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

[(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

[quoteost_uid0="(ShinKu Ryu)"]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[/quote]
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)]

[quoteost_uid4="Shauku"][color=greenost_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![/colorost_uid4]

[quoteost_uid4][iost_uid4]blanka09 said...[/iost_uid4]

Ok.. Let me put it this way.. Humans [bost_uid4]didn't[/bost_uid4] evolve from chimpazees.. cause if they did.. Why didn't the other chimpazees involve??[/quoteost_uid4]

[color=greenost_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)

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 [iost_uid4]homo sapiens[/iost_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.[/colorost_uid4]

[quoteost_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.[/quoteost_uid4]

[color=greenost_uid4]Actually, the origin of present-day humans goes back a little farther than the [iost_uid4]africanus,[/iost_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)
[imgost_uid4]http://home.graffiti.net/nantuko/evolution2.jpg[/imgost_uid4][/colorost_uid4]

[quoteost_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=greenost_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 ([iost_uid4]anamensis[/iost_uid4] to [iost_uid4]afarensis[/iost_uid4], [iost_uid4]afarensis[/iost_uid4] to [iost_uid4]africanus[/iost_uid4], and [iost_uid4]homo erectus[/iost_uid4] briefly overlapped with the existence of both [iost_uid4]Australopithecus robustus[/iost_uid4] and [iost_uid4]Homo habilis[/iost_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 [iost_uid4]homo sapiens[/iost_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, [iost_uid4]homo sapiens[/iost_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.[/colorost_uid4][/quoteost_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)]

[quoteost_uid0="Shauku"]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.[/quote]
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]

[quoteost_uid0="(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[/quote]
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 !