The thread of Life/ Intelligent life.

Of course, intelligence isn't just a "cruel joke" but one of many steps in our ultimate ascension into conscious awareness. Embrace and surpass it's [the mind] quest for knowledge. I wish I had the day off (I'm at work).

I disagree, I feel that it is not necessary for life to have the brain function that is "self awareness" to survive, you could have an animal that is 10000x smarter then man without being aware of its self, the two are separate. Besides: "Intelligence is not needed for nature to survive".

Oh, and quite your job, we need more people for intelligent debate!

Here's is the Equation for working out the probibilty of life in the universe.

N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

R is the rate at which stars have been born in the Milky Way per year, fp is the fraction of these stars that have solar systems of planets, ne is the average number of "Earthlike" planets (potentially suitable for life) in the typical solar system, fl is the fraction of those planets on which life actually forms, fi is the fraction of life-bearing planets where biological evolution produces an intelligent species, fc is the fraction of intelligent species that become capable of interstellar radio communication, and L is the average lifetime of a communicating civilization in years.

But even so I doubt we will get a communication in our life time from another world simular to our own.

Here's is the Equation for working out the probibilty of life in the universe.

N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

R is the rate at which stars have been born in the Milky Way per year, fp is the fraction of these stars that have solar systems of planets, ne is the average number of "Earthlike" planets (potentially suitable for life) in the typical solar system, fl is the fraction of those planets on which life actually forms, fi is the fraction of life-bearing planets where biological evolution produces an intelligent species, fc is the fraction of intelligent species that become capable of interstellar radio communication, and L is the average lifetime of a communicating civilization in years.

But even so I doubt we will get a communication in our life time from another world simular to our own.

Besides being the coolest member on Crankeye... your a smart guy.

Deliciously_Saucy - The Game Elite on the Amigia used pretty much a varient on the equation I gave a few posts back to randomly generate a Universe with intelligent life in it... (only geared using a few galaxies)

http://amigareviews.classicgaming.gamespy.com/elite.htm

But still with a massive array of planets this game all fitted on a 1.3meg disk and used a code to plot the distance and life in the solar systems... I think there are 2,000 solar systems in the game.

If you hold faith in Math... then I would say the chances are VERY likely there is other planets that can support life... and a VERY good chance a good percetage will have equal or better than our own.

Evolution - And what I think

So first lets say YES Evolution is a correct working theory and we Evolved from Chimps... Why in that case are there still Chimps about today...?

And why haven't other primates followed suite so we have different varients of Man like Babbons or Gorrillia's compared to Chimps ?

Why would a Lizard Evolve into a Bird that can't Fricken Fly, like a Chicken... and why through so many years of evoloutionary steps hasn't the chicken evloved to fly, run fast or protect it's self ?... It would have been better off staying as a Lizard... Heck it should De Evolove.

Why do we assume that through evoloution we are the better species just as we are more intelligent we are not the most suited to the needs of nature... If Nature forms us and we are destorying Nature are we not destroying ourselves...?  If Nature forms us to live along side or enviroment why would it makes us so good at destroying the very thing that made us, well us ?

I can't Disprove Evoloution, I just can't make 100% sense of it so I wont set it in stone in my own mind...

So first lets say YES Evolution is a correct working theory and we Evolved from Chimps... Why in that case are there still Chimps about today...?

And why haven't other primates followed suite so we have different varients of Man like Babbons or Gorrillia's compared to Chimps ?

Because we evolved to fill different niches. Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans aren't adapted for the way our ancestors lived, and we probably wouldn't thrive if we lived like the other apes.

Also, humans did not evolve from chimps. TalkOrigins says it very well: "Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Why would a Lizard Evolve into a Bird that can't Fricken Fly, like a Chicken... and why through so many years of evoloutionary steps hasn't the chicken evloved to fly, run fast or protect it's self ?... It would have been better off staying as a Lizard... Heck it should De Evolove.

Early on there were feathered dinosaurs which were used for insulation. Presummably, small reptiles which leapt from tree to tree adapted those feathers to help them glide and eventually fly. I could look up the evolutionary history of feathers if you like.

Domestic chickens, as I said before, are the product of 5000 years of human breeding programs. They aren't bred for survival traits, but for things like size and docility. You might as well say that a chihuahua makes no sense because it would never survive in nature. Even so, they prove that descent with modification is real.

By the way, things don't "de-evolve".

Why do we assume that through evoloution we are the better species just as we are more intelligent we are not the most suited to the needs of nature... If Nature forms us and we are destorying Nature are we not destroying ourselves...?  If Nature forms us to live along side or enviroment why would it makes us so good at destroying the very thing that made us, well us ?

We are the better species because we have become the top predator in almost every ecosystem even though we aren't naturally suited for any of them. We don't assume this through evolutionary theory, it is an obvious fact.

