<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Monse- You may not know Wurmy, but I do. He's doing this sort of genetics thing for a living (weren't you study to me a molecular biologist or something equally dull, Wurm?), so watch out on the debate. He's a man-eater... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the 'equally dull thing' that is my degree is 'evolutionary biology' although i'm focusing more on population genetics and evolutionary ecology than systematics or taxonomy. (i threw in the big words to try to confuse/tease you monse ~<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Humans are at their peak of physical evolution. We have reached the most we ever will be. Now our society needs to evolve, but sorry to say we won't last long enough to see any true changes. Humans will be humans. We're a viral entity. We consume and destroy, we cannot create anew.
As our society reaches farther and farther away from Darwinian Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest) our species will eventually destroy it's self because we have diluted the blood line so much. Even now, our species is working slowly at destroying ourself. Not to sound callous, but modern medicine has only encouraged this destruction. The disease-tendencies that some people have our spreading, because of medicine. That is not to say that we should kill the sick, but we should have a Do Not Resuscitate for those who are terminally ill before their time of reproduction. And let us not forget the fact that our big "anti-bacterial" kick in the US/Europe is doing nothing but harm, creating super-bacterium's that can essentially supervent all anti-biotics.
Humans have reached this point of evolution for a reason, that is that Diseases, predators and inborn stupidity wiped out the weakest of the species. Look at how well people were able to survive in the ancient times. Now look at the fact that anti-biotic use is reaching astounding heights. Because of our own self-developed "social conscience", we have started our species down the road to self-annihilation.
Though, I for one, would like to live long enough to meet an alien species, just to see what path evolution on a different world takes.
[edit]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been reading some of the stuff contained within, now that I replied. The idea that cerebral evolution can happen. Don't forget that currently we use only about 10-15% of our total brain capacity. That little. And on the idea of genetic manipulation:
I'd personally like to see another species of human created. Winged with enhanced sight (via <i>DareDevil</i> eyesight, echo location) whose sole ability is to survive in the arctic wastes as a basic low-level agarian society. Ok, so they don't have to have wings, but I think feathered wings would be cool.
Our species is liable to go to war with planetary cleansing (not destroying, I don't have that much hubris) weapons, and just about all that survives will be what's in the cold parts because those will warm up. I'm talkin like Antarctica and North Pole cold places.
Plus i'd like Gene therapy so I can have a nice pair of Angel wings (via Van in Escaflowne movie, except permenant) [/edit]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My, discussion travels fast, i should pull my head out of a book more often. Mind you, had i already said more in this discussion perhaps i'd have to pull my head out of something else ~;) Oh. sorry if i've contributed to deflecting the thread from human evolution. I'll try to comment on that after I’ve dealt with some specific comments.
Relic, hair-pulling morality discussions aside, I would agree with you that eugenics may be good for the "balance and numbers" aspects of humanity. If there were a way that eugenics could exist for all to choose whether or not to participate on an enlightened and informed basis then it would not be a moral problem at all. Unfortunately, it does not seem the world is ready for entirely enlightened or informed decisions as a whole just yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Relic25-As to your first question, I answer, "You bet." Why? Because I trust no one else to make that call for me, and there is too much gray area to do anything other than to take that judgement on a case-by-case basis, which could only be accomplished by me as an individual. Of course, I would be subject to the same judgement (and I don't have a problem with that). Quite the paradox, isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently it is. I personally think it would be hard to judge who is more worthy. eg, from a biological standpoint the most worthy to breed may be that physically unstoppable and quick-thinking mass-murderer. If selection were to focus on learned knowledge and other thoughts, perhaps i would be more worthy, or perhaps my frailty would make me unacceptable nonetheless. The qualifications for judgement will always be subjective. Evolution has no goal of it's own, it merely selects those to survive. Our values would be imposed upon selection criteria, making a goal. But who is to say any goal we choose is right? Are those born with physical or mental disabilities at fault for what they could not control? 'Judge not, lest ye be judged oneself' (to paraphrase horribly). I am certainly far from perfect, and i do not wish to face judgement nor put it upon someone else. If producing children is the one true goal of our physical existence, would not denying this to someone be an act that rendered their physical existence meaningless?
I think perhaps my second question was not explicit enough. I too have met deficient and irresponsible ‘over-breeders’, but these cannot really be generalized into any specific group other than perhaps: morons. But with eugenics, a group would be judged not worthy to breed if they shared the defining characteristics. This is where i see a tie to prejudice, when ppl are lumped in a group that receives differential treatment. Any assumption that we are not all equal and deserving of the same treatment means that we can be segregated into groups/classes/strata implying ‘worth’. Treating others as less worthy than yourself, in any respect, is something that I see as prejudice.
Genetic counselors have every right to advise parents not to have children if the risk is high for something unwanted. However, it remains the parents’ choice. More information is rarely a bad thing. Perhaps if parents knew something was coming it would be easier to accept and deal with properly. As for child molesters/abusers I would much rather see a harsher judicial punishment than violate their rights as a human being. That being said, if those who would commit as horrible crimes as these were confined to a cell that would never allow them the opportunity to reproduce, I certainly wouldn’t be complaining.
________________ As long as an organism is reproducing, mutating and being selected, it is evolving. There is no peak, the only options are evolve to surive or extinction. Perhaps some of you who claim that evolution has stopped mean that we are not facing as great a selectional pressure as our ancestors have, but I assure you, we will continue to evolve until we become batches of clones and regard sex as something we’d rather not do (a scary possible future I know ~;) Every time a child dies of hunger, or from disease, or even by fluke accident they are removed from the gene pool contributing to the next generation and thus adding the tiny increment necessary to keep evolution moving.
Evolution happens very slowly, nearly imperceptible, any tiny incidences will add up. It seems often that this unfathomably gradual movement is a source of claim by some theists of evolution’s falsity, but I won’t even start that here.
