Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

Originally posted by Ookie
You seem more inclined to think that humans, pretty much the same ones we have now sat on their butts for 250,000 years and then all of a sudden about 15,000 years ago they figured out how to move enormous freaking rocks and stack them with precision. That for no reason at all, the exact same people we have today lived in caves and mud huts for 250,000 years and then for no reason started making computers and rocket ships.

Spend some time studying ancient cultures and techniques, and you will see that their tools got more and more sophisticated as time went by. They did not just 'sit on their butts'. I believe two things contributed to the 'cultural revolution', i.e. invent of language and agriculture. All of a sudden people didn't need to forage 24/7 but had the time to do other things too. Also, all of a sudden people to area ratio rose significantly (e.g. land supported many more humans than before). Computers, rocket ships, and all that happened only after many more inventions like writing, industrial revolution, etc. Over 90% of all the scientists that ever lived are still alive today..

Doesn't that appear off to you? How about we had a few thousand survivors colonize this planet from a place more advanced than we are today? Those survivors brought with them memories of the life they left behind and tried to recreate it to some degree. They had small items that they brought with them from their home world to help them, but over time these items broke down or wore out.

So some beings evolved in another planet, and miraculously they could interbreed with humans. Cool! So, why is it that genetics don't reveal their presence? Why is it that we haven't discovered a single tool of theirs?

There is just too much evidence for sudden awakening from something new. The white people with blue eyes were that something new. They came from elsewhere and created all we have today. Refute that. EVERY item of significance we have today was invented by white men, most of them with blue eyes. They are obviously more advanced than anyone else.

By population genetics we can tell that the blue-eyes trait evolved only 6-8 thousand years ago. Blue-eyed people weren't even around when the first cities were built. Also, are you seriously saying that e.g. Chinese, Indian, and Arab scientists never contributed to the advancement of mankind? Is that how uneducated you are? People in the area of the highest concentration of blue-eyed people (Northern Europe) were still living in forests just 1000 years ago. Meanwhile, brown people and Asians had had pyramids and great cities and stuff for thousands years. Seriously.. the west (whites) only surpassed others just a few hundred years ago, and now the Chinese are already on their way to reclaim the top spot..

p.s. I have blond hair and blue eyes and I'd love to be some alien-human hybrid. However, I'm actually intelligent enough to understand that it's just a silly baseless fantasy. Also, by your logic Jews (not well known for blue eyes) are the unquestionable master race since they have contributed by far the most (per capita) to the advancement of mankind (measured in e.g. nobel prizes). In average, from all ethnic groups, ashkenazi jews have by far the highest IQ..

reply to post by rhinoceros


Life is a structure that is not supposed to occur in chaos. Thus, life is "cheating" chaos. And, a big plus, life doesn't return to chaos as it is supposed to do. Instead, this highly ordered structure MULTIPLIES.
And almost all physics theory agree that all of the Universe undergoes the same Laws of Physics, or else slight differences would have make distant galaxy rip apart or collapse under variations of gravitational constant. As all observed galaxies are coherent, that means that laws are coherent across the entire Universe.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Malcher
Why would one species change into another? Can you answer that?

Species don't change into other species. Populations wander off and adapt to their new environments. Thus, over time, these populations may drift genetically so far from the original ones that they count as a new species. Species is a man made concept anyway. In the end, we are really talking about lineages of organisms.

Species is just a word we use, your argument is more semantical. If species wander off and adapt to their new environments then why are there so many known extinctions? Have you seen the list of extinctions?

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
I cannot believe that a serious researcher actually said Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena.

Seriously? What the hell? I think it's about time physicists and geophysicists start laying down the law, and to quit cronying colleagues coughLAWRENCEKRAUSScough. This anthropology/climatology nonsense is growing out of hand.

edit on 27-5-2012 by imherejusttoread because: (no reason given)

But millions believe it because they read it often enough. it's the thought underlying every single new age religion that espouses population reduction. It is the basis of the Georgia Guidestones, it is the basis of extreme environmentalism that indoctrinates the belief that humans are nothing but parasites, and it is the most often cited reason given for globalism... If only man could come together and rebuild that tower at Babel...oh, I know how, convince the masses that there is no Creator, that humans are no better than a cow, and that man can solve any problem if they can only come together. Man, man, man...666

Evolution is the creation theory of humanism - a religion for the Godless, with it's own morals, creation story, and history.

reply to post by Malcher

You are trying to prove evolution by showing examples of adaptation

They are different in what way. If an organisms genetic code changes to adapt to it's environment that's evolution.