We aren't destroying nature, merely changing it. While this change might be harmful for us, life will continue to exist and will thrive in whatever new environment we create. To destroy nature we would have to make it impossible for life to exist, which would require a complete sterilization of Earth - which would include the destruction of all humans.

The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

I could look up the evolutionary history of feathers if you like.

You mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

Domestic chickens, as I said before, are the product of 5000 years of human breeding programs.

Same with most things like Horses for running... and pets like Lap dogs etc... What if we are the staying the same through design for a higher pupose or creature that we know nothing of, in a simular way as chickens ?

By the way, things don't "de-evolve".

Err... Going by Darwin's Theory they could de-evolve, have you read Darwin's Theory ?

We are the better species because we have become the top predator in almost every ecosystem even though we aren't naturally suited for any of them. We don't assume this through evolutionary theory, it is an obvious fact.

So just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution... And we are not supposed to exsist in the way that we do, we don't co-inside with hardly any other species on the planet, very much like Agent Smith explained we are most simular to parasites.

We aren't destroying nature, merely changing it. While this change might be harmful for us, life will continue to exist and will thrive in whatever new environment we create. To destroy nature we would have to make it impossible for life to exist, which would require a complete sterilization of Earth - which would include the destruction of all humans.

Sorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

Here I go with some more floors

1. Apes live in tree's, turn into humans, cut down tree's make paper, wipe their arse's - Evolution, I love it !
2. Heck we have been polluting the skies slowly for 100's of years I don't see birds as yet adpating to the changes?
3. Name a Creature that has Evolved in say the last 100 odd years through Nature ?

OK now the above are simple rubbish ones...

But here's my Real reason's

Evolution is pretty much like a Mutation to a creature through the enviroment... but Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself, there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

May be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.

Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms... So looking at that we could have been a Muttation from a Gibbon, Chimp ape or a Cross breed of two... and Accident.  And if our evolutioary form is so much better than that of Monkey's then surely as their natural enviroment starts shrinking it will force more evlutionary jumps and may be we will start seeing more Human like Apes forming.

What I am saying is there are changes and breaks and different creatures becoming but not through nature, but ineraction with different breeds of creature... IE I think we came about by one type of Chimp Coping off with another, that making Neolithic man, that in turn shagging another type of chimp making modren man... Not the World around them changing them... Just like how we make new breeds of dogs... some more intelligent than others.

But Supporting Nature sway on life

There are creatures like Frogs, that look just like leaves, and animals under the sea like the flat fish that match their surroundings yet scientists say these creatures see in black and white yet their skin matches the colour of their enviroment... There are things I can't answer... or agruee against...

I am not writting off Darwin's Theory... I am just saying it has Floors.

In a Nutshell

I think we came about through Mutation (Interbreeding and cross breeding) and I think thats the same for all branches of creature, and the things that govern skin pigmintation and hair varients could be through Nature changing variables of DNA code and make up through Millions of years... So I think Darwin's theory does hold weight but not as much as he wants credit for... I think Nature plays a small role on creatures looks and forms.  May be in the dawn of time whan most life on the Earth was in the early stages then yes Evloution was much larger, but now as creatures are more formed I think life alters life more than the suroundings...

For example:-
Placing a pack of Jack Russell's in firstly in Switerland, then poland, then lap land, then the North pole wont make them into Huskey's or give them a thicker coat, but still only shagging Jack Russell's.

But them being in those countries and them shagging the local dogs with thicker coats would slowly create a breed of jack russel with a thicker coat... And depending on the Sun and the amount of light will depend on the coats colour to a degree.

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

FIRST OF ALL.
It's already been said several times that evolution doesn't have goals, evolution is merely situational changes to adapt to a new environment and niches.
Repeat this to yourself. You copy and pasted something down below to this effect, why do you still speak as if evolution is an advancement?

You mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

...

What if the world de-evolved ?... became less hospitable... I am sure some creatures may revert back ?...

Uh, species would adapt if the world changed in any way. Not revert, adapt.

So just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution...

THERE IS NO DEVOLUTION.
Furthermore, of course we affect the environment. So does every other creature.

Sorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

No, that's a change to the environment.

1. Apes live in tree's, turn into humans, cut down tree's make paper, wipe their arse's - Evolution, I love it !
2. Heck we have been polluting the skies slowly for 100's of years I don't see birds as yet adpating to the changes?
3. Name a Creature that has Evolved in say the last 100 odd years through Nature ?

OK now the above are simple rubbish ones...

. . .

Evolution is pretty much like a Mutation to a creature through the enviroment... but Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species.

Mutatees form new branches, ie subspecies, which evolve further into a separate species.

In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Viruses have evolved quite a bit in the last century.

Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick

It's called science, its practitioners like any other humans make mistakes. They learn. They advance. They keep questioning things. Saying 'OMG SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG ((I know because I read this in a science journal)) THAT MEANS MY RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT!' is one of the most horribly fucktarded things I've ever heard.

there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

Holy fucking shit.

May be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

. . .

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.

