Salkafar

Sorry, I do apologize - and yet, you do the exact same in your post.

Um. We are not descended from Neanderthals. They are our evolutionary `uncles´. What was the impetus for our tendency to developing larger brains and problem-solving intelligence is still a mystery. We do know walking on our hind legs came first. A good sense of balance, keep depth perception and grabbing hands was a heritage from our tree-dwelling ancestors. What amazes me, Ryuki and Mirabilis, is how you keep insisting that we have only circumstantial evidence for evolution, and want a sort of "Well, it may or may not be true"-admission. But any such ship sailed long before we were born. The genetic evidence bears no alternative interpretation. We and the rest of the primates (Yes, Mirabikis, we are primates) are descended from the same ancestors and that´s that. How can I say that? How can I make such an absolute statement? Here´s why: ERV´s. Endogenous retro-viruses. Retroviruses are different from your everyday virus in that they actually become part of the host´s DNA and are copied right along with it. So, at a certain point, the new DNA strand that was interwoven with the original genome becomes active and the cell is broken down into a whole bunch of new virus copies. But sometimes, something goes wrong and the virus is never activated. Instead it becomes part of the host´s DNA... permanently. Geneticists can identify such ERV´s, like a pattern of scars on the chromosomes. Now, if such a retrovirus should invade a reproductive cell and alter the DNA of a sperm cell or ovum, then of course the individual that is born from that will have a new ERV its parent did not have in his DNA.. and so will all of his offspring. It is thus possible to tell a genetic line descended from that person from another one. You see what I mean, don´t you? Modern great apes have many of the same ERV´s in the same loci on their DNA we do. They also have different ERV´s as well. For them to have several - more than two dozen, If I remember Correctly - identical ERV´s on the very same spots on their chromosomes as humans by sheer chance is completely impossible... unless they and humans have the same ancestors. And thanks to something known as `the molecular clock´ we can make an estimate of how long ago that last common ancestor lived, based on the average rate at which new ERV´s join the genome. This age is between 5 and 7 million years ago. Anyway... fossil evidence is great. But it is not needed to prove we are descended from the same ancestors as chimpanzees, gorillas and urangutans... and, ultimately, all other life forms as well. I suggest you read "The ancestor´s tale" by Richard Dawkins. It´s brilliant.

The point, Ryuki, was plumbing into the subject. The info Mirabilis offered seemed skimmed. Interesting notion: is someone entitled to having a personal opinion based on wilful ignorance? He could know much more about it. Anyway... genetic trends... individuals can be considered as vessels of genetic strains. Thus, evolution can be seen as a struggle between genetic strains rather than individuals. As in, "the gene that codes for a furry coat defeated the gene that codes for naked skin in an environment which is cold and arid". Biologically, individuals are gene packets, almost like characters in a computer game that are equipped with abilities and traits by the player. Oh, dear. I probably should have avoided that particular metaphor, shouldn´t I?

