Humans can't evolve.

[cuddly_tomato]

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

Neither has the Big Bang, however most evidences point that way.

Still a lot of problems with both theories. Specifically with regard to evolution is the total lack of transitional fossils, and certain inconsitencies in the theory demonstrated by convergent evolution.

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

What would you consider proof?

The same thing science does - a repeatable experimental process which yields the same or at least similar results for the same set of critera.

 

[willgreg123]

We've been domesticated so physically, no, we have no need to evolve. Maybe if the world went snooker-loopy due to the world getting completely irradiated from nukes, then yeah, we'd evolve to adapt but that's the whole fucking point to evolution, to adapt.

Mentally, we're evolving all the time. Whether it be art, abstract thought, math, science, theory or what have you, we're always evolving. What would we need to physically evolve for, to have an extra arm to hold our coffee while pissing time away in Starbucks pretending to write a book people will give a shit about?

Actually, having another arm would be fucking awesome...

 

[Lukeje]

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

Neither has the Big Bang, however most evidences point that way.

Still a lot of problems with both theories. Specifically with regard to evolution is the total lack of transitional fossils, and certain inconsitencies in the theory demonstrated by convergent evolution.

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

What would you consider proof?

The same thing science does - a repeatable experimental process which yields the same or at least similar results for the same set of critera.

You mean like Mendel's peas?

And what inconsistencies? The theory has been rigorously scientific since Darwin's day.

Also, remember that science doesn't generally throw out theories until a better one comes along; so what's your theory?

 

[Sporky111]

Nobody should have the authority to choose who gets to breed. If this were the case, humanity could theoretically evolve into numerous separate sub-species: Taller, stronger, smarter, more creative, stronger immune system, heightened senses. If someone were to choose the direction of evolution, those not on the leading edge would rebel. Therefore, only some cataclysm or dramatic genetic shift could cause evolution in a noticable way.

 

[willgreg123]

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

What would you consider proof?

Are you fucking kidding me? How about EVERYTHING! How about ALL OF MOTHER NATURE and HUMAN NATURE for that matter. Survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten or what have you. It's not theory, it's scientific fact. Don't get me wrong it's not 100% but that's only because some species exist for different reasons outside of natural selection.

Next I suppose fossils aren't proof that dinosaurs existed either and it's just a huge conspiracy made by some scientists with too much bloody time on their hands.

EDIT: I'm aware I got a little too worked up over that, so don't take it too seriously, I'm sick of this argument.

 

[Fronken]

...if we stop letting people breed with who ever they want rather than who is best for humanity.

Then how the fuck am i supposed to get laid!? :O

 

[willgreg123]

Yup, mankind is pretty much doomed for stagnation and extinction.
At least as long as christianity and socialism is around.

Again, let me point out that this is the time rapid mutations occur. When times are tough, mutations are normally killed off quite rapidly unless they are directly beneficial. Not sure what Christianity has to do with anything though.

Christianity and socialism both praise weakness and pity. There is no natural selection when people claim that everyone with genetic disorders and everyone who failed at life should live long enough to spread their genes and their treatment/social care should be paid for with tax money.
It's a road to nowhere.

And where does the road of natural selection go to?

-bangs head on a wall- I'm leaving this topic before any more nonsense is shoved into my eye holes, peace.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

Neither has the Big Bang, however most evidences point that way.

Still a lot of problems with both theories. Specifically with regard to evolution is the total lack of transitional fossils, and certain inconsitencies in the theory demonstrated by convergent evolution.

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

What would you consider proof?

The same thing science does - a repeatable experimental process which yields the same or at least similar results for the same set of critera.

You mean like Mendel's peas?

Yes, exactly like Mendels peas. But it has to be applied to natural selection rather than genetic inheritance due the dominiance of a particular gene within a pair.

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

Neither has the Big Bang, however most evidences point that way.

Still a lot of problems with both theories. Specifically with regard to evolution is the total lack of transitional fossils, and certain inconsitencies in the theory demonstrated by convergent evolution.

I'm perfectly aware of that. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be too quick about dismissing a theory just because it doesn't have any proof.

