for us or for the apes right now..i nkow that you tried giving some proof about what i just asked,... :( but why is it that the apes right now are not as close as us

First off, I'm going to state right off the bat that this is THEORY, scientists have yet to prove it, so it's THEORY.

The THEORY is that 5 million years ago, a specie of ape-like creature inhabited the forests and jungles of the land. Due to some sort of schizm....rivalries between males, etc....a large population of them was driven out of the forests and into the plains and grasslands of the world. This exiled group eventually evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, the modern-day human. They evolved and morphed AWAY from the ape-like creatures in appearance and behavior and features because these features were no longer necessary in the grasslands of the world, they were only needed in the jungle and forest situations.

It is speculated that apes did not evolve much farther because they were already at home in their environments. They had already more or less adapted to their homes in the jungles and the trees, and therefore no further change was required (same goes for sharks and alligators and crocodiles....they are virtually unchanged, the same creatures now that existed 70 million years ago.) Virtually all evolutionary biologists and anthropoligists are more or less on the same page about this.

Now you keep saying that there's no next step for humans. This is not true, and I said that this is not true. I said that humans will continue to evolve, just not as much (or at all) physically as we will evolve mentally. I've said this many, many times, and you continue to ask me the same question over and over even after I answer this. No, this is NOT fact, it's theory, and moreover, my theory. I have yet to find any articles written by scientists on the subject of FUTURE human evolution, and therefore do not know what actual scientists believe.
JOE even u should be able to understand that not all scientist have the same point view towards evolution, proof isn't really necessary but if youwant it that badly!!!...then i will prove it to you. Even though ur backing ur claims JOE it doesn't mean that all scientist agree with the kind of proofur talking about. I assure u that not all scientist agree that there is human evolution. ???

JOE even u should be able to understand that not all scientist have the same point view towards evolution, proof isn't really necessary but if youwant it that badly!!!...then i will prove it to you. Even though ur backing ur claims JOE it doesn't mean that all scientist agree with the kind of proofur talking about. I assure u that not all scientist agree that there is human evolution. ???
Yes, I know what you're saying.

However, the ONLY theory I've ever heard of concerning the development of mankind is the theory of human evolution. If other scientists had their own theories on human development, then they most likely would have been published already, and I would have already read about them. But I've only EVER heard two theories on human development:

-Religious creation
-Human Evolution

Aside from those two, I havn't heard anything else. So yes, I'm aware that some scientists don't agree with it, but due to the fact that I've never heard any other theories, I can make the assumption that that number of scientists is a strict minority.

So if you'd like, you can go search for various other theories of human development, and I'll be glad to discuss and/or debate them.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 26 2004 at 11:07

[TarkanX]

Really? I was always under the impression that even if you cannot consciously recall a memory, that all memories are stored in the subconscious. Thus the idea of hypnotherapy.....when one cannot conjure a memory no matter how hard they try, that hypnosis could pry into the subconscious and bring the memory forward. I could be mistaken, but if that was the case then hypnotherapy would indeed make sense, and that's what I've been told over the years.


Well, if you use hypnosis, then yes, you can recover the forgotten memories, but memory by itself (without the use of hypnosis) is sort of like that disease (where memory detirirorates(sp?)) Once the memory starts to fade, it's hard to get back, unless there is some medication for it.

But it's hard to bring back memories of people in their first 2 years of their life, especially when they aren't challenge/challeneged enough in any fundamental study. It's hard to say exactly how much of the subconscious we use though, and what it exactly is.



You ever see that chart at the doctor's office? The one that determines if someone is overweight going by a height/weight ratio (called BMI...Body Mass Index)? According to that chart, both Dave Batista and Mark Calloway are horribly overweight, yet their body fat ratios are maybe 15% and under (20% body fat is considered borderline overweight). I myself am 6'0" and weigh 220 lbs....according to my BMI, I am considered to be "obese." However, according to my body fat ratio, I am 22% body fat....my ideal body weight would be 211 lbs. However, according to BMI, I would still be borderline overweight, which makes no sense. So I don't think we're anywhere near coming close to being able to determine a perfect height/weight ratio, due to varrying physiques and physical performance abilities.


Yeah, those charts count usually the average weight for that respective height. So basically, a very healthy weightlifter would be considered overweight and possibly even obese (for some reason, I don't know). And even though Tight Ends are healthier than most of the people with a height to mass ratio that follows the chart, they are still classified as unhealthy. They should probably negate the chart as a whole, and put an asterisk so people won't have to be confused about it.