I like my copypasta without marinara sauce, got any alfredo?

There are creatures like Frogs, that look just like leaves, and animals under the sea like the flat fish that match their surroundings yet scientists say these creatures see in black and white yet their skin matches the colour of their enviroment... There are things I can't answer... or agruee against...

Maybe it's because their colourful existence has nothing to do with their eyes.

The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

That isn't what it meant. You are deliberately misinterpreting it.

I could look up the evolutionary history of feathers if you like.

You mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

I can't believe you said that.

Domestic chickens, as I said before, are the product of 5000 years of human breeding programs.

Same with most things like Horses for running... and pets like Lap dogs etc...

Yes, modern horses and dogs are the result of elective breeding. Your point?

By the way, things don't "de-evolve".

What if the world de-evolved ?... became less hospitable... I am sure some creatures may revert back ?...

Things can't de-evolve. Evolution is change, so no matter what happens it is still evolution.

So just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution...

I worded it wrong. We have a trait that makes us able to adapt to every environment: our complex brains. Without them, we would be helpless.

Sorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

Yes, the globe is warming. So? If you think that all life will be exterminated due to it then you don't rally understand what it is. "Nature" will continue to exist.

1. Apes live in tree's, turn into humans, cut down tree's make paper, wipe their arse's - Evolution, I love it !
2. Heck we have been polluting the skies slowly for 100's of years I don't see birds as yet adpating to the changes?
3. Name a Creature that has Evolved in say the last 100 odd years through Nature ?

1. What is your point?
2. Pigeons that live in cities are mostly gray and black because that coloration lets them blend into their surroundings better. White pigeons are very rare.
3. A certain species of fly is branching off which specializes in feeding off of apples: Link (PDF

Evolution is pretty much like a Mutation to a creature through the enviroment... but Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Evolution does not mean that something becomes more complex. When a life form evolves it adapts to better suit its environment. A good example is all the bacteria that are evolving to become resistant to disinfectants.

Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself, there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

Details change, but the theory remains intact. As TalkOrigins says, Vestigianl does not mean useless.

May be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

What? The space of time between the earliest hominids and modern humans isn't that long, and the differences are already huge. Sorry that you aren't a being of pure energy, but we just aren't there yet.

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.

So did you even read this paragraph?

Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms... So looking at that we could have been a Muttation from a Gibbon, Chimp ape or a Cross breed of two... and Accident.  And if our evolutioary form is so much better than that of Monkey's then surely as their natural enviroment starts shrinking it will force more evlutionary jumps and may be we will start seeing more Human like Apes forming.

Evolution is a blind force. Chimpanzees won't evolve to become super intelligent in order to fight us because it just doesn't work that way. Also, we are the product of millions of years of evolution in an environment that is different from the ones chimpanzees currently inhabit. Maybe if we took millions of years to destroy their ecosystem something might happen, but not at this rate.

EDIT: By the way, a Neolithic man is the same as a modern man. "Neolithic" refers to the later part of the Stone Age. Neolithic men were already farming.

What I am saying is there are changes and breaks and different creatures becoming but not through nature, but ineraction with different breeds of creature... IE I think we came about by one type of Chimp Coping off with another, that making Neolithic man, that in turn shagging another type of chimp making modren man... Not the World around them changing them... Just like how we make new breeds of dogs... some more intelligent than others.

If any of what you said were true, the jungles of the world would still be teeming with hominids. Instead, we have separate, distinct species that do not interbreed.

There are creatures like Frogs, that look just like leaves, and animals under the sea like the flat fish that match their surroundings yet scientists say these creatures see in black and white yet their skin matches the colour of their enviroment... There are things I can't answer... or agruee against...

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you tell me exactly what fish and what frogs?

FIRSTLY gonorrhoea

I like my copypasta without marinara sauce, got any alfredo?

I spell checked half of what I had written in Word, and word added things like ;

THERE IS NO DEVOLUTION.

In Darwin's Theory he states should the enviromental changes revery back then through evolution certain traits of a creature may devolve.

It's already been said several times that evolution doesn't have goals, evolution is merely situational changes to adapt to a new environment and niches.
Repeat this to yourself. You copy and pasted something down below to this effect, why do you still speak as if evolution is an advancement?

I only done so as a JOKE... it has LOL at the FRICKEN END of the sentence... And you saying Evolution is not an Advancement of a species but an adaption is how I view it, but I would say a Mutation is not an Advancement of a Species...

Darwin's Theory is based on Nature Changing Creatures or Creatures Adapting to the enviroment... May be to an extent this could be true, I think Darwin's theory needs to be open to ONE change and that change being a mass change to a DNA strand only happens through mutation.  Darwin's Theory for me is sound to a point in time that creatures have a forward path of growth.  But in modern times it's more likely that mutation will alter creatures than evolution.

Mutatees form new branches, ie subspecies, which evolve further into a separate species.

