For All Those Who Want A Squid

[Lynden]

I understand life and evolution probably better than you do. By "evoulutionary points" I meant the time it took them to develope their vertebrae was not needed to be used for invertebrates, they could use that time for growing new limbs, ect. Or adding on the nerves and new brainpower needed to control these new limbs.

Dogs and other animals do have a language. Maybe it just takes an eccentric person to understand that they do. Maybe you just dont think outside the box enough, or maybe i do it too much. About the shrimp, well, thats just too hard to explain. See for yourself one time And dont insult me.

On the news one time, it featured a neglectant family who threw their child outside. She learned to communicate with the dogs. Humans developed intelligence because we are far too weak and defenseless to go without it. Gorillas, for instance, are at least five times stronger than humans. If we were as strong as a gorilla, we could lift two small cars above our heads. Something that powerful doesnt need tools to survive.
Once we got the simple things down pat, we could develope and move on to civilization, and eventually, complete the industrial revolution and move on to the atomic and now the high information age that we are at now. Soon to follow, scientists predict a "nanotech age" in which technology will reach global perfection. That all began when we developed farming. Our urge to get better continues.


I like this thread. It gives me butterflies

 

[superman]

I understand life and evolution probably better than you do.

A pretty bold statement
Beliefs and truth are very often completely different things. The ability to discern between the two is the makings of a good basis of arguement. We can agree to disagree, that is a freedom we all have.

 

[Lynden]

I understand life and evolution probably better than you do.

A pretty bold statement
Beliefs and truth are very often completely different things. The ability to discern between the two is the makings of a good basis of arguement. We can agree to disagree, that is a freedom we all have.

I agree on all. Sorry, I tend to be a little arrogant sometimes )

 

[andywg]

I understand life and evolution probably better than you do. By "evoulutionary points" I meant the time it took them to develope their vertebrae was not needed to be used for invertebrates, they could use that time for growing new limbs, ect. Or adding on the nerves and new brainpower needed to control these new limbs.

Again, I would be interested to see how you understand it better than I do. You have presented a large number of views backed up by no science. The only scientific link relating to the intelligence of cephs concludes with the scientists who studied it saying they are do not believe cephs to be as intelligent as they originally believed they would be.

Dogs and other animals do have a language. Maybe it just takes an eccentric person to understand that they do. Maybe you just dont think outside the box enough, or maybe i do it too much. About the shrimp, well, thats just too hard to explain. See for yourself one time And dont insult me.

Again, you have pointed out your belief with no evidence to back it up. How were your shrimp more intelligent than the fish? Surely you have examples if they are so clearly more intelligent? No insults, I was merely pointing out that such a bold statement, until qualified, can be left open to such points.

On the news one time, it featured a neglectant family who threw their child outside. She learned to communicate with the dogs.

Communication and language are two very different things. This extract details the basic differences.

Humans developed intelligence because we are far too weak and defenseless to go without it. Gorillas, for instance, are at least five times stronger than humans. If we were as strong as a gorilla, we could lift two small cars above our heads. Something that powerful doesnt need tools to survive.
Once we got the simple things down pat, we could develope and move on to civilization, and eventually, complete the industrial revolution and move on to the atomic and now the high information age that we are at now. Soon to follow, scientists predict a "nanotech age" in which technology will reach global perfection. That all began when we developed farming. Our urge to get better continues.

I think you have the cause and effect backwards. Humans developed greater and greater tool control and manipulation and as a result did not need to be as strong. Interestingly enough, humans are still massively strong with their muscles alone. but their effectiveness is lessened. If a human were to have full use of all their muscle power they would destroy every ligament in their body.

Chimps are far stronger than humans, they can rip a grown man's arm from its socket, yet they too have tool control.

I like this thread. It gives me butterflies

Me too, nothing like a good debate B)

 

[Lynden]

The shrimp seems like it is much more deliberate in its actions. The fish make rapid, imperfect movements, while the shrimp makes slightly slower, perfect actions. It never misses the mark when grabbing for something. And have you seen a coral banded shrimp clean a fish? They move like 8 arms at a time and do not miss any tiny parasites. The fishes only have to control about 3 things at a time usually, peaking at 6 or seven, and they still miss food sometimes. The shrimp have the methodic power of a mechanized automaton, and can move each one of their little arms completely independant of eachother. Not even a human hand matches a shrimps' controlling ability.