You know of another theory that has certain unexplainable discrepancies? The Theory of Gravity. And that was proven a good while ago. Every theory you can imagine off still is updated and edited nowadays, as we evolve and have a better understanding of our surrounding universe we look at our old natural laws and adjust them. :]

You are actually making my point. I don't dismiss the theory, I just don't think it should be treated as fact. Incidentally, the theory of Gravity hasn't been proven and in fact has been revised again. Now they are saying it has to do with geometry of matter and the way it effects time. Look up loop quantum gravity if you are interested, but guaranteed it will make your head spin

 

[Dele]

Who says that we will have limited resources in the future?

Well we are running out of oil pretty fast.....

Do you seriously think oil matters one squat when it comes down to that? Now we have a HUGE number of oil resources so we wont be running out for a while even if most of them are unconventional (costly). When the price of oil rises high enough, the movement to oil-free society starts going forward REALLY fast. We already have the technology for it, just no incentive.

 

[Lukeje]

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

What would you consider proof?

Are you fucking kidding me? How about EVERYTHING! How about ALL OF MOTHER NATURE and HUMAN NATURE for that matter. Survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten or what have you. It's not theory, it's scientific fact. Don't get me wrong it's not 100% but that's only because some species exist for different reasons outside of natural selection.

Next I suppose fossils aren't proof that dinosaurs existed either and it's just a huge conspiracy made by some scientists with too much bloody time on their hands.

EDIT: I'm aware I got a little too worked up over that, so don't take it too seriously, I'm sick of this argument.

Hey, calm down. The best way to end an argument with someone who doesn't 'believe' in evolution is to ask them what they require in terms of proof. Most people don't know what they're talking about when they condemn evolution, and will ignore any proof that you give them. Depending on the answer they give, you see whether its worth continuing the conversation, or just admitting that they'll never see things your way and just walking away.

 

[Lukeje]

Yes, exactly like Mendels peas. But it has to be applied to natural selection rather than genetic inheritance due the dominiance of a particular gene within a pair.

Ahh, you mean like the research they're doing on fruit flies.
Edit: Uchh... sorry, double-post. Thought someone would have posted before me.

 

[Dele]

Yup, mankind is pretty much doomed for stagnation and extinction.
At least as long as christianity and socialism is around.

Again, let me point out that this is the time rapid mutations occur. When times are tough, mutations are normally killed off quite rapidly unless they are directly beneficial. Not sure what Christianity has to do with anything though.

Christianity and socialism both praise weakness and pity. There is no natural selection when people claim that everyone with genetic disorders and everyone who failed at life should live long enough to spread their genes and their treatment/social care should be paid for with tax money.
It's a road to nowhere.

Well, that's a pile of wank if ever I saw any.

You know what it is that Christianity and socialism really have in common? They both, at a fundamental level, believe that we're all in for the long haul together, and therefore we should all look out for each another. What you call praising weakness and pity, I (and I'd like to think most other people) would simply call doing the right thing. Human beings are not solitary animals like tigers or sharks. We made our way out of the caves and into civilisation by banding together and supporting each other. We are social creatures in every way, from the way we raise our families to the way we build our towns and cities.

Christianity does not praise weakness. At its core, it simply encourages its practitioners to show empathy and charity. That is not the same thing, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. It's simply a case of do as you would be done by. If you don't extend any help to the needy and less fortunate, then why should you expect any sympathy if one day you yourself are brought low? When you're living on the streets, scrounging for enough food to make it through the day, I bet those Salvation Army soup stations start to look mighty fine indeed.

We should cooperate and care for each other, but we shouldn't encourage laziness with (excessive) social care and worship submission and humility in churches. We should praise strenght, individuality, knowledge and progress, not safety, obedience, comfort and mediocrity. Organised religion enslaves the mind and socialism cripples the will. Only a free man can achieve something truly great. Or since we are on gaming forum "A man chooses, a slave obeys."
Socialism and Christianity are both ideologies based on the idea of slaves and masters, not cooperating free men.

Amen (pun intended)

 

[willgreg123]

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

What would you consider proof?

Are you fucking kidding me? How about EVERYTHING! How about ALL OF MOTHER NATURE and HUMAN NATURE for that matter. Survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten or what have you. It's not theory, it's scientific fact. Don't get me wrong it's not 100% but that's only because some species exist for different reasons outside of natural selection.