CORRECT, new species are not just a credit to evolution, thats all I am saying !!!... so why didn't we adapt Darwin's Theory to incumpuss Mutation there by making it complete and more founded... (I know why, then it's knowlonger his theory)...

Quote
there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.
Holy fucking shit.

LOL... That's me thinking outside of the box... But I should have put it more like:- There is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we evolved through nature's design from Apes.

Viruses have evolved quite a bit in the last century.

Viruses... have been Created from scratch, they have evloved, they have also mutetated...

I am not saying Evolution doesn't happen I am saying Darwin's theory is not complete if it does not hold the value of Mutation through cross breeding... I mean it even happens in plants (Cross Pollinization).

THAT MEANS MY RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT!

I am far from Religious... Just cuz I don't hold the same ideal's in Darwin as you doesn't mean I hold standing in a God...LOL  (By the way Dawin was a bit of a tosser)

In Darwin's Theory he states should the enviromental changes revery back then through evolution certain traits of a creature may devolve.

When?

Also, the understanding of evolution has changed considerably since Darwin. Can you stop acting as if I got everything I know off of Origin of Species?

Darwin's Theory is based on Nature Changing Creatures or Creatures Adapting to the enviroment... May be to an extent this could be true, I think Darwin's theory needs to be open to ONE change and that change being a mass change to a DNA strand only happens through mutation.  Darwin's Theory for me is sound to a point in time that creatures have a forward path of growth.  But in modern times it's more likely that mutation will alter creatures than evolution.

You idiot. Mutation is an integral part of evolution.

LOL... That's me thinking outside of the box... But I should have put it more like:- There is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we evolved through nature's design from Apes.

Nature isn't a designer.

Viruses... have been Created from scratch, they have evloved, they have also mutetated...

...Que?

I am far from Religious... Just cuz I don't hold the same ideal's in Darwin as you doesn't mean I hold standing in a God...LOL  (By the way Dawin was a bit of a tosser)

I recall you saying you were a deist.

2nd Saladin

That isn't what it meant. You are deliberately misinterpreting it.

I know... I was trying to be funny... In an English way.

I can't believe you said that.

Why Darwin did... He said should the enviromental settings of a creature revert back to previous conditions then various traits of the creature may devolve. (it is adaption and Evlution at the end of the day is evolution even if it's going backwards... the correct wording for evlution in reveruse is devolution).

Yes, modern horses and dogs are the result of elective breeding. Your point?

Evolution is not the main/only catalyst of new breeds of creature... therefore Darwin's theory is floored to a degree... Mutation of a creature occur's through interbreeding... Yes the fitest survive, and yes the enviroment plays part in many features of the creatures pyhsology... It's like an African Bee shagging a English Bee will make a Hybrid and once there are enough of them then they will be slated a new breed...

I worded it wrong. We have a trait that makes us able to adapt to every environment: our complex brains. Without them, we would be helpless.

We adapt the enviroment to suite our needs, or adpat what we have around us to help us suite the enviroment... Hows that evolution as nature intends...

Evolution does not mean that something becomes more complex. When a life form evolves it adapts to better suit its environment. A good example is all the bacteria that are evolving to become resistant to disinfectants.

People with Aid's build up Emunity to the drugs they need to take... Bacteria is the same...
If one kind of Bacteria beets another it's a Chemical reaction to a degree... Yes I suppose it's Evolution, but its also adation and mutation.

Darwin's Theory:-

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

I still don't think Nature and Nurture is all thats to building new life forms.

Is whatever you just linked worth wasting my time on? Because pretty much everything you've ever linked before... wasn't.

Also, evolution is natural selection which involves things like mutation and adaptation.

I can't believe you said that.

Why Darwin did... He said should the enviromental settings of a creature revert back to previous conditions then various traits of the creature may devolve. (it is adaption and Evlution at the end of the day is evolution even if it's going backwards... the correct wording for evlution in reveruse is devolution).

If Darwin said that then he was wrong. Evolution is always forward, even if new features are like old ones. Would you say that whales and dolphins de-evolved? They simply adapted to a new environment which was similar to an old one.

EDIT: Recessive traits might emerge in a creature, but I don't think it would be called de-evolution because the genes for the trait are still present in the species. De-evolution would be a human giving birth to a homo erectus.

Yes, modern horses and dogs are the result of elective breeding. Your point?

Evolution is not the main/only catalyst of new breeds of creature... therefore Darwin's theory is floored to a degree... Mutation of a creature occur's through interbreeding... Yes the fitest survive, and yes the enviroment plays part in many features of the creatures pyhsology... It's like an African Bee shagging a English Bee will make a Hybrid and once there are enough of them then they will be slated a new breed...

Hybrids take work to create. Animals don't mate with another species unless someone makes them. They are the result of selective human breeding, just like chickens, horses, pigs, cows, cats, goldfish, and so on and so on.

EDIT: Also, many hybrids are sterile and incapable of creating new populations.

