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

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same goes for religions.

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

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

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

No, that's not an accurate statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, what I'm saying is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[akuma_forever]

personally, i don't believe in evolution.

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

[quoteost_uid0="Shauku"]Now look at that post. Is there any scientific debate material that can be used to discuss the topic at hand? No. Is there any evidence to back up his claims? No. All he is saying is the same old usual "I am right and you are wrong" bullcrap that pisses me off. He obviously has nothing intelligent to say in order to contribute to the topic, he's basically spamming and pissing me off, which in turn forces me to interject, sometimes forcibly and angrily. Hence the reason the topic has gone wildly off-course.

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

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

[quoteost_uid0="(ShinKu_Ryu)"]blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....[/quote]
That's not scientific proof. Find me a SCIENTIFIC website authored by a SCIENTIST explaining why evolution is false, and it'll be valid debate material. But you claiming that scientists have different views on human evolution, without backing up your claim with sources, isn't valid debate material.

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

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

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

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

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

[TarkanX]

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





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

1: We use 10% of our Brains

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

[m0u5y]

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

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

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

[vx_unicom]

[quoteost_uid0="Shauku"][quoteost_uid0="(ShinKu Ryu)"]blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....[/quote]
That's not scientific proof. Find me a SCIENTIFIC website authored by a SCIENTIST explaining why evolution is false, and it'll be valid debate material. But you claiming that scientists have different views on human evolution, without backing up your claim with sources, isn't valid debate material.

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

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

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

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

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

[quoteost_uid0="vx unicom"]JOE even u should be able to understand that not all scientist have the same point view towards evolution, proof isn't really necessary but if youwant it that badly!!!...then i will prove it to you. Even though ur backing ur claims JOE it doesn't mean that all scientist agree with the kind of proofur talking about. I assure u that not all scientist agree that there is human evolution. ???[/quote]
Yes, I know what you're saying.

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

-Religious creation
-Human Evolution

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

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



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