AbdelRahman Siddig

This conversation is closed.

The real evolution happened to our awareness not our bodies

The ability to create modern tools existed since we exist
What real evolved over time is our awareness of the
Law of physics and chemistry which was installed and configured for us before we arrive and ready to be discovered
why we are able to make modern tools only now?
what was missing before
The raw materials
or the deep relations between these materials (physics &chemistry)
or our awareness of that fact this materials are reshapable into different form of tools which helps us to save our time and efforts
but claiming man was ape this just pure theory which will never be proven
because man was created by GOD

  • thumb
    May 22 2011: Simple and comprehensible proof of the the theory of evolution by the Null Hypothesis:
    For evolution to NOT happen the following things would need to NOT happen:
    1: Heredity
    2: Genetic Drift
    3: Natural Selection
    4: Mutation

    Those are 4 of the most fundamental governing principles of evolutionary theory, and because all of them are proven to happen, it is accepted that evolution is a valid theory of speciation.
    It should be understood that when scientists use the word "theory" it means something very different than how it is used in common parlance, an accepted theory is the pinnacle of a worthy idea, to say that evolution is "just a theory" shows a lack of understanding of the principles of scientific inquiry and ignorance of the scientific method.
    • May 23 2011: I was laughing about that today. "just a theory" like do you have the slightest understanding? Great post.
    • thumb
      May 24 2011: So, let me get this straight. Because Heredity, genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation occur, we evolved from bacteria? When you say evolution, perhaps you need to define the term? I'm sorry, but I'm not following the logic. We can certainly say that "evolution" in the sense of heritable genetic changes in populations exists because of the aforementioned points, but does that prove bacteria to man evolution...I would say hardly and in fact not at all. What would the null hypothesis be to ACTUALLY prove evolutionary theory? I agree that theories are not the same in all disciplines, but does this somehow make evolution a "more strong" theory? If evolution was proven, it would be a law, and it has not been proven, so it is not a law. Pretty simple I think, no?
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: The logic is not faulty, those 4 principles describe the mechanics of basic adaptive radiation.
        I was not trying to articulate the details of phylogeny, but in short, yes, those 4 principles are the fundamentals of speciation. Though I wish that I could explain to you how proto-life gave rise to life and differentiated giving rise to prokaryotes and eukaryotes, how single celled organisms adapted into complex multi-cellular organisms, and how every species has come about, I'm afraid that all those details will not fit in this format. But really the details would only elaborate on the principles I've already listed.
        The theory of evolution is a theory of speciation, the principles of which I have provided. If you would like a fuller understanding of their respective mechanisms and other pertinent concepts to the idea I would strongly recommend picking up a book on the subject. I could recommend a few if you'd like, I'm a fan of textbooks if detail is what you want that is where you will find it, if you prefer politicking the science and want controversy pick up a work of non-fiction to see where the contentions lie. A good short essay that you may appreciate if brevity is what your into "the salamander's Tale" by Dawkins is good to highlight the divide between how many people think of speciation vs. the reality of speciation by describing a common problem in peoples minds concerning speciation, namely that we arbitrarily categorize species based on assumptions about phenotypical morphology.

        Just because you have a hard time believing, imagining, or understanding that single celled organisms could give rise to all the complex forms of life that exist does not change the fact that it has thus far held up against every level of scientific scrutiny since proposed and is still the prevailing theory and only gaining strength in validity as research continues to pump out new affirmations.

        More on laws.....
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: On Laws: As Far as I know, Laws only exist in the field of mathematics such as the 4 fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism). More forces may be discovered concerning the nature of the universe, but besides for the fundamental forces nothing can be said to be a law (and even these may come into question at some point).

        "If evolution was proven, it would be a law, and it has not been proven, so it is not a law. Pretty simple I think, no?"
        Your profile indicates that you have an education in scientific fields and yet you are saying things that indicate that you do not understand the foundations of scientific inquiry? How is it that you can study Biochem at the postdoc level and not pick up on the definitions of Laws versus Theories?
        Scientific findings never speak in terms of absolute Laws because our understanding of the universe is never absolute, even the elementary table of elements and particles are still being defined. Just because something is not said to be absolute does not mean that it is not most of the story. There is still much to be yet discovered and understood, but that doesn't mean that we don't know what the general picture or story looks like.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: Hi Meher,

          Just needed to point out that all I am saying is that there are some sciences that are more "hard" than others. So, for example, biochem like math is a harder science than evolutionary biology. Why? Because it does not rely on assumptions of past events. It can be tested in the here and now. Unless we have time machines, we cannot observe evolution, and therefore it is not on the same level of scientific scrutiny. It enters the historical realm which is unfortunately very subjective on many accounts.

          So, can you agree with me that evolutionary theory is not as hard a proven fact as say one amino acid in a particular protein interacting with another in its partner protein? If you can agree with me here, then we can go on. The point you were making about evolution being proven by null hypothesis is really going too far - that is what I am getting at. I actually fully accept all except the natural selection leading to speciation points you describe (mutation, genetic drift, heritable variation). These can all occur, independent of evolution from a common ancestor, no?
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: I hate the observation defense...

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a7ZPZQUfk

          It is so impractical...

          http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fast_evolution_observed_in_butterflies
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

          The reason it is the "Theory of Evolution" is because we do not know everything involved in evolution, not that evolution is an actual theory. A contributing factor to evolution in which YOU should be arguing here is "How did the original cell come into existence?" Now that is a complex question worth actual time.

          Now from my understanding Meher studied this information in-depth, so, I won't bother linking you to a thousand websites that prove evolution factual. However, real quick....

          When faith comes prior to science, there is MASSIVE room for error. Skepticism, logic, and critical thinking become tools/skills of ignorance rather than used genuinely and with an open mind.
        • May 31 2011: Cont:

          Remembering, it is a matter of increasing diversity while increasing depth of the pool. We will survive if we keep a deep and wide gene pool.
        • Jun 3 2011: To PM on 02Jun2011:
          Yes, the "attempts" at control you point out are the same crock. Furthermore, I keep hearing it. So, let us leave the “idiots” in the past and understand how to implement it on a constructive path. Realize that the ability to love, care, understand morality etc are GENETIC!

          Otherwise, a zygote become a human because you love it. If true, we could do it with dogs, cats, and trees!

          If you choose to focus on education, be happy in a world filled with sociopaths because that is evolutionarily favorable--regardless on where you think we came from!

          To the specific comment:
          "I too care about where we're going, and neo-evolution is a complete crock for dealing with that. Do you honestly think we can drive evolution to some higher ground in the short time needed to deal with problems on the world today? "

          Yes, I do. I think the ability to give a crap, see, understand, and drive to implement change are genetic. Your mind is not a magical thing. It is the intangible functions of the brain. The brain is made of cells and cells are driven by genes. Do you not agree?


          "Now I will proceed to disagree on the future benefits of gene "defining the best possible gene pool we can create"... ... Okay, in a practical way, describe how we can do that?"

          Make the impractical practical!

          It seems you already believe that it is impossible. Therefore, any attempt would be viewed as impossible. For example, genotype everyone at their first check up.
          This would complete the current “phylo-genetic” tree for our species and we can then test theories off this data set.

          Cont:
        • Jun 3 2011: Plus, when amy and bob get married and have kids we can have the observation tested.
          Moreover, this would be done as high-school science classes. Any abnormal traits would be encouraged to increase the width of the gene pool. However, we would choose which is considered “best” based off the decrease in obviously unfortunate genes. In other words, you pay/assist people to keep having kids if they contain BRCA2!! However, exhibit control if the frequency is high to the point of damaging the healthcare system. Plus, how would you know if it will damage it unless you test for acceptable holistic approaches? Wow, health care becomes cheaper, you know to eat xyz, and your life is increased and improved because the level of science is not elementary… it is HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE!!!!!!

          To point out, my family name is a known genetic disorder, my friends who exhibit disorders have heard my argument in full, and this is not impractical for someone with imagination.

          So, how would you implement your idea? Moreover, using my idea as a template make my argument for me! If you are hear to understand and move forward, you should be able to run with my idea and point out the ways to improve it. (regardless if you agree or not!) However, you stated the idea is ridiculous before proposing any.


          “So, why would we even reconsider such a rediculous notion?”

          “Clearly we don't have any "ideal" genes in humanity.” Mother Theresa gene?

          “We actually desperately need education and knowledge and perhaps we need to go back to our roots to understand how moral responsibility and love and care and working together could perhaps be way more important than seeking the right genes. This involves education, not "neo-evolution"

          As stated and I believe you cannot argue, negative to the above (e.g. love) are favorable. The argument of loving upbringing is nurture which cannot change the nature. Otherwise, we would teach trees to dance.

          cont:
        • Jun 3 2011: In the end, I think your idea of education is correct. However, you need a school to teach in and with out neo-evolution your “school” will never exist.

          Post script:
          Nature vs. nurture is really BS unless you understand how it actually works.

          Genotype creates the phenotype! Dogs dont start walking on two feet and shop at starbucks.
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: Jonathan, I have a hard time following your arguments. So, you are saying that by taking the genotype barcode for everyone individually, we will be able to decide which genes are beneficial and which ones are not. So, we can then select the good ones and encourage them to reproduce? By the time you genotype even every North American person, we will be long fried by global warming if we don't stop having pipe dreams and focus on the real problems we have today. Do you even know what the leading cause of death is in the developed world?...yep - heart disease - completely preventable by a change in choice of food and exercise habits, having basically nothing to do with your genotype. So, in the time it takes you to genotype a few people (not to mention the money), it would be possible to educate millions about how their lifestyle CHOICES determine their health and the health of their planet. Check out forksoverknives.com. I'm just sayin...the neo evolution idea is really not going to provide for any schooling - just another eugenics disaster waiting to happen. Explain to me how neo-evolution provides good schools?
      • May 31 2011: Would everyone agree with one thing I will state as FACT:
        the process of heredity, mutation, and everything which goes along with it exists.
        Wow, you look like your mommy and daddy. Crazy leap of faith, I know.
        Thus, with years of growth into the future, we will see humans which look like your parents and further forward, humans which don't so much look like your parents?

        Now, looks are one thing and none visible traits are another thing. The basis for thought could be linked with an external observable trait. Some cultures believe long ear lobes are a sign of intelligence. (e.g. look at versions of the Buddha.)

        Thus, say “long ears” are true. We select for only long ears and the society becomes smarter on the whole. Regardless of any vestigial phenotypes which arise.