I worded it wrong. We have a trait that makes us able to adapt to every environment: our complex brains. Without them, we would be helpless.

We adapt the enviroment to suite our needs, or adpat what we have around us to help us suite the enviroment... Hows that evolution as nature intends...

ow is it unnatural to create conditions favorable to our survival? Beehives, anthills, bird nests, and beaver dams all create favorable survival conditions for the animals that build them.

Evolution does not mean that something becomes more complex. When a life form evolves it adapts to better suit its environment. A good example is all the bacteria that are evolving to become resistant to disinfectants.

People with Aid's build up Emunity to the drugs they need to take... Bacteria is the same...

Building up an immunity to a drug is different from what happens in the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. If we're using a person analogy this would be better: a disease devastates a city. Out of every 100, 5 are immune. The disease will never again be able to devastate the city like it did because its population has a genetic immunity to it. What's worse, bacteria can give bits of DNA to each other, ensuring that the advantageous mutation (immunity to a certain antibiotic) spreads much more quickly than a population of humans could spread their immunity.

If one kind of Bacteria beets another it's a Chemical reaction to a degree... Yes I suppose it's Evolution, but its also adation and mutation.

Evolution is adaptation and mutation.

Wow, a lot to respond to here...

The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?""

Nothing the same mate... And from the way you phrased that you are insinuating Americans and Austalions are another notch up on the ladder of evolution. WTF ??...LOL

Sorry but I feel the comparison is relevant. Not to put you down but the ignorance that evolution teaches us that we come from monkeys or apes makes me sick.

You mean the THEORY of the history of Feathers... you shouldn't be talking about it as being factual evidence.

They have excellent evidence, many fossils have been found of the dinosaurs we know that contains a fine layer of down. Out of the two leading theories of how birds came to be, ( one, that birds evolved in a separate line before the dinosaurs, or two that they evolved directly from dinosaurs ) the scales have been greatly tipped with these new fossils.

Err... Going by Darwin's Theory they could de-evolve, have you read Darwin's Theory ?

You stated that wrong, but I think I get what you mean. Creature 'A' lives in a sunny place, place gets cold so 'A' is forced to gain some more fur, it gets hot again and A then needs to lose the fur. It's not de-evolution, it's simply change that looks like reversion. Its not though...

So just cuz we are the top of the food chain makes us a better species of creature... I would say the creature best suited to the enviroment is the better of the evolutionary structure, we tend to adapt the enviroment to our needs not the other way around... so that in it's self I think is a form of De-evolution... And we are not supposed to exsist in the way that we do, we don't co-inside with hardly any other species on the planet, very much like Agent Smith explained we are most simular to parasites.

I say that given that we are at the top even though we are disadvantaged is what makes us the top dog. As Saladin said, it's our ability to adapt to places that we aren't designed to that is quite amazing. Fuck, we could be on Mars soon enough...

Oh I love that parasite line BTW, I guess it's simply a point of view.

Sorry your talking rubbish... We are destroying Nature HENCE GLOBAL FRICKEN WARMING...

The theory of global warming doesn't say we all die.

But here's my Real reason's *read it*

I can see people disputing how we evolved, but evolution itself..? If we didn't evolve from one base origin, then how do you explain new species of animals? Excluding divine intervention, what ideas are out there that are plausible?

I don't consider breeding to be mentionable as for continued change to happen there would need to be many different types of animals evolving along side, as to breed between species very little change can be between them. The idea on breeding shares some of the same flaws as Darwinism. First off, for this to work, it encounters the same problem with numbers: You would need mass cross breeding for a positive cross species to become the dominate factor. As for the positive results: we only get positive results from cross breeding because we have control of the situation, how would animals become so adapt at getting these changes from breeding? I think with the randomness of the results of breeding, and the fact that good changes are a rare occurrence from crossbreeding that there are simply not enough compatible animals for the effects to take place.

It's called science, its practitioners like any other humans make mistakes. They learn. They advance. They keep questioning things. Saying 'OMG SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG ((I know because I read this in a science journal)) THAT MEANS MY RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT!' is one of the most horribly fucktarded things I've ever heard.

I also think that in many situations, researchers are forced or pressured into giving a premature answer.

there is more chance we had been gentically engineered by Aliens and placed on this planet than we came from Apes.

Yeh the problem with people saying that is it's a continuous loop. If that where true then who put the aliens there..? God?

I am far from Religious... Just cuz I don't hold the same ideal's in Darwin as you doesn't mean I hold standing in a God...LOL  (By the way Dawin was a bit of a tosser)

Your agnostic right? That's pretty close to being religious in my mind. I think all of us here can come to the conclusion that all religion on earth is fictional and made by man, so that only leaves the possibility of "Impersonal Gods", which would be a scientific creator. But the problem is, wtf classes them as a god? I would say that if something like this existed, that while they may appear  to be gods that they would simply be highly evolved lifeforms and nothing more. "God" would be the label an un-equal being would give them.

