Stephen Hawking: "Humans Have Entered a New Stage of Evolution", page 3

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by John Matrix

---

You're more than welcome to cast aside science or anything else that doesn't particularly fit your personal belief system. That is your prerogative. However, that doesn't refute the validity of science or the theory of evolution.
It just means you choose not to accept them.

Science is great. I love science. I would not cast off science. Especially creation science. But Evolution involves way too much faith for me.

reply to post by John Matrix

---

There is no such thing as Creation Science. And, no Intelligent Design doesn't count as science despite it's repeated attempts to do so.

Also, science doesn't require blind faith. Merely objectivity and observation.

reply to post by John Matrix

---

Hawkings, like most evolutionists, would have us believe our ancestors were monkeys that swung by their tails from trees and practiced same gender sex. Now that's a legacy to follow after isn't it? Maybe theirs did that, but I know my ancestors didn't do that.

I prefer people exploring questions with no bias to get answers. 'Convincing' attempts are done in order to convince SELF of correct belief system, more so than trying to convince someone you are arguing a point with.
Whilst I believe original life (not human) came from a creative source, It is my personal belief it is not benevolant, and I dont mind if people agree or not, that makes no difference to my day as I am comfortable with owning my own idea and not convinicng anyone else of it to propogate self assurance.

Perhaps visit with your local university or museum and they may even allow you to handle the samples of proven developed species. It would be beneficial for you to ask them all your questions regarding how their science can be wrong, and allow them the opportunity to discuss it with you, maybe both sides will come up with a different understanding. Or is actually asking the direct questions too frighteing as you wont like the responces?

There are finds with charactrisics that can be directly linked between the evolved species.

You are currently a living example of evolution. The idea that it has stopped is a myth.

Our environnment conitinually affects our physcial.

Your height is a perfect example that you are a result of a evolving human due to diet. Most of us tower over our grans.
Walk into any settlers cottage or home of the average person from 200 years ago, and we all have to stoop through the doorway,THIS IS evolution.

Skin pigmentation is a result of sun, again evololution due to your environment.

Cancer and diabetes are a largely modern phenomena at current scales because of body reactions to enviromental and nutritional conditions. THIS IS evolution in play.

different humans due to diiferent evironment have different genes for processing alcohol. Japanse and Indigenous Australians basically they cant, and become very drunk very fast as their bodies did not evolve to porcess it properly, hence bilogially they have different genes to me due to enviroment and nutrition exposure.

As they are current developments, people seem to ignore them as 'evolution' however, they are living examples of it.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by John Matrix

---

There is no such thing as Creation Science. And, no Intelligent Design doesn't count as science despite it's repeated attempts to do so.

I disagree.

Also, science doesn't require blind faith. Merely objectivity and observation.

I agree.

reply to post by zazzafrazz

---

None of your examples stand as proof for evolution. I have studied this from both sides....and there are many threads on this topic which I took part in.

You won't change me and I won't change you. I said what I said and I stand by it. Believe what you want about your ancestors. Maybe your ancestors were monleys and neanderthals...how do I know? But mine were not, and you can't disprove it.

reply to post by John Matrix

---

None of your examples stand as proof for evolution. I have studied this from both sides....and there are many threads on this topic which I took part in. You won't change me and I won't change you. I said what I said and I stand by it. Believe what you want about your ancestors. Maybe your ancestors were monleys and neanderthals...how do I know? But mine were not, and you can't disprove it.

In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

wiki

My examples accuralty fit the above descrpition of Evolution.... perhaps your definition of Evolution comes from a different source to accepted dogma.

And if you had studied it as you claim (thankfully I did to PHD level) you would know we did not evolve from Neaderthalis. Neanderthals and are hominoid yes and we share a ancestral connection further back, but we are homo sapien, and we existed roughly (more like crossed over in time frames) the same time as the neanderthals which because of survival of the fittest, they became extinct against us.

You have not studied both sides, this comment is a glaring billboard to your lack of understanding of the science behind evolution. SEGWAY... Besides it lemurs more so than monkey

By saying you wont talk to the scientists is you purely proving my point that you are fearful and only here to sell to yourself your own "faith". No one is at 'perfect knowledge' your learning is you EVOLVING rather than staying stagnant at one point of understanding.

I am interested in how ID's explain away Neanderthals, What did god not like them?
Did god make both?
Did god wipe out the entire species?
If god didnt, then what did...a more intelligent predator. Homo spien.
Were they APES or HUMANS?
Neanderthals were very human, that looked very apelike they are HOMINOID. Nandertalis are proof how human bi pedals evolved but couldnt survive the updated model.You know they were around till no that long ago...They are a cousin, not us, just as a ape is a cousin, not us. We branched out in our evolution differently to these species.

Homo sapien skeletons have changed and evolved. Initially we did not pop up as we do today, We didn't suddenly appear in classical Greece with white frocks on.
We were hunter Gatherers, and when we changed to agricultural farming we changed also due to grain diet. They were skeletal differences, namely height, yet they are classified as homo sapien. Why do you have an appendix? When were you just herbivore? Its left over from evolution, A god surely wouldnt make the mistake of having a pointless sack in your intestine to process grass and leaves?HMmmm god making the appendix mistake (a useless feature in todays evolved species) means that god is fallible i spose....makes mistakes afterall.


