No missing link ever found

Originally posted by OhZone
Evolution is the backbone of biology??
I don't think so. I took biology in high school and evolution was not even mentioned.
Nothing I know about living organizms needs evolution to explain it.

That is sadly a fact of most high school Biology classes. Even if Evolution is mentioned, 9 times out of 10 parents call and complain or it only gets briefly mentioned for a day. High school Biology classes these days are a joke and the fact they didn't mention it in yours isn't a valid argument.

Originally posted by OhZone
"Best interests of the species" has to do with its biological/survival advantage.
We didn't need more intelligence for this.
If indeed we descended from monkeys, then that is what we did - descended/devolved.
We are weaker, we have thin skin and tender feet. We need clothing to protect us from the elements and from the environment - scratches from brush, things that we step on,insect bites.
Nature does not cause a species to degenerate, like us from monkeys. The monkeys are physically far superior. Nature is only interested in survival not technology being created by intelligence.

I know this was addressed in a post above me, but still. Have you ever heard of feral children? If I wanted to, I could go hiking in the buff in the mountains. Clothing isn't a necesity for survival. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this paragraph.

Originally posted by OhZone
If nature "cared' about intelligence then all animals would be far more intelligent. ARe they? No! They are only as intelligent as they need to be to survive.

There is no evidence for evolution. There is only evidence that different types of creatures similar to those that live today once lived on earth. There are no inbetweeners.

Evolution only represents changes in a population over time. If its advantageous to be big yet dumb (See something like a Rhino), then thats the way it will go. It was advantageous for our ancestors to become upright in the Savannah's of Africa and further on to scavenge carcasses to gain more protein.

Clothes may not be necessary in an absolute sense, but we need them alot more than animals do.

reply to post by Hollywood11


Other animals - we are animals too, you know.

And we need clothes because we can walk so damned far. To walk as far as a human can, we need to sweat profusely, which is why we got rid of our hair (as sweaty hair is going to harbour disease, smell really bad (giving away our presence), and not to mention chafe). We 'got away with it' by being able to use our brains to compensate - fire, using animal hides as clothes, etc. If we couldn't compensate for it, the first protohuman without sufficient hair to keep warm would have died.

You're really having a hard time understanding evolution, aren't you?

Lets get this strait. The reason that man has very little hair is because of one fact and one fact alone. We came out of central Africa where thermal protection is a hindrance to survival because it puts undue stress on the body. But we then move out of Africa in to the other lands where thermal protection was necessary, so we made clothes. White man as compared to black man are far far hairier too signifying that evolution worked somewhat after we left Africa.

Another example to this hair related evolution is elephants compared to Woolly Mammoths.

There aren't many elephants are around completely covered in hair anymore are there?! No. And there is a reason for it.

You are still missing OhZne's point. The point is that humans are not equipped to survive in the wild like an animal is. He didn't just mention skin.

The fact remains, if you believe in evolution, then that means that humans, at least physically, have de-evolved and become weaker.

reply to post by Hollywood11


Why? Just because we live in more environments than what we adapted to? Because we learnt to make the environment suit us rather than adapt to the environment? I dunno man, that alone seems like pretty useful trait.

The fact remains, if you believe in evolution, then that means that humans, at least physically, have de-evolved and become weaker.

To validate this statement you will first need to define what "De-evolution" means, because it isn't scientific and it certainly isn't "getting weaker". Simply becoming weaker doesn't mean squat.

Humans don't have the animal instict, the feirceness, and toughness.

Humans have to learn how to cultivate Qi and universal energy where animals are born knowing how.

A human can never match an animal.

For the umpteenth time, man is animal. This is an inescapable reality.

You're appealing to pseudo and semi religious beliefs as if they were text book fact. They aren't so stop it. Keep it in the science playing field man.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Humans don't have the animal instict, the feirceness, and toughness.

Since evolution is influenced by reproduction rates, any traits that raise those rates are all that matter. With intelligence, we don't need to be strong and fast or anything like that. We can build traps instead of chasing prey, we can trank them instead of wrestling them to the ground.

Lastly. your dodging the question. We are not going to be able to reach any logical conclusions if you are not going to define these unscientific terms.

[edit on 10/17/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Hollywood11
You are still missing OhZne's point. The point is that humans are not equipped to survive in the wild like an animal is. He didn't just mention skin.

The fact remains, if you believe in evolution, then that means that humans, at least physically, have de-evolved and become weaker.

What exactly is de-evolved? Are Whales de-evolved because they no longer have 4 external limbs? Are Penguins de-evolved because not only have they lost their ability to grasp(from the transition from theorpod dinosaurs to birds) but have also lost the ability to fly?

And what are you talking about with fierceness and toughness? Yeah sure we can't wrestle a buffalo down to the ground with our bear hands, but our intellect allows us to overcome that. Instead we use arrows, spears, and more recently guns.

And as someone said above me, the rest of that post is pseudoscience that you state as fact.

Off topic, but hey Goodwolf, did you get your avatar from the game Killzone?

[edit on 17-10-2008 by FSBlueApocalypse]

An animal's life is very different than a human's. An animal is usually independantly moving shortly after birth, and then they live their life usually healthily until they finally quickly decline and die. Most of their life they are healthy, they don't spend too much time growing up and they die fairly quickly.

A human on the other hand is completely dependant on it's parents for quite some time, then spends about 1 third of it's life growing up and becoming mature. It spends about one third of it's life living healthily, and then spends the last 3rd declining and aging before finally dying. A human spends 2 thirds of it's life either growing up or declining and only spends one third of it's life in it's prime.

reply to post by Hollywood11


I dont have a great understanding of all this, although there is obviously some thing a miss as alot of scientists are in the belief that life started on this planet with organisms which if in fact is true that would make our ancestors the organisms in the boiling pools around the world.

As far as the question posted it is a contradiction of terms once the link is found it will no longer be missing will it how can you identify something that is missing. Scientists will eventually find the so called missing link.


[edit on 10/17/2008 by mullet35]

That is where many people end up disagreeing. Some poeple think if it isn't found, then it may not have existed.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
An animal's life is very different than a human's. An animal is usually independantly moving shortly after birth, and then they live their life usually healthily until they finally quickly decline and die. Most of their life they are healthy, they don't spend too much time growing up and they die fairly quickly.

A human on the other hand is completely dependant on it's parents for quite some time, then spends about 1 third of it's life growing up and becoming mature. It spends about one third of it's life living healthily, and then spends the last 3rd declining and aging before finally dying. A human spends 2 thirds of it's life either growing up or declining and only spends one third of it's life in it's prime.

You do realize thats the life cycle of almost every animal on Earth, right? Baby primates, big cats, elephants, dolphins, and other mammals depend on their mothers for a long period of time. And what are you talking about? Animals go through aging and what not just the same way, just in the wild its shortened to the point once they're past their true peak they usually die. Zoo animals age in much the same way humans do.

Exactly, apocalypse. An other example is the octopus. If it is rendered unable to reproduce before has offspring, it's lifespan can increase 8 fold.

Human intelligence, and hence lifestyle, is an evolutionary rarity, nothing more.


BTW, I thought the pic was from a movie called Jin Roh. Other people on here have told me that.

[edit on 10/17/2008 by Good Wolf]

Conservation of pre-natal qi is very important for health and longevity that is true.

reply to post by Hollywood11


Can you show that qi even exists? No. You can't.

I think this is why we are having such issues on this thread - you seem to latch on to the unsupported hypotheses that you want to be true, and think of them as fact, while simultaneously ignoring actual scientific evidence which supports theories you don't want to be true.

Basically, you believe what you want to believe, and damned is anyone trying to change your mind.

I have proven that Qi exists in many threads. Even modern science can prove qi exists, they just can't explain it's nature or how it works, but they know it exists and can detect it.

I actually don't really deal in belief, only facts and high level truth through direct experience.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Hollywood11]

reply to post by Hollywood11


No, no, and no.

Nice try, though. Again, you are believing what you want to, regardless of whether evidence agrees with you. Which, in this case, it doesn't.

Oh, and direct experience? That means you are being irrational, or so arrogant that you think your perception of the world is 100% perfect every second of every day, which as a human, it certainly isn't.

Deny ignorance - do yourself a favour.

[edit on 30/10/08 by dave420]

Originally posted by dave420
No, no, and no.

Nice try, though. Again, you are believing what you want to, regardless of whether evidence agrees with you. Which, in this case, it doesn't.

You can deny all you want, the fact remains Qi is real and scientifically proven to exist.

Originally posted by dave420
Oh, and direct experience? That means you are being irrational, or so arrogant that you think your perception of the world is 100% perfect every second of every day, which as a human, it certainly isn't.

Deny ignorance - do yourself a favour.

I don't think you are understanding here. Direct experience is meaning experience beyond human limitations and human thinking. For example, Near Death and Out of Body experiences are proven.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Hollywood11]

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Qi is real and scientifically proven to exist.

No they are not and you haven't cited anything to indicate that other than a obscure couple of sentences in a paper on 'alternate medicine'.

For example, Near Death and Out of Body experiences are proven.

No they are not. They are anything but. All the studies I have read and heard about all say "Ultimately we don't know what they are but it's a safe bet that it's the effect of suffocating and dying brain cells, in which case it will happen to every one when they die."

NOT scientifically proven!

[edit on 11/5/2008 by Good Wolf]