Ok well I dont have like a college level of understanding. But my father taught me about it, and I learned about it in school. This is pretty much what I know: * Darwin went out on some ship The Beagle. What happened was that this surveying ship was commanded by Captain Fitzroy, who was afraid he would succumb to isolation and depression (both his uncle and the previous captain of the Beagle had committed suicide), so he wanted someone else of his social class aboard. He could not fraternize with the crew, so he needed someone unconnected to keep him company. Darwin was only 22 at the time; he had already dropped out of medical school and had instead finished theology with the intention of becoming a county minister, so he could pursue his intellectual pursuits in peace. * and was traveling the world http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/database/zoology/images/map.gif It was actually a surveying mission to map the coast of South America. The journey was originally supposed to last three years, but Fitzroy was neurotically insecure, so after they finished and had travelled all the way around, he sailed back to South America to recheck his findings so it took about five years in the end. * and came to some ilsands. In fact most of Darwin´s biological ideas came to him in South-America. When he visited the Galapagos islands, he did not really take note of the indications of evolution, being more depressed and put-off by the desolation of the islands. He thought the iguanas looked hideous. Mind you, he still did gather specimens of the finches which were later named after him, without initially recognizing the significance of their similarities. * He wrote in his journal his findings of similar creature's that were living in different habitats, but the islands were close to each other. He continued his studies and his travels for I think it was a period of years or months? I dont remember how long it was, but anyways he came up with the idea of evolution through his studies. Well - no... he did not come up with evolution while at sea. That did not happen until later, back home; it is pretty universally recognized that the first indication of common ancestry was the famous `I think´ scribble. * However, he was afraid at the time to publish his findings because at that time the power of the church was strong and if he did he thought he might get killed. No, absolutely not. The church was not nearly so powerful, and in any case the Anglican church was not nearly so eager to burn heretics as the Roman Catholics. In any case, this was in the 1840s, when heretics were no longer killed. He was afraid of being ridiculed, maligned, alienated, ostracized and outcast - and also of causing further social unrest. These were worrying times, with the working class moving furiously, and communism being born around the same time. Karl Marx wanted to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin, as I recall. * But then someone else starting thinking the same thing, Alfred Russell Wallace, who conceived of the same idea in a much different way. He knew Darwin was doing research in this area, however, and wrote to him with his findings. * and he starting to publish it, so Darwin beat him to the punch. Well, no. They co-published. There was no enmity between these men, and indeed they remained friends all their lives, even when they disagreed about scientific ideas. *However, my Bio teacher told us that before he died that he announced that he made the concept of evolution all up. (I dont know if thats true or not) Then I guess we know what side your bio teacher´s bread was buttered on. He (she?) should check the facts. * Evolution is the process of changing over a peroid of time, through adaptation eventually resulting in a new species. Well... yes and no. These days, it´s defined as the changing of allele frequencies, which essentially means the importance of certain gene variations in a given population changes with changing circumstances. Individual animals (or people) are not as significant in this model as are genetic strains. But of course, they all interact. *I have watched the DVD Scientific Discoveries "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution." That sounds like a very scientifically sound and unbiased product. * My dad told me that the Second Law of Thermal Dinamics "That any closed or open system tends toward disorder" would have to be broken for evolution to take place. Then your father is wrong. For one thing, Earth is not a closed system... usable energy from the Sun is constantly pouring in in gigantic quantities. * Micro evolution is natural selection and adaptation with limited lasting effects to the genetic code. Macro evolution is what results in new species. In fact, this `distinction´ does not exist. What you describe as `macro-evolution´ is just `micro-evolution´ over a longer time. This is pretty much what I know about this subject for evolution. I've studied Darwin and his theories, and the different ideas of evolution my sophmoore year. As I said before though I dont have a phd in it or anything like that. I am mainly curios to see ,what people belief, in the creation of life and the planet really. I am not here to tell you your wrong or to say "go read the bible you unbeleiver!" No, thats not why I opened this topic. I want to see all the different ideas on how the planet was formed and how life was created. Again as I said before what you believe is your own business, I am not here to say you are wrong or to judge you. I am only interested in all the different ideas of life's origins. Yes, but this is always a contentious subject.

Mirabilis, what do you actually know about the subject? Before I add anything more, I would like to know just exactly what you think evolution is and why we think it happened.

And nobody answers naturalistically? Well then, I suppose it is up to me. I believe life, once it starts, rushes to fill every single nook and cranny it possibly can, just like a fluid - simply because of cause and effect, based on passing on qualities and traits to the offspring, in other words: Your kids will be like you. - Individuals that produce more viable offspring than others will eventually outbreed those other bloodlines. - If circumstances change, the individuals least compatible with the new state will die. If the critical limit for that exceeds the capabilities of every individual of the species, the species goes extinct. If there are survivors, they will be the new species, and since their extreme forms the new average, that means the species has what is commonly called `evolved´. - For this reason, genetic variation is important. And for that reason, having lots of offspring is important especially in an environment that is hostile, changes rapidly, or if you are not particularly strong or resilient as individuals. - Problem-solving intelligence is not a popular survival trait. This is because of the high costs developing such a specialization. Given that apes are normal animals, humans are freaks: Our enormous brains make birth very difficult, we need very long child care because of the physical adaptations needed, and we cannot stick to a wholly vegetarian diet because of the high need for proteins. Physically, we are very weak - we have sacrificed four-fifths of our innate strength to be able to walk upright to fully free our hands and locomote in a very efficient way (The one thing that humans do better than practically any other species in the world is walking - not running, walking) despite standing in an intrinsically unstable way and having a huge counterweight at the top. Now, despite the obvious drawbacks, problem-solving intelligence turned out to be a good investment - a chain of unlikely choices, which consequently occurred only once in history so far, resulted in a physically frail species, which practically dominates the globe. We are the only species which can actively, if feebly, oppose the caste which has ruled for the last four billion years or so - the bacteria. This being said, it is not difficult to imagine seeing an invisible hand controlling it all... but frankly, no, I disagree. We are nature´s products... and nature is blind and does not engage in retrospection. *** It is true that several species of hominid primate coexisted, or at least existed at the same time. And also that it is not entirely clear what caused the initial trend towards increased intelligence (although there are several intriguing theories, from Elaine Morgan´s water ape theory, to the inclusion of retroviruses actually causing the changes). But this: We did not specifically evolve from monkeys or apes because if such were true we would still be seeing evidence of evolution in the existing monkeys/apes and therefore have "missing links" walking about and socializing amongst us or with similar species. Seems a totally unwarranted conclusion. *** "Me personally, I would have to agree with the old school style. Creationism. I understand that some people out there believed they came from apes or water or other various methods, but I dont understand why they would want to." Because of the all the evidence pointing that way? "I would think that a person would want to believe that someone created them specificlly to love them and care for them; then believeing that they came from an animal and theres no purpose as to why they were born." What one wants is irrelevant to the facts. "I believe they think this because they are confused," This is what is known as a `gotspe´. "and dont want the responsibility that believers caring on them. For ex: In some religion's the believers are not to do anything that would be considered worldly. Viewing pornography, haveing premaritial sex, use of drugs etc. THese people might see this and say, "I dont want to have to follow those rules." So they dont believe, so they wont have to follow the rules." Could you please try to be a bit more conceited and insulting next time? "However this is just my opinion, I dont have any facts or anything like that." No drenn.