Next I suppose fossils aren't proof that dinosaurs existed either and it's just a huge conspiracy made by some scientists with too much bloody time on their hands.

EDIT: I'm aware I got a little too worked up over that, so don't take it too seriously, I'm sick of this argument.

Hey, calm down. The best way to end an argument with someone who doesn't 'believe' in evolution is to ask them what they require in terms of proof. Most people don't know what they're talking about when they condemn evolution, and will ignore any proof that you give them. Depending on the answer they give, you see whether its worth continuing the conversation, or just admitting that they'll never see things your way and just walking away.

As I admitted, I did get a little too worked up over that remark and I do apologize for it, I'm just sick of something that I thought we had accepted and moved past is constantly being looked back on and put into question, halting new ideas to progress to the point of now it's not even allowed in school cariculum.

Anyhow, that's where I stand and I'm not the kind of arrogant bastard that would try to change people to believe what I believe. Mostly, I just used this topic as an excuse to get out some frustration and I applaud you for being a good sport about it.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Hey, calm down. The best way to end an argument with someone who doesn't 'believe' in evolution is to ask them what they require in terms of proof. Most people don't know what they're talking about when they condemn evolution, and will ignore any proof that you give them. Depending on the answer they give, you see whether its worth continuing the conversation, or just admitting that they'll never see things your way and just walking away.

Who said they don't believe in evolution? Certainly not I [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.75712?page=45#1137447]. See, I do know what I am talking about, thus I know about the holes in the laymans understanding of evolution, which is what I can see being bandied about here as fact.

Evolution isn't survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is a different concept, one Darwin applied in the third edition of his Origin of Species (the phrase was originally coined by paperclip inventor Johan Vaaler) because he thought it fitted his theory at the time. Since then new discoveries have been made, science has moved on, and it has left a lot of gaps in the theory as it stands.

As I admitted, I did get a little too worked up over that remark and I do apologize for it, I'm just sick of something that I thought we had accepted and moved past is constantly being looked back on and put into question, halting new ideas to progress to the point of now it's not even allowed in school cariculum.

Anyhow, that's where I stand and I'm not the kind of arrogant bastard that would try to change people to believe what I believe. Mostly, I just used this topic as an excuse to get out some frustration and I applaud you for being a good sport about it.

Note: I am not going to spend every other post clarifying what I said in a last post and correcting people who are jumping to conclusions. So read carefully, respond to what I say, and not just what you think I might be saying.

 

[Lukeje]

Hey, calm down. The best way to end an argument with someone who doesn't 'believe' in evolution is to ask them what they require in terms of proof. Most people don't know what they're talking about when they condemn evolution, and will ignore any proof that you give them. Depending on the answer they give, you see whether its worth continuing the conversation, or just admitting that they'll never see things your way and just walking away.

Who said they don't believe in evolution? Certainly not I [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.75712?page=45#1137447]. See, I do know what I am talking about, thus I know about the holes in the laymans understanding of evolution, which is what I can see being bandied about here as fact.

Evolution isn't survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is a different concept, one Darwin applied in the third edition of his Origin of Species (the phrase was originally coined by paperclip inventor Johan Vaaler) because he thought it fitted his theory at the time. Since then new discoveries have been made, science has moved on, and it has left a lot of gaps in the theory as it stands.

Note: I am not going to spend every other post clarifying what I said in a last post and correcting people who are jumping to conclusions. So read carefully, respond to what I say, and not just what you think I might be saying.

I know, that's why I was testing you.
Please note: I am not going to spend every thread explaining what I said in the previous post.[/satire]

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Also, that whole whatever % that we use of our brain is not true. We always use 100% of our brain. That myth doesn't even make sense, why would we evolve a brain like ours if we didn't use it. Also, if we only used 10%/5% or whatever you believe in, of our brains, why does brain damage of even the smallest portion of our brain severely affect our mental processes?

Oh dear. Yes, that myth is stupid but not for the reasons you've given. The brain is split roughly into regions for different thought processes, such as short term memory, long term memory, movement, vision, etc. So you see you can never use all your brain at once because you would have to be doing an impossibly high number of conflicting tasks at once...