Question for Pond-scum (Evolution) believers

[-Cp]

Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Evolution IS in fact true - uhh.. what's next? e.g. what makes us think that we - in our human form - are "it"?

What will the next version of us be? Will there be one? If not, why? What makes us think we won't eventually evolve into an alien of sorts? etc..etc...


If we are at the end of the cycle, why?

[diuretic]

LOL - humans aren't punched out by General Motors - there's no "next year's model"

[glockmail]

Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Evolution IS in fact true - uhh.. what's next? e.g. what makes us think that we - in our human form - are "it"?

What will the next version of us be? Will there be one? If not, why? What makes us think we won't eventually evolve into an alien of sorts? etc..etc...


If we are at the end of the cycle, why?

Humans are the first species to be able to destroy themselves, their environment, and in fact reverse the beneficial effects of evolution by Liberalism and Socialism.

[Abbey Marie]

Humans are the first species to be able to destroy themselves, their environment, and in fact reverse the beneficial effects of evolution by Liberalism and Socialism.

The more you think about this post, the more thought-provoking it is.
Excellent!

[Hagbard Celine]

The more you think about this post, the more thought-provoking it is.
Excellent!

On the contrary. It's not thought-provoking at all. It makes ungrounded assumptions and shows absolutely no understanding--in fact I'll go so far as to say ignorance--of the theory of evolution itself.

There are no evolutionary scientists who have ever said we've reached the peak in human evolution--in fact, the contrary is true--nor has anyone ever said we're at the end of the "cycle," nor does anyone believe that we're in a "cycle." This is something -Cp made up to make evolutionary theory look foolish and I have to say he's done a terrible job. His tone is hostile and his "facts" are made-up.

[Abbey Marie]

On the contrary. It's not thought-provoking at all. It makes ungrounded assumptions and shows absolutely no understanding--in fact I'll go so far as to say ignorance--of the theory of evolution itself.

There are no evolutionary scientists who have ever said we've reached the peak in human evolution--in fact, the contrary is true--nor has anyone ever said we're at the end of the "cycle," nor does anyone believe that we're in a "cycle." This is something -Cp made up to make evolutionary theory look foolish and I have to say he's done a terrible job. His tone is hostile and his "facts" are made-up.

I was referring specifically to Glock's post, which I quoted in my post, not -Cp's.

[Hagbard Celine]

I was referring specifically to Glock's post, which I quoted in my post, not -Cp's.

Whatev. Either way, I know whatever it was you were agreeing with was anti-science or anti-"liberals." "Thought-provoking." What a joke. Everything is an insult to progressive thinking with you guys. By the same token, I should be able to say, "Humans are the first species to be able to destroy themselves, their environment, and in fact reverse the beneficial effects of evolution by Conservatism and Fascism." and have every lib poster on this board respond with "Hmm, that's very thought-provoking. Hmm." Ppffftt. What a joke.

[-Cp]

On the contrary. It's not thought-provoking at all. It makes ungrounded assumptions and shows absolutely no understanding--in fact I'll go so far as to say ignorance--of the theory of evolution itself.

There are no evolutionary scientists who have ever said we've reached the peak in human evolution--in fact, the contrary is true--nor has anyone ever said we're at the end of the "cycle," nor does anyone believe that we're in a "cycle." This is something -Cp made up to make evolutionary theory look foolish and I have to say he's done a terrible job. His tone is hostile and his "facts" are made-up.

WTH? How was there any "Tone" to my post at all, and why won't you answer it?

[Hagbard Celine]

WTH? How was there any "Tone" to my post at all, and why won't you answer it?

I did answer it. All the questions you ask are baseless. No evolutionist has ever said that we are at the peak of human evolution nor have they said that we are "it." And the tone is in the title of the thread. "Pond Scum" believers.

[glockmail]

On the contrary. It's not thought-provoking at all. It makes ungrounded assumptions and shows absolutely no understanding--in fact I'll go so far as to say ignorance--of the theory of evolution itself.

There are no evolutionary scientists who have ever said we've reached the peak in human evolution--in fact, the contrary is true--nor has anyone ever said we're at the end of the "cycle," nor does anyone believe that we're in a "cycle." This is something -Cp made up to make evolutionary theory look foolish and I have to say he's done a terrible job. His tone is hostile and his "facts" are made-up.

Bologna. The theory of evolution assumes the strongest/ smartest will survive, thus te species becomes stronger and better adapted. If it were true for 21st century man then there would be no welfare recipients. Liberalism/ socialism ensures that welfare recipeints will not only survive, but multiply, and continue to suck off the smarter/ stronger, thus making them mankind weaker. Evolution reversed.

[Hagbard Celine]

Bologna. The theory of evolution assumes the strongest/ smartest will survive, thus te species becomes stronger and better adapted. If it were true for 21st century man then there would be no welfare recipients. Liberalism/ socialism ensures that welfare recipeints will not only survive, but multiply, and continue to suck off the smarter/ stronger, thus making them mankind weaker. Evolution reversed.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't assume anything. It states that "only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." You're assuming this means, the strongest or smartest. It can also mean the most immune, the most able to see in the dark, the most hairless, the most hairy, etc. To illustrate the point, take Stephen Hawking as an example. He's definately the smartest, but will he ever contribute to the gene pool? I doubt it. With a disease as bad as his, I don't want him to and you probably don't either.

I've said it before. Evolution has no end game. There is no "intelligent design" to be achieved at the end. It's a continual process. This is the variant in the equation that you all are not comprehending. You're so used to there being a God with a plan in the mix that you can't understand that there is no final product to be achieved. Even if we somehow evolved to the point where we could fly into space and live up there, there would still be adaptive challenges that would have to be overcome. Evolution isn't a guiding intelligence, it's a natural process like erosion or the water cycle. A perfect example of a species that is an evolutionary dud is the Giant Panda. It isn't capable of bearing offspring more than once or twice every few years. So eventually I predict that it will be eradicated. And it would have been already by natural selection if not for human intervention.

[diuretic]

Humans are the first species to be able to destroy themselves, their environment, and in fact reverse the beneficial effects of evolution by Liberalism and Socialism.

Yes, capitalism will destroy the planet if we let it.

[Lightning Waltz]

Humans are the first species to be able to destroy themselves, their environment, and in fact reverse the beneficial effects of evolution by Liberalism and Socialism.

Interesting. How does the anti-choice stance fit in with this mindset?

[glockmail]

Interesting. How does the anti-choice stance fit in with this mindset?

You'll have to be more specific in your questions.

[Lightning Waltz]

You'll have to be more specific in your questions.

Gunny, you'll have to re-write what you posted for a 7th grade reading comprehension. Then maybe he'll understand, but probably not.

So, what you're saying is that you have the reading comphrension of a 7th grader...