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!

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)

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.

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://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

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

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.

[quote:post_uid0="kester-"]dont worry youll get a debate............just let me get my sources and ill be back[/quote]
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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here we go again.... :biggrin:

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.

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: )

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:

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 !

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.

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

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:

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 ...

Now on a side note,

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

"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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"]Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?[/quote]
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

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...

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

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..

--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

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 ?

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

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"]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.[/quote]
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"]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)

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.[/quote]
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

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.

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?

[quote:post_uid0="Roll"]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.

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?[/quote]
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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.