[quote]Most likely, unless whatever gene that controls the strength of our immune system is altered...either via natural evolution or scientific experiments. The reasons these ####acterias continue to plague us is because of the fact that our immune systems are becoming stronger. Therefore, the bacteria and viruses continue to mutate and evolve to try and get around our defenses. So unless we can create a perfect immune system (kind of like wolver

[blanka09]

Bravo ppl bravo... reading the posts here.. all I can say is, this is going to be interesting..

Okay.. from Joe

I believe so. Personally, telekinesis and more importantly, telepathy, have always intrigued me, even before *-men. I remember reading Stephen King's "Firestarter" and saying to myself "wow, that girl can start fires just by thinking about it. That's so cool." Personally, I believe that telepathy and telekinesis are indeed possible mental abilities that humans may be able to acquire in the future via evolution/morphological changes. I've heard theories that say that SOME scientists believe that there is some lobe in the front of the brain that COULD be responsible for telekinetic/pathic potential.

First off, your theory on telepathy is far fetched. Although the human brain has evolved to stunning heights, it would take more than just the physical to get us to a level where psionic abilities can be fully achieved. For telekinesis to become a mental ability you are infact stating that the brain has to reach a level where it can actually communicate with its surroundings. The thought of that alone, not only excites me but makes me shiver.. then again, its possibility is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Why?? It's almost impossible. I say almost because.. with humans.. you never know! :biggrin:

Now think of this.. what is motion.. the movement of a particle.
Newton in his first law of motion stated that a body would continue in its present motion or remain at rest until an external force is acted upon by it. I hope I got that right.. Don't have much time to research on it right now. Anyway, for the brain to habilitate telekinesis and actually produce motion, the so-called untapped potential in our medula oblogota has to be transformed to kinetic energy.. which in turn does not seem possible. However I'm open to criticism.. and if anyone can tell me how on earth or heaven it is possible for us to become psionic or psychic.. so to say.

Our skin is used to protect the insides of our body, but we know it's not that tough, so will we be able to one day have skin as tough as diamond? Will our bones be so strong that it will never become sore or break? Will our eyes be so clear that we'll be able to see all the bacteria surfacing around the air? How fast will be able to run, how high will we be able to jump? How far can we hear and smell? Do we even have to eat? Post your opinions."

I'll refer back to Nantuko's predictions of the past.. You said that our bodies do not need to evolve anymore, for we have developed a sort of equilibrium with our environment and quick evolution doesn't seem plausible.. except a slow and gradual evolution of our cranial.. or better put mental abilities.
If indeed this was a misquote.. I stand corrected.. but I don't for a second think our body would become any stronger than it is due to evolution.. no matter how slow or gradual the process might seem :biggrin:

However on the lad's opinion about the neurons in our brains.. I must say that they are pure fact!
For if you ever come into contact with a blind person... whose blindness wasn't as a result of aging or cell gradual degradation.. but an accident so to say. Then you'll notice that he/she has a keen sense of smell and touch. Thus the neurons responsible for sight have been transferred so to say, to aid the other sensory organs of the human.. as sight is more or less impossible at that time.

In conclusion, I'd like to state that the whole 10% of our brain usage is actually a myth! And indeed we do use all of our brain. But to think?? I think not. The brain is divided into various regions that each have it's own use in the control of the body as a whole. Funny enough, like Tarkan, I've got to do more research in order to save myself the stupidity of posting nothing but logical fallacies :biggrin:

-- nuff said! :biggrin:

TarkanX

Well, if you use hypnosis, then yes, you can recover the forgotten memories, but memory by itself (without the use of hypnosis) is sort of like that disease (where memory detirirorates(sp?)) Once the memory starts to fade, it's hard to get back, unless there is some medication for it.
But it's hard to bring back memories of people in their first 2 years of their life, especially when they aren't challenge/challeneged enough in any fundamental study. It's hard to say exactly how much of the subconscious we use though, and what it exactly is.