Agnostics say that it is impossible to prove or disprove a god. The only god in our current understanding is "man's created gods" so the idea that you entertain the thought that these "may" be correct is just fence sitting. I agree with the tosser part though... Darwin was also a cultist... >_>

If you can agree that religion is wrong, then you can't really claim to be Agnostic as the idea of a god is simply a religious matter or false title.

We adapt the enviroment to suite our needs, or adpat what we have around us to help us suite the enviroment... Hows that evolution as nature intends...

This is the new nature. Get used to it. We are changing things to suit us and the fact that we can do it, signifies that humans are the highest life form on Earth.

Defintions:-

Evolution:- A progression from a simple form to a more complex one
Mutation:- The process or result of making or becoming different
Adaption:- The act of making suitable to an end or the condition of being made suitable to an end

Now Darwin's Theory does cover aspects of each of these, but rules out a more complex Species can come to pass through Mutation... But in actual fact the only way a creature can change in a massive way is through Mutation due to restrictions to changes of the DNA code through simple Evolution.

In fact there are many groups amoungst the worlds greatest minds that have good reason to fault Darwin's Theory. While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility.

Here's some of the Groups evidence:-

Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.



The main Researcher behind this evidence won a Noble Prize, David Baltimore.

I am not talking arse... Darwin's evoultion theory is fantastic and holds many things I see as true, but it has a few missing steps and links... It's just not finished...

And what I am trying to say about Human's is we should be, by Darwin's Theory be made to suite our suroundings, but if you ask me we are too evolved... I mean if Evoultion effects every creature on the planet then really the most evolved creatures should be those that have been walking or swimming in it the longest... Mamals are one of the last to have started tredding the Earth, I suppose that in it's self can be turned around and said that yes, they are and for that reason the most developed to suite today's conditions... I think for us to be as we are, to take from the tree's to living in caves and then on to Modern time some thing other than climate change and evolution was responcible.

There are many others that think the same as me or simular, that changes can't happen to the degree that Darwin states to the DNA structure of any living creature without Mutation playing a bigger role than that of Evolution.

You see with Mutation (Cross breeding) the strongest of Genes get kept and the weaker taken away... Dominate Genes will suppass the weaker, hence why if a black person has a child with a white person you will get a Black or Dark skinned person... That's Mutation not evolution, evolution may have helped in making the Black person anlong with adaption.  I would imagine that back in time most people would have been white with dark hair, but warm climate made hair shorter and curly and the skin darker through pigmintation then being hard coded into DNA after many years.  The reason I say most would have been white / pink is most mamals are White skinned, I think the Polar Bear is one of the only furr bearing mamals to have dark skin... (I could be wrong)...

I just don't think Dawin's theory is the answer for all life on this planet... I think it plays an integral part, but there is a fair amount of conflictun-dismissable evidence that all the answer have not been fully covered.

Why do you keep saying "Darwin's Theory"? The theory of evolution has advanced in the past 100 years, you know. Mutation and adaptation are central to evolutionary theory along with genetic drift and aren't thought of as being separate from evolution. Let me ask you a question; what do you think evolution is? What about mutation? Interracial kids are not mutants.

All you've done here is paste a couple of pictures and say "I can't believe it, so it can't be true!" then give a quick (somewhat inaccurate) definition of genes and drop a name like it's supposed to blow us away. What exactly is it about evolution that is so difficult? And before, you said that we weren't evolved enough, now we're too evolved. Which is it?

you said that we weren't evolved enough

I have NEVER said that ?

We are too evolved for the Natural enviroment so I am saying that Evolution (Thats governed by change to the enviroment) is not applicaple, so the way we come to pass can't be down to Evolution without Mutation.

Why do you keep saying "Darwin's Theory"? The theory of evolution has advanced in the past 100 years, you know. Evolution is not separate from mutation and adaptation.

Even still it's still only a Theory... and yes it has changed, and yes it's getting better.  Evolution is different to Mutation, or do you regard Ninja turtles as an Evolution change, or some thing that altered them as an exernal source (I am trying to make thi as SIMPLE as I can for you)... Evolution is not Mutation... Mutation is only listed as a Side step on the ladder of Evolution, But I think the main part of life as we know it is down to Mutation and I think Evolution should be the side step, I think Nature only changes small things, like skin tone or Hair growth, it can't alter DNA like Mutation can...  Saying Nature is responicle for the way we are is WRONG, saying Mutation holds more truth in my opinion is CORRECT... And that's pretty much how David Baltimore thinks...

I am not just name dropping and placing up nice images to try and back myself up... I am doing for the same reasons as you are to show my way of thinking.

Saladin... Are you Jesus Hitler ?