So that being said, where are we as humans evolving? It is true that in the 1st world we have medicine to help reduce the mortality (and hence selection) due to disease. It is still a leading cause of death in the world. Man, and almost all other organisms tend to reach equilibrium with their surroundings. It seems man has just decided to put it off for a while for the sake of ‘progress’, but as we are seeing now, the price of many of our actions will still be paid for. Diseases of old and our immune system gradually evolved to co-exist benignly together (a great example of de-evolution and diseases can be found in the book, andromeda strain) and so also has evolution found trends to avoid other sorts of mortality. We will continue to evolve counters to disease. I think it is only a matter of time till a character such as Gibson’s J.D.Shapely comes along with a key mutation that will save us from an AIDS epidemic worse than it is already. It is not in the advantage of the virus to kill all its hosts. No matter what medicine accomplishes, nature will still help us as a species gradually adapt to threats facing us. Other than adapting to diseases and avoiding other sources of mortality we are mostly selecting ourselves. By this I don’t just mean the pollution that we are producing that is certainly contributing to cancer, deaths and increasing mutations. But we, as people are choosing who to breed with. Mixing genotypes from around the world in a wonderful assortment. Isolated populations are probably evolving quicker, through specificity of selection and increased drift. In the near future, we may get smarter; we may not. We’ll most likely have an increased level of technology but these two are not the same things. Genetic engineering will help to shape our future. It would be nice to use gene therapy to correct ‘defects’ so we can become our own domesticated animals, keeping desirable features without regulating breeding. There is hardly a limit to what genetic engineering could do. But although we have sequenced the human genome, that doesn’t mean that we know anything about it. The few genes we understand are a fraction of the total identified genes. The ‘junk’ DNA that we thought had no purpose has been suggested to have structural consequences on the gene transcription and recombination processes. (this is hypothesized due to high evolutionary conservation of junk DNA sequences. I can’t remember the reference offhand, but I saw Dr. Sydney Brenner speak about it). Once we understand the genome more fully is when we should start considering messing with it. The Raelians will have likely claimed to have created an engineered superhuman or prophet by then, but of course they won’t let us test their claims... Genetic engineering will also start similarly to nature, working with what it has. We are unlikely to be able to buy packages to ensure our children grow swan wings or anything as quick as we may think. Truth is stranger than fiction, you never know. I predict improvements of our rigor, longevity and efficiency would be the first and most useful genetic modifications to the human form. Modifying genomes too much would make it difficult for us to interbreed with modified individuals, so apart from the occasional supersoldier, humans will still evolve fairly slowly. This slowness will still be faster than any speed prior seen though. If we continue to exponentially accelerate in technological advancement as we have since the discovery of fire, we may still be growing wings on our kids within 1000years.
It will certainly be interesting after we have set up colony planets in the future using STL ships. Colonies will start to become subspecies adapted to various gravitational, atmospheric and other pressures. Perhaps we’ll have mining colony dwarves, low-gravity ‘softies’, thick atmosphere-dwelling humans with fins. Who knows.
Cronos, I agree that genetic engineering for specialization will work against us. If worker clastes are developed it would most likely be in a Replicant-like scenario. I do not think we are as generalized as you think. We construct our own environments, maintaining our houses at a cushy 24 degrees celcius, pumping heat out through poor insulation while a moose can happily walk through the underbrush at –24 as much as she would in the summer. We are without a doubt far more of a generalist than many animals. Perhaps it was the necessity for our generalist lifestyle that required the development of an intellect capable of dealing with a variety of problems. Crows are great examples of generalists and also exhibit tool use and are quite clever. This generalism will be our advantage though, as we try to adapt to new environments (ie, space and new planets). Ninety-nine percent of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. In the past mass extinction events, only a handful of species made it through. From my experience with paleontology I can tell you that these have tended to be generalists, able to more easily modify themselves to fit their environment. Humans have the added advantage of a high intelligence (although some days I wonder). (oh, and your point about god=universe? My sentiments exactly)
Oh, Relic, here’s a phrase that would be great for your next visit with the deficient and irresponsible ‘over-breeders’:
I don’t swim in your toilet, so don’t pee in my gene pool
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Mar 5 2003, 03:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Mar 5 2003, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As our society reaches farther and farther away from Darwinian Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest) our species will eventually destroy it's self because we have diluted the blood line so much. Even now, our species is working slowly at destroying ourself. Not to sound callous, but modern medicine has only encouraged this destruction. The disease-tendencies that some people have our spreading, because of medicine. That is not to say that we should kill the sick, but we should have a Do Not Resuscitate for those who are terminally ill before their time of reproduction. And let us not forget the fact that our big "anti-bacterial" kick in the US/Europe is doing nothing but harm, creating super-bacterium's that can essentially supervent all anti-biotics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm all for loving you're fellow man, but why do schools have to bend over backwards to pass the kids who don't want to put forth effort?
but yeah, schools in generally need to stop going out of their way to make stupid kids feel smart.
and my parent knows someone whose 1st kid used to die an average of 9 times a day. He was kept alive at cost to the state of nearly a million a year. The parents were told that they had a 95% chance of the disease going to the next child. Guess what. they didn't hit that 5%.
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Mar 5 2003, 03:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Mar 5 2003, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Humans are at their peak of physical evolution. We have reached the most we ever will be. Now our society needs to evolve, but sorry to say we won't last long enough to see any true changes. Humans will be humans. We're a viral entity. We consume and destroy, we cannot create anew. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree, the human race is fairly new compaired to alot of other species, I highly doubt we have reached the pinical of our evolutionary path. Look how imperfect we are, let alone what things could happen in the future to change what we may be. It has been proven that an average human only ever uses about 10% of what his/her brain is able to do, now we can do alot with 10% just imagine if we could put 20-30-40% to use. That I think is our next step.
As our environment changes, we too will change. We evolved from a cro-magnon (and earlier species) because we learned to work smarter, not harder. With the advent of tools, humans did not need to use as much brute strength, and therefore our bones became more slender, our muscles leaner, and we began to stand up straighter (straighter? or more straight? I can't think well right now). With the advent of clothing, we did not require as much hair as we once did, and the hair we did keep changed to fit the role given to it.
Why does a person of Negroid descent have dark skin? Ancestors of the current African race were exposed to long periods of direct sunlight, and their bodies compensated accordingly; just like when one gets a tan. Why does a person of Mongoloid descent have "slant" eyes (not to use it as a slur...purely as an identifier), because the colder climates of northern Asia (Mongolia & the mountainous areas of China) required less eye surface area be exposed to the chilling winds. Every adaptation evolved is for better survival. Just like the first butterfly with a longer "mouth", they could delve more deeply into the flowers and feed on the nectar more easily. The butterflies with the short mouths died out because they couldn't feed as well.
