Question for Pond-scum (Evolution) 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.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm amused with you too. The feeling's mutual I guess.

Typial comeback, but you didn't answer, why do you spend your time with people you consider jokes and idiots?

[Hagbard Celine]

Typial comeback, but you didn't answer, why do you spend your time with people you consider jokes and idiots?

Where was the question?

am always amused at how you come here off and on, and then proceed to condescendingly call the majority of posters here jokes and idiots. If I thought that way, I wouldn't waste one minute here.

To answer you, I spend my time here because when you all aren't making dumbass jokes about "liberalism, libs, the vast liberal media conspiracy, liberal-fascists (my personal fav), etc.) the conversation can be fairly stimulating. Plus it gives me something to do while I'm at work--other than work We'd get a lot more good conversationalizing done here if we didn't have to defend ourselves personally all the time--(which is what I find myself doing in just about every thread.) Some of you can find a way to put down progressives in the most random topics available. An evolution thread, for instance. It is a joke.

[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.

[LOki]

Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Evolution IS in fact true - uhh.. what's next?

No one knows.

what makes us think that we - in our human form - are "it"?

I have no idea who the "us" is you're speaking of, but it doesn't include me--you should ask "them."

What will the next version of us be?

No one knows. Anyone who claims evolution can or should be able to predict this, is someone who has a profound misunderstanding of basically everything.

Will there be one?

No one knows.

If not, why?

Human beings might not ever experience the kind of population segregation, that allows suffient genetic drift for separate speciation of each population, that would make the notion of "having evolved" meaningful--or, we might just blow ourselves up, or otherwise simply become extinct. No one knows.

What makes us think we won't eventually evolve into an alien of sorts? etc..etc...

Again, I have no idea who the "us" is you're speaking of, but the answer ought to be "nothing."

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

That's a giant "if" there, but my stab at it says the reason we've stop evolving (if that's what you mean by "end of the cycle" and if we accept the premise) is that there are insufficient survival and reproductive pressures present to make fitness to survive and reproduce significant enough to have a meaningful impact on human survival and reproduction.

[-Cp]

No one knows.

I have no idea who the "us" is you're speaking of, but it doesn't include me--you should ask "them."

No one knows. Anyone who claims evolution can or should be able to predict this, is someone who has a profound misunderstanding of basically everything.

No one knows.

Human beings might not ever experience the kind of population segregation, that allows suffient genetic drift for separate speciation of each population, that would make the notion of "having evolved" meaningful--or, we might just blow ourselves up, or otherwise simply become extinct. No one knows.

Again, I have no idea who the "us" is you're speaking of, but the answer ought to be "nothing."

That's a giant "if" there, but my stab at it says the reason we've stop evolving (if that's what you mean by "end of the cycle" and if we accept the premise) is that there are insufficient survival and reproductive pressures present to make fitness to survive and reproduce significant enough to have a meaningful impact on human survival and reproduction.

WOW - thanks for actually answering the questions.. (unlike Hagbard) - at least you took a stab at it...

Now I guess I have to wrap up your post by saying - if that's the best the THEORY of Evolution has to answer my questions, than I'll still stick to Creationism - it seems much more plausable to me...

[Hagbard Celine]

WOW - thanks for actually answering the questions.. (unlike Hagbard) - at least you took a stab at it...

Now I guess I have to wrap up your post by saying - if that's the best the THEORY of Evolution has to answer my questions, than I'll still stick to Creationism - it seems much more plausable to me...

The purpose of the theory of evolution is not to answer the question, "where are we going?" The purpose is to answer the question, "from whence did we come?" This thread frames, canonizes and plants in cement the fact that you know nothing about evolution or what its tenets are. How about doing a little reading on the subject before you spray your ignorance around the board the way a tiger sprays a tree when it's marking its territory?

[glockmail]

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.

That's all semantics, Hag, and ignoring my point, which is that Liberal/ Socialists policies tend to reverse the natural trends of evolution, which is to have the species adapt to its environment. In Socialist Man's case, he has adapted his environment to suit the weak link; the individual who would not survive otherwise, and it is to the species ultimate detriment.

[darin]

That's all semantics, Hag, and ignoring my point, which is that Liberal/ Socialists policies tend to reverse the natural trends of evolution, which is to have the species adapt to its environment. In Socialist Man's case, he has adapted his environment to suit the weak link; the individual who would not survive otherwise, and it is to the species ultimate detriment.

Typically, when people don't want to FACE evidence, they simply ignore it. I believe HB falls into that category - anyone could show him mountains of evidence to the destructive-nature of Liberalism in a society - he'd simply choose to look away.

[Hagbard Celine]

Typically, when people don't want to FACE evidence, they simply ignore it. I believe HB falls into that category - anyone could show him mountains of evidence to the destructive-nature of Liberalism in a society - he'd simply choose to look away.

Evidence of what? All I see are three conservative posters trying to draw me into a pissing match and an opinion based on nothing that you all are apparently trying to rally behind. I'm discussing the thread topic. If you all want to bash liberals and tie it into the theory of evolution, then start a thread called: "The vast liberal conspiracy is detrimental to evolution." Otherwise,...oh what's the point? My voice will just be drowned out by the hordes of conservative posters on here just like it always is.

[jackass]

Ok I have a question. Does anyone here believe in half and half. In other words..God made man...but man evolved into our more present form? If not...why not? What do you make of the skulls resembling human skulls. How do you explain the neanderthals and such?

[darin]

Dude - you RARELY debate evidence against your pov - especially in cases of faith. You repeat your mantra of "there is no evidence" - but your denial isn't proof of lack of evidence.

[glockmail]

Ok I have a question. Does anyone here believe in half and half. In other words..God made man...but man evolved into our more present form? If not...why not? What do you make of the skulls resembling human skulls. How do you explain the neanderthals and such?

There is no question in my mind that God uses evolution as a tool to refine species. But 50-50? Maybe 90-10.

[jackass]

There is no question in my mind that God uses evolution as a tool to refine species. But 50-50? Maybe 90-10.

Ok the percentage isnt really important..just wondering what the feeling was about it on the board.
My grandmother...a true die hard and faithful Roman Catholic still to this day doesnt believe dinosaurs are real because "God would never make such a horrible creature"

[glockmail]

Ok the percentage isnt really important..just wondering what the feeling was about it on the board.
My grandmother...a true die hard and faithful Roman Catholic still to this day doesnt believe dinosaurs are real because "God would never make such a horrible creature"

God made Mike Moore, Rosie O'Donell, and Hillary Clinton, all much worse IMO.