I have a friend that thinks similarily to how i think and process thoughts. You should hear the conversations we have! I do have a firm understanding of evoulution. I do not think i am better than you. I should not have said such a bold statement. )

Nowadays, as well as in the distant past, humans are weak and defenseless animals. In the era around one of the last ice ages, humans were at the bottom of the food chain. We developed tools, and climbed the food chain.For instance, by throwing rocks at a sabre-tooth, we could defend ourselves and drive them off. Eventually, spears and other pierce weapons came. We got a little weaker. But were still much stronger than humans today. Then came hack-weapons. And soon after, wars, since the amount of free space was shrinking. Also, our intelligence was growing tremendously, as well as our greed. Soon, scientists were viewing the stars, instead of fighting. The need for strength was shrinking evermore. The advent of the firearm was the discovery that made strenth nearly obsolete. Soon to come, the humans of today. The weak, nearly hairless apes were the dominant. The very top of the food chain. The earths most dangerous animal.

I suppose this is not absolutly proven. Until we develope molecular acceleration, which some scientists think is the roots of time-travel, we have few real ways of proving any caveman theory. But hey, we could both be wrong.

Thanks for not losing your patience on me. My arrogance tends to do that to people. Good discussion B)

-Lynden

 

[OohFeeshy]

Nowadays, as well as in the distant past, humans are weak and defenseless animals. In the era around one of the last ice ages, humans were at the bottom of the food chain. We developed tools, and climbed the food chain.For instance, by throwing rocks at a sabre-tooth, we could defend ourselves and drive them off. Eventually, spears and other pierce weapons came. We got a little weaker. But were still much stronger than humans today. Then came hack-weapons. And soon after, wars, since the amount of free space was shrinking. Also, our intelligence was growing tremendously, as well as our greed. Soon, scientists were viewing the stars, instead of fighting. The need for strength was shrinking evermore. The advent of the firearm was the discovery that made strenth nearly obsolete. Soon to come, the humans of today. The weak, nearly hairless apes were the dominant. The very top of the food chain. The earths most dangerous animal.

Yup, agree with you there. And theres also the laziness of our species. We might say 'oh, we're obviously better than *insert species here* because we have *insert modern technology* and they don't', but why do we have these? Do we need them? No, its because we're too lazy to do proper things. We can't be bothered to chase around herds of buffalo, so we come up with something that means we don't have to move much.

 

[andywg]

The shrimp seems like it is much more deliberate in its actions. The fish make rapid, imperfect movements, while the shrimp makes slightly slower, perfect actions. It never misses the mark when grabbing for something. And have you seen a coral banded shrimp clean a fish? They move like 8 arms at a time and do not miss any tiny parasites. The fishes only have to control about 3 things at a time usually, peaking at 6 or seven, and they still miss food sometimes. The shrimp have the methodic power of a mechanized automaton, and can move each one of their little arms completely independant of eachother. Not even a human hand matches a shrimps' controlling ability.

I rest my case for anthromorphisation. You are looking at it as though it is a human. You associate the slow deliberate movements with that of a human concentrating and the more rapid less accurate actions with a reckless person not thinking.

How do you know it has to move slow because it cannot perform those functions any quicker because its central nervous system cannot cope? Just because a shrimp can control its legs does not make it more intelligent than a fish that may miss its food. Humans will not always succeed in a hunt while armed to the teeth with laser guided rifles, does that mean the shrimp has a more advanced central nervous system than us because we fail? The fish has to judge its own position, the speed and direction of the current around it, the falling speed and direction of food and its own rate of acceleration. The shrimp has to put a foot on a rock. Which seems the more daunting from an information processing point of view, and as such more likely to fail every so often?

I have a friend that thinks similarily to how i think and process thoughts. You should hear the conversations we have! I do have a firm understanding of evoulution. I do not think i am better than you. I should not have said such a bold statement. )

I have spent time on political forums, I don't think you could ever insult me B) I ignored the phrase because you had already apologised, don't beat yourself up.