You can ask a billion questions and receive a billion answers, and in the future there will be a billion more...evolution is a never-ending process.
I see human evolution going downhill. We no longer have to strive to live. If we have trouble seeing, we get glasses. If we get a disease, we use medication to fight it instead of letting our bodies fight it off. We no longer need to use our bodies to evolve.
Take glasses for instance. We no longer need to strive to get better vision, because we have an outside source that corrcts and enhances this for us.
Not only that, but products such as antibacterial soap not only force bacteria to get stronger, it sncourages us to get weaker.
We've reached the peak because we no longer need to get better.
Natural selection would've killed half a quarter of the world population at the least, but because of medicines and such we keep them alive.
Not to sound callous, but we need to start selectively weeding. Death is a natural part of life yet humans spend entire lifetimes trying to stop it.
And in regards to the Price of Peace link - we've always marched for our own peace. World War II was joined by the Americans when Japan attacked us. Some may disagree but sometimes Dictators like Saddam are the lesser of two evils. In Vietnam we put Ngo Vinh Diem in power. He was far worse then Ho Chi Minh and the communists. and let us not forget the Dictators America has put into power simply because they agreed to support the U.S.
<u><b>Humanity's Standing...</b></u> No longer will we be ourselves but only a shadow of our predecessors. Whole bodies may be replaced with life-support systems using the latest of medical technology; which only furthers to weaken us. Farms will dissapear; the only real source of "good" contagen exposure which keeps our bodies in prime order. Hydroponic bays with carbon-copy high nutrient/vitamin with high pest/weed/disease resistant genes will feed us with more than our bodies need; yet food is always scarce. Off-planet comets will be taken into high-orbit around planets and slowly be processed, and dispearsed over some 100's of 1000's human colonies. water and hydrogen will be our lesser monetary unit, however, there will be a "universal credit" that is accepted by every human.
Hate, predujdices, and even war will surely still live on within humanity; but so will love and peace... however to a lesser degree. As we will become so prolific we may just have a Bar-code on our fore head, identifying us for life. Crime will also live on, but in a new sense...
<u><b>Oh the joys of being rich...</b></u> Hitting it big with a product is a under-statement with about 30 billion possable consumers. Corperate Busineses will not be businesses; they will be governments. Nearly all functions of life will be inhabited by some mega-corperation or another and thus privacy will only be a faint memory of the elders of our future. Having a intamate relation ship with your spouse (i wont state the <i>other</i> *wink* possabilities as it isn't necessary) may be "Broadcast Live From Their Bedroom To YOUR Bedroom!" without YOU or THEY never knowing it; or having your phones continually monitored by a ai system to scan for hostile activities (mention the topic of a bio or chem-agent and you'll be splattered by the Corperations hella fast).
With money comes power; and you either have it or you dont. Rich and poor are divided by a cassam spanning the opposite sides of the universe, though, even the "poorest" people of the future will be as well off as a middle-classed family now. There'd be LOTS of Credits up for grabs from illegal activities: surgical alterations, genetic modifications, burning or altering that damned Bar code...
<u><b>War is truely a horror...</b></u> Think of vietnam but 100 times worse with 100 to 1000 times more people on BOTH sides with high-tech, high-end destructive powers. (think large-scale fusion bomb. fusion is when two atoms are joined together but at high speed and temperature. gas turns into plasma; basically a mini-sun power generator. then add the power of half a nova and you got a <i>small</i> fusion bomb.) Good thing that no one would actually use them since they know if they do the dead dude's buddies are gonna rip em' apart with the same tech.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Weapons will eventually become so destructive that they will never be used <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above quote is not exact, and was said by someone (forgot who) but is partially true.
---- As stated earlier we will kill ourselves; wether it be natural or caused by a weapon of such destructive force that... well, you get the picture. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
There may be the odd "OMG THAT GUY HAS ARMOR PLATES ON HIS SKIN" or the "OMG I THOUGHT YOU WERE SICK" person, but our own fears and hate will kill those that are different (damn Nazis) that may have actually helped us in the long run. (armor plates = survivability, and the impressive immune system advantages are obvious)
Just think X-MEN (original) with StarCraft (maybe with aliens) inter-mingled with StarShip Troopers (maybe with aliens), toss in some super diseases, hazardous enviroments, and random events you have the possible future...
What a positive out look, the way I see it Microsoft and Coca Cola are each gonna rule half the world then destroy each other and the world in a huge war....makes sence no?
Oddly enough, the tobacco industry does this... and makes hella profit. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
IMO corperations will soon be governments or atleast have a "Security" force equal to some countries' armies.
1) No, that comment wasn't aimed at anyone partcular, i was jsut building off that post. Sorry if it came off like I was trying to insult you.
2) I think this thread is operating under the assumption that evolution, on a massive scale, is true as far as the way we came about. For a Creationism/Evolution debate, please ressurect the religion thread, or start a new one, there's no need to try to carry on two discussions at once. I welcome the debate.
Um.. I don't think I have anything horribly important to say here, so I'll stop typing........now.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Mar 10 2003, 08:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Mar 10 2003, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Riiiiiight......now back the Coca Cola vs Microsoft wars, don't wanna get side tracked lol <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Deosn't coke make Mountain Dew? If they do, they've got another soldier in their corpro-nation.
I know this is a little late in responding, but for whatever reason I was not able to load the natural selection website for the past few days. Well, into the fray...
<b>Wurmspawn:</b>
Gravity a theory, eh? Check this <a href='http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/intermed/inter.htm' target='_blank'>link</a> out please.