Blaahahh, back to Hawkins...Yes we will evolve more collectivelly rather than individually.
YAWN, bored now.








[edit on 4-7-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by John Matrix

---

Not bragging, simply letting you know after you threw your studying excperiences out there A reply really. Im no apologist to IDers regarding my qualifications as they are a result of hard work and much questioning.
And thanks for being selective in your interpretions and answers, thanks for not being a dissapointment to me
I see u skimmed over explaining Nanderthals (via ur very learned knowledge of them as you claim) and chose to directly insult scientists instead, and evolutionists have never claimed we came from Nanderthals, so no one did away with that idea, thats YOUR IDEA.... ANOTHER glaring billboard to you lack of understanding on the science from minimal research.
Ignored the Appendix also...anyway, as I said this is boring.

Instead of praying for you, Ill read up more on IDers to try gain more understanding of you





[edit on 4-7-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by John Matrix

---

Not bragging, simply letting you know after you threw your studying excperiences out there A reply really. Im noaplogist to IDers regarding my qualifications as the are a result of hard work and much questioning.
And thanks for being selective in your interpretions and answers, thanks for not being a dissapointment to me

The pleasure of having been graced by your well earned superiority is all mine.

I feel much better for it.

reply to post by John Matrix

---

I claimed to want to learn and gain understading, never superiority.
Your comment smacks of inferiority and is purely your own perception.
I in no way think you are inferior to me. Rather you have a different understanding to me as a result of where you direct your questions and the reasons you want them answered a certain way.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by John Matrix

---

I claimed to want to learn and gain understading, never superiority.
Your comment smacks of inferiority and is purely your own perception.
I in no way think you are inferior to me. Rather you have a different understanding to me as a result of where you direct your questions and the reasons you want them answered a certain way.

OK, check out the videos this geologist put together after he examined the evidence created by Mt. St. Helens eruption: www.youtube.com...

Meet Geologist Steve Austin
www.youtube.com...

Too bad creation science doesn't get the same amount of government funding evolutionists get.....but this film is pretty good for a privately funded one:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by John Matrix

---

I claimed to want to learn and gain understading, never superiority.

Great, Here's more for you to think about then:
part 1:
www.youtube.com...
part 2:
www.youtube.com...
part 3:
www.youtube.com...
part 4:
www.youtube.com...

I have heard all the arguments for evolution. Have you heard all the arguments concerning creationism? You cannot claim to have given it any unbiased and impartial attention if you have not examined both sides.

reply to post by John Matrix

---

I have heard all the arguments for evolution.

And yet I clearely showed that you have not, you are misguided on the assumptions of it that I have seen so far. Please reread where I was able to show your misinformation.

You didnt quote my next sentence, where I happily said I will look into ID to see if i can understand you better.

I avoid videos generally, as they are usually poorly researched and emotive and full of propogannda, I prefer written works if you have any, I will happily read.

zazz

What if Spencer's survival of the fittest theory,should really be called the survival of the experience?If we are products of our ancestors genes,and also and be able to adapt to the environment,then there must be some trigger that can carry this off and not just in our "physical" DNA.
There has to be a memory gene,(for want of a better word) that has been passed down along with everything else,even Spencer's writings so long ago seem to hint along those lines,now there are ongoing studies to suggest just this,see the link;
www.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 4-7-2009 by smurfy]

reply to post by Extralien

---

Great OP ~ Extralien

----------------------------

We as humans , have set ourselves apart from the "natural world" , perhaps a throw back to the early religions which usurped the Pagan naturalism .....

Man vs. Nature / Natural vs Man made ........ we understand that our consciousness makes use rare- if not unique - but is it not ultimately a product of evolution in and of itself.

The movement of our species towards systems of externally transmitted information etc. was a quantum leap for us.

Tool making,language, writing, mathematics etc etc ....... we have come quiet a distance with their aid.

Added to this ~ our ingenuity ........

I don`t have wings ............ but i can fly
I don`t have gills ............ but i can breath under water
and on and on and on....

We are supremely adaptive , a product of our environment and yet we feel disassociated from it .

We are possibly rare , maybe even unique ...... but not un-natural. Perhaps the planets tryst with consciousness will end badly .... who knows ?

Given enough time , it would seem anything is possible .



[edit on 4-7-2009 by UmbraSumus]

reply to post by John Matrix

---

If I believed that the Earth was only 6000 years old, I would be ashamed to admit it. There is nothing but a bunch of really bad science behind the creationist view. I am a Christian but I am not so stupid as to believe this, even the Bible never says that the Earth is 6000 years old.

The secrets hidden in the pyramids. A real eye opener!
  Posted 5 days ago with 185 member flags

The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
  Posted 15 days ago with 106 member flags

Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
  Posted 12 days ago with 93 member flags

6 Real People With Mind-Blowing Mutant Superpowers
  Posted 4 days ago with 90 member flags

Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
  Posted 15 days ago with 74 member flags

a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space
  Posted 5 days ago with 69 member flags

Top 10 Most Incredible Pieces Of Nanoscale Art
  Posted 9 days ago with 43 member flags

cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"
  Posted 17 days ago with 25 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: