Evolution...?
- Thread starter Boneasse
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, not really. I think the entire arguement is stupid because I don't see the two idealogies as being mutally exclusive unless you want to have a fight for the sake of there being a fight.Nimcha said:Wow...Therumancer said:
I do wonder, are you by any chance a follower of the Intelligent Design movement?
As I've mentioned before, I *AM* a Christian, just not a deeply spiritual one. I consider myself a Christian agnostic, because I believe in the basic tenets of Christianity but don't believe any of the established churches have it "right". I do not believe in the mystical preservation of the bible, making it literally the direct word of god, any more than I believe that The Pope is infallible. I also tend to be a firm believer in science and technological advancement, and that it is our primary tool of understanding and manipulating the universe irregardless of whether there is a god. As such most arguements that pit dogma (ie this bit of science can't be true because it contridicts something in The Bible, or other religious text, and if it seems to be true it must be a test of faith) against science have me clearly taking the side of science.
I say the attitudes are not directly contridictory because nothing prevents a higher being from having creaed reality. Certain existential questions about how something can come from nothing and the like are things science cannot so far address. In the end any conflict here is largely against specific dogmas and religious texts, rather than the basic concepts themselves.
What's more "intelligent design" can also mean a lot of things besides the intervention of a divine being, although that is the battle that usually takes place. Theories can be expressed about humanity say being seeded on earth by aliens or whatever. Science has already shown just through our limited experimentation with genetic engineering that it is possible to create new life forms (even if we aren't to the point of creating new animals outright yet), we know it's possible to fly spaceships out there (Space Shuttles, and also the simple fact that we know we can already get to mars if we want to, we will probably be capable of far more if we work at it). With time it's pretty obvious we could fly a ship to another planet, drop a custom-designed organism there, and leave. Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me (and understand I'm not saying that happened), but it does mean that "intelligence design" as a general concept can't be entirely dismissed even by science.
That said, it's pretty obvious people do evolve (as I pointed out in my original post), right along with other forms of life. It's just very slowly. Evolution is an undeniable fact. On the other hand as many people will tell you, we have yet to ever objectively prove a clear course of human evolution (the monkey to man thing), despite claims by some obssesives to the contrary, we have yet to find "The Missing Link", or actually what would be several of them, to tie that path of evolution together. I'm not saying it won't happen, but "The Missing Link" is infamous because it would be the smoking gun to prove humanity evolved here (which is probably the case), but so far it hasn't occured. Most such discoveries (like Peking Man) are proven to be fakes if they are objectively examined by enough skeptics.
I am however not going to ramble on about my spiritual beliefs as far as they go, because they are more or less irrelevent here.
Truthfully though, I wonder why you would ask this question when my entire arguement is based around science and logic, and I myself said that I feel there is nothing inherantly magical about people. Quite the opposite, what I was saying is that most of what we do and even think can ultimatly be traced back to instinct, and chemical and electrical impulses.
Now granted, SOME of what I was saying is fringe science, but some parts of it also aren't, they just aren't widely discussed.
buterfrees and beedrill don't count, try wvolving something badass like a tyranitar or a salamanceThePostalDude said:
Alright, thanks for the explanation. My reason for asking is quite simple, most of your ramblings seemed to border on the intelligent design dogma. Mostly because of your wording, perhaps. It seemed like you were postulating evolution has a purpose, or meaning.Therumancer said:
As an aside, 'fringe science' does not exist. Something is either scientific or it isn't. I'm sorry to tell you that most of your post is unscientific, but then again so is most of this thread.
Also, the thing about the 'missing link'? It's not needed. Human evolution has been pretty much mapped out without it. No real doubt anymore there.
Let's face it - evolution is a long process of selection. We're screwing that up by making medicines etc etc, allowing more people to survive (no matter the conditions), it's like we're sticking a giant middle finger to evolution.
Eventually anything could happen, but since the driving force is survival, "evolution" will fall apart. There could be people too weak to exist in a normal enviroment, or equally people who are extremely powerful but that consume so much energy they otherwise wouldn't be able to exist.
Eventually anything could happen, but since the driving force is survival, "evolution" will fall apart. There could be people too weak to exist in a normal enviroment, or equally people who are extremely powerful but that consume so much energy they otherwise wouldn't be able to exist.
logically the ability to breath carbon dioxide because genes have a habit of creating a mutation needed for a species e.g. rats that are resistant to poison. and with the increase of carbon that might happen and the carbon breathers will be able to continue living as we destroy the planet. also we will properly be able to handle hotter climates as well as those who can't will die and won't be able breed so their genes won't pass on.Boneasse said:
we're de-evolving ... have you turned on the television? look at society!
if intelligent people are going to procreate and keep their children out of society there might be a push toward deepening our minds ... Inception-type progress. stature changes don't seem likely.
if intelligent people are going to procreate and keep their children out of society there might be a push toward deepening our minds ... Inception-type progress. stature changes don't seem likely.
Honestly, I think it would be almost all aesthetics, like less ability to develop/hold onto fat cells, nicer faces, and less body hair. Basically, the things that get you laid in modern society. It will still take thousands of years, and is completely dependent on the ugly people not spawning, AND the standard of beauty not changing.
We'll be the exact same as we are now, perhaps with less vulnerability to cancer.Boneasse said:
We are going to evolve
step two-nuke island
step 3- EVOLUTION
step one- push all ugly, fat, and hairy people onto an islandApocalyptic-Bob said:
step two-nuke island
step 3- EVOLUTION
Nimcha said:Alright, thanks for the explanation. My reason for asking is quite simple, most of your ramblings seemed to border on the intelligent design dogma. Mostly because of your wording, perhaps. It seemed like you were postulating evolution has a purpose, or meaning.Therumancer said:
As an aside, 'fringe science' does not exist. Something is either scientific or it isn't. I'm sorry to tell you that most of your post is unscientific, but then again so is most of this thread.
Well, I tend to cover all bases when I post, hence why my posts get so long and rambling. Something I haven't been able to get around when conveying a lot of information.
I disagree with you about "The Missing Link", simply put because without such remains any "mapping" of human evolution is just a theory. We have been able to prove evolution in general by finding remains of a lot of differant animals and showing how they evolved step by step over a period of millions of years. Humans are however conspicuously absent from this however. Just because I point this out doesn't mean that I don't think one will never be found, I'm just saying that neither side of the arguement can actually prove anything to anyone who isn't already pre-disposed to agree with them.
As I said, I ultimatly take neither side of the debate, as I feel the whole thing is stupid.
"Fringe Science" is areas of science that can be proven, but for various reasons have not been commonly accepted by the mainstream. Every once in a while a network like "Discovery" does a show on Fringe scientists who will perform some rather shocking demonstrations of something, but wind up being on the outskirts of the academic community due to politics. Understand that "facts" mean less in the science community than getting published and there are massive "wars" fought not so much over whether or not something is right or wrong, but having it accepted as such because of whose career it can influance. "Fringe science" being called that because it's there, it's part of science, it's within the community, it hasn't been cast out, but it's not something that you are going to find presented to the mainstream or given heavy representation. A lot of things we take for granted now started out as fringe science, and only came into the public consciousness where they are now after long, hard battles. Psychology and Psychiatry, as well as things like Sociology are examples of this. There were times when the main scientific establishment embraced things like Phrenology (the study of bumps in the head), and the people with a vested stake in that had to be overcome for other sciences to replace them.
Very little of what I said isn't science. We understand pheremones, there are practical demonstrations of it when people and animals are castrated and how it destroys their sex drive. The way sex drive and the associated chemicals affects behavior can also be tracked by showing exactly how someone's personality changes when those drives are removed. Indeed one of the big reasons why people will spay or neuter house pets is not so much to prevent breeding, but to lower aggression and wandering-type behavior.
Hypnosis has been proven time and again, and there are people who do it for entertainment as part of magic shows.
Brainwashing is also well documented, as are deprogramming methods and the like. If you read much about real cults and their brainwashing techniques, and what is nessicary to re-assimilate a lot of those people to society it's pretty interesting... and it goes well beyond that.
The point is that what I've said about how the brain works and how it influances personality, and how people can be radically changed and controlled by chemicals, that's just plain science. It's part of psychiatry. People mess around with that stuff every day, and show tangible results. It's just most people don't think about it in a "big picture" kind of way because it's kind of disturbing for people who believe in some kind of inherant individualism to find out exactly how predictable, hardwired, and controllable we actually are. Sociology is even more disturbing on a lot of levels when you get down to it, and we also see practical demonstrations of that nearly every day through things like advertising.
Nothing directly to do with my earlier statement, I'm just saying that I think your being a bit too quick to dismiss what I had to say. I'm guessing because it freaked out out on a certain level. A lot of people react that way to be honest. A lot of what I said tends to elicit the same reactions that you get from people who are offended by the very idea of psychiatry and the fact that people and their personalities/thought processes can be approached successfully as a science.
Our halux (big toe) will gradually shrink, and the third toe will become the longest, due to the shape of shoes.
What? It's happening now, and has been termed new halux (it's a word Spellcheck And so is that!).
Probably not what you were looking for.
What might happen in the future: As we gain the ability to edit genes (hypothetically leading offspring to inherit the edits), there might be groups of humans who branch off with flying humans, photosynthetic humans, merpeople, etc. However, a mutant gene may occur, leading to a bigger/more efficient brain or other body part (ohh...that sounds dirtier than intended) which would allow high survivability, such as maybe not needing to use as much oxygen at a higher atmosphere, leading the changed individuals to survive longer. Man has, and will continue to adapt to their enviornment. Also, it will be a gradual change, (like new halux, the most worthless thing around) not everyone waking up with wings. However, that could be pretty cool.
What? It's happening now, and has been termed new halux (it's a word Spellcheck And so is that!).
Probably not what you were looking for.
What might happen in the future: As we gain the ability to edit genes (hypothetically leading offspring to inherit the edits), there might be groups of humans who branch off with flying humans, photosynthetic humans, merpeople, etc. However, a mutant gene may occur, leading to a bigger/more efficient brain or other body part (ohh...that sounds dirtier than intended) which would allow high survivability, such as maybe not needing to use as much oxygen at a higher atmosphere, leading the changed individuals to survive longer. Man has, and will continue to adapt to their enviornment. Also, it will be a gradual change, (like new halux, the most worthless thing around) not everyone waking up with wings. However, that could be pretty cool.
It's been scientifically proven that behavior has no impact on evolution. Evolution impacts genes or mutation. While a bigger penis may lead to more reproduction=more children with trait, that will lead to evolution as the gene works. But children won't have gigantic hands because they have a father/mother who punched a lot of people.Romidude said:
If anyone wants to read a real interesting position on this, look up Ray Kurzweil. Guys interesting.