        I don't give a flying leap where we came from... it is where we are going which is important and the fundamentals of the "theory of evolution" is the basis for our map/path.

        In my opinion, this was the point of the statement to turn off your minds if you disagree with evolution theory in the TED talk.
        Simple argument toward the future and ignore the inane debate of where we came from, how valid the science is looking backwards, et cetera.

        To repeat: We are here and there is a system of orders which we now understand and into the future will have better understanding. Fact: we can control for the species expression of specific traits if not in the individual phenotype with further study. Yet, if we keep talking about the validity of the science we will not accomplish this goal. We will be talking about my uncle the ape until we are all just apes in some future humans discussion.
        So, let us agree to disagree in regard to where we came and move on to the fact that genes do influence thought and perception; thus, the evolution of man is currently present in our species and we need to define the best possible gene pool we can create. ......next
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Hi Jonathan,

          No problem - no leap of faith there. You really think I'm retarded, don't you?

          Careful now..."we select for long ears"...how does that happen? What makes you think that natural selection works like that. Easy to say - harder to prove. Even Darwin's finches go back and forth between long and short beaks over generations. Maybe in many years people would look like my parents or yours again? Why should they change? Has the environment or will the environment have changed so much to remove the possibility of these traits from coming out again? Questions that need answering, and actually aren't so easy to answer. Has the environment been steadily changing over the years to force evolution as so many assume?

          I do agree in retrospect that the talk is useless for anyone who doesn't believe in the "theory of evolution". I would argue further that the talk was entirely useless though. Why? I too care about where we're going, and neo-evolution is a complete crock for dealing with that. Do you honestly think we can drive evolution to some higher ground in the short time needed to deal with problems on the world today?

          Thank you for laying to rest the agreement to disagree. I agree to disagree on origins. Now I will proceed to disagree on the future benefits of gene "defining the best possible gene pool we can create"

          You say..."we need to define the best possible gene pool we can create". Okay, in a practical way, describe how we can do that? I'm no rocket scientist, but this has been tried in the past, and history can tell us that it isn't pretty. So, why would we even reconsider such a rediculous notion? Clearly we don't have any "ideal" genes in humanity. We actually desperately need education and knowledge and perhaps we need to go back to our roots to understand how moral responsibility and love and care and working together could perhaps be way more important than seeking the right genes. This involves education, not "neo-evolution"
    • thumb
      Jul 4 2011: Pekka, I am have enjoyed your input on the discussion and I know this is an old thread but I am wondering if you have a recommendation as a biochemistry guy on a book that would help me to understand the translational system in the cell. The whole DNA, RNA, MRNA thing It is fascinating stuff. I definitely agree with how "evolution" has become dogma. The cosmologists, paleontologists, physics and chemistry guys do not seem to talk to each other and the result is the gaping holes in the idea of evolution are not even discussed scientifically. God or no God belief there is very little open discussion. Darwin was against the idea of evolution in jumps adopting "natura non facit saltum" Yet it does not seem to bother anyone that there transitional forms are not only lacking but as Stephen Jay Gould put it in the "Panda's Thumb" ..... can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms-that is , viable functioning organisms~ between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? I submit , although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no... The physicists have found that as Max Planck said “all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“ Thanks in advance.
  • thumb
    May 19 2011: Honestly, you must be a provocateur because everyone here believes in Evolution. It's far more conceivable than the creation theory which is in fact less probable than the big bang theory.

    Some things about evolution you have to keep in mind.

    1. We shared a common Ancestor with Apes- We did not evolve from them.

    2. It does not negate the possibility of a God, in fact- it's possible that only a "God" can create such a complex world- where the best adapted survive and pass on their genes and evolve over time through natural selection.

    Your' reluctance to accept the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory or the merits of evolution it self. Instead, you can't accept that your creation theory is highly flawed and it negates the validity of your spiritual beliefs which are most likely tethered to your identity.

    Honestly, if it was me... and I was knee deep in the sinking ship called "creation story", I'd probably go down with it.

    Good luck!

    -Abdulalrhman
    • thumb
      May 19 2011: Hi Abdulairhman,

      Please speak for yourself when you say "everyone here believes in Evolution". It is arrogance like that, similar to what Harvey said at the beginning of his talk about "being wrong" that makes it all the more obvious that evolutionists have a complete intolerance for scientific challenges to their theory, no matter how sound. Unfortunately, the ship that is sinking is evolutionary theory - it has been buoyed up by so many supporters that it has become dogma, but ask yourself the very serious question - is it completely scientifically sound? There are just too many holes to count, and last I checked, holes in a ship are what cause them to sink. Even Lyell's uniformitarian ideas have been long rejected by any geologist worth his beans, and that is what Darwin founded his theory on, but some-how "scientists" refuse to question gradualism when it comes to life. Perhaps it would be more clear if they referred back to their highschool chemistry and biology and the laws that govern every system. For example - it was proven very long ago that every living thing comes from a pre-existing living thing. Sort of makes the origin of life from nothing a bit of a non-scientific idea, doesn't it? And as for evolution as a means of speciation and formation of complex organisms from unicellular life - I'll believe it when the evidence is convincing. You should ask yourself: Do my genes really determine my survival THAT well? What about all of the regulation in between genotype and phenotype? Then think about population genetics, and what actually happens when mutations take place, and the fact that mutation rates are WAY HIGHER than supposed. What about mutations that are poorly selected for or against?....food for thought. I believe what we have is not a theory of natural selection, but one would have to call it supernatural selection - but hey, people want to keep God out of the question. I'm not discounting adaptation - just unscientific theories.
      • May 23 2011: Still scratching my head about how this impacts neo evolution. Are you saying we don't selectively breed and the phenotype is derived from the genotype? Moreover, who cares about "evolution vs. creationism." It is an idiots debate. The issue why you keep God out of the picture is because God is an undefiable variable. Therefore, you must make the existance of God a null. (the idea is never stated if God does exist evolution is not his will) Therefore, the scientific premises are based off the lack and not the presence. The fact is irrelevant in the context of the theory; whereas, you believe god and that is fine. You or anyone cannot then speak science believing he does exist in this case because you need to prove that premise. I am unsure of what you think of neo-evolution. Where the idea of genes and our ability to control the progression is not in question. How does God relate in anyway to neo-evolution? (by the way, I do in fact have a very strong faith. It does not remove the science.)To below PM:I see what you are saying; however, once you observe something you can attempt to control it. Therefore, you genotype and control. This breaks what you said. You are talking Phenotypes. We have pasted that issue with mondern technology. Moreover, the phenotype of color blind person can be caused in a few ways. However, a genotype color blind person will not see the colors. (simplification of the idea to change your view point.)

        PM: Do you realize the level of complexity between genotype to phenotype? (Yes, why do you think it is hard/complex?)
        Can't just insert a gene and make it do what you want, or remove another and make away with it! If we could do that, we would have cured diseases like cystic fibrosis a LONG time ago! (wow, what are some of the current therapies?)
        are you suggesting something like eugenics then?
        (What do you think neo-evolution is? Just because some Popular idtiots tried to fly a plane, does not mean you stop trying to fly or flight is bad.)
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: Hi Jonathan,

          Nope. That's not what I mean. Think carefully about it and you'll understand. For example, no matter how selectively you breed, you can't select for or against a trait (or mutation) that you cannot "see". By unable to "see" I mean a mutation that is "nearly neutral"....that doesn't directly alter your survival. If you look at populations, you'll realize that basically all mutations are like this - but they are STILL mutations! You can't hide them under a rug or expect them to somehow be of benefit later. They just incessantly build up. For example, you have at least ~ 300 mutations that you will pass on to your children if you have any. You WILL pass them on, whether you select for or against them. Are there any that make you more or less "fit" - that is debatable, and certainly this unceasing tide of mutations is extremely critical for neo-evolution but did not get even a mention in the talk. (yes, I know mutation is supposedly the engine of evolution, but NOT mutations you can't select for or against easily)..see what I mean?
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: To Above JL

          If only it was that simple! Genotyping doesn't allow control - it basically just gives you the info...the genotype! Do you realize the level of complexity between genotype to phenotype? Can't just insert a gene and make it do what you want, or remove another and make away with it! If we could do that, we would have cured diseases like cystic fibrosis a LONG time ago! But anyone can dream I guess! Also, are you suggesting something like eugenics then?
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: "For example - it was proven very long ago that every living thing comes from a pre-existing living thing. Sort of makes the origin of life from nothing a bit of a non-scientific idea, doesn't it?"

        It seems that you are arguing that life can not come from non-life. How can you claim this as true? The origins of life were just as far back in time if life is natural or divine. The only things that's been proven is that livings things come from living things _as far as we have observed_. However, life must come from somewhere. As life is mostly complex chemistry and the processing of energy, it seems that the origin of life could plausibly have begun in a bunch of chemicals with generous amounts of energy. Like Earth's early oceans. There are some intriguing experiments which simulated the Earth's early oceans (as much as we could) which produced more complex chemicals than the ones that went in first. There is also geological evidence by way of fossils and stromatolites, as well as the chemistry of rocks, biological materials, water and air samples.

        There's also ancillary evidence by way of our genes and observed genetic drift, genetic therapy, and our understanding of mutations and how they operate. The reason for genes is explained by evolution, the process of evolution is laid bare by genetics. You can't accept the validity of genetic knowledge and dismiss evolution - the two are intimately linked.
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: However, life must come from somewhere. As life is mostly complex chemistry and the processing of energy, it seems that the origin of life could plausibly have begun in a bunch of chemicals with generous amounts of energy.


          I don't see how the evidence you describe puts weight or plausibility on life coming from nothing. You would think we would have the ability to replicate these conditions by now. Life is far too ordered and as you rightly say complex to come from non-living material. I guess what I'm saying is that we don't know how life began except for historical accounts of creation that appear in many cultures. So to discount history but to trust a random coming together of complex chemical reactions and chemistry? - I think it is a great leap of faith. But faith is necessary for any belief I guess.