Alzheimer's Disease....where the brain undergoes rapid memory loss. However, I don't believe that a memory can simply "fade" or "disappear." They're stored in the subconscious, and that's what gets tapped into with hypnosis. When someone undergoes a traumatic experience and becomes "afflicted" with amnesia, his or her memories do not "fade away," but fade out of the conscious. The only way to recover it would be either time or hypnosis. It wouldn't make sense that memories "fade away," because then that would mean that it would be impossible to remember them. You would have to try and "recreate" the memory, but that's not possible unless some form of mental residue remains in order to rebuild the memory. Therefore, that's why I believe that all memories are stored in the subconscious....whether or not you're "motivated" enough to remember a memory, it's still stored in the subconscious, and can indeed be accessed via various techniques, hypnosis being one of them.

Now I have a question for all of you. presently, Stephen Hawking, is the smartest human. He is handicapped from the neck-down, and I commented on how when the neurons from the body function don't work, they go to another part of the brain (which is one reason why he is so smart), now let's say I make my body not work well (by injection), is this a closer step to the next stage? As you said, Joe, that the next stage is when our physical attributes decline and are mental attributes rise.

That would indeed be what I was talking about, but would not be evolution, as it does not affect the genes or chromosomes. It would be, however a morphological change. You would not be of a different specie of human, but you would merely be different. In other words, it is not a character trait that can be passed on from generation to generation. It would be a next step in a way, but not via evolution.

blanka09
Now think of this.. what is motion.. the movement of a particle.
Newton in his first law of motion stated that a body would continue in its present motion or remain at rest until an external force is acted upon by it. I hope I got that right.. Don't have much time to research on it right now. Anyway, for the brain to habilitate telekinesis and actually produce motion, the so-called untapped potential in our medula oblogota has to be transformed to kinetic energy.. which in turn does not seem possible. However I'm open to criticism.. and if anyone can tell me how on earth or heaven it is possible for us to become psionic or psychic.. so to say.

This is the way I see it:

We are already able to manipulate matter using our physical abilities. My brain sends orders to my arm that makes me lift my arm, extend my hand, and grasp a ball of clay, then I can grip the ball of clay to crush it using my fingers. All are activities of the body controlled by the brain.

Now, my theory is rather sketchy, but it should still make sense. WHAT IF the brain was able to send these types of signals OUTSIDE the body? To create say...a field of energy produced by the brain. So instead of the brain sending a signal to the arm, hand and fingers in order to manipulate an object, the brain sends the signals to the object itself, and the energy is capable of physical contact.

For example, look at Star Wars. When Luke uses the Force, he extends his hand towards the object and concentrates, and the object can be levitated. WHAT IF human telekinesis was similar? That the brain's signals would give an impression on the outside environment that the arm, hand and fingers were longer. Therefore, even though you may not think you're physically touching an object 5 feet away from you, your brain is making it happen by using energy and tricking the environment into "thinking" that it's actually being manipulated.

I'm not quite informed enough to be able to say things that actually make sense, but it's a sketchy theory though.

I'll refer back to Nantuko's predictions of the past.. You said that our bodies do not need to evolve anymore, for we have developed a sort of equilibrium with our environment and quick evolution doesn't seem plausible.. except a slow and gradual evolution of our cranial.. or better put mental abilities.
If indeed this was a misquote.. I stand corrected.. but I don't for a second think our body would become any stronger than it is due to evolution.. no matter how slow or gradual the process might seem

It wasn't a misquote, simply a slight misinterpretation of information. True, that I theorize that physical evolution has slowed, I mean as in an evolution of our body structures. For example, earlier forms of pre-human primates had tails, but they were no longer needed. Therefore, over time, we evolved physical bodies without tails. Now, various physical features such as texture of the skin, enhancement of our five senses, things like that, could indeed be part of human "advancement," simply because they could possibly be results of environmental changes that force our bodies to change. For instance, growing amounts of pollution may cause our lungs to change in order to become better filters of the air around us. The changes will be morphological at first, but may end up evolving into genetic traits that can be passed on to create a better form of human being.

We havn't FULLY adapted to our environment, I apologize for not elaborating on that. For the MOST PART we have, but there are still aspects of our environment that are harmful and we are not used to, that could still warrant slight physical changes to our anatomy in order to adapt.

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

Yo joe....if you really look at this the way im looking ??? we are both right and we are both wrong...Well really i dont believe in evolution...