I'm not sure how questions I have about the current theories of how we came to be human could be seen as "'old world creationists'" but maybe my own theory could be. Wait a second, did I even once mention God as being that creator? Who/what/when/where/why/how God questions are all good and fine, but what stops it from being other stuff that could be out there and is just as unexplained as God is in some respects. There was a reason (a good one I thought at the time) that I made the reference to Science Fiction at the end there, because oft times it seems to be said these days that science fiction is becoming fact with new revelations and technologies. What's to say that our creationists are not a inter-galactic space faring species of being that had nano-bots at their disposal? What if "god" is a inter-galactic space faring species of being that has nano-bots at "his" disposal? If this was the case, how would we know it and would we notice the evidence if we weren't looking for it? With all these questions I have about the currently common views of evolution and human origin, I just decided I'd make up my own theory since it seems to answer the question of "Where and how did we become man?" a little better for myself.
That said, I think you have added some really insightful stuff to this discussion, even going so far as to it seems no one else is coming forward to challenge chaotic evolution as the only means to humans becoming what we are today. Well, I'm back and just as stubborn and pig headed as ever. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<b>juice:</b>
I've checked out the carbon dating stuff, and while it is for the most part a reliable source of dating there are those "Carbon dating based on the very regular <i>(on average)</i> decay of carbon" you mentioned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects.
...
In practice, neither the atoms nor the decays can be counted with 100% efficiency, but the huge advantage for atom counting remains. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I grabed that info from this <a href='http://emuseum.mankato.msus.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html' target='_blank'>source</a>, though I know I've heard it before somewhere that we don't know how constant carbon input coming into our enviroment has been in even man's written history.
<b>AllUrHiveRBelong2Us:</b>
As always, it seems I can rely on you to be among my detractors to my opposing views.
It seems to me that something that is "barely" perceptible just might be abstract enough that it may not actually exist at all, is that a hard notion to grasp?
Just take a look at this <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html' target='_blank'>link</a> on an article that takes into account that the definition of evolution and the mechanics of evolution seem to get muddled together. I'm not denying evolution exists, I just question that we came to be where we are without intelligent, self-aware influence. Whether that is God or something else, I'll let you and others each decide that for yourself.
<b>Generally speaking...</b>
Heck, I don't even put too much stock in that we are completely accurate about dinosaurs and their ilk. If you didn't know what a chicken looked like, and I handed you a bunch of their bones that were just cracked, hard representations of their bones, you're telling me you would hand me back a completely accurate chicken skeleton? I personally think we know just as much about biology as we do about the past, which is to say almost nothing. Which is why I like this statement by Cronos...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and by the way, has anyone read the novel "The Time Machine" by HG Wells? It concerns an alternate path where humans specialise over a period of 800,000 years or so. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its science fiction, how did it get into this discussion, I wonder... Anyways, I read the book and it is far better than the movie. Okay, well, I'd type some more stuff up here, but FeydToBlack did it already!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Be careful. This fallacy has led to many scientific blunders in the past. In the late 19th century, the scientific community thought that there was no point in studying physics because there was nothing left to be learned. However, that has drastically changed, and continues to change.
I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just trying to get you to see that it is a very real possibility that there may be better ways for understanding the human body and how it may have come into being: through evolution or creation. Who knows, we may even find a stamp saying "made by god" on every little sub-atomic particle in the universe.
"The fool thinks himself wise, while the wise man knows himself to be a fool" "It is better to have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Relic25+Mar 4 2003, 07:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Relic25 @ Mar 4 2003, 07:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the people who <i>should</i> be breeding aren't, while those who should not be are the ones breeding out of control. This leads to a downward trend, not a positive one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are exactly correct, sir. The laws of natural selection have ceased to apply to us. Instead, we have a process of artificial selection which primarily favors those who are unable to use birth control correctly.
Just a small reminder people, Intelligence as a whole is NOT a genetic trait.
By that logic, I should only have made it as far as primary eductation and here I am doing my final year of secondary education and am planning on my tertiary education.
Intelligence is determined by the inclination to learn and the opportunities presented to the individual. I have had the opportunity to further my education, my father did not.
On a tangent to this conversation, Geniuses are becoming more common in society. Think about it, this century we had Edison, Einstein, Tesla, Steven hawking, all in this century. In the past we had Galileo, Copernicus, Aristarchus, Newton, all these past geniuses occured at large intervals to each other. Just some food for thought...
Well cronos, one of the main problems with that is the social climate that many of those early scientists lived in. In an age when only a small portion of the population is able to read, not many are going to aspire to become great thinkers. The concept of heresy and blasphemy was another big problem. Copernicus' work was never taken seriously until Galeilo took it up. Infact, Copernicus refuted his own work to keep himself from burning at the stake for heresy.
Would this make any of us want to stand up and question these norms? I wouldnt. Best to keep your head in the cave and pretend to see the shadows for what they are than to show people the light and be burned by it.
However, in the modern age, this kind of free thinking is promoted. Rarely in this day and age do we see people shunned because they develop a new branch of science, or make ideologically shattering discoveries.
This is one of the great things about the Internet, the ability of people who have never met to share ideas and develop off of each other's ideas for the betterment and downfall of mankind.
Wolverine, on the chickens/dinosaur bones: It is true that full skeletons are rarely found. The main way that palentologists (sp?) build complete skeletons is through extrapolation. If you can find the remains of 5 chickens, each missing different portions of the body, you could fit the pieces together to get a pretty good estimation of the average of the originals.
However, this only gives the skeletal structure. Things such as musculature, skin texture, color, etc. are merely the collective best guesses based on available evidence. Its not like we have a time machine to go take pictures of them.
[Off topic paranoid rant] How do we know that people from the future are not living in the present. If someone were to invent time machines at ANY time in the future, people from the future could be living in the present. Say for a sociological study of "modern" humans, or humanity before some alien encounter, etc. Or to influence the path of society so that the future goes the way that they want it. Think Time Cop or Time Patrol.[/off topic paranoid rant]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The very act of observation, hidden or otherwise, changes the nature of what you are observing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try it. Study a few people by just looking at them. When they notice you (and invariably they will) they will act different.
and my other little point is:
If they came back in time to alter the course of society so that X doesn't happen, what's happens to the YZABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXXYYZZAABBCCDDEEFFGGHHIIJJKKLLMMNNOOPPQQRRSSTTUUVVWWXXXYYYZZZAAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHHIIIJJJKKKLLLMMMNNNOOOPPPQQQRRRSSSTTTUUUVVVWWW factors that one has to take into account? The tiniest little thing could have a repercussion that stops them from being able to come back in time, which means that they never altered the path of humanity, thus they are able to come back, but then they shift it again. Life turns into a loop, a never ending moebius effect.
and H.G. Wells <i>Time Machine</i> was turned into a good movie as of late, starring Guy Pearce and the 7-up guy. I suggest you see it.