          Genetic drift actually argues far more strongly against evolution...consider what happens in a genetically drifting population? - does a new species emerge, or does an extinction occur? This, compounded by inbreeding, seems to make mutations and natural selection more of a problem for evolution than a solution. I can fully accept the validity of genetics and completely dismiss evolution. In fact, the "evolutionary tree" is so mutable itself that it seems to change every time a new genome is sequenced...just follow it on "the tree of life" website. Now we have fancy terms like "lateral gene transfer" to try to explain away places where genes from one entirely different branch appear in another branch....something to look into as well and see if you agree with the interpretation. Why must all life be from the same original life if it all contains DNA? I don't understand your reasoning. Its like saying all cars must have been manufactured in Germany because they use gasoline, or have steering wheels. So I fully accept gene sequences and genetic knowledge, but I have a hard time accepting evolution. Perhaps DNA is the signature of a common designer?
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: I'm curious about the experiments that showed more complex chemicals resulting from less complex chemicals under certain conditions thought to mimic the early earth. If you can cite the paper, I'd be interested to read it and evaluate it first-hand. Maybe this is the RNA related work? I know there is a theory that first life was all RNA-based (hence RNA enzymes, etc.)


          At Meher Below,

          So, you equate creation accounts to myth? Wow, that is brazen, considering that these are co-inciding accounts from civilizations so disparate from one another that during their day, they would not have been able to communicate between one another. Strange how they converge on a creation story that no-one wants to believe. But hey, there are plenty of people that don't believe the holocaust happened, so no biggy there.

          What makes history longer ago less accurate than history recorded say 100 yrs ago or hec, say 10mins ago. I would argue that historical observations were more carefully recorded by ancients than many contemporary historians record history today. "Accuracy and Objectivity" turn out to be highly subjective when you look at how history is normally recorded by the victors, so I'm not sure I understand your point here.

          So, if you can site any relevant information, pertinent data, reliable observations, and repeatable experiments that clearly even support the existence of something from nothing, let alone molecules to man evolution, I will gladly be open to those arguments. You see, it is evolutionary dogma that is the current "paradigm" requiring a shift in personal conviction. But there are so many convicted evolutionists without an open mind to any challenge to their theory, that they would rather say "you are being narrow minded" to anyone that challenges their view.

          On genetic drift - defining it doesn't help it go away. How does genetic drift support or not support evolution would be a better question to answer? does it fit "out of Africa?"
        • thumb
          May 25 2011: @Pekka, "we don't know how life began except for historical accounts of creation that appear in many cultures. So to discount history but to trust a random coming together of complex chemical reactions and chemistry?"

          Creation myths are not history. History is a field of social science that ideally abides by standards of recording observations, events, characteristics, etc. with a measure of accuracy and objectivity.
          Creation myths are cultural traditions equatable to fairy tales. Putting more validity in a myth for explaining natural phenomena over scientific observations of anything is beyond unreasonable.

          You seem to desire proof for everything except your own beliefs. And yet you are resistant to any findings that conflict with your world view? Could it be that proof, logic, and reason are not what inform what you believe, but rather an emotional attachment to a previously firm held ideology causing you to reject any evidence no matter how strong because of ingrained prejudices and preferences rather than relevant information, and pertinent data, reliable observations, and repeatable experiments?

          On genetic Drift:
          Genetic drift is the chance alterations to gene frequencies within a gene pool.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: so, are you saying that people were around to record the creation of everything and that there were many different groups of people all over the not yet existent planet who witnessed its creation? sounds a little suspect. You note the similarity of creation myths as proof that they are valid, and wonder how so many different cultures could employ similar stories in their societies. There are many explanations for such phenomena such as cultural cognates which can be illustrated by comparative and historical linguistics. In the later part of the 17th century Sir William Jones described the similarity among many languages of certain words, Pater in Latin, Vatar in Sanskrit, Father in English, were shown to share an etymological origin, similarly many cultural traditions such as creation myths share common origins. The argument could be made for false cognates, but this does not prove the validity of multiple yet simultaneous accounting of creation, though it could be due to a similarity in human perceptions and conditions giving rise to similar cultural milieus. If we are to accept any version of the “out of Africa” scenarios then it is reasonable to assume linguistic and cultural etymologies stemming from that society which was bottlenecked two hundred and fifty thousand years ago in what is now modern-day Ethiopia. That scenario is the strongest thus far and is backed by strong evidence from paleo-anthropological discoveries in the fossil record, and mitochondrial DNA mapping of the radiation of mutations throughout the globe that occur with predictable frequencies, the living test population's genetic markers match the dispersal in the fossil record quite well. You ask what makes modern historical accounting more valid than ancient “historical” accounting, well for one the use of a reliable system for recording such as complex written language complete with a standardized grammar and syntax which emerged only around 8 or 9 thousand years ago give or take. continued
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Since the universe is estimated to be many billions of years older than a decent system for recording its history let alone any people around to do the recording, it doesn't seem reasonable that anyone could be said to be a reliable witness to the act. However the known properties of certain physical phenomena with measurable decay rates ARE reliable witnesses and it is on them that we rely for revealing aspects of the nature of the universe, its history, and its origins.

          You ask how genetic drift may fit the "out of Africa" scenario: if our species stems from a bottlenecked gene pool, then it is likely that genetic drift is the cause of such a bottleneck creating a founder's effect.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Pekka, I have to commend you for scrawling what may be the most offensive thing I have read in these forums, equating a disbelief in creation myths to denial of the Holocaust. You suggested that I was the brazen one, but I assert that you are far more so.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: Hi Meher:

          So to start, I take back my "scrawling of maybe the most offensive thing read on these forums" I should not have stooped to the level of Richard Dawkins, champion anti-creationist who makes this same claim from the opposite argument - was only trying to see if you had read his work, but apparently not.

          I also counter that you make the claim that evolution is factual, and then tell me that humans have to be present to record their own creation? Wow, that is quite an interesting mixup. I would say that those humans that did record anything down much closer in time to actual events related to our origins have marked down exactly nothing about evolution, and all about creation. Seems like maybe a Creator might like to communicate his doings to his created beings. But hey, that's probably totally rediculous to you too. After all, humans are the only real masters of self reflection and thinking. Why not just follow the whimsical uniformitarian ideas of a 22 yr old Darwin who fit "geological deep time" with a theory of origins that did not actually report observations of evolution, but simple genetic and phenotypic variations that occur with time in every kind of organism. I choose to go with the historical accounts, however "mythological" you may call them. But I have plenty of other reasons for that that would require far more in depth discussion. I enjoy the discussion though - it is interesting but sad that so many have closed the door to the possibility of a God. Why not re-examine it with an open mind? You would be surprised what you will find. An interesting read is a book called "The Devil's Delusion: atheism and its scientific pretentions" by Berlinski, a Stanford prof approaching this from a "non-religious" worldview. Check it out some time. You seem to have read some evolution texts, so why not read the other side?
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: HI Pekka, I have read some Dawkins, but I stay away from the militant atheism stuff, I've read the Selfish Gene, and various essays such as the Salamander's Tale but try to keep the politics and opinion stuff out of the mix as best I can. I'm not saying that I don't read any opinion, but that I try to mitigate its influence on my world view by drawing distinctions between what is known vs. what is assumed.
          Evolution is factual, how it works is where the theory comes in, it is provable, observable, and experiment-able; the Theory of evolution is concerned with the driving mechanisms and processes of evolution and it is there that the contentions lay within the scientific community.

          If a creator did convey any history to the created then the story must have gotten real jumbled somewhere along the way because the facts do not match the common tales. I am not an anti-creationist, but I do think that any valid model of creationism must fit with known facts about the universe. We know that the universe could not have been created in 7 days, we know that man has an evolutionary past just as every other organism on the planet reaching much further back than a few thousand years ago, we know that each creature on the planet was not created in its present form, we know the earth travels around the sun, we know various things about material decay rates, the spin of various particles, and the molar mass of various molecules, we know quite a bit about quite a lot and any theory of creation must incorporate what is known and not contradict facts about the universe without solid verifiable proof. At this point any creationist theory should probably be pushed back to the big bang or hypothesize and seek proof for some guiding hand from that point because we know a lot of hard facts about the universe from that point onward. I'm not saying creationism is absolutely wrong but that any valid theory must match what is known or offer up some very hard facts to the contrary. continued
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: The young Darwin got some things wrong, but the great thing about science is that it uses a self correcting model and methodology for amending incorrect theories. If we were still strictly using Darwin's original theories it would be believed that little Homunculi are the mechanisms for heritable traits, with the advent of new technologies it has been shown that it is actually genes that carry the information for genetic inheritance. A current area of contention is the gradualist model of adaptation initially proposed by Darwin Vs. the Punctuated Equilibrium model proposed by Gould. There is strong evidence and rationale for both theories and probably neither are strictly the case as ring species tend towards the gradual and bottle-necked or founder's effect species seem to display a punctuated adaptive radiation.

          I try to keep an open mind, but do maintain strict criteria for what gets incorporated into my world-view. I amend my perspective often and am a very introspective individual and constantly asses how my perception is influenced. I should probably inform you that I am well acquainted with the theological perspective. My expertise is in Classical Education and Honors Studies. I am trained in the Occidental traditions of Western thought with a strong foundation in History, Philosophy, Literature (mostly ancient), and Linguistics. Christianity being a huge influence on Western thought was incorporated into much of my course work. I also have personal experience of the Christian perspective from religious experimentation in my youth.
          My mind has changed many times throughout my life and I fully expect it to change many more times. I am making a huge assumption here, but I don't think your mind is as open to change as you suggest others should be. Is your belief system for the most part a continuum of that which you were raised with?, have you ever been truly willing to question your beliefs and change your mind?
        • thumb
          Jun 6 2011: Hi Meher,

          Glad to hear you stay away from the militant atheism. I'm not a fan of pushing things too hard - it never really makes the point.

          I have dabbled in reading a few things, including a book by Coyne called "Why Evolution is True"..not quite done, but I find the arguments redundant and in many cases entirely unscientific. But I have seen overly zealous "Creationists" too, so no-one is immune to this.

          I will say that I fully agree that evolution (ie change) is a fact. This does not in any way support a notion of forming highly complex organisms starting from non-complex materials. That is where all the theory comes in that I question with a critical and also open mind. For example, why do we not hear about mutation rates being too great for evolution from simple to complex to operate over such long time scales? Seems to be a fundamental issue that should be addressed, but isn't...I'm sure you got that sense from my previous posts.

          Finally, I do find it very interesting this idea of punctuated equilibrium. It seems to me like evidence for creation cloaked in a "naturalistic" worldview - but hey, that's just me I guess!

          Don't you find it fascinating, as a historian, that different researchers can compile the same data to represent two or many more entirely different (and perhaps opposing) views of past events. This is just the case for the evolution creation debate, and I have to say that despite having evolutionary dogma shoved down my throat all through university and grad school, I still have not been convinced by it. It just lacks scientific substance I guess.

