Evolution, what's your take on it?

What do you guys think about Evolution today? How will we evolve? Or will we evolve ourselves via technology rather than biologically?SimpJee

It's like this...

If we're looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you're looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultural, which is human expression.
Now, what you've seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here — two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it — you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. Uou're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation.
The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence. The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external.
And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.
And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It's sterile. It's efficient, okay? And its manifestations of those social adaptations. We're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice

Can you provide evidence for the claim that "more and more scientists (unreligious scientists btw)" believe it to be false?Zagrius

D9-THC, you should at least aknowledge Waking Life if your going to lift text straight from the movie.

By the way, thats one of the awesomest scenes in the movie

[QUOTE="SimpJee"]What do you guys think about Evolution today? How will we evolve? Or will we evolve ourselves via technology rather than biologically?D9-THC

There will be no crescendo. We'll evolve until we own t3h universe!

Have you read The Singularity?

D9-THC, you should at least aknowledge Waking Life if your going to lift text straight from the movie.

By the way, thats one of the awesomest scenes in the movie

erc500

Lol...forgot the link to that scene...I'll edit it.

I don't see how so many think it's true anymore. More and more scientists (unreligious scientists btw) are believing it to be false due to some of it's major flaws (read Darwin's Black Box for example). It's just a way of helping the athiest be intellectually fulfilled. Dispite it's many flaws, many still believe in it because they do not like the alternatives. I used to believe evolution to be true until I realized how many problems it has.mindstorm

How many of these scientists are biologists? Michael Behe is an idiot who just repeats the same mistakes all supporters of intelligent design make in different contexts. I'm tired of having to explain a simple undeniable biological fact to the ignorant and deluded as they try and desperately defend a religion that doesn't need defending. I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" as Dawkins is still capable of engaging his brain.

But the DNA changes, so the information of what 'themselves' is changes. It's not like there's a piece of code (at least that I've heard of) that always stays the same and goes 'hey, you'z leg-length genes, you're getting a bit too tall for comfort, if you break the law of Kinds you'll have to pay a fine... IN HELL!'.Zagrius

Well, it's true that there's slight modification with descent or that variation is allowed, but I think a living thing only has code for becoming what they are. In which case, they cannot become anything else, ever.

And messing with the code, even if the result is seeminly favorable, is always not a good thing.

truthism.com

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]But the DNA changes, so the information of what 'themselves' is changes. It's not like there's a piece of code (at least that I've heard of) that always stays the same and goes 'hey, you'z leg-length genes, you're getting a bit too tall for comfort, if you break the law of Kinds you'll have to pay a fine... IN HELL!'.Revinh

Well, it's true that there's slight modification with descent or that variation is allowed, but I think a living thing only has code for becoming what they are. In which case, they cannot become anything else, ever.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]But the DNA changes, so the information of what 'themselves' is changes. It's not like there's a piece of code (at least that I've heard of) that always stays the same and goes 'hey, you'z leg-length genes, you're getting a bit too tall for comfort, if you break the law of Kinds you'll have to pay a fine... IN HELL!'.Revinh

Well, it's true that there's slight modification with descent or that variation is allowed, but I think a living thing only has code for becoming what they are. In which case, they cannot become anything else, ever.

And messing with the code, even if the result is seeminly favorable, is always not a good thing.

Yes, you think a living thing cannot change. Biology states that genetic alterations happen within each generation which is a part of Evolution. Science says they can change.

If something can change minutely within a few generations, what is stopping it from changing entirely over a million? If the basic code that 'restricts' animals from 'changing from what they are' changes slightly within each generation, then the basic code itself has changed entirely within the next few generations and thus isn't the same code that you started with. So what do you define as this limit that magically stops animals evolving? Because if they can 'vary' within species like you say, what is stopping them from those varied species from varying any further?

If A can change in to B, and A and B are similar, and B then changes to C, so that B and C are similar. But A and C are not similar because there was this intermediate B inbetween.
If A has the capacity to vary in to B, why is it not possible for B to vary in to C, where C is no longer similar to A?

I believe evolution is true, I won't deny there may be some discrepancies that need ironing out and we don't know everything about it but that's the whole point of science and just because the theory isn't perfect doesn't mean I am going to try denying it.

