Sincere question about Evolution.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


That is interesting. I can feel snow coming somehow. It does not snow much where i am but i get this feeling i can't really describe 12 hours or so before a snow. Maybe we do have the same senses/instincts that animals have but just got used to not needing them. Some people do seem to still have them.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Barcs
 


Well, i am aware that it is a point of contention whether animals have a sixth sense, they do have the ability to hear infrasound. A dog whistle for example. I am not talking about the physical aspect of evolution at all. That is a valuable ability. It could be that humans lost it. I see no reason why they would never have had it. Maybe we did have it and ancient civilizations used it and magnetics the way we use electricity generally speaking. The ability could have slowly been lost after the last ice age i suppose. I remain a skeptic in some aspects of evolution. I do believe in evolution, i just think there are a few holes in it when it comes to humans.


There are many possibilities, but evolution explains these changes perfectly. There is no real reason to be skeptical, it makes perfect sense, and the human evolutionary fossil record is well documented (better than a lot of other species, in fact). Traits that don't give an evolutionary edge or advantage over time tend to become less dominant within a species. Since the depth of our intellect became our prime survival tool, most of the other things slowly moved to the background. Instincts are no different from any other morphological evolutionary feature.


Originally posted by BrandonD
You are smart to be skeptical when it comes to evolution. It is a 50 foot bridge that some people are desperately trying to span across a 100 foot ravine.


Don't be fooled by posts like this. People are heavily invested in a faith based belief system so strong, that they blindly believe anything on a website that supports this claim. In reality, this person is not a scientist, nor do they know more than one about biology. Does biology have the full 100% picture of evolution? Of course not. Is the evidence overwhelming that the evolution process actually does happen? Yes. We know the process happens, we might not know the exact cause of every detail or know of every single creature to ever live on the planet and their exact dates of extinction and origination, but it doesn't discount the absolute facts that show genetic mutation and natural selection are integral in determining the direction of a species and lead to adaptive changes over time dictated by the environment over millions of years.
edit on 22-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Don't be fooled by posts like this. People are heavily invested in a faith based belief system so strong, that they blindly believe anything on a website that supports this claim. In reality, this person is not a scientist, nor do they know more than one about biology. Does biology have the full 100% picture of evolution? Of course not. Is the evidence overwhelming that the evolution process actually does happen? Yes. We know the process happens, we might not know the exact cause of every detail or know of every single creature to ever live on the planet and their exact dates of extinction and origination, but it doesn't discount the absolute facts that show genetic mutation and natural selection are integral in determining the direction of a species and lead to adaptive changes over time dictated by the environment over millions of years.
edit on 22-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


HiLARious. Seriously.

This is a PERFECT example of the intellectual poverty demonstrated by the dogmatic adherents of pop science.

Someone doubts the tenets of their infallible authority figures? "Well our authority figures couldn't possibly be wrong, so this person MUST be a religious person."

I couldn't care less about religion, if I met Jesus or Mohammed I'd kick them under a bus. I'm just pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and those that scrub the emperor's back don't like to hear him being talked about that way.

Notice I don't call it science but pop science, that is because the contemporary institutions of science are nothing but factories of intellectual fashion, rather than practicioners of the scientific method.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD
HiLARious. Seriously.

This is a PERFECT example of the intellectual poverty demonstrated by the dogmatic adherents of pop science.

Someone doubts the tenets of their infallible authority figures? "Well our authority figures couldn't possibly be wrong, so this person MUST be a religious person."

I couldn't care less about religion, if I met Jesus or Mohammed I'd kick them under a bus. I'm just pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and those that scrub the emperor's back don't like to hear him being talked about that way.

Notice I don't call it science but pop science, that is because the contemporary institutions of science are nothing but factories of intellectual fashion, rather than practicioners of the scientific method.


Words: 120
Substance: 0

Please try harder in future.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


The best answer 1 can come up with is its related to the intelligence increase level of a species and technology exposure. So the more AWARE a species may become about things the less ALERT some within that species may become.

The aware population then begins to challenge itself more, but the alert animal life may sense and immediately respond. So the animals get a collective sense somehow from one area to another like sea life sensing something is wrong in a region and from the other side of the planet they know to avoid it like whales somehow all changing their sea routs ect.

The aware part of the population of a species (partially un alert) may still possess some of the Natural alert protection(s) mentioned observed in animals, but due to artificial exposure to things that infect the consciousness with fear, ignorance, doubt and denial the population may sense something but Fear-Doubt-Ignorance-DENIAL block the data transmissions thru the human collective. So part of the population is left sensing something another is in COMPLETE denial of anything (due to external conscious soothers that can or may distract the mind from even thinking beyond what they are TOLD). Still another part of the population just sits in Fear mode (we will ride it out maybe) and designs precautionary measures to protect (themselves
). And last part of the population is lost in so much ignorance programing from media and social media/music/television/books50
that in the end they don't even acknowledge anything until they see it in direct path of them.

So basically OP humans do possess the related abilities just diluted down somehow...

Good question


NAMASTE*******



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Words: 120
Substance: 0

Please try harder in future.


There was most certainly substance, it's not my fault that your pop culture has inhibited your ability to comprehend it.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I agree that there is no substance in the BrandonD post. The following was especially void of substance.


Notice I don't call it science but pop science, that is because the contemporary institutions of science are nothing but factories of intellectual fashion, rather than practicioners of the scientific method.

It reads like a computer generated nonsense phrase. It's fluff.

Would you care to add substance to your claim such as naming a particular person or group that is producing what you call "pop science"?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
It reads like a computer generated nonsense phrase. It's fluff.

Would you care to add substance to your claim such as naming a particular person or group that is producing what you call "pop science"?


It sounds like you understood what I was saying just fine. That's some "nonsense", isn't it?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD
HiLARious. Seriously.

This is a PERFECT example of the intellectual poverty demonstrated by the dogmatic adherents of pop science.

Someone doubts the tenets of their infallible authority figures? "Well our authority figures couldn't possibly be wrong, so this person MUST be a religious person."

I couldn't care less about religion, if I met Jesus or Mohammed I'd kick them under a bus. I'm just pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and those that scrub the emperor's back don't like to hear him being talked about that way.

Notice I don't call it science but pop science, that is because the contemporary institutions of science are nothing but factories of intellectual fashion, rather than practicioners of the scientific method.


By all means, expand on your thoughts, and give some examples of the problems with modern synthesis. There is no need for dogma when there are peer reviewed scientific experiments that are repeatable and confirm it. 99% of the time somebody doubts evolution or compares it to a religion / pseudoscience on ATS, it is because of their faith, so maybe you are the rare exception to this. If so, I'm interested in why you doubt evolution when it's so well documented. What makes you a denier of science? Specific examples would be nice, since you seem so convinced that your view is the truth, despite the failure to back any of it up. You can't just post general one liners about a field of science and expect people to take you seriously. You need to post the details and references if this is seriously your claim.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join