          Do you realize how evolutionists compile theories like punctuated equilibrium and gradualism? It is just like a historian, trying to fit pieces together to fit a particular view. Interestingly, many of the theories depend on dating methods that ASSUME uniformitarianism from the outset, so how is one to prove a non-uniformitarianist idea using uniformitarianist dating methods?
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: Meher,

          Just to point out in your argument you include several "we know" statements. I would counter that of those statements, there are some that we know, and others we don't really know.

          For example We know that the universe could not have been created in 7 days. REALLY? hmm...how do we know that?...we actually don't even know what the universe is really, do we, so how can we go so far as to say we know for sure how it was or wasn't made? The universe is a word made by humans to try to label something that we cannot fathom. I'm not saying that we don't have our theories, and that we don't have observable evidence about light, etc, but we do know that even time is relative to the speed of light, so how can we be so sure about how we relate time to the time it took for something to happen in our distant "past" which again is relative....our language really limits us I would say.

          we know that man has an evolutionary past just as every other organism on the planet reaching much further back than a few thousand years ago....hmm, this again is a bold statement. So, what exactly is our evolutionary past. You would be surprised, as many have pointed out here, who says that neanderthals aren't living now? We haven't even begun to sequence enough human genes to say who is who. Maybe I'm a different species from you? How do we know this? This dating past relies on the assumption that the earth has been uniform for a very long time. Do we know this? In fact, catastrophism seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Why should we then rely on methods that rely on assumptions to claim what "we know"? But there was a time that "we knew" that computers would never be helpful, "we knew" that airplanes were impossible, and "we knew" that the earth was flat (shoulda read Isaiah 40:22). So what "we know" really changes a lot, so I'm not sure the "we know" argument holds much ground.
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: we know that man has an evolutionary past just as every other organism on the planet reaching much further back than a few thousand years ago....hmm, this again is a bold statement. So, what exactly is our evolutionary past. You would be surprised, as many have pointed out here, who says that neanderthals aren't living now? We haven't even begun to sequence enough human genes to say who is who. Maybe I'm a different species from you? How do we know this? This dating past relies on the assumption that the earth has been uniform for a very long time. Do we know this? In fact, catastrophism seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Why should we then rely on methods that rely on assumptions to claim what "we know"? But there was a time that "we knew" that computers would never be helpful, "we knew" that airplanes were impossible, and "we knew" that the earth was flat (shoulda read Isaiah 40:22). So what "we know" really changes a lot, so I'm not sure the "we know" argument holds much ground.

          we know that each creature on the planet was not created in its present form - this I will agree with - because we CAN know this - different from the previous 2! I have been arguing that organisms are degrading by mutation all the time...so of course they change. Does that rule out a creator or any creation story?...never heard a good reason why it should.

          we know the earth travels around the sun....as far as I know, I have never read a text to indicate anything contrary to this? - we know it, but why should that invalidate any creation account?
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: All the other we knows you mention relate to things that we know under our current conditions. But we must assume uniformitarianism in order for these "we knows" to hold for our distant past. In fact, if we say we know conditions have stayed approximately the same over the past several million years, then why so many signs of natural disasters like gigantic flood plains, fossilized creatures, and huge coal deposits. I guess they appeared by some random event, without at all affecting the atmosphere or decay rates? Can't have your cake and eat it too!
      • thumb
        May 25 2011: You're right Pekka. Life is too orderly and complex to emerge from some chemical soup. Life as it is now. But life did not always have to be this complex. After all, DNA is just a complex chemical compound, and we know that it works really well in even the simplest of organisms. So is it impossible to imagine a slightly less efficient molecule being created in an ocean (all the oceans) of chemicals, given millions of years of waves, currents, sunlight and lightning? It doesn't require much trust in those circumstances, that life will arise. Or at least complex, self regulating chemical compounds that take in energy from their environment to grow and produce copies of themselves. Once that is achieved, natural selection takes over.

        http://abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf - Abstract of the paper, 'Science' 1953
        "Formation of life author:sagan" in Google scholar yields Dr. Sagans work based on and continuing the Miller-Urey experiment

        Genetic drift - In a closed, unchanging environment, yes. Genetic drift will not yield new species. However, environments change, and what may have once been a useless mutation in some of the population suddenly becomes vital for survival. In which case the species adapts, maybe becomes another species, or perishes. Genetic drift does not force speciation. A changing environment paired with genetic drift does.

        Lateral Gene Transfer - Actually helps out the case for natural causes. As most such transfers are seen among single celled organisms, it appears that LGT's occur most easily with simpler genetic codes. The ability to transfer genetic material (chemical compound) could have helped pave the way to single celled organisms. This would also serve to homogenize that code, thus natural cause could be the explanation for DNA. All life may not have stemmed from one organism, but we may as well have.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: given those circumstances Daniel, I would say it requires a lot of trust and faith. I would also have to believe that the lightning, ocean, earth, primordial soup, and all came from nothing before that! Oh, right, first there was nothing, then it exploded!...takes a lot of faith I think!

          Scientifically, more ordered molecules do not arise spontaneously from less ordered ones..that's why Francis Crick came up with panspermia...send the problem to another galaxy.

          Also, this 1953 paper by its title alone is a quack. Formation of life?...get real. Life requires more than a few molecules to exist...they have to work together!

          For genetic drift, I am talking about the open environment on this earth. ...
          However, environments change, and what may have once been a useless mutation in some of the population suddenly becomes vital for survival. In which case the species adapts MAYBE becomes another species, or perishes. Basically it is that big MAYBE I have a problem with, nothing else!

          Genetic Drift together with enviromental forces cannot force speciation..it has never done this, and seems that it never will!

          Lateral gene transfer supports stemming from one organism? Forgive me, but I don't see how this can account for different species on different branches of a "tree" having almost identical genes despite "millenia" of supposed reproductive separation. Some explaining needs to be done. The evolutionary tree looks strangely like a giant lawn of different species, not a tree at all. (remember we only recently have sequenced many animal genomes)
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: http://192.12.12.16/education/csss/csss05/papers/monaco_et_al._cssssf05.pdf
          Here is one article that discusses some of the models for self organization of amino acids and origin theories. I chose this article for its relative simplicity and because it merely articulates that there are many plausible models for how life can emerge from non life.
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: To Pekka,

        The title of the paper nowhere says the formation of life. The reults have implications for theories about the formation of life, but was not designed to create life. Only amino acids from simpler elements in an early Earth approximation. Entering in the search term formation of life with the author as sagan, so long as the search is in google scholar, will yield the work done by sagan building on that experiment. The reason this experiment was important was because it showed that the chemicals of life could have been produced naturally. But as you pointed out, chemicals are not life. Unless that chemical, that molecule, can take in energy from it's environment to grow and reproduce. At which point the molecule becomes self sustaining, and life is born. The more efficient ones will eventually come to dominate, bringing on competition for resources, producing some molecules, or probably colonies of molecules, which feed on available resources and others which feed on those colonies. Those better at defending themselves or bypassing another's defenses will eventually come to dominance. Over time those colonies would specialize, with some parts forming an outer layer, some processing nutrients, another housing and copying the genetic code, etc, and that's a one celled organism.

        What's wrong with maybe? If you bet, maybe you'll win or maybe you'll lose, that doesn't mean Las Vegas doesn't exist.

        As for your second to last paragraph, it is in direct contradiction with the paragraph above it.

        I didn't claim that lateral gene transfers indicate all life sprang from one organism. I was saying that lateral genes transfers would have aided the first stages of life, pre-cellular days. It is highly evident that something must be going on, and while we may not know the specifics, that doesn't mean that evolution is false. And the tree looks well brachiated to me, with few transfers outside of one celled organisms.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: Hi Daniel,

          Thank you for clarifying somewhat the distinction between molecules and life. It is one thing for a complex molecule to exist, or even to randomly get formed with enough external energy input, it is quite another for those molecules to assemble into living organisms. Spontaneous generation should be happening in Las Vegas pretty often, but I haven't heard of it yet ; )

          I agree there is nothing wrong with maybe. Maybe God created you and I and this whole earth?

          As for the tree of life - it seems it can be adjusted to suit anyone's fancy. For me it appears more like a field of grass when I do sequence comparisons, for others, it appears like a brachiated tree...maybe this, or maybe that. Let's not claim it is clear evidence one way or the other.
    • thumb
      May 22 2011: "We shared a common Ancestor with Apes- We did not evolve from them. "
      its not only we and Apes
      we share with common things with every thing even stones and tree and the sky
      every thing consist of atoms even our bodies
      so what theory we can drive from that?
      • May 23 2011: Well, what observation do you want to test? That poetry is beautiful!
        It is to simple to debate basic things; whereas, this thread had such potential!!! Ugh, life, more life, massive amounts of stupidity... DEATH! I am not bothering anymore with the basic if anyone kicks it up a notch, I will stick around.
  • thumb
    May 4 2011: Are you sure even if it happened to "awareness" ?
    Because I don't see any evolution of awareness in your explanation above as it's still strongly clung to archaic thoughts
  • thumb
    Apr 30 2011: I find it very interesting how he points out so brazenly that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should turn their hearing aids off, and pay attention to the preceeding talk on "being wrong". Perhaps Harvey is wrong? I thoroughly enjoyed the talk on being wrong - I think it applies to everyone - not just someone who doesn't have the faith to believe in evolution. Considering that each successive generation of humans carries 300 mutations or more, basically none of which are readily selected for or against, the posit that we've been around for >6,000,000 yrs seems a bit rediculous, doesn't it? Perhaps we should call natural selection super-natural? Truth is, it isn't, and neo-evolution seems to be another human self-absorbed idea that really doesn't help the much more critical issues facing us such as social inequality, environmental disasters, and epidemics of obesity and heart disease. I submit that there is truth and those who are reading this and steaming with hatred for my ideas, please don't consider them an attack - I am only pointing out that some basic truths recorded in history that tend to be proven by science in time, can really be helpful to us when trying to deal with the more pressing issues facing us today. I don't believe neo-evolution is a "fix" for anything - it just drains resources from far simpler ways to decrease disease burden - take diet and lifestyle for example. I leave you with one thought: consider applying Genesis 1:29 to our current understanding of the best diet. Following this diet would not only greatly decrease disease burden (cardiovascular, type II diabetes, cancer), but also stem the tide of deforestation and factory livestock farming that devastate our planet.
    • May 1 2011: I enjoyed reading your post. I believe you are concerned with the "here and now." However, there will be a future and the future is coming fast. The talk is about the simple ideas which are currently available. This is not Science fiction as observed in brave new world which presented the application of EtOH (aka Alcohol) to fetuses to cause retard mental growth. It is present today and now. Yet, the application is only slightly realized. This will not always be true and the fact is this is neo-evolution ability to compensate for the disadvantaged wild-types. Yet, for all intent and purpose, we must ensure the wild-types are studied for any unknown advantage and maintained on nice little preserves. (wow, great BNW reference--right?) In the end, it is decreasing harm while increasing genetic variation. Shape the gene pool and don't drain it! If my belief is true, I think the introduction of the gene which codes for the understanding of your observed issues (i.e.factory livestock farming) would be a great Neo-evolutionary leap! To know there is a problem and to try to do something about it. So, go for a run, change your diet, don't drive a car, or genetically manipulate your offspring... Hey, they all work or could work!
  • Jun 8 2011: Plus, I cannot accept ignoring genes being a fact of life at the single expense of one person afflicted by a genetic disorder! Really, you don't want to talk about how to understand the root cause?

    "This year the NIH Office of Rare Disease Research (ORDR) encouraged everyone to wear jeans to show support for the campaign of using a genes and jeans concept to educate the public on the prevelance of rare genetic diseases and the lack of available drug treatments."

    http://addiandcassi.com/national-center-advancing-translational-sciences-ncats-announced-national-institutes-health-nih-director-francis-collins/
  • Jun 8 2011: “..the neo evolution idea is really not going to provide for any schooling - just another eugenics disaster waiting to happen. Explain to me how neo-evolution provides good schools?”

    First and foremost, I thank you for the slam dunk. My argument is simple. Genes code for the mind, the mind is what learns, the school is where the mind goes to learn…
    Thus, the right genes to the right school means better learning! SLAM!! (I am actually the product of this. So, I speak from first hand experience.)

    How much do you know about aphasia? Moreover, how much do you know about learning differences (aka: disabilities)?

    We are complex organisms. The way we learn best differs from one group to the next and I am a firm believer in the genetic link between these differences.

    Thus, screw the archaic way of teaching, it has been 40 plus years of talking about cigarette smoke and people still smoke. So, argue all you like that the money should be spent telling future heart-attach victims not to eat red meat. (good luck, there is precedent.)

    For myself, I think it is inane. Don’t bother with what you want to put a bandaid on. Fix the root cause of the symptom. Do you see where I am coming from?

    I don’t believe you do. In fact, I believe you are caught up in arguing the inane. SCREW CREATION VS. EVOLUTION! If you debate it, I will not see you as an intellectual equal—sorry. This is the honest truth, you don’t need to believe in the past to understand the future and your argument (i.e bacteria to man) is not changing the fact that the world will burn to a pulp, be blown up, or massive epidemic.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2011: Hi Jonathan,

      Sorry, but I really don't understand your slam dunk. By your argument, because we are all very similar genetically, we should all be doing exactly the same things, going to exactly the same schools, and learning exactly the same way. You really don't understand that genes are themselves turned ON and OFF by environment. Who cares what gene you have, it's how you USE it that matters...GET IT!?!...I won't argue that point because its pointless to argue! Clearly, both you and I can have the "stupid" gene, but because I go and eat a hamburger, and you don't there's evidence right there that I'm USING the stupid gene, and you're not! (I use myself as stupid here so you can get the point). I don't eat any animal products myself because I know they are not good for my health, not because my genes told me not to. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have changed their lifestyle habits by CHOICE and are being rewarded by this change...did their genes change?...remember, this is the SAME person. Wow, somehow you really don't understand very simple genetics, or environmental influences on the gene. Education may not work well, but maybe changing food policy (like not subsidizing sugars and making healthy food affordable) will. I choose healthy food even though it isn't affordable. Think if you made it affordable for everyone....We didn't try that yet, and I think it's about time we do! Maybe we need to get back to growing our own foods altogether?...just a few thoughts that don't require any eugenics ideas and most certainly could work in just a single generation (eugenics will need multiple generations, and so your argument that we are in a rush really doesn't fit the solution, does it?)
      • Jul 8 2011: Please don’t try to be right by taking the higher moral ground, it is just rude. There is always a point in an argument with a mind which is at a level to understand. If you are coded for what I am trying to tell you, then it is important to explain the slam dunk. Otherwise, it is not turned ON in you or being USED—get it? Can you understand I don’t argue good food for everyone! I argue that giving a population antibiotic and not teaching them how to farm properly just creates a population explosion which results in massive death by starvation. Get the Genetic potential and then make decisions on your hypothesis that good food for everyone is a good idea.

        To repeat myself, are aphasia genetic or due to trauma? It is one way, both, magic, or science???? The genes on and off are the expression. THE POTENTIAL is what needs to be understood and studied. The slam dunk is that the schools, world, and people would be improved if we studied the potential. (all genes ON and all genes OFF: what happens?)

        I get you want to put a band-aid on the system and try to help. I respect this. Furthermore, I agree. I am just arguing something that you seem to not understand (i.e. slam dunk.)

        Your genes make your mind… How do you argue this?

        If the genes don’t control/basis for your mind… why don’t dog run the world? In fact, why not trees, rocks, clouds or unicorns…

        Again, the slam dunk is the fact that your genes did give you the platform to make that choice to have this conversation… What else do we not know or take for granted? This would be in regard to how critically genes impact our mind.

        Again:
        “I don’t believe you do. In fact, I believe you are caught up in arguing the inane..."
        Ok, give everyone good food and smile... I think there is an additional level to this. Stupid gene on or off, let the computer environment influence your perception and turn OFF the Stupid gene--ok?

        Even with the stupid gene off, can you pick up what I am dropping down?
        • thumb
          Jul 11 2011: Alright, I'm really not trying to take any higher moral ground - I'm just making the point that both you and I (however stupid or not based on our genes as you suggest) have the ability to make correct or incorrect choices. Thus, we both possess this genetic potential, as you call it, and so we have this genetic potential based on the fact that we both have minds capable of decisions, as most human beings do. You see, it is easy to be a human being, it takes decisions and choices and actions to be a human "doing"....you follow? I fully understand that our genetic "potential" is what allows us to have a brain that can make decisions. However, what I disagree with is the notion that there are certain genetic backgrounds, races, or groups of people that have more or less of this potential. I do believe we all have the potential to make the right choices (within physical limitations of course - for example in cases of congenital malformation of the brain, etc., this may not be the case - but these are invariably due to mutations or environmental influences). So, all I am arguing is that you are putting too much emphasis on an issue that is irrelevant when it comes to solving world problems that stem from human choices. How many generations will it take for you to fix the "underlying problem" of genetic potential or lack thereof by neo-evolution? I surmise you could try a thousand or more, and still be left with human decision influenced by environment as the problem, nothing positively or negatively changed (except more mutations!). So, call it bandaging the problem or whatever you want, but the fact is we haven't given environmental influences nor our ability to make sound choices enough of a chance (not even education for that matter). I think the solution is there, and if you think the solution is in "neo-evolution", then that's ok. Your stance however, is not because you are genetically superior or inferior to me - just because of your choice - simple
  • Jun 8 2011: To sum up, get the science of why and try to fix it. Either way, you gain knowledge. As for Eugenics being an issue, only an idiot believes that the actions of the Nazi party is the only expression of eugenics. Get over it, it is the argument that the dinosaurs’ bones are really placed there by satan to trick you into going to hell. Eugenics is a wonderful thing and the complete expression of a conscious mind; otherwise, keep reproducing with out thought or logic… even worse, no regard for the future you destroy.

    I hope you can get past the you, you, you…. Are you ready to kick it up a notch?

    Explain to me how schooling and neoevolution would work best together? If not, this is why Harvey stated to pull out your phones and ignore the rest of the talk. The reality is we are creatures and there are rules to how we work—period! I am here to discuss how we can use these rules and how to improve the overall species. Should everyone be placed on a restrictive diet? Why are some people susceptible to heart attacks? Wow, does that not sound more like a high school science project? Leave the isolation of the gene, and large scale experimentation to the university. In fact, maybe the high school student will become the same college student studying the phenomena.
  • thumb
    Jun 6 2011: I agree that claiming Man was Ape is false...because we're still Apes. No need for 'was'. We're one of the five Great Ape families :-)

    Also it's true that we haven't changed for thousands of years and that early Homo Sapiens is pretty much the same today as he was back then. Our knowledge has vastly increased, which makes our cultural and technological wealth today. However, it is undeniable that Homo Sapiens has shared ancestry with Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Erectus and all sorts. All of Homo Sapiens have ancestors that weren't humans as we understand humans to be.

    No need for God in all this. You're going to have to try again.
  • May 30 2011: Dear AbdelRahman Siddig,
    animals can make tools also.
    wisdom is real difference of human and ape.
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/2353/what_is_wisdom_and_can_wisdom.html
  • thumb
    May 30 2011: A great example of this is a mans desire to lose sperm as harvey fineberg mentioned, i have recently learned about the amazing empowering and healthy aspects of Semen retention while having intercourse, it gives you a method in which to have an orgasm without ejaculating and in a lot of cases having a more long lasting pleasure without losing this fluid that is essential to your vitality and Evolution. A book i read trains you on how to make your pelvic floor muscles stronger including your PC muscle, in order to prevent ejaculation and to pull the orgasmic energy from the semen up your coccyx and giving that orgasmic energy to your organs and brain to help to streangthin your organs, and help evolve your breain, after some disipline in this practice, you will be able to have orgasms in your organs and brain without the loss of this precious fluid, which causes you to have extreme increased levels of vitality and a much happier more fulfilled connection with your partner as well with your self and a highersense of awareness, but because it is a lot easier and more familiar to lose this life essence we go for the extreme momentary pleasure, when choosing this disciplined path has countless benefits. and i think if people learned and used this practice, i'm sure it will help them adopt this sense of living in their everyday lives, such as being more active with less immediate entertainment with tv or videogames, more energy to be motivated to do more physical activities such as surfing or snowboarding, more self confidence and a sense of security which leads to more compassion and love for others, honestly i think it could be the root of helping people heal from laziness and procrastination, as well as help evolve our bodys and brains awareness as Abdel Rahman Says, it is also a natural way for evolution. please don't remove this comment, i am completely sincire and doing what i can to remain appropriate but also allow this science to be understood, thank you
    • thumb
      Jul 4 2011: Cody, I have read a little in studying yoga about this, can you give me the name of the book? thanks!
  • thumb
    May 23 2011: The ability to do something requires the knowledge of how to do it. We had to learn a lot of different things before we could make a power drill. Why couldn't we make modern tools in ancient times? Because we didn't know how.
    • May 25 2011: Opinion: I make the counter argument of the "evolved" person was not as prevalent. If the system had allowed for it, we would have done it years ago. Yet, the population is mainly followers vs. leaders. This is observed in most situation of emergency. How many react vs watch? This is why societies rise and fall. Furthermore, this is why this thread is so erking. However, I believe you get the idea of then, now, and future.

      Response to uhm what@D. Beringer:
      Daniel, the idea is that the group varies and change because of local selection forces.
      the group of existing organisms are placed under a large stress
      the group of the total population which survives is the new organisms
      This is either one group or more than one. (speciation)

      Thus, the group of future humans are alive today. For the most part, they have been around for a while. Yet, it is not to say all humans are neohumans. Why are so many people trapped inside a box--think outside the box? Act vs React, learn, seek knowledge, figure out sustainability with out being told, turn vegetarian/vegan, make conscious decisions to live life in a proactive way.

      I create art, I fix broke items instead of throwing them away, I compost, I try to buy local and think global, I decide to be aware and not react.
      I am a firm believer in the hard wiring of the brain and the maliablity of the brain as well.
      Yet, if you hit it too many times it breaks.
      Thus, some people have a low stress limit… four or five hits
      While, some of us have high stress limits… in the thousands.

      Thus, the people hard wired for thousands make hammers, nails, boats, sails, star charts, rocket ships, and moon bases.

      Meanwhile, the people left on earth evolve with the mice, bees and trees.
      “this one goes to 11” –spinal tap.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Uhm, what?
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Thank you. I was totally out to sea with what you meant. So, you're saying that there is more than one variety of Human on the planet, and that some are more evolved than others? But evolution isn't a goal, it's a process. Ancient people were just as smart as us, just as capable as we are. They just didn't know enough to do the same things. It's certainly true that people are different, but we're all the same species, we're all the same people.

        If we're to think outside the box, does that mean that vegans should turn meatitarian?
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: whoa whoa whoa, why are y'all dragging veganism into this? Why would you suggest that becoming vegan is not a conscious decision, or is any way not outside the box thinking? Becoming a vegan was one of the most outside the box conscious decisions that I ever made.
        • May 31 2011: The system does change and new things come into being—yes/no? Therefore, I agree with you that humans did have intelligence similar to us (if not the same). Yet, were they all the same? Is everyone equally as smart, self aware, socially aware, etc?
          I would say no.

          The point of me saying veganism, it is a simple understanding which I have either A: collected from the mass unconscious / conscious and learned
          B: became aware because of an insight beyond what is "normal" or average.

          So, taking into consideration that there are different levels of thought, I argue that people who think outside the box are better. For whatever box is normal for them, it is this difference from the average. I argue that consciousness (i.e. mind) is actually derived by genes. Thus, I should not argue conscious or unconscious. Simply, we are a product of genes while others are different products of genes.

          It is this future science of study which will show us how the boxes are linked and we can fine tune consciousness.
        • Jun 1 2011: One species? Tell that to the morlocks. I hope you get the pop-reference? The new and old species coexist until a selection force is applied.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Hi Meher,

        No, merely pointing out that the box is subjective, and what for one may be outside the box might for another be the norm. Plus I think the word 'meatitarian' is funny.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: Hi Pekka,

        I get the concept, I just don't think that there is enough regular mutations in the human populace to say that there is a different group of people. There is variation yes, but there is no select group of people. Our genes have not had enough time, and Humanity was far too splintered, to have made enough changes to noticeably effect an individuals mental capabilities. Plus, our genes are not the only factor effecting the development of a persons brain. We can learn, we can understand, we can evaluate and choose. We can change ourselves, and it is because of our brain that we are able to do that. Yes, our brains are built off our genes and everyone's genetic code is different. But the genetic code is neither different enough, nor are those differences regular enough. Furthermore, the development of our brain and our experiences in life have a much more drastic effect on a person's outlook and abilities than their genes. We are not encoded liberal, or narcissistic, or republican. We are not our genes, we are not even our brain. We are the decisions we make, the actions we take, and the words that we speak.

        Our genes are a part of shaping us. But we are so much more than that. Our abilities are shaped much more strongly from environmental and internal factors than by our genes. Thinking outside the box is evidence of that. Doing so allows a person to see things from a different perspective. This often brings on insights that one would not normally have. And those insights can change how a person thinks. Sometimes those insights can allow a person to do things they previously thought impossible. The new, "evolved" Human came about because of a conscious decision, not any particular genetic predisposition.
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Hi Daniel,

          I actually agree with basically all that you are saying. I agree that genotype does not directly give rise to phenotype - and this is precisely the problem with natural selection. What exactly are you selecting with the environment? I would say that you select much more for the environmentally "smart" than the genetically "smart".

          Reading this post is refreshing, because I see that you get the point, and give our choices and our development the attention they deserve. My argument is that our decisions are critical to how we deal with the future of this world - and our genes, because they are continually degrading, are only a bystander given the time we have (if you look at climate change/other global issues including food shortages, etc). In my opinion, they have been a bystander all along, but you can believe what you wish. So, we should quit focusing on trying to somehow modulate our "neo-evolution" and focus on how we can make the right choices to better our world.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: I realized that I posted my last reply to you Pekka, but I meant Jonathan Lynch. I don't know what I was thinking! I was about to edit, then I figured it's be easier just add another reply.

        Also, I would like to reply to your first paragraph. I'll say from the outset that I don't have any concrete ideas about that, though I do have a few hazy ones. I think that in other animals the difference between genotype/phenotype is much less pronounced, and thus natural selection will winnow through the genes more than actions. But Humans, being self aware, and in a much safer environment, do not experience that same pressure. That yes, natural selection in Humans may prove to be geared more towards choosing behavior than genes. Thus, how a person thinks will become much more important than their ability to produce insulin, or decaying bones, much less hair color or being double jointed.

        But what change in society could produce such a nebulous pressure? Fire, language, agriculture, the written word, all would have their effect. But none of these alone would have been enough, I don't think. Instead, it seems that the period from the renaissance to the industrial revolution would be the culmination of this process. Since then we have made enough change to our average way of life, and are continuing to change and expand (geographically) that change, that we are truly able to say a person thoughts are more important for their success and genetic dispersal than hereditary ailments or advantages.
  • thumb
    May 22 2011: It seems it also must be noted that there is a vast difference between biological and cultural evolution which operate under different principles, (cultural evolution is not nearly as well articulated with governing principles as is biological evolution). They are distinct issues both can be said to happen, but currently there are no widely accepted theories of cultural evolution though not for lack of attempts.
  • thumb
    May 18 2011: Sorry for the late reply, and I also enjoyed reading your post, but it still seems to skirt the issues we are facing today by trying to give too much credit to genes. Genes are only the blueprint containing information that CAN but is not NECESSARILY used for a specific purpose. For example, you described the neo-evolutionary idea of a gene which codes for understanding factory livestock farming/doing something about it. I would say many people do understand it, and also many do and many don't do anything about it - but I doubt there is any genetic link there - if there is - please find it! Every one of us has the ability to understand factory livestock farming and that it is not doing us much good. We don't need a gene, we just need an education. Furthermore, we don't have anywhere near the time to sit and think about how we should introduce such a gene, we need action. Again I re-iterate that pressing issues require pressing measures, and neo-evolution is far too farsighted. Why invest resources in something when they should be invested in, for example, educating people to understand how their choices actually are far more relevant than their genes when it comes to global issues of health and climate change. Basically, what I'm saying is that instead of realizing that we're speeding towards a brick wall, we are positing ideas about how the grass might be greener way on the other side of the wall if we were to try to modulate human "evolution" somehow. In fact, I would argue as Harvey does that we have quit evolving - but further that we were never evolving in the first place. This is mostly due to the many levels of regulation between gene and phenotype. Resolution is extremely low. A great book on the subject is "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" by Prof. JC. Sanford. So, I still find that neo-evolution misses the point - but I guess I find that evolution also misses the point. But hey, choice is free, and that is a wonderful thing!
    • May 25 2011: Choice is not free, you base your perceptions and decision making on a wired system of gated channels. The action potential formed as a fire/don't fire threshold. Therefore, you make the point of saying you have no belief in evolution; yet, your brain and the inherent abilities are supernatural?

      This system is like an engine. It is impacted by wear and tare. Yet, it is defined as a car or lawn mower engine. You will not have success running your huge car cabin with a mower engine. Therefore, you can see that lateral gene transfer is just the car doors on a mower engine and all other freaking analogies.

      Yet, if you have a car engine and a mower body… well, my friend neo-evolution is a point of discussion.

      I think that is the point. It does not mean the normal average human was the car's engine in the analogy. -not a rocket scientist… but, a scientist.

      Post script: Phenotypes do not exist outside of the potential genotype. The system looses or GAINS!! in the expression of the phenotype. Yet, the genotype potential energy is constant. Thus, improvement in the genotype potential is the point of neo-evolution. Guess what, I am inherently aware of the stupidity of the world and have the ability to accept when I am wrong and learn new things... Why would we not want everyone to exhibit the potential?
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: choice is not free? Speak for yourself! So I presume you think that those gated channels are genetically hardwired. We could get into a nature vs. nurture debate here...but I fear that will go on and continue to go on forever as it does in the scientific community. The point I make is simple. We are discounting nurture when we think neo-evolution will solve issues, but nurture is the bigger issue (ie education and understanding why theories exist and need to be questioned, etc.)

        Of course phenotypes do not exist outside of the potential genotype. I understand that fully. My point is that genotypes do not DETERMINE the apparent phenotype strongly enough for natural selection to direct evolution from simple to complex....get it? Basically, what I'm saying is that any given genotype may give you the potential to have a phenotype that determines if you survive or not, but the GENOTYPE itself is too far removed from that survival decision...it is the phenotype that undergoes is selected for or against. For example, I could decide to have kids or not...has basically NOTHING to do with my genotype!
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Choice is not free?...so you're saying that my choices are hardwired into my DNA? We could start the nature-nurture debate, but I fear it will go on forever, as it continues in the scientific community, so lets not.

        I am not making the point that my brain and inherent abilities are supernatural. I am saying that KNOWN biological separation between genotype and phenotype is a reality that natural selection must account for. It has not yet accounted for this HUGE gap, especially in more complex multicellular organisms.


        I realize that all parts are needed to run a particular organism. You seem to be arguing for irreducible complexity!

        I also know that phenotypes don't exist outside of potential genotypes. That is not the point. the point is that it is phenotype that undergoes selective pressure, not genotype.

        Now, I understand what you mean about Improvement in genotype potential. It would be great if we could do that. However, EVERY generation our genotype potential goes down dramatically! This is because mutation rates are so high, and in the sea of mutations there are few (if any) that could be beneficial. To direct evolution faster than this incessant tide of mutation would be a supernatural feat!
  • May 12 2011: Simple answer:
    Life
    More life
    Various stress
    Altered successful life
    Speciation
    Even more freaking life
    Whole lots of death (I.e. Mass extinction!)
    Life which survived had babies
    Various stress
    Altered successful life
    Speciation
    Even more freaking life
    Me... And the end of the line because of the Mayan calendar (joke)


    In the end, the idea of "where from" becomes irrelevant!
    The question is where are we going!!!

    The fundamentals are obvious; therefore, the argument of where is moot.

    If you are making the argument that DNA and the like does not exist...how do we breed and create babies?

    Which brings me to the point of what the heck is your point? What do you want to gain?
    I have already told you I will bite what you cast; however, you need to be able to debate it.

    For example are you going to debunk mitochondria DNA evidence?
    • thumb
      May 19 2011: "In the end, the idea of "where from" becomes irrelevant!"
      I totally disagree with you
      Where we come from is KEY to understand life it self
      its not accepted that you know every thing around you but not your self?
    • thumb
      May 22 2011: instead of being funny
      why do not share with me how life kicked off from scientific point of view
      • May 23 2011: I wrote something long and. Thought out and my phone deleted it.... Basically I am bored
    • thumb
      May 24 2011: Often "mitochondrial DNA evidence is cited". Please describe this clearly so we can understand exactly where you're coming from. symbiosis is one thing....forming mitochondria that are intricately linked to the function of multicellular organisms (including their transport systems) is another. It may seem like not much of a stretch, but tacking on years and probabilities doesn't seem to make it more likely, or does it?...just asking honestly.
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: Please start in simple word from A-Z
    from raw materials to human
    can you till me in head lines no details required now
    1- raw materials ( what is raw materials was used to make life)
    2- what happened to these materials
    3-
    4-


    x- human
    Note :assume you are explaining to person who never heard of evolution before
    I hope the starting point is clear and logically accepted not the Big Bang
    there was nothing and then something exploded
  • May 7 2011: We know through the study of psychology that there exists different stages of mental development. These stages, minds, concept of thought do not exist outside or independent from a system; In FACT, they exist within an organism (i.e. you and me). The mind is the intangible brain and the brain is created by signals for cells to differentiate into specific cells.

    Therefore, it can be said that the genes influencing the differentiation and connections formed in the brain have in fact altered the "wiring of the mind" and awareness.

    I am unsure if this thread was intended for that purpose, and so, I agree with you that I don't believe it was the authors intent to discuss this.

    I believe the ability for a person to hear a dissenting opinion and reevaluate the facts is the "next evolutionary step." However, this would mean I believe evolution to be directional instead of the actual random and insane process which it is. Yet, with the ability of thought, we can control speciation and therefore, we can have man-made intelligent design.

    In the end, if you want to talk about "we came from monkeys" or "God created us" I am not for you. In fact, I don't hold different opinions from you... (I just have resolved this issue within myself to understand where theses concepts all works together.) If you are still there, you don't understand the actual debate and are stuck on a third grade reading level trying to comprehend a thesis paper. (realize this is an analogy and no reflection of your actual intellect. It is just my attempt to show you where everyone babbles about an idea they don't understand and it keeps being replicated and I am bored of it. If you can actually discuss the idea of the impact of the modern man and the potential future paths, I am here!)

    Basis for my belief in evolution (try to argue the fact)
    the sperm and the egg collide.. shared information creates a being... this being repeats the action... over time, they are exposed to benign viruses--done
  • thumb
    May 7 2011: Look at our spines, it use to have a tail to it.

    Look at your baby toe, it is slowly evolving away from humans.

    Why do people think humans are so special? If anything the only thing that makes us special is our ability to be logical. People are animals.

    If god made the earth for us.. Why is it 70% salt water?

    This thread is very ignorant.
    • thumb
      May 26 2011: "Look at our spines, it use to have a tail to it."
      The base of our spine holds our anus in place.

      "Look at your baby toe, it is slowly evolving away from humans"
      Says who ? We need it for balance.

      "Why is it 70% salt water? "
      Where else would we get the fresh water ?

      :-)
    • May 26 2011: @N. Lukowiak Are you saying other beings are not logical? Why is it not the soul which makes us different?

      Whereas, the definition of soul can be dependent on the individual. Call it the divine spark or the ability to reason smarter than the average bear.

      I assume you didn't read more before saying the thread was ignorant--ok Yogi?

      The base level understanding of the debate: Humans are in Gods image or similar. Evolution is wrong. (just a dumb down version of the argument and potential paths of exploration... genes, religion etc.

      complex: (or so I say... :))

      The ability to create modern tools existed since we exist

      (who is the we? Neohumans or human)

      What real evolved over time is our awareness of the Law of physics and chemistry which was installed and configured for us before we arrive and ready to be discovered why we are able to make modern tools only now?

      (because the number of Neohuman who can now interact are only becoming more common now. Think old royalty vs commoner.)

      what was missing before The raw materials or the deep relations between these materials (physics &chemistry) or our awareness of that fact this materials are reshapable into different form of tools which helps us to save our time and efforts but claiming man was ape this just pure theory which will never be proven because man was created by GOD

      (God did create man... Yet, God again is a personal definition. Moreover, the Man which God created did follow a path of biology. Thus, we (i.e. neohuman) can discuss the validity of the idea that common people do not have the spark to look deeper into the argument and believe things are simply ignorant without looking at the alternative view. Plus, the evolution of thought and awareness is not a bad topic of discussion. Whereas, we think because of a structured system which is dependent on genes. Brain=mind.)
  • thumb
    Apr 30 2011: prove it?

    why is it not in the hands of the religious groups to prove god to us?

    atleast science attempts to discover and prove where we came from. you ignore science with your narrow mind, then complain about the lack of evidence? you need to think questions through before you post them.
    • thumb
      May 1 2011: If I manage to notice my narrow mind you forget the narrowest mind
      for the same reason you reject to believe in GOD and claimed there is no evidence while the evidences are over over welcoming but if you choose to close your eyes you can always argue there is no light
      so why you want me to accept man was ape before you prove it first
      the burden of proof is on the affirmative
      People used to believe GOD created man now you came with contradictory idea
      so burden of proof is on the NEW affirmative
      • May 1 2011: Um, the point of the idea is you're both idiots. That is not intended in an offense; however, it is a statement of fact. I have two legs, blue eyes, and a mouth. I do not become offend if someone points it out. I just try to understand what they are communicating. Are you on my wavelength yet?

        To break it down for you, you are my ape. There is an evolution and it does not contradict creation or God. Yet, if you cannot see this simple fact you are inherently an ape as compared to the mind which does. Thus, you are both idiots.

        Back to topic, you (Abdelrahman) asked why we are able to make modern tools only now?
        Can you (both Davie and Abdelrahman) create glass, wine/beer, art, a hiking stick, or "anything"?
        Do you think everyone creates? I believe there are those with the spark to learn and discover; while, others are programed to follow. There is also a healthy mix of programing. Yet, most don't apply an open mind to their own flaws and lack of knowledge. This is a critical notion/talent!

        Therefore, the proof of God is belief in God. A being known as God is all it needs to be. (you can speculate on his or her involvement in the world.) The proof of evolution is the child in a parents arms. If you don't get it you won't. As such, you are the ape to my human. The idiot is the missing link between pond scum and genius!
        Thank you for reading and I hope you understood; moreover, with fond respect,
        Jonathan
        • thumb
          May 2 2011: Jonathan
          you are so arrogant and did not
          added any vlaue to the topic expect of being proud of your self and disregarding other
          wish you can evolve from within to next level and become a real human
    • thumb
      May 2 2011: "why is it not in the hands of the religious groups to prove god to us?"

      This answer is inevitably that faith is required, that's what makes it spiritual. Or the "look around all this sophisticated life living in harmony" line.
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: no faith required to believe in GOD just pure Logic
        • May 2 2011: Yes, but the babel fish is a dead give away... Thus, he does not exist. (logic) What is your logic proof? What type of reasoning did you use--deductive?I exist.God created me.God exists?This was a serious question to your statement above.. show me the money!Aside to the other conversation: by the way, breath dude... it is a community of thought. Realize, I stated my argument and you reacted. I will bite any fishing line you wish to case... Just realize, I am not a fish. Make me think or I will get bored of you.And remember before you post, "...I just try to understand what they are communicating. Are you on my wavelength yet?"Post script:By the way, how is Doha? I was only there once... Wow, freaking cranes! I didn't get to explore. However, it seemed booming. I hope you can appreciate an open mind and can put off whatever offense you believe I have put upon you. For my intention is to fine similar minds with dissenting opinions; otherwise, how do you learn what is the false truths we choose to accept.

          @Kris Ho:
          I am unsure if the below is to include me. “think both of you have your 'proof'…” I am still
          waiting for a clear explanation of the argument. I do not deny God or science. Therefore, the explanation of the other peoples' argument is pending.