I always sort of figured the Gigasmasher would just make the planet explode. But I now realize this is incorrect. The Megasmasher was estimated to have a power output of over a hundred megawatts. That puts the Gigasmasher in the ten gigawatt range, which is roughly the energy consumption of Norway, but much, much less than the power output of just the first stage of the Saturn V rocket ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag....28109_watts.29 ), a hundred thousand times less powerful than the most powerful laser cannon we humans have built ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...281015_watts.29 ) and half a trillion times less powerful than the most powerful bomb we ever tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#yottawatt_.281024_watts.29) . Maybe those figures should be re-checked. I mean of the Guyver. I never realized how insanely powerful that nuke was. It exceeds certain astronomical phenomena. In fact it seems somewhat unlikely to be true... Anyway, if the Exceed's power increases relative to its size, it's 8000 times more powerful than the Gigantic.

"Mars-sized rock"

That is a fascinating idea. And 100% logical. As for "This is the true power"- maybe they just meant "true power output" or just "What it really can do"

I did this one after someone asked "What would you do if your son joined Scientology?" And this one after someone asked "What's the difference between George Bush and a pussy?" The difference is obvious, of course. This was just heart-breaking: It's a correction in the Constitution. I still think this is epic: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f343/Sal...goatseridio.jpg This is... Almost nobody got this one. And... This needs a caption.

It's idiotic. Dragonball was not just a silly action series at first (well, it was, but it also was more than that). It was based on a very old and venerable legend - "The Journey to the West". They should have realized this and worked from that. There is an incredibly good movie in there. This... this is "Double Dragon meets Super Mario Brothers". And if you remember those smegfests, you understand why I just might download this if I have time, but otherwise none of my effort or money will be invested in this chunk of polished feces.

I am only getting angrier and therefore shall refrain from looking at this thread from now on.

There is absolutely no difference between a god that never does anything and a god that does not exist. Ryuki, your 'answer' to the Epicurean riddle is as impotent as any that has any been offered to it. edit: Okay, been able to think this over for a few hours and I am still pissed off. Let's examine your original comment on the riddle. "god is able but not willing to prevent evil. that does not make him malevolent." An all-powerful being creates a species with a built-in tendency to do evil, but takes zero responsibility. And that is not evil? "that makes him loving. because to love somebody is to trust them to make the right choices." God supposedly made us. He designed us down to the last atom. Every single system, every last organelle in a human body was allegedly designed by God. That means he knew exactly how a human being would act and react in any given situation. So... he knew people would not make the right choices. Didn't he know? He didn't? How is that possible? And assuming it is possible, does that not make God incredibly irresponsible? And therefore, once again culpable. "god trusts us. god loves us. he therefore allows us to be excposed to evil so that we may grow stronger. " Stronger - to what end? To be able to endure even more evil? If he wanted us to be stronger, why did he not make us stronger to begin with? Are you implying that he wanted to observe the process of us getting stronger - because he was bored or something? Is that what human suffering is about? Entertainment? Your response is meaningless rhetoric.

"Des" means "of" in German (as in "Kaufhaus des Westen"). "Death" in German is "tod". The conjugation would be something like "Todes-Ghidorah". "Des" is just how Japanese transliterate "death". "For those who don't know..."

They should make one slightly sooner. "They said the world would end in 2012. It might. GODZILLA: ARMAGEDDON"

The one where Godzilla fights Zilla is "Final wars", The last Godzilla flick to date and unfortunately absolute crap. But yes, it is a remake of "Destroy all monsters". I like: Mothra Destroyer (Not 'Destoroyah' or 'Desturoia'. Destroyer.) King Ghidorah (of course) Megagiras Biolante All in all, Gamera has better monsters recently (Gyaos? Legion? Irys? They all looked, well, better than anything the big G had). Godzilla never fought Ultraman, but in "Godzilla vs. Megalon" he both fought against and alongside Jet Jaguar, who was a definite Ultraman knockoff.