We do differ genetically from those people. It is just such an insignifigant amount . Condisering that our DNA differs from Chimpanzee DNA by about 1.5%, there is not much change to be seen between us and our closest ancestors. Especially considering that we share about 80% of our DNA with watermellons.
The main reason for this is the fact that only a VERY small portion of DNA codes for looks. The vast majority is for molecular sturctures, sub-cellular structures, the vast number and types of cells, etc.
Then you get into the "old" DNA that is kept almost in storage. If I am not mistaken, we still retain the majority of the DNA that made up the common ancestor that we had with all other primates. (again, most of that having to do with the "invisible" processes in our bodies.)
You may have to check me on the percentages.
Besides, 40k years is nothing the scheme of evoltuion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CanadianWolverine- That said, I think you have added some really insightful stuff to this discussion, even going so far as to it seems no one else is coming forward to challenge chaotic evolution as the only means to humans becoming what we are today. Well, I'm back and just as stubborn and pig headed as ever.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> thank you. and as for being stubborn, arguments tend to end disappointingly when those putting them forth are not willing to fight for their opinions.
i do however, wish to apoligize to anyone that i have offended by my retorts that may have been construed a bit harshly. i had no intention of a personal attack and i respect the members of the community far too much to have meant it that way.
you'll pardon my pause to write some more responses, school and all y'know. intriguing points by all.
Comments
the 'equally dull thing' that is my degree is 'evolutionary biology' although i'm focusing more on population genetics and evolutionary ecology than systematics or taxonomy. (i threw in the big words to try to confuse/tease you monse ~<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
more is coming...my lunch break is too short.
As our society reaches farther and farther away from Darwinian Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest) our species will eventually destroy it's self because we have diluted the blood line so much. Even now, our species is working slowly at destroying ourself. Not to sound callous, but modern medicine has only encouraged this destruction. The disease-tendencies that some people have our spreading, because of medicine. That is not to say that we should kill the sick, but we should have a Do Not Resuscitate for those who are terminally ill before their time of reproduction. And let us not forget the fact that our big "anti-bacterial" kick in the US/Europe is doing nothing but harm, creating super-bacterium's that can essentially supervent all anti-biotics.
Humans have reached this point of evolution for a reason, that is that Diseases, predators and inborn stupidity wiped out the weakest of the species. Look at how well people were able to survive in the ancient times. Now look at the fact that anti-biotic use is reaching astounding heights. Because of our own self-developed "social conscience", we have started our species down the road to self-annihilation.
Though, I for one, would like to live long enough to meet an alien species, just to see what path evolution on a different world takes.
[edit]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been reading some of the stuff contained within, now that I replied.
The idea that cerebral evolution can happen. Don't forget that currently we use only about 10-15% of our total brain capacity. That little. And on the idea of genetic manipulation:
I'd personally like to see another species of human created. Winged with enhanced sight (via <i>DareDevil</i> eyesight, echo location) whose sole ability is to survive in the arctic wastes as a basic low-level agarian society. Ok, so they don't have to have wings, but I think feathered wings would be cool.
Our species is liable to go to war with planetary cleansing (not destroying, I don't have that much hubris) weapons, and just about all that survives will be what's in the cold parts because those will warm up. I'm talkin like Antarctica and North Pole cold places.
Plus i'd like Gene therapy so I can have a nice pair of Angel wings (via Van in Escaflowne movie, except permenant)
[/edit]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. sorry if i've contributed to deflecting the thread from human evolution. I'll try to comment on that after I’ve dealt with some specific comments.
Relic, hair-pulling morality discussions aside, I would agree with you that eugenics may be good for the "balance and numbers" aspects of humanity. If there were a way that eugenics could exist for all to choose whether or not to participate on an enlightened and informed basis then it would not be a moral problem at all. Unfortunately, it does not seem the world is ready for entirely enlightened or informed decisions as a whole just yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Relic25-As to your first question, I answer, "You bet." Why? Because I trust no one else to make that call for me, and there is too much gray area to do anything other than to take that judgement on a case-by-case basis, which could only be accomplished by me as an individual. Of course, I would be subject to the same judgement (and I don't have a problem with that). Quite the paradox, isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently it is. I personally think it would be hard to judge who is more worthy. eg, from a biological standpoint the most worthy to breed may be that physically unstoppable and quick-thinking mass-murderer. If selection were to focus on learned knowledge and other thoughts, perhaps i would be more worthy, or perhaps my frailty would make me unacceptable nonetheless.
The qualifications for judgement will always be subjective. Evolution has no goal of it's own, it merely selects those to survive. Our values would be imposed upon selection criteria, making a goal. But who is to say any goal we choose is right? Are those born with physical or mental disabilities at fault for what they could not control? 'Judge not, lest ye be judged oneself' (to paraphrase horribly). I am certainly far from perfect, and i do not wish to face judgement nor put it upon someone else. If producing children is the one true goal of our physical existence, would not denying this to someone be an act that rendered their physical existence meaningless?
I think perhaps my second question was not explicit enough.
I too have met deficient and irresponsible ‘over-breeders’, but these cannot really be generalized into any specific group other than perhaps: morons. But with eugenics, a group would be judged not worthy to breed if they shared the defining characteristics. This is where i see a tie to prejudice, when ppl are lumped in a group that receives differential treatment. Any assumption that we are not all equal and deserving of the same treatment means that we can be segregated into groups/classes/strata implying ‘worth’. Treating others as less worthy than yourself, in any respect, is something that I see as prejudice.
Genetic counselors have every right to advise parents not to have children if the risk is high for something unwanted. However, it remains the parents’ choice. More information is rarely a bad thing. Perhaps if parents knew something was coming it would be easier to accept and deal with properly.
As for child molesters/abusers I would much rather see a harsher judicial punishment than violate their rights as a human being. That being said, if those who would commit as horrible crimes as these were confined to a cell that would never allow them the opportunity to reproduce, I certainly wouldn’t be complaining.