          In the end, I love your post; however, prove to me it was not God! :)
          I really wanted the debate to be about the evolution of the mind to the current level whereas, other great apes apply tool use skills. Thus, we are not confined to on species when we discuss “modern” things/tools. Moreover, it does not mean all birds are blue jays.
          So, what makes the blue jay different from other birds… and all birds who think they are blue jays may not in fact be blue jays…. Thank you birds big and small! PS:To clarify I am not sure if I am a blue jay or just a bird. Yet, I know there is a difference.
        • May 3 2011: I think both of you have your 'proof' yet neither will take the time to look at the others book to find it.
          Perhaps this is proof that we are only evolving in our minds, not yet evolved, if grown men can argue the toss with 'prove it, no you prove it' and then go lah lah lah, I'm not listening' like a 5 year old when the other says somthing the other finds distasteful.
          Once upon a time, perhaps when we were furrier and lived in caves, if a man clipped to stones together and made fire, the fire was proof of his ability and a technological breakthrough- yet if we follow the authors argument, it would be man makes fire, and his friend says that was all god's work- prove to me you had a hand in making it.
          I thought the idea of conversations, adn in deed of TED were to bring together brilliant minds from all around the world- a unification of ideas- not me vs you slamming of others.
        • thumb
          May 4 2011: @Jonathan "Just realize, I am not a fish." You may not be, but according to evolution you were.
  • thumb
    Apr 30 2011: Look at the Neanderthals. Proof of evolution is looking at the predeceasing classes of the HOMO genus and then looking in a mirror. Although I do agree that there has also been evolution of the mind. I wonder how much of it is evolution and how much is refocusing our knowledge. You may say that we are more technologically evolved then we were 2000 years ago, and you'd be right in many ways. There are however, knowledges that were understood by our species thousands of years ago that are no longer held.
    • May 1 2011: Dude, (yes, I said dude)
      Neanderthals! How do you know they are gone? Moreover, what basis do you judge the difference in the perception and mind of Homo sapien neanderthal vs. homo sapien sapien? Furthermore, who is to argue that we don't all have different potentials in the development of our minds. Statement of fact, (strong, I know) I am me and you are you. Why do you believe you are less, the same, or better than me in insight, intellect, or wit? The reality is we can observe difference in addition of a third copy of 21. Thus, would you still argue that the mind is less critically impacted by genetics as compared to our level of technology? Whereas, who created that tool and knowledge basis. The fact acting yeast which is continuously feed and transferred grows strong and quick. However, when applying the stress of a high alcohol environment they die. The potential of the mass is not to the extreme, it is to the best fit to reproduce. In other words, it is evolutionarily favorable for a male to think with his male parts and not think out side the box. Yet, neo-evolution contradicts this idea--does it not? So, maybe within this increase of knowledge we have also shifted the mass of individuals who think out side the box. For popular culture reference, see Idiocracy circa 2006.
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: I suppose there is much of the world I have yet to see, although from all I have seen I have never witnessed a nomadic tribe of neanderthals. Or sophisticated ones, other then the geico commercials. I don't think the fact that there is a perceptual difference between modern man and neanderthals is debatable. Our environments and ways of life are extremely different, so for then would our perceptions be. As far as the different potentials of the development of our minds, not really sure what from here down came into play at but I'll bat. Not all people are created equal when it comes to specific attributes of the mind. Some people lack insight while some have almost an overabundance. Same as wit, common sense, and cunningness along with all the other displays of intelligence. We may all be created equal as far as overall intelligence. Some people it's easy to see that they are well rounded and intelligent. Some people it is very hard to glimpse any intelligence in. Just because you don't see the intelligence doesn't mean they don't have some uncanny ability that you are unaware of. Many of the people with sever mental illness lack communication skills, so this can make it very difficult to see the way that they are intelligent. That also doesn't mean that some of the types of intelligence aren't irrelevant.
        "The reality is we can observe difference in addition of a third copy of 21."
        Have no clue what you're trying to get at there.
        The argument for what impacts the mind the most depends on the situation. Are you talking about en mass, individually, or in smaller societies? Environments, both geological and social, can also greatly effect the mind.
        Are you trying to compare yeast to a well informed mind?
        As far as thinking outside the box for evolution goes I bring the cuttlefish into the conversation. The large male cuttlefish will do at mating what alpha males all throughout the animal kingdom do. The I'm the biggest and baddest so I get the female.
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: While the smaller intelligent male thinks outside the box by mimicking the females, actually temporarily changing their appearance to look like the females. By doing this they swim past the alpha males and get some.
        • May 2 2011: Nomadic tribe of neanderthals? What if they are no longer nomadic and no longer maintained other physical characteristics. I mean to say, how do you know they didn't mate back in to the gene pool? So, I do think the fact that there is a perceptual difference between modern man and neanderthals is debatable. Whereas, neanderthal subspecies is still a sub-population like blue eyes, skin color, or hair. However, it is still observed as normal compared to the masses.
          Our environments and ways of life are extremely different, and my grandfather didn't use a computer. Does that make us different?

          "The reality is we can observe difference in addition of a third copy of 21."
          Have no clue what you're trying to get at there. Answer: down syndrome is an example of genes influencing mental ability.

          The mind cannot exceed the underlying principles on which if functions. You cannot tinker beyond what can be tinkered with. No matter how much I would like to juggle the sun in my hands, I cannot do it. It is an impossibility. We observed the outcome of this in different environments and societies. However, it does not define the capability. It only defines the observed mind. We cannot say one programing is better to another as of now. However, with proper observation and data we can start to understand which minds are mac and which are PC. Yet, the observation of other mental issues leads me to firmly believe that the system is limited and you will observe files which are not compatible back and forth. (stretching the analogy.)

          Are you trying to compare yeast to a well informed mind? Yes! Some contain the capability to be well informed and others cannot. Some can format both PC and Mac; while, others are set in their programing. Expression of genes is in the coding and creation of proteins. These have enzymatic or structural roles. As such, we know people express different genes/proteins. they are what the biochemistry allows. I believe we all share many similar genes!
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: If neanderthals are no longer nomadic and no longer maintain physical attributes then they are evolved. The modern technology is changing they way we perceive the world. We are now capable of instantaneously communicate with those half a world away, or finding mass amounts of info on a subject. So yes I would say you are different from your grandfather, just as your grandchildren will be different to you, socially and psychologically speaking. Your perspectives are very different.
        • May 2 2011: I think we may be talking two different things. First, what do you think it means to evolve? Evolution is the alteration of the gene pool over time. However, it is more like a lump of clay than water. You can make crazy shapes and it can be broken or cut apart. How is the specific shape of the gene pool can be broken into parts? For example, a mountain range can provide a good analogy. If a family of squirrels is broken apart some going left and some going right around the mountain. The resulting decedents who meet up at the other end of the mountain may no longer mate. If this happens we call it speciation. This is a change in the frequency of alleles which make the observation/acceptance of similarity no longer possible. Therefore, the "clay" gene pool is being ripped apart. If we add additional selection forces and mutation we observe they not only not recognizing and interbreeding, they are in fact changing drastically. This continues for 500 generations and you find the forced/artificial attempt of reproduction is possible. This idea in light of the current world means the human race is one race and the previous incarnations don't stop being novel or loss their shape. It just means the clay is molded back together at the base. The more advantageous the genes are will decide which parts of clay are mashed closer together. So, neanderthal who met a nice lady.. could in fact merge the clay bases.

          Moreover, the idea of evolution in the idea of my grandfather and grandchild is a little of a stretch? This does not speak to evolution but to the single group/ population sharing similar genes and their ability to use technology. The "masses" and the frequency of "techusing" genes would be a better argument. Therefore, short stubby fingers vs. long thin fingers and the impact on critical sexting.

          Moreover, perception is dependent on the senses which are derived from genes... just think color blindness and fashion. This mean my current reality matter not to my...
        • May 2 2011: ---to my grandfather or grand child. (sorry crappy pause and impacted my continued thread)
          Mainly, what basis does your counter argument have on genes? How do you make the connection?
          I think of a canoe on a river. It does not matter what river... what plants, animals or rock exist aroud that specific river. it is a canoe and it floats. That is it. Physically, genes create the structure and function... in awe inspiring complex system. Yet, it is still as simple as the canoe... Unless, placed in context of a rock breaking the hull. The perception is still canoe-ish and not defined by a single point in time but the capability of that system to perceive it the first place... If you have no ears you do not hear... if you have no eyes... you do not see.... It does not mean you cannot learn braille and the interaction of perception thru reading is not possible. Yet, the ability to think/read in your mind is also genetic as are the external structures--ears, eyes etc. Therefore, just because I can speak french does not mean my grandfather could or could not.... It means I can and my ancestors more than likely did have that ability to learn.. if not applied. (by the way, I am enjoying the communication)
      • thumb
        May 4 2011: "Evolution is the alteration of the gene pool over time." Then the neanderthals have evolved, while some of there genes may still be in the pool there are genes now that were not in theirs. So the gene pool has altered over time.

        With the grandparent the point that the perception of life is different is what was being made. We have perceptual evolved in the last 75 years, not claiming that we have genetically evolved.
      • thumb
        May 6 2011: Yes Abdel it does
        • May 7 2011: ha, you get a thumbs up for the smack down! Swoosh... nothing but net! THANK YOU!
          AbdelRahman, it definitely does. Therefore, you show your lack of the debate for which you started. Moreover, do you understand the fundamentals and have a valid argument against them? (again, you mistook me before for being arrogant. I am not.)

          Thomas,
          to the point that neanderthals were considered speciated or remained in the homo sapien gene pool... your perceptions? I think that would clear up any further comments I will make. More to the comment below (fish), I am making a bad "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" joke. Further, the idea that someone would blow my mind with the counter arguement or bait me like a fish appeals to me. I would love to find an email in my inbox which reads... "hurry, there is no time to talk... come to the corner of fisher and pine... -you from the future!" So, I was ready to hear Abdel out.

          In the end, I am talking about you know DNA... the stuff in the center of a cell vs. which prime end is the lagging in replication? (i.e.3' vs. 5')
  • thumb
    Apr 28 2011: It will hard to debate anything like this with a person that denies evolution.
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2011: Prove it first then ask people to accept it
      • May 2 2011: DUUUUUDDDDDEEEEE!!!! I really hope you were just fishing for me? The answer is 42. You didn't ask the question right. I know the answer and question and your lack of proof does not decrease the validity of the fact. Thought is the Rainbow Bright-nuclear powered explosion of God's ineffable plan or just the simple electro-chemical balance created by cellular pumps which cause charge potential. You can choose one or the other or... maybe, it could be both. If you need proof, you are just a tea leaf and you will never understand the history of the east india trade company.

        If you are what I think you may be by the topic of your question; the ability to create modern tools existed since we exist? Define the we?

        Yes, I don't need to be Bjork to know that all modern things have always existed. (and so do the future things which presently are not within our perception.)

        So, the proof of evolution is the words I write. For which is your part, to decode and understand. I leave it up to you to see which apply in the definition of you as compared to we. All holy text present the superiority of intellect and consciousness. There is nothing more important than God, for which the narrow minded imply something external.