Using adaptation as an example or proof of evolution is disingenuous since you know the "theory of evolution" relies on one species changing into another.

Speciation (which has been observed dozens of times by the way) is when a species changes into another species.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population.

Each generation is different from the last, this leads to tiny changes in the genetic code of a species, these changes are called evolution, when these changes are aggregated over the course of several thousand or million generations this leads to speciation. So you see that it isn't disingenuous, adaptation, small changes to adjust the environment, is part of the mechanism of evolution which leads to species changing.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Malcher
Why would one species change into another? Can you answer that?

Species don't change into other species. Populations wander off and adapt to their new environments. Thus, over time, these populations may drift genetically so far from the original ones that they count as a new species. Species is a man made concept anyway. In the end, we are really talking about lineages of organisms.

Species is just a word we use, your argument is more semantical. If species wander off and adapt to their new environments then why are there so many known extinctions? Have you seen the list of extinctions?

Because drastic changes happen in the environment faster than they can adapt. That's why large species (longer generation times) go extinct far easier than smaller species..

reply to post by WhoKnows100

Wait. You're seriously arguing that humans can't influence the climate? Are you aware that in less than 200 years humans have destroyed over 50% of all forests on Earth? Are you aware that human activity has increased CO2 concentration in the air from 280 ppm to 390 ppm since the industrial revolution? Do you understand chemistry? Do you understand what CO2 does in the atmosphere? Of course you don't.. Please have a look at this picture and this picture. Then either disprove modern laws of chemistry or change your opinion on anthropogenic climate change..

reply to post by GD21D

We're still coming back to the same situation. There a definitely some holes in our understanding of the human timeline.

I would tend to agree with you that our understanding of the rise of civilization -- when it occurred, where it occurred, etc -- is far from perfect and that we probably need to revise estimates of some technological advancements to have occurred earlier. But that calls into question anthropology and archaeology, not evolution.

reply to post by iterationzero
Please understand I'm not claiming the theory of evolution is wrong. All I'm saying is that science is not perfect. To blindly follow mainstream scientific ideas is no different than blindly following religious concepts, or following what is put out in MSM without question.Furthermore, I'm not claiming what John West has asserted is correct. There is so much information put out there, so many different positions, it makes it extremely difficult to gauge what the truth really is. Now, if the conclusions of what scientists such as John West are true. Then it's a fair question to ask, how old is this structure? 5,000 years? 10,000? 20,000? Depending on the answer, it could have an effect on our understanding of the rise of civilizations, and evolution of man. And then we get to the questions of why in the face of this evidence do they maintain the same ideals? Could it be that Egypt has so much invested in it's tourism that they couldn't change the story now? Everything, every idea they sold to foreigners visiting were wrong? Then you get to academia which has taught generation after generation a false story? These are questions, and I don't claim to have the answers.As Jordan Maxwell had said, the more you look around, the more you investigate, the more you educate yourself, you start to see lies everywhere. I don't care if you agree with what he claims or his story or not. That quote is very telling, and resonates with me to this day.

Originally posted by GD21D
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Please understand I'm not claiming the theory of evolution is wrong. All I'm saying is that science is not perfect.

I dont' think anyone has ever said otehrwise.

To blindly follow mainstream scientific ideas is no different than blindly following religious concepts,

Science gives you data and reasons to back up it's conclusions. It also allows for better ideas to replace or supersede earlier ones.

These are significant differences between science and religion - science gives you an option of NOT following "blindly" - religion does not.

People who "follow" science generally do so because "science" has a track record of successfully explaining the world and beyond.

Basing "belief in science" on such a track record does not constitute "blindly following" science.