Nowadays, as well as in the distant past, humans are weak and defenseless animals. In the era around one of the last ice ages, humans were at the bottom of the food chain.

I would debate this. Currently somewhere around 99.995% of all life on earth is smaller than humans. I don't believe the number would have been that different in the last ice age. Add to that the fact that we were hunting animals much larger than ourselves (mammoths and the other early Pachiderms)and you will see we were far from the bottom of the food train.

We developed tools, and climbed the food chain.For instance, by throwing rocks at a sabre-tooth, we could defend ourselves and drive them off. Eventually, spears and other pierce weapons came. We got a little weaker. But were still much stronger than humans today. Then came hack-weapons. And soon after, wars, since the amount of free space was shrinking.

Free space has only become an issue in the last century or two. Certainly, it was no real effect on civilisation until well after gun powder was used in conflict (incidentally, the first recorded use of a cannon was at the batlle of Agincourt in 1415, though on that day it was the English longbow that won the day).

Also, our intelligence was growing tremendously, as well as our greed. Soon, scientists were viewing the stars, instead of fighting.

You make it sound like we've stopped fighting...Scientific progress is estimated to be at least double in war time, with weapons and medical science development being closer to 4 times that of peace time ("needs must..."

The need for strength was shrinking evermore. The advent of the firearm was the discovery that made strenth nearly obsolete. Soon to come, the humans of today. The weak, nearly hairless apes were the dominant. The very top of the food chain. The earths most dangerous animal.

Homo sapiens first appeared 90,000 to 130,000 years ago. The general shape and strength has not changed great deals in that time. If anything, in some ways we are getting stronger. Take, for example, North America (the New World). The adults there are a lot taller and larger (in muscle as well as fat) than Europeans (or the Old World) yet they are one fo the more technologically advanced nations.

The human body is an odd thing. For example, flexibility (or lack thereof) is nothign to do with your muscles or your tendons and ligaments. It is all in the nerves. The nerves aren't used to stretching that far and so stop you. And as I stated before, if you actually flexed all your muscles in your bicep to their full strength, you would rip all your tendons in your elbow and quite possibly dislocate it.

I suppose this is not absolutly proven. Until we develope molecular acceleration, which some scientists think is the roots of time-travel, we have few real ways of proving any caveman theory. But hey, we could both be wrong.

Time travel is a whole great area to look into, though the physics turns more into philosophy at that point. I believe Oxford University currently has a time machine receiver that is awaiting the future to build a sneder to turn it on. When it does, we will know that someone somewhen has developed a way of travelling back that far. I do feel that pre-history will always be a large amount of guess work.

Thanks for not losing your patience on me. My arrogance tends to do that to people. Good discussion B)

-Lynden

N/P

 

[Lynden]

Wow, your knowledge far exceeds what I had given you credit for in the very beginning. There is nothing i love seeing more than someone who can understand what i say long enough to form a debate with me.

About the fact that humans are much larger than they used to be, isnt that just because technology has made it easier to gather the nutrients nessecary in order to reach our growth potential?

This is just a random technology question, but is Japan the most technologically advanced country in the world today?

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

Japan is probably the most advanced country technologically (you can now get 1gb broadband for the equivalent of £35 or around $60 per month...). South Korea is on a similar level.

Knowledge is easy to acquire, it's the application that often proves difficult.

A hypothesis for the reason why Americans are so large is that highly processed food tends to make up a large amount of the diet. This leads to more hormones and artificial products entering the body and helping the growth. But this only a hypothesis. If it does contain merit then the diet of humans could be responsible for their size to some effect and thus the physiological differences as farmed foods became a larger part of the diet(although over the last 500 years the average height of a grown male has steadily risen from around 5'9 to 6'0).



Andy

 

[Lynden]

Japan is extremely advanced, they also appear to have a lot of time on their hands! I was reading an Anime (japanese animation, in other words, the best kind of animation! ) Insider magazine and they featured some recent products that were on sale. It featured a tiny refrigerator, complete with tiny groceries, and an entire strip mall comprising of vending machines only. Korea seems to be mimicking many of these traits.