Evolution in my opinion is responciple for small changes, the below shows small skin variations due to location:-


Where as Mutation can do all sorts, Mutations with effects in early stages of development can have large phenotypic consequences (Thats movement and relocation of whole body parts in the insect world). For example The mutant bithorax is a well-known case. It has two rear-thoraxes instead of one front and one rear, giving it two pairs of wings instead of a pair of wings and a pair of halteres. Antennapaedia is another example, in which legs grow out of the antennal sockets instead of antennae. At an abstract level, it is easy to imagine how homeotic mutations work. There is presumably a set of genes encoding for the growth of a leg and another set specifying where these leg-genes are switched on. Mutations in the position-specifying genes could result in the genes encoding for leg growth being switched on in the wrong place.

And before you say I am copying and pasting shite... You may have noticed a fair few edits, I have actually put some time into this debate, I have spell checked stuff.

you said that we weren't evolved enough

I have NEVER said that ?

You said it right here:

May be due to Mutation we came about... But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder... I mean the transition by Darwin's own stands show the Steps from Ape to man occurring over a space of time, and if you apply that same space of time to other creatures you can see branches of change or simualrity's betweeen creatures... But that may just be Mutation of the DNA string not nature forcing the changes but cross or interbreeding.

We are too evolved for the Natural enviroment so I am saying that Evolution (Thats governed by change to the enviroment) is not applicaple, so the way we come to pass can't be down to Evolution without Mutation.

Mutation is a part of evolutionary theory.

Even still it's still only a Theory... and yes it has changed, and yes it's getting better.

As far as theories go, evolution is very well founded. Evolution is contested for philosophical reasons, not for scientific ones.

Ninja turtles

Nice straw man. A real mutation would be more fur in a cold climate or resistance to a disease that has been plaguing a species for millenia.

But I think the main part of life as we know it is down to Mutation and I think Evolution should be the side step, I think Nature only changes small things, like skin tone or Hair growth, it can't alter DNA like Mutation can...  Saying Nature is responicle for the way we are is WRONG, saying Mutation holds more truth in my opinion is CORRECT...

Darwin's theory may have emphasized descent with modification, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that the modern theory doesn't incorporate mutations.

And that's pretty much how David Baltimore thinks...

And where does he say that? He didn't do it when he praised The God Delusion or signed this paper supporting evolution being taught in schools.

Evolution in my opinion is responciple for small changes, the below shows small skin variations due to location:-
[img]http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/ensatina.gif[img]

All this shows is that evolution can account for change both great and small.

EDIT: Also, the picture seems to be showing speciation in a lizard population. They are very similar because all those species evolved from the same ancestor relatively recently.

Legs for eyes! Gross! (snipped for length)

Evolutionary theory accounts for mutation. Also, those fly species would not thrive in the wild, where their cousin species whose antennae and eyes are intact would out-compete them within a few generations and the harmful mutations are weeded out. This is an evolutionary process.

EDIT: Can someone find me a gallery of those flies? I thought they were the coolest when I was a kid.

And before you say I am copying and pasting shite... You may have noticed a fair few edits, I have actually put some time into this debate, I have spell checked stuff.

we don't doubt you because of the spelling, but because of the grammar is better than yours. It seems like you added a few signature touches ("Where as", inappropriate capitalization) and left the bulk of the text intact. We don't mind if you paste something relevant, but don't pretend you wrote it.

Saladin... Are you Jesus Hitler ?

If I was, would you read this post?

Even still it's still only a Theory... and yes it has changed, and yes it's getting better.  Evolution is different to Mutation, or do you regard Ninja turtles as an Evolution change, or some thing that altered them as an exernal source (I am trying to make thi as SIMPLE as I can for you)... Evolution is not Mutation... Mutation is only listed as a Side step on the ladder of Evolution, But I think the main part of life as we know it is down to Mutation and I think Evolution should be the side step

You keep on stating how much better it's getting, yet you still seem to fight it at every corner. You really, really don't have to pat it on the back if you think it's wrong.

As I've said before, mutation still encounters some serious problems, some of the same problems that natural selection has. Why are you always off the mainstream? I could understand if it was one thing or two, but for you it seams to be everything. The evidence you've shown me doesn't make enough of a difference to get me supporting this idea over natural selection, what made you pick it? 

Saladin... Are you Jesus Hitler ?

No he's not. Jesus Hitler was banned, he is Saladin.

But I think by now we should be further up the Evolutionary ladder

I was going by the process of man going from chimp to human, there should have been abother change by now... Darwin worked in patterns... 2 4 8 16 32 etc... so around about now 64 should happen ?...

I think we long supassed nature's needs... And his Theory is outdated and outlandish.

The evidence you've shown me doesn't make enough of a difference to get me supporting this idea over natural selection, what made you pick it?

Mutation over Natural selection... Natural selection and adpation to the enviroment is slow changes, changes you wont see from generation to generation, but changes you will see say once every 1000 years or so; and the changes then are small... The changes from Mutation can happen from generation to generation and the changes can be Vast... Thats why I favour Mutation in replacement of Evolution.

Evolution is happening at a slow rate but happening all the time to all of us...