Takes a fool to not believe in it.CptJSparrow

I agree. Anyone who denies evolution is denying existance full stop. There are no areguments or proof against it really and the solid evidence we have for it is too strong to be broken down.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]But the DNA changes, so the information of what 'themselves' is changes. It's not like there's a piece of code (at least that I've heard of) that always stays the same and goes 'hey, you'z leg-length genes, you're getting a bit too tall for comfort, if you break the law of Kinds you'll have to pay a fine... IN HELL!'.Revinh

Well, it's true that there's slight modification with descent or that variation is allowed, but I think a living thing only has code for becoming what they are. In which case, they cannot become anything else, ever.

And messing with the code, even if the result is seeminly favorable, is always not a good thing.

But the CODE changes. The CODE. For something to always stay the same, at least some piece of the code needs to always remain un-altered. If you can find a string that never ever changes at all and always stays at the exact same spot in the exact same arrangement, then I'll actually consider taking your claim as more than a 'I can't believe it's possible, therefor it isn't' statement.

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

HAZE-Unit

Yes it must be.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

123625

Yes it must be.

I just figured it out.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

HAZE-Unit

Yes it must be.

I just figured it out.

Bet you did...

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

123625

Yes it must be.

I just figured it out.

Bet you did...

seriously though, what's the big deal about evolution?

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

HAZE-Unit

Yes it must be.

I just figured it out.

Bet you did...

seriously though, what's the big deal about evolution?

Are you a beleiver in Evolution?

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

123625

Yes it must be.

I just figured it out.

Bet you did...

seriously though, what's the big deal about evolution?

Are you a beleiver in Evolution?

I remember along time ago in high school when I studied Biology, there was some study about it, so if you could refresh my memory? is it about how creatures evolved by time or something like that, becuase of the needs of living, in other words, to adjust to the environment?

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

This is the proof of EVOLUTION.

HAZE-Unit

Yes it must be.

I just figured it out.

Bet you did...

seriously though, what's the big deal about evolution?

Are you a beleiver in Evolution?

I remember along time ago in high school when I studied Biology, there was some study about it, so if you could refresh my memory? is it about how creatures evolved by time or something like that, becuase of the needs of living, in other words, to adjust to the environment?

Well i don't beleive in Evolution so your asking the wrong guy. BuT Yes Evolution is the process of adaption to the enviroment and they somehow grow over millions of years with the help of random mutation. Im my opinion Evolution is rubbish though.

Yes typical evolutionist tactic compare Evolution to another science and say just because that science is Evolution is, that is real science for you right there.

123625

I'm sorry, but you'll have to rephrase that if you care if I can understand what you wrote. Anyway, science is all about trying to debunk things. Since scientists haven't been able to show that the theory of evolution is unsound (a discovery that would net them tons of money and prestige), it obviously means that it's a tad higher on the 'validity scale' than a load of rubbish.

[QUOTE="123625"]

Yes typical evolutionist tactic, compare Evolution to another science and say just because that science is, Evolution is. That is real science for you right there.

Zagrius

I'm sorry, but you'll have to rephrase that if you care if I can understand what you wrote. Anyway, science is all about trying to debunk things. Since scientists haven't been able to show that the theory of evolution is unsound (a discovery that would net them tons of money and prestige), it obviously means that it's a tad higher on the 'validity scale' than a load of rubbish.

Well just because scientist think its real doesnt mean i do. I just don't see evolution possible, only micro which is just variation.

Please don't compare Evolution to another science. That is not science.

And i fixed my sentence.

Why not? Evolution is science, another science is science. There's no reason not to compare. Since one of the "arguments" against evolution is that you can't see it happen, surely it should be comparable to other things you don't see, like atoms, or gravity (all merely theories, like the theory of evolution).

But of course, if a theory is pretty much the whole basis for a certain field, and is used to provide with new medicinal products and such, it must be a piece of rubbish. Probably a conspiracy of the whole scientific community. When they say they got those new medicines thanks to research based on the theory of evolution, it actually means that they infiltrated Heaven and stole the medicine! Bunch of scoundrels, how dare they.

Why not? Evolution is science, another science is science. There's no reason not to compare. Since one of the "arguments" against evolution is that you can't see it happen, surely it should be comparable to other things you don't see, like atoms, or gravity (all merely theories, like the theory of evolution).

But of course, if a theory is pretty much the whole basis for a certain field, and is used to provide with new medicinal products and such, it must be a piece of rubbish. Probably a conspiracy of the whole scientific community. When they say they got those new medicines thanks to research based on the theory of evolution, it actually means that they infiltrated Heaven and stole the medicine! Bunch of scoundrels, how dare they.