________________
As long as an organism is reproducing, mutating and being selected, it is evolving. There is no peak, the only options are evolve to surive or extinction. Perhaps some of you who claim that evolution has stopped mean that we are not facing as great a selectional pressure as our ancestors have, but I assure you, we will continue to evolve until we become batches of clones and regard sex as something we’d rather not do (a scary possible future I know ~;) Every time a child dies of hunger, or from disease, or even by fluke accident they are removed from the gene pool contributing to the next generation and thus adding the tiny increment necessary to keep evolution moving.
Evolution happens very slowly, nearly imperceptible, any tiny incidences will add up. It seems often that this unfathomably gradual movement is a source of claim by some theists of evolution’s falsity, but I won’t even start that here.
So that being said, where are we as humans evolving? It is true that in the 1st world we have medicine to help reduce the mortality (and hence selection) due to disease. It is still a leading cause of death in the world. Man, and almost all other organisms tend to reach equilibrium with their surroundings. It seems man has just decided to put it off for a while for the sake of ‘progress’, but as we are seeing now, the price of many of our actions will still be paid for. Diseases of old and our immune system gradually evolved to co-exist benignly together (a great example of de-evolution and diseases can be found in the book, andromeda strain) and so also has evolution found trends to avoid other sorts of mortality. We will continue to evolve counters to disease. I think it is only a matter of time till a character such as Gibson’s J.D.Shapely comes along with a key mutation that will save us from an AIDS epidemic worse than it is already. It is not in the advantage of the virus to kill all its hosts.
No matter what medicine accomplishes, nature will still help us as a species gradually adapt to threats facing us.
Other than adapting to diseases and avoiding other sources of mortality we are mostly selecting ourselves. By this I don’t just mean the pollution that we are producing that is certainly contributing to cancer, deaths and increasing mutations. But we, as people are choosing who to breed with. Mixing genotypes from around the world in a wonderful assortment. Isolated populations are probably evolving quicker, through specificity of selection and increased drift.
In the near future, we may get smarter; we may not. We’ll most likely have an increased level of technology but these two are not the same things. Genetic engineering will help to shape our future. It would be nice to use gene therapy to correct ‘defects’ so we can become our own domesticated animals, keeping desirable features without regulating breeding. There is hardly a limit to what genetic engineering could do. But although we have sequenced the human genome, that doesn’t mean that we know anything about it. The few genes we understand are a fraction of the total identified genes. The ‘junk’ DNA that we thought had no purpose has been suggested to have structural consequences on the gene transcription and recombination processes. (this is hypothesized due to high evolutionary conservation of junk DNA sequences. I can’t remember the reference offhand, but I saw Dr. Sydney Brenner speak about it). Once we understand the genome more fully is when we should start considering messing with it. The Raelians will have likely claimed to have created an engineered superhuman or prophet by then, but of course they won’t let us test their claims...
Genetic engineering will also start similarly to nature, working with what it has. We are unlikely to be able to buy packages to ensure our children grow swan wings or anything as quick as we may think. Truth is stranger than fiction, you never know.
I predict improvements of our rigor, longevity and efficiency would be the first and most useful genetic modifications to the human form. Modifying genomes too much would make it difficult for us to interbreed with modified individuals, so apart from the occasional supersoldier, humans will still evolve fairly slowly. This slowness will still be faster than any speed prior seen though. If we continue to exponentially accelerate in technological advancement as we have since the discovery of fire, we may still be growing wings on our kids within 1000years.
It will certainly be interesting after we have set up colony planets in the future using STL ships. Colonies will start to become subspecies adapted to various gravitational, atmospheric and other pressures. Perhaps we’ll have mining colony dwarves, low-gravity ‘softies’, thick atmosphere-dwelling humans with fins. Who knows.
Cronos, I agree that genetic engineering for specialization will work against us. If worker clastes are developed it would most likely be in a Replicant-like scenario. I do not think we are as generalized as you think. We construct our own environments, maintaining our houses at a cushy 24 degrees celcius, pumping heat out through poor insulation while a moose can happily walk through the underbrush at –24 as much as she would in the summer. We are without a doubt far more of a generalist than many animals. Perhaps it was the necessity for our generalist lifestyle that required the development of an intellect capable of dealing with a variety of problems. Crows are great examples of generalists and also exhibit tool use and are quite clever. This generalism will be our advantage though, as we try to adapt to new environments (ie, space and new planets). Ninety-nine percent of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. In the past mass extinction events, only a handful of species made it through. From my experience with paleontology I can tell you that these have tended to be generalists, able to more easily modify themselves to fit their environment. Humans have the added advantage of a high intelligence (although some days I wonder).
(oh, and your point about god=universe? My sentiments exactly)
Oh, Relic, here’s a phrase that would be great for your next visit with the deficient and irresponsible ‘over-breeders’:
I don’t swim in your toilet, so don’t pee in my gene pool
I'm all for loving you're fellow man, but why do schools have to bend over backwards to pass the kids who don't want to put forth effort?
Carry on.
but yeah, schools in generally need to stop going out of their way to make stupid kids feel smart.
and my parent knows someone whose 1st kid used to die an average of 9 times a day. He was kept alive at cost to the state of nearly a million a year. The parents were told that they had a 95% chance of the disease going to the next child. Guess what. they didn't hit that 5%.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, the human race is fairly new compaired to alot of other species, I highly doubt we have reached the pinical of our evolutionary path. Look how imperfect we are, let alone what things could happen in the future to change what we may be. It has been proven that an average human only ever uses about 10% of what his/her brain is able to do, now we can do alot with 10% just imagine if we could put 20-30-40% to use. That I think is our next step.
With the advent of clothing, we did not require as much hair as we once did, and the hair we did keep changed to fit the role given to it.
Why does a person of Negroid descent have dark skin? Ancestors of the current African race were exposed to long periods of direct sunlight, and their bodies compensated accordingly; just like when one gets a tan.
Why does a person of Mongoloid descent have "slant" eyes (not to use it as a slur...purely as an identifier), because the colder climates of northern Asia (Mongolia & the mountainous areas of China) required less eye surface area be exposed to the chilling winds.