Well... as regards chimpanzees teaching things... Their brains are only a third the size of ours, and as I recall it is estimated their mental development is roughly the level of a three-year-old as regards cognition. On the other hand, their short-term-memory and pattern recognition skills are apparently superior to ours. I wonder why.

Fossil DNA is not the issue here. No, absolutely not. This is about genetic closeness and genus. Cats and dogs are much more different from each other than humans and chimps. This research indicates that the similarity between humans and chimpanzees as regards critical loci is 99.4%. That is so close, he argues, that humans and chimps are three species of the same genus. It's more like wolves and coyots, or tigers and lions. We could call chimpanzees Homo Paniscus, or humans Pan Sapiens, I guess. I doubt this will ever happen. It would be too much hassle. I respectfully propose that your comment is colored by your personal spiritual convictions.

"It's going inside of me!"

Secuction Zoanoids would not be such a bad idea for an organization that operates mainly through subterfuge. You take an intelligent, ruthless, loyal and capable but plain-looking woman, and process her into a 24-carat bombshell. She seduces a senator, who is then blackmailed into complying. Maybe into being processed himself. And so on, and so forth.

North-Korea has Juche which is not atheistic but a bizarre religion in and of itself. Frankly, the same goes for Stalinism, Maoism and even Nazism. It's technically atheist, but it has the structure of an absolutist religion. It's not Christianity per se I have a problem with. It is any system which places itself above the most basic rights of the individual. It's just that so many People make Christianity out to be perfect, and it is so deeply flawed. Why do I say it is deeply flawed? Because it is so illogical and so morally untenable, and so sneaky. Why sneaky? Because it deems any and all criticism the work of the Devil. Adversely, any evil perpetrated in the name of its God, be it big or small, becomes good by virtue of it. You'll probably say that that was Inquisition stuff, that kind of thing doesn't happen anymore. But it does. All that's changed is the scale. Example: Ted Haggard. How did a man like that rise to such a position? By playing into the lowest instincts of his audience. "It is good to hate certain people, because they are evil." Oh, he may not have said it like that, but you know that is what it means. Why did I choose Ted Haggard? Well, prior to the revelation, any Christian would probably have said the Holy Spirit was guiding him. He was so inspiring and succesful, after all. But apparently the Holy Spirit did not manage to keep him from what he did. What happened there? How is it that People are even capable of telling such enormous lies in the name of God, without God intervening? And given that he does not intervene when it happens, how do you tell whether a preacher actually is acting in the name of God? Anyway, I don't trust any system which claims it knows the absolute truth about anything. That's why I go with science. Some Christians I know will go "that article is full of probably's and most likely's, doesn't seem very convincing to me." But that is exactly what makes it convincing. Reality is not perceived in absolutes. Our eyes are not keen enough.

Ask me after we atheists have burned our first believer at the stake.

Centuries ago, believers used to kill unbelievers by burning them at the stake. They don't do that anymore... but I swear, you People are still going to kill me. Have pity.

Ryuki, you practically made my argument for me. I already cosidered how music and dancing exhists i nature.. and i realised that it goes against evolutionary theories. This is silly. The content of that statement is completely silly. There are even human peoples today who use music and dancing to gain a mate. But in nature, it is mostly birds who do this. in terms of natural selection, evolution etc.. music and dancing would not exhist because it doesn't give any advantage in natural selection. Evidently, it does! You are very much using your own intuition here, and that is not science. Our intuition is not scientific. It is primitive. It is the intuition of a hunter-gatherer. We aren't anymore, but our instincts haven't caught up yet. I find your argument frankly outrageous.

Its not important what you have faith in, but that you have faith. An incredibly dangerous sentence. Muhammed Atta had faith that he was doing God's will. I do not believe in the existence of any god. In my experience, People who hold such beliefs without doubt tend to lack information. There does not have to be a creator, or even a first cause. Yes, complexity can be emergent. For People who look towards religion, or just the idea of a God as a moral support, I would argue that it has done very little good in the past. People who claim that they have the Holy Spirit to guide them have proven capable of some remarkably ungodlike things. Like Ted Haggard. I have too much faith and trust in the lord to let anything sway me. This sentence scares me. 'anything' includes conclusive evidence. This says you would keep believing in that God, no matter what. Regardless of facts or logic. What would you do in order to be able to keep believing? I think this is more about emotional need than factual truth. And People in power who benefit from large numbers of People following a religion which says they should obey their leaders...