Mutation happens due to another source or a break in the norm... But when it does happen the results are clear and quicker... I think Mutation and breeding / cross breeding is more than likely what gave birth to the first Human.

If I was, would you read this post?

Well I might aswell... may be under a different allias you will act differently and not attack people for voicing opinions.

Mutation is a part of evolutionary theory.

Yeah it's a side note.  Evolution being the main carrier of the theory... and Mutation taking a back seat, I think Mutation should be the main carrier.

And where does he say that? He didn't do it when he praised The God Delusion or signed this paper supporting evolution being taught in schools.

LOL you have been reading Wikki... It doesn't mention much about his actual thoughts into Evolution, while David thinks Evolution is a fairly sound theory to base common changes in he also say for changes to the DNA string to take place soley on the enviroment is too far fetched due to the DNA strand be unchangable without Mutation through breeding.

Can someone find me a gallery of those flies? I thought they were the coolest when I was a kid.

Mutation made this little Gem, not Evolution... Now should this fly mate with another speciess would they grown a new body section... May be ?...

Here's an example... Say if Zebra's mixed with Donkey's when Migrating their off spring if they mated would look like this:-


Now say if that happened a few 100 years ago and now there are loads of them about I bet most theologists would say well its the effects of Evoulution the envirment dicates the Zebra should have stripes therefore Donkey's in the same area now have stripes... NOT TRUE... it's Mutation... And I think thats all Man is a Mutation of two of the smartest Primates at the time, the dominate genes won and that in turn sparked off a new breed of Creature...MAN

Mutation over Natural selection... Natural selection and adpation to the enviroment is slow changes, changes you wont see from generation to generation, but changes you will see say once every 1000 years or so; and the changes then are small... The changes from Mutation can happen from generation to generation and the changes can be Vast... Thats why I favour Mutation in replacement of Evolution.
Evolution is happening at a slow rate but happening all the time to all of us...

Mutation happens due to another source or a break in the norm... But when it does happen the results are clear and quicker... I think Mutation and breeding / cross breeding is more than likely what gave birth to the first Human.

One of the qualms I can't get over mutation is that it wouldn't be close to quick changes on the whole. Mutations only happen to the individual and are unique each time. Is it really faster then NS? With NS in take, identical changes can and do happen to more then one member, compared to the individual change made from mutation, how could a mutation for the better, become a dominant factor in a fast way? If it does only happen to one, then the effect of the change would be diluted each time the mutant mated, effectively wiping it out. Mutation is a random change, I don't see identical changes happening outside of coincidence.

I was going by the process of man going from chimp to human, there should have been abother change by now... Darwin worked in patterns... 2 4 8 16 32 etc... so around about now 64 should happen ?...

I don't think NS can take place effectively, if at all, in a species with such a large culture. The principle is that death of weakness is needed to progress, but with such a large gathering of people, there is a very good chance that every person on earth will have the possibility to pass on their ( possibly flawed ) genes. The flawed will mate with the flawed and even with the 'select', which is quite unnatural and therefore we are unaffected by natural selection.

One of the qualms I can't get over mutation is that it wouldn't be close to quick changes on the whole. Mutations only happen to the individual and are unique each time. Is it really faster then NS? With NS in take, identical changes can and do happen to more then one member, compared to the individual change made from mutation, how could a mutation for the better, become a dominant factor in a fast way? If it does only happen to one, then the effect of the change would be diluted each time the mutant mated, effectively wiping it out. Mutation is a random change, I don't see identical changes happening outside of coincidence.

I think I have already covered this aspect But if a Black person has a Child with a white person the result is fairly simular across the board, they have a Black or dark skinned child... Same applies to if a Zebra had a Baby with a Donkey... Hybrids are not as random as you think... The dominate genes will out those not so... Your opinion on Mutation is very simular to most other theologeon's and very mainstream, but when the other side of the argueement has so much to offer with many supporting factors I don't see how it can be dissmissed.  There has been more breeds of dogs made through cross breeding than Evolution has put forward through natural selection.

I don't think NS can take place effectively, if at all, in a species with such a large culture. The principle is that death of weakness is needed to progress, but with such a large gathering of people, there is a very good chance that every person on earth will have the possibility to pass on their ( possibly flawed ) genes. The flawed will mate with the flawed and even with the 'select', which is quite unnatural and therefore we are unaffected by natural selection.

I agree... I think Evolution through natural selection served it's purpose E-ons ago but now, unless there is a massive change I doubt we will see any new creatures appearing any time soon that may rivial us... The only real thing NS is doing is to smaller creatures and helping them adapt to the enviroment, like camoflage etc...

I think the only way there could be another creature to rivel us would be for a Human to venture into the jungle and mate with a primate, a Big Muscluar one like a Gorilla...LOL (OK that's fairly sick...).

LoS ignores essential parts of Saladin's posts. One can tell, because of his recent comments on hybridisation.
It doesn't make your point look any better