Every adaptation evolved is for better survival. Just like the first butterfly with a longer "mouth", they could delve more deeply into the flowers and feed on the nectar more easily. The butterflies with the short mouths died out because they couldn't feed as well.
You can ask a billion questions and receive a billion answers, and in the future there will be a billion more...evolution is a never-ending process.
Take glasses for instance. We no longer need to strive to get better vision, because we have an outside source that corrcts and enhances this for us.
Not only that, but products such as antibacterial soap not only force bacteria to get stronger, it sncourages us to get weaker.
Just a few thoughts.
We've reached the peak because we no longer need to get better.
Natural selection would've killed half a quarter of the world population at the least, but because of medicines and such we keep them alive.
Not to sound callous, but we need to start selectively weeding. Death is a natural part of life yet humans spend entire lifetimes trying to stop it.
And in regards to the Price of Peace link - we've always marched for our own peace. World War II was joined by the Americans when Japan attacked us. Some may disagree but sometimes Dictators like Saddam are the lesser of two evils. In Vietnam we put Ngo Vinh Diem in power. He was far worse then Ho Chi Minh and the communists. and let us not forget the Dictators America has put into power simply because they agreed to support the U.S.
No longer will we be ourselves but only a shadow of our predecessors. Whole bodies may be replaced with life-support systems using the latest of medical technology; which only furthers to weaken us. Farms will dissapear; the only real source of "good" contagen exposure which keeps our bodies in prime order. Hydroponic bays with carbon-copy high nutrient/vitamin with high pest/weed/disease resistant genes will feed us with more than our bodies need; yet food is always scarce. Off-planet comets will be taken into high-orbit around planets and slowly be processed, and dispearsed over some 100's of 1000's human colonies. water and hydrogen will be our lesser monetary unit, however, there will be a "universal credit" that is accepted by every human.
Hate, predujdices, and even war will surely still live on within humanity; but so will love and peace... however to a lesser degree. As we will become so prolific we may just have a Bar-code on our fore head, identifying us for life. Crime will also live on, but in a new sense...
<u><b>Oh the joys of being rich...</b></u>
Hitting it big with a product is a under-statement with about 30 billion possable consumers. Corperate Busineses will not be businesses; they will be governments. Nearly all functions of life will be inhabited by some mega-corperation or another and thus privacy will only be a faint memory of the elders of our future. Having a intamate relation ship with your spouse (i wont state the <i>other</i> *wink* possabilities as it isn't necessary) may be "Broadcast Live From Their Bedroom To YOUR Bedroom!" without YOU or THEY never knowing it; or having your phones continually monitored by a ai system to scan for hostile activities (mention the topic of a bio or chem-agent and you'll be splattered by the Corperations hella fast).
With money comes power; and you either have it or you dont. Rich and poor are divided by a cassam spanning the opposite sides of the universe, though, even the "poorest" people of the future will be as well off as a middle-classed family now. There'd be LOTS of Credits up for grabs from illegal activities: surgical alterations, genetic modifications, burning or altering that damned Bar code...
<u><b>War is truely a horror...</b></u>
Think of vietnam but 100 times worse with 100 to 1000 times more people on BOTH sides with high-tech, high-end destructive powers. (think large-scale fusion bomb. fusion is when two atoms are joined together but at high speed and temperature. gas turns into plasma; basically a mini-sun power generator. then add the power of half a nova and you got a <i>small</i> fusion bomb.) Good thing that no one would actually use them since they know if they do the dead dude's buddies are gonna rip em' apart with the same tech.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Weapons will eventually become so destructive that they will never be used
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above quote is not exact, and was said by someone (forgot who) but is partially true.
----
As stated earlier we will kill ourselves; wether it be natural or caused by a weapon of such destructive force that... well, you get the picture. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
There may be the odd "OMG THAT GUY HAS ARMOR PLATES ON HIS SKIN" or the "OMG I THOUGHT YOU WERE SICK" person, but our own fears and hate will kill those that are different (damn Nazis) that may have actually helped us in the long run. (armor plates = survivability, and the impressive immune system advantages are obvious)
Just think X-MEN (original) with StarCraft (maybe with aliens) inter-mingled with StarShip Troopers (maybe with aliens), toss in some super diseases, hazardous enviroments, and random events you have the possible future...
Methinks.
But then they would be killing off their source of revinue.
Oddly enough, the tobacco industry does this... and makes hella profit. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
IMO corperations will soon be governments or atleast have a "Security" force equal to some countries' armies.
But hey, it's all in the name of "Progress".
1) No, that comment wasn't aimed at anyone partcular, i was jsut building off that post. Sorry if it came off like I was trying to insult you.
2) I think this thread is operating under the assumption that evolution, on a massive scale, is true as far as the way we came about. For a Creationism/Evolution debate, please ressurect the religion thread, or start a new one, there's no need to try to carry on two discussions at once. I welcome the debate.
Um.. I don't think I have anything horribly important to say here, so I'll stop typing........now.
Deosn't coke make Mountain Dew? If they do, they've got another soldier in their corpro-nation.
<b>Wurmspawn:</b>
Gravity a theory, eh? Check this <a href='http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/intermed/inter.htm' target='_blank'>link</a> out please.
I'm not sure how questions I have about the current theories of how we came to be human could be seen as "'old world creationists'" but maybe my own theory could be. Wait a second, did I even once mention God as being that creator? Who/what/when/where/why/how God questions are all good and fine, but what stops it from being other stuff that could be out there and is just as unexplained as God is in some respects. There was a reason (a good one I thought at the time) that I made the reference to Science Fiction at the end there, because oft times it seems to be said these days that science fiction is becoming fact with new revelations and technologies. What's to say that our creationists are not a inter-galactic space faring species of being that had nano-bots at their disposal? What if "god" is a inter-galactic space faring species of being that has nano-bots at "his" disposal? If this was the case, how would we know it and would we notice the evidence if we weren't looking for it? With all these questions I have about the currently common views of evolution and human origin, I just decided I'd make up my own theory since it seems to answer the question of "Where and how did we become man?" a little better for myself.