Zagrius

Wait so Evolution is a theory? Thank you.

I still think its rubbish though.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

Why not? Evolution is science, another science is science. There's no reason not to compare. Since one of the "arguments" against evolution is that you can't see it happen, surely it should be comparable to other things you don't see, like atoms, or gravity (all merely theories, like the theory of evolution).

But of course, if a theory is pretty much the whole basis for a certain field, and is used to provide with new medicinal products and such, it must be a piece of rubbish. Probably a conspiracy of the whole scientific community. When they say they got those new medicines thanks to research based on the theory of evolution, it actually means that they infiltrated Heaven and stole the medicine! Bunch of scoundrels, how dare they.

123625

Wait so Evolution is a theory? Thank you.

I still think its rubbish though.

Yeah? The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution. And you can think whatever you want. I'm assuming you live in a free country (that probably teaches evolution in science classes in schools and not creationism, for whatever reason).

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

Why not? Evolution is science, another science is science. There's no reason not to compare. Since one of the "arguments" against evolution is that you can't see it happen, surely it should be comparable to other things you don't see, like atoms, or gravity (all merely theories, like the theory of evolution).

But of course, if a theory is pretty much the whole basis for a certain field, and is used to provide with new medicinal products and such, it must be a piece of rubbish. Probably a conspiracy of the whole scientific community. When they say they got those new medicines thanks to research based on the theory of evolution, it actually means that they infiltrated Heaven and stole the medicine! Bunch of scoundrels, how dare they.

Zagrius

Wait so Evolution is a theory? Thank you.

I still think its rubbish though.

Yeah? The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution. And you can think whatever you want. I'm assuming you live in a free country (that probably teaches evolution in science classes in schools and not creationism, for whatever reason).

But we have never witnessed an animal changing into another kind so how can it be considered phenomenon?

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

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)

There is no such thing as 'kind', we've observed speciation, we have the fossil record (and since you probably don't get it, according to the theory, EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, just like if you have children, you'll be the transition between your parents and your children), we have all that other evidence I don't really recall since I don't spend all my time here arguing with people that think that a scientific theory doesn't deserve merit because it's "just a theory", meaning that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh yeah, retro viruses, something about ascorbic acids I think, uh... Junk DNA or something. Well, someone who cares more will probably write up a list.

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

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)

erc500

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

I believe in evolution, there's no reason why I shouldn't...

There is no such thing as 'kind', we've observed speciation, we have the fossil record (and since you probably don't get it, according to the theory, EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, just like if you have children, you'll be the transition between your parents and your children), we have all that other evidence I don't really recall since I don't spend all my time here arguing with people that think that a scientific theory doesn't deserve merit because it's "just a theory", meaning that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh yeah, retro viruses, something about ascorbic acids I think, uh... Junk DNA or something. Well, someone who cares more will probably write up a list.

Zagrius

Oh the fossil record is just interpretation on things. and how can every fossil be a transitional form? Thats riduculous, i can look at the fossil record and see no transitional forms. Its all interpretation of evidence without much fact(Observation) to back it up.

As for the virus, does that neccesarily mean humans and animals can evolve? Cause we have yet to see it.

Just something the devil made up. we really need to stop making these threads. No one wins.

Both sides think that there right and no one is going to change there mind over some forums.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

There is no such thing as 'kind', we've observed speciation, we have the fossil record (and since you probably don't get it, according to the theory, EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, just like if you have children, you'll be the transition between your parents and your children), we have all that other evidence I don't really recall since I don't spend all my time here arguing with people that think that a scientific theory doesn't deserve merit because it's "just a theory", meaning that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh yeah, retro viruses, something about ascorbic acids I think, uh... Junk DNA or something. Well, someone who cares more will probably write up a list.

123625

Oh the fossil record is just interpretation on things. and how can every fossil be a transitional form? Thats riduculous, i can look at the fossil record and see no transitional forms. Its all interpretation of evidence without much fact(Observation) to back it up.

As for the virus, does that neccesarily mean humans and animals can evolve? Cause we have yet to see it.

That's your problem right there. You think that a transitional fossil would look like some sort of half-fish, half-lizard thing. Well no. Every generation is a transition between the generation preceding it and the generation following it.

And to compare the oh-so-not-scientific evolution (it's just a theory! Maybe you should go learn what a theory means in the scientific community) to something else yet again, just because you can't count to googol doesn't mean the number doesn't exist.