Anyway what im trying to say is that some scientist's say that there was evolution and some say there was'nt.so your taking side on those who agree and im on those who are saying there was not evolution...so we will keep talking about this and no one will win....... :alien:

[blanka09]

Now, my theory is rather sketchy, but it should still make sense. WHAT IF the brain was able to send these types of signals OUTSIDE the body? To create say...a field of energy produced by the brain. So instead of the brain sending a signal to the arm, hand and fingers in order to manipulate an object, the brain sends the signals to the object itself, and the energy is capable of physical contact

Well, since you kindly stated that your theory was sketchy, I wouldn't term it as a logical fallacy.. as I usually do.. *cougH* .. but I can read a little bit of sense to your theory. But this is the way I see it. You said that if the brain could send these signals outside the body... but you forget one thing my friend.. Theses signals aren't the air. There are neurons that carry these signals that the brain uses to control the body to the arm and other parts of the body. These neurons are in fact matter.. they have weight and occupy space.. thus, they cannot be transferred from inside the body to outside the body.

The brain is a very special organ that it is... but it's abilities are limited. What it does, is work in a mechanical manner. The only thing that differentiates us as humans from machines is the ability to make sometimes.. stupid decisions. A machine.. wouldn't say.. if it could drive, want to cross a red light; except it has been programeed otherwhise. But as a human might be in a hurry and would want to run it... and would try as much as possible to do that. Thus our brain is in our will.. There are in fact voluntary and involuntary actions that our brains perform and the voluntary ones are way more than the involuntary ones.. Thus I'd have to conclude that if the human body as a whole reaches the level of telepathy or ever has psionic abilities (i love that word.. :biggrin: ) then the brain wouldn't be the focal organ that would control it.

Therefore, even though you may not think you're physically touching an object 5 feet away from you, your brain is making it happen by using energy and tricking the environment into "thinking" that it's actually being manipulated.


Forgive me if I attack ur theories head on like it's something to be proven soon.. but I just don't see that happening.. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.. but it can be transferred from one form to another.. First law of thermodynamics.. now there has to be a permeable or non permeable tract for energy to be converted.. It can't just go from one point to another the way you've described it. You talk of the untapped potential energy of the brain... well fine. I don't know what inside this block head of mine.. but even if there is potential energy.. How on earth or even jupiter would it be transferred to kinetic energy. You can manipulate urself into thinking that the object would move.. but according to Newton's first law of motion.. that object would remain in its state of Inertia!

We havn't FULLY adapted to our environment, I apologize for not elaborating on that. For the MOST PART we have, but there are still aspects of our environment that are harmful and we are not used to, that could still warrant slight physical changes to our anatomy in order to adapt

True.. but so is the shark and the whale. They aren't living the perfect life.. so to say in the ocean.. Sure they're well adapted.. there are still somethings that'll hurt them.. that doesn't mean they'll evolve again. Who knows.. maybe the body wasn't made to reach perfection.. We might have gone far and evolved much.. but what if we weren't supposed to be perfect. Also note the fact that the environment is a parameter that defines at what level the body would work or evolve.. optimum effeciency so to say.. and with the ever changing environment we live in.. it's hard to note what kind of evolving our body would go through in order to counter that sort of change. :biggrin:

-- may the biggrin be with you. :biggrin:

--nuff said! :biggrin:

[TarkanX]

I found some good info about the brain on these websites, especially howstuffworks.com (the most reliable info website there is).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hypnosis.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/esp.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/brain.htm

http://www.techtv.com/bigthin....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/bigthinkers/features/story/0,23008,2437213,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/features/story/0,24330,3406020,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/answerstips/story/0,24330,2313825,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/opinion/story/0,24330,3628383,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3629410,00.html)



Edited By TarkanX on Mar. 27 2004 at 03:01

[TarkanX]

Here's another article about what the future will be

http://web.media.mit.edu/ minsky/papers/sciam.inherit.html

Edit: Some more (This gets even better and better)


http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html



Edited By TarkanX on Mar. 27 2004 at 03:32

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

I found some good info about the brain on these websites, especially howstuffworks.com (the most reliable info website there is).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hypnosis.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/esp.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/brain.htm

http://www.techtv.com/bigthin....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/bigthinkers/features/story/0,23008,2437213,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/features/story/0,24330,3406020,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/answerstips/story/0,24330,2313825,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/opinion/story/0,24330,3628383,00.html)

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3629410,00.html)
what does the brain have to do with this topic..?!?! ???

Shinku Ryu
Anyway what im trying to say is that some scientist's say that there was evolution and some say there was'nt.so your taking side on those who agree and im on those who are saying there was not evolution...so we will keep talking about this and no one will win.......