That said, I think you have added some really insightful stuff to this discussion, even going so far as to it seems no one else is coming forward to challenge chaotic evolution as the only means to humans becoming what we are today. Well, I'm back and just as stubborn and pig headed as ever. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<b>juice:</b>
I've checked out the carbon dating stuff, and while it is for the most part a reliable source of dating there are those "Carbon dating based on the very regular <i>(on average)</i> decay of carbon" you mentioned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects.
...
In practice, neither the atoms nor the decays can be counted with 100% efficiency, but the huge advantage for atom counting remains.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I grabed that info from this <a href='http://emuseum.mankato.msus.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html' target='_blank'>source</a>, though I know I've heard it before somewhere that we don't know how constant carbon input coming into our enviroment has been in even man's written history.
<b>AllUrHiveRBelong2Us:</b>
As always, it seems I can rely on you to be among my detractors to my opposing views.
It seems to me that something that is "barely" perceptible just might be abstract enough that it may not actually exist at all, is that a hard notion to grasp?
Just take a look at this <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html' target='_blank'>link</a> on an article that takes into account that the definition of evolution and the mechanics of evolution seem to get muddled together. I'm not denying evolution exists, I just question that we came to be where we are without intelligent, self-aware influence. Whether that is God or something else, I'll let you and others each decide that for yourself.
<b>Generally speaking...</b>
Heck, I don't even put too much stock in that we are completely accurate about dinosaurs and their ilk. If you didn't know what a chicken looked like, and I handed you a bunch of their bones that were just cracked, hard representations of their bones, you're telling me you would hand me back a completely accurate chicken skeleton? I personally think we know just as much about biology as we do about the past, which is to say almost nothing. Which is why I like this statement by Cronos...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Oh, and by the way, has anyone read the novel "The Time Machine" by HG Wells? It concerns an alternate path where humans specialise over a period of 800,000 years or so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its science fiction, how did it get into this discussion, I wonder... Anyways, I read the book and it is far better than the movie. Okay, well, I'd type some more stuff up here, but FeydToBlack did it already!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Be careful. This fallacy has led to many scientific blunders in the past. In the late 19th century, the scientific community thought that there was no point in studying physics because there was nothing left to be learned. However, that has drastically changed, and continues to change.
I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just trying to get you to see that it is a very real possibility that there may be better ways for understanding the human body and how it may have come into being: through evolution or creation. Who knows, we may even find a stamp saying "made by god" on every little sub-atomic particle in the universe.
"The fool thinks himself wise, while the wise man knows himself to be a fool"
"It is better to have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nicely put FeydToBlack!
You are exactly correct, sir. The laws of natural selection have ceased to apply to us. Instead, we have a process of artificial selection which primarily favors those who are unable to use birth control correctly.
By that logic, I should only have made it as far as primary eductation and here I am doing my final year of secondary education and am planning on my tertiary education.
Intelligence is determined by the inclination to learn and the opportunities presented to the individual. I have had the opportunity to further my education, my father did not.
On a tangent to this conversation, Geniuses are becoming more common in society. Think about it, this century we had Edison, Einstein, Tesla, Steven hawking, all in this century. In the past we had Galileo, Copernicus, Aristarchus, Newton, all these past geniuses occured at large intervals to each other. Just some food for thought...
Would this make any of us want to stand up and question these norms? I wouldnt. Best to keep your head in the cave and pretend to see the shadows for what they are than to show people the light and be burned by it.
However, in the modern age, this kind of free thinking is promoted. Rarely in this day and age do we see people shunned because they develop a new branch of science, or make ideologically shattering discoveries.
This is one of the great things about the Internet, the ability of people who have never met to share ideas and develop off of each other's ideas for the betterment and downfall of mankind.
Wolverine, on the chickens/dinosaur bones:
It is true that full skeletons are rarely found. The main way that palentologists (sp?) build complete skeletons is through extrapolation. If you can find the remains of 5 chickens, each missing different portions of the body, you could fit the pieces together to get a pretty good estimation of the average of the originals.
However, this only gives the skeletal structure. Things such as musculature, skin texture, color, etc. are merely the collective best guesses based on available evidence. Its not like we have a time machine to go take pictures of them.
[Off topic paranoid rant] How do we know that people from the future are not living in the present. If someone were to invent time machines at ANY time in the future, people from the future could be living in the present. Say for a sociological study of "modern" humans, or humanity before some alien encounter, etc. Or to influence the path of society so that the future goes the way that they want it. Think Time Cop or Time Patrol.[/off topic paranoid rant]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The very act of observation, hidden or otherwise, changes the nature of what you are observing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try it. Study a few people by just looking at them. When they notice you (and invariably they will) they will act different.
and my other little point is:
If they came back in time to alter the course of society so that X doesn't happen, what's happens to the YZABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXXYYZZAABBCCDDEEFFGGHHIIJJKKLLMMNNOOPPQQRRSSTTUUVVWWXXXYYYZZZAAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHHIIIJJJKKKLLLMMMNNNOOOPPPQQQRRRSSSTTTUUUVVVWWW factors that one has to take into account? The tiniest little thing could have a repercussion that stops them from being able to come back in time, which means that they never altered the path of humanity, thus they are able to come back, but then they shift it again. Life turns into a loop, a never ending moebius effect.
and H.G. Wells <i>Time Machine</i> was turned into a good movie as of late, starring Guy Pearce and the 7-up guy. I suggest you see it.
The main reason for this is the fact that only a VERY small portion of DNA codes for looks. The vast majority is for molecular sturctures, sub-cellular structures, the vast number and types of cells, etc.
Then you get into the "old" DNA that is kept almost in storage. If I am not mistaken, we still retain the majority of the DNA that made up the common ancestor that we had with all other primates. (again, most of that having to do with the "invisible" processes in our bodies.)
You may have to check me on the percentages.
Besides, 40k years is nothing the scheme of evoltuion.
thank you. and as for being stubborn, arguments tend to end disappointingly when those putting them forth are not willing to fight for their opinions.
i do however, wish to apoligize to anyone that i have offended by my retorts that may have been construed a bit harshly. i had no intention of a personal attack and i respect the members of the community far too much to have meant it that way.
you'll pardon my pause to write some more responses, school and all y'know. intriguing points by all.