Human Evolution and Becoming Different

[Ghogiel]

though I will ask you one

question ... what ever happened to open enquiry ?

It has become more open?

 

You'd think that with all the supposed information that evolutionists have that they would have no problems

defending what they believe.

But they do.

Many, and I really mean many an evolutionist who has put their faith in Naturalism, will, even in the face of blatant

scientific evidence to the contrary, or that which would scientifically challenge what they believe, would rather

scramble to defend their beloved theory to than accept anything to the contrary.

Who? And what blatant scientific evidence to the contrary... ? There are open platforms for new science.

 

The rule of thumb is this ... if it doesnt fit with what we have already accepted, no matter the evidence, instead of us

accepting it we will either; A ... deny it or B ... ignore it or C ... throw something into the mix and twist it to conform to

what we believe rather than what the evidence in front of us is saying.

In centuries past, that was certainly true. In the modern age not so much. There maybe some scepticism and a lot of scrutiny to claims, but if someone has 'evidence' these days.. it's just on the table. It usually does not invalidate existing evidence, so yeah the existing theory must twist to encompass this evidence.

 

But to talk about denial of evidence when there is a mountain of it to support modern evolutionary theory.. just saying.

[marharth]

First off, a theory is not just a idea. That is another use for the word. What you are talking about is a scientific theory. That is a well substantiated explanation based on a large number of facts that has not had any valid evidence to dispute it. A scientific theory is valid unless otherwise proven incorrect. Scientists around the world agree with the theory of evolution by natural selection because there is no valid evidence for another theory to dispute it.

 

Second, as Ghogiel mentioned, evolution is not just a theory. Evolution is fact. How evolution happens has theories, which is what the "theory of evolution by natural selection" is.

 

The reason evolution is fact is due to the following.

 

Animals clearly show as changing into new species overtime based on fossil records. Older animals have similar traits as newer ones.

 

Animals have similar chemical and DNA structures. Humans and apes have extremely close DNA. Other species that seem similar through fossils also have extremely close DNA. All animals on earth are made up from six of the most common elements.

 

Certain animals only appear in certain areas. Animals are native to certain areas because they evolved to live in that region. In different parts of the world even the same general type of animal can be different. There are tortoises for example that has a more extended neck then other tortoises because they evolved needing it due to the area they lived in.

 

New species of animals have been created by selective breeding in the modern time. We have new species of dogs and plants due to this.

 

There are organs that no longer have any use for certain animals. Humans are a good example of this. Humans have the remains of a tail bone (Coccyx), when we clearly do not have a tail. This means at one point we did have some kind of tail. A tailbone has no use for modern humans. Another thing is that we have a third eyelid that is entirely unused, that we can't even move. Wisdom teeth have no practical purpose, and there is a arch in our ears that link to older species that have spiked ears. Also goosebumps which happen since it would normally rise your fur/hair, if you had enough of that to actually rise. Which shows that humans used to have large amounts of fur/hair, enough all over to actually have it raised like a cat or something similar.

 

As for the actual topic, I think genetic engineering is more likely then anything else mentioned.

Edited November 21, 2012 by marharth

[Arcadiast]

looking at the poll results, I am missing another option under "what do you think we should become?"

 

- more modest!

 

Seriously, there should be if any then only a very slight percent of people who can maybe look at a near future but there should be no one that could look so far ahead to know what we will become. So at least 99% of the people participating in the Poll should have answered correctly "no idea". Yet here we are with something over 50% looking into the future :).

 

We seem to have already become "Superpeople".

[stars2heaven]

I'm not so concerned with the "should" as the "could" and what that means for us. You don't even need any predictions using science that hasn't developed yet. Just look at regular old evolution and how it works and make a prediction about where humans are headed. You don't even need anything like what's discussed in the following link to come up with the idea. http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/sciencefriday/scifri201211161.mp3 (I'm actually just posting this much to lend a little credence to what I'm suggesting. I've posted things like this before in other forums without anything but my own argument and people tend to act like I'm nuts)

 

All that's needed is to understand a little about natural selection and a little bit of looking around at other people and how they live and what is necessary for their survival to come up with exactly what the evidence is now showing. So what's one thing that isn't as necessary as it used to be? A large brain. So what if we are becoming dumber? What is in store for the human species over the next couple thousand years if nothing is done? What would it mean to intervene?

[Beriallord]

I think humanity is devolving. All the technology being used to do things that used to take hard work, over time is going to make people lazy. Then if something were to happen where people could no longer rely on the said technology to "do the hard work", I don't believe most would be able to make a transition backwards. The more advanced we get, the less adaptable as a species we become, and the much more difficult it would be to make a transition backwards if somewhere were to happen. For example, lets say a massive solar flare was to knock out global wide power and communications, it would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Because our people rely on this technology to live. Modern society is going to be tested at some point by something like that and I'm not optimistic society as we know it will survive.

 

I also hear average IQs of many countries is going down, not up, which means our societies are devolving intellectually.

 

The future of humanity is imminent destruction, and I think its going to happen long before we develop the technology to make ourselves immortal.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Beriallord