And like I said.....find me some other SCIENTIFIC theories of how human beings developed over millions of years, or some other SCIENTIFIC article on human advancement.

blanka09
Well, since you kindly stated that your theory was sketchy, I wouldn't term it as a logical fallacy.. as I usually do.. *cougH* .. but I can read a little bit of sense to your theory. But this is the way I see it. You said that if the brain could send these signals outside the body... but you forget one thing my friend.. Theses signals aren't the air. There are neurons that carry these signals that the brain uses to control the body to the arm and other parts of the body. These neurons are in fact matter.. they have weight and occupy space.. thus, they cannot be transferred from inside the body to outside the body.

Good point....I've gotta stop making these debate posts at 3 in the morning......

I'll have to think up of some new way to argue my point now.....damn you *shakes fist*

Forgive me if I attack ur theories head on like it's something to be proven soon.. but I just don't see that happening.. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.. but it can be transferred from one form to another.. First law of thermodynamics.. now there has to be a permeable or non permeable tract for energy to be converted.. It can't just go from one point to another the way you've described it. You talk of the untapped potential energy of the brain... well fine. I don't know what inside this block head of mine.. but even if there is potential energy.. How on earth or even jupiter would it be transferred to kinetic energy. You can manipulate urself into thinking that the object would move.. but according to Newton's first law of motion.. that object would remain in its state of Inertia!

I'm not sure how well this would apply, but here goes:

I've heard a couple stories of people who have been admitted to hospitals due to slash marks on their arms and bodies. They were mentally unstable....not to the point of being completely psycho, but a simple instability in the brain....and were claiming that they were being attacked by invisible forces. After doing a psychoanalysis, EEG (or whatever brainscans they did), they determined that there was no "invisible forces." What had happened was that the "victim" believed that he was being attacked to such a degree that the brain actually believed it too, and therefore CAUSED the slash wounds to open on their own, with no outside interference. The brain was tricked into thinking that some invisible force with a knife was attacking, and therefore the body responded as though it was actually happening....the brain caused the body to think that a knife was sliding across the skin, and in turn, the skin sliced open and bled. In The Exorcist, when the words "help me" appeared on the girl's stomach, they said that the brain has the ability to manipulate the body in strange ways....and attacked the idea of her being possessed by saying that the brain could have been TRICKED into thinking that she was possessed and was trying to call for help, and therefore the skin reacted in such a way as to raise up in the form of letters....I will have to try to find more sources on this but I do remember hearing reports of this.

Either way, the premise for my theory is that the brain might be able to manipulate the energy around an object to "trick" the object into "thinking" that it's being manipulated. Just as the brain tricked the skin of the body into thinking it was being sliced open, the brain could possibly "trick" the environment around it, and make the object "think" that it's being lifted up by an outside force, and therefore have the object float in the air, being manipulated by the brain's.....persuasiveness.

True.. but so is the shark and the whale. They aren't living the perfect life.. so to say in the ocean.. Sure they're well adapted.. there are still somethings that'll hurt them.. that doesn't mean they'll evolve again. Who knows.. maybe the body wasn't made to reach perfection.. We might have gone far and evolved much.. but what if we weren't supposed to be perfect. Also note the fact that the environment is a parameter that defines at what level the body would work or evolve.. optimum effeciency so to say.. and with the ever changing environment we live in.. it's hard to note what kind of evolving our body would go through in order to counter that sort of change

Sharks and alligators/crocodiles have remained virtually unchanged for a few hundred million years....it is speculated that they have already reached the pinnacle of their evolutionary status, and have become perfectly adapt to their current environments. Now, there are still things that could harm them, but they are perfectly evolved in order to perform their tasks....hunting. They are the perfect hunters in their environments. Whales, let's say, are the perfect large herbivores....because they have no natural defense mechanisms for themselves (no teeth [Sans the killer whale, really], no method of self defense), they evolved to be very large, and travel in packs usually....thus making it difficult for other sea predators to try and kill them.

Naturally, no creature could possibly evolve to the point where they are completely invulnerable to any and all forms of harm, because that would throw off the balance of natural selection, the food chain, etc. If all fish evolved very tough, shell-like skin equipped with sharp poisonous spines, then it would completely throw off the food chain for all animals above it.