This hypothesis is highly believable. It makes me wonder, how much carcinogenic material is in this food that we take as being healthy? Something as simple as processed cheese slices could be loaded with unknown toxins and other harmful products.

_Lynden

 

[squall7733]

lol. Wow I'm just getting back to reading all the responses.

Everything that was said seemed to be based on evolution, assuming that evolution is true. Its just a theory, that many people and universities pass off as fact. Well this isnt the place for a discussion on evolution vs creation, but I'm a creationist.

The complexity of the ocean, reefs, living organisms and namely cephs is proof of that.

Intelligence is a pretty broad issue when you think about it. Humans are the only creature given a soul, everything else seems to opperate on instint. But even the complexity of instinct is surprising, when you take an animal and put it in a tank it addapts and survives, given the proper conditions. When it all comes down to it everything has a purpose, that purpose usualy to eat something and then be food for something else.

 

[Tiggs]

"Everything that was said seemed to be based on evolution, assuming that evolution is true. "

nurse!!!!!! bring the pills.

 

[Opcn]

I see n problem with an evolution vs. creation discussion happening here, evolution is true however, undisputably, we have observed it takeing place in labratories, in greenhouses, in farmers fields and more importantly in the wild. The fact that evolution occurs is about as disputable as the fact that gravity occurs, to what extent it has shaped the world is still debatable, but the fact of the matter is that the theory around evolution is only the mechanism by which evolution occurs, darwins natural selection, not that it does occur or has occured.

Also, in science theroy has a different meaning than in something soft like say theology.

 

[squall7733]

I see n problem with an evolution vs. creation discussion happening here, evolution is true however, undisputably, we have observed it takeing place in labratories, in greenhouses, in farmers fields and more importantly in the wild. The fact that evolution occurs is about as disputable as the fact that gravity occurs, to what extent it has shaped the world is still debatable, but the fact of the matter is that the theory around evolution is only the mechanism by which evolution occurs, darwins natural selection, not that it does occur or has occured.

Also, in science theroy has a different meaning than in something soft like say theology.

I disagree. There is much more proof to prove evolution false then there is to prove it true. Upon further unbiased research you would discover that the theory constantly contradicts itself.

The problem is really we are told evolution is true since kindergarten. And as you go through your education system they continue to pound it into your head. Evolution is a religeon, it takes just as much faith to believe in it as it does to believe in creation. Because after all, if you wernt there at the dawn of creation, your going to have to put faith into what you believe in.

Science states that nothing is created or destroyed. So how would the universe come into existence? Some big bang theory where matter just explodes and is constantly moving outward? Well then where did that matter come from? The questions just keep stacking ontop of eachother. Man created the theory to make himself feel secure. Its in our nature to try to explains things, where we come from. So its only natural that we make these assumptions, problem is its not true.

 

[andywg]

Creationism is bad science. It puts the belief first and looks for the evidence to back it up.

Evolution was formed from observing the world around us.

Evolution very rarely contradicts itself, as opposed to creationism which is used to plug gaps. Evolution theory is just that. A theory. Just like gravity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and relativity. But, when true analytical and unbiased process is used, evolution is the best applied theory there is.

The old classic for creationsim was the eye and saying it was too complex not to have a designer, but even in organisms today we can see a vast aray of optical snsory organs form those that can barely distinguish light or dark, through to those of the eagle that can spot prey from a large distance.

Your point about what was before the big bang is a good one. I often wonder where the matter came from, expecially as recent measurements of the universe show it as growing rather than slowing down (so no constant big crush/big bang scenario). I myself still have some doubts over the big bang, but can offer no real alternative, so I work with what I have until something better comes along. This is one that won't be answered for a long time, and in the terms of this context is largely irrelevant. We aren't asking how the universe got here, just how life developed into what it is today.

But I digress.

Evolution has been witnessed in labs where simple organismms have devloped in to more complex ones. creationism is for people who believe in Genesis. Any who say different are in denial. Effectively: I can't see how this happened, so it must be down to God.

If animals were designed, why do the fins of a whale retain the bone structure of a mammalian paw?

But now a challenge: I want you to provide references to pure unbiased research into evolution that proves it is not possible and that i constantly contradicts itself. This means no linking to christian or creationist websites. When you can do that, we can discuss it more.