Now, all animals alter their environment in some ways...animal feces on the ground act as fertilizers for plants. Animals use up oxygen and replace it with carbon dioxide, and plants take up carbon dioxide and replace it with oxygen. However, humans are the only creatures that alter our environments to the extent that we do. We don't maintain an equillibrium with our surrounding environment like all other creatures do. The human species is actually not unlike a virus, as Agent Smith said in The Matrix:

The Matrix
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively devlops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consudmed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what that is? A virus.

Now, I'm not saying that we're actually viruses, but the Wachowski brothers had a good point when they wrote that bit. Us humans are the only creatures that don't have a natural balance with nature...we are constantly changing it and altering it to suit our own needs. As a result, we are constantly causing new problems over the years....new health hazards, risks, etc. Therefore, we need to continue to change in order to survive these risks and problems that we are constantly placing on ourselves. Therefore, our forced evolution might be on a different scale than the rest of the natural world, which doesn't act in such a way as we do.

Shinku Ryu
what does the brain have to do with this topic..?!?!

Becuase one of my theories was that human beings will continue to evolve, but with an emphasis on the mental state. Therefore, if we can understand exactly how the brain works and its highest potential and untapped ability, we may be able to predict the next step in human mental evolution.

[Roll]

This is probably an illusive question to ask while you are all talking of evolution from the past to the present, and their effects... but what about devolution? Is there a chance of devolution happening to humans, or other animals, or organisms of some type? Or is it just a horrid fantasy made into sci-fi movies for thrills and chills?



Edited By Roll on Mar. 27 2004 at 01:59

it's a myth

[Roll]

That.... doesn't truly answer the question. However, I suppose that's the only answer I can get at this time, isn't it? And, at the very least, it was simply put. Habakarisama, gurachemasu.

How is that "physical evidence without flaw?" It's simply a passage from the bible. That's NOT "physical evidence without flaw."

You ARE turning this back into a religious debate....I'm going to get a mod to delete that post, considering it had NOTHING to do with the scientific theory of human evolution.

[blanka09]

Um.. Kester, I have to agree with Nantuko on this one.. even though I believe as much as you do, we've been told to keep this topic totally unreligious ..

Now.. where do I start.. :biggrin:


Good point....I've gotta stop making these debate posts at 3 in the morning......

I'll have to think up of some new way to argue my point now.....damn you *shakes fist*


OH yeah.. me too, me too... Mine's usually at 2.30 am :biggrin:


....not to the point of being completely psycho, but a simple instability in the brain....and were claiming that they were being attacked by invisible forces. After doing a psychoanalysis, EEG (or whatever brainscans they did), they determined that there was no "invisible forces." What had happened was that the "victim" believed that he was being attacked to such a degree that the brain actually believed it too, and therefore CAUSED the slash wounds to open on their own, with no outside interference. The brain was tricked into thinking that some invisible force with a knife was attacking, and therefore the body responded as though it was actually happening....the brain caused the body to think that a knife was sliding across the skin, and in turn, the skin sliced open and bled

However true that is, I haven't really studied on the topic of
psychoanalysis and although I haven't heard of those special brain cases, so I don't have anything against them.. But you said that the the brain tricked the body into thinking a knife was attacking and caused the skin to slice open and bleed. Now take a look at that statement and the concept of being psychic.
The brain can "trick" the body into thinking something simply because it is in control of basically all the cells, organs and systems in the body. Thus it can trick so to say.. the body into doing something. There are various neurones that connect the brain to those systems.. to those organs and to those cells that inturn cause the reaction the skin faces. But for that object outside the body, the brain has no control over them. No matter how it tricked the body into doing something.. There had to be some sorta connection.. Some sorta message from the brain to that body part that would have reacted in that way.
But in the case of the stone or the other object, the brain has no connection with that object .. so it cannot move the object.

Take for instance I want to move a stone with my brain and Joe wants to move that same stone with his brain.. Which would move.. what would happen?? What would the poor stone do? :biggrin:

Now if you notice... I didn't take any of the quotes from the movies because they're not real.. but movies. Anyway, I like that Matrix quote. :biggrin:

[Angel-Eyes]

Um.. Kester, I have to agree with Nantuko on this one.. even though I believe as much as you do, we've been told to keep this topic totally unreligious ..
as long as i can get my point across to sombody.......

i dont see how shauku doesnt understand that what i presented was physical records from when the earth was created. its so simple



Edited By kester- on Mar. 30 2004 at 08:11

[blanka09]

Kester.. those aren't physical evidences but records from the Bible. There aren't any physical evidence that show that God walked upon the earth... for He is spirit.

And it would be very wise if we stop going through the religious route or this topic would be closed.. :biggrin:



Edited By blanka09 on Mar. 30 2004 at 12:34

[Angel-Eyes]

Kester.. those aren't physical evidences but records from the Bible. There aren't any physical evidence that show that God walked upon the earth... for He is spirit.

And it would be very wise if we stop going through the religious route or this topic would be closed.. :biggrin:
i disagree, but i get your drift, ill stop

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

religion....science. ??? if youask me religion makes more sense.and natuku joe wants scientific proof and scientific evidence both at the same time..?!? :angryfire:

if youask me, this topic is usseless :buttrock:

kester_
as long as i can get my point across to sombody.......
i dont see how shauku doesnt understand that what i presented was physical records from when the earth was created. its so simple

What you presented was a passage from a book written by a man. That is not a "physical record[s] from when the earth was created." It's a book written by a man that christians/catholics/protestants/roman catholics/byzantine catholics/methodists/protestants/lutherans BELIEVE is the word of god, but when it comes down to it, it's a book written by a man.

I could go take J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion and say THAT is "physical records from when the earth was created." And going by your logic, you can't say jack. So enough with this religion stuff.

Like I said, you want to talk about religion, then you can create your own topic.

Shinku Ryu
religion....science. if youask me religion makes more sense.and natuku joe wants scientific proof and scientific evidence both at the same time..?!?
if youask me, this topic is usseless

If you ask me, YOU are useless.

Scientific proof IS scientific evidence, so yes, it makes perfect sense that I want both at the same time. If you provide enough evidence about something, it may eventually be proven true.

And you say that religion makes more sense than science. What religion? Catholic? Christian? Greek? Greek Orthodox? Greek mythology? Shinto? Conflipianism? Aztec? Santarian? Mesopotamian? Roman mythology? One of a thousand other religions?

Don't bother answering that, I was just pointing out that you didn't specify at all about "religion," and giving you an example that there are many out there.

But as blanka said, no more religious stuff, or the topic will be closed.



Now, as far as the topic itself goes....I'm still trying to figure out a way to argue for telepathic/telekinetic abilities. I remember that a scientific explanation was given at the end of Phenomenon. Though I know that it is indeed a movie and not real, the explanation sounded scientific enough....I'll have to go re-watch the explanations for telepathic/telekinetic abilities in both Phenomenon and Powder, they both made perfect sense, and although the content of the rest of the movie was fiction, the scientific theory was in fact solid.

[blanka09]

Well.. if the theory was in fact scientific.. go ahead and get re enforce.. I'm still going to be skeptic about the opinion that the brain might in fact get telekinetic or telepathic abilities.. without involving the mind. :biggrin:

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

ok ppl...!!no more talking about the human brain......and wats the point of argueing about science without religion...?!! ???

[Roll]

It is called "learning", and it's something you should try to do, especially after being told something time, after time, after time. This thread does not need any posts like yours in it. Either leave this topic completely, or I'll be sure that you recieve punishment for your continuous interference and spam.

[azncat]

the human brain controls your body...wait isnt this supposed to be about religon?

No, it's NOT supposed to be about religion. It's supposed to be a SCIENTIFIC debate about human evolution....in this case, talking about the brain's abilities and possible telepathic/telekinetic/mental evolutionary paths for human beings in the future.

The only reason religion continues to be brought up is because kester_ and Shinku Ryu keep insisting that the bible is scientific proof, when all it is is factless faith.

[vx_unicom]

It is called "learning", and it's something you should try to do, especially after being told something time, after time, after time. This thread does not need any posts like yours in it. Either leave this topic completely, or I'll be sure that you recieve punishment for your continuous interference and spam.
Roll plz.......!!!!Stop threatning PPL, he's just implying that this topic has nothing to do with brains. This Topic is about Human Evolution By the way your off Topic too Roll by not debating the issue but trying to act tough for a girl ??? You might have priviledges that some members don't but just Give it a rest........A mod or Admin will deal with spammers and so forth!!!



Edited By vx_unicom on April 04 2004 at 11:27

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

It is called "learning", and it's something you should try to do, especially after being told something time, after time, after time. This thread does not need any posts like yours in it. Either leave this topic completely, or I'll be sure that you recieve punishment for your continuous interference and spam.
yo roll,vx is right..!! :angryfire: stop acting like ur a mod... ??? ........

First of all i was not spamming,...and i was right cause this topic is about evolution,...cough..dont believe in,.. and ppl are talking about how much we use the brain.!?!?Your the only person who is spaming in this topic....

No, YOU'RE the only person spamming this topic.

The current discussion on the brain, if you've actually been READING, is about possible evolutionary paths for human beings....not on a physiological level, but on a MENTAL level. Mental involving the brain, the brain being the new subject matter.

YOU are the one that keeps posting saying evolution is wrong and this and that and the other thing, and it's YOU that's spamming.

No, I may not be a mod, and Roll may not be a mod, but I can EASILY get a mod to look over the last couple pages of your stupid spam and then THEY could decide what's spam and what's not.

[blanka09]

No, YOU'RE the only person spamming this topic.

The current discussion on the brain, if you've actually been READING, is about possible evolutionary paths for human beings....not on a physiological level, but on a MENTAL level. Mental involving the brain, the brain being the new subject matter.

YOU are the one that keeps posting saying evolution is wrong and this and that and the other thing, and it's YOU that's spamming.

No, I may not be a mod, and Roll may not be a mod, but I can EASILY get a mod to look over the last couple pages of your stupid spam and then THEY could decide what's spam and what's not.
Well said.. and I'll appreciate it if this topic returns to its earlier form of knowledge, intrigue and me having 1 point to Nantuko's 0 :biggrin:



Edited By blanka09 on April 05 2004 at 10:22

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

Now lets get back to this debate ppl......no spaming/R /N

now Natuku joe u wanted me to give prrof that there is no such thing as evoluton,......fine then.. ??? here is what i have to say

if we have evolved to humans from babbons as u and ur scientist say,...then my question is why are we not changing anymore.I know that you have already answered this question,..im not sure if yousaid evolution has stoped or we are still but what im saying is have we stoped evolving because our brain is the most evolved of them all.... :shocked:

First off, don't say "no spamming/R/N," because neither I nor Roll have been spamming at all...

First off, "[me] and [my] scientist" do NOT say that we evolved from baboons. If you had actually bothered to READ my post, you'd have noticed that I said we evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Chimpanzees, baboons, gorillas....they're all evolved forms of this COMMON ANCESTOR as well, just not as highly evolved as us humans are. We all started out as Ardipithicus ramidus and then evolved from THAT, taking two separate evolutionary paths along the way.

You continue to ask me the question "why are we not changing anymore," which I have answered over and over. I have said that is not a true statement, nor even accurate. It's possible that we've stopped evolving, as you are claiming, or it's MORE LIKELY that we still are, we just don't see it yet.

http://home.graffiti.net/nantuko/evolution2.jpg

Look at the chart. Homo sapiens sapiens (us humans) have only existed for about 200 thousand years. Most other forms of hominal life (read: human-like predecessors) existed for between 200 thousand and 1 million years before evolution occurred. If you take the AVERAGE, the AVERAGE is about 500 thousand years between evolutionary steps.

Humans have only been around for 200 thousand years. Your claim that we have "stopped evolving because our brain is the most evolved of them all (most evolved of them all what?)" has no scientific support whatsoever. You can't make the claim that we've stopped evolving because our brains are more evolved than our predecessors, because if you say that, then according to whatever misguided logic you're going by, then we should never have evolved from Australopithecus anamensis to afarensis, because the anamensis had a more highly evolved physique and brain than the COMMON ANCESTOR, the ramidus.

Yes, our brains are more highly evolved than our evolutionary predecessors. Is that proof, or even evidence, that there is no higher evolutionary "next step?" NO!

Our brains may be more highly evolved than our previous evolutionary forms, but they're still FAR from perfect. Look at alligators, crocodiles and sharks....they've remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years. THAT is evolutionary perfection, or as close as it'll get. To say that humans are no longer evolving becuase we havn't seen change in 200 thousand years when there are other creatures who have remained unchanged for 100 MILLION years is an unbacked, unsupported, and unintelligent claim.

[TarkanX]

I got the info, we don't use 10% of our brain.

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

I see this topic is still functioning..... ??? well since u ppl want to talk about the brain ill have to say that some ofus cough" cough.,me.....use more